Dewan Rakyat speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia has rejected an urgent motion to thrash out the controversies surrounding the National Feedlot Centre (NFC), on the grounds that the matter is now rests with the court.
The Dewan Rakyat has turned down four questions related to the settlement struck between former Malaysia Airlines chairperson Tajudin Ramli and government-linked corporations (GLCs), saying that the question were sub judice.
The questions were rejected on the reasoning that it could have an implication to other ongoing legal battles at the Court of Appeal and pending cases in the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
Did the government choose to hide behind the judiciary? What is the purpose of a parliament if issues of significance especially those which involved public coffers and accountability cannot be discussed in the parliament?
Both controversies are linked to governance and public policy. The fact that the government did not initiate an audit on NFC after irregularities were discovered by the Auditor General already justifies a motion in the parliament.
The government says it wants to learn from its past mistakes but we found out that old habits die hard.
On MAS, why is Tajudin allowed to scoot away without having to the compensation granted by the High Court? Again, this is purely government's decision to agree on such settlement. Yet, the motion to discuss the rational of such generous settlement was disallowed?
If this parliament can allow motions on Palestine and Iraq, it should have allowed motions which are serious and already in the public domain.
Why should we pay the salary of our parliamentarians and speaker of the house if they are not allowed to do their job?
Is it so difficult to spot a third class parliament?
Sack the speaker! This is something our prime minister can do to show us that he is serious about reforms.