I’m no lawyer or investigator, and not responsible for quality of ministers’ replies: Azhar

KUALA LUMPUR – Datuk Azhar Azizan Harun today told the Dewan Rakyat that he is not a lawyer and investigator, and not responsible for ministerial replies.

The comment comes after the speaker was pressed by multiple opposition MPs, with Port Dickson’s Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim first accusing him of being a “lawyer for criminals and the corrupt” following his refusal to allow a debate or discussion on the contents of the Pandora Papers.

Anwar described the funds in offshore accounts in tax haven countries as an “outflow of hundreds of billions of ringgit”. 

After going through reports on the leaked financial documents, he said he came to the conclusion that they revealed shareholding in offshore accounts. 

“Why is the speaker behaving like a lawyer for the criminal and corrupt parties? Look at the documents; there are ministers or political leaders who hold shares in offshore companies. Isn’t this outflow? 

Where did the money come from? Did it come from the sky? That’s why I want to raise the matter here. Billions of ringgit went out. I don’t understand why the speaker is being a lawyer for these individuals. 

“This is why I want this matter to be raised and debated in Parliament. As I’ve said before, we won’t punish anyone who has accounts in tax havens who are not corrupt.

“But this case involves ministers and leaders who have no reason to accumulate so much money outside the country.” 

Azhar refused to grant the opposition leader leeway, telling the latter to submit another motion under Standing Order 43 to review the speaker’s decision, and denying the claim that he is acting like a counsel for criminals. 

Anwar was last week supposed to submit the motion under Standing Order 43, but instead opted to do so under Standing Orders 90(1) and 90(2), to stop the enforcement of an order. This was rejected by Azhar, who saw that no order was stated in the said motion.

Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng later raised the issue of the Apricot project, where Google and Facebook bypassed linking Malaysia in the 12,000km undersea cable due to the cabotage policy.

The DAP secretary-general told the lower house that Transport Minister Datuk Seri Wee Ka Siong’s statement contradicts an earlier written reply by Communications and Multimedia Minister Tan Sri Annuar Musa. 

“On September 30, the transport minister said the Apricot project, a 12,000km undersea cable that was supposed to be connected to Malaysia, had nothing to do with the cabotage policy, where Wee refused to give an exemption to foreign vessels to work on the project.

“But on September 5, the honourable communications and multimedia minister gave a written reply to his honourable Bukit Mertajam (Steven Sim) that the cabotage policy has not been finalised, and was among the reasons Apricot bypassed Malaysia. 

“These are two different answers. One of the ministries must have misled this august House and is against Point of Order 36(12). I hope the speaker can investigate which one is the correct version.”

Azhar replied: “I can’t be a lawyer, so I can’t be an investigator.”

“You have to investigate who misled the Dewan,” said Lim. 

Azhar said in response: “Just now, I was told I can’t be a lawyer, and now, I must be an investigator. So… how?”

“Investigate it as a speaker who chairs this august House, who wants to find the truth instead of concealing it. Who is correct? The communications and multimedia minister or the transport minister? I’m inclined to believe the communications and multimedia minister,” replied Lim. 

Azhar said in response: “Thank you. I just finished doing a little research on the duties of a speaker in relation to ministerial replies. In Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth countries, the speaker is not responsible for the quality of the answers. 

“But it’s alright. The honourable member has requested me to investigate. Can you write to me and show me the differences between the two answers? I will try to request a reply from both ministers.” 

After being pressed by the opposition, particularly Jelutong’s R.S.N. Rayer and Khalid Abdul Samad of Shah Alam, Azhar quoted a March 12 explanation from the speaker of the House of Commons on the duty and responsibility of the post holder.

“I want to make it clear what my responsibility is with regard to answers, and what the responsibilities are for those giving them. It is long established that the speaker is not, and cannot, be responsible for the content of ministerial answers.” – The Vibes, October 11, 2021