It is most unfortunate for someone who advocated transparency, openness and freedom of expression decided to cancel the live telecast of the Dewan Rakyat sitting.
The prime minister was quoted in The Star today that “I felt ashamed if people watched and saw what was happening in our Dewan. In my heart, I also felt that all this happened because there was a live broadcast at that time."
The prime minister was quoted in The Star today that “I felt ashamed if people watched and saw what was happening in our Dewan. In my heart, I also felt that all this happened because there was a live broadcast at that time."
In its first sitting since the general elections, the Dewan Rakyat was turned into a "zoo", when Karpal Singah (DAP - Jelutong) and Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN – Kinabatangan) traded barbs against each other and called each other "big monkey" and "orang utan."
Responding to a question, he said that if Information Minister Datuk Shabery Cheek decided to cancel the live telecast, he would agree.
Abdullah also added that the question of transparency of what went on during proceedings should not arise because sessions were open to all, noting that the media was free to cover the proceedings and report on whatever happened.
To Malaysians, Abdullah's worry is totally lame at its best and unsubstantiated at its worst.
Many would agree that canceling the live telecast is a step backwards in his move towards promoting greater openness and transparency under his administration.
Furthermore, many would also argue that this move, if implemented, is a sign of the government’s insecurity and inability to face a more rejuvenated and aggressive opposition in the august house.
Malaysia is not the only country in the world which is facing a dilemma in televising live proceedings of the parliament.
Parliaments throughout the world have wrestled with the question of whether or not to allow the television cameras into the Chamber.
Many have done so, but many more continue to hesitate or might not have even considered it.
Of those Parliaments which have admitted the television cameras, only a few provide continuous live coverage of all the proceedings. They are Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Hungary, Iran, Scotland, UK and USA. The latest to join the select group is India. Most of the other countries permit live telecast of special events only and Highlights of the proceedings in the News Inserts.
Abdullah also added that the question of transparency of what went on during proceedings should not arise because sessions were open to all, noting that the media was free to cover the proceedings and report on whatever happened.
To Malaysians, Abdullah's worry is totally lame at its best and unsubstantiated at its worst.
Many would agree that canceling the live telecast is a step backwards in his move towards promoting greater openness and transparency under his administration.
Furthermore, many would also argue that this move, if implemented, is a sign of the government’s insecurity and inability to face a more rejuvenated and aggressive opposition in the august house.
Malaysia is not the only country in the world which is facing a dilemma in televising live proceedings of the parliament.
Parliaments throughout the world have wrestled with the question of whether or not to allow the television cameras into the Chamber.
Many have done so, but many more continue to hesitate or might not have even considered it.
Of those Parliaments which have admitted the television cameras, only a few provide continuous live coverage of all the proceedings. They are Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Hungary, Iran, Scotland, UK and USA. The latest to join the select group is India. Most of the other countries permit live telecast of special events only and Highlights of the proceedings in the News Inserts.
Continuous live television coverage of a Parliament’s proceedings does not by itself guarantee that the public will have a balanced view of Parliament.
Since its advent in the Canadian House of Commons, for example, public attention has largely focused on the daily question period, a period of confrontation between the Government and the Opposition Parties when parliamentary behaviour is seldom seen at its best.
The discipline and decorum on the floors of legislatures are barometers to measure the maturity of a democracy. Parliament is regarded as the most revered temple of a democratic dispensation.
The discipline and decorum on the floors of legislatures are barometers to measure the maturity of a democracy. Parliament is regarded as the most revered temple of a democratic dispensation.
Way back on October 4, 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru had struck a note of caution: "If once the reputation of our legislatures goes down, then democracy itself will be in peril. Therefore the reputation of these legislatures as also of our services, must be strictly guarded and any misbehaviour should lead to enquiry and action.
If the behaviours of our parliamentarians is a yardstick of the maturity of our democracy, then we have to admit that we still have a long way to go before achieving a first class democracy.
