Placards as a clarion call for reform

The opposition MPs have received a noticeable amount of lashing from no other than their conflicting counterparts for holding up placards questioning the sensational RM2.6 billion political donation, after the Prime Minister finished his speech on next year's budget in Parliament.

This gesture is something that is not unfamiliar. A few months back, the Hindu Business Line reported an article titled, "Parliament seized by placard war" where India's Congress protest targeted prime minister Narendra Modi's silence on the alleged corruption by his Cabinet member and two chief ministers.

"Bade Modi meherbaan, to chhote Modi pahalwan," (which translates to  "Why is the PM silent?") read some Congress placards. There were posters that said: "C for Congress, C for Corruption," and "Ulta chor kotwaal ko daante, kisan ki zameen damaad ko baante" (The thief is accusing the protector of law, while gifting farmers' land to son-in-law).

In spite of India being known as the largest democracy in the world, both these incidents share a common tale. How odd.

In response to the fiasco, Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin remarked that "Parliament is not a marketplace".

This brings us to the questions of to what extent is the general appropriateness of using placards in Parliament and weigh out the implications.

The idea of placards in Parliament has been regarded to be rather "unprofessional" in a politician's conduct, perhaps because of the sovereignty that is embedded in its ancient tradition, backed up by the incessant need for paying respect and reverence to those in history to establish the integrity of a vital public institution.

However, I do think the displaying of placards symbolise something far more assaulting to the ailing health of this nation.

This is because placards commonly seek comfort in being paraded on the streets as a form of public disobedience against the establishment order; that being the several civil society protests over the years.

My most memorable account of the Bersih 4 rally would probably be the rich diversity and creativity in expressing anger, be it with snide remarks, delicious sarcasm or Fahmi Reza's marvellous illustrations.

For most of us, resorting to marching on the streets begs to indicate a sense of longing to reclaim the Malaysia that is rightfully ours, through tireless lobbying of pressure for change.

Nevertheless, a pertinent question to ask would be – why are our politicians holding up placards in a platform like the Parliament? Unfortunately, it is a sign of a critical institutional failure, advocated by a feeling of helplessness.

There is something seriously rotten about the entire system.

The biggest issue, I believe, is the democratic space of the opposing forces being continuously hindered. There is close to no "check and balance" mechanism being permitted to operate and as a result, we continue to find ourselves abused by the absolutism of dominant authority.

With poor representation of the opposition (coupled with the desperate need for electoral reform), the avenue for healthy intellectual and productive debate over legislation is dwindling.

Our founding father and first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj once articulated, "The people have an unquestionable right to expect that the government and MPs they elect, and the officers of the civil service, whose salaries they pay, shall, in return for the confidence and trust they have received, honour the obligations they have to the people, and that means to all citizens of Malaysia."

Ideally, Parliament should be a representation of communities based on constituencies, looking out for the needs and wants of these communities, and working towards a common consensus in formulating legislation that is compatible with the nation's collective identity.

It is an institution where public confidence lies, a place that guarantees the promise of excelling leadership that lives up to the hopes and dreams of the people through an implementation of policies that aim to facilitate social and economic progress.

The visions laid forward, ought to be based on the values and principles once set out by our founding father's ideological roots. More importantly, it is where our fundamental liberties and everything else that the Federal Constitution stands for, should be championed by those who we confer our faith in.

Yet, Malaysians are left disappointed over and over again. What were once our aspirations for parliamentary democracy have now become a farcical circus of political power struggle – an affront to the preservation of what we believe in and grotesquely, the collapse of our public institutions.

We cannot expect Parliament to reform itself. If such an initiative could be successful, a lot of things would have changed for the better.

As we see it, the present system continues to fall back on the deterioration of transparency and accountability. It is up to us, as members of civil society to push for parliamentary reform if we want to achieve a better sense of democracy.

Of course, the biggest problem is that not a lot of us are not even taught about how all of this works. We are expected to learn these things by ourselves based on our interest, instead of it being considered general knowledge that is compulsory for the creation of engaged citizens.

Such phenomenon is where the heart of the problem lies and makes us wonder why it seems that we only have placards as the only medium for us to make a clarion call for reform. – October 29, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.