An Interview With Nazri Aziz

the SUN: Why are you in politics? What drove you to enter politics? I am in politics by accident. When I came back from UK (after completing his law studies), the person who moved my call to the Bar was Haji Suhaimi (former Umno Youth chief Datuk Suhaimi Kamaruddin). At that time, he was the Umno Youth chief and under the Umno Youth constitution at that time, he had the power to appoint to the executive committee two people under the age of 30. At that time I was 24 years old, and so Haji Suhaimi after he moved my call (to the Bar) and after having had dinner with me, said he was appointing me (to the committee). I did not immediately say yes, and I told him that I would think about it. After a week, my uncle who was also my master, said Suhaimi was his friend and would really like me to accept it (the appointment). After a week of being advised by my uncle, I accepted. Some people say that once you enter politics, it's difficult to let go. Do you think it is true? Have you any regrets joining politics? Ya ... once you enter politics, it is difficult to get out, because you are used to the life and you know in politics you have people around you, and once you leave politics, you feel lonely, you feel you are useless and that is why I think they want to come back. I have no re g rets joining politics. I have enjoyed every moment of it. Your first cabinet portfolio was entrepreneur development minister. It was here that you had some kind of altercation with the Anti-Corruption Agency and it became quite controversial. What actually transpired? The altercation with ACA was because it was taking a long time to investigate something which was not even about me. It was about the Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board. When it came out in the papers, and as CVLB was under me, suddenly the focus was on me. The election (General Election 2004) was drawing near, the delay would certainly be a question mark over me. And I was worried that if it went on till election day, I would probably be dropped just because the ACA was looking at the CVLB. I knew all along that the allegation by that chap was not true. It (the probe) was taking too long. All I did was to tell the ACA to proceed quickly (with the investigation). And because of that, some people took offence and suddenly I got to know that they wanted to arrest me, put me in a hotel and question me. And also because of ... orang kata apa? ... trying to blow up their investigation ... which is not the case. I asked the ACA to hurry up. As you know, the AttorneyGeneral announced there was no case against me. Not because I asked them to cover up the case or slow down or otherwise. I did what I thought was right. When you were told you were going to be in charge of parliamentary affairs, how did you define your role and was there any model that you followed? I was surprised when the prime minister reminded me of a conversation I had in 1999 with Tun Daim (Zainuddin) in which I asked whether I could go to the Prime Minister's Department to take charge of Parliament. I was surprised that Pak Lah remembered it (the conversation in 1999). He knew that I would like to be in charge of Parliament. When I became minister in charge of Parliament, the prime minister reminded me (that) he wanted me to ensure Parliament functioned (properly). Because he said our majority was really big, which was 92%. The prime minister does not want Parliament to be a rubber-stamp. The prime minister wants a Parliament where we debate everything. He told me because our majority is big, we must be seen to be listening. I understood what he meant. I did not look at any par ticular model, such as Westminster, which we should follow. I think we have to build our own model, through trial and error and then we just have to move on in accordance with the needs in Malaysia. We don't have to copy any other model. I saw the need to have a select committee, and I talked to the PM and he agreed to it. That is why now you see a lot of select committees. There are two now and soon a third ­ parliamentary select committees on Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code, National Unity and National Integrity. I also always thought that we should move beyond partisan politics. We must recognise the f act that we are all elected members, and it does not depend on your position or otherwise. So in a move to go beyond partisan politics, we should have a caucus ... where we can look into issues which are close to the heart of the public, such as human rights. I thought about all these, such as the setting up of the Myanmar Caucus. I think Malaysia should be confident of itself. For example, if democracy is good for Malaysia, it should also be good for neighbouring countries. A point in case being Myanmar. So that is why I thought why not push for a caucus to promote democracy in Myanmar. Also it was urgent this year, because Myanmar was about to take over as chairman (of Asean). It would be very embarrassing for us. So this was one issue which we took up and succeeded. In fact, we were the ones who star ted and now there are Myanmar caucuses in all the other Parliaments in South East Asia. And then, of course, there is human rights. This is important because it cuts across party politics. We are elected members and despite having different political leanings, there are issues which are common to us. One example is the issue on ear-squat. I defended Teresa Kok (DAP member for Seputeh). It is not a question of being pro-DAP or pro-BN. We are pro-people. These are the people's problems. If they can't get redress from somewhere, where else do they go? They come to Parliament or go to their elected representatives. That is why we have to be pro-people and besides, this (Dewan Rakyat) is the House of the People. So, when you asked what model I used, it would be to run it (Parliament) in a way where it would assist ordinary people. Did you bring in the Head of Administration because you were dissatisfied with the way things were being run? When I became minister in charge of Parliament, the prime minister clearly said that I must look into all matters involving Parliament ­ everything from the physical building to the needs of MPs. What I found was the Secretary of the Dewan Rakyat also acted as general secretary of the whole Parliament. He is burdened with everything. Not with just the work in the Dewan but also when it comes to such things as parking, toilets, Speaker punya rumah and other things which rosak. I think it is not fair to him, to be burdened with all these. When I attend cabinet meetings, there are instructions with regards to Parliament. Then I have to bring this to the Dewan secretary. But he has got so much on his plate that some times cabinet decisions are not implemented. Because of that, I discussed it with the Chief Secretary to the Government and asked him how to go about this. He said we could probably have an officer here (in Parliament) with the responsibility to solve problems that have nothing to do with the Dewan affairs. So we can free the secretary. That is how we came up with the decision and it was approved by cabinet. So what I did was to improve Parliament, not to form another power base. I am a Member of Parliament, and I do not want to set up something which would rival Parliament. With the administration head in place, will the MPs be getting what they have been seeking, such as research assistants and better facilities? Yes. Definitely they will. Because the head of administration is always in contact with me and will follow up on matters; such as claims which have to be settled in two weeks. All these have been conveyed to the head of administration and he keeps tabs on the progress, position and the status (of issues). Sometimes you take your job as an executive too seriously. When provoked, you shout MPs down. You are seen as scolding them. Some people are actually scared of being verbally abused. They call you a bully. I am very passionate about my job. I am a lawyer by training and I believe in freedom of association and freedom of speech. If I answer passionately, don't blame me, because that's how passionate I am in defending the government and my position. You will find people like Lim Kit Siang (Parliamentary Opposition Leader) going berserk and shouting. I don' t feel of fended because he is passionate about his job. So it is the same with me. If I am seen as being very hard and go strongly at a particular person at a particular time, that is because I am passionate about my job. Don't be angry or blame me for that. I don't look at it as vengeance (on his part). It's all in a day's work. Outside Parliament, it is different. I know you have a job to do, and I have a job to do, it's just who is better. For example, I remember one occasion (when) I was angry with Kula (DAP Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran). He was trying to show that the government is racist, in the sense that we don't recognise CSMU (Crimea State Medical University) degrees. He was implying that two years ago the then minister of education said there were too many Indians there, and was trying to relate it to the issue of non-recognition of CSMU. Many people say that our MPs cannot be referred as law- makers, as they do not make the laws. Mostly, they approve that which has already been decided. What's your take on this? You know that in any country when they have a Westminsterstyle Parliament, there is also this system of the Whip. You even have this in the UK. The Whip means that once the government decides on something, everybody must support. And you know, we have a big majority and naturally when it comes to voting on a Bill, we will use the Whip. But this is something which you have to live with. We allow some latitude for MPs to criticise but when it comes to making a decision, we use the Whip. If you call this r ubber stamping, then even in the UK it is rubber stamping. Is a Unicameral (single House) not efficient, when compared to the present system of a Upper House and Lower House? This Bicameral is more of a window dressing, rather as a check and balance. But we all know that appointments to the senate are done by the government. Even if you do it through the Unicameral way, there is still only one Parliament. So it makes no difference whether we are Unicameral or Bicameral. When the government is strong, that is what you are going to see, that all Bills come from the executive and 100% it is going to get through. You can't run away (from it). This is a fact of life. Let's not kid ourselves. This is the system and it has been there for more than 40 years and we will continue to be like this. If the public somehow one day decide this is not a good system, then it is entirely up to them.