Will this restore some credibility and integrity?

Categories: Malaysia

The official reason given for the resignation of Datuk Shahrir as the chairman of the Backbenchers Club, and which was accepted by DPM Datuk Najib is that he had broken party policy of not supporting an opposition motion. This comes as no surprise because our Parliament had been based on the British model where every MP has to toe party line because of the Whip. They are not to vote according to their conscience or principle unless the Whip is lifted. This is understandable where party policy and manifesto are being debated as MPs win their votes because of party manifesto. However in this case, it is not a motion against a party policy, or against specific governing minister but call to defend the integrity of the Parliament.

In agreeing to the motion from the Opposition to refer the matter to the Parliament Rights and Privileges Committee, he is only defending the integrity of the Parliament. The matter may have involved an MP from the ruling party but the motion is not directed at the MP. Instead the motion is to seek the truth so that any followup actions can be carried out. By rejecting the motion, Parliament in general and MPs in particular risk losing their integrity and moral authority. This certainly goes against what PM Badawi had been trying to do with his policy of transparency and accoutability; against the spirit of setting up the IPCMC and against the spirit of setting up of the ombudsman. If the rejection of the MPs are based solely on partisan line, then the Malaysian Parliament is in a sorry state. How then does the governing party expect the Opposition to support it if the country is threatened? Surely after nearly fifty years of independence, the political parties are mature enough than to have bipartisan politics.

Because of this controversy, questions arise as to what an MP can and cannot do. This is because MP for Jasin had admitted that he had met with the Custom officials and asked them to "closed one eye" and not seize the consignment from Indonesia and brought in by a company. He said he was just helping a businessman in appealing against the seizure. Another MP said that they were asked by their constituents for help everyday ranging from putting a good word to help their children get into university or helping the constituents children who had gotten into trouble. True that as an MP their job also involves helping their constituents. In fact this is expected of them. There is a limit to what the MPs can do to help their constituents. Put in good words on their behalf, support their applications by all means but make sure they are within the law. However when a person is in violation of the law should an MP help them to escape the penalty? By asking the civil servants involved not to carry out the appropriate actions, would the civil servants themselves violate the law instead? And if such civil servants asked their MP for help to get them off the hook, wouldn't this results in a vicious cycle? In the end, nobody gets convicted because their MP are doing such a fine job in persuading the enforcement officer to be lenient. And if enforcement officers is going to be lenient, why then we need the laws in the first place? And if the law is redundant, we shouldn't even need the law makers - the Members of Parliament. If no MPs, we don't even need the Parliament!! You got the picture.

It is good that the PM and DPM has agreed to a suggestion by Datuk Shahrir to set up a select committee to look into MPs behaviour and to a guidelines on the conducts of MP. Due to so many gray areas when MPs deal with civil servants, such guidelines is timely and useful as a minimum conduct expected from a MP. However, just setting up a guideline is not enough. The committee should also look into what course of action should be taken if an MP is found to have flouted the guidelines. Should a motion be made so that Parliament can investigate the matter or should the case be automatically investigated by the Parliament Rights and Privileges Committee or should the Parliament just refer the matter to the Police? Once an offence is confirmed, should a punishment be meted out and what form of punishment should it be? Or should the MP's own party discipline the MP? These should all be looked into so that they will not be another similar incident which may tarnish the image of MPs and the Parliament.