16
INTERVIEWS VIEWS
» From Page 15
The so-called new culture of this 12th Parlia-
ment also includes walkouts by opposition
MPs. So far, there have been four or five
walkouts?
I don’t think so. As far as I can remember, there
were only three (walkouts).
It is almost predictable when the opposition
MPs will stage a walkout. And another new
culture, some said, is the tendency to quote
irrelevant points of order just to get attention
or be given a chance to speak. What’s your
comment?
When we stage a walkout, there is a good reason.
We don’t do it just for the sake of sensational
news. I can’t remember the rest but on one occa-
sion, our point was proved to be correct – when
Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul
Razak (on Nov 4) presented a new set of figures
(for the 2009 Budget). That was just not right. He
should not have done it. So, when he started his
speech and it was indicated that he was going
to present new packages and ways of reviving
the economy, these were not in the (original)
Budget. How could we allow that? And the fact
that when we came in the next day, we protested
and the Speaker finally confirmed the budget on
the table was the one presented on Aug 29. So that
proves our argument. In fact, what Najib said was
irrelevant and procedurally incorrect.
We had informed them of what they should
have done. There were two options. One was to
correct or amend the budget at the beginning,
because at that time, we all knew, there were
changes. Or, alternatively, make a separate
motion whereby you submit a motion with
all the explanations and figures and where
the adjustments were made. If he had done
that, we would be discussing the actual
budget that they intend to implement, not
the budget prepared in August which we all
know was not the real thing. But we were
forced to debate it.
And in the end, the Aug 29 budget was the
one the MPs had to debate.
Yes. That was the one which had been
approved, not the one tabled by Najib. But,
I think later he will have to come out with a
supplementary budget, and all the motions
to readjust, and that sort of thing. Basically,
it is all because they were stubborn and un-
receptive to the ideas and statements of the
Opposition.
But Najib had said during his winding-
up that at a later point in his speech he
would allow questions from the MPs. Why
didn’t you wait and get a chance to ask
questions?
Yeah. But at that time, what were the points
raised? After that, there would be many
(points made) as he went on.
It also doesn’t change the
fact that what he was saying
was irrelevant because he did
not present it in an official and
proper manner.
So, it could not be incor-
porated into the budget that
was already presented and
tabled. He has to come up with
a special motion. So even if
we stayed on and debated his
speech, it wouldn’t change the
status. And, we would have
just come and said the same
thing. What is this? Is this part
of the budget or not? You were
supposed to present the budget,
why are you coming up with
this? You were supposed to respond to the
questions we raised. Last time, we were
asked to discuss based on the budget, and our
criticisms of the budget that was presented.
But even if we commented on that budget,
you were supposed to respond to that, not
come up with a new proposal.
But towards the end he said he would
answer all your questions.
Okay. Number one, they were not correct
procedurally. Number two, we don’t want
this to act as a precedent. In the past, all
the ministers allowed for interruptions and
questioning as they presented what they
have. He had asked all the ministers before
him to do the same. Now why does he have
this special arrangement whereby he talks
and everybody listens and can only question
later?
But, at the committee stage, the MPs would
still have to debate the budget tabled in
August.
Yes, we still have to debate it. But, it amazed
me, I don’t know what the BN MPs had passed
in the first place (at policy stage, without
the presence of PR MPs). I’m not sure they
understood what they had approved until the
Speaker made the clarification.
So the part about Najib being procedurally
wrong had already been pointed out by the
Opposition from the beginning?
Yes. That was the point that we had objected
to. Another thing is, for us, it is a question of
respecting the other MPs. You should allow
us to interject while you speak. That way we
can tackle the matter point by point.
If he (Najib) only allocates the end of
the speech for others to ask questions, he
can simply read everything quickly and
then say he has finished. But if it is allowed
during the speech, there is more pressure for
him to answer. To me, it also reflects on his
confidence.
He could not handle the situation. You
see, when he used terms like expansion-
ary budget and described Pakatan’s budget
as a contractionary budget. It’s not true. I
mean, what’s your definition of expansion-
ary budget? It does not mean last year you
spent RM200 billion and this year you spend
RM210 billion. That’s not the definition of
expansionary budget. It’s more about the way
you are trying to expand the economy. So,
there might be a good year like what hap-
pened last year when the oil prices went up,
so, we had extraordinary income and can
spend a bit more. But that does not mean next
theSun | THURSDAY DECEMBER 11 2008
year you must spend more than what you
spent the previous year. That’s not the correct
definition.
So, when we (Pakatan) reduced the
revenue (in its budget proposal), we were
being realistic. He (Najib) also admitted that
our revenue was going to be reduced but
he said you (Pakatan) reduced it by RM24
billion, so your budget is contracting. I can’t
agree even with his definition of expansion-
ary budget. I am not an economist but that’s
what I understand. We are less expansionary
because we don’t have a higher deficit. They
(BN) got a 4.8% deficit, we got a 3% deficit.
But, a deficit is not something you can be
proud of. You are forced to have more deficit
because you don’t have enough revenue, you
want to have a higher expenditure so that
you can invest or stimulate the economy or
you do some borrowing. But then, that’s not
something that is a be-all good budget.
Back to the walkout, so, can we say it was
done as a matter of principle?
The Speaker’s action on (Batu MP) Tian Chua
(by asking him to leave the Dewan when he
tried to interject) was one factor.
I mean the walkout in
general.
When we feel the issue is
important enough, we will make
a point that we disagree (by
staging a walkout).
Some said that opposition MPs
had to walk out because you
would lose should you call for
division voting. So, you staged
the walkout to make your
point?
The way the system operates
now, if we vote, we will surely
lose. Even if those in BN agree
with us, they are not allowed
to vote according to their
conscience. That is inevitable.
The whip will ensure that everybody votes
according to party line. But to say that
because we can’t win, therefore we walked
out, that’s not quite right.
We were very upset about the way the
presentation was done; the fact that the con-
tents (of the budget speech by Najib) were
irregular; the fact that Najib didn’t allow us
to ask questions; the fact that the speaker also
came down hard on Tian Chua. We were
only trying to make our point, which, in the
end, was proven correct. If they had listened
to us when we opposed it, we would now be
debating the actual budget which includes
the RM7 billion, instead of debating a budget
which everybody knows is not the real thing.
We are wasting our time.
Why didn’t the government, right from
the beginning as per our first objection, do
the responsible thing? Get the real figures
on the table, then we would have been able
to debate. That would have been better. The
only answer that I can think of is, perhaps
they didn’t know how to handle it. That’s
why they have to wait for us to come up with
our budget and then take from it to make the
DPM’s speech. In fact, we also wanted to cut
our spending on subsidies but we wanted to
do that by negotiating with the IPPs (inde-
pendent power producers), not by reducing
from the petrol subsidy. If we were the federal
government, we would do this.
They (BN) are taking out the RM7 bil-
lion from the petrol subsidy which they are
taking away from the rakyat. Instead, what
we have in mind is, we want to take away
the subsidies from the IPPs by renegotiat-
ing with them. They are making tonnes of
money. There is no reason why we should
subsidise them anymore. There must be a
realistic and reasonable basis to subsidise the
IPPs. For example, if they are losing money,
if they are not making sufficient profits to
cover their investments – not when they are
making tonnes of money. So, I venture to say,
probably they (BN) wanted to see how we
(Pakatan) wanted to handle this and they just
incorporated some of our suggestions, the
social safety net, the retrenchment and all
those things.
So, that’s how you see it?
Yes, because that’s the only thing that can
explain why they never did anything (to
adjust the budget).
You mentioned conscience and party
line. Do you think party members should
» Turn to Page 18