for whom the bell tolls?

The de facto Law Minister, Dato' Nazri Aziz gave the following interview in the wake of the resignation of the BBC Chairman Datuk Shahrir Ahmad to the NST (7th May).

(Warning: may contain some nauseating statements and logical inconsistencies)

The first salvo:

Thesis: As a rule the Barisan Nasional does not support any Opposition motion or resolution.

Justification: They too don’t support us. When the Government referred Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) to the Rights and Privileges Committee, the Opposition did not support it. They voted along party lines, they refused to accept that Karpal could have committed what he was accused of.

Conclusion: So along the same lines, I, as deputy Whip, cannot allow any BN member (going by the Opposition motion) to be referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee.

The second salvo:

If anything, the party involved (Customs and Excise Department) should have lodged a police report or reported it to the Anti-Corruption Agency. Those are the agencies which should be investigating the claim. Not the Rights and Privileges Committee.

Let other agencies do it. MPs are not above the law.

I am unsure why the MPs are so adamant to finding out the truth behind the newspaper reports; if the reports are proven untrue, then the names of the MPs could be cleared by initiating an investigation into the matter. After all, isn't 'berani kerana benar, takut kerana salah'?

I suppose the MPs will conjure up other excuses - no time, not important, have other important things to discuss, only an Opposition's attempt to discredit the MPs etc. - though I would think that their recent jaunt over the bow-ties being worn in the Parliament constitutes a graver waste of precious hours, which could be used to discuss other pressing, less superficial issues.

I think any sane-minded person if wrongly accused, would agree to any attempts to clear his or her name; only if the person have something else to hide would he balk at the suggestion.

It is as simple as that; if only the MPs could see it that way.

The third salvo:

Does anyone sense the paradox in the following statement? First he said:

I believe the Jasin MP is not wrong in what he did. We are called upon everyday for help by our constituents. I also do that as an MP (to help constituents).

For example, someone gets arrested by the police in my constituency, he comes to my office for help. I go and mitigate on his behalf with the OCPD. Is that obstructing the authorities from doing their job?

Afterwards, he concluded that:

Either way, whatever it may be, it is up to the authorities concerned. They make the decision, we can only mitigate on behalf of our constituents.

Mitigate: make less severe, painful or serious.

If someone wishes to mitigate the matter or lessen the punishment being meted out as stipulated by the law, shouldn't one take the matter to the courts rather than using one's political connections to 'close one eye' to the infraction?

If the judgement is made through the avenues of law, shouldn't the matter of negotiating it be done through similar channels?

Only then one can ensure that one has acted bona fide in the matter, and not by directly interfering with the course of law.

And true to the Malaysian way, Nazri made the following sweeping generalization - with the belief that implicating more people would make the offense seemed less severe:

If the Jasin MP is guilty, then all MPs are guilty of this ...trying to help constituent.

Finally, the piece de resistance:

Q: Will there be a day when BN backbenchers will be able to vote according to their conscience and not according to the party line?

A: I don’t think so. We are in Parliament because of our party. People in Padang Rengas voted for the Barisan Nasional, not for Nazri. If you are not affiliated to any party, then you can vote according to your conscience. That should not be a problem.

I guess this is how Nazri views the MPs in the Parliament: mindless automatons and simply yes-men of their respective political parties - not elected representatives of the people.

In his mind, conscience and political allegiance does not go hand in hand. It is also clear which one of the two is more valuable to him.

Perhaps he is implying that most MPs should abandon their conscience when discharging their duties and responsibilities.

What happens if the desire to 'help the constituents' contradicts with the wishes of the political party?

Whom do you serve then?