Hypocrisy vs incompetence: Which turns voters off more?

Mariam Mokhtar, Malaysia Chronicle

The final sitting of the Dewan Rakyat was marred by chaos. The Speaker had barred opposition MPs from debating Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s suspension. Furthermore, their microphones had allegedly been muted. Further uproar ensued when a motion to suspend Anwar triggered a mass walk-out.

The opposition lawmakers may have caused disorder in the house but the Speaker only has himself to blame. He did not respect the democratic principles in, of all places, the Dewan Rakyat. As such, he did not command the respect of the opposition benches. Had he shown impartiality, then he could have avoided the pandemonium.

Was this the level of competency that Najib proudly claimed our politicians possessed? Is he proud that his Speaker brought the House into ill-repute?

In a press conference, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin claimed that the opposition’s chaotic behaviour was to divert attention from the lie told by Anwar Ibrahim linking 1Malaysia to OneIsrael.

“It was a deliberate attempt by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to shift attention away that he lied about APCO, and to portray that he was victimised,” he told reporters at the Parliament lobby.

Khairy said Barisan wanted to debate the motion but the Opposition did not want a debate and so they became rowdy, creating an atmosphere not conducive for debate.

“We (Barisan) felt it should be debated so that both sides can voice their arguments,” and he scorched suggestions that BN wanted to “bulldoze through and rubber stamp” the motions.

Unsurprisingly, Khairy failed to mention that the supposed debate on the second motion to suspend three other Pakatan lawmakers, Karpal, Azmin and Sivarasa, had been conducted to a hall devoid of opposition lawmakers who had walked out earlier.

Or that the Speaker had prevented Pakatan lawmakers from debating Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s suspension.

Or that the opposition microphones had been switched off.

Or that Anwar had accused Parliament’s rights and privileges committee of pushing for his suspension without hearing his defense on his allegations about US-based consultancy APCO, and agreed to his suspension, in a meeting in his absence.

Or that when Anwar was referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee, the Speaker had promised a proper hearing where documents would be presented, and where Anwar could present his defense.

Or that the Parliament Hansard dated April 22, clearly showed when Ipoh Timor MP Lim Kit Siang had raised the issue, and the Speaker had stated that the Rights and Privileges committee would call witnesses to testify and documents to be presented.

Khairy claimed that the behaviour of the opposition members had left a black mark and was a ‘first’ in the history of Malaysian parliament.

It seems that Khairy has conveniently avoided the denial of Anwar’s rights to defend himself, as probably the black mark in Parliament.

Moreover, Khairy appeared unfazed by Karpal’s comments that the suspensions would be counter-productive to BN.

Khairy arrogantly declared: “If they (Pakatan Rakyat) think it will benefit them politically, then don’t complain. We did what was right.”

Not surprisingly, Khairy did not at all refer to the incompetence of the Speaker to maintain order in the house or even to discharge his duties fairly and to remain neutral at all times.

It is the abuse of the voters’ trust that Khairy is guilty of. Both his hypocrisy and incompetence are what voters cannot stand.