Question #47 (Mei 2008)

Liew Chin Tong (Bukit Bendera) asks the Minister of Housing and Local Government to state the direction and time frame to establish local council elections to start a new chapter of democracy in Malaysia.

Minister’s Response:
The Government does not plan to have any local council elections.

Media Statement by DAP MP for Bukit Bendera Liew Chin Tong on 6th May 2008 in Parliament House, Kuala Lumpur.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s reply to my parliamentary question on automatic voter registration is unconvincing, to say the least.

The Election Commission (EC) is not able to carry out automatic voter registration yet as it can cause problems to voters, says Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

The Prime Minister said a problem would arise if a voter had not registered his change of address with the National Registration Department (NRD).

“Although the person now lives at another address, he will still be registered as a voter using the address that appears on his identity card or in the NRD data.”

The prime minister said such voter registration would go against the constitutional requirement with regards to a voter’s actual place of residence when he had already moved out to another place.

“When there is a general election, the voter will have a problem in ascertaining his polling centre as his name is not listed in the voters’ list for his area of residence.”

Abdullah said it was feared that if voters moved out from their old addresses without informing the NRD, many would not return to cast their votes if they were now residing in places far away from their polling centres.

“If the voter turnout in some constituencies decline due to this, it will also affect the country’s image in the eyes of the world,” the Prime Minister said.

First, the Prime Minister is either incorrectly briefed or sincerely naïve about what happened in reality. According to Election Commission Chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman in an academic paper which presented overseas in 2007, the National Registration Department (NRD) database shows that “at least 35 percent of the 10.3 million registered electors can no longer be found (residing) in the respective constituencies (where) they were registered”.
Second, the voter can simply change their address in MyKad if they want to vote, and show the “receipt” for their change of address in MyKad. The receipt can have a box that say their purpose of update is the change of address to a certain place. Further, change of address at NRD is faster than at EC. The latter will take more than a quarter to become effective.

According to the Election Commission (EC), there are a total of around 15 million Malaysian citizens over the legal voting age of 21, but only 10 million or so are registered on the current electoral roll. In other words, a third of voting age adults is outside the electoral process.

Of the nearly 5 million Malaysian citizens of voting age who have yet to register as voters, 80 percent are Malays. And what is more, 80 percent of them are urban youth aged between 21 and 30.

A system that disenfranchises a third of the eligible citizenry from voting by default is a flawed one that demands immediate attention.

Automatic registration of voters is one way out of the current quagmire and, technically, it is perfectly possible for the Election Commission to do so with immediate effect, so long as relevant electoral laws and regulations are amended.

Since 16th July 2002, the Election Commission has been able to access voter information from the NRD database by merely entering the identity card number of that voter. Taking it a step further, the NRD and EC should share their databases and free the EC from the laborious task of the voter registration that it has not done very well, judging from the number of eligible citizens it has failed to get onto the electoral roll.

Voter registration is a costly endeavour. To be precise, it cost RM30 million for the exercise in 2007. It would be wise for this money to be spent on ensuring that future elections will be clean, free and fair.

Thus, the reply to my question was lame and unconvincing. I urge Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to reconsider his position.

Liew Chin Tong

Parliament’s live TV to cost RM3 mil a month
Beh Lih Yi | May 5, 08 4:40pm
The live telecast of a day-long Parliament session is estimated to cost the government a whopping RM3 million per month, or RM100,000 per day, Information Minister Ahmad Shabery Cheek said.

The estimated monthly bill, meant to cover the live telecast production cost, was revealed by the minister in a written parliamentary reply to Liew Chin Tong (DAP-Bukit Bendera) last Wednesday. A copy of the reply was distributed to the media today.

Apart from the RM3 million tab, the government would also need to spend RM9 million to pay for the line services from telecommunication provider Telekom, added the minister.

Ahmad Shabery however did not reveal the cost of the current live telecast which runs for the first 30 minutes of the parliamentary session which is being aired over state-owned RTM.

The RM12 million bill came on top of the ministry’s statement earlier that RTM has spent RM1 million in placing three cameras in the parliamentary chambers for the live telecast.

Last Friday, the cabinet decided to continue with the 30-minute telecast of the question-and-answer period at 10 each morning despite that noisy parliamentary session at its first live telecast last week.

At the session, MPs from both sides of the divide traded insults and engaged in shouting matches. Calls were later made by several quarters to pull the plug on the live telecast.

However, the cabinet said the live telecast would be reviewed if similar fracas were to occur again.

Today is the second time the parliamentary session was telecast live after last Wednesday - last Thursday was a public holiday while Parliament does not sit on Friday.

Minister: I am happy with today’s session

Ahmad Shabery, when met by reporters at the Parliament lobby today, said his ministry would consider extending the live telecast to a much longer period after a rather smooth session this morning.

They were only minor arguments between opposition MPs and House speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia at the beginning of today’s session.

“I am happy with what took place this morning as MPs showed their respect to the Parliament and I hope this trend will continue,” he told reporters.

To a question, he said the ministry would “surely” consider the possibility of extending the live telecast longer than the current 30 minutes, but it will monitor MPs’ performance before making such a decision.

“This is still under the trial-run period,” said Shabery, who was non-committal on when the decision would be made.

DAP’s Bukit Bendera MP Liew a statement today said the decision to broadcast live should be left to the MPs through the formation of a parliamentary select committee for the final decision.

“Live telecasts of parliamentary proceedings are not ‘toys’ for MPs to play with. It is the right of Malaysians to see publicly-funded MPs in action,” said Liew, who is the latest to join other opposition politicians in making the call.

Media statement by DAP Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera Liew Chin Tong in Kuala Lumpur on 5th May 2008:

Let MPs decide on live parliamentary telecasts

The decision to broadcast parliamentary proceedings should be left to Members of Parliament through the mechanism of a select committee.

On Saturday, 3 May 2008, Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek had said that the Cabinet had decided to continue with the live telecast, but could stop the broadcast at any time. He said, “This should be treated as a last chance for all MPs. We have to protect the (image of) Parliament”.

When asked by The Star if a full-day live telecast might wear down MPs and prevent a repeat of the chaotic situation, Shabery said: “If Parliament is presumed to be a circus, the question of people running out of energy does not arise. … Clowns, they have energy all the time, no matter how many hours.”

Datuk Shabery should bear in mind that MPs are not schoolboys and should not be treated as such. MPs should not be threatened with patronizing “I will take away your toys if you misbehave” sort of threats. It is also presumptuous for the Minister to denigrate his Parliamentary colleagues in such a manner.

Parliament is where MPs should perform their duties in order to make laws, check on the government of the day, and ensure that the use of every cent of taxpayers’ money is justified. Therefore, live telecasts of parliamentary proceedings are not ‘toys’ for MPs to play with. It is the right of Malaysians to see publicly-funded MPs in action.

Datuk Shabery’s reply to my parliamentary question on the subject on 30 April 2008 clearly showed that the live telecast of parliamentary proceedings is being branded as an example of openness and transparency in the mainstream media, which is “in line with the democratic practices of our country”.

“Langkah Kementerian Penerangan menyiarkan secara langsung persindangan parlimen bermula penggal kali ini pada 30 April 2008 melalui RTM1 tanpa tapisan membuktikan sifat keterbukaan kerajaan dan ketelusan media arus perdana selari dengan amalan demokrasi negara. Siaran langsung 30 minit bagi sessi soal-jawab Dewan Rakyat ini turut disiarkan melalui Radio KLASIK Nasional dan laman web Kementerian.”

To make the live telecast of parliamentary proceedings meaningful, I propose the following measures to be taken by the Government with Parliament’s approval:

1. The Ministry of Information should immediately extend the live telecast from 30 minutes to the full 1 ½ hours of Question Time, in line with international norms. All mature Westminster Parliaments such as United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and even South Africa broadcast their entire Question Time segment on television.

2. The Ministry of Information should identify and allocate a radio frequency for the broadcast of the entire proceedings as well as on the Internet, as both involve minimal cost and manpower requirments.

3. I call on the Government, through the Minister of Information, to move a motion in Parliament to establish a Parliamentary Select Committee, consisting of Members from both sides of the divide and preferably from both Dewan Negara and Dewan Rakyat, to study the parameters, measures and methods of parliamentary telecasts.

When the British Parliament decided in principle to telecast its proceedings back in 1989, the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House spent a year on studying, planning and implementing such a move on behalf of Parliament. The Committee eventually contracted out the service through an open tender process. The renamed Committee continues to exist to this day as the Broadcasting Etc Select Committee.

A similar setup exists in the Australian Parliament in the form of the Joint Committee (of Senators and House of Representatives) on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings.

As far as promises of openness and transparency are concerned, the handling of the issue — live telecasts of parliamentary proceedings – will be a litmus test for Datuk Shabery, as well as the Government.

Liew Chin Tong

SELAK is a visual representation of the significant events that took place during BERSIH’s campaign for electoral reform since its inception in 2005. The word SELAK (meaning: to expose or pursue) was chosen because the objective of this publication is to highlight abd expose the flaws inherent in the electoral system and detail BERSIH’s demands for democratisation.

You can purchase the book online by clicking on here

I refer to the Malaysiakini report Royal address: What MPs say.

One of the most confusing parliamentary conventions is that of the Royal Address. The New Straits Times’ headline (April 30) read, ‘Uphold people’s trust, King tells Parliament’ while The Star said, ‘Keep the peace - ensure the various races remain united, King tells MPs’.

The King’s speech (Para. 4) read: ‘We congratulate the Prime Minister for successfully steering the country’s economy despite the many external challenges such as a slowdown in the world’s economic growth and soaring prices of crude oil and foodstuff, coupled with stiff competition in trade and investment’.

But is the King really speaking for himself at the opening of a parliamentary session? The answer is ‘no’. His Majesty speaks for the government of the day from a text prepared by the prime minister.

Each parliamentary term lasts for up to five years and is divided into annual sessions. The Yang di Pertuan Agong officiates a session of Parliament once a year. Each term consists of five sessions. Each session is practically a year and usually consists of three meetings.

Malaysia’s Parliament is an adaptation of the Westminster system. Since the 1920s, the British monarch has opened Parliament to mark the start of its annual session in November, except in an election year which disrupts the cycle. Whereas the Governor-General of Australia opens the Parliament once only at the start of its three-year parliamentary term. In Malaysia, the annual session usually begins in March.

But there is a stark difference between the opening of the Malaysian and British Parliaments. The British monarch addresses the members of the Commons and Lords in the House of Lords Chamber. There is an interesting history behind the choice of Upper House as the site of opening.

The British monarch is by convention ‘disallowed’ to enter the Commons since 1642 when King Charles I attempted to arrest five leading members of the Commons for treason.

The British speaker, therefore, voices his allegiance to Parliament rather than to the monarch and hence established the independence of Parliament.

Although the our King’s Royal Address is made by the monarch, the content of the speech is entirely drafted by the Malaysian government and approved by the cabinet and details the government’s policies and possibly the Bills it will introduce in the next session. This is explicitly manifested in the ceremony of submission of the text by the prime minister to the monarch.

In short, the Royal Address is our version of the American president’s State of the Union address, but read by the monarch.

It is of course smart politics for the BN government to appropriate the aura of the King to ‘praise’ the prime minister and the government of the day. It is perhaps not in the government’s interest or inclination to expressly articulate the institutional relations between the monarch and itself, but as the electorate becomes increasingly more educated and message-savvy, it is perhaps better to call a spade a spade.

The writer is the member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera, Penang.

May 2, 08 (Malaysiakini)

What is the maintenance cost for each Royal Malaysian Air Force fighter plane, namely the Mig-29N, Sukhoi Su-80MKM, Hawk 200 and F/A-18D Hornet and average aviation duration flown for each year since 2004?

dap election annoucement 150307 liew chin tongThis question submitted to Parliament for a written reply by Bukit Bendera parliamentarian Liew Chin Tong will not be answered because the matter is considered an ‘official secret’.

In a statement today, Liew said he was informed by Dewan Rakyat secretary Roosme Hamzah that his question had been rejected on official secret grounds under Standing Order 23 (1) (f).

The order expressly states that ‘a question shall not seek information about any matter which is of its nature secret’.

A dissatisfied Liew said: “Such a classification is difficult to justify because all I am asking is with regards to the maintenance cost of the four planes and its average flying duration in a year.”

Must be transparent

The elections advisor to DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng explained that he understood how some matters pertaining to national defence are considered official secrets.

However, parliamentary questions relating to finance and expenditure should fall outside the purview of secrecy.

“This makes the Defence Ministry not appear to be transparent in executing tasks relating to goods and services under its departments.

“It is important to stress that it is necessary for members of parliament to scrutinise the expenditure of this ministry,” he said.

Liew justified that information on the cost of maintenance and average aviation duration can be used to do international comparisons.

“I’m not asking for something that is really sensitive or secretive like their defence strategies or secrets.

“My question relates to aircraft maintenance cost which is paid for by taxpayers. So as a MP and on behalf of all Malaysians, I have a right to know,” he told Malaysiakini.

The purchase of aircrafts by the ministry runs into millions of ringgit as seen in 2003 when Malaysia signed a contract with Russia in 2003 for a total of 18 Su-30MKM fighters under a RM900-million contract.

Bridge Between Two Islands

This is the latest article that appeared the Singapore based newspaper,Today. This article talks about the importance of drawing investments from countries around Malaysia, particularly Singapore, into Penang.

SEMINAR
Topic: Malaysian Politics after March 8

Speaker: Mr Liew Chin Tong,Member of Parliament, Bukit Bendera, Penang, Malaysia, and Advisor on Policy Matters to the Chief Minister of Penang State

Date: Wednesday, 23 April 2008

Time: 3.00 pm – 4.30 pm

Venue: ISEAS Seminar Room II

About the Speaker
Mr LIEW CHIN TONG was the Election Strategy Advisor to the leadership of the Democratic Action Party (DAP) during the recent elections that saw that party winning handsomely enough to form the government in the states of Penang and Perak, along with its coalition partners. In Penang, the DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat holds a two-thirds majority. He won the parliamentary constituency of Bukit Bendera, beating Mr Chia Kwang Chye, a major figure in the Parti Gerakan Rakyat that lost all its positions in the state in the elections. Besides being MP, Mr Liew is also Advisor to the Chief Minister of Penang, Mr Lim Guan Eng, on Policy Matters. He is a graduate of Universiti Malaya and the Australian National University, majoring in Political Science and Contemporary Asian Societies. He was a Visiting Research Fellow at ISEAS in 2006.

Abstract
The results of Malaysia’s 12th General Elections held on March 8 saw surprising and profound changes that some say have changed the landscape of the country’s politics forever. Six weeks after the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) lost its two-thirds majority in parliament as well as control over four states in addition to Kelantan, and saw many of its component parties decimated by the opposition coalition now called Pakatan Rakyat (PR), the dust has not settled. PR parties seem to have gotten down to the business of pushing their possibilities and studying their limitations, while BN members are involved in soul-searching, damage control and power struggles. Be that as it may, the shift caused by the election outcome means that all major groups, including non-government organisations, have now to adapt to the new power structure, and develop new ways of analysing and resolving both state and federal issues.

For the federal government, the challenge is to regain voter confidence and to handle an economy where the most development states are no longer under its direct control. The state governments in the north now under the PR are concerned with consolidation and with keeping the coalition on even keel. A new atmosphere of competition in policy-making seems to be descending on Malaysian politics, which promises to limit racial politics and invigorate democratic tendencies in the country further.