by Joseph Sipalan
Malaysiakini
Oct 11, 10
PARLIAMENT
Opposition MPs were up in arms today as the August House rejected 28 questions from 17 Pakatan Rakyat parliamentarians, forcing speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia to promise he will look into their complaints as soon as possible.
Right after the end of question time, Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) (right) cited the standing orders to ask why his question, asking Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak if he is a Malay or Malaysian first, was rejected.
Karpal said a letter he received from the speaker’s office which said his question was rejected on the grounds that he was asking for the premier’s opinion and was a hypothetical question.
“The deputy Prime Minister had said he was a Malay first and Malaysian second, and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri (Aziz) said he was a Malaysian first and Malay second.
“… I am not asking for his opinion. I am asking for him to state his stand as prime minister. Why this special protection for the prime minister?,” he said.
Floodgates opened
Karpal’s query opened the floodgates with a string of opposition MPs standing one after the other to register their dissatisfaction over the rejection of their questions.
A total of 17 MPs eventually spoke out in protest over the rejection, including Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur), Chong Cheng Jien (DAP-Bandar Kuching), Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong), Loh Gwo Burne (PKR-Kelana Jaya), Nasharudin Md Isa (PAS-Bachok) and Nizar Jamaluddin (PAS-Bukit Gantang).
The questions covered a broad range of issues, from the poor reception among senior civil servants of the 1Malaysia concept to the Home Ministry’s inaction over racist and false articles published by Utusan Malaysia, the national budget for military procurements and Perkasa.
Lim later proposed that a joint committee be formed with members from both sides of the House, to set clear guidelines on what kind of questions can be asked in Parliament.
Nasharudin (left) however disagreed to the formation of a committee, saying it is not necessary as the speaker holds exclusive powers to determine what can and cannot go on in the House.
Pandikar explained that the rejection of the questions was done according to parliamentary procedure, but promised to address the complaints raised by the MPs..
“I view this issue seriously, because it is related to the standing orders. But I ask for the good grace of the MPs here to give me time, and I will address each complaint,” he said.
Hahahaha…..we all expected these rejections. They have no answer, hence there is no point in addressing all these issues….take the easy way out, just reject them first, find excuses later.
Keep it up, PR….ask the questions and then post them on the public domain, and let the rakyat judge for themselves the relevance of the questions, the stupidity of the answers, or the contempt by the powers to be. Remember that by not answering, they are showing their contempt for the rakyat. And that BN Speaker – if I were him, I’d quickly hide and make myself inaccessible to the MPs.
///Najib said at the MCA AGM “It is conventional wisdom and rational thinking that if the majority of the country has a small percentage of the wealth, that is inequitable. I think MCA will also agree.
So I think there should be a nice balance that the Malay feels they have a bigger share in the economic wealth but the Chinese also feel that they are growing economically in our system”///–The Star
There is a statistical measure known as Gini ratio that calculates the share of any item of interest corresponds to the percentage of people owning it. It is subjective to claim what is equitable, and more so in terms of wealth. Besides should the persons owning them, for the computation, be restricted to classification by race, rather than by income class? Since the advent of NEP, within the Malay community, a larger percentage of wealth has fallen in the hands of fewer Malays, in percentage term.
Najib uses the second paragraph to rephrase NEP’s argument that the unfair treatment against non-Malays would be compensated by the expanding cake. Tun razak conveniently ignored the fact that though expanded economic activities did benefit people in business but not all Chinese were involved in business, and they are like Malays, they want to be trained to be employed in the public sector and elsewhere. The rural and poor Chinese who are not in business are no difference from Malays who are said, incorrectly, not to have acumen for business activities. Yet these Chinese are at the receiving end in NEP implementation. They are denied opportunities for scholarships, seats of learning and employment in the public sector.
Najib talked about a nice balance so that Malay feels they have a bigger share in the economic wealth and the Chinese feeling they grow their wealth. So it is the feeling that is said to polarize the nation. Let us examine Najib’s thought. What would Malays’ feeling of bigger share of economic wealth equal to? UMNO is fond at arguing that economic disparity among the races caused May 13. That means jealousy of Malays against non-Malays because some of them were wealthy. Thus a bigger share would reduce some jealousy but when would that jealousy be removed? The argument might be plausible when all Malays were poor? But the fact is there are rich Malays too, and some Malays are very rich like billionaires created by the government under Mamakthir. Would Najib believe that jealousy does not arise within the Malay community, or in Muslims community? If it does, then how can Malay feels satisfied that others in the community are rich while he is poor. If Malay does not feel jealous of wealth enjoyed by other Malays, why should Malay harbour the sense of jealousy when the rich happened to belong to other Malaysians who are not Malay?
Najib talked about Gini ratio as if it applies only to community as a group. Nurul I. Anwar said that it is time that some of the very rich Malays offer their corporate shares at par value to others to make it more equitable among the Malays.
It is perfectly sensible for anybody who wants to work to own a larger wealth than he currently has. But to talk about cumulative wealth of a community, whose feeling should be the guide? Mamakthir said that as long as there is Malay employed by Chinese as driver, NEP had not succeeded. To Mamakthir no amount of wealth owned by Malays would be sufficient for Malays to forgo the special treatment given to Malays because of their special position as not being ready for true competition as in pre-Independence days. Besides how does one get satisfied to having a bigger share of wealth, and when should he be contended with what the community has rather then continuing asking for more and bigger share? Who should be the representative of Malays who decides on the quantum of share Malays own to be satisfied? Should it be UMNO, PAS or PKR?
When Najib said that he thought there should be a nice balance that the Malays feel that they have a bigger share in economic wealth it means that it is his government policy to give to Malays a bigger economic share. It would not be acceptable in a democracy anywhere in the world if the government declares that it offers opportunities to a particular race, or classification of its citizens, to benefit from government more than other citizens. That would be racism.
Najib is expounding the need to be racist based on the 40 year-old argument given by his father in launching NEP. Najib needed NEP to justify why May 13 happened without prosecuting the culprits. NEP is an aberration to the constitution particularly to Article 8 where all Malaysians are equal. Razak forced through the programme stating that it was to be for a period of 20 years. He at least acknowledged that NEP being an aberration to democracy should be time-bound. Unfortunately Najib utilized the untenable argument of an expanding cake to justify why the minority group should continue to be discriminated.
The Speaker runs into problem when he rejected Karpal Singh’s question to PM if he was a Malay or Malaysian first.
It was not just a request for an irrelevant opinion and hypothetical question as Speaker tried to justify in rejecting Karpal’s Question. It was a Question central to his Government Transformation Programme (GTP) Roadmap that urges a Malaysian to perceive himself or herself as Malaysian first, and by race second. His Minister in PM’s Department Nazri already made public his Malaysian first, and by race second stance in contrast to his Deputy’s race first and then only Malaysian stance. It would be fair in the circumstances for Karpal to ask the PM the same question, as GTP is one of main planks of his administration.
I think you should also ask MCA president Chua Soi Lek the same since he was so gung ho in the MCA AGM. The media has given wide coverage to the going-ons in the MCA AGM where both talked a lot about how good the PM’s policy of inclusiveness under 1Malaysia, more “space and latitude” for the Chinese to speak up and how the voices of extremism should be shrugged of. What’s the point of saying all these if the PM or MCA President couldn’t even reiterate GTP’s prescription to be seen Malaysian first and Race second?
The Speaker should realise that such questions posed by the Opposition is typically the type of engagement contemplated under a robust parliamentary democratic practice that it is his duty (as Speaker) to maintain.
It is ever the duty of loyal Opposition to ask such important question(s) of government ministers and their stance relating to the Administration’s central platforms of 1 Malaysia and GTP and to make the public aware of the relevant minister’s strength or weakness, sincerity or hypocrisy, competence and incompetence in relation to the Administration’s policies and implementation.
What’s the justification for the Speaker to take the view of Karpal’s question being hypothetical question or one canvassing for an irrelevant opinion – when it relates to the Govt’s central platform of ‘1 Malaysia’ and GTP which surely are (to the Speaker himself) is neither irrelevant nor inconsequential?
The Speaker took the question as hypothetical not so much the question but the answer. You see what ever Najib might say at one instant he denied it at another. Najib is NAJIB and so since no action just insincere bullshit, the Speaker was right that Najib only gives hypothetical answer. He should stop Najib talking rather than stop Karpal asking the question.
“Karpal said a letter he received from the speaker’s office which said his question was rejected on the grounds that he was asking for the premier’s opinion and was a hypothetical question.”
Huh?
#$&^ %ucking hell are you saying?
Do you mean to say he spent tens of millions of our money to create a hypothesy, mr speaker?
D Speaker is a great servant of UmnoB/BN
Dis is democracy 4 us all 2 C
1 may ask Q, table motion, but d Speaker appointed by d majority has d power 2 decide
Ha ha ha, UmnoB/BN loves democracy 2 b dictator here