Quote of the Day... Shahrir Samad
Let me quote this: "No... I am not disappointed with them, they will have to learn to be disappointed with themselves."
Shahrir Abdul Samad's script, via The NST (May 6, 2006):
Q: Do you think the only reason the BBC members did not support you was because of the party ruling?A: I wouldn’t know as many reasoned that it was an Opposition’s motion. I said ok. Whatever reason they chose to stand up to, it is up to them. I can’t read their minds. For me, I want to see integrity among the MPs. Sadly, it was not supported and I accept the fact that not many.... no one stood by me.
Q: You would have resigned for supporting an Opposition’s motion even if you had got the support?
A: If I had the support and the motion was accepted, it would not have been a problem. Action couldn’t have been taken against so many of us. But the motion was rejected and I concede that I failed to get the BN MPs’ support. This is politics, but if it is only about using the power of majority, anybody can do it. But if in politics, there are no principles, what’s the point? That is why it should have been supported. [...]
Q: As BBC chairman, were you disappointed with your backbenchers for not supporting the motion?
A: No...I am not disappointed with them, they will have to learn to be disappointed with themselves.
Maruah bangsa (Malaysia) ni!
Comments
Well said. Perhaps Malaysia should start adopting the system used in US Congress, where members may vote across party lines and legislation are proposed jointly by members from both the main parties. The function of a parliament is to give voice to the opinions of the constituencies, by way of aggregating votes. This way of voting is particularly useful when no single person knows the right answer, but on average, everyone is more likely than not to know the right answer. This is known as the Condorcet's Jury Theorem. Just think of the "ask the audience" option in Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and how often the majority answer is the right one.
Posted by: dyke![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 6, 2006 02:07 PM
Anwar Ibrahim was jailed for corruption - misuse of power - to direct police pressure. I think most VIPs on the government side do it now and then. So those MPs could have done what the Member for Jasin did and that's why they did not see what's the big deal the ex-BBC head was driving at.
Posted by: dtsv![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 6, 2006 03:10 PM
last time Sothinathan did the same, support the Opposition motion and he got suspended for 2 weeks.
If you talkabout integrity, mana lu pi time tu ?
Posted by: mahisasura![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 6, 2006 06:55 PM
mahisasura,
Part of politics is timing and timing! And you have to be wise too. It is indeed st00pid to be vocal whilst Sothinathan was undergoing the punishment. Shahrir took a gamble, and hope for the widespread support - and probably saw this as a ticket to 'preach' about integrity. Needless to say, his gamble was not paying very well and I dont think he regret stepping down as Backbencher chairman
Posted by: syedhs![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 7, 2006 03:11 PM
mahisasura,
FYI, sothi was suspended becoz he sat on the frotn bench of the government, which according to stupid BN law, cannot oppose BN openly in parliment. If he had any issues, he's to bring it up at cabinet level for discussion!
The folks who CAN support opposition motion is the BBC. The idea of BBC was to have an opposition within the administration to create check and balance in the government! Hence the reason why Shahrir wasnt suspended like Sothi.
Unfortunately, the BBC members dont seem to be capable of having an intelectual discourse about whast rigth and whats wrong! All they care is sucking up!
Posted by: goks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 7, 2006 07:26 PM