Is the Dewan Rakyat a rubber stamp institution?

Lately, we have begun asking questions that we have not bothered asking in the past - probably for having taken some things as a given.

One great example in the recent past is about how the whole nation seems to have suddenly become aware about the concept of a caretaker government, though this word had existed in every election we have had in the past but never really adhered to. 

Similarly, after the Prevention of Crime (Amendment and Extension) Bill 2013 (PCA - now an Act) was passed in Parliament late on Wednesday, (early Thursday to the outside world), we seem to be asking for accountability from the Opposition MPs who were not in the House when bloc voting was called for PCA on Wednesday.

Probably those like me who work in the media line are also responsible in forming the kind of discourses in the media that later trend for a few days before petering off, largely aided by the people’s sentiments. 

And while I take it as a positive sign that the people are asking for a proper show of accountability from Pakatan MPs (this shows that the people will not blindly approve of anything Pakatan does either), I am called to ask this rather pertinent question which I feel many of us - including me - have failed to ask - how does our Dewan Rakyat function? 

How does it work - where is the House’s accountability? What is the scope of MPs and ministers within this August House?

I was in the Parliament building from day to night, every day of the sitting, since the PCA amendments were tabled for first reading on the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept 25, in the House. 

As a matter of fact, despite being made aware of what new bills we could expect in a sitting before a parliamentary session commences, none of us had any idea about the arrival of these bill(s) until Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Shahidan Kassim (above) hinted to me and a handful of other media personnel on Sept 23  evening that we should expect a new item of legislation on Wednesday.

I, like the rest of the nation in all probability, took it as a given that the Opposition MPs would be aware of this matter as well.

It was not until late Tuesday that I realised from my conversations with the MPs that they had no idea that the bill was coming.

As PKR’s Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar pointed out to us, shedid not know of the bill until she was tipped off by a media person.

This fact was quickly swept under the carpet as the MPs prepared for the debate on the bills, and began engaging with Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (right) in order to buy more time to debate the crucial bills. 

Early this week, the Opposition MPs had prepared 10 proposed changes to the amendments (among which - to change the preamble, remove detention without trial, provide a suspect with legal representation), and sent their proposals to the speaker in order to be raised during the Committee Stage of the Bill debate.

By this time, various engagements had already taken place between PKR deputy president Azmin Ali, who was leading the Pakatan movement against the bill, and Ahmad Zahid. Until Wednesday afternoon, talks were still ongoing, with the inspector general of police spotted in Parliament. 

Possibility of softening stance

This gave raise to the possibility of the government softening its stance on the way the bill had been drafted.

The possibility was real, because Ahmad Zahid had been saying all along since last Wednesday that the bill could have changes in the committee stage and the government is open to “fine-tuning” it in the last minutes.

It was not until he read out the bill for second reading on Tuesday did his tone change abruptly - the bill had changed from something that was "necessary" to something "urgent".

It was clear the minister simply wanted the bill to be passed and done with on the following day - Wednesday, which is what the government and the House pushed for. 

They did this even though they had an extra day - Thursday, to make further changes to the bill if they really wanted it and spend another few hours to go through every part.

Eventually, on Thursday, the accompanying crime law bills (12 in total) were simply withdrawn and the House adjourned at lunchtime.

This gives rise to more questions as to why the government was insistent on seeing the bill through on Wednesday, way past midnight.

Now we come to the issue of bloc voting, which has got everyone talking.

Bloc voting, as a matter of fact, is not called for by the speaker, which means there is no anticipation on when or how it was going to happen. It was called by Azmin himself, in order to prevent the bill from going to the committee stage. 

Until the afternoon of the same day, many Opposition MPs I knew were still not sure whether the government fully intended to pass the full bill on Wednesday itself.

The real possibility remained that it would be passed on Thursday, the last day of the current session.

The bill first went into second reading on Tuesday afternoon, which is when MPs were allowed to have lengthy debates on its merits and demerits. 

These debates will normally take two or more days of sitting, but only nine MPs (both sides included) were given the floor before the minister stood up to answer issues raised during the debate (this normally takes a few hours with interjections and explanations from the minister), but Ahmad Zahid wrapped up his answers in little over an hour. 

It was probably then that the  certainty dawned for us, the media personnel, and unmistakably for a few MPs as well, that the government was going to push this to the committee stage, after which the bill will be validated by Dewan Rakyat. T

he speaker only rules based on a rather simple voice vote- when people who say “setuju” must be louder than those who say “tidak setuju”. 

Azmin, in order to stall the process, called for a bloc vote to prevent the House of reconvening immediately as a “committee”, which is when every part of the bill - every section - will be debated before being gazetted as part of the final Act.

Stalling exercise

At this notice, the bell will ring for two minutes to allow every MP in and around the Parliament building area to get into the House and have their votes counted.

This was, of course, nothing more than a stalling exercise. Even if all 89 Pakatan MPs had voted, it would still fall short as BN, at any given time, can gather at least 100 MPs (including ministers) to vote for any process.

Merely to stall, the Opposition MPs called for bloc votes three times that night, until the speaker, Pandikar Amin Mulia (right), had to plead with them not to call for another one.

As one minister later put it when met outside, the Pakatan MPs were “bullying” the BN MPs into stretching this as long as possible. The bloc vote call was nothing but a symbol - an exercise to send a message and a show of strength - it was never about numbers.

And at the end of a mentally exhausting day, there was no fine-tuning of the bill after all.

In fact, the father of moderation and transformation, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak rushed to the House twice that evening shortly after returning from his overseas trip to make sure the bill was passed. No changes were made. No further dialogues took place.

If the word “bulldozed through” was used generously before, it was definitely not the case for the PCA, which was definitely rushed and bulldozed through.

It is up to the people to decide where they would channel their disappointments to, but the fact remains that questions need to be asked about how our Lower House, despite its debates and political fieriness, is anything more substantive than its brother, the Upper House. 

The Upper House has been called a rubber stamp for decades. Isn’t the Lower House one, too, as the evidenced on Wednesday?

---

RAM ANAND is a member of the Malaysiakini team.