--Part II--
In the first part of his interview last week, Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia talked about the Speaker's impartiality and dealing with accusation of bias.
In this part two, he discusses improvement for Malaysia's parliament, and the realities of local parliamentary and political culture.
The Nut Graph:
In line with other advanced parliamentary systems, what about giving greater recognition to the role of a parliamentary opposition by having the SO allot more time for opposition and private members’ bills and motions, and by having a shadow cabinet system?
Pandikar Amin:
First and foremost, there must be an understanding and mutual respect between opposition and the government. In Britain, the official name of the opposition is Her Majesty’s Opposition party. In our case, the SO only gives recognition to the ketua pembangkang, and he [or she] must be given an office and an allowance for that position.
Assuming the opposition MPs here want the kind of recognition for the opposition as in the UK, why don’t they start moving in that direction by naming a shadow cabinet? By doing so, the people would know what they have to offer. That would be a good start towards the right direction. But [Pakatan] can’t even name a shadow cabinet. [Editor’s note: PR have only named ministerial committees comprising an MP from each of its member parties.]
The Nut Graph:
Their counter-argument is that the parliamentary system here doesn’t formally recognise a shadow cabinet the way other parliaments do, nor are MPs provided with resources and research staff to perform that role.
Pandikar Amin:
In the UK, they are able to do it because they have a real two-party system. Not all countries pay their shadow ministers. Only the opposition leader gets a special allowance. If they are serious about it, show it, do something about it. Like me, I’m serious about my position as speaker so I resigned from active politics. At least it is a sign that I’m trying to move in the right direction. From the opposition side, what have they done to indicate that they want to move in that direction?
If you want parliamentary reform, show it. If a shadow cabinet is what the opposition wants, why didn’t they raise a motion to debate it? They could ask the government to consider it, that if they can name their shadow cabinet, will the government also provide resources and other privileges? Nobody raised it. They could have raised it, if it is good for the people. And if the government doesn’t respond, it will be blamed. They should use parliament to raise things that are good for reforms. I don’t mind if they quarrel about good things, instead of attacking the Speaker's credibility.
The Nut Graph:
What about allotting more time for opposition and private member’s bills and motions, as done in the UK parliament?
Pandikar Amin:
That’s what I’m saying - if the government and the opposition can work together, of course it can be done. In the British system for example, there is a parlimentary convention called “pairing”. When one member of the government is absent and unable to vote, their “pair” from the opposition will also be absent, so that nobody will be caught with their pants down so to speak.
Here, there is none of this. Here, the opposition will be observing the government bench and if the government numbers are not enough, then the opposition will ask for a division - [ask the Speaker for whatever motion debated at that point in time to be voted]. The government almost lost the 2010 Budget because of such tactics. So in order for the government to trust the opposition, parliament must be like gentlemen’s club. It’s like playing golf, players must respect each other and abide by the rules of the game. Do you see anybody on either side of the divide trying to move in that direction? No one. What they do is ridicule each other, every day, every morning. Every opportunity the opposition has will be used to try to embarrass and ridicule the government or the ministers and vice versa. That’s their agenda.
The Nut Graph:
How do you rate BN MPs and backbenchers?
Pandikar Amin:
In any parliament you will have colourful characters. When I compare our parliament with Britain’s, I compare our current Dewan with the House of Commons 60 or 70 years ago. They are far more advanced. But to head in that direction, we must start now. And the MPs must behave towards that. As it is, we are more headed towards Taiwan’s parliament.
The Nut Graph:
How independent is our Parliament when we have a minister to oversee it?
Pandikar Amin:
Some people say it is not supposed to be like that. It is true. In all Commonwealth countries that I know of, there is no Parliaments that have a minister to oversee it. But I look at it from a positive point of view. When I was a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, ministers took turns to look after parliamentary affairs on a weekly basis. This was under [Tun Dr] Mahathir [Mohamad]. But [Tun] Abdullah [Badawi] decided to put [Datuk Seri] Nazri [Aziz] in charge as an overseer. So Nazri is like a bridge between the executive and parliament. And I look at it positively because it makes my work easier. Anything I want the executive to know, I don’t have to deal with the PM’s office because there is a minister here. But there are others who look at it critically, why should there be a minister in charge when there is already a Speaker? Shouldn’t the Speaker be running parliament’s affairs? But this is part of democracy, there is no one perfect formula. In the House of Commons, it’s unheard of to have a minister in charge of parliament. But Malaysia has its own mould and style of democracy.
The Nut Graph:
But isn’t perception also important, Parliament must be seen to be independent?
Pandikar Amin:
Of course it is. But perception is still a perception. Maybe there will be a new speaker who might not want this. Perception is always open to challenge. Sometimes it is just the wrong perception.
The Nut Graph:
Besides the issue of a minister in charge of Parliament, some MPs have said they feel the executive is too powerful in Parliament, and dominates the law-making process. Do you agree, and is this healthy?
Pandikar Amin;
What is parliament all about? Parliament function that way. Democracy is like that. The reason political parties fight so hard in elections are to get the big numbers of MPs, to be able to implement what they want for the good of the people.
But, in some other countries, like Australia, [where the government] has a small majority - only by two or three seats, you don’t hear any commotion or anything about a vote of no-confidence in their parliament. The reason being that their political culture is this: after elections, no matter what, whether they have a big majority or a small majority, the decision of the masses is respected. Politicking ends. There is a new politics in parliament. This is something we here still don’t understand, with due respect to all our MPs. Neither the government side nor the opposition seem to understand that politics must end at the end of elections. A new politics must come in operation when you sit in parliament. You must behave as parliamentarian. This is another challenge I have – trying to instill parliamentary understanding and behaviour into the minds of MPs.
So I don’t think it’s about whether the executive is too powerful or not, but whether MPs understand parliamentary politics and whether they respect the system.
The Nut Graph:
With regards to the law-making process, the SO provide for standing and select committees to monitor government and debate bills. Is our Parliament ready for this?
Pandikar Amin:
Our system is such that we deal with everything in the Chambers as a Majlis or as a committee. The ministries are the ones that see to all the details of sponsoring a bill for their respective ministries, then it goes to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for the drafting of the bills, and then it goes to the cabinet which will decide on it. This has been our practice.
I personally feel that having committees will be good for the Speaker because then all those heated arguments can be done at the committee stage. Only the final decision will be made in the House.
But we must be practical. Having committees mean that MPs must be here in Parliament to attend meetings the whole year round. Not all MPs may be able to attend and if you don’t have a quorum, you can’t do anything. Even the House Committee that I chair now and then has trouble finding quorum. How will we implement the committee system year-round when our political culture is for MPs to turun padang, attend ceramah, kenduri kahwin? If you want to do this, you have to forgo the turun padang culture. And yet, we still have constituents who complain that they never see their wakil rakyat turun padang.
The Nut Graph:
Would the executive be reluctant to have a committee system for bills because it might mean they can’t push laws through as quickly as they’d like?
Pandikar Amin:
I don’t see the reasons why the executive shouldn’t be keen. It will be easier for their ministers because the pressure is then on the civil service officers. But it will always be back to the issue of trust between the government and opposition and our political culture of turun padang.
The Nut Graph:
You’ve mentioned that the law must first provide for the Speaker to be impartial, such as in funding and appointment of staff. But the law as it is, doesn’t stop you from making impartial decisions.
Pandikar Amin:
There is no such law. I’m not the government, I can’t make such law. It must be the executive who says, “We want to have an independent Speaker’s office. So therefore the budget must not come from the consolidated fund, it must be from a separate fund”. And all the officers in parliament must be appointed separately, like the police or army, they have their own system of recruitment. Provide that, give that to whoever sits in the speaker’s chair. So how can you blame me when that is the system that has always been there. I can't change the system alone without the government's backing.
The Nut Graph:
In one word, describe your job as speaker:
Pandikar Amin:
Dilemma. Always in a dilemma. Whatever I do is perceived as not right.
/ends.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
IN THE SPEAKER'S CHAIR: THE CHALLENGE OF IMPARTIALITY
A PARLIAMENT unaccustomed to a large and vibrant opposition bench has proven ahallenging for Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia. Often, he is the target of criticism alleging his bias towards the executive.
In the first part of an interview with The Nut Graph at his office in Parliament on 6 April 2011, Pandikar Amin talks about how he weighs his decisions as speaker and how he views the role.
The Nut Graph:
What is the most difficult challenge being Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat?
Pandikar Amin:
When I excercised my discretion which I really think it is for the benefit of the people and for the good of Parliment, and yet my sincerity is doubted by the parlimentarians who have their own personal views and agendas.
The Nut Graph:
How do you deal with it?
Pandikar Amin:
I just have to be very patient. If the situation gets out of hand and I run out of patience, then I would take stern actions. That is when a few of them got themselves suspended from the sittings of the House.
The Nut Graph:
Why should differences of opinion be seen as a challenge against the Speaker?
Pandikar Amin:
Of course it is a challenge if neither sides respect each other's opinion. Having said that you also have to look at the differences in the background of being a Speaker in the Malaysian Parliament and a Speaker in the [British] House of Commons. The Speaker of the House of Commons is a position that has been there for hundreds of years. It evolved [out of] the differences of opinion between the monarchy and the masses. The position of the Speaker in the UK Parliament is an institution by itself which everyone respects, including the government.
It is not so in our case. For instance, the budget for running Parliament doesn’t come from a special fund. It is from the consolidated fund, under the Finance Ministry. The appointment of officers in Parliament is not by the Speaker as an independent body, they are still appointed by the Public Service Commission.
In England, if a Speaker stands for election, no political party will put a candidate [against the Speaker], he will win automatically, because the view is that the Speaker is running [in the election] as the Speaker of Parliament. Once [we have] this kind of platform, it is conducive for the Speaker to make decisions, like the Speaker of the House of Commons.
What I want is for MPs to be practical. I have already made concessions as far as I am concerned. I was a very active politician. I was the Ketua Umno Bahagian in Kota Marudu. After I was appointed as Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat, I resigned from all my political posts in UMNO. To me, that is a sincere gesture. What I want from all MPs is to show me something visible that they are doing something to uplift the image of our parliament to what we aspire it to be.
But what I get is just the negative. I’ll give you an example. From the word “go” in 2008, SO 18 is being abused by the opposition. They used it for votes of no-confidence against the government. [Editor’s note: SO 18 allows an MP to raise a an emergency motion to discuss a matter of public importance, but this may be refused by the Speaker if the Speaker finds it is not “definite, urgent and of public importance”]. This is blatant abuse of the rules.
If MPs want to object to a decision you’ve made, they have to do it by way of a substantive motion under SO 43 requiring three days’ notice. Has that ever happened in our Dewan?
Any challenge must be done according to the SO. If members of parliament are not satisfied with the ruling of the Speaker, the proper way is not to argue there and then. If you look at SO 43, it says that once a decision has been made by the Speaker, the House cannot review it. Nobody can appeal against it or ask the Speaker to reconsider, because it just cannot be done under SO 43. It can only be done by an independent motion. But here, no. Once I make a ruling, they will scream and say that I am biased, that I’m being used by the executive. That kind of behaviour by itself is also against the SO.
The Nut Graph:
How many times has such a motion challenging the Speaker’s decisions been raised in our Parliament? The picture we get is that such motions are never allowed and that the Speaker therefore, cannot be challenged.
Pandikar Amin:
To my knowledge, a few have been raised. It has happened before. Under me, there was one such motion by Jelutong (Jeff Ooi Chuan Aun-DAP). He was not satisfied with one of my rulings so I advised him to bring a motion. So he brought the motion and It was put it in the order paper on the 15.12.2010
But they always complain that it is pointless to bring a motion because it will never come to light, meaning it will never be debated. Because the government’s agenda is always discussed first in every session. Now, that is also not my fault because SO 15 says that is how it should be done. The government’s agenda must be put first before the agenda of other MPs. That’s the rules.
Can you see my dilemma? If for instance, I allow a substantive motion from the opposition, and it gets discussed and then the House vote on it, the government will win because it has the numbers. So what is the point? I will then be accused again and the government will be accused of arm-twisting the minority because they have the numbers. There’s a quote from a Canadian writer that “the government will always have its way and the opposition will have its say”. That’s just the way it is.
So Jelutong brought the motion, it was put in the order paper, but until now the House has not come to it yet because every session it is the government’s agenda that is discussed first. That is the rule in the SO and the MPs know it and they should not accuse me of being biased. Unless the rules are amended, there is nothing I can do about it. That’s what I’m saying, to have a very fair Speaker, you must provide the platform for him to act accordingly.
Let me ask this question. Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is governing Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan. Are their legislative assembly speakers behaving more fairly than me? Are they behaving like the Speaker of the House of Commons? So start making comparisons. Don't just perceive that everything I do is pro-government.
The Nut Graph:
Do you think there is a need for check and balance on the Speaker?
Pandikar Amin:
The speaker has to follow the procedures in the SO.
As an example, if you want to compare with the House of Commons. In the UK, the issues to be raised during question time, like our every morning question time, the Private Notice Question (P.N.Q) are first discussed by both the opposition and government and then they will inform the Speaker. But in our case, in accordance with our SO, all questions are pre-determined. The MPs who want to ask questions have to give two weeks’ notice so that the government ministers will have time to gather the necessary answers. The questions are all laid out in the order paper. So we practice parliamentary democracy, but our procedures differ.
If PR comes to power, will they change the SO immediately to have a really independent speaker? If they really do that, they might face the risk of being unable to operate as a government because the speaker will have his own mind and act in accordance with what he thinks. If that is what they intend to do, why don’t they start practicing it in their states?
The Nut Graph:
What factors do you weigh when making a decision that involves your discretionary powers?
Pandikar Amin:
Whenever a motion comes before me – I seek all the information from relevant ministries and authorities. From there I form my opinion. To give credit to the prime minister and the chief whip, the deputy prime minister, they never get involved. I allowed, under SO 18(1), motions to debate the strike by fishermen, the rising price of rice and the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide and also the [Genting Sempah] bus crash. These things are urgent and I also want the government to be responsible and answerable.
But the opposition are very fond of reacting unreasonably if I reject their motions. They will immediately hold press conference outside the Chamber to complain about my decision. By doing so they’ve done their job because the matter will be publicised, and they will go back to their constituency and say hey, I’ve raised it already in parliament but what to do, the Speaker did not allow it because he is biased.
[But look at the motions brought]. There was a commotion over a road closure where [a few] people got injured, and the Serdang MP brought it for debate under SO 18(1). If I were to allow that, then I would have to allow every fight that breaks out to be debated in Parliament. Then there was a motion to discuss a collapsed bridge in Perak where a few students died. But the deputy prime minister had already gone there, the problem was already being attended to. If I were to allow that motion, I would have to allow motions on all sorts of other things. Now, I’ve just received another motion to debate the death of a seven-year-old boy under his religious teacher’s care. If I allow this, would I then have to allow every case of child abuse or death in the country to be debated?
The Nut Graph:
Do you try to ensure that your decision to allow or not allow motions is not perceived as biased?
Pandikar Amin:
There is no way I can ensure that it’s not perceived as such. You think some of these ministers are happy with decisions I make, when I allow supplementary questions from opposition members who are hard-hitting? Even BN ministers are not happy with me. As speaker I can choose anyone to ask a supplementary question. I could pick an MP whom I know is not hard-hitting. There was once a parliamentary question directed at the prime minister. Many MPs stood up to ask a supplementary question. I could have called a weaker MP but I called Bukit Gelugor (Karpal Singh-DAP) because to me, I am giving opportunity to the government to give explanation. By asking those I know who are well-versed in the issue from the opposition, by letting them pose the question to the minister, what I am doing is giving the government the opportunity to give a good explanation.
The Nut Graph:
The record shows that most opposition motions are rejected.
Pandikar Amin:
There are also motions by the backbenchers which I have rejected because of SO 15 - that the government’s agenda must be dealt with first. But they don’t highlight it or hold a press conference to complain about it. Even government's backbenchers face the same thing – their motions never see the light of day because they get pushed down the list on the order paper – that opposition MPs complain of.
There is another thing I’m doing. The way questions in the order paper are arranged. There is nothing in the SO that says that I have to arrange parliamentary questions in a certain way. But I order it in such a way that opposition and government MPs can take turns in asking their questions. First, a question by a BN MP, followed by a question from an opposition MP. I do the same with supplementary questions. So, I’m already doing something positive - a signal to parliamentarians, that I am doing something, departing a little from our normal style of Malaysian politics. So they must also try to do something positive. Instead they always belittle me and abuse the rules, and at the same time portray to the public that they are right.
The Nut Graph:
On your first day as speaker, you didn’t allow MPs to ask any supplementary questions, citing “time constraints”. But aren’t supplementary questions an important way for MPs to question and scrutinise the government on its performance and policies?
Pandikar Amin:
Under our SO 24(3) – the speaker may allow not more than three supplementary questions. The text says “may”, not “shall”. This is a matter of interpretation. [Editor’s note: Under SO 99, the Speaker’s interpretation of the rules is final.]
On that day, at the time in question, there had been a commotion going on for almost one hour, all because Bukit Gelugor took issue with [how some MPs did not raise their hands properly when they were sworn in]. We had not yet even started the meeting. When we finally did, I wanted to be fair to all the other MPs who had posed parliamentary questions as listed on the order paper. Shouldn’t we also let others listed further down in the order paper have their questions answered? So that was the reason I didn’t allow supplementary question on that day. My decision is based on my interpretation of the SO which states that I “may” allow up to three questions. Not “shall”. Even then, the government backbenchers stood up to complain against my decision. But it’s a decision I still stand by. If MPs are not satisfied, they can file a motion using SO 43, not by ridiculing me. [TNG favicon]
/ends.
In the first part of an interview with The Nut Graph at his office in Parliament on 6 April 2011, Pandikar Amin talks about how he weighs his decisions as speaker and how he views the role.
The Nut Graph:
What is the most difficult challenge being Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat?
Pandikar Amin:
When I excercised my discretion which I really think it is for the benefit of the people and for the good of Parliment, and yet my sincerity is doubted by the parlimentarians who have their own personal views and agendas.
The Nut Graph:
How do you deal with it?
Pandikar Amin:
I just have to be very patient. If the situation gets out of hand and I run out of patience, then I would take stern actions. That is when a few of them got themselves suspended from the sittings of the House.
The Nut Graph:
Why should differences of opinion be seen as a challenge against the Speaker?
Pandikar Amin:
Of course it is a challenge if neither sides respect each other's opinion. Having said that you also have to look at the differences in the background of being a Speaker in the Malaysian Parliament and a Speaker in the [British] House of Commons. The Speaker of the House of Commons is a position that has been there for hundreds of years. It evolved [out of] the differences of opinion between the monarchy and the masses. The position of the Speaker in the UK Parliament is an institution by itself which everyone respects, including the government.
It is not so in our case. For instance, the budget for running Parliament doesn’t come from a special fund. It is from the consolidated fund, under the Finance Ministry. The appointment of officers in Parliament is not by the Speaker as an independent body, they are still appointed by the Public Service Commission.
In England, if a Speaker stands for election, no political party will put a candidate [against the Speaker], he will win automatically, because the view is that the Speaker is running [in the election] as the Speaker of Parliament. Once [we have] this kind of platform, it is conducive for the Speaker to make decisions, like the Speaker of the House of Commons.
What I want is for MPs to be practical. I have already made concessions as far as I am concerned. I was a very active politician. I was the Ketua Umno Bahagian in Kota Marudu. After I was appointed as Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat, I resigned from all my political posts in UMNO. To me, that is a sincere gesture. What I want from all MPs is to show me something visible that they are doing something to uplift the image of our parliament to what we aspire it to be.
But what I get is just the negative. I’ll give you an example. From the word “go” in 2008, SO 18 is being abused by the opposition. They used it for votes of no-confidence against the government. [Editor’s note: SO 18 allows an MP to raise a an emergency motion to discuss a matter of public importance, but this may be refused by the Speaker if the Speaker finds it is not “definite, urgent and of public importance”]. This is blatant abuse of the rules.
If MPs want to object to a decision you’ve made, they have to do it by way of a substantive motion under SO 43 requiring three days’ notice. Has that ever happened in our Dewan?
Any challenge must be done according to the SO. If members of parliament are not satisfied with the ruling of the Speaker, the proper way is not to argue there and then. If you look at SO 43, it says that once a decision has been made by the Speaker, the House cannot review it. Nobody can appeal against it or ask the Speaker to reconsider, because it just cannot be done under SO 43. It can only be done by an independent motion. But here, no. Once I make a ruling, they will scream and say that I am biased, that I’m being used by the executive. That kind of behaviour by itself is also against the SO.
The Nut Graph:
How many times has such a motion challenging the Speaker’s decisions been raised in our Parliament? The picture we get is that such motions are never allowed and that the Speaker therefore, cannot be challenged.
Pandikar Amin:
To my knowledge, a few have been raised. It has happened before. Under me, there was one such motion by Jelutong (Jeff Ooi Chuan Aun-DAP). He was not satisfied with one of my rulings so I advised him to bring a motion. So he brought the motion and It was put it in the order paper on the 15.12.2010
But they always complain that it is pointless to bring a motion because it will never come to light, meaning it will never be debated. Because the government’s agenda is always discussed first in every session. Now, that is also not my fault because SO 15 says that is how it should be done. The government’s agenda must be put first before the agenda of other MPs. That’s the rules.
Can you see my dilemma? If for instance, I allow a substantive motion from the opposition, and it gets discussed and then the House vote on it, the government will win because it has the numbers. So what is the point? I will then be accused again and the government will be accused of arm-twisting the minority because they have the numbers. There’s a quote from a Canadian writer that “the government will always have its way and the opposition will have its say”. That’s just the way it is.
So Jelutong brought the motion, it was put in the order paper, but until now the House has not come to it yet because every session it is the government’s agenda that is discussed first. That is the rule in the SO and the MPs know it and they should not accuse me of being biased. Unless the rules are amended, there is nothing I can do about it. That’s what I’m saying, to have a very fair Speaker, you must provide the platform for him to act accordingly.
Let me ask this question. Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is governing Selangor, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan. Are their legislative assembly speakers behaving more fairly than me? Are they behaving like the Speaker of the House of Commons? So start making comparisons. Don't just perceive that everything I do is pro-government.
The Nut Graph:
Do you think there is a need for check and balance on the Speaker?
Pandikar Amin:
The speaker has to follow the procedures in the SO.
As an example, if you want to compare with the House of Commons. In the UK, the issues to be raised during question time, like our every morning question time, the Private Notice Question (P.N.Q) are first discussed by both the opposition and government and then they will inform the Speaker. But in our case, in accordance with our SO, all questions are pre-determined. The MPs who want to ask questions have to give two weeks’ notice so that the government ministers will have time to gather the necessary answers. The questions are all laid out in the order paper. So we practice parliamentary democracy, but our procedures differ.
If PR comes to power, will they change the SO immediately to have a really independent speaker? If they really do that, they might face the risk of being unable to operate as a government because the speaker will have his own mind and act in accordance with what he thinks. If that is what they intend to do, why don’t they start practicing it in their states?
The Nut Graph:
What factors do you weigh when making a decision that involves your discretionary powers?
Pandikar Amin:
Whenever a motion comes before me – I seek all the information from relevant ministries and authorities. From there I form my opinion. To give credit to the prime minister and the chief whip, the deputy prime minister, they never get involved. I allowed, under SO 18(1), motions to debate the strike by fishermen, the rising price of rice and the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide and also the [Genting Sempah] bus crash. These things are urgent and I also want the government to be responsible and answerable.
But the opposition are very fond of reacting unreasonably if I reject their motions. They will immediately hold press conference outside the Chamber to complain about my decision. By doing so they’ve done their job because the matter will be publicised, and they will go back to their constituency and say hey, I’ve raised it already in parliament but what to do, the Speaker did not allow it because he is biased.
[But look at the motions brought]. There was a commotion over a road closure where [a few] people got injured, and the Serdang MP brought it for debate under SO 18(1). If I were to allow that, then I would have to allow every fight that breaks out to be debated in Parliament. Then there was a motion to discuss a collapsed bridge in Perak where a few students died. But the deputy prime minister had already gone there, the problem was already being attended to. If I were to allow that motion, I would have to allow motions on all sorts of other things. Now, I’ve just received another motion to debate the death of a seven-year-old boy under his religious teacher’s care. If I allow this, would I then have to allow every case of child abuse or death in the country to be debated?
The Nut Graph:
Do you try to ensure that your decision to allow or not allow motions is not perceived as biased?
Pandikar Amin:
There is no way I can ensure that it’s not perceived as such. You think some of these ministers are happy with decisions I make, when I allow supplementary questions from opposition members who are hard-hitting? Even BN ministers are not happy with me. As speaker I can choose anyone to ask a supplementary question. I could pick an MP whom I know is not hard-hitting. There was once a parliamentary question directed at the prime minister. Many MPs stood up to ask a supplementary question. I could have called a weaker MP but I called Bukit Gelugor (Karpal Singh-DAP) because to me, I am giving opportunity to the government to give explanation. By asking those I know who are well-versed in the issue from the opposition, by letting them pose the question to the minister, what I am doing is giving the government the opportunity to give a good explanation.
The Nut Graph:
The record shows that most opposition motions are rejected.
Pandikar Amin:
There are also motions by the backbenchers which I have rejected because of SO 15 - that the government’s agenda must be dealt with first. But they don’t highlight it or hold a press conference to complain about it. Even government's backbenchers face the same thing – their motions never see the light of day because they get pushed down the list on the order paper – that opposition MPs complain of.
There is another thing I’m doing. The way questions in the order paper are arranged. There is nothing in the SO that says that I have to arrange parliamentary questions in a certain way. But I order it in such a way that opposition and government MPs can take turns in asking their questions. First, a question by a BN MP, followed by a question from an opposition MP. I do the same with supplementary questions. So, I’m already doing something positive - a signal to parliamentarians, that I am doing something, departing a little from our normal style of Malaysian politics. So they must also try to do something positive. Instead they always belittle me and abuse the rules, and at the same time portray to the public that they are right.
The Nut Graph:
On your first day as speaker, you didn’t allow MPs to ask any supplementary questions, citing “time constraints”. But aren’t supplementary questions an important way for MPs to question and scrutinise the government on its performance and policies?
Pandikar Amin:
Under our SO 24(3) – the speaker may allow not more than three supplementary questions. The text says “may”, not “shall”. This is a matter of interpretation. [Editor’s note: Under SO 99, the Speaker’s interpretation of the rules is final.]
On that day, at the time in question, there had been a commotion going on for almost one hour, all because Bukit Gelugor took issue with [how some MPs did not raise their hands properly when they were sworn in]. We had not yet even started the meeting. When we finally did, I wanted to be fair to all the other MPs who had posed parliamentary questions as listed on the order paper. Shouldn’t we also let others listed further down in the order paper have their questions answered? So that was the reason I didn’t allow supplementary question on that day. My decision is based on my interpretation of the SO which states that I “may” allow up to three questions. Not “shall”. Even then, the government backbenchers stood up to complain against my decision. But it’s a decision I still stand by. If MPs are not satisfied, they can file a motion using SO 43, not by ridiculing me. [TNG favicon]
/ends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)