TENG FINALLY GETS HIS LAST LAUGH.
Understandably, that must be the general public perception now. Whether they are right or wrong, you can’t really blame the men on the streets (me included) for thinking that there is inevitably element of biasness in the punishment imposed by the rights and privileges committee against the “Khir & Associates”. The Pakatan Rakyat Government may scream until the heaven falls that they have acted fairly and Khir was afforded a fair trial in accordance with the rules of natural justice. However, like it or not, politics is about perception.
I am not going to offer my view on whether the judgment of our Speaker, who is also the chairman of the privilege committee, has been tainted with vindictiveness. Suffice for me to say that I sincerely believe that our speaker is a man of integrity, and the Selangor people are fortunate to have him as our speaker.
Nevertheless, I wish to observe this episode from a different angle. Just for a short moment, let’s forget about the laws, rules, standing orders, legal arguments etc. Let’s not try to be a political or legal expert; but appreciate this whole episode as purely and innocently as possible.
What are the undisputed facts?
(1) The Select Committee on Competence, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat) is a lawfully constituted body;
(2) Khir was summoned to appear before the Selcat;
(3) Despite being summoned, Khir failed to turn up; and
(4) Instead of defending himself before the Selcat, Khir made disparaging remarks and negative statements about the Selcat in the media and on his blog.
Should Khir be punished?
In this connection, allow me to share with you my personal experience. When I was in junior 3, my class was chosen (read: forced) by the school to support our school’s debate team in an inter-school debate competition. All students in my class were requested to go to Confucius School in Kuala Lumpur on one Sunday to “show our love for the school”. To add salt to the wound, we had to pay for our own bus fare.
Naturally, we were very upset for our well deserved weekend holiday was “unjustly” disturbed. However, we were not going to just sit there quietly and let them think we could be easily bullied. As a sign of protest, instead of supporting our school’s debate team, we cheered for the opposing team and booed our own. Our headmistress was there, and it was quite an embarrassing scene for her.
Nevertheless, I firmly believed that the school has no legal or moral authority to force me to support my own team. What’s wrong with supporting the other side? Hey, I paid for the bus ticket and I could support whoever I like. I was very confident that I did no wrong and should not be punished whatsoever.
However, I was also not naïve enough to think that my action has no consequences. A few days later, I was served with a written notice to see the headmistress. I knew they were trying to get me. I knew the meeting was to set me up. I did nothing wrong, so I refused to meet her.
Ha! That was my fatal mistake. By refusing to meet my headmistress despite being formally notified, I voluntarily gave the school a perfect reason to punish me, and the school grabbed the opportunity without hesitation.
Should I be punished? I think so. Not because I refused to support my school’s debate team, but because I refused to meet my headmistress and thus, disrespected her. For as long as I wear my school uniform and consider myself a student of the school, I must respect my headmistress – there’s no two way about it.
Now, back to Khir’s situations: should he be punished?
Khir may be as innocent as a new-born baby with respect to the Balkis affairs. I don’t really care. He should have told his version of the truth at the inquiry, and let the people judge. But since he willfully refused to dignify the inquiry conducted by the Selcat, which is a lawful body recognized by law, by failing to turn up despite being summoned, he then cannot escape punishment. He must face the music and is not entitled to cry foul now, alleging that someone had acted in bad faith to get him.
Like me, who disrespected my headmistress, Khir too should be punished.
Was the punishment meted out too harsh?
To consider whether a punishment is fairly imposed, one must look back at the previous punishments imposed against other offenders for similar offences, and make a comparison. The lawyers will tell you to “check the precedents”.
In this connection, let’s look at the punishment received by our current speaker when he, as a symbolic act of protest, threw a misprinted and void copy of the standing order into a waste paper bin. I reproduced here below a quote from the speaker’s blog:
“My 5-meeting-day suspension which tantamount to one year as the assembly only sits for about 5 to 6 days a year began from 25.4.2005. Subsequently, the Committee of Privilege imposed an automatic extension of 6-month suspension after the one-year suspension which has just begun.
After the 6 months, if I refuse to apologize in a manner acceptable to the House, there will be another extension of 12-month suspension. That means it is 30 months all together, setting a new record as the longest suspension in the Commonwealth legislatures.”
The above punishment was undoubtedly supported by Khir at that material time.
Therefore, if the punishment for throwing a misprinted and void standing order attracts 30-month suspension, what would the adequate punishment for wilfully refusing to appear before a select committee be?
Reading this Khir’s suspension episode under this light, wouldn’t you agree that the 1-year suspension imposed against Khir appears, perhaps, too light?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment