--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.
No comments:
Post a Comment