Imagine former Attorney-General Gani Patail telling a live-telecast parliamentary hearing about the crimes and sins of the Prime Minister in the same way former FBI Director James Comey testified at the US Senate about President Trump’s “lies”!
Former US FBI Director James Comey created a world sensation in his live-telecast testimony to US Senate Intelligence Select Committee last night where he branded US President Trump as a “liar” to defame him and FBI – “lies, plain and simple” – over his sacking because of FBI’s investigation into Moscow’s meddling in last year’s US presidential election.
Imagine former Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail telling a live-telecast parliamentary hearing about the crimes and sins of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, over his sacking; the international multi-billion dollar 1MDB money-laundering scandal; the discoveries of the Special Task Force of four Tan Sris from the AG’s Chambers, the Police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Bank Negara on the 1MDB scandal; “MOI” and Malaysia ascending the world corruption ladder to become a “global kleptocrary”?
This is unthinkable in present-day Malaysia, but why should it be impossible to envisage as something possible in Malaysia, especially as Malaysians are invited to dare to dream big dreams and think big thoughts about TN50 – National Transformation 2050?
Is the former US FBI Director’s testimony at a US Senate hearing accusing the US President a liar a sign of the rottenness of the US system of governance or is it a sign of the working of the checks-and-balance necessary for a democracy to work to prevent one branch of government becoming too powerful, too overbearing and completely unaccountable?
Is the present Malaysian system of governance where it is completely unthinkable for a sacked Attorney-General to give testimony in any parliamentary proceeding about Executive or Prime Ministerial abuses of power or misdemeanors a superior system of governance to that in the United States?
In Malaysia, the doctrine of separation of powers was not only subverted by the guardians of the three branches of government, we have the ludicrous situation where the Speaker of Parliament appeared to be trying to “protect” the check-and-balance system of US system of governance by using the sub judice argument to ban any questions or debate in Parliament on the largest kleptocratic litigation initiated by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to forfeit over US$1 billion 1MDB-linked assets in the United States, United Kingdom and Switzerland in the US$3.5 billion 1MDB international money-laundering scandal – as if the US system of governance needs the protection of the Speaker of Malaysia to prevent any compromise or subversion of US litigation!
The Malaysian Parliament should be more vigilant against any undermining of the doctrine of separation of powers in Malaysia instead of trying to protect the checks-and-balance system in US governance, which is in good hands as demonstrated by James Comey’s testimony to the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
But who was the Speaker of Parliament really trying to protect?
The Speaker and Members of Parliament in Malaysia should be more concerned about upholding the doctrine of separation of powers in Malaysia instead of trying to protect the doctrine in the United States.
However, we have not only failed to initiate meaningful parliamentary reforms in Malaysia, such as permanent Parliamentary Specialist Select Committees and public proceedings for Parliamentary Select Committees like the Public Accounts Committee, Parliament had regressed with the Speaker’s ruling banning all questions and debate on the US DOJ litigation of forfeiture of over US$1 billion 1MDB-linked assets and “MO1”.
Earlier today, I received official notification from Parliament of 12-day Dewan Rakyat meeting from 24th July to August 10 and six-day Dewan Negara meeting from 14th – 22nd August.
The first thought that came to me was whether Parliament would meet next month under a new Speaker.
This is because the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia has gone public last month to declare that he was keen to return to active politics in Sabah, and left it to the Barisan Nasional leadership to decide if he would be a suitable candidate for either the state or parliamentary seat.
It is Pandikar Amin’s right and prerogative to want to return to active politics, whether in Sabah or Malaysia, but what he said about his political intention last month clearly compromised the independence and impartiality expected of him as Speaker of Parliament.