Parliament

Interview (3/3): Wong Chen on anti-terrorism, sedition, bloc voting, missing MPs and more (Part 3 of 3)

Q&A with Wong Chen, Parti Keadilan Rakyat Member of Parliament for Kelana Jaya, 11 April 2015. On Malaysian Parliament, 9 March – 9 April 2015 session - anti-terrorism, sedition, bloc voting, missing MPs and more (Part 3).

Q. People are angry with opposition MPs who did not turn up for the vote. What is your opinion on this?

Every MP is responsible for his/her own action, or in this case absence. They should face their constituents on this matter - their constituents have a right to question them and to know the truth. I got a lot of calls from reporters asking me to state who were absent. I got many postings on Facebook asking me to reveal the absentees. I also got hammered for no reason too.

I did not keep a list but I know for certain about the presence or absence of those seated near me. Some of the lists being circulated on the internet are clearly wrong. Raja Bahrin of Kuala Trengganu was definitely there for the vote and throughout was instrumental in the POTA fight.

Some lists reflect who were there for the day but in fact were missing for the actual vote. Only Parliament records can confirm the vote list. I wouldn’t venture to make a list from my memory but I will vouch for those seated near me.   

Q. Were they properly alerted to these crucial matters (POTA and Sedition Act amendment), so they could come back to vote?

Yes, we have a dedicated WhatsApp group for Pakatan Rakyat MPs. So, they would have received notices. The Chief Whips would have also SMS-ed them. For those overseas or outside KL, they probably could not come back in time to vote.

Q. But why not rush back? Why even be outstation or overseas in the first place? The POTA bill were on your desks a week beforehand. Don’t all MPs plan to be at all the Parliamentary sittings? How many days do you have each year for this?

Look, I cannot speak on behalf of those absent. Whatever reasons they have for being outstation or overseas they need to answer to their own constituents. We are in Parliament for roughly 80 to 90 working days a year, divided into three sessions.

Q. Your observation – what are typical reasons for being missing from their seat in Parliament (other than being sick)?

They may have important “official engagements”, who knows? That’s the most overused excuse. It’s a bit like “melawat sambil belajar” (a study trip). But I don’t believe anyone had official engagements at 2.30 am. I believe Parliament must be a priority, especially so when debating legislations. During question time and less significant policy level debates, you can arguably take some time off. These events are when ministers answer your questions. In most cases, the ministers actually try very hard not to answer your questions.

However, you should never ever be absent when legislations are tabled, especially so involving crucial legislations such as POTA and the Sedition Act. My own practice is to decline any invitations when Parliament sits. I enjoy my Parliamentary work with fellow MPs and at this time, I am quite happy to leave my staff, who are very competent in helping with all the sundry complaints of potholes and clogged drains.

Even during legislative work, of course, you cannot sit there in your chair every second of the sitting. It is common to sometimes take an hour or two off during a full day’s legislative sitting especially if you’re not scheduled for debate or not an expert on a particular subject. Most will hang out at the Parliamentarian’s lounge or head out for a meal as the food in Parliament can be quite awful. Importantly, we also have out of chamber things to do like discussions with others MPs, work with our researchers, drafting and so forth. But all these activities should be done in premises of Parliament.

For instance, when I debated on the Securities Commission Act amendment, a somewhat specialised matter, a lot of MPs took breaks and the hall was three-quarters empty. But MPs should always be nearby, to rush back to vote. It is practice for MPs who want to push the matter to a vote, to give other MPs at least one hour’s notice beforehand. When the vote comes, there is a two minutes warning by a bell to alert MPs back into the chamber.

Q. You clearly have no answer for your missing brethren. OK, so, how can the opposition ever defeat a contentious UMNO-BN bill?

That’s not quite fair. But I can understand people’s frustrations.

How can you defeat a legislation? You can never defeat the UMNO-BN administration in a straight vote as they have 60% of the seats in Parliament. They only need 51% to pass any legislation. They need 66% to amend the constitution, which is why they are stuck on the issue of electoral boundary redelineation.

There are basically three key ways to defeat a bill. One, is to win BN backbenchers over to go against the Najib administration. This very rare event happened last November last year, when the BN backbenchers asked the government to withdraw the bill on MPs pay. They regarded Najib’s proposed pay rise as insufficient, since it was lower than the pay of a state assemblyman. Many backbenchers were furious and as such Najib had to withdraw the bill.

Second, is to get external people to pressure the government. For instance, last year, in the investment panel issue, I provided information to the media, rating agencies, academics and the business community on Najib’s bill. They in turn pressured Najib to drop his plan for an investment panel within the income tax department. So we achieved a positive result. The contentious investment panel clause was removed. Many regarded it as an unusual and dubious thing. My office and I worked very hard on this issue.

Third, is to convince the Speaker that the Najib administration has failed to follow procedures of the Standing Order, hence the bill cannot procedurally, be tabled. We tried the third move on the Sedition Act amendments but the Speaker rejected Gobind’s sub judice argument and instead supported the Najib administration.

MPs standing to be counted on the Sedition Act amendments vote (Photo: Wong Chen)


Q. What other important bills were there in this sitting?

In addition to POTA and the Sedition Act amendments, there were two other significant bills presented to us during the sitting: the KWAP bill deals with the civil servants pension fund; and the bill on the creation of a Malaysian Aviation Commission.

These two bills saw the consolidation of the Prime Minister’s powers. He will have a lot influence over the decisions that these two bodies make. In the KWAP bill, the Bank Negara Malaysia (central bank) representative was removed from KWAP board for reasons unknown. The type of investments KWAP could make, were broadened to include derivatives and unlisted entities (these offer less transparency).

In the Aviation Commission bill, which decides on licensing for the operation of airlines, ground maintenance and aerodomes (in my estimation a RM 20 billion industry since Air Asia is valued at RM 6 billion and MAS at RM 4 billion). The commission allows for nine members on the board, with one appointed by the Ministry of Transport and the other eight appointed by the Prime Minister. Najib has powers to decide everything about the Board including selection of its members, their remuneration and their sacking.

Q. It’s been a long interview, any last words?

Many people feel a loss of hope as they see all the odd things happenings at the top. Some people grow used to these abuses by UMNO BN and now believe there is no other way. When several Pakatan MPs failed to do their job in Parliament, it compounds that sense of hopelessness. Many are already upset with the stagnant economy and the fall of the Ringgit. GST comes along. Then draconian laws passed in Parliament. It is all very sad and sickening. People keep asking how much lower we can go. People even stop me on the street to ask if they should leave Malaysia for good. I just shrug and then say we must stay and we must fight.

An exclusive interview with Wong Chen, Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Member of Parliament for Kelana Jaya, 11 April 2015.

This is Part 3 of 3.

Read Part 1 here, /khoryuleng/2015/04/interview-wong-chen-on-anti-terrorism.html.

Read Part 2 here, /khoryuleng/2015/04/interview-wong-chen-on-anti-terrorism_14.html

Interview (2/3): Wong Chen on anti-terrorism, sedition, bloc voting, missing MPs and more (Part 2 of 3)

Q&A with Wong Chen, Parti Keadilan Rakyat Member of Parliament for Kelana Jaya, 11 April 2015. On Malaysian Parliament, 9 March – 9 April 2015 session - anti-terrorism, sedition, bloc voting, missing MPs and more (Part 2).

Q. Was the POTA legislation rushed? What's with the 12 hour debate into the wee hours?

POTA was not only rushed. It was bulldozed through. Apparently, Malaysia is about to be attacked by terrorists. That’s what the IGP said a week ago. Therefore, BN needs it, and they need it now. The bills was so needed that it had to be passed at 2.30 a.m.

The Malaysian Parliament isn’t anything like many others in the Commonwealth and legislatures elsewhere. There is little use of bi-partisan select and standing committees. There is almost no consultation with experts on draft bills. No public hearings. The bills pop up on our tables at Parliament just days before the debate.  At the so-called committee stage, there is in fact no committee; it is just another round of floor debates where questions and opinions are often greeted by more heckling.

For POTA, the Pakatan MPs were determined to record our objections to key problematic clauses of POTA in the Hansard. We mounted a strong challenge at the policy level and also at the committee stage debate. On my count, the debate went on for 12 hours.

What was also disappointing was the fact that even the two MPs of Gerakan (part of BN) voted for POTA. One of Gerakan’s main pillars was its stance against ISA. But their two MPs voted for it.

Q. Were any BN MPs concerned about the POTA provisions?

In my opinion, overall no. Not from the content of their speeches. The BN MPs argued a simple line: we need these extensive powers to fight terrorists. And then they promised not to abuse it.

People ask me, can you trust their promises? Najib’s administration has so far arrested 150 under the Sedition Act within the space of a year. Others point to other examples of empty promises - the ISA. The ISA was created by the British to fight communists and UMNO-BN kept it on and used it too. Out of the 10,000 odd people arrested under it, the majority of detainees were in fact non-communists but political opponents of the government.

As far as I’m concerned, the MPs from BN failed to demonstrate any deep understanding or real concerns about human rights. They probably voted out of blind loyalty, and they voted as a bloc. I suspect a good many who did not take part in the debate are unaware of the real substantive issues. I was particularly upset with the senior members of the backbenchers – all the BN Tan Sris and Dato Seris - for they should know better. They should be the seniors defending the constitution. You shouldn’t be an MP for three or more terms and pretend that legislations such as POTA and the Sedition Act are okay and acceptable.

During the debate, we also tried another strategy. By pointing out obvious flaws in the drafting. But these guys must have some sort of shame deficit, they rammed the legislation through anyway; warts, flaws and all included. From their actions, I’ll say that the BN MPs also couldn’t care if the world laughed at how bad the drafting was. 

Q. Do opposition MPs ever vote to support UMNO-BN legislation?

No, not that I can recall. In my two years as an MP, probably not even once. But we do not have a blind loyalty bloc vote policy, not in PKR and not as Pakatan Rakyat. We have room to agree to disagree. We are expected to think for ourselves, whilst bearing in mind our common policies and visions for Malaysia. These policies are set out in our Manifesto and also in our annual Alternative Budget.

For instance, 2 days ago, I debated on the matter of the Securities Commission bill. I praised the appointment of Ranjit Singh as Chairman. I saw this as an example of meritocracy. I said that the fact that the SC has financial independence is a big contributing factor to its success. I also said I had no problems with most of the proposed amendments. But, I asked for two changes. One to ensure that any external experts or advisors to an SC meeting shall first declare their interests and if they do have, then obviously they shouldn't act as an expert. The second change I wanted, was that after declaring an interest in a matter, a member of the SC must not be in the meeting and must not vote. Nothing political about my reasonable suggestions. But the UMNO-BN bloc voted against my suggestions. In turn, I could not support the legislation without my changes. As such, supporting or opposing a legislation it is not always a clear cut, black and white matter.

Q. So what about the Sedition Act - what are issues with this piece of legislation?

The amendments to the Sedition Act were put in at the very last minute and we were all caught by surprise. The bill was presented on our tables at 9am, two days before the debate. Two days! That’s an ambush. You can’t morally legislate such an important bill with two days notice.   

On the fateful day, I was first in Parliament at about 8.45 am. On my desk, staring back at me was the Sedition bill amendments. I took photos and WhatsApp the same to Pakatan MPs. There was a particularly nasty clause: the Najib administration wanted to disallow bail for anyone charged under this act. They sought to remove the discretion of judges in granting bail. They tried to transfer that discretionary power on bail to the attorney general. It was just so wrong on so many levels. YB Rafizi Ramli, who is facing 4 sedition investigations was mildly shock when I informed him of the clause.
This means that if you’re arrested by the police for sedition and if the attorney general is of the opinion that you are threat, you will be detained in police lock-up until the trial is over. Effectively, you could be in jail until trial completes in 2 to 4 years. UMNO-BN wanted to elevate the crime of sedition to a non-bailable offence. Do you know what crimes are not bailable? Kidnapping and murder. Come on, is criticising the government on the same league as murder? We immediately alerted the Bar Council, International Commission of Jurists and the United Nations on this issue.

My research officers and I then went into an emergency meeting with several MPs and started planning our next steps to try to stop the bill. YB Gobind Singh came up with a brilliant idea, arguing that the amendment to the Sedition Act is sub judice because the legality of the entire Sedition Act is currently under consideration of the Federal Court. To avoid sub judice, we asked UMNO-BN to at least defer the amendments until after a Federal Court makes a decision.

We then informed the three Chief Whips (PKR, DAP and PAS) of our plans and asked them to quickly contact the Speaker and the Minister to try to convince them to withdraw the amendment bill. In the meantime, we devised a strategy to buy more time for more bi-partisan discussions.

Several MPs approached the Sabah and Sarawak BN backbenchers. Apparently, we got support from some. To our surprise, Bung Mokhtar spoke against the bill. He is the wiliest of all BN backbencher. For instance, last week he was sympathetic of “Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia” (a Sabah and Sarawak secessionist group) and this week he called them “Orang Gila” (crazy people) and asked the police to arrest all of them. By nightfall, we heard that the Minister had agreed to withdraw the most onerous elements of the bill. To be safe, we nevertheless filed our own committee stage changes to the bill.

The next day, we were informed that the Najib administration had indeed removed the clause on “no bail” but they retained many more terms which are clearly abhorrent. I was particularly upset about their refusal to remove the clause on youthful and first time offenders. The Najib administration pushed through a clause that says youthful offenders (aged 18-21 years) and first time offenders cannot be shown any leniency by the courts. Therefore, they must serve a minimal jail term of 3 years up to 20 years for sedition, if found guilty.

 Debate notes on the clause on youthful and first time offenders (Photo: Wong Chen)

Whereas POTA has been packaged as a bill against terrorists, the Sedition Act has no such pretense, it is clearly aimed against citizens who want the right to exercise reasonable free speech and or carry out peaceful rallies.

This amendment bill was pushed through at 2.30 am after some 12 hours of debate. I lost my temper with several UMNO leaders and berated them over declaring war on Malaysian youths. I reminded them that we were all 18 years old at one time, and we’ve all been rebellious over something. As such, youths should be given special dispensation and not face the full weight of the law. I asked them if they knew what they had just voted for, to which I got blank faces. I asked them if they had children or grandchildren and to think of them.

Q. Some people ask if this the end of democracy in Malaysia (such as it is)? What do you say?

In my honest opinion, I’ll say it’s moving towards the end. We don’t have a free mass media other than the internet. But we are used to living with that. However, when they pass draconian laws, I’ll say that we are 70% to the end. Thank God we still have some good judges and some professional policemen.

There is a joke going around in the halls of Parliament that PM Najib has finally fulfilled his “1 Malaysia” dream. SOSMA was introduced after the Lahad Datu incident – sending a strong message to the people of Sabah and Sarawak. Then, he introduced PCA or the Prevention of Crime Act – targeted at so-called triads, essentially sending a strong message to the Chinese community. With POTA, he sends another strong message to the Malays and the Indians. It is Najib’s “1 Malaysia” dream fulfilled, Malay, Chinese, Indian, Iban and Kadazan all living in fear: semua sama-sama akan kena.


An exclusive interview with Wong Chen, Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Member of Parliament for Kelana Jaya, 11 April 2015.

This is Part 2 of 3.

Read Part 1 here, /khoryuleng/2015/04/interview-wong-chen-on-anti-terrorism.html.


Read Part 3 here, /khoryuleng/2015/04/interview-33-wong-chen-on-anti.html:
•People are angry with opposition MPs who did not turn up for the vote. What is your opinion on this?
•Were they properly alerted to these crucial matters (POTA and Sedition Act amendment), so they could come back to vote?
•But why not rush back? Why even be outstation or overseas in the first place? The POTA bill were on your desks a week beforehand. Don’t all MPs plan to be at all the Parliamentary sittings? How many days do you have each year for this?
•Your observation – what are typical reasons for being missing from their seat in Parliament (other than being sick)?
•You clearly have no answer for your missing brethren. OK, so, how can the opposition ever defeat a contentious UMNO-BN bill?
•What other important bills were there in this sitting?
•It’s been a long interview, any last words?

Interview (1/3): Wong Chen on anti-terrorism, sedition, bloc voting, missing MPs and more (Part 1 of 3)

 Q&A with Wong Chen, Parti Keadilan Rakyat Member of Parliament for Kelana Jaya, 11 April 2015. On Malaysian Parliament, 9 March – 9 April 2015 session - anti-terrorism, sedition, bloc voting, missing MPs and more (Part 1).

Q. What were the important events at the recently completed Parliamentary sitting?
 
The two biggest events were the tabling of the Prevention of Terrorism (POTA) bill and the amendments to the Sedition Act. There were 13 legislations presented for this sitting, 7 of which were related to POTA. POTA is a new legislation, so other existing legislations relating to criminal justice needed to be amended to sync with POTA. The 7 related bills included matters concerning criminal procedure, penal code and evidence.
 
POTA has provisions for detention without trial (renewable every two years) for an indefinite period. The amendments to the Sedition Act were intended to give extensive powers to the police and widen the definition of "seditious tendencies". If passed, these two bills will erode the rakyat’s already fragile and limited rights. Many worry that this points to the Najib administration becoming more authoritarian and less tolerant of criticisms.
 
Q. What do you mean if passed? Aren’t these laws passed after the two 12 hour sessions in Parliament?
 
Before a bill becomes an act there are two further stages. After Dewan Rakyat (the lower chamber of Parliament), a bill needs to go to the upper house or Dewan Negara. After that it needs the Agong's (ruler, the head of state) signature.
 
The upper house is majority controlled by the Najib’s appointees and if the ruler refuses to sign, it will become law irrespective after one month.
 
In terms of expected timing, these bills will become law within the month of April. Our fear is that these legislations may be used against the people for the May Day rally. It may even be used against Dr.Mahathir to stop his increasingly brazen questions about Najib.
 
Q. Can you highlight how these legislations were debated in Parliament? What did you do?
 
Since November last year, when UMNO-BN introduced the White Paper against ISIS, we knew that a legislation against terrorism will be prepared. However, not a single person from Pakatan Rakyat or the Bar Council was consulted on the drafting of the anti-terrorism bill. So, two weeks before the start of the recently concluded Parliament session, I asked my two researchers to start looking at the anti-terrorism legislations of Australia and the UK. They researched a pile of data and policy points. At the start, none of the MPs seemed interested except for Raja Bahrin of PAS.
 
On the first day of the Parliament session, I had breakfast with Raja Bahrin, MP for Kuala Terengganu. We usually breakfast together. There is only a handful of MPs that get to Parliament before 9.30 am. We talked about POTA and decided to do a few press conferences to alert the public. We started by alerting the public that MPs had yet to receive the draft bill.
 
The bill was finally put on table a week before debate. Since I was assigned by PKR to analyze the bill, my researchers worked harder crafting arguments for MPs to use. I also worked with Ooi Heng (the parliamentary researcher for PKR) and he arranged for a special briefing by the Bar Council, open to all Members of Parliament. Despite the open invitation, only Pakatan Rakyat MPs attended.
Around 20 MPs attended the briefing, which I co-chaired.
 
Thereafter, I called for a meeting of Pakatan MPs to attend a drafting session to put our alternative amendments to POTA. That was on Saturday 4 April 2015 in the PKR HQ. The YBs that attended the drafting were Sim Tze Tzin (PKR - Bayan Baru), William Leong (PKR-Selayang), Manivanan Gowin (PKR – Kapar), Hanipa Maidin (PAS –Sepang), Lim Lip Eng (DAP Segambut) and myself. My two researchers and Shao Loong of Institut Rakyat (the PKR think tank) also attended. I chaired and presented suggested amendments, William Leong and Hanipa gave a lot of feedback.
  
Saturday 4 April 2015 meeting on POTA bill (photo: Wong Chen)

YB Sim Tze Tzin then drafted and faxed our amendments to the Parliamentary secretariat. He has experience with such amendments. Our amendments were a tactical move to slow down proceedings and also force our version to be debated. We were hoping to slow down proceedings so to buy time for our MPs to try to “turn” some BN backbenchers. By submitting written amendments, BN backbenchers could then read our proposals and duly consider the issues. Throwing oral arguments across the floor will have limited impact compared to presenting a written document. We hoped some would support it instead of the Najib administration’s bill.
 
Q. So what did you propose?
 
We are not soft on terrorism. We wanted a law that balances the need to protect citizens from terrorism and at the same time upholds rule of law and justice.
 
So we looked at the UK and Australian models. They have been actual targets of terrorist attacks. They are on constant high alert. Yet their laws are grounded. In the interest of fighting terrorism, they forgo minimal civil liberties and adopted a pre-trial detention system. Their authorities have powers to detain a suspect. However the maximum detention time is only up to 14 days. Thereafter, they must either set him free or charge him in court. UK and Australia are prime targets of terrorist attacks, yet their MPs saw the need to protect democracy and find a practical solution to security threats.
 
We liked what UK and Australia did. Tough on terrorism but without sacrificing a whole lot of civil liberties. So we basically adopted their laws in our counter-proposal to Najib’s version. We proposed a similar 14 days pre-trial detention. In truth, I would have even gone beyond 14 days to 28 days, if BN had counter-proposed, which they didn’t. Anything would have been better than indefinite detention without trial.
 
 

Pakatan Rakyat’s amendments submitted for the POTA bill (photo: Wong Chen)

Q. What’s in Najib’s POTA bill?
 
The Najib administration proposed a system of detention without trial. POTA also allows normally inadmissible evidence, to be admissible. What does that mean? Hearsay or illegal confessions (however obtained) will be admissible in POTA. POTA also states that there will be no judicial review, whatsoever. Habeas corpus will not be allowed.
 
POTA has a Prevention of Terrorism Board, the bulk of the members do not have any pre-qualification requirements. The Chairman needs only 15 years experience in the legal field to qualify. This means that a banking lawyer of 15 years can lead the POTA Board! We asked for the Chairman to be at least a High Court Judge with experience in the criminal division. Our request was rejected. 
The Board also has powers to make up any rules or procedures whenever they like. There is also no oversight by Parliament, POTA only answers to the Home Minister and ultimately the Prime Minister who appointed him. But the biggest threat is the matter of indefinite detention without trial.
 
When a suspect is arrested under POTA, he may be detained for a period of two years, renewable every two years for an indefinite period. This is basically ISA 2.0. We took the stand that this system would ultimately create more terrorists because you cannot fight terrorism by smashing the rule of law.
 
For instance, what if the Najib administration catches a misguided 18-year old who supports ISIS? They could detain him and deny him his basic rights to a trial. Give him no access to a lawyer, no access to his family. He will simply disappear. When the authorities eventually release him, he may have become so angry and filled with hatred that he might just become a terrorist. When a man is denied justice or a fair trial, he might fight his oppressors harder.
 
We looked at history, how unfair detentions in Northern Ireland had in fact created more sympathizers and IRA fighters. The same too in the recent Egyptian crackdown on the Islamic Brotherhood. Our greatest fear is that POTA may end up creating more terrorists.
 
Q. But isn’t this about existing terrorists?
 
No, POTA is extremely wide ranging. It isn’t just restricted to containing terrorists who carry guns and bombs. Terrorist activities are given such a wide definition that it will include people who “support” terrorist groups. Support is such a vague term, and certain parts of the bill has wordings that refers to financial contribution and purchase of merchandise as terrorist activities. Thus, that categorizes someone who buys or sells ISIS t-shirts or ISIS flags as a terrorist too.
 
Several PAS MPs alerted me that the US treats Hamas as a terrorist organisation. In Malaysia, Hamas is accepted by many Muslims as an organization that tries to help Palestinians. Every Friday prayers, right across Malaysia, thousands of people donate to Islamic charities, which direct these donations toward the rebuilding of Palestine. What happens if Malaysia follows the US stance and declares Hamas a terrorist organisation? Combine this with such a wide definition under POTA, many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Malaysian Muslims may be regarded as terrorists. Why create a law that makes thousands vulnerable to potential arrest and detention without trial? Some ask if this is intended to instill fear. History teaches us that a government that rules by fear will not be a government for long.
 
When my researchers dug deeper, we also discovered that not only some Muslims may be targeted, but some Tamils are also potential targets. The Tamil Tigers are currently classified as a terrorist group under Malaysian laws. The Tamil Tigers are very popular amongst the Tamil population in Malaysia. So with POTA, wearing a Tamil Tiger t-shirt will categorize you as a terrorist.

As I said earlier, if POTA is used against such supporters - putting them in detention without trial, and depriving them of legal rights under POTA - they may emerge hardened in terrorism. But if you give them a fair trial together with rehabilitation efforts, you stand a much better chance to return them to normalcy. 

An exclusive interview with Wong Chen, Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Member of Parliament for Kelana Jaya, 11 April 2015.

This is Part 1 of 3.

Next, read Part 2 - Interview (2/3): Wong Chen on anti-terrorism, sedition, bloc voting, missing MPs and more (Part 2 of 3) /khoryuleng/2015/04/interview-wong-chen-on-anti-terrorism_14.html
  • Was the POTA legislation rushed? What's with the 12 hour debate until the wee hours?
  • Were any BN MPs concerned about the POTA provisions?
  • Do opposition MPs ever vote to support UMNO-BN legislation?
  • So what about the Sedition Act - what are issues with this piece of legislation?
  • Some people ask if this the end of democracy in Malaysia (such as it is)? What do you say?
Read Part 3 here, /khoryuleng/2015/04/interview-33-wong-chen-on-anti.html:
  • People are angry with opposition MPs who did not turn up for the vote. What is your opinion on this?
  • Were they properly alerted to these crucial matters (POTA and Sedition Act amendment), so they could come back to vote?
  • But why not rush back? Why even be outstation or overseas in the first place? The POTA bill were on your desks a week beforehand. Don’t all MPs plan to be at all the Parliamentary sittings? How many days do you have each year for this?
  • Your observation – what are typical reasons for being missing from their seat in Parliament (other than being sick)?
  • You clearly have no answer for your missing brethren. OK, so, how can the opposition ever defeat a contentious UMNO/BN bill?
  • What other important bills were there in this sitting?
  • It’s been a long interview, any last words?

Khor Yu Leng has researched and written about the political economy of Felda and Johor-Iskandar and voting outcomes in GE13 (with a focus on rural voting behaviours). Some highlights here: /khoryuleng/2014/04/malaysia-political-economy-of-felda-and.html. These works were published in Kajian Malaysia / Journal of Malaysian Studies in 2014 and a book by ISEAS in 2015. She was Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) in 2013. She is married to Wong Chen.