Thesun 2008-11-20 Page14 Mps Grapple With Excellence

14

theSun

INTERVIEWS VIEWS

theSun: Why do you think the practice of name-calling and usage of unparliamentary words in the Dewan Rakyat has become a culture now? First, I’d like to say I support our aim to create a world-class Parliament system, a first-class Parliament. We need parliamentarians who are responsible to Malaysians; committed, dedicated and responsible in terms of addressing their problems and debating bills based on facts and the needs of society. In order to fulfil those functions, we need a healthy culture in our Parliament. We don’t want our MPs to become too emotional over issues. That’s why we see there are differences between the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. People say the Senate is a rubber-stamp, but it maintains a culture whereby they (Senators) are serious when debating, because they are not influenced by emotions or issues. Why not? Because

| THURSDAY NOVEMBER 20 2008

Conversation

MPs grapple with excellence THE 12TH PARLIAMENT HAS SEEN THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW CULTURE IN THE DEWAN RAKYAT. HUSNA YUSOP SPEAKS TO BACKBENCHER DR MOHD PUAD ZARKASHI (BN-BATU PAHAT), WHO OFTEN PROVOKES OPPOSITION MPS, ON NAME-CALLING, WALKOUTS AND OTHER ANTICS OF PARLIAMENTARIANS. there are not many opposition (members) there. But the Dewan Rakyat is terrible now because the opposition is bigger. So, the number of opposition MPs is a factor? Yes. Because they (opposition MPs) want to show they are champions of the people, they play up issues and emotions. So,

when issues and emotions influence the situation in the house, that makes us (BN MPs) feel as if a new culture has emerged. For example, the walkouts. Since they know they will lose if they vote, and because they are big in number, they can do that (walkout). This is a new culture today. Over the past few months, I

has emerged through the use of disrespectful words, unparliamentary terms, and in the end debates are not based on facts. There’s a tendency of letting the Internet influence the culture in Parliament. Most MPs base their debate on material from blogs. Blogs are not necessarily right. Blogs also play up issues and emotions. Like when talking about the Altantuya case. This was used by several opposition MPs as points in their debates. To me, this is not right. What kind of culture is that? Using material of questionable credibility. So, there is a new culture because of the bigger opposition representation? Yes, because BN no longer holds two-third majority. So, they (opposition) come with a more egoistic attitude and this attitude has led to this negative culture in Parliament.

think they have staged walkouts five times. Is this a good culture? Of course they say they want to defend their rights. But is this the best approach? Another thing, they are always testing the division voting. This is also a new culture. Although they know they won’t succeed, they feel they have won by playing up people’s emotions, as if they are committed to what they are fighting for. And because of this, from the beginning of the 12th Parliament, sometimes we have been forced to spend a lot of time on this new culture of raising a point of order to delay a certain debate. But sometimes, they are not relevant? Yes. The points raised are inaccurate or incorrect, but the motive is to damage and ruin the reputation of the government, although they know what they are doing is not right. When the situation gets too tense, we have MPs using words which are not appropriate in the Dewan. We feel ashamed when the public is in the gallery. For example, school students will wonder if these are world-class parliamentarians? Because of emotions, we hear inappropriate terms like orang utan, babi hutan and kurang ajar. I was accused of being a subversive by (Ipoh Timur MP) Lim Kit Siang when he interjected Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Tan Sri) Amirsham’s (A. Aziz) windingup speech. He had brought up Article 153 where he said there was no dichotomy between bumiputra and non-bumiputra. Then he said what Batu Pahat (MP) did was subversive. Subversives are people involved in underground activities to ruin the government. So, am I a subversive? Didn’t you reply? I stood up but was not given way by the Speaker. And I also didn’t want to waste my time. I didn’t bring it up by raising a point of order, for example by claiming he had improper motives. So, for me, the conflict here is, everyone wants a world-class Parliament but is unable to avoid being influenced by emotions and issues and trying to be a hero. What’s important is for one to be seen as a hero. In the end, this has led to our failure in producing a new positive culture in Parliament. Instead, a negative culture

But some BN MPs were also seen doing the same thing. Yes. But not many backbenchers use harsh words. The opposition starts it. So, when the opposition said (to BN MPs) orang utan, we responded with babi hutan. So, it is just a matter of defending yourselves? Yes. But that too only by one or two (BN) MPs. But unfortunately, in the opposition, this is done by an experienced MP, who was once the opposition leader. This is what I call cakap tak serupa bikin (not walking the talk). What do you think of Pasir Salak MP Datuk Tajudin Abdul Rahman’s request for the Speaker to allow backbenchers to defend ministers when they are “attacked”? The opposition is always given a chance to use the point of order although their actual intention is to argue and damage the government in certain issues. In order for them to be allowed to say what they want, they use points of order. Sometimes they use Article 18.1 to propose a motion. That is why they are disappointed if their motions are rejected. Although they know the motion will be rejected (by the Speaker) as something which is not urgent, what matters is they get to speak. So, their speech will be recorded (in the Hansard). It will come out in the Internet, television, etc. This is enough for them to influence the rakyat. So, when they use the point of order, we defend by giving an explanation. But the Speaker doesn’t allow us, except by using point of order. But we don’t want to manipulate the point of order, we only want to rebut. Would you like the ministers to be more daring in answering questions? Okay, this is also a new culture. We hope the ministers will be more credible when answering questions. They cannot reply like lepaskan batuk di tangga (doing something only for the sake of doing it). They must be well-prepared, understand the subject matter and not reply by saying the (supplementary) question is out of the original question or they will give a written reply later. This is the standard reply when a minister cannot answer certain things. This also has an impact on the culture of our Parliament. Perhaps this is because most of them, especially the deputy ministers, are inexperienced? That should not be an issue. What is important is whether they are prepared.