A verbal dispute unfolded in Malaysia’s Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday during debate over Budget 2027, centered on the use of the Arabic term "waad," meaning promise, and its religious implications. The incident involved Opposition chief whip Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan and government backbencher RSN Rayer.

The confrontation began when Takiyuddin, representing PN-Kota Baru, referenced a hadith to criticize Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s Budget 2027 speech, noting the prominent use of the term "waad." Takiyuddin cited the hadith to suggest that frequently making promises only to break them is a hallmark of a “munafik,” an Arabic term denoting a hypocrite, which he described as a serious moral failing in Islamic teachings.

Rayer, who represents PH-Jelutong, immediately objected to Takiyuddin’s language, invoking Standing Order 36(1) to challenge the use of a term he deemed unparliamentary in reference to the Prime Minister. Rayer questioned whether such language should be tolerated in the parliamentary debate, emphasizing that the word had been clearly heard.

This prompted a heated exchange between the two lawmakers, with Takiyuddin accusing Rayer of using interruptions to curtail his allotted time for speaking. Deputy Speaker Alice Lau intervened, asking Rayer to formally submit a motion outlining his objection to the Speaker’s office.

Despite this, Rayer persisted with his interjections, which drew further admonishment from Takiyuddin, who reminded him to abide by Lau’s ruling. The verbal tension eventually eased, allowing Takiyuddin to proceed with his remarks.

Later in the session, Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Johari Abdul, who was presiding over the proceedings, urged members of parliament to exercise caution when using religious terminology. He noted that such terms might be misunderstood by those unfamiliar with their specific meanings, underscoring the need for careful language to maintain decorum in parliamentary debate.

The incident highlighted sensitivities around religious references in political discourse and the challenges of maintaining parliamentary decorum during contentious debate.