<b>Spotlight:</b> Gentlemen in the House?

While live telecasts of first world parliaments can make a person weep because of the rich depth and maturity of argument, as well as the seriousness with which parliamentarians take their duties, in developing Malaysia, it is also possible to weep — from laughter and shame. In the British parliament, MPs may refer to each other as "The Honourable Member", but in the Dewan Rakyat, MPs are more fondly referred to as "Bigfoot" and "Big Monkey". Should Question Time be telecast live? Does the public need to be protected from seeing their elected representatives in all their naked glory? Should the MPs be protected from their own stupidity?, asks ANIZA DAMIS. For years, the government's argument against a live telecast of Parliament had been that the rakyat (citizens) were not mature enough to appreciate the proceedings.

The first telecast of Question Time in Parliament last Wednesday was a rude reminder why the rakyat should be spared a peek into Parliament: the Members of Parliament are just not mature enough.

Wednesday was a historic day because this was the first time that Question Time was telecast live. There have, of course, been live telecasts from Parliament before, namely during the tabling of the annual Budget. But this was the first time in which the public saw the MPs other than the prime minister in action.

And, as far as action was concerned, the House did not disappoint.

Instead of the submission of questions and the offering of answers from MPs to government ministers, the first 30 minutes of the telecast was filled with arguments on the technicalities of oath-taking and who had the right to ask the first question of the first meeting.

A few choice words were also thrown in to spice things up: the MP for Bukit Gelugor called the MP for Kinabatangan "Bigfoot". Kinabatangan responded with: "If I am Bigfoot, you are Big Monkey!"

By the end of the 30-minute telecast, only one question had been asked and answered. The mood carried into the remainder of Question Time, so much so that by the end of the 90-minute session, only three questions had been asked and answered, where usually about 10 might have safely been disposed of.

Visitors to the Stranger's Gallery, among them a group of schoolchildren, were astonished, and perhaps a little titillated by the antics of their elected representatives, with one student commenting that the MPs behaved just like students during playtime.

Government MPs, including the prime minister, were aghast that the august House had been shown in such bad light in so brief a period of public exposure.

Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek, who had championed the telecasting of Question Time, was horrified.

Describing the event as a "circus", Shabery immediately threatened to revoke the telecast service altogether. The concept was on probation to begin with, with a promise of extending it to the full 90 minutes, but events of the first telecast threatened to pull the plug on the entire series after just the pilot episode.

"We have no intention of extending the telecast any longer if this is the kind of show the MPs are going to put on for the public," said Shabery.

Although conceding that the people deserved to see the behaviour of those they had voted into office, Shabery said the main reason for the lawmakers' behaviour was the knowledge that they were on camera.

However, at Friday's Cabinet meeting, it was decided that the telecasts would continue, albeit still on probation.

For any reporter or government officer who has ever had to do a tour of duty in Parliament, the most surprising thing about the entire episode was not that the MPs were badly behaved.

Rather, it was the MPs who were surprised at the bad behaviour, and seemed to think it was an unusual occurrence.

Even when there isn't a television camera focused on them, MPs have always played to the gallery, which is almost always oversubscribed on days when Parliament sits.

Whether it is the folks from the kampung, or school children, MPs will still "You monkey!" each other, regardless.

A three-part episode in 2005, aptly headlined 'Monkey show' in the New Straits Times, was particularly epic, when deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk M. Kayveas referred to opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang as behaving like a monyet (monkey).

The argument degenerated into name-calling between backbenchers and Opposition MPs, resulting in a pandemonium of shouting between the two sides of the House.

The issue spilled over to the next day's sitting, and then erupted again two weeks later.

Most embarrassingly, the whole episode was witnessed by six members of the European Parliament, who were visiting that day. The distinguished guests good-naturedly said this kind of thing was not unusual in a Parliament.

However, bad behaviour by MPs is not just confined to name-calling. MPs are also known to be generous in expressing their regard for the fairer sex.

In 2006, the MP for Rantau Panjang earned the ire of women MPs and groups when he accused divorced women of being "gatal" (promiscuous).

These divorcees, said Abdul Fatah Harun, were the main reason for the large number of divorces.

Saying it was society's responsibility to shape and mould women's morals, Abdul Fatah added that most divorced women went to parties, and this was why their husbands left them.

He said divorced women were easily spotted at functions as if they did not regret being divorced.

Faced by a volley of protests and demands for him to retract his statement, Abdul Fatah acquiesced but remained unrepentant and stood by his accusation.

"Monkey" though is a mild insult, compared to the disrespect heaped upon the MP for Batu Gajah Fong Poh Kuan last year, during what started out as a debate over leaks in the roof of Parliament.

For no apparent reason, and completely unprovoked, the discussion moved from leaks in the roof to the unnecessary comparison of the "MP from Batu Gajah leaks every month".

These events were reported widely in the media, debated and widely condemned by the public.

While none of the incidences were telecast live, they were nonetheless witnessed by the public, including schoolchildren, since Parliament gets an average of two to three busloads a day.

According to a parliament staffer, in 2007 alone, the House received about 20,000 visitors, adults and minors, during parliamentary sittings.

So, if the objective of cancelling live telecasts is to protect MPs from public scorn, it's probably too late. The thousands and thousands of kampung folk and schoolchildren had brought the news home with them long before last Wednesday.

If anything, the telecasts may rein in the parliamentarians, said Women's Aid Organisation executive director Ivy Josiah, as voters can monitor their MPs.

And, if the MPs won't behave, then the public should see them for what they are.

"There is no reason for the goings-on in Parliament to be shut out from the people as it involves their MPs and they need to know what their representatives are doing," said Kelantan Menteri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.

"Let them see whether their MPs are doing their work or just sitting down.

"The people can judge. And if they are not satisfied with their MPs' performance, they can vote for others in the next election."

Spotlight: Gentlemen in the House?