Indescribable Nazri Abdul Aziz
Martin Jalleh
Aug 10, 07 1:02pm

The Minister in the Prime Minister's (PM's) Department, Mohamed Nazri
Abdul Aziz, is living proof that it does not require much
intelligence to be a minister in Bolehland. Before one can be a
cabinet minister one has to be a member of Parliament (MP) of a
component party of the Barisan Nasional (BN) - and this too is
peanuts (nothing to do with monkeys, surely).

Nazri has also very successfully shown by his trademark threats and
theatrics, why he deserves the role of the Minister overseeing
parliamentary affairs. When intelligent debate and delivery is
demanded of him, he would choose to dish out a diatribe of great
distinction.

Following the detention of blogger and PKR webmaster Nathaniel Tan on
July 13 for an investigation under the Official Secrets Act, and a
high-level police report lodged by Umno against the web portal
'Malaysia Today', Nazri warned:

'The government will not hesitate to use the Internal Security Act
(ISA), the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 121b of the Penal Code
against bloggers (who make 'disparaging statements'). The government
has exercised restraint in the matter for a long time and the time
has come for it to act according to those laws.'

The government (read as 'Umno') is desperate. For so long it has
succeeded in dominating and dictating the thinking of the citizens of
Bolehland. The age of information technology has changed this, but
the nation's political dinosaurs still living in an Ice Age refuse to
budge but prefer to bark and bull with the same old tone, tune and
threats.

Nazri accuses bloggers of making 'disparaging statements' - yet he
comes from a party tainted with a culture of political
assassinations, poison pen letters and provocative religious
statements and racial slurs and stunts. He threatens bloggers with a
slew of repressive laws - whilst inferring there is greater freedom
now in comparison to the previous regime's 'lack of freedom and some
dictatorial tendencies'.

Nazri should give ear to the wisdom of woman activist Zainah Anwar:
'I wish our political leaders and government servants would wake up
to living in the Information Age. There has been a seismic
transformation in how people receive information and form opinions.
Those with formal authority are no longer the authorities in the age
of information technology. The government can no longer maintain
control over what people read, hear, watch, let alone think.

'Mainstream journalists are no longer the gatekeepers over what the
public knows. The ability of technology to cause change is much
faster than the ability of government to control change ... The big
losers in this age are those who hold traditional power.'

'Bodoh'

On June 21, in parliament, Nazri was responding to PKR's Wan Azizah
Wan Ismail's question on whether the PM was focused on fighting
corruption. She had also asked about the measures taken by the
government to curb corruption. This was of great concern considering
Bolehland's slide in ranking in Transparency International's (TI's)
Corruption Perception Index (CPI), as compared to neighbours such as
Indonesia , Vietnam and Singapore .

Nauseated by Nazri's nonsensical justifications, Opposition Leader
Lim Kit Siang leapt to his feet and accused the government of
inertia. He used the investigation of Deputy Internal Security
Minister Johari Baharum by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) as a case
in point.

Johari was alleged to have received RM5.5 million in bribes to free
several suspects held under the Emergency Ordinance. He denied this.
An investigation was launched, ACA findings made, but no decision was
taken by the Attorney-General (AG). (The latter cleared Johari of the
allegations recently.)

Lim asked: 'How can he (Johari) come clean when the ACA has not
released its findings, and when the AG also keeps mum?'

Nazri turned nasty: ' Malaysia will never develop as long as we have
people like Lim. All these (corruption allegations) are lies. Why are
you so stupid? Where are the allegations? You have no brains. Stupid,
stupid, stupid!'

Shouts of 'bodoh' were hurled across the floor with the Speaker Tan
Sri Ramli Ngah Talib making a significant contribution to the
'stupid' scenario with his statement that he cannot cite Nazri for
using unparliamentary language because 'such language was used all
the time'.

Grinning like a school bully having his last say, Nazri added to his
string of 'stupid' salvoes: 'OK, tidak cerdik (not smart) then. It's
like stupid too.'

Buffoon

Two years ago, Nazri, had, with admirable honesty declared: 'Compared
to other parliaments in countries of equal development as Malaysia,
our quality of debate is still relatively low.' Judging from his
intellectual outburst, the citizens of Bolehland now know how
instrumental the minister is in lowering the quality of parliamentary
debates to new depths as never seen before.

The man who called Lim Kit Siang 'stupid' countless times recently is
the very same man who had in 2005 also insisted that: 'We want our
MPs to get their facts right and debate in an objective, civil
manner. Only then can we start talking about having a First World
Parliament.' Alas, only Nazri can make calling a MP 'stupid'
synonymous with civility!

Two years ago, also a minister had also advised MPs to be ready to
take a lot of stick. He said all MPs 'should not be too thin-skinned
and should accept criticism made against them ... MPs, who cannot take
criticism are old-fashioned ...'

'Society is becoming smarter and critical, thus putting an MP under
public scrutiny all the time ... If they cannot stand such a situation,
they should stay away from politics.'

That minister was none other than Nazri himself. Of course, we would
be stupid if we were to believe that Nazri practices what he preaches
- which explains why he is still in politics and why he gets into a
caustic delirium when he is criticised.

Coming back to the Johari issue, it was quite apparent that Nazri
could not take the heat even though he had taken upon himself a few
more hats - that of the director of the ACA and the AG. He absolved
Johari without a final ACA finding and an AG decision.

In his response to Wan Azizah, Nazri had also said that Malaysia must
not be compared to countries like Indonesia , Singapore and Vietnam .
Then, with a touch of intellectual brilliance he added: 'Singapore is
not a real country, it is a small island. Singapore's population is
just three to four million and there are no opportunities for
corruption, unlike in our country.'

Nazri's inference of larger countries being more prone to corruption
and smaller countries being less corrupt was wrong. The TI CPI
reveals that several countries with a much larger population than
Malaysia fared better than Malaysia in the ranking and several
smaller countries were found to be more corrupt.

Nazri's ignorance became even more 'prominent' when he said that
although the perception on corruption in Bolehland is considered to
be unfavourable, 'Malaysia is still included in the premier league
comprising 50 countries with the least corruption'. The 'premier
league' is reserved only for the Top Ten countries regarded as least
corrupt.

Still on the issue of corruption, parliament would hear Nazri say
that we should not question the PM's commitment in combating
corruption. The minister would even declare that a lot has been done
to fight corruption but what is needed is a public relations blitz ...
like in (not-a-real- country) Singapore!

Nazri once told parliament that the government was satisfied with the
ACA's performance. But as Param Cumaraswamy, a former TI Malaysia
president, once pointed out succinctly: 'It is not the satisfaction
of the government that the ACA is handling its responsibilities
effectively that matters. It is the satisfaction of the public that
matters most.'

Nazri has also said that the ACA is free to act on its own without
orders from the government. Nazri should know that as long as the ACA
is under the PM's Department such 'non- interference' is hard to come
by.

In 2003, during his war-of-words - over the monopoly of some 6,000
taxi licences - with the then ACA Investigations Director Nordin
Ismail, Nazri (who was then Entrepreneur Development Minister) had
said that he would advise the cabinet to replace Nordin with someone
'neutral and of high calibre'. Non-interference?

'Bloody racist'

Perhaps there is no better example of Nazri's intelligence deserting
him than when he shouted (in Bahasa Malaysia and English) 'racist' at
opposition parliamentarian M Kulasegaran 41 times in a space of a few
minutes. His theatrics took place at the end of the opposition's
emergency motion to debate the government's decision to withdraw
recognition of the Ukraine-based Crimean State Medical University
(CSMU) - which affected about 1,400 Malaysian students, the majority
of whom were Indian Malaysians.

Kulasegaran had contributed to the situation by quoting then
education minister Musa Mohamed as allegedly saying on a visit to
CSMU: 'How (can) this be? Why are there so many Indians in this
university?'

At one point, the minister yelled 'bloody racist, racist, racist ...
you are racist, you have got no place in this country' as he pointed
at Kulasegaran. There was chaos in the House as a shouting match ensued.

Later Nazri confirmed that his blistering attack was also aimed at
fellow front-bencher and Deputy Minister for Natural Resources and
Environment S Sothinathan who was subsequently suspended for arguing
with Deputy Health Minister Dr Abdul Latiff Ahmad over the de-
recognisation.

'We don't work on (the basis of) racism and I really object to that
(such claims). I don't like racism ... we are all Malaysians, so
never ever say that we make certain decision because we hate certain
ethnic groups. That's unbecoming.'

Kulasegaran believed that Nazri's repeated use of the word 'racist'
was intended to divert attention from the dispute involving the two
front-benchers - even though Nazri had later hugged him (Kula)
outside the MPs lounge, saying that each of them had a job to do.

The heroic anti-racist image painted by Nazri of himself soon faded.
He was rather subdued when he revealed recently that no Umno member
has yet to be brought to court as a result of making racist speeches
at the Umno general assembly last November.

Neither was he as vociferous against the racist remarks of Umno Youth
deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin or those of Minister for Science,
Technology and Innovation Jamaludin Jarjis, nor of Hishamuddin
Hussein's racist keris-wielding antics at Umno general assemblies.

Brain dead?

In April this year, Lim Kit Siang had highlighted the alarming trend
in the exodus of the bright and brilliant from Bolehland - which he
estimated to be as high as one to two million over the past four
decades. Lim added that Malaysia used to be better than Japan and
Singapore in terms of economic development, but now the country is
lagging behind because of brain drain that is 'due to discriminatory
policies in the country'.

He called on MPs to take heed of a speech by Perak Regent Raja Nazrin
Shah wherein the latter had urged the government to instill 'a sense
of belonging' in all Malaysians to lower the rate of brain drain.

Nazri agreed with Nazrin but felt that the brain drain was not the
result of a lack in a sense of belonging but of 'money sense'. He
likened the brain drain to 'ants attracted to sugar' and added that
Malaysians 'leave to make money but they will return. You don't have
to press the panic button yet.'

Lim said Nazri's response was 'not only offensive to Malaysians
forced to migrate due to unfair policies, but is proof of the
stubborn continuance of the denial syndrome for an urgent reappraisal
of the 50 years of BN nation-building policies.'

Was Pak Lah pressing the panic button when he had declared in 2004
that '... Malaysia is offering a host of incentives, including better
financial perks, favourable retirement age and terms of contract, to
lure an estimated 30,000 of its graduates working overseas to return
home'?

Was the PM 'stupid' in adding: 'We must also show them that we have
equal and quality opportunities for them to continue what they are
doing."

Nazri should follow his own advice which he had once given to MPs:
'It is better that you keep quiet and let others assume you are
stupid rather than talk nonsense and confirm that you are really
stupid.'

Brain-drained

That Nazri's brain seemed strained and drained could also be seen in
his profound ignorance in the 'bocor' scandal - in spite of his
insistence that the government acted correctly in handling it.

Nazri came to the defence of the two MPs who had made the sexist
remarks following Fong Po Kuan's (DAP - Batu Gajah) observations of
leaks in the Parliament building. He said that they 'should not
apologise to Fong or the DAP for their remarks.'

'To apologise to Fong is not on. I don't agree ... This is part of
parliamentary debates. Both MPs uttered the words during the heat of
their debate, and you cannot control people's emotions'. Whatever
happened to Nazri's 'civility'?

He made excuses for them: 'It is unfortunate that the press has
played up the incident. It is part and parcel of parliamentary
debates, and parliamentarians should not be easily offended by the
heckling between one another ... Such unguarded outbursts always happen
during debates.'

The Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) (a coalition of
women groups) accused the two MPs and Nazri of showing that they
clearly 'have not fully understood what being gender sensitive is all
about'. By excusing the behaviour of the two MPs, Nazri 'has
effectively condoned the use of low level coffee-shop talk, including
foul language and sexual innuendoes, in the august Dewan Rakyat.'

Contrary to what Nazri had claimed, they saw in the defence of the
sexist remarks a reflection of 'an underlying, deeply entrenched
patriarchal culture that thrives on gender discrimination. Such a
culture, which upholds male domination in society, is systemic and
ingrained in our social structures and institutions.

'In this context, the sexist remarks that were made recently are not
an isolated case. Such remarks have been tolerated with no
disciplinary actions taken by the Parliament since 1995. In 2002, we
met up with the Parliamentary Speaker to work towards ending sexism
and discrimination in Parliament. As we can see, all these efforts
have come to naught'.

In a letter to this newspaper, European Commission Ambassador to
Malaysia, Thierry Rommel said that the sexist remarks '... had an
effect on Malaysia 's international reputation ... they have a far
greater and adverse impact than some people in position of power care
to admit. Witnessing moreover the impunity that has accompanied such
remarks, astonishment and disbelief prevail.'
Banal excuses

The independence and future of the judiciary in Bolehland depends
very much on one man - the 'de facto' (also read as 'defective') Law
Minister Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz. He has even made it very clear
that we have to 'convince' him first if things are to improve in the
judiciary.

In June last year, Nazri told parliament that there was no basis for
the allegations of corruption in the judiciary as contained in a
letter written by former High Court judge Syed Ahmad Idid. He added
that the case had been investigated by the government, the ACA and
the AG.

In a press interview Syed Idid revealed that the allegations were
'never really investigated'. This was confirmed by a former AG Abu
Talib Othman who added that 'on the other hand, the poor judge who
wrote it was investigated'.

In August 2006, the Bar Council renewed its call for a review of the
1988 judicial crisis, which led to the sacking of Salleh Abas as Lord
President. Nazri dismissed such a call and said he would agree to a
review of the crisis only 'if there are new and important facts in
the case'.

Nazri placed great reliance on the fact that acceptance of the
recommendations by both tribunals was also accepted by the Yang di
Pertuan Agong. Yet according to the Federal Constitution, the Yang di
Pertuan Agong is not allowed to refuse advice tendered by the cabinet
or the prime minister.

Nazri justified the refusal by Hamid Omar (who was second in line
after Salleh) to disqualify himself from being in the tribunal by
saying that '... as Lord President, there could not have been someone
more senior than him (Salleh) to sit in the tribunal'.

Nazri was wrong again. There were two living and very renowned
retired Lord Presidents (then) and several retired Supreme Court
judges who would have been suitable to sit in the tribunal.

Nazri's assertion that a review of the 1988 judicial crisis would
open the floodgates of similar requests for other cases, thwarting
efforts to put a finality to past cases was pooh-poohed by retired
Federal Court judge Azmi Kamaruddin:
'I think this finality principle is only applicable to ordinary court
cases, where you have the right to appeal. But in this case, we are
not dealing with a court as such, but a tribunal formed under the
Constitution.'

Nazri's aura of openness came to a close with him declaring that the
cabinet had endorsed his statement and the case was closed. He had
turned a deaf ear to Salleh's five new points for a review. There
would be no finality to the minister's ignorance and arrogance.

His next 'sandiwara' took place in the Bar Council Auditorium in
Kuala Lumpur in a debate with MP for Kota Bharu, lawyer Zaid Ibrahim.
Here again he would portray himself as a minister who is sincere and
so very open to change. 'I can be convinced' - he proudly declared.

Nazri managed to convince himself that he alone was right and
everyone else (lawyers and several retired judges) in the hall were
wrong - '... there is no need for an independent judicial commission
relating to the appointment and promotion of judges unless the
judiciary makes a request for it'.

Lawyer Malik Imtiaz who attended the debate wrote in his blog: 'Nazri
was a surprise, not so much for speaking like a politician but rather
for assuming that members of the audience, comprising largely members
of the Bar, were stupid enough to believe the line he was taking ...'

Will the chief justice ask Nazri for an independent judicial
commission? The obvious answer came from Bar Council president Ambiga
Sreenevasan: 'It is highly unlikely that the judiciary will agree to
the independent judicial commission as one with power will not give
it up so willingly ...'

Bungling Nazri

Alas, there is no 'finality' in Nazri's naivety. Below are further
examples.

In May 2004 Nazri told parliament that 'Suhakam's report was never
meant to be debated in Parliament'. Yet, Suhakam is a creation of
Parliament and it is a legislative requirement for Suhakam to submit
annual reports to Parliament

In April 2005, Nazri explained in parliament that the Cabinet's plan
to form a select committee was dropped because 'the King wanted water
privatisation to be in place by the end of the year'. Lim Kit Siang
rebuked Nazri for dragging the King's name into the outcry over the
decision not to set up a select committee on water privatisation -
'as the Royal address is the policy pronouncement of the government
of the day'.

In the same month Nazri told Parliament that Bibles in Bahasa
Malaysia or Bahasa Indonesia could not be circulated in the country
as this could be seen as an effort to spread Christianity among the
Malays. He added that the prohibition had been in force since
independence and was in line with the constitution. About a week
later, the PM clarified that there was no such ban.

In July 2006 Nazri said that 'the presence of foreigners, including
those with IMM12 documents, did not cause social, security and
economic problems in Sabah'. Sabah Progressive Party (Sapp) (part of
the state ruling coalition) leader Tham Nyip Shen, replied that the
problem was genuine and serious, and 'if Nazri was genuinely ignorant
of the issue, it would be better for him to keep his mouth shut, or
to let someone else who has a better understanding of the issue do
the talking.'

In November 2006, Nazri declared that the ACA 'has no powers to
initiative investigations on reports and charges of money politics
and bribery within Umno ... because these offences are confined to
political parties and not public transgressions'. This of course
contradicted the stand of his boss who when he was the deputy PM in
2001, had publicly invited the ACA to clean up money politics in
Umno. Nazri later denied ever making such a statement.

Pak Lah started his premiership with promises of change. In January
this year, Election Commission (EC) chairman Abdul Rashid Abdul
Rahman declared that the EC's current rules and regulations are
outdated and have many loopholes. An independent commission should be
set up to oversee changes in the election laws and regulations. Nazri
told parliament: 'As I've said, there is no need to revamp the EC. In
the past 50 years we have not revamped any ministry. So why must the
EC be singled out (to be revamped)?'

In March this year, Nazri dismissed calls by rights groups for an
independent inquiry into the graft and sexual assault allegations
against ACA director-general Zulkipli Mat Noor: 'There is only one
process in this country and the process is that you make a report to
the police and the police investigate ... I think these NGOs are
stupid ...We don't need another system, independent inquiry and all
that.' And so we have the police investigating the (then) chief of
the ACA and at the same time the ACA investigating the current top
police officer of the nation .... and the AG deciding (recently) that
both are clean!

In May this year, Bernard Dompok resigned as the chairman of the
Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity. He had disagreed with
Nazri that the committee's scope of duties was only to get feedback
from the people for the government to formulate unity programmes.
Nazri claimed that Dompok might have been influenced by Lim Kit
Siang, who is a member of the committee. Dompok's reply to his
colleague --'It's a cheap shot.'

Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz represents the high calibre MP that BN has
succeeded in producing after 49 years of Independence. As the country
celebrates her 50th birthday surely the Minister in the PM's
Department who is also the overseer of parliamentary affairs and the
de facto Law Minister, will take us to greater heights in hype,
hypocrisy and of course, hysterics and histrionics in Parliament!

With the Cabinet contributing its fair share of soiled reputations,
spent characters and senior ministers calling others stupid, surely
Parliament will continue to be perceived as a solid rubberstamp, a
symbol shorn of substance, stripped of essence, sidelined and side-
stepped by the executive. Malaysia Boleh!

MARTIN JALLEH is 'just an ordinary citizen' in Bolehland who loves
his country enough to stand up and speak out for what he believes is
just and true. The above article is an edited and expanded version of
an original article written for the latest issue of Aliran Monthly.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my