| HOME | NEWS | VIDEOS | GALLERY | NSTP PAPERS |
DEWAN DISPATCHES: The no–confidence motion of theatre, security gridlock & Opposition walkout/boycottby: Azmi AnsharDEWAN RAKYAT July 14, 2008
The stressed-out Malaysian electorate are wearied and at the same time enthralled by the theatrics and histrionics of their chosen political leaders on both sides of the gaping political gorge. Depressed by pressing price inflationary woes kicked upstairs by an explosive fuel price hike and yet entertained by the political shiftiness and shenanigan, they nonetheless feel that today’s hyper-drama beats viewing a cinematically censored moving picture. Inflamed, inspired and influenced by the weblogs, infuriated by what they see as mainstream media’s indifference and disgusted by an unwittingly overzealous autocracy, the Malaysian electorate’s views are shaped by the beguiling art of perception and seduced by its salaciousness and somewhere in between, the truth that every political player asseverates, from the Barisan Nasional to the Pakatan Rakyat to the slew of high-profiled accusers, is wedged in discomfiting dislocation, expertly obscured from public view. What is exposed then is “truthiness”. (Truthiness is a slang pioneered by American comedian Stephen Colbert in 2005 as a satirical term to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" regardless of evidence, logic, intellectual examination or facts.) However the environs are described, it revolves around that melodrama called Malaysian-styled politics. There’s no running away from the game. It is the blessed curse of Malaysians. People have no choice but to suck it up, like the accursed traffic gridlock mounted today by the “shoot first, ask questions later” law-enforcement psychosis that steamrolls security by paranoia. It was a very trying, full half day, more so for the pitiful souls enduring the stalled highways, so let’s start from there. The traffic gridlock, building up since the PR filed the motion of no-confidence last Thursday, was artfully constructed by police at strategic highway accesses within a 5-km radius leading to Parliament House. Police would be moved to claim that they have successfully defused any inkling of demonstrations that the Opposition stoutly promised had never thought of organising. Call it a political double-negative even if both sides had been disingenuous about it. The security gridlock, slammed as “synthetic” by Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timor), screwed up the average Malaysian public’s day, downgrading it from wearisome to loathsome. But the public should know better and commit themselves to anticipate the unexpected since the day that they helped detonate the March 8 polls fissure that slashed the fabric of politics as usual. There has not been a soporific effect since then. Those days, a stony indifference would greet the howls of anger but these days, a Ministerial apology from the Home Affairs Minister was soberly communicated. Outside Parliament House, just when Q&A was commencing inside the House, reporters and their crew from various electronic and print media outfits were stopped from entering and it needed a Ministerial intervention to permit them access. It would seem that a different set of uniformed cops were deployed to man the Parliament sentry, hence their unfamiliarity with the Information Ministry’s media accreditation cards and stolid apathy to reporters’ reasoned pleadings. After the reporters’ access was greenlighted, the sentry cops simply firmed up their security stance – forcing the media people to park their cars away from the sentry and made them walk the tiring distance. For journalists, the price of democracy is sadistic and the barbed wire fencing coiling around the Parliament House perimeter reinforced the notion. Inside the House, it was just another enrapturing day, with proceedings starting punctually at 10am despite the security gridlock but there was no full complement of the House – some 120 MPs, including Ministers, turned up at the start of Question Hour. No doubt, many MPs were caught in the taxing traffic standstill. At the opportune moment, Salahuddin Ayub (Pas-Kubang Kerian) questioned the Speaker on the need for the heavyweight security. "Has Parliament turned into a war zone? I also want to know whether it was your directive not to allow the public in today," his allegation went, referring to police road blocks set up to block unwanted approaches to Parliament House. Pointing an accusatory finger to Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Salahuddin fumed that the traffic snarl merely punished ordinary city folks going about their daily business on the basis of a “security threat from an illegal demonstration allegedly planned by Pakatan Rakyat supporters”. He also insisted that the PR had never instructed their members to gather before Parliament. Neither the Speaker nor Syed Hamid nor Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz claimed responsibility for the gridlock though Nazri had issued a directive banning MPs from “bringing in guests” into parliament House today. The non-voting motion of disruptive substance that Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah filed as Opposition leader was no doubt studiously scanned by Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia and when the time came to rule on its admissibility, the Speaker assumed what was already a presupposed position – he rejected the motion in a letter addressed to the Opposition leader on grounds that the document was ascribed to either the “wrong” Standing Orders or the “wrong” choice of words. Reports streaming on the rejection did not make clear which of the grounds were more apt. When Dr Wan Azizah rose to reason with the Speaker, he let loose a befuddled explanation littered in a workout of semantics. “Let the Speaker of the House not become the laughing stock of other Speakers of other legislatures for allowing a motion under the wrong standing order. I will not allow the Speaker to be dragged into the political arena over this. I rejected the motion in chambers as all points raised had been debated during a motion on inflation tabled by the government on June 23. Everything was covered during that motion; the opposition motion covered all of this.” As unconcernedly expected, the motion was thrown out before it had a chance to stand on its own legs. Dr Wan Azizah was still game enough to appeal against the Speaker’s hair-raising explainer and for several minutes, the BN backbenchers hedged and fudged while the Opposition bloc tried the arduous task of sewing split hairs. But once it was apparent that Pandikar Amin won’t budge, Dr Wan Azizah told him that the Opposition had no alternative but to walk out of the House to protest his decision. To the BN backbenchers’ hoots, jeers and boos of derision, the full complement of the Opposition bloc quickly streamed out of the House for the second time in this Parliamentary session. Defeated inside the House, the Opposition then took up their case before the House of Public Opinion, where they chastised the Speaker's ruling on top of condemning Parliament’s choking security facade. “Never in the history of Parliament have such measures been taken,” Dr Wan Azizah fumed. “People now have this image that the building is under siege.” Lim Kit Siang has never missed the chance to put in a telling rebuke against what he perceives as injustices. “It is a black day for Parliament,” the DAP supremo let rip, recycling a necromantic phrase he vented in 1981 to denounce amendments to the Society’s Act. “Parliament is equal to the executive and we have the right to demand that action be taken against the police. Now, it looks as though the Parliament is subservient to the police. They must be held accountable.” Lim Kit Siang has never missed the chance to put in a telling rebuke against what he perceives as injustices. “It is a black day for Parliament,” the DAP supremo let rip, recycling a necromantic phrase he vented in 1981 to denounce amendments to the Society’s Act. “Parliament is equal to the executive and we have the right to demand that action be taken against the police. Now, it looks as though the Parliament is subservient to the police. They must be held accountable.” Kit didn’t stop there: he also attempted to refer Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan to the Rights and Privileges Committee on forcing an unnecessary the security escalation, citing Standing Order 26 (1) (p) that accused Musa of not ensuring uninterrupted passage of MPs into the House. Kit claimed the strident security measures made it difficult for MPs to enter Parliament but the Speaker, who was on a rejection streak, was having none of it and dismissed the motion on grounds that Committee regulations were confined to members present in the Chamber. “I was also stopped a while ago. I did not protest,” Pandikar Amin deadpanned. “The stringent security should not be an issue because police implemented it for MPs’ security.” Co-incidentally, there were other elements at play here besides the security gridlock and the fate of the motion: just as the gridlock was escalating, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim found it fortuitous to lambast the police for harassing his family in serving the court order that barred him and his supporters from approaching Parliament House on “security grounds”. Anwar grabbed the court order and converted it into an insult and an excuse not to drop by Bukit Aman as earlier agreed to voluntarily give his statement on a police complaint that he sodomised a young man who acted as his aide. Anwar immediately dismissed the police’s indictment that he had issued orders for his supporters to hold a full-throttled demonstration outside Parliament, a charge that Umno Youth lobbed while averring that Anwar’s theatrics was to deflect attention from the sodomy case. Politically speaking, the Opposition had a wondrous day, representing the high ground of public outrage in the unsuccessful immolation of the Executive. The rebarbative gridlock was dreadfully slow to peter out but the after-effects can be pinned on the wall of cumulative achievements on the Opposition’s continuing battle to topple this hardy BN Government.
|
Copyright © New Straits Times Online 2008 . Contact Us