COMMENT After a round of controversy on whether he had resigned or not, Dewan Rakyat speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia was given a hero’s welcome when he stepped into the August House to chair the meeting last Monday.

The opposition MPs joined the salutation by thumping the tables. Even Azmin Ali (PKR-Gombak) urged Pandikar not to succumb to pressure and resign.

Do the past seven years’ performance of Pandikar as speaker deserve such a cheer?

In a press conference later, he confirmed that he had tendered his resignation letter to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak on March 18, but later retracted it after Najib promised to address parliamentary reforms.

Promising to restore the glory of Parliament, the two-term speaker said he would strive for it not to bow to pressure from the executive. He even said he would resign again should no parliamentary reforms be forthcoming.

Approved the ‘stopping clock’ motion

Pandikar’s statement is making himself out to be a fighter for parliamentary democracy in the past seven years.

Is he? His past record shows the opposite instead.

On the last week of the previous parliamentary meeting, the speaker approved the government’s motion to freeze the clock for three days to pass the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act Bill (Pota) and the amendments to the 1948 Sedition Act.

The consecutive clock-freezing has been unprecedented in Parliament’s history.

Pandikar, after disappearing for almost the whole meeting, finally made his appearance to chair the meeting on the amendments to the Sedition Act on the last day.

He personally approved the motion to stop the clock by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Shahidan Kassim.

Teased by MPs on his absence, Pandikar argued that he had been disguising himself and going to Chow Kit and Masjid India to gather the people’s views about Parliament.

‘Cincai’ passing of bills

On the night that the amendments to the Sedition Act were passed, the exhausted Pakatan Rakyat parliamentarians sought for the bill to be referred to a select committee for further refinement, just as they had done so before the passing of Pota.

As usual, without uttering a word, Pandikar allowed the BN MPs to vote against the opposition motion.

Such a ‘cincai’ lawmaking process significantly reduced the quality of the bill. Does the bulldozing of a bill improve the goodwill of Parliament?

Apart from that, Pandikar has a history of rejecting the opposition’s motions, such as:

i) Mahfuz Omar’s (PAS-Pokok Sena) motion on Tabung Haji purchasing a parcel of land at 1MDB’s Tun Razak Exchange;

ii) Dr Michael Jeyakumar’s (PSM-Sungai Siput) motion on Rohingya refugees;

iii) Shamsul Iskandar Md Akin’s (PKR-Bukit Katil) motion on the United States’ spying on Malaysian leaders ; and

iv) Liew Chin Tong’s (DAP-Kluang) motion on water management in response to the massive water rationing in Klang Valley and Kluang in 2014.

“No urgency” or “the matter has been handled by the government” are the frequently used justifications by Pandikar to reject the motions.

This has rendered Parliament to lose its important standing as a platform to discuss national issues affecting the people.

Pandikar also has a record of infringing on the freedom of speech of the MPs in the House.

After N Surendran (PKR-Padang Serai, photo ) criticised Pandikar as “biased” for rejecting an urgent motion to debate the demolition of a Hindu temple, a motion for Surendran’s suspension was tabled by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri.

With Pandikar deeming Nancy’s motion as “urgent” and debatable in the House, Surendran was subsequently slapped with a six-month suspension.

Actions speak louder than words

From the examples shown, Pandikar’s statement on preserving the independence of Parliament is clearly contrary to his actions.

It’s intriguing to see that Pandikar - vowing not to bow down to the executive - had submitted his resignation to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

Instead, Article 57 (2) of the Federal Constitution stipulates that the resignation letter should have been given to the clerk of the Dewan Rakyat.

Scrutinising further on the timing of Pandikar’s resignation provides us with some clues as to what could have been behind the picture.

On March 13, the speaker expressed his dissatisfaction and intention to resign, after meeting with former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad. The latter is said to have encouraged Pandikar to do so.

The 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) fiasco was reaching its boiling point at that time. On May 6, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin called for an immediate investigation into 1MDB, in contrast to his superior Najib. Three day later, Najib summoned 160 Umno division chiefs to explain the 1MDB affair.

It is not surprising that Pandikar would fight for his interests amidst the weakening of the top national leader caught in the attacks of Mahathir.

The last resort - a motion of no confidence

Despite Parliament being widely regarded as a rubber stamp for the cabinet, Pandikar still holds the last resort which could make Najib lose his premiership - the opportunity to move a motion of no confidence.

Regardless of the motion’s success, the very presentation of a motion of no confidence in the Order Paper would be a shock to Malaysian politics.

Therefore, Najib has every reason to appease Pandikar so as to prevent any such motion to be presented against the government.

We may not know what exactly Najib promised to Pandikar, but it appears to have worked. Pandikar was seen to lift the 1Malaysia finger ( photo ) along with Najib during a pro-Najib rally in Tawau, Sabah on May 10.

Although Mahathir had revealed Pandikar’s resignation six days later, it did not metamorphose into a big issue.

Before thumping the table in support of Pandikar, we should carefully examine his statements and previous records so as not to be blindly dragged along into believing what the speaker has said.

LU WEI HOONG is a member of the Malaysiakini Team.