Parliament


HOME	NEWS	VIDEOS	GALLERY	NSTP PAPERS

Home / Dewan Dispatches / Article

DEWAN DISPATCHES: The Gobind–Pandikar Amin melodrama that segued into Law & Order: Dewan Rakyat

by: Azmi Anshar
DEWAN RAKYAT, July 2, 2008

The melodrama that Gobind Singh Deo and House Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia are playing out now has drawn interest from Hollywood TV producers looking to expand their entertainment empire to Asia. They may be piqued to pick the rights to this catfight and turn it into what may be a lucrative series for the pulp fiction-obsessed Asian market. The series’ title they are positively pondering? Law & Order: Dewan Rakyat. Look out for future book deals and maybe a spin-off, Law & Order: Kelantan State Assembly, or even a possible movie version, Chronicles of Dewan Rakyat, starring Art Malik as Gobind and Afdlin Shauki as the Speaker.

For inspiration, the TV scriptwriters will have it easy soaking up the drama to write the primary dialogue: they would merely sit in the House public gallery and hang on to every scurrilous slur or tawdry phrase uttered, hang out in the lobby commingling with The Honourables and observe political hucksters sell political snake oil, or interview reporters covering the heady debates to get off-the-record accounts of some off-debate scrimmage.

For secondary plots with salaciously direct or indirect referrals to the House, how’s this for material: murder of Mongolian woman triggers political reverberations, funky and kinky sex of many kinds involving veteran politicians, a titanic battle to the death between top and erstwhile Government leaders for the power to influence, and a power struggle between forces in Parliament that uses the Press as pawns.

Key supporting cast with the colourful demeanour and raw gumption: Datuk Seri Nazri, Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, Ibrahim Ali, Pong Ho Kuan, Tiong King Sing, Bung Moktar Radin, Datuk Tajuddin Rahman, Khairy Jamaludin, N. Gobalakrishnan, Mahfuz Omar and, of course, yours truly the Press in a bunch of small roles or cameos. To direct the blockbuster, homeboy Teong Hin Saw of Puteri Gunong Ledang fame might be contracted to helm the movie but he has to ensure that the intricate plots don’t convolute into a messy heap that gets drag feet-first to Parliament’s Rights and Privileges Committee.

If you had played along with this fantastical burlesque, you might think that it’s far too complicated to print it on film when it’s easier to digitise it on a High Definition handcam and simply reassign the title as Dewan Rakyat, the Political Reality Show, which it really is, judging by the way tiffs, slanging and denials escalated into a full-blown soap opera.

While the media and the general observer may dismiss the whole debacle as another offbeat political charade, the conflict inside the House is as real and serious as they come, now that an official attempt was made to bring Gobind (DAP-Puchong) before the Rights and Privileges Committee for disciplinary action that could lead to possible long-term suspension without allowance. It might be a good idea for Gobind to consult dad, Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor), who has valuable insights and experience of getting booted out of the House for no reason other than being his no-compromise, hard-hitting, BN backbencher-baiting self.

In Day 3 of the Gobind-Pandikar Amin epic narrative of heroic exploits (blame this line on Hollywood), Gobind, who resumed his duty-proper inside the House this morning, was allowed the opportunity to tell his side of the story after Pandikar Amin did the same yesterday, only to be lambasted by a handful of infuriated backbenchers for allowing himself to absolve a contemptuous attack against the Chair and the House.

To recap: During Q&A on Monday, Pandikar Amin red-carded Gobind out of the Dewan Rakyat and inflicted a two-day suspension for relentlessly arguing to bud-graft Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy charge, death threats and holing up in a the Turkish Embassy in Kuala Lumpur to a mundane housing issue in the hopes of extending the national debate on the latest political quagmire. In a hissy fit, Gobind patronised the expulsion, huffing "who is the Speaker?" in insisting his right to speak in the House. The next day, Gobind met up with the Speaker in his chambers to clarify the duration of his suspension, after which the Speaker announced to the House that an apology was made and all is well, only for Gobind to categorically deny immediately that he had apologised for his altercation with the Chair.

But today’s quirky attempt, assigned to backbencher Razali Ibrahim (BN-Muar), was deemed flawed by Deputy Speaker Ronald Kiandee, who ruled that the MP had failed to quote the correct section provided under the Standing Orders for the motion. Smelling blood spilling from Gobind’s wounded disposition, backbenchers will make a third attempt to “hang” Gobind tomorrow, a reflection of just how incensed they are with the Cub of Jelutong. Strangely, their motive is not based on Monday’s ruckus but on his disrespect to Pandikar Amin by stating that he did not apologise to the Speaker over his remarks when the Speaker had said Gobind did apologise. It seems to have boiled down to who said what and how, but the Speaker gets preferential benefit of the doubt.

And for this “Gobind said, Speaker said” rumpus, the House spent a good 30 minutes discussing Gobind's conduct. Datuk Ibrahim Ali (Ind) demanded that Pandikar Amin clarify his position on Tuesday’s private meeting with Gobind. "You say he apologised but he says otherwise. Can we know what happened? Reading the newspapers, the impression I get is that you are a liar," Ibrahim blasted away.

Like the timeless Chinese yin and yang principle of balance, Karpal needed little prodding to abominate Ibrahim, retorting that the House did not have to listen to anyone with “questionable” principles. “He is a frog and has jumped from party to party. How can we treat his call for discipline seriously?” Not to be out-manoeuvred, Ibrahim fired back, labelling Karpal a “barua” (lackey). The insult triggered N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR- Padang Serai) to protest and a not-too-remorseful Ibrahim nonchalantly withdrew the “barua” word and in blasé fashion, shrugged his utterance as “not referring to anyone specifically.”

As usual, the epigrammatic Dr Puad Zakarshi (BN-Batu Pahat) posited that the ideal way to get to the bottom of the problem was to let Gobind make a representation of what transpired inside the meeting. At this point, Pandikar Amin, who held the Chair, ruled that any discussion on his conversation with Gobind would mean recusing himself and allow Kiandee to take over.

Here was Gobind’s take on the celebrated conversation: “I went in. I said sorry to trouble you. Is that not polite conversation? I never said sorry for what happened in the Dewan. I said (to the Press) the meeting was cordial. I stressed now and here that I never did anything wrong. There is no reason for me to say sorry. I have a lot of regard for him (Speaker). Is it clear to you (looking at Puad)?”

Ronald instructed the House that it was up to members to decide what to do next and this was when Razali made the call to refer Gobind to the Committee.

Karpal, who took a six-month suspension in the gut after he was referred to the Committee in 2004, somehow wants the whole dispute to be settled “rationally”, intimating that he does not have disposition to see the tiff dragged beyond the confines of proper debate inside the House and his son eventually banned. "We as MPs do become emotional, and so does the Speaker. We are all human," he said in a sagely tone

Later, outside the House and in the lobby, Gobind took up a paradoxical stance – maintaining that he did not apologise to Pandikar Amin but defended the Speaker against fibbing to the House. Instead, he blamed it all to a “misunderstanding” and some “dark force” trying to ruin his ties with Pandikar Amin. "There is a move by some quarters implying that my statement that I did not apologise was tantamount to claiming that the Speaker is a liar. But that is stretching it too far. This is a simple case of a misunderstanding. I am very sure the Speaker is not lying.”