YOURSAY | ‘You must accept the motion for debate regardless and allow a secret ballot.’
Pandikar: Give me anti-Najib list, I'll push for no-confidence debate
6th Generation Immigrant:
Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia is not the Parliament, he is just a speaker entitled to a casting vote, and he is supposed to be non-partisan.
How can he think he already knows that the opposition or the ruling party have 89 votes? Either party could have 5, 10, 89, 100 or 221 of parliamentary votes for or against any motion debated to be passed or rejected.
It is Parliament that decides, not Pandikar. We do not need Parliament if what he says is accepted as convention.
Behsaikong: The speaker of the House wants a list of names who would vote for a motion before he will approve tabling it?
And he has to pressure the government to allow him to allow the motion to be tabled? And this is democracy? What has come to this country?
Anonymous #97893788: You cannot set conditions for this motion. You must accept the motion for debate regardless and allow a secret ballot so there will be no witch-hunt if the motion were to fail.
We need not know who voted against Premier Najib Abdul Razak.
Senior Citizen: What type of speaker we have here? It is none of your business to know how many are against Najib. Your job is to facilitate the voting.
Can the Election Commission ask the opposition parties to provide a list of voters who are voting against BN so that they can pressure the ruling parties to hold a general election?
Asitis: Is this a new standard operating procedure for the Parliament - that when asking the speaker to allow a topic to be debated, an MP must also tell him how many MPs are for or against the topic?
If we have this information beforehand, then we already know the outcome of the debate even before the topic is debated. Then what is the point of debating and voting?
Ipoh Pp: It's like me asking Toto to show me the numbers that will be drawn this Saturday before I place my bets.
What a dud this fellow is. Show me your hand in poker before I up you. Ridiculous, to say the least.
Ipohcrite: "...then maybe I can pressure the government to debate this" said Pandikar, telling the whole world and sundry that he panders to the government and does not serve as a speaker with neutrality.
Smer: Pandikar has to put pressure on the government? More likely, it’s to reveal the people you can kick out from the party or arrest for threatening parliamentary democracy.
Bumiputhran: This cunning guy is on a fishing trip. I suggest play his game. Just submit the figure 180, but not the names. Let him put to it to the actual test at the time of voting.
Vijay47: Good trick, Pandikar, trying to kill two birds with one stone.
You want to find out who among the BN MPs would support such a motion. But should they choose to remain incognito for the moment, you can always claim that the number of supporters is too small.
Is it any of your business how many support Najib or are against him? Shouldn't that be left for Parliament to decide after due debate?
NNFC: This might possibly mean that Pandikar will deny the debate if the list of MPs from the ruling coalition exceeds the 50 percent required. Is this the trick? Then those MPs will be persecuted.
Onyourtoes: You think you are smart, don't you? You want to draw out BN MPs who are against premier.
Look, we don't trust you. We don't believe you will allow the no-confidence debate and vote even if more than 100 MPs have submitted their names.
In any case, why must MPs submit their names first? I thought we must all hear the debate first and then vote.
CQ Muar: Wasn't this what I commented yesterday, which bears similarity to what Pandikar suggested?
In the event the no-confidence motion, despite its intent and purposes, fail to see the light of day, then the next option is to opt for a no-confidence against the Budget, and defeat it.
This will raise doubts on Najib's credibility and support, which in turn will impact on his ability to helm and continue as prime minister.
However, this is my personal view, and may sound foolish and objectionable to others. Therefore, kindly correct me if I'm off the mark.
Oh Ya?: While the opposition has been playing marbles on the no-confidence motion, the speaker is acting like a clown.
Where on earth does the Westminster system require MPs to show their hand before a no-confidence motion could be tabled? And for that matter any other motion?
Bijan: Is there a way to move a no-confidence motion against the speaker first?
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.
Related reports
Quit posts if no-confidence bid fails, opposition leaders dared
Pandikar’s existential problem
Speaker can’t set conditions for no-confidence motion
What if the opposition resigns en bloc?
