Pandikar, did you expect MPs to take your ruling lying down?

YOURSAY | ‘When you disallow questions by MPs, you are denying the rakyat’s right to be heard.’

Speaker unhappy his decisions challenged in court

Anonymous 2436471476414726: Dewan Rakyat speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia is not pleased that his decisions are being challenged in court, after Petaling Jaya Selatan MP Hee Loy Sian filed an originating summons in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur to challenge Pandikar's decision to reject his two questions related to the 1MDB scandal. During the Dewan Rakyat session last week, opposition MPs had criticised the speaker after he rejected more than 30 questions related to the 1MDB scandal.

Pandikar, you are driving the opposition MPs up the wall with your blatant bias when it comes to the topic of 1MDB. Perfectly legitimate questions on this scandal have been disallowed in your attempt to defend MO1.

So what do you expect these MPs to do? Take your ruling lying down? Not anymore. You have abused your power as Speaker and this is clear for all to see.

Don't play the victim. Don't be angry if opposition MPs pursue other venues to seek justice and fair play. By your obvious act of showing partiality in favour of the ruling party, you have desecrated the sanctity of our August House.

Appum: One can just express unhappiness when he is treated the way he treats others without realizing the people are also not happy with his performance in his capacity to be fair, professional, and maintain the high honour of that position.

His biased actions obvious to all, his restrictive attitude to the people’s representatives or MPs, and his dismissive approach towards important national issues render his position one that cannot be respected by ordinary people.

If the people’s concern about pertinent issues and affairs of the state can never be discussed in the August House because the Speaker views them as non-issues, where else can they be debated? On the streets and kopitiams?

In fact, the country has never seen such a skewed Speaker ever before, making this the worst we have had in the history of our Parliament.

Kim Quek: Pandikar’s case is the same as attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali’s case – they claim their decisions are above the law by virtue of the Federal Constitution Article 63(1) and Article 145(3) respectively.

In other words, when the AG refuses to prosecute an allegedly notorious criminal or the Speaker throws out important questions on absurd grounds, his decision cannot be challenged in any court of law.

If that is the case, wouldn’t they be deemed to have been endowed with the kind of absolute power enjoyed only by monarchs of an era gone by? Wouldn’t that sound queer in modern times in a country with rule of law?

Very regrettably, our Federal Court had already ruled on July 28 in favour of Apandi on this issue thus crowning our AG with such “absolute power”. Let’s see whether our High Court judge will have better common sense and higher judicial integrity to put this nonsensical interpretation of the law to rest and restore the principle of rule of law through the coming Pandikar case.

Anonymous 2456321485312809: Pandikar, you say that "Article 63(1) of the Federal Constitution has lost its meaning." Indeed, it is you who destroyed the meaning of the entire Constitution by blatantly abusing your power when you disallowed legitimate questions that needed to be asked in a place where they should be asked.

Cogito Ergo Sum: When you disallow questions, you are really disallowing the people's questions from being asked. An MP is the representative of the people. Your implied impartiality is a guarantee that the voice of the people will be heard.

You, by your self-serving behaviour, have denied the people this right and you have become an impediment to parliamentary democracy. The buck, not the questions, stops with you.

Vijay47: Pandikar, I didn’t pass my Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, but I would suggest that you try MEM 1414 since your condition seems to have worsened beyond what Prozac or Ritalin can treat.

Yes, loss of memory can be a beach as some describe it. Only yesterday you expressed your anguish over how misunderstood you were regarding the manner you applied your sacred role as parliament speaker, why it was totally reasonable for you to reject 30 opposition questions.

And though not a hero, your "boy standing on the burning deck" speech was peppered with humour that Najib himself would have appreciated.

Today, you seem aggrieved that some spoilsports actually disagree with your decisions and have taken the matter to court. Perhaps you could advise the opposition MPs who they could turn to in view of your stubborn bias.

So Dr Jekyll one day, Mr Hyde the next. If MEM 1414 does not work, try Olanzapine, it does wonders for schizophrenia. Or else take two tablets and call me in the morning.

KnockKnock: Sir, as a speaker it's your prerogative to reject questions, one or two or three but not at all 30 at one go. Something fishy arises, unless you the only person who does not think so.

What's the point of having a parliament in the country if it does not function fairly like other parliaments in the whole world? Just ban all the opposition parties - except PAS of course - and we hear only one voice: "Yes Minister!". - Mkini