“He is ethnically a Pakistani who later adopted two Bangladeshi children” per Undergrad2. I am not aware that he is “ethnically a Pakistani” (if one means one of the parents from Pakistan).

Getting Tun Dr Mahathir to appear before Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI) is, according to all reasonable calculations and expectations, a 99% likely exercise in futility.

[1% allowance is for the unpredictability of the man. Who would for example expect him who, whilst being prime minister, denied Malaysiakini a press credential card and after relinquishing power, to solicit the On-line Bulletin for exclusive interview, to vehemently criticize his anointed successor and also make a bid (unsuccessful as it turned out) to attend last UMNO General Assembly as one of Kubang Pasu delegate in order to chastise the successor?]

But here YB LKS is trying to juggle here two or three things.

The first is, BN’s 92% absolute majority in the 2004 General Election was obtained on the back of Pak Lah’s electoral promise of integrity governance.

It is only fair the Prime Minister should be held to his word. Especially when corruption is systemic in the body politic and culture of the country.

The culture of integrity cannot however be established until persons in public office, including senior government leaders and top officials, submit to an inquiry process that is verifiably independent and accountable.

We do not have an Ombudsman. Even the IPCMC playing a limited oversight role over the police has so far failed to be implemented.

In the absence of alternative institution or body that can play such oversight role, there’s where the PSCI come into the picture. LKS is ‘massaging’ it to evolve into playing that role.

And why not when it is supposedly non-partisan with a representatives from Opposition parties though out of 12 members only YB and Ab Halim Ab Rahman (PAS, Pengkalen Chepa) are from Opposition? PSCI’s deliberations have evinced some measure of independence if the recent 8-3 decision of its members (predominently BN) to override and reverse Chairperson Bernard Dompok’s earlier decision to call off its hearing of Zulkipli and whistleblower Mohamad Ramli Manan is any indication. Besides, PSCI has also done some other good in the past. For example, it heard the testimony by Jasin MP Datuk Mohd Said Yusof, who alleged that certain individuals were offered special privileges by Customs to buy seized vehicles cheap. The PSCI met with Finance Minister II Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop who agreed to its proposal to stop the special privileges and scrap this practice used by the Customs since 2000.

Admittedly, there are certain limitations that have to, on realistic level, be recognized.

To get the government to stop the special privileges given by the Customs since 2000 to certain VIPs persons is not the same as – and does not mean that it is equally possible – to get the government to make its ACA director general, deputy minister or former prime minister accountable to PSCI. It is a different kettle of fish, but there is of course no harm in trying, remote though prospects may be.

There are various other limitations.

Although it is true that “integrity” which the committee is mandated to exercise oversight function is a frame of reference that is wide and may encompass allegations against ACA director general, deputy minister or former prime minister, yet the special positions of these personalities within the political firmament of the country make any such attempt to make them accountable to PSCI difficult. Whether one likes it or not, the PSCI is still majority dominated by BN representatives who are bound, as Party Whip Tun Najib Razak once made clear, by BN’s party discipline to act according to party leaders’ directives.

The second limitation is the powers of PSCI in its oversight or investigative functions.

Theoretically speaking, a select committee can have wide powers including the power to require and compel witnesses to appear before a committee, produce documents to a committee for examination and answer to relevant committee questions under oath – provided that such power – derived from parliamentary privilege – has been delegated by Parliament to it in the first instance of its inception or if the standing orders of Parliament specifically allow so.

I am not familiar with PSCI’s terms of reference and scope of mandated powers or standing orders to express an opinion on Undergrad2 questions whether witnesses refusing to testify may be subpoenaed to do so under Oath. YB knows the answer to that.

In my opinion, it is unlikely the PSCI has been delegated or conferred such powers. It has no punitive powers. That is why it is consistently only “inviting” so and so to attend the hearing not summoning by subpoenae.

The select committees of which PSCI is one were formed at initiative of Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Parliament, Nazri Abdul Aziz as a body more to touch base with the people through various interest groups, lobby and civil societies who are invited to submit their views to these committees for deliberations and recommendation to the government for consideration. (Pak Lah felt that with such a big 92% parliamentary majority, there should be a mechanism via the select committees to get the feed back of the people).

It was never the intention of either Pak Lah or Nazri for the PSCI to be formed to act as a watchdog over the government and make it and all senior government officials accountable for the electoral promises of integrity governance.

On these premises, I surmise it is unlikely that the PSCI has more powers than that of just ‘inviting’ people to attend.

This of course does not suggest that the PSCI is a white elephant. Its recommendation to Ministry of Finance to scrap the practice of selling seized cars to certain VIPs has been accepted.

For those attending, its deliberations, discussion and conclusions on values, ethics and integrity based on the National Integrity Plan are publicized through the media and the public gets educated in the process.

If it is any consolation, this is what counts. According to great American Jurist, Judge Learned Hand, what is important is “that liberty, truth and conscience lie in the hearts of men and women. Once that dies, no constitution, no law and no court can save it”.

“…//…BN’sters like gangsters have no hearts but are ruthless and corrupt to the core…//…”per Endangered Hornbill.

When Judge Learned Hand refers to men and women in whose hearts lie or ought to lie liberty, truth and conscience, he means the ordinary men and women who are rakyat, the voters.

If their hearts are not infused with liberty, truth and conscience (which is what public discourse and debate is trying to educate and inculcate here), then they, the majority, will keep on giving their votes to ruthless and corrupt gangster politicians.

In so called democracy where polticians are elected to office based on votes of majority, what counts is the hearts of the majority voters and whether there lie liberty, truth and conscience with which they will always vote ruthless and corrupt political gangsters out in the electoral process, and without which they will always vote them in and perpetuate their power. This means that the aim of public discourse and debate – and the education that is sought from institutions like PSCI – is precisely directed at the ordinary men and women and voters, the majority of whom decide who governs and by virtue of which they justly install and maintain in power the government and type of leaders they deserve, at the pain and suffering of the minority.