What To Make Of Parliament Of Apes Owls And Vultures

---

Records held by the Corporation of the City of London dating back to the 15th century reveal the existence of pardoners who were usually friars or priests whom they said gave them the power to grant absolution - for a fee, naturally.
Not surprisingly, the profession attracted many fraudsters armed with fake papal pardons and bogus relics. The records also revealed several cases of “lying pardoners” being publicly shamed and named.
The same book lists the collective noun for birds as a “Parliament of owls” - which has its origins in the children’s classic, “The Chronicles of Narnia” by CS Lewis and is a reference to Chaucer’s allegorical poem “The Parliament of Fowls”.
Although owls are solitary and nocturnal birds who only pair up to mate, “Parliament of owls” is a poetic description, perhaps because owls are also symbols of wisdom.
A shrewdness of apes originated in the late 1400s, referring to the mischievous nature of apes, though knowing now how intelligent they are, the term still works.
In 2009, secretive British street artist Banksy, painted “Devolved Parliament” in which chimpanzees replace politicians, reflecting the brutish exchanges over Brexit.
Last year, Selangor ruler Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah purchased a painting that appears to be a derivative or inspired by a Banksy painting.
Selangor ruler, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah with a painting of primates in ParliamentIn the Malaysian painting, politicians on both sides of the aisle are illustrated as primates - including chimpanzees, orangutans, mandrills, proboscis monkeys and macaques - with only the then speaker Azhar Azizan Harun and two officers depicted as humans.
What do owls, pardoners and primates have to do with us – the millions of Malaysians who elected our lawmakers?
Hell breaks loose
What happened in Parliament this week, not for the first time, saw yet another display of the (mis)conduct of some of our lawmakers.
If previously, it was one MP making derogatory remarks on women or making racist remarks, both of which were unparliamentary, this time around, the collective loud voices made what was supposed to be a healthy debate into a farce.
Instead of supposedly wise owls, the chambers became the venue for a shouting match with the speaker’s patience being tested and eventually ordering the Putrajaya MP out of the house with the rest of the opposition walking out in support.
Was it spontaneous, engineered or just a misunderstanding of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s reference to Putrajaya?
Would all of this have been necessary if the prime minister had not waded into the powers vested in the attorney-general, which among others, gives him unfettered powers (at his discretion), to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence?
Speaking at the Milken Institute luncheon in Singapore last week, he spoke extensively of his meeting with the AG and what transpired.
Wouldn’t a one-liner have sufficed in answering the question on his deputy’s discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) by saying: “It was the decision of the AG and I have accepted his reasons”?
Prime Minister Anwar IbrahimThe explanation in Singapore and the ruckus in Parliament could have been avoided. The 11 reasons outlined by the AG were already in the public domain.
Then again, why did Anwar choose to address the issue again in Parliament? Shouldn’t the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) have been the right person especially since the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) comes under her purview?
Anwar, when explaining the issue, said: “When the AG made the decision, I asked him (about it), yes. I did not discuss his decision, I asked him for justification, for clarification.”
After all, the AG is supposed to be independent and relies solely on the evidence that has been collected to prosecute. Why does he have to make clarifications to anyone but the courts?
This was done by the deputy public prosecutor in the case, Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar to High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah, who had succinctly remarked that taxpayers’ money would be wasted if the prosecution later dropped the case.
The reasons were explained in court proceedings and why should he have thrown the AG under the bus in front of an international audience?
Now, the question is: Will Anwar ask for clarification on every contentious issue or decision made by the AG?
Precedence set
Muda president Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman provided an insight and remarked on X, previously known as Twitter, that the prime minister has set a “clear precedent” when it comes to the dismissal of corruption cases in court.
Muda president Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman“After this, when corruption cases are dropped one by one, the AG - who is appointed by the prime minister – will be the main shield,” he said, implying that the AG would be a scapegoat.
His words were crafted thoughtfully and we ordinary citizens must ponder the repercussions of what Anwar said and what followed in Parliament.
If there is a repetition, then our lawmakers who can be collectively termed as a pride of lions will be reduced to a skulk of foxes. Or worse still, it will turn out to be hunting grounds for a wake of vultures who prey on the vanquished. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: [email protected]
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---