Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698747013626.pdf (Malaysia)
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2014 28 Daily Express Your Local Voice Comment Analysis & Not just loss of so many innocents OPINIONS expressed here are the personal views of the writers and not necessarily those of the Daily Express or other organisations they may be connected with.
If you have something to share, write to Forum, Daily Express, P O Box 10139, 88801 Kota Kinabalu (Fax: 088-238420) Email: Forum@dailyexpress.com.my Daily Express Sunday, September 7, 2014 Last picture: Pandikar with Karpal Singh.

This picture was taken barely two weeks before an accident claimed the life of Karpal.

Special Report Your Local Voice 9 I want to make changes: Pandikar K.K.

Tan WHEN the first remains of the victims of MH17 crash were brought back home, the nation stood still and in silence.
It would forever be remembered in Malaysian history that the MH17 tragedy was not just the loss of so many innocent lives, but also the loss of our nation’s “innocence” in a world full of conflicts, regional or otherwise, and in particular, of an ethnic and geopo- litical crisis thousands of miles away from home.
Sure, we have our fair share of violent conflicts such as the communist insur- gency and the May 13 racial riots, but the totally unexpected shooting down of our sovereign-neutral passenger aircraft, deliberately or otherwise, was unprece- dented in many ways to our country.

For one, our country has never been a victim of another regional conflict which we are not involved in any way.
Yes, we have sent peace-keeping troops under the UN banner to many parts of the world and had our fair share of casualties as well.

But MH17 was an innocent civilian air- craft flying well above the “safe” limit of 33,000 ft.

Yet, it was so cruelly brought down, most likely by an advanced missile system and perhaps finished off by can- non fire from a military aircraft.
For many people like myself, Aug 22 was more than just a day of mourning, it was also a day of rage and anger of ques- tioning why so many innocent lives were taken so brutally in a conflict which we played no part in.

Our civilian aircraft was targeted, deliberately or otherwise, by an evil force, which must one day pay for this crime against humanity, one way or another and “karma-wise”.

We are a very small but culturally diverse country.
Partly due to our own rich diversity and sensitivity to ethnic, ideological (against communism) and other conflicts, we have been striving on our own and via the various associations we belong to, such as the UN and Asean, to maintain our neutrality, to never take sides or be involved in any conflict, except to promote and mediate for a peaceful resolution.

There have been many reports, some speculations while others more educated analyses, of the likely cause/s of the crash.
The main problem is getting access to the crash site and recovering all the pieces of evidence needed, not just the black box.

Investigators are only now beginning K Y M C Malaysian victims of the tragedy being brought home.

their arduous task of piecing together what happened and establishing the real cause/s of the crash.
Due to the international nature of the conflict involving powerful nations (some with veto-power on the UN Security Council), it is most unlikely that the perpetuators, even if established with proof and prosecuted (most likely in absentia), would be caught and face the penalties the normal way.

If I were a relative or close friend of any of the victims and trying to imagine myself in such a scenario, I would think of how justice could best be served.
I would then believe that real justice in dealing with the criminals responsible could only be achieved via an international extra- judicial method such as a high-powered, covert intelligence and military SAS-type operation with the involvement of friend- ly countries.
A multinational team of specially selected intelligence, logistics and mili- tary operatives should be assembled to go after these war criminals in the same manner that Osama bin Laden and his aides were mercilessly taken down in Pakistan on May 2, 2011 by the US gov- ernment.

For the record, this is only a mere wish and the government is unlikely to agree to such an approach in order to maintain its neutrality and diplomacy with the countries involved.
Even if the government were to agree to such an approach, we would not know about it (perhaps until much later) due to the need to maintain strict secrecy of such an operation.

The civilised world must send a clear and unequivocal message to these terror- ists, war criminals and evil people that there is no place on this planet that is safe for them to hide away and justice shall be served eventually, one way or another.
The UN already has peace-keeping forces, contributed by member nations, to maintain peace and security and to protect civilians in some war ravaged countries.

So why can’t the UN also have a multi- national anti-terrorism unit set up to aggressively pursue and exterminate such terrorists and war criminals?

The problem mostly lies in the non- impartiality of some permanent Security Council members (with veto-power) who may define a terrorist or war criminal according to their geo-political expedien- cy.
Nevertheless, the civilised world should work and strive towards such an arrangement and to agree on what con- stitute a terrorist or war criminal.

If the MH17 tragedy can spur such a global development that would bring closure and justice to the case, then the victims did not die completely in vain.
The MH17 tragedy should also serve as a wake-up call to our politicians and NGOs across the racial and religious divide, that playing the ethnic card, like in the Ukraine crisis, is a dangerous game that can have many unexpected and far- reaching negative consequences, often beyond the control of the original play- ers.

It’s like playing with fire, which can engulf an entire community or nation, if left unchecked.
The dynamics and unpredictability of an ethnic conflict can often backfire on the politicians and extremists involved in fanning it, so they better be warned.

Moderates in Malaysia and the world are also responding and rising up to chal- lenge local and global ethnic extremism, which is often linked to acts of terrorism, such as the one that brought down MH17.
May the victims of MH17 rest in peace and may justice be served someday CEO of a think tank and strategic consultancy firm, Tan believes in the principle of the Karma that a vile and evil deed committed by a perpetuator shall eventually return to haunt him with illnesses, death or death tragedies.

Sabah is M’sia, not part THIS is a direct quote from the statement made by Datuk Mukhriz the Menteri Besar of Kedah and son of Tun Dr former Prime Mahathir, Minister of Malaysia.
Mukhriz was speak- ing at the KK Umno annual conference recently.

the To me this statement by our young and up and coming Umno leader is most per- tinent and very apt.

A statement like this is very complimentary to Sabah.

It shows that 51 years after the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, that Sabah is seen by some of our West Malaysian leaders as a major contributor to the advancement and growth of the nation.
For shoulder to shoulder, our leaders, both from the Peninsula and Sabahans and Sarawakians had their shoulders to wheel to bring about the advancement we have achieved as a united “nation”.

The BN concept and believe is a sharing of the “burden” in the governance of the nation.

As Datuk Mukhriz elaborated, Sabah oil wealth had been spread over to other States.

There is reciprocal policy of shar- ing amongst all Malaysians, he said.
And from day one when Malaya obtained its independence 57 years ago (31st August 1957) the understanding amongst the Founding Fathers) of Tunku Abdul Rahman of Umno and Tun Sambanthan of MIC and Tun HS Lee (MCA) the Alliance Party, was to share the governance of the new nation.

Today, we are the grateful beneficiaries of the excellent policy by our Founding Fathers.

Here in Sabah, we also have our own Founding Fathers who helped in the for- mation of the Federation of Malaysia.
Foremost is the late Tun Fuad Stephens, (Upko Kadazan) the late Tun Mustapha, (Usno-Muslim) and the late Datuk Khoo Siak Chew (SCA-Chinese).

These were the early leaders who made the formation of the Federation of Malaysia possible.

We must especially single out Tun Stephens.

It was Stephens who worked hard to make it possible for the various community leaders to agree to join in the formation of Malaysia.
He was the chief spokesman for the Sabah delegates and representatives in the Inter-governmental Committee meet- ings (IGC).

It was also him who introduced the 20 Points safeguards as the Minimum points to be discussed which were important to Sabah at the time.

Much have been said or written about the 20 Points safeguards.
Some of the younger generation of Sabahans today question whether the 20 Points have been really safeguards for Sabah and some are questioning the rationale of these 20 Points and whether they are still relevant.

My answer to this is that the 20 Points are still relevant and indeed the Malaysia Agreement.

We read and hear dissenting voices from the younger people and some are even are so bold as to seek for Sabah to pull out from the Federation of Malaysia.

In my opinion this is not on.


This will only bring disunity and de stability in the nation and State.

The advancement we made economi- cally and socially might have been very advance, but our political stability is still fragile.

It is our duty to make sure that our political stability is assured and strong.

There are many more needed by Sabah and the nation as a whole to be done before we join the “developed nations” as a developed country.
Here in Sabah, we are lucky that we have a strong a vibrant BN component coalition, led by the Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Musa Haji Aman.

I am not saying this because he is a friend, but I have made comparations of the achievements made by each succes- sive State government.

From the record, we can see that the present BN coalition government helm by the Chief Minister show far more achievements than the previous State governments.
We have a very strong and healthy financial management; forest manage- ment and even our wild animals are not forgotten in the overall action plan.

The government is presently busy pro- viding corridors to allow connectivity from one Forest Reserve to the next.

This plan calls for the taking over some large tracts of land planted with palm oil to make the corridors or connectivity.

This is a major undertaking no doubt and I am very sure would be soon achieved.
of The deputy Chief Minister, Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan, who is also the State Minister Infrastructure announced recently that his ministry is looking into the possibility of construct- ing tunnels to connect townships from the West coast to the Interior and from Interior to the East coast.

The roads connecting these town cen- tres depend on roads constructed around the hills (for example, the Crocker Range which separates the West coast townships and the Interior districts.)
The new suggestion it to build tunnels in the hills instead of open air roads.

These roads are susceptible to the hill slopes slipping and causing massive dis- ruption to traffic.

slope The tunnel suggestion would be very expensive, but it would help alleviate the problem of hill landslides.

Tunneling is done in the more developed nation such as in Europe – from France to Italy for example.

But as I said, this sug- gestion for a new way to connect town- ships will remain for the future projects.
Then there is the suggestion that the building of dams to harness water to pro- vide water supplies to the ever increasing number of people/consumers in need of water.

There is a plan I believe for the building of a desalination sea water to supply to consumers.

Desalination of sea water would avoid flooding large area of lands, many of which have historical origin.

But the pro- ject of desalination is expensive too, so this would also remain for the future to be undertaken by the government.
The question of getting more ringgit from Petronas for the oil royalty payable to Sabah is another very popular ques- tion.

I think this is almost settled between the Federal government and the State.

A sharing of equity in a new oil company was announced recently.
The truth of the matter is that whereas the agreement with Petronas made the latter pay only 5 per cent of the crude extracted, and in dollar and cents terms, it means an annual payment to Sabah of about 100,000 million ringgit; however, since six years ago, the Federal govern- ment had been distributing to the State billion of ringgit for much needed funds to build the roads, schools etc.
The present policy of cabotage is one of the last “sore points” that Sabahan and Sabah feel should be changed in favour of Sabah.

Local government election to elect rep- resentatives to look after towns etc.

is another that is asked many times today.

I think this matter was raised because Penang wanted to introduce Local gov- ernment election in Penang.

This exercise is not simple or easy.

There are many con- siderations to make.

For one thing, it is the question of money.


It would be very expensive and the people would be further burdened.

In my opinion, Local Government Election would still be a long way off.

The Sabah government have many more important projects in mind.

There are those who questioned whether Sabah had contributed much to the Centre or Malaysia.

The answer is yes.

In two general elections – 2008 and 2013, It was Sabah and Sarawak who helped the BN in Petrojaya to remain the govern- ment of Malaysia.
Sabah and Sarawak have been called the “fixed deposit” of the BN government.

In recognition of this fact, Sabah has six federal ministers and Sarawak has seven.

Marking the 70th jubilee historic defeat of WW2 evil David Thien the SEPTEMBER 2 was sig- nificant to commem- orate the official surrender Japanese of Imperial forces which signified a defeat of an evil religious spirit and racist bigotry.
9am, Japanese Foreign M i n i s t e r Shigemitsu Mamou officially signed the surrender papers in the presence of the Allied forces under General Douglas MacArthur on board the US battleship USS Missouri,in Tokyo Bay.

Yamashita: Tiger of Malaya.


At by This evil can be ascertained from the speech Lieutenant-General Tomoyuki Yamashita (the Tiger of Malaya) at the 1942 ceremony to receive the $50-million extorted tribute money from the Chinese community in Malaya and Singapore (Syonan) who had to take out loans from the Japanese Yokohama Specie Bank and Indian chet- tiars: “I am very happy at this morning’s exceptional significance.
The trend of the world may be divided into two: one has the righteousness of the Japanese race of East Asia led by Japanese morals as its stock; the other is made up of the egoism of the British and the Americans who believe in the omnipotence of material things.

“According to the evolution of the human race, the Japanese are the descendants of the Gods, while the British and American people have developed from the apes.
“The Holy War in Great East Asia sig- nifies divine action to wipe out the idea of the omnipotence of material things.

It also means the re-emergence of a morality nurtured by Japan for the last 3,000 years.

“This $50 million is your redemp- tion money.

The lives and property of the Chinese are in our hands.
“I am very pleased with the efficien- cy of the Chinese and hope all of you will march towards the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere.” Time in Malaya and Singapore was reset back two hours to sync with Tokyo time.

In September 1945, Yamashita sur- rendered to the Allied forces in the city of Baguio, Luzon in the Phillipines.

Before WWII started, Yamashita led a team of senior Japanese military offi- cials to visit Hitler in racist Nazi Germany.
Take note that the spirit of the Japanese Holy War in Great East Asia and the negative kamikaze spirit of death are still acted out today in West Asia and Southeast Asia.

The harsh policy of the Japanese slaughtering Chinese seen as chattels and extorting $50 million tribute from them obliterated the livelihoods of many who sold off property and jew- ellery during the Japanese occupation.
As the livelihoods of the people were badly affected by the war, they could not raise the $50 million despite all efforts, including borrowing from Indian money lenders.

The deadline April 20, 1942 arrived but only about $20 million was raised.

A loan had to be taken from the Japanese Yokohama Specie Bank to make up the deficit.

The full amount was finally submit- ted on June 25 to Yamashita.

The sufferings of the people did not end with the handover of the “religious holy war tax”.
The cruel fact was that it had the opposite effect.

The impact of the $50 million extor- tion on the people was of such cata- strophic proportions that the whole economy collapsed as they could no longer earn a decent living.

To understand the present and antic- ipate the future, one must know enough of the past, enough to have a sense of the history of a people.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Lest we forget.
Lest we forget.

Anything tthat iis bbeneficial iin oother ccountries tthat yyou think wwill wwork ffor tthe bbetterment?

Pandikar: I think the agenda, the order paper, the arrangement of the paper in the issue that ought to be debated in Parliament.

And matured Parliament, matured democracy Parliament, the agenda is decid- ed, discussed by the Government and the Opposition.
As it is now, our Standing Order states that the agen- da of the day is determined by the Executive whereas in England, for instance in Australia, there are com- mittees that sit.

Even in India, there are committees that sit together to decide what ought to be discussed tomorrow, the day after tomorrow and so on.

Now by doing that, then of course, the people will be able to hear what the Opposition wants to be discussed.

That’s one of them.

It’s not necessarily bad for the Government.


No, but then again, countries like that are those that have the two-party system, in-built two-party system.

Either this party will win this elec- tion or that party will win the next election.

Both will have experience in governing.

DE: AAnd nnot mmany cchange iin ppolicy.


Pandikar: Yes and Malaysia of course, we do not know whether this system now will work or say, for instance, if assuming that maybe in future when Pakatan wins the elections, then how do you per- form?

Again maybe to me, I am looking down the road 20 years, 25 years, that kind of thing.

But we had it here in Sabah before when PBS was in power.

Then we have it also in Selangor now.

In other words, it lasts.


When PBS was in power the Barisan was in the Opposition, remember?

So what I am saying is can that happen in the national government?

Because what Pakatan is doing now is exactly what Barisan is doing.

If they have not copied the style of Barisan Nasional, they would not have that kind of seats they have now.
And if leaders change in Pakatan, say for instance, if Hadi Awang is not there anymore, Nik Aziz is not there, Anwar is not there and now Karpal is no longer, once Kit Siang is not there, will the Opposition be intact like it is?

To me, this is still a trial kind of thing.

We are not sure.

DE: HHave yyou rread LLee KKuan YYew’s llatest bbook “One MMan’s VView OOf TThe WWorld?” HHis vviews aare always iinteresting.

Pandikar: I bought two books last week, still wrapped in plastic, I must read that.
DE: HHis vviews oon tthe ccourse MMalaysia iis ttaking politically aare tthoughtful.

HHe ssaid eeventually iif Pakatan fforms tthe GGovernment, iit wwill hhave tto aadmit that, eeventually, yyou ccannot rrun tthings aany ddifferent from hhow iit iis rrun nnow.

Pandikar: It is easy to criticise until when you start doing the work.

Most of these leaders, they are untest- ed.

People like (Selangor MB Tan Sri) Khalid.

He runs Selangor like he is running a company.

Now that is from his experience.


But then politicians don’t like it.

But when you run a state or country like a real politician, you will know all these things.

Then, of course, it can be either way.

Nobody is totally right and nobody is totally wrong.

We have got to accept democracy.

We just do the best that we can, that’s all.


DE: OOK, nnow ssince llive TTV ccoverage oof pparliament debates iis nnot sseen ffavourably, Daily EExxpress would then llike tto ssuggest llive rradio ccoverage iinstead, sso aat least tthe ppeople kknow wwhat iis hhappening iin Parliament.

SSecondly, tthis wwill aalso ggive tthem aa chance tto kknow wwhether tthe ppeople tthey eelected wwere worth iit ffrom tthe wway tthey bbehave aand iissues tthey raise.
LLive TTV rrequires ppresence bbefore tthe ttelevision.

Through tthe rradio, eeven wwhen yyou aare ddriving, yyou can bbe iinformed aabout wwhat iis ggoing oon.

Pandikar: That is a good point which RTM or the Minister concerned must look into.

Maybe, if the voice only can be heard by the people also in the rural areas, maybe the MPs would not behave the way they behave now.

Maybe a little better.

I agree with that.


I will talk to the Minister they must look into this because now also the Minister said they are doing also the Streamyx that you can access to a certain thing to witness what is going on.

DE: IIn tthe ccase oof oour PParliament, iis iit sstill bbehold- en tto tthe EExecutive iin rrunning ssome oof tthe rrequests like sstaffing?

TThat wwas oone oof tthe tthings tthat wwas raised JJohannesburg ((last CCommonwealth Parliamentary AAssociation cconference).
TThat ssome- times iit iis tthe EExecutive tthat iis ddominant bbecause aall the ffunding iis ccoming ffrom tthe EExecutive aand sso tthe Parliament iis nnot ssupreme aas iit sshould bbe.

iin Pandikar: This is true, but then again only a few parliaments in the world have complete indepen- dence in terms of finance.

In Trinidad and Tobago, they are trying it now.


In India, what they say is there is a committee in Parliament that decides what funds that they need every year and the decision of that committee, that committee will make a recommen- dation to the Minister of Finance.

And invariably what is recommended because that committee con- sists of individuals from the Ministry of Finance and from the Opposition, from the Backbenchers, from Government, not much debated and it will be accept- ed.
You can only have complete independence if you have your own financial control.

Now it does not happen.

Second, now in Parliament of course those officers in Parliament, majority of them we call the ‘closed service’, meaning that in Parliament, they cannot go outside.

But also there is a system now which I forgot the terminology they say can pindah-pindah and pinjam (sharing of resources).

As it is, of course, I would like to have a parliament that is more inde- pendent in terms of money and resources.
My argu- ment is this – you cannot have a totally independent Speaker if you don’t give that platform to him.

His position must be made by the Government con- ducive for him to work and seen independently.

K Y M C DE: WWhen wwill tthis bbecome ppossible?

Pandikar: I don’t know when that would happen.

Again it’s up to the Executive.

Even if I were to think along that direction, if the Opposition does not take it up, then it’s only an idea on the table.
But to me, if you want to have an independent Parliament with an independent Speaker, you must provide that plat- form.

DE: TThere iis tthinking tthat eeven tthe AAuditor- General sshould bbe aanswerable tto PParliament aand nnot the EExecutive ffor ggreater aaccountability.

IIn tthe Indian ssystem, tthe EExecutive ccan aappoint tthe jjudges but hhe ccannot rremove tthem.

OOnly PParliament ccan remove jjudges iin tthe IIndian ccourts.

Pandikar: I think these are the things that ought to be seen.
Well, 2008 and 2013 have only been two elections.

It will take time for this two-party system to work and once you have this, then maybe this thing will follow.

But as it is, I think it’s just a plan- ning.

I am doing also this.

I have already instructed my legal adviser.

We look into what ought to be changed.

I am yet to call meetings and one of the members in that committee to look into the Standing Orders is that Surendran guy.

I purposely picked him because he is too critical.


This is a first- time MP, wants to look popular.

I was like that also before, very aggressive.

But it takes time for you to mellow.

DE: EEven iin oour ccase, aactually tthe PParliament iis nnot that ssupreme.

IIt’s tthe EExecutive tthat sstill hhas aa llarg- er ssay.

Pandikar: When you say Parliament is supreme, the late Karpal Singh said ‘No, No, No, Parliament is not supreme.
The Constitution is supreme because it is the Constitution that made Parliament.” Again it is a chicken and egg argument.

DE: BBut iin oour ccase, aactually tthe CConstitution iis supreme.

Pandikar: The Constitution is supreme because the Constitution came into being before Parliament was set.

DE: NNow yyou aare iinto yyour ssecond tterm.

IIn yyour view, wwhat nnew rrules aand SStanding OOrders wwould yyou propose?
AActually, wwould yyou bbe mmaking aa llist aand you ssaid yyou wwant tto ggive iit tto PPM DDatuk SSeri NNajib tto consider oor ssomething tthe llast ttime yyou ssaid.

Pandikar: The committee is there.

As far as the Parliament is concerned, we have already identified which Standing Order we would like to amend but we are yet to sit.

One of it is the Power of the Speaker and some of those things that we think are not clear.
And the moment that is being agreed by the Committee, then we have to submit it first to the Minister in charge of Parliament because if they were to agree then he is the person that ought to bring it.

Again it all depends on the Executive.

DE: TThe CCommonwealth WWomen PParliamentarian (CWP) CChief iis tthe pparliament SSpeaker ffrom UUganda.

Do yyou tthink aa MMalaysian wwoman MMP sstands aa cchance of bbeing eelected tto tthe ppost iin ffuture?
Pandikar: Can, because you see within this Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) there is a women’s movement.

Every three years, there is an election.

Of course, there are so many Malaysian women that are capable to be there.

DE: BBut sso ffar nnone wwere eelected tto tthat ppost?

Pandikar: Because nobody went for that post.

You got to be nominated, you got to contest for it.

At one time, those people were doing it like Nancy Shukri for they are active in women’s affairs.
Now she is a Minister.

We make it a point whenever we go to CPA Conferences, our delegation from the women must be also very strong.

They recognise us because, some- those times with due respect Commonwealth countries, they only talk.

Whereas ours, it’s our system, I think, that helps us.

Some other places, semua pandai cakap saja.

We always have women representatives, very strong representa- tives.

These are the people that we always bring.

There must be a continuity.


to some of DE: HHow ccome sso ffar iin MMalaysia nnobody nnomi- nated aa wwoman MMP ffrom tthe ccountry tto bbe hhead oof the CCommonwealth WWomen PParliamentarians?

Pandikar: You take turns.

Maybe one day.

The term of office is every three years.

DE: RRegarding oour ppresent ccrop oof wwomen pparlia- mentarians iin MMalaysia, hhow ddo tthey ffare iin Parliament?

AAre yyou hhappy wwith ttheir pperformance?

Are tthey uup tto tthe mmark?


Pandikar: It depends on what issue they are talk- ing about because if in Barisan Nasional (BN), for instance, some are professionals, the lawyers.

Some of course are not.

In PAS, some just talk about reli- gion and other things.

When they debate in Parliament, of course they will debate the thing that concerns them.

But when you talk about a woman MP that you can throw them anywhere, then of course you can just pick a few.

The Ketua Puteri of Umno now, she is a lawyer.


Also articulate on some other things.

These are the things that whenever I go abroad, if I were to go to Iran, for instance, I must bring MPs that have at least relevant background, something like that.

They must have at least a legal background, that kind of thing.

I just don’t pick anybody.


We would like, of course, to have MPs that have all-round qualities, not only talk about certain things within their area because not all of them are well-versed in English.

So in other words, they cannot…susah mau bawa (hard to justify bringing).

Actually conferences like this really benefit MPs in terms of exchange of ideas.

Even if they were to debate, sometimes they also keep within the time.

Very good.
Very good.

DE: DDo oour MMalaysian wwomen pparliamentarians qualify tto aattend ssuch cconferences?

Pandikar: Oh yes, I brought the Selangor State Assembly Speaker (Hanna Yeoh along to South Africa.

The first woman appointed Speaker in the Selangor Legislative Assembly, creating history in the country).

Because we must have representatives, at least 30pc.

For instance if I go to South Africa, I have to pick those who can speak English.

I cannot pick those from PAS that don’t know anything.
When you reach there, what can you do?

DE: EEven tthough sshe ((Hannah) iis iin tthe Opposition, yyou sstill bbrought hher aalong tto tthe Johannesburg CConference?

Pandikar: I also brought Azmin, Mahfuz and other opposition MPs along.

They have the right.

 From PPage 77 Minister’s Question Time.

DE: WWhat aare tthey?


Pandikar: Like the Procedure Committee, the Accounts Committee, the Privileges Committee where if assuming one Member of Parliament has breached parliamentary privilege or whatever or contempt of Parliament.

Another is Committee on MPs Affairs and Parliament Building.

That I am the Chairman and the Select Committee, the main com- mittee that will be appointing those members in those other four committees.

The Chairman also is me and the Deputy Chairman is the Prime Minister.
There are only five.

In some other countries, some- times it depends on how many ministries they have.

In particular during debate at the end of the year this Accounts Committee will scrutinise whatever budget that the Government had to think before it is debat- ed in the main House.

The objective is not to get everybody involved during the sitting to talk.

DE: BBecause iit wwill bbe aa wwaste oof pparliament’s time.
Pandikar: Yes, waste of time and during the com- mittee stage, all the heated argument will be done there.

In other words, it is just scrutinising all the raw issues.

Parliaments that practise that actually, their Members of Parliament are almost full time in Parliament, 365 days like in Japan, each Member of Parliament has their office in Parliament because they are (full time) lawmakers.

But when you look at the Malaysian Parliament, it’s different because every Thursday, we adjourn.
The MPs traditionally either from the Government or Opposition, must go back to their respective constituencies.

Therefore, as a result of that tradition, the existing committees now sometimes call for meetings, it is very difficult to fix a date.

DE: YYou aall ggo bback.

Pandikar: Yes, we all go back and what not.

They have their functions, they have their Majlis, difficult to have a quorum.
If we were to introduce commit- tees like some other Parliaments in the rest of the world, then we got to change the way our MPs work.

They must have their own office in Parliament.

It’s like a 24-hour job.

Because then they will be only lawmakers.

They also go to their constituency but less.

Whereas ours, we are politicking throughout the year.

So that must be changed.

And this must also be agreed by both sides – the Opposition and the Government.

They must look into it.


DE: MMore rresources wwill bbe nneeded ffor tthis tto bbe implemented.

Pandikar: Yes.

DE: YYou tthink tthat iis tthe iideal ddirection?

Pandikar: Of course that would be the ideal direc- tion.

But not necessarily, again back to whatever the West is practising that we must all follow.

I am also now doing it.

I would like to change some of the pro- visions in our Standing Orders, like for instance the decisions of the Speaker, for instance, is final.
DE: YYou mmean nnow iit’s nnot ffinal?

Pandikar: Of course it is final, but I don’t want it to be that way.

I do not want it to be seen that the Speaker can abuse the power.

I want to make changes whereby the Speaker’s decision can be questioned by the MPs and whatever query they have must be debated by the House.

As it is now, of course they can question the decision of the Speaker.
But their usul (motion) can only be put in all the paper but cannot be debated because Standing Order 15 says the agenda of the Government, the business of the Government, must be discussed first.

So, therefore, this one all the time no time to debate.

I don’t want to hide behind that provision.

As an example, I would like that to be amended.

DE: YYou aare wwilling tto bbe sscrutinised aas SSpeaker?

Pandikar: Oh yes.
Pandikar: Oh yes.

You see, whatever I have in mind cannot be implemented if the Executive does not take it because it is the Minister who will bring it to Parliament to debate the motions.

It’s not from the Office of the Speaker.

If the Government is agreeable, then they do that.

All I can do is make the recommendation.

Another thing that must be interesting would be a Question Time specifically for the Prime Minister.
There must be a certain day, certain time whereby all MPs can question the Prime Minister on any single issue.

Current issue that might have occurred yesterday or this morning, whatever.

That would be very fantastic, I think.

But whether the Government again is willing to take that up is another matter.

It being done elsewhere in the Commonwealth in England, New Zealand, Canada, Australia… the Prime DE: IIt hhas tto bbe ttabled ffirst iin PParliament ffor ttheir agreement.
Pandikar: Yes, whereas our system now is only Question Time in the morning from 10am to 11.30am that is Question that requires two weeks’ notice for the Ministers to answer in Parliament.

DE: TThe OOpposition wwill bbe hhappy.

SSurely wwill bbe behind yyou oon tthese rreforms ((laughter).

Pandikar: You see, that’s the reason why they (opposition) seldom disagree with me because they know for sure that behind all these curtains I really do my job as fair as possible, you know.
But some of those MPs like for instance now, they are two (oppo- sition) MPs, Surendran and Hanipa Maidin…it’s an agenda.

They just want to be famous.

DE: TThey wwant tto bbe tthe nnext KKarpal.

Pandikar: Something like that.

These are the argu- mentative MPs.

They always argue but what they have forgotten is that sometimes I tell them openly, I said, ‘Look, whatever you people are saying now, it has been said already by your seniors.’ People like Ipoh Barat (Kulasingam).

So many have said it already.


Kit Siang said it maybe 20, 30 times, even people like late Karpal Singh has said it.

I think they just want name.

DE: IIn yyour vview, hhas tthe iincreased OOpposition presence iin PParliament ssince 22008 bbeen aa ggood tthing in tterms oof llike ddebate qquality.
Pandikar: I always said during those days when the members of the Opposition were not many, but those people who were there like late Tan Sri Tan Chee Khoon, V. David, etc, when they make speech, they make sure that that their speech is within that boundary.

So long as it is for the interest of the nation, they say that out and it is taken into consid- eration by the Government because it is constructive.
This time around, the numbers of the Opposition, they use that whenever there is an issue they want to bring, not much articulation on it.

They just want to use their numbers to intimidate the Government.

Not necessarily all of them agree on a particular issue but they support.

Say for instance, Lynas (rare earth plant in Pahang) that has been debated so many times, brought about by this MP Fuziah Salleh.

But still she refused to back down.

That issue in a matured democracy would have died out.
You have to accept that the Government decides to do some- thing, then of course the Government does research first.

They also have their own experts.

I think no Government is stupid to do certain things that for sure will endanger the nation and becomes an issue to lose future elections.

So with an issue like that, they use that number as if everybody is agreeable.
If that is the aim of the question, then of course, I would prefer less number of Opposition with quality in convincing opinion, debates, constructive that the Government does not have any choice but to adopt and to implement.

DE: MMeaning tto ssay yyou ddon’t rreally ffind ttheir quality ccommensurate wwith ttheir iincreased nnumber.

Pandikar: Sometimes it would be better to have one or two Opposition but when they talk, everybody listens.
And those people who do not listen or for that matter do not adopt that, look so stupid.

I wish Parliament of Malaysia is like that.

DE: IIs KKarpal SSingh mmissed?

Pandikar: One thing about this guy.

When he speaks about one particular subject, he will speak on that subject only.

He will not divert to some other issues.

He doesn’t speak longer than neces- sary.

He speaks his mind out, he says ‘this is what I t h i n k ’.

The reason why I miss him is this.


To me, a Member of Parliament like that is just like a sharp- ener.

If I take myself to be the blade, then he is my sharpener, sharpening-stone.

I become more alert, I got to really look into my Standing Order and I must some other Commonwealth countries because I don’t want to be caught by people like him.

That is the reason why although I made the statement in Facebook and when I was asked I said, I miss this guy because of this.

Dia adalah kawan dalam lawan.


Truly, I am sin- cere when talking about it.

I was talking to the son about 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning and I didn’t realise that my tears were flowing, Oh, My God.

Because you are with these people for years sitting there, you know.

No matter what happened, I mean that’s a different issue.

It’s his profession.

And that’s what I think.

read all precedents in DE: WWhat aaspects oof oother PParliaments ddo yyou think tthat oour PParliament sshould cconsider aadopting?
The Malaysian BN and opposition parliamentarians in Johannesburg last year.