14
INTERVIEWS VIEWS Conversation
theSun: Why do you think
the practice of name-calling
and usage of unparliamentary
words in the Dewan Rakyat
has become a culture now?
First, I’d like to say I support
our aim to create a world-class
Parliament system, a first-class
Parliament. We need parlia-
mentarians who are responsible
to Malaysians; committed, dedi-
cated and responsible in terms
of addressing their problems
and debating bills based on facts
and the needs of society.
In order to fulfil those func-
tions, we need a healthy culture
in our Parliament. We don’t
want our MPs to become too
emotional over issues. That’s
why we see there are differences
between the Dewan Rakyat and
Dewan Negara. People say the
Senate is a rubber-stamp, but
it maintains a culture whereby
they (Senators) are serious
when debating, because they
are not influenced by emotions
or issues. Why not? Because
MPs grapple with excellence
THE 12TH PARLIAMENT HAS SEEN THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW
CULTURE IN THE DEWAN RAKYAT. HUSNA YUSOP SPEAKS TO
BACKBENCHER DR MOHD PUAD ZARKASHI (BN-BATU PAHAT), WHO
OFTEN PROVOKES OPPOSITION MPS, ON NAME-CALLING, WALKOUTS
AND OTHER ANTICS OF PARLIAMENTARIANS.
there are not many opposition
(members) there. But the Dewan
Rakyat is terrible now because
the opposition is bigger.
So, the number of opposition
MPs is a factor?
Yes. Because they (opposition
MPs) want to show they are
champions of the people, they
play up issues and emotions. So,
theSun
when issues and emotions influ-
ence the situation in the house,
that makes us (BN MPs) feel as
if a new culture has emerged.
For example, the walkouts.
Since they know they will lose if
they vote, and because they are
big in number, they can do that
(walkout). This is a new culture
today.
Over the past few months, I
think they have staged walkouts
five times. Is this a good culture?
Of course they say they want to
defend their rights. But is this the
best approach?
Another thing, they are always
testing the division voting. This
is also a new culture. Although
they know they won’t succeed,
they feel they have won by play-
ing up people’s emotions, as if
they are committed to what they
are fighting for. And because of
this, from the beginning of the
12th Parliament, sometimes we
have been forced to spend a lot
of time on this new culture of
raising a point of order to delay
a certain debate.
But sometimes, they are not
relevant?
Yes. The points raised are
inaccurate or incorrect, but the
motive is to damage and ruin the
reputation of the government,
although they know what they
are doing is not right. When the
situation gets too tense, we have
MPs using words which are not
appropriate in the Dewan. We
feel ashamed when the public
is in the gallery. For example,
school students will wonder if
these are world-class parliamen-
tarians? Because of emotions,
we hear inappropriate terms
like orang utan, babi hutan and
kurang ajar.
I was accused of being a
subversive by (Ipoh Timur
MP) Lim Kit Siang when he
interjected Minister in the Prime
Minister’s Department (Tan Sri)
Amirsham’s (A. Aziz) winding-
up speech. He had brought up
Article 153 where he said there
was no dichotomy between
bumiputra and non-bumiputra.
Then he said what Batu Pahat
(MP) did was subversive. Sub-
versives are people involved in
underground activities to ruin
the government. So, am I a
subversive?
Didn’t you reply?
I stood up but was not given way
by the Speaker. And I also didn’t
want to waste my time. I didn’t
bring it up by raising a point of
order, for example by claiming
he had improper motives. So, for
me, the conflict here is, everyone
wants a world-class Parliament
but is unable to avoid being in-
fluenced by emotions and issues
and trying to be a hero. What’s
important is for one to be seen
as a hero. In the end, this has
led to our failure in producing
a new positive culture in Parlia-
ment. Instead, a negative culture
| THURSDAY NOVEMBER 20 2008
has emerged through the use of
disrespectful words, unparlia-
mentary terms, and in the end
debates are not based on facts.
There’s a tendency of letting
the Internet influence the culture
in Parliament. Most MPs base
their debate on material from
blogs. Blogs are not necessarily
right. Blogs also play up issues
and emotions. Like when talking
about the Altantuya case. This
was used by several opposition
MPs as points in their debates. To
me, this is not right. What kind of
culture is that? Using material of
questionable credibility.
So, there is a new culture be-
cause of the bigger opposition
representation?
Yes, because BN no longer holds
two-third majority. So, they
(opposition) come with a more
egoistic attitude and this attitude
has led to this negative culture in
Parliament.
But some BN MPs were also
seen doing the same thing.
Yes. But not many backbenchers
use harsh words. The opposition
starts it. So, when the opposition
said (to BN MPs) orang utan, we
responded with babi hutan.
So, it is just a matter of defend-
ing yourselves?
Yes. But that too only by one or
two (BN) MPs. But unfortunately,
in the opposition, this is done by
an experienced MP, who was
once the opposition leader. This
is what I call cakap tak serupa
bikin (not walking the talk).
What do you think of Pasir
Salak MP Datuk Tajudin Ab-
dul Rahman’s request for the
Speaker to allow backbenchers
to defend ministers when they
are “attacked”?
The opposition is always given a
chance to use the point of order
although their actual intention
is to argue and damage the
government in certain issues.
In order for them to be allowed
to say what they want, they
use points of order. Sometimes
they use Article 18.1 to propose
a motion. That is why they are
disappointed if their motions are
rejected. Although they know the
motion will be rejected (by the
Speaker) as something which is
not urgent, what matters is they
get to speak. So, their speech will
be recorded (in the Hansard). It
will come out in the Internet,
television, etc. This is enough
for them to influence the rakyat.
So, when they use the point of
order, we defend by giving an
explanation. But the Speaker
doesn’t allow us, except by using
point of order. But we don’t want
to manipulate the point of order,
we only want to rebut.
Would you like the ministers
to be more daring in answer-
ing questions?
Okay, this is also a new culture.
We hope the ministers will be
more credible when answering
questions. They cannot reply
like lepaskan batuk di tangga
(doing something only for the
sake of doing it). They must be
well-prepared, understand the
subject matter and not reply
by saying the (supplementary)
question is out of the original
question or they will give a
written reply later. This is the
standard reply when a minister
cannot answer certain things.
This also has an impact on the
culture of our Parliament.
Perhaps this is because most
of them, especially the deputy
ministers, are inexperienced?
That should not be an issue.
What is important is whether
they are prepared.