The end of “KL Spring” even before it has really started?
I am blogging from Parliament. It is a shameful start to the 41-day 2006 Budget meeting, highlighting the dangers of a Parliament stacked with 92 per cent of the parliamentary seats monopolized by the ruling coalition, with the brute majority trampling on the most basic decencies of fair play and justice, completely devoid of the sense of right and wrong, yet wanting to play God.
The parliamentary question hour today started with my query asking the Prime Minister whether he supports the establishment of Parliamentary Select Committees on (i) national integrity; (ii) higher education and (iii) Ministry of International Trade and Industry with the objective of creating a First-World Parliament.
Nazri Aziz, Minister in the PM’s Department answered yes to (i) but no to (ii) and (iii).
In my supplementary question, I welcomed the government’s agreement to establish the Parliamentary Select Committee on national integrity, a subject which I had raised repeatedly with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in my meetings with them since the March 2004 general election. I stressed its importance and urgency particularly in view of the widespread popular disappointment at the lack of progress after some two years with regard to the Prime Minister’s pledge of reforms, the recent allegation of RM5 million farewell bashes for the retiring Customs and Excise Director-General and the revelations that national integrity campaigns in various Ministries and government departments are a sheer waste of public funds without enhancing integrity, with programmes like karaoke and cigar-smoking sessions.
I asked whether the government would re-think its refusal to establish parliamentary select committees for higher education and the ministry of international trade and industry, in the former pointing to the higher education crisis illustrated by the Terence Gomez, Ramasamy, Zohaidie and other university issues and for the latter, underlining the urgent need to address the APs scandal which only created a few AP Kings and benefited a handful of UMNOputras at the expense of both the bumiputras and the Malaysian people as a whole.
Instead of a serious and rational reply, Nazri retorted whether a parliamentary select committee should be established over DAP’s claim that Chin Peng is Bapa Merdeka, with him repeatedly using the canard - “Chin Peng Bapa Merdeka DAP”.
This led to a virtual free-for-all, as Nazri was hitting below the belt, violating the Queensberry Rules of parliamentary democracy and debate which forbid abuses of parliamentary privileges such as telling lies and falsehoods. In the ensuing bedlam in the House, I repeatedly demanded that Nazri should withdraw and apologise for his baseless charge, substantiate his allegation that the DAP or any DAP leader regards Chin Peng as Bapa Merdeka or he should be referred to the Committee of Privileges for an inquiry to be conducted as to whether he had committed gross abuse of parliamentary privilege.
DAP MP for Tanjong, Chow Kon Yeow’s instantaneous motion to refer Nazri to the Committee of Privileges under Standing Order 26(1)(p) for telling a lie in the House was resoundingly defeated by a brute parliamentary majority, eliciting my comment in the House that such an irresponsible brute majority was also capable of declaring black as white!
I was not prepared to let the matter rest and declared that although the House had rejected the motion to refer Nazri to the Committee of Privileges as a result of gross abuse of the parliamentary majority, the question remained that Nazri must either withdraw and apologise for a lie or he must substantiate his allegation that DAP or any DAP leader regards Chin Peng as Bapa Merdeka.
I said I was not prepared to yield on the issue, as Nazri’s statement that he would not repeat the canard “Chin Peng Bapa Merdeka DAP” was neither acceptable nor adequate, and that I was prepared to hold my ground for the whole one hour of question time on this issue if necessary.
The row only ended when Deputy Speaker Lim Si Cheng cut short Nazri’s reply and proceeded to the next question.
However, a recalcitrant Nazri returned to the subject when answering Question No. 6 by UMNO MP for Kuala Krai, Mohd Razali bin Che Mamat on “the effectiveness of celebrating Independence Day annually”, even agreeing with loaded supplementaries by UMNO MP for Jerai, Badruddin bin Amiruldin and Mohd Razali that in certain DAP-controlled constituencies the celebrations were ineffective as people there did not even fly the national flag.
I immediately warned Nazri that he was being most irresponsible and treading on dangerous ground in casting doubt on the loyalty and patriotism of DAP leaders, MPs, supporters and constituencies which was not conducive to nation-building and the promotion of national unity.
I stressed that Independence Day celebrations must be occasions to encourage Malaysians to understand the true meaning of Merdeka and to be aware of the history of the independence struggle, that there should be no attempt to impose one version of history but allow an open, rational and critical discussion and examination of history to develop the inquisitive mind and critical culture necessary for Malaysia to acquire the qualities of international competitiveness to face the challenges of globalization.
I read out the relevant paragraph in Ronnie Liu’s statement with the sole mention of Chin Peng, and asked how any responsible person could jump to the conclusion that it was a glorification of Chin Peng as Bapa Merdeka. Ronnie’s statement which mentioned Chin Peng reads:
“It must be pointed out that without the struggle and sacrifice made by these freedom fighters and the pressure mounted by the Malayan Communist Party led by Chin Peng (as acknowledged by Tan Sri Rahim Noor, IGP on signing the peace accord with MCP), the British would certainly not willing to cooperate and negotiate with the Alliance leaders for an ‘Independence without bloodshed’.”
The “freedom fighters” referred to here were PKMM (Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya) leaders like Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Ahmad Boestaman, Dr Burhanuddin al-Helm and Ishak Haji Mohammad (Pak Sako).
No wonder an intellectual lamented only last week that the storm over Ronnie’s statement “suggests that there really is no room in this nation for me and a huge number of others, which is why we will spend more time reading the sports pages than the national pages.”
And his sobering conclusion: “May be the ‘KL Spring’ is coming to an end, hastened, ironically, by some of the most educated politicos.” Kam Raslan – The Politics or Thinking – Options (The Edge) Week ending September 19 2005)
The parliamentary question hour today started with my query asking the Prime Minister whether he supports the establishment of Parliamentary Select Committees on (i) national integrity; (ii) higher education and (iii) Ministry of International Trade and Industry with the objective of creating a First-World Parliament.
Nazri Aziz, Minister in the PM’s Department answered yes to (i) but no to (ii) and (iii).
In my supplementary question, I welcomed the government’s agreement to establish the Parliamentary Select Committee on national integrity, a subject which I had raised repeatedly with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in my meetings with them since the March 2004 general election. I stressed its importance and urgency particularly in view of the widespread popular disappointment at the lack of progress after some two years with regard to the Prime Minister’s pledge of reforms, the recent allegation of RM5 million farewell bashes for the retiring Customs and Excise Director-General and the revelations that national integrity campaigns in various Ministries and government departments are a sheer waste of public funds without enhancing integrity, with programmes like karaoke and cigar-smoking sessions.
I asked whether the government would re-think its refusal to establish parliamentary select committees for higher education and the ministry of international trade and industry, in the former pointing to the higher education crisis illustrated by the Terence Gomez, Ramasamy, Zohaidie and other university issues and for the latter, underlining the urgent need to address the APs scandal which only created a few AP Kings and benefited a handful of UMNOputras at the expense of both the bumiputras and the Malaysian people as a whole.
Instead of a serious and rational reply, Nazri retorted whether a parliamentary select committee should be established over DAP’s claim that Chin Peng is Bapa Merdeka, with him repeatedly using the canard - “Chin Peng Bapa Merdeka DAP”.
This led to a virtual free-for-all, as Nazri was hitting below the belt, violating the Queensberry Rules of parliamentary democracy and debate which forbid abuses of parliamentary privileges such as telling lies and falsehoods. In the ensuing bedlam in the House, I repeatedly demanded that Nazri should withdraw and apologise for his baseless charge, substantiate his allegation that the DAP or any DAP leader regards Chin Peng as Bapa Merdeka or he should be referred to the Committee of Privileges for an inquiry to be conducted as to whether he had committed gross abuse of parliamentary privilege.
DAP MP for Tanjong, Chow Kon Yeow’s instantaneous motion to refer Nazri to the Committee of Privileges under Standing Order 26(1)(p) for telling a lie in the House was resoundingly defeated by a brute parliamentary majority, eliciting my comment in the House that such an irresponsible brute majority was also capable of declaring black as white!
I was not prepared to let the matter rest and declared that although the House had rejected the motion to refer Nazri to the Committee of Privileges as a result of gross abuse of the parliamentary majority, the question remained that Nazri must either withdraw and apologise for a lie or he must substantiate his allegation that DAP or any DAP leader regards Chin Peng as Bapa Merdeka.
I said I was not prepared to yield on the issue, as Nazri’s statement that he would not repeat the canard “Chin Peng Bapa Merdeka DAP” was neither acceptable nor adequate, and that I was prepared to hold my ground for the whole one hour of question time on this issue if necessary.
The row only ended when Deputy Speaker Lim Si Cheng cut short Nazri’s reply and proceeded to the next question.
However, a recalcitrant Nazri returned to the subject when answering Question No. 6 by UMNO MP for Kuala Krai, Mohd Razali bin Che Mamat on “the effectiveness of celebrating Independence Day annually”, even agreeing with loaded supplementaries by UMNO MP for Jerai, Badruddin bin Amiruldin and Mohd Razali that in certain DAP-controlled constituencies the celebrations were ineffective as people there did not even fly the national flag.
I immediately warned Nazri that he was being most irresponsible and treading on dangerous ground in casting doubt on the loyalty and patriotism of DAP leaders, MPs, supporters and constituencies which was not conducive to nation-building and the promotion of national unity.
I stressed that Independence Day celebrations must be occasions to encourage Malaysians to understand the true meaning of Merdeka and to be aware of the history of the independence struggle, that there should be no attempt to impose one version of history but allow an open, rational and critical discussion and examination of history to develop the inquisitive mind and critical culture necessary for Malaysia to acquire the qualities of international competitiveness to face the challenges of globalization.
I read out the relevant paragraph in Ronnie Liu’s statement with the sole mention of Chin Peng, and asked how any responsible person could jump to the conclusion that it was a glorification of Chin Peng as Bapa Merdeka. Ronnie’s statement which mentioned Chin Peng reads:
“It must be pointed out that without the struggle and sacrifice made by these freedom fighters and the pressure mounted by the Malayan Communist Party led by Chin Peng (as acknowledged by Tan Sri Rahim Noor, IGP on signing the peace accord with MCP), the British would certainly not willing to cooperate and negotiate with the Alliance leaders for an ‘Independence without bloodshed’.”
The “freedom fighters” referred to here were PKMM (Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya) leaders like Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Ahmad Boestaman, Dr Burhanuddin al-Helm and Ishak Haji Mohammad (Pak Sako).
No wonder an intellectual lamented only last week that the storm over Ronnie’s statement “suggests that there really is no room in this nation for me and a huge number of others, which is why we will spend more time reading the sports pages than the national pages.”
And his sobering conclusion: “May be the ‘KL Spring’ is coming to an end, hastened, ironically, by some of the most educated politicos.” Kam Raslan – The Politics or Thinking – Options (The Edge) Week ending September 19 2005)
<< Home