|
 ©The
Sunday Star (Used by permission)
by Shahanaaz Habib
Lawyer Haris Ibrahim became a blogger a year back with his People's Parliament
Blog. In the general election, he wanted to kick Barisan Nasional "out on its
backside". Thrilled with Pakatan Rakyat winning five states, he nevertheless
condemns any attempt to topple the Barisan federal government through crossovers
without going back to the voters to seek their blessing first. Not to do so is
committing fraud on the voters.
Q: What exactly is the People's Parliament?
A: For me personally it is my attempt to retrieve my voice back from a
government that refuses to give me the right to speak through forums.
If I could backtrack a little, I was part of the Article 11 initiatives. We
launched our first forum in March 2006 in PJ, in April we went to Malacca - both
very successful.
In May, the one in Penang was disrupted by protestors outside. At that time, we
were comforted by the fact that (Prime Minister) Pak Lah and (the then minister
in charge of law) Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said we had the right to speak and the
protestors were chastised.
But the July forum in JB was again disrupted by protestors. This time Pak Lah
said "no more". So the People's Parliament is the culmination of so many hurdles
and obstacles to give civil society a voice.
I suppose I must also say thank you to the NST. When they sued Rocky and Jeff
Ooi, it forced me to look into blogs and realise this was a powerful opportunity
for me to share the little messages that I have with fellow Malaysians. That was
the humble beginnings of the People's Parliament.
Q: One of the things the People's Parliament did was keep tabs on MPs?
A: My complaint of the electoral process is that when parliament is
dissolved, you have only an average of 9 to 14 days between nomination and
polling day. How does the average voter get to know the candidates?
It doesn't help either that the media doesn't give balanced coverage to all the
candidates.
I was also rather disillusioned with the elected representatives inherited from
the 2004 election. My personal feeling is that they weren't living up to
expectations.
We started the Get to Know Your MP with 10 constituencies in the Klang Valley.
PJ Selatan and PJ Utara took off very well. The others - didn't take off the way
I had hoped.
Q: Why focus only on MPs and not Aduns (assemblymen)?
A: It's simply a resource issue. I can only do so much at any one time. When I
first started Get to Know Your MP, I was just a one man band.
I could only confine myself to 10 constituencies. I couldn't take on overseeing
the Aduns as well.
It's a lot of work. But Post March 8 (general election), we have moved from MPs
to initiating The Representatives Watch (Rep Watch) Committee.
We are trying to put in place committees which would buddy with MPs, Aduns, as
well as local councillors simply because people are now reacting very positively
and there seems to be a greater willingness to participate in this.
I don't know how far it will go. But if you don't try then you don't get
anywhere. The experience we have had over the one year is that voters must be
educated as to the function of their various elected representatives. In
particularly the Pakatan Rakyat states and constituencies we want to help 'our
MPs' function the way they are supposed to.
We will buddy them and try to make sure that they toe the line.
Q: It's interesting you mentioned help 'our MPs' when you mentioned Pakatan?
Does this mean the People's Parliament supports the opposition?
A: Let me make this very plain. Right up to the 12th General Election, I worked
very hard to send Barisan Nasional out on its backside. I will not make any
effort to even apologise for this.
Post-GE, we have heard a lot of talk (from Barisan) about wanting to reform. But
I have not seen any real indicator of a real will to change.
When we see that, I will be the first to stand and say 'I will help in this BN
reform." But until then, I think I want to work with the new kids on the block.
I want to make sure they don't go the way of Barisan.
These are new enthusiastic elected representatives. We want to keep them on the
straight and narrow.
Q: Why are you so insistent- in your words - on "sending Barisan out on its
backside"?
A: I have always voted opposition until 2004 when I was so taken in by the
promises of Pak Lah.
I have always been anti-Mahathir simply because I have never agreed with his
policies, with how he has dismantled our constitutional structures, institutions
particularly the judiciary.
So for myself - like a lot of other people - Pak Lah appeared to be a breath of
fresh air and a lot of promises were made.
Go look at his one page manifesto (of 2004). But by 2007, I was convinced that
this man was not going to deliver. I was extremely concerned about how the
judiciary was dealing with some of the controversial cases. We were getting
nowhere in seeing justice for the likes of Lina Joy.
We are supposed to be a civilised society but look at how Revathi (Massosai) was
dealt with. The PM kept promising us that he was looking into it but nothing was
forthcoming. I had reached breaking point.
I felt by April 2007, Barisan had become so arrogant with the mandate that has
been given (in 2004 ). The fault really was ours. We gave them a 90% mandate in
parliament and this is how we were being repaid. I felt it was enough.
Q: What would you do if a Pakatan Rakyat MP or Adun is not up to mark?
A: We are linking our initiative with the Citizen Think Tank blog. They are
going to give us space for report cards.
I'm going to be less merciful with the Pakatan reps that don't meet the mark
because we got higher expectations for them. There's going to be no preferential
here. As far as we are concerned, we are of this agenda that people are the
boss. You undertook to work for us.
We don't call you 'Yang Berhormat' anymore but we call you 'Yang Berkhidmat'.
And you are supposed to serve. And if you are not up to the mark, then we will
kick you out on your backside the next time around -Pakatan or Barisan.
Q: Are you going to monitor only the five Pakatan Rakyat states?
A: Oh no. People's Parliament is extended to any constituency. We are
encouraging civil society to take ownership of their constituency.
I don't see why we should exclude the Barisan constituencies. We are prepared to
try in any constituency where there are enough people to try and get that
initiative off the ground.
Q: How do you pick the constituencies?
A: I don't pick. I put my posting up on the blog and invite anyone from any of
the constituencies who is prepared to help me get the committee together.
To give you an example, Bukit Katil in Malacca, I don't know anyone there. But
someone writes in and says I wanna try. I'll say ok.
The Rep Watch Committee framework requires a minimum of 9 people. But this is
not cast in stone. If you think you need 12 or six is enough - great because you
guys are in the drivers' seat.
I am just helping you get it off the ground. But we've got a very stringent
disqualifying criteria.
We want non-partisan, non-political party affiliates , in fact not just
non-card-carrying members. If you are too closely connected, if you have got
business interests with the government or state agencies, if you are
contemplating or being employed or engaged by any of the state agencies - you
are out.
Based on that criteria, even I wouldn't qualify based on my close proximity to
DAP.
Q: Parliament has been sitting for 2 weeks, do you like what you've seen so
far?
A: Barisan is not consistently disappointing me - read that as you will. And
it's early days yet for the Pakatan Rakyat MPs. I think we should give them a
100 days appraisal and then a 6-month appraisal.
Q: Are there any Barisan MPs that you have regard for?
A: (Datuk) Zaid Ibrahim (the law minister who is an appointed senator but not an
elected MP) . I still have respect for Datuk Shahrir (Abdul Samad), Datuk
Shabery Cheek - not withstanding some silly statements off and on because maybe
he's under pressure - but I have always thought he was one of the better one. I
can't think of anyone else.
Q: How effective has the People's Parliament been?
A: I think Malaysians by far and large are a caring lot. But we had 22 years of
Mahathir's rule. The fear culture has set in. People need to find their voice.
People need to be bold enough to articulate their cares and concern. I would
like to think we have had some success in getting people to speak up and getting
people to be prepared to come out and be counted. I'll give you an example.
The petition to the Agong on the judiciary - two years ago, I wouldn't have
dreamt of insisting people give their names and IC numbers. Until then,
Malaysians were very happy to sign anonymously.
But (this time) we got over 5,000 signatures where people put their names and IC
numbers down. That to me is civil society coming out. I'd like to think perhaps
that's the little success that we have had.
Q : Civil society is interpreted in a lot of ways. What does civil society
mean to you?
A: Rakyat.
Q: But the rakyat has been there all the time?
So have we had civil society all this time?
A: Yes, we have. But we have a civil society that has been numbed into silence
by fear. I have been pushing for civil society defined by the power that has
been entrusted to the people by the Federal Constitution.
Simplistically, under the constitution the power rests with the Agong and his
power sharers, the rakyat. We are the civil society. But you can be robust or
you can be silenced.
Mahathir very effectively silenced us for 22 years. It's the same corpus but
people now are willing to believe in themselves.
Q: Do you think Malaysia is ready for a civil society now?
A: The 12th general election results speak for itself.
I think we are far more mature than the government has cared to credit us for.
And certainly the government shouldn't take any credit for the maturity we have
achieved up to now.
Q: So you are quite pleased with the results of the general elections?
A: We are two states short of what my prediction was.
I said (we'd win) seven states. That's the disappointment. But I also said that
if there wasn't the cheating, the double voting, the abuse of the postal votes,
we would have formed a simple majority government.
Q: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has talked about toppling the Barisan Federal
government through crossovers?
What are your views on this?
A: If there are going to be crossovers, the MPs must go back to the voters to
get the mandate because otherwise it would be tantamount to a fraud.
While I wanted Barisan out on their backside, I must be prepared to respect that
there were voters that preferred Barisan.
If a candidate got in on a Barisan ticket and now for whatever reasons thinks
perhaps he wants to throw his lot with Pakatan he needs to go back to the voters
and hear their views because they voted for him on a Barisan ticket.
If they say 'no, you stay put' then you stay put.
Q: But in politics you don't show your hand. Surely it is difficult to expect
30 MPs to go back to voters for a mandate to crossover?
A: If that's not practical, then I'd rather wait another four years to take the
federal government!
Because I don't think those who voted Pakatan should do such a disservice to
those voted for Barisan.
If we want our vote to be respected, we must respect the vote of voters aligned
to Barisan.
I abhor the notion that politicians can undermine the voters' choice.
Q: But Anwar argues that if the elections were free and fair, then Pakatan
would have formed the Federal government?
A: Free and fair like the 1994 Sabah elections (when PBS won but the state
government fell weeks later when PBS assemblymen defected to Barisan)?
I posed Anwar that question when he was complaining about the Ijok by-election.
My question was I wonder how clean it would have been if he (Anwar) hadn't been
sacked in Sept of 1998 and he was the Prime Minister now. He was in several
elections in this country which were bloody dirty.
Q: What do you think about PKR MPs who offer to resign to 'force' a
by-election so that Anwar can make a political comeback?
A: Just before the elections, when I was asked if I would speak at Loh
Gwo-Burne's ceramah in his support, I asked him if he was 'planted' to hold the
seat for Anwar because if that's the case I wouldn't speak in the forum.
Or if I spoke I would speak against it because to me that too would be a fraud
on the voter. If you are merely 'planted' there to hold the seat, then you must
tell the voter this is the game plan.
The voters must know. He assured me that there was no such plan. I told him if
after the event, it turned out otherwise, he would rue the day he ever met me!
He knows me well enough to know I meant what I said. It's not enough to explain
to the voter after the event.
Candidates owe us an obligation to be honest and transparent.
Q: In the event Anwar tries to make a comeback through a 'forced'
by-election, what would your stand be?
A: You'll find me condemning him. I'll certainly be condemning the fraud on the
voter. If a vacancy is contrived - if that was the game plan before - well
before the general election, I will condemn it.
Q: If Anwar were to stand in such a by-election, you wouldn't offer yourself
as a candidate against him would you?
A: Don't discount it. All things are possible.
Q: So you do have political ambitions?
A: None at all. But I have political statements which I think must be made.
If I feel there is a need for take a position in a by-election simply to alert
the voters to think with their brains in operation then I will. I got nothing to
lose.
Q: Pakatan Rakyat sees Anwar as their potential PM. Do you?
A: I say it with reluctance because I look at what's available before us. That
speaks very sadly of the state of things here.
My grouse with Anwar is that he was part of the administration for 16 years.
When he was released in Oct 2004 and had a dialogue with the Bar, I was the
first to ask him why he hadn't resigned like (Tun) Musa Hitam had done rather
than stick with the regime that did all the things that he now complains about.
Till today he has not given me a satisfactory answer! My contention is very
simple. Tell this nation "I was wrong. I am sorry and I want to work with you"
and I think we can move forward.
But the fact is I have been tracking this man's (Anwar) public statements for
the last few years and I haven't seen that unqualified apology to the nation. I
haven't.
Q: Do you trust him?
A: No.
Q: You said a lot of negative things about Mahathir. Is there anything you
like about him?
A: That he retired! I have great passion for the law. When I was in England in
1987 and 1988, it was very painful to watch what he was doing to (Lord
President) Tun Salleh Abbas and then the amendments to the constitution in 1988.
We have never recovered from those days up to now.
All the Protons, twin towers and KLIA - that was one man's ego. We didn't need
that. We could have had first class hospitals in all states and residential
schools instead of building monstrosities. We could have done so much more for
the rakyat but we didn't.
Q: Pak Lah has tried to make amends by recently introducing reforms of the
judiciary?
A: Unless he tells me that the Judicial Commission recommends directly to the
Majesty and not to the PM who still maintains his discretion!
Why are we talking about judicial commission now?
Because we had one PM who misbehaved. Even if you tell me Pak Lah is putting
these reforms in place and would never do what Mahathir did, what if in the
future this country is blighted with another Mahathir? I am saying don't leave
that discretion to one man.
Let the Judicial Commission make the recommendation directly to the Majesty,
then I will say 'hats off' and I will forgive you (Pak Lah) some of the promises
you made in 2004 and did not deliver. Don't give us this little flirtations
simply because your own party is turning the heat on you. Don't give us this
little dangles with the hope that people will still say we still want him . It's
not going to work.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
