The headlines of two newspapers recently decried \’Shahrir\’s Shocker\’. That two separate and independent newspaper editors can choose the exact same words is in itself an unlikely probability unless, of course, they are declaring what is a commonly perceived truth. Truth is the fact that Backbenchers Club chairperson Shahrir Abdul Samad has resigned. My question is why is it so shocking that he resigned from his BBC appointment? To me, the resignation was not shocking at all but rather should have been expected. Let me build my theory.

The process began on that great day in Parliament when all backbenchers and opposition members stood in unison to uphold parliamentary dignity, integrity and sovereignty of good governance. Shahrir Samad had then moved a motion for a reinstatement of the Parliamentary Service Act (PSA) of 1963 which was repealed in 1992 by the government. The August house, including backbenchers and the opposition, concurred with a standing ovation! However, this unanimous proposition was subsequently overruled by the cabinet, even if we assume that it had been properly discussed within the cabinet. But if I am not mistaken, the BN Whip and the deputy prime minister said such an amendment was not necessary. And that was end of that matter and the subsequent discussion of it.

\"\"

The more recent commotion was another potential occasion for a similar kind of sentiment but somehow, maybe because it was a motion by the Opposition, it was not to be. The mice decided not to follow the BBC Pied Piper\’s lead but instead toed the line of the Party Whip. I suppose all \’followers\’ must always know which side of their bread is buttered, and who butters their bread. Moreover, as argued in leadership literature, there cannot be any leadership without a follower-ship. The result? The resignation of Shahrir as BN\’s BBC chairperson as a matter of principle. No surprise. No shocker even if the decision only reflects Umno\’s thinking on the subject.

In February this year, in order to support and facilitate the progress of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi\’s Integrity Agenda within our beloved nation, I volunteered a definition for the concept of integrity to the Parliamentary Select Committee through a paper I presented to them. Integrity is a complex concept and more than a simple word. In fact, I would argue that integrity has both a personal and an institutional dimension. The root word in the Greek form is \’integer\’, which means oneness or wholeness or completeness. Other equivalent concepts are uprightness or honesty. One author says, \’It is the first among virtues\’. Therefore, let us reflect a little more about this concept that Pak Lah\’s government is trying so hard to promote.

The Malaysian Parliament needs to understand, appreciate and embody this agenda. In fact, the former BBC chairperson\’s most stated quote on this subject is, \’If integrity does not begin in Parliament, where else can it begin?\’. I fully subscribe to this. What then is this notion of Parliamentary integrity which Shahrir is fighting for in such a principled way? I wonder if it did not start with Pak Lah\’s first visit to Parliament; when he very emotionally invoked the name of the Almighty in calling for the reinstatement of Parliamentary integrity. But it was also the PM who appointed Shahrir as BBC chairperson and chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee. Is it therefore any wonder that the honorable member of parliament for Johor Baru took both these assignments with equal dignity and honour? And does it take any great imagination to understand why he therefore resigned?

Ultimate custodian

In my presentation to Parliament, I simply defined integrity as the gap between an \’espoused theory and the theory-in-use\’. It could also be viewed as the gap between one\’s ethics and morality. Ethics is a normative science about \’what ought to be\’ whereas morality is about a prevalent culture or \’mores\’ relating to what is acceptable and unacceptable as a cultural norm. Morality can be defined by the majority but ethics is not a matter of public opinion. Ethics can draw inspiration from either philosophy or theology. Therefore whether it is an individual or an organisation; both can reflect integrity (or lack thereof) through statements about beliefs against their actual practice.

In Malay therefore we say colloquially \’cakap ta\’ serupa bikin\’or \’kotakan apa yang dikatakan\’ These statements deal with personal integrity or the character of an individual or even that of an organisation. In fact, I was recently told by an IIM officer that while there is no direct equivalent concept in the Arabic language for integrity other than the word \’amanah\’, the Malay word, \’keutuhan\’ is a good word for integrity. To me, this word connotes uprightness and is an excellent word to capture the idea of integrity. Regardless of our specific agreements and definitions of this concept, most citizens and ordinary people can feel the absence of integrity in given situations and circumstances.

Let me quote a few case examples from the recent past which may clearly raise the question of integrity both at the personal and institutional levels. First, the Federal Court\’s decision on the Highland Towers case lacks integrity. It appears to the ordinary man that injustice was delivered by the Federal Court on this matter. While the Federal Court may have been well within its jurisdiction, it confused citizens on how the local authority was declared innocent only because of the law. Could the Federal Court have sought real justice in this case instead of reading the law in a one-eyed way? Whose responsibility then is it to reinstate such integrity, if not that of Parliament?

Second, in the most recent controversy over the crooked bridge – and the resultant \’public discourse – has revealed a lack of integrity by the BN government regarding the whole episode. Most Malaysians are even more confused than ever about the so-called two sides of the argument, with as much media distortion regarding the whole matter. The truth seems to be hidden in the avalanche of \’information, misinformation and disinformation\’. Whose information is truth anymore? Even the former PM has joined the chorus to express his doubts on the matter, but again whose responsibility is it to bring forth public truth on this matter, if not that of Parliament?

Based on the above case examples, how can we further understand the concept and apply my proffered definition towards integrity of Parliament? As argued by Shahrir, \’Parliament is the most important seat of power between elections\’. Is it therefore not the prerogative of all the members of Parliament to argue and defend their integrity and that of Parliament without fear or favor? For that matter, who really is the ultimate custodian of public interest in Malaysia?

No real say

In a modern parliamentary democracy like Malaysia, we have the three primary institutions for good governance; that of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Between them and their separation of powers to check against the abuse of power, the government of the day administers certain procedures to deliver public goods and services to the citizens of the land. I

n our form of government, the party with a majority in Parliament forms the government. By tradition of the British parliamentary democracy, the PM has almost absolute authority to define his cabinet from the party which holds a majority in Parliament. This is a convention rather than a rule.

But unlike the American system of the separation of powers, in Malaysia however, there is no absolute separation of powers between the three arms of governance. There is a resultant convergence of power and influence between the legislature and the executive. For example, the cabinet is part of both the legislature and the executive. Therefore, although Parliament with a unanimous majority voted for the abolishment of the PSA, the cabinet or her proxy, the deputy prime minister as the BN Whip, can unilaterally overrule that unanimous decision.

\"\"

Similarly, when the executive, through the cabinet, tables a bill like the recent one Islamic Family Law, even the lady Parliamentarians vote in favour of the badly framed bill which is biased in favour men because of the deputy whip says so. Therefore, Parliament (ala the legislature) appears to have no real say or choice in voting with their conscience even on a fundamental matter like the human rights of half the country.

The last session of Parliament was sadly telling in the denial of integrity of Parliament over the \’close one eye case\’. The house (mostly made up of backbenchers) voted against a motion by the leader of the opposition even when it was a matter of the integrity of Parliament. How then can the ordinary people honour and respect Parliament as the house where people\’s issues are held up and discussed with integrity? Can a member of Parliament misuse his power and influence to ask a Customs officer to \’close one eye\’ to a specific and definite violation?

The Royal Customs and Excise Department did the right thing in rejecting the request and the MP did what is clearly wrong and the truth must become fully known. I find it shocking that the MP views this so lightly. And even worse that the PM and DPM also think nothing of such a blatant wrongdoing. Where then does the government\’s espoused theory about honesty and integrity stand?

Malaysians are tired

Shahrir was right in stepping down if the real issue was integrity of Parliament. Maybe he should, in fact, consider seriously leaving the party as well. That would also be the most honorable thing to do. As a Federal Court judge once reminded the nation, no one is above the law. Therefore, safeguarding against any violation of the rule of law (and the bylaws and regulations) principle is a fundamental and critical responsibility of Parliament, who makes these laws.

But to find an MP who blatantly violates this is even more dreadful. Maybe the cabinet, the majority within of whom found Anwar Ibrahim guilty of a similar offence now \’sees no evil\’. If the cabinet finds no wrong on this subject, who then is there to defend national and parliamentary integrity and public interest?

It was on these issues that both the leader of the opposition and the chairperson of the Back Benchers Club were trying to bring awareness to in Parliament. They are core issues faced by the ordinary man when confronted with grassroots corruption and abuse of authority and power. But alas, seemingly our members of Parliament today are directed by the party whip and not really concerned with integrity of Parliament which is the real issue for the man-on-the-street.

\"\"

I suggest that it was this singular issue on integrity and the concomitant promises made by the prime minister personally that gave him the 90 percent of the votes in the last general election. To now \’close one eye\’ to this core issue is detrimental to public interest and this nation. To the \’blind mice\’ parliamentarians, maybe the issue belongs only to the executive to mouth and espouse and not for Parliament to monitor and control. But let me caution that \’a fish begins to rot from the head\’.

Parliament is the head of our entire governance system of democracy; if we compromise there, we have compromised everything. Shahrir has been on a personal campaign to stop and reverse this rot in his various capacities but I get the feeling that he has not been getting the support from the executive, and therefore his resignation.

Surprised? I am not, nor are many other ordinary Malaysians who are tired of the \’wayang kulit\’ that goes on daily while things are getting worse for the ordinary citizens. The member of Parliament for Johor Baru simply want out of this kind of \’smokescreen showmanship\’, that\’s all. Well done, Shahrir. Your time will come so stick to your guns and wait for it.