Thank you very much, malaysiakini for hosting the exclusive interview with Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz. Nazri must certainly be the 'man of the hour' what with the current controversies generated by his several untoward remarks in the mainstream newspapers recently.

I particularly like the parts where malaysiakini pointedly asked Nazri: "What are the sensitivities?" and "Have you been cleared of the taxi permit allegations?"

Although the interview did manage to cover quite a wide range of issues, it left a number of disturbing questions in its wake. And certain issues that have been very close to my heart remained unanswered:

1. Is Nazri personally in favour of the new composition formula for the Public Accounts Committee and that this will become the prescription for the future? If yes, why was there absolutely no hint at all in all his rhetoric that he indeed favors co-opting of the opposition into the committee?

2. Nazri had contended that "the Public Accounts Committee must remain within the control of the ruling BN, lest the body is used to scrutinise 'sensitive' information on national security."

It is understandable that every government will have some 'sensitive' information just as commercial enterprises have 'trade secrets.' I do not think that the opposition would be so nave as to undermine national security.

On the contrary, DAP's recent public statements have been very rational and intellectual as compared to what comes out from our honorable minister of information and his deputy recently.

Was Nazri implying that even as the opposition is co-opted into the PAC, access to information by the deputy chairman and the committee members will be censored by the chairman?

If not, why would it matter whether the opposition assumes the chairmanship or the deputy chairmanship post? What then are the powers and responsibilities of the deputy chairman vis--vis the chairman?

Nazri's basic contention that "the PAC must remain within the control of the government", ought to be re-examined. Is this contention an established premise in all respectable democracies throughout the world or is it merely Nazri's personal opinion?

What the opposition and the public are more concerned about are the issues of corruption and the abuse and misuse of public money, full stop. How does Nazri intend to safeguard against malpractice, when such malpractice can readily escape the scrutiny of the PAC through a readily open 'backdoor?' This very crucial issue has not been addressed.

3. Nazri keeps harping that "the practicality of governance requires that certain information be kept away from those who have no knowledge of being in government."

Is Nazri alluding that the Barisan Nasional's unbroken rule since independence has been detrimental to democracy in Malaysia, such that today, we cannot even afford to have an opposition to chair the Public Accounts Committee, due to lack of governmental experience?

Is Nazri aware that, under the constitution of Malaysia, the opposition is eligible to run the government at any time, and that the ultimate decision does not reside with the Barisan Nasional, but rests solely with the people of Malaysia?

Is prior experience a prerequisite to form a government in any democracy? Where then did the Alliance, the precursor of the Barisan Nasional, get its first experience? And if the opposition is eligible to run an entire government, why should it then be disqualified from running a tiny mini PAC?

4. When Nazri stated that "the BN administration has no plans to relinquish its privileged control of information," would not the next logical question be on whose authority was such privileged control conferred? Who is then to determine whether the exercise of this 'privileged control' has been abused?

5. Nazri claimed that "the convergence of the agenda of the prime minister and the opposition in relation to parliamentary reform has made his job easier."

If indeed this is so, should we then not ask Nazri why he always appears to be locking horns with Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, with no apparent hope of meeting him halfway? Was Nazri mistaken as to Abdullah's agenda, erroneously assuming that it must be of the same vein as that of Mahathir?

6. As minister in the prime minister's department in charge of parliamentary affairs, what is Nazri's personal conviction on the quality of parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the Malaysian context?

Nazri has mentioned in the mainstream press that the role of MPs in Malaysia are different from those in other countries: "The benchmark for a good MP in Malaysia is not how well he performs in parliament, but how often he visits his constituency, how many kenduri and majlis he attends and how he looks into the needs of the people."

Article 44 of the constitution of Malaysia, however, states: "The legislative authority of the federation shall be vested in a parliament ..."

Further, Article 66 states: "The power of parliament to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by both Houses and, except as otherwise provided in this article, assented to by the Yang di Pertuan Agong."

And Malaysia 1994 published by the ministry of information, states: "The federal parliament is the supreme legislative authority in Malaysiaparliament also serves as the forum for criticism and the focus of public opinion on national affairs. Through debates in parliament, the policies and actions of the government are kept attuned to the state of public opinion."

How does Nazri intend to reconcile his opinion of the role of parliamentarians with those professed by the constitution of Malaysia and the ministry of information in 1994?

7. Malaysians have very recently voted in a whopping 198 BN MPs out of 219 seats available in parliament to represent them. There has been an increase of 50 BN MPs since the last election.

Nazri admitted that it is 'a daunting task' to even ensure the presence of 40 MPs out of the total 198 elected. Is Nazri also saying that he is not confident that even the 50 new MPs would play their parliamentary roles? Do opposition parties face the same disciplinary problems?

Nazri added: "It is human nature to see people slacking, including MPs we are keeping tabs on everyone, and have informed them that they have to buck up, or not expect to be nominated next time around. The main fear of all MPs is that they will not be nominated."

Is Nazri admitting that BN MPs have failed the people, if the only thing that keeps them going is not a sense of responsibility to the people but the fear of not being nominated the next time round?

And won't live telecasts of parliamentary proceedings be the perfect mechanism to ensure that BN MPs are kept on their toes in parliament? What has Nazri to say about Lim's RM500,000 alternative proposa l to air the parliamentary sittings? And if Nazri believes that Lim's idea is not workable, is he willing to challenge him?

8. By its very name, the primary role of MPs must be to attend parliament, for had it been otherwise, would it not be more appropriate to call them members of kenduri ?

Is not the ' buddy system ', then, a clear admission of the dismal failure of the BN government to control the discipline of its own MPs, thereby making a mockery of the people in giving them a 90.4 percent control of parliament?

Could this be the real reason why Nazri had said in the New Straits Times on May 16 that "Malaysian voters are not as mature as their Western counterparts?"

The 'buddy system' is undoubtedly a tacit approval for parliamentarian indiscipline. By instituting this system in parliament, the government has obviously sent the wrong message to its own MPs that it is willing to sanction, endorse and legitimise their truancy and absenteeism.

It may be well for the Barisan Nasional to make a hasty retreat and to take constructive measures to address the absenteeism problem squarely and honestly, for the message is very clear and unequivocal to me and the Malaysian electorate that BN does not deserve to have so many elected representatives in parliament.

With the recent refurbishing of the parliament house, there is no doubt that we do have a first class parliament building. Ostensibly, it is clear that Nazri does not believe that our country ought to be a first class parliamentary democracy when he believes that "the benchmark for a good MP in Malaysia is not how well he performs in Parliament."

First class infrastructure, third class mentality then. Or should I say, first class opposition, third class government?

9. Nazri remarked that "when we want to make changes, we cannot be dictated by what people outside think."

Is Nazri contradicting Abdullah's statement that non-governmental organisations are "the eyes and ears of the government" and that he [Abdullah] also wants to work closely with the opposition?

Nazri seems to be singing a different tune and gives me the impression that either the prime minister is a hypocrite or that Nazri is working for a different prime minister.

Is not the government, a 'mirror of the people' and if the government truly believes in democracy, is this not a 'government of the people, by the people and for the people?' Who then dictates change?

It may be well for me to sum up my personal opinions after this latest interview with malaysiakini .

Nazri does not convince me that he truly believes in parliamentary democracy and is therefore not the right man to be in charge of parliamentary affairs. He ought to switch portfolio if I am going to be convinced that Abdullah is determined to uphold the principle and essence of parliamentary democracy.

Undoubtedly, parliamentary democracy will suffer under Nazri's charge.

There are 'tell-tale' signs in the interview and in previous remarks made by Nazri in the mainstream newspapers that the Barisan Nasional is suffering a malaise as a consequence of being too long in power - complacency has set in.

While I have previously supported BN's 90.4 percent control of parliament, if only to prevent a power struggle within Umno and would still like the Barisan Nasional to continue running the government for a long time to come, I would now definitely welcome the opposition to break BN's two-thirds majority in parliament, if only to uplift the standard of parliamentary democracy in Malaysia.

I must admit that my 'feel good' sentiment for Abdullah died with the announcement of the 'buddy system' in parliament. But the recent announcement of the new PAC composition has saved the day.

On another note, I must agree that Nazri is an extremely open and frank person and my personal opinion of him has improved tremendously after the malaysiakini interview. He appeared more sedate and mellow during the interview.

These qualities are worth commending and I sincerely feel that he will make a believable and creditable minister of information. I certainly hope that he will listen to opposing views, both from the opposition and the Malaysian electorate, if only to improve the quality of decisions made.

I also do admire his sporting spirit in accepting the DAP's invitation to the dialogue on parliamentary reforms and in agreeing to give an exclusive interview to malaysiakini for the benefit of its readers.