INFORMATION Minister Zainuddin Maidin has disappointed me again - this time, he has ruled out live broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings. Which, of course, is hardly a surprise!
The reason he gave - Malaysians are not mature enough to accept MPs' behaviour and racially charged debate.
Oh, is that so? By saying that Malaysians are not mature enough, it means you and I are not intelligent enough to comprehend what our politicians are talking about in Parliament and will be affected by their words and actions in the august House.
Come on, Zam, say it - Malaysians are so gullible and stupid!
If the honourable minister is really interested in the truth, I would like him to know that many Malaysians are aware that there are also a bunch of jokers in Parliament and we take them for what they are - jokers. They provide entertainment for the public and can be a good de-stressing 'tool' for a lot of over-stressed Malaysians.
The issue of live telecast for parliamentary proceedings is not a new subject, neither is it a dull one. It had been raised many times in the past. And every time it comes up in the media, it never fails to grab my attention. Somehow, I find this a refreshing subject to talk about.
Perhaps it is because I do not have the time nor the energy these days to go to Parliament and observe our elected representatives at 'work' - doing what they do best and what they had been elected for - TALK. Of course, often they do more than that - they also entertain.
Years ago, I used to enjoy attending parliamentary sittings and would make an effort to go there once or twice a week when the august House was in session. Of course, I would choose the interesting days to attend when controversial and important bills would be tabled and when the prime minister and senior cabinet members would be making their winding-up speeches.
Make better judgement
The proceedings would generally get more livelier when the opposition leader and other vocal opposition MPs 'crossed swords' with their fellow parliamentarians across the hall.
At times, it would get out of hand and this was when the speaker would have to show his mettle at being the boss in Parliament. The late Tun Mohd Zahir was one experienced, tolerant and compassionate speaker who, as I had observed, was highly regarded by all members in the House. I am not sure how the present speaker is perceived by his peers.
Zam's statement yesterday about Parliament and live telecast of parliamentary proceedings is one that is not likely to go down well with many Malaysians. I feel it is important for all of us, citizens of a democratic and independent nation, to be aware of what is going on in our law-making body and how those who are elected to serve us are performing. Seeing them in action and how they perform will help us make better judgement the next time we cast our votes.
Or is Zam worried that some ministers and MPs would be caught on camera dozing off in Parliament?
Malaysiakini columnist Sim Kwang Yang once wrote that "Parliament is the supreme political institution in the land, embodying as it does the general will of our sovereign nation.
"Tragically, that it needs reform escapes the great majority of citizens, or is it because most of us do not care at all?
"But if we were to agree that somehow, our entire political process needs an overhaul, it should well start from Parliament."
I couldn't agree more with my friend.
Early this year, I find Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Aziz's suggestion about airing the one-hour Question Time live on television a very refreshing development.
Same old tune
Previous calls in the past for live telecast were from the opposition. That it came from the minister in-charge of parliamentary affairs this time could possibly make all the difference, so I had thought. But now, we know it did not.
The minister also said then that he was determined to ensure the proposal to air the session on television will not be fouled by the many shortcomings, such as the time factor, financial costs and the often embarrassing behaviour of some parliamentarians.
In the past, the reasons for saying 'No' to live telecast ranged from prohibitive cost and a lack of viewer interest to doubts whether the sometimes acrimonious exchanges in Parliament were suitable for public consumption. Here, we can judge that the information minister is still singing the same old tune today.
I was also glad then to hear Nazri's proposal for an interim measure to broadcast parliamentary proceedings on the Internet to the speaker while awaiting approval for the Question Time to be televised. Till today, I have not heard of anything being implemented to that effect.
I am not sure whether Zam had referred the matter to his cabinet colleagues when he announced an outright 'No' to live telecast of parliamentary proceedings. I feel he ought to listen first to what others have to say on the matter.
I honestly feel that Nazri's suggestion should be received favourably. There is nothing wrong in giving this a try despite the misgivings people have about Parliament.
A live telecast will help to make MPs and ministers more careful, more prepared, more thorough and more conscious of what they say.
As Kota Baru MP Zaid Ibrahim once said, "Some of our ministers are so entrenched in their comfort zones that they feel they don't need to be accountable to MPs in their replies."
On the occasional name-calling traded across the floor which some are saying is not a very good thing to show on television, the vocal MP from Kelantan again looked at it positively. He felt that "it's healthier to discuss sensitive issues openly in Parliament rather than have these discussions go underground and spread via SMS or by whisper campaigns".
Pak Lah's legacy
I suppose Zaid knows what he is talking about as he had been the victim of a nasty smear campaign purportedly carried out by his political opponents in the round-up to the last Umno elections. In his case, the MP would prefer to let his action as an elected representative from Umno do the talking for him among his party comrades.
I also see this move for Parliament live telecast as a legacy for the Pak Lah Administration as it will be a further endorsement of the prime minister's pledge to run a clean, open and transparent government.
We can recall that while selecting his candidates for the 2004 general election, Pak Lah stated that he would expect all the Barisan Nasional candidates to perform and that they must all submit a report card to him charting the work carried out for the benefit of the people.
What better way then to monitor their achievements than to allow the people the full opportunity to see their elected representatives in action on television. There should be no worries about such telecasts because it will function like a double-edge knife for both the government and opposition
MPs.
The citizens will know who are those genuine workers of the people and country and those who seek public office for a different reason.
But no, Zam has a different opinion. It seems he prefers Parliament to be the private domain of the 'elected', conveniently forgetting who put the 'elected' there in the first place.
Oh, Zam, your announcement yesterday was so disappointing, so very disappointing.
FRANCIS PAUL, clearly disappointed with the minister's decision, is seriously thinking of returning to Sarawak and live in a tree house with no television. He can be reached at [email protected]
