Trivial Parliament

Let's look at the following excerpt from a news report:

Anwar's motion to discuss drop in Petronas' revenue rejected

By: By Husna Yusop and Hemananthani Sivanadam at the Dewan Rakyat (Mon, 14 Dec 2009)

Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi

KUALA LUMPUR (Dec 14, 2009): THE Dewan Rakyat today rejected a motion by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (PKR-Permatang Pauh) to discuss the 37.5% drop in Petronas' half-year revenue this year to RM98.2 billion from RM157.2 billion in the same period last year.

Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar said although the issue was specific and of public importance, it was not urgent to be debated.

When his decision was questioned by several opposition MPs, Wan Junaidi said the government has considered the facts before drafting the 2010 Budget and Petronas has said it would be able to meet payments to the government.

He also said the House was rushing to approve the budget at committee stage and the issue could be brought up later when debating other bills.

In his motion, Anwar said that according to the Petronas financial report, the national oil company suffered a serious drop in revenue amounting to RM58 billion for the first six months of this year compared to the same period last year.

1.  While acknowledging that the issue raised was  'specific and of public interest', the speaker rejected it from being debated in the Parliament because the issue 'was not urgent'.

2.  The scene was but only one of the many episodes of  'specific, of public importance' and yet 'not urgent motions' raised by MPs, mostly from the Opposition, thus did not deserved to be discussed in the noble house.


3.  Another example in recent past is the PKFZ issue; see the remark made by Lim Kit Siang below in a blog:


My question on the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal for the first day of the budget session of Parliament on Monday, 19th October 2009 has been kicked off to seven weeks later to December 3 at the tail-end of the meeting, as if the PKFZ scandal is a trivial and inconsequential matter.

4.  The latter proved to be not so trivial after all; the issue has failed to fade from the pages of the daily papers since it first surfaced.  Any less important  matter cannot last that long.


5.   Both instances are (in the present, as in their past 'tense') very specific and very important matters#, for they involve public money, are indicators of the nature of governance, and are direct tests to the 1Malaysia concept.


6.  But are they, and indeed were they, trivial, or do they lack urgency?


7.  It seems that urgency and triviality are measured according to some standards decided by the Speaker of the Parliament, if there are indeed any standard.


8.  It is probably more apt to say that these matters are left to the whims and fancies of the Speaker.


9.  But then the Speaker is never known to be a trivial being; the persons standing for the Speaker have been meticulously hand-picked by the Power-that-be; and do they they have 'qualifications'...


10.  At the very least, whatever the Speaker does must be in the interest of that power.  


11.  Hence it is the interest of the power, that is the government of the day, when the Speaker utters the expression 'Yes, it is specific, important, but I am afraid, not urgent.  So, we will not debate it now.'


12.  The expression of the Speaker concludes the matter as far as Parliament is concerned.  The Parliament can now move to more urgent matters such as the benefits of Tongkat Ali, whatever happens to Amalina, and the stinking habits of our taxi drivers.


13.  It is no wonder then that the matters are being played in the courts of the bloggers, and the rest of the human species of Malaysian kind, as they speculate on whatever happens to Petronas and PKFZ, and their national property.  That is, while somebody is presumably working around the clock, behind the door, trying to 'fix the problems' so that everything that finally comes out will fit nicely into 1Malaysia.