Lobby ban leads to boycott
Malay Mail (25/6/08): Lobby correspondents were yesterday appalled by Parliamentary officials’ decision to bar journalists from the lobby, which has been for decades one of the chief points of contact between the Third and Fourth Estates.
The move comes on the heels of an order, issued on June 20, to limit Press representation to five each per agency.
Citing concerns about “chaos ”, Deputy Speaker Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Ja’afar told an outraged Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) that the decision to remove the Press from the lobby was reached by a consensus of himself, Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia and Deputy Speaker Ronald Kiandee.
“I visited the House of Commons (in London) and never once witnessed the same kind of chaos there,” he said, “and likewise (there was no disorder) when I attended Congress in the United States, the Western Australian Parliament in Perth, and the Federal Australian Parliament in Canberra." The government backbench thumped their support, and several MPs, notably Datuk Lilah Yassin (BN-Jempol) and Datuk Dr Mohd Shahrom Osman (BN-Lipis) shouted for Lim to sit down and not waste the House’s time with what they apparently considered to be a trivial matter.
Within minutes, however, the Barisan backbench provided journalists in the chamber a startling display of Parliamentary conduct when mayhem broke out during a point of order raised by Khalid Abdul Samad (Pas-Shah Alam).
Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak), responding to jibes from N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai), shouted repeatedly at the latter to “go drink toddy” - a remark that in the last sitting occasioned some humour, but today had decidedly confrontational overtones.
Wan Junaidi was unable to impose within the House the order he would have liked to see outside in the lobby, and MPs spent considerable time hurling insults at each other in a display of decorum very far from the idea of a “first-world parliament” that has lately been bandied about.
Given the lobby ban, the Press ordered a general boycott of all corridor reportage -- such as lobby correspondence had become -- and victims of the voluntary action included Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and other ministers, as well as opposition MPs.
Clearly, no one expected an immediate retaliation from the parliamentary correspondents: Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz described himself as a mere intermediary in the matter between parliamentary authorities and journalists.
Some MPs, however, would have none of it. A few minutes before the House reconvened after lunch, 15 members of the Barisan Backbenchers Club, led by Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan), removed the cordon around the lobby.
Bung Mokhar’s reasoning was thus: Parliamentary administrative authorities had not informed backbenchers of the Press restrictions, and the Sabah MP said he saw no reason now to inform the same authorities of the barrier’s removal.
As a matter of principle, however, the Press still refused to cross the now imaginary boundary. Besides, an official decision from the authorities was still wanting.
Minutes later in the House, Pandikar Amin got himself into a long and heated argument with Karpal Singh (DAPBukit Gelugor), Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) and others who sought an explanation for the controversy.
Ignoring the issue of the cordon, Pandikar Amin claimed that media agencies were not instructed to limit their representation in Parliament, and that letters had been sent to editors merely to seek their views on the matter.
He also cited security issues and the difficulty security staff apparently had in establishing the identity of journalists in spite of mandatory identification tags issued by the Information Department, and strict procedures on entering the building.
These reasons may have satisfied Members in the House, who subsided back into a dry debate of a Bill to amend the Labuan Offshore Financial Services Authority Act.
The question of principle, however, remained: Parliamentary authorities had cited a desire to impose “first-world parliamentary standards” that required an end to the “chaos” of reporters asking difficult questions of Ministers and parliamentarians.
This concern is both misguided as well as inimical to the democratic practices of the same first-world parliament we are trying so desperately to achieve and, if the conduct of MPs in debate yesterday morning was any measure, standards of conduct ought first to be observed within the House, rather than in the lobby.
Parliamentary reportage exists not merely to repeat the carefully vetted official statements of our leaders, but also to evaluate and comment on their views in the interest of the public; that much should be obvious to even the least politically astute.
Access to elected representatives for this purpose is a fundamental necessity to any informed democracy, and while news agencies can certainly request statements from Ministries and the offices of other politicians, access to public information, and the opinions of government and opposition leaders, is a fundamental duty, as well as the basic right, of every journalist. (U En Ng)
The move comes on the heels of an order, issued on June 20, to limit Press representation to five each per agency.
Citing concerns about “chaos ”, Deputy Speaker Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Ja’afar told an outraged Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) that the decision to remove the Press from the lobby was reached by a consensus of himself, Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia and Deputy Speaker Ronald Kiandee.
“I visited the House of Commons (in London) and never once witnessed the same kind of chaos there,” he said, “and likewise (there was no disorder) when I attended Congress in the United States, the Western Australian Parliament in Perth, and the Federal Australian Parliament in Canberra." The government backbench thumped their support, and several MPs, notably Datuk Lilah Yassin (BN-Jempol) and Datuk Dr Mohd Shahrom Osman (BN-Lipis) shouted for Lim to sit down and not waste the House’s time with what they apparently considered to be a trivial matter.
Within minutes, however, the Barisan backbench provided journalists in the chamber a startling display of Parliamentary conduct when mayhem broke out during a point of order raised by Khalid Abdul Samad (Pas-Shah Alam).
Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak), responding to jibes from N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai), shouted repeatedly at the latter to “go drink toddy” - a remark that in the last sitting occasioned some humour, but today had decidedly confrontational overtones.
Wan Junaidi was unable to impose within the House the order he would have liked to see outside in the lobby, and MPs spent considerable time hurling insults at each other in a display of decorum very far from the idea of a “first-world parliament” that has lately been bandied about.
Given the lobby ban, the Press ordered a general boycott of all corridor reportage -- such as lobby correspondence had become -- and victims of the voluntary action included Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and other ministers, as well as opposition MPs.
Clearly, no one expected an immediate retaliation from the parliamentary correspondents: Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz described himself as a mere intermediary in the matter between parliamentary authorities and journalists.
Some MPs, however, would have none of it. A few minutes before the House reconvened after lunch, 15 members of the Barisan Backbenchers Club, led by Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan), removed the cordon around the lobby.
Bung Mokhar’s reasoning was thus: Parliamentary administrative authorities had not informed backbenchers of the Press restrictions, and the Sabah MP said he saw no reason now to inform the same authorities of the barrier’s removal.
As a matter of principle, however, the Press still refused to cross the now imaginary boundary. Besides, an official decision from the authorities was still wanting.
Minutes later in the House, Pandikar Amin got himself into a long and heated argument with Karpal Singh (DAPBukit Gelugor), Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) and others who sought an explanation for the controversy.
Ignoring the issue of the cordon, Pandikar Amin claimed that media agencies were not instructed to limit their representation in Parliament, and that letters had been sent to editors merely to seek their views on the matter.
He also cited security issues and the difficulty security staff apparently had in establishing the identity of journalists in spite of mandatory identification tags issued by the Information Department, and strict procedures on entering the building.
These reasons may have satisfied Members in the House, who subsided back into a dry debate of a Bill to amend the Labuan Offshore Financial Services Authority Act.
The question of principle, however, remained: Parliamentary authorities had cited a desire to impose “first-world parliamentary standards” that required an end to the “chaos” of reporters asking difficult questions of Ministers and parliamentarians.
This concern is both misguided as well as inimical to the democratic practices of the same first-world parliament we are trying so desperately to achieve and, if the conduct of MPs in debate yesterday morning was any measure, standards of conduct ought first to be observed within the House, rather than in the lobby.
Parliamentary reportage exists not merely to repeat the carefully vetted official statements of our leaders, but also to evaluate and comment on their views in the interest of the public; that much should be obvious to even the least politically astute.
Access to elected representatives for this purpose is a fundamental necessity to any informed democracy, and while news agencies can certainly request statements from Ministries and the offices of other politicians, access to public information, and the opinions of government and opposition leaders, is a fundamental duty, as well as the basic right, of every journalist. (U En Ng)
0 comments:
Post a Comment