Page |1

POLITENESS AND ETHNIC SENSITIVITIES IN THE

MALAYSIAN PARLIAMENT
YEOK MENG, NGEOW1 (ymngeow@yahoo.com )
Senior Lecturer at Section for Co-curricular Courses, External Electives and TITAS (SKET),
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

KUANG CHING HEI, (kuangch@um.edu.my)

Senior Lecturer, Department of English Language, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University
of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

MAYA KHEMLANI DAVID (mayadavid@yahoo.com)

Head, SKET Section for Co-curricular Courses, External Electives and TITAS (SKET),
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Abstract
Slander is a false and damaging statement about a person and is synonymous to
character assassination. It is often performed for the benefit of another and is
often orchestrated through various strategies encompassing name calling, bad
mouthing, gossiping and false but juicy information about the other. The
purpose is to bring the person down or to cause others to lose confidence in that
person. In todays world of dog eat dog or survival competitiveness, almost
anyone who feels threatened or insecure in some ways by the presence of another
does it. It prevails not just among individuals but also among groups and
organisations. It is not just among the corporate world only but also among
political members of respective political parties. Politicians seem to be doing
quite well in this activity where negative remarks are passed about another
member of the opposition at will. It seems as if these parliamentary members
enjoy it so much that they would not hesitate in doing it within their parliamentary
meetings. Although one might deduce it as the need to feel power or to gain
strength, this study will provide the answers. Using data acquired from recorded
sessions of parliamentary debates, the analysis focuses on the content of verbal
remarks made by parliamentary representatives in casting aspersions about each
other. The data is then categorized in terms of the rudeness. Evidence will be
portrayed in this paper to indicate the various strategies employed by important
people to downgrade other important people.

Ngeow Yeok Meng, PhD, is a senior lecturer at SKET, University of Malaya. She graduated with
her PhD on ethnic relations and Islamisation policies in Kelantan. Her research interest is in
multiculturalism, ethnic identity, political discourse and Islamisation in Malaysia. Dr. Ngeow can
be contacted at: ymngeow@yahoo.com.

Page |2

Introduction
The Malaysian Parliament is the nucleus of the countrys central power. High
government officials meet with politicians so as to debate over specific issues that
may be of importance to the development of specific sectors of the country. Any
decision made during these meetings will have an impact on the future of the
country as they determine the various policies, and indirectly, the fate of the
people of the nation. The Malaysia Parliament is also an institution where
legislatures and issues concerning national interests are discussed by Members of
Parliament (MPs), particularly in the House of Representatives.
In the analysis of political discourse, one may choose to look at either spoken or
the written from but between the two, spoken discourse is seen as spontaneous
and it is articulated at the time the speakers behavior is guided by the feelings,
which, indirectly, was affected by the speakers thoughts (see psychology). Thus,
spoken discourse is perceived as being more apt for providing revelations of the
individuals deeper thoughts and feelings as he/she does the talking. In that
regard, it could be said that a discourse analysis of parliamentary debates should
be food for thought as an indepth examination of the speakers words and use of
language can be very useful for examining the particular member of parliament
(MP)s overt rationale such as cognition (thought), perception (prejudice),
affection (feelings), attitude and psychomotor (behavior). More importantly,
spoken discourse and its analysis can enable one to discover the underlying
feelings and prejudice of the individuals who may be enclosed and confined with
negative feelings of discrimination, stereotyping, generalizations, prejudice and
also unsettled past feelings of anger, jealousy or even hatred towards rivals who
adopt different political ideologies.
Despite the fact that most Malaysian MPs are not groomed from young to be
professional politicians, they are, nevertheless, people who have good oral skills
and in most aspects, can be described as being good orators and eloquent
speakers. Excellent orators can use language to their advantage by presenting their
thoughts and arguments well and because they are good, they are, in many ways,
also good persuaders thus, they often perform well in drawing countless support
from the layman circle. Most politicians are well known, speak well, argue well
and they seem effortlessly persuasive. Nevertheless, they do not necessarily
deliver what they say. In fact, they are so good that they hoodwink many into
believing them even though they have clear intentions of not fulfilling their social
responsibility, which is to make the nation or community a better place to live and
its people a happier lot,.
Politicians need to talk, and as people who are used to speaking in public, their
speeches may either be prepared by themselves or by others. Oratory skills can be
learnt, trained and honed through practice after practice. Oratory skills require
language which is a tool to accomplish their needs and goals whether to interact

Page |3
amicably, develop friendship or to distance ourselves from others. The ability to
use language may have been acquired from young but how language is used in
context is to do with the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence (Hymes, 1958).
To become sociolinguistically competent, a person must live in the environment
long enough for him/her to acquire the appropriateness of the use of particular
words of language, for particular persons, and in particular settings.
Likewise, where godly values of politeness, respect, and manners are achieved
through the practices seen in ones family due to how the parents inculcate these
values, the ungodly values of racial discrimination, prejudice, hatred,
ethnocentricism and labeling of others are also channeled by the family in which
the individual is brought up. Psychology has informed us that prejudice and racial
discrimination is passed down through the generations. Similarly too, so does
hatred for particular ethnic groups or the feeling of superiority over others. The
more an individual hears from those close to him and in his environment, the
more he/she believes the myth to be true. Today, no one, not even those who are
educated, care to challenge such thoughts or statements. This is because many
among us have become selfish to the point of just doing things to benefit oneself
only. As in Wong Ngan Lings (2009) words, Malaysians are self-centred
whereas other communities like the Japanese tend to be others-centred.
A government consists of members of parliament who are elected by their
respective constituencies and these people have a responsibility of seeing to their
constituents needs. However, politicians are also human beings and when they see
any opposing team doing far better then they are or are better received bye
community, they feel slighted and want to do things to gain back the publics
confidence. This can be seen in how UMNO (United Malays National
Organisation) and MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association, and MIC (Malaysian
Indian Community) as the Barisan Nasional component (which used to hold
majority power of Malaysia until March 8 2009) are trying desperately to win
back the confidence of Malaysians. One very clear way to do this is through
enticing them with promises through language, be it Malay, English, Mandarin,
Tamil or mixed. Each MP tries to outdo the opposition in parliamentary meetings
but some may be more politically correct than others, depending on their oratory
skills. As the MPs hone and polish their spoken skills, they also learn how to
engage language as a powerful tool to achieve their goals. Inadvertently, their
styles may range, depending on their linguistic proficiency. They may employ
both formal and informal styles, mix markers of authority and familiarity, use
colloquial words and jokes as well as other strategies to impress their intended
audience (Kovarikova, 2006:46).
It is best to take any spoken discourse within context to avoid ambiguity but
sometimes this may not always be possible. Further, topics discussed within a
context is better gauged when one understands the background of the speakers
thus, when a parliamentary discourse takes place out of prepared and presumed
context, say in a heated debate, the situation immediately invites instant or

Page |4
spontaneous reactions from the interlocutors and their allies. As is understood,
both verbal and non-verbal responses can provide reliable clues for interpreting
the interlocutors inner feelings and thoughts. In addition, the choice of words or
language may also be seen as good predictors of the speakers internal feelings
and their attitudes. In particular, words can hurt and words can heal. Upon
provocation, an interlocutor may react instantly to certain provocative statements,
as he/she does so, the individual does not have the luxury of making rational
responses about what is politically correct and what is not at the spur of a
moment. As such, it is deduced that any reactions made to any provocative
parliamentary remarks or debates should also be seen with equal importance as it
also reflects the same depth of spontaneity.
Research Objectives
The main objective of this study is to use spoken discourse captured of
parliamentary debates to see how MPs pass derogatory remarks about others and
how these are being responded to. This paper also attempts to answer the
following Research Questions.
1. What kind of negative or derogatory remarks are made in recorded verbatim
hansards?
2. What kind of lexical words are used by MPs to attack, downgrade or debase
their multi-ethnic political rivals?
3. In what context are these negative remarks articulated?
Significance of the study
The aftermath of March 8 General Elections 2009 in Malaysia saw the number of
opposition MPs increasing from 21/219 (9.6%) to 82/222 (30.7%) in April 2008.
The ruling National Front (Barisan Nasional) was severely weakened by the
exercise when the people denied it its two-thirds majority in the House of
Representatives. This was an eye opener to the component which had been
confident of its win then. It would seem that the sharp increase in the number of
Pakatan Rakyat (opposition) MPs from previously 21 to currently 82, since April
2008, had made it a landmark event for the opposition. After the election made
by, for, and of the people of Malaysia, four states were under the control of the
Pakatan Rakyat until recently, when Perak became a controversial issue. Pakatan
Rakyat and its component parties became more confident and subsequently more
vocal and aggressive to the liking of the Barisan component. The opposition had
solidified and strengthened because of their views to make Malaysia a better place
to live and also because of its leaders who were multiethnic, educated, and most
were also professionals. Their presence was not just bigger and stronger but also
more intimidating with their outspokenness. In that aspect, it can be said that the
opposition party created more conflicts in the parliament than ever. In addition, it
would seem that the live telecasting of such parliament meetings and debates also
carried some profound impact on the form and content of the debates. In that
aspect, it is the objective of this paper to explore the use of words and lexical

Page |5
items by parliament members during debates and also to discover the reactions of
the various MPs towards the use of racist language in the Parliament.
Specifically, this study analyses the ways in which MPs from the National Front
(Barisan Nasional) and the Peoples Alliance (Pakatan Rakyat) MPs create and
perpetuate the conflicting environments through provoking debates and discourse
in the parliament. It also attempts to analyse the manifestation of negative
language uttered by some MPs which ended up in hostile partisan arguments.
Furthermore, this study examines how MPs provocatively raised the issue of
ethnic conflicts, whether through negative stereotyping, prejudice statements,
discriminating remarks, name calling and/or aggressive personal attacks. Amidst
the debate on whether parliamentary debates should be telecast live on the
government-owned television station, the decision to telecast and later to
withdraw the live telecast had captured the publics attention. Malaysians have
come to realise the kind of language MPs used within the four walls of the
Parliament.
Methodology and Data Collection
A corpus is a collection of naturally-occurring language text, chosen to
characterize a state or variety of language (Channell, 1994:217). This study is
based on content analysis of hansards i.e. recorded verbatim of each Malaysian
parliamentary debate since the commencement of the first parliamentary sitting in
April 2008. The hansards include all verbal discourses such as statements,
debates, disagreement, disputes and even quarrels that had been transcribed word
for word. Besides, non-verbal communication such as coughs, smile, laughs,
cheering and jeering are also indicated in brackets. In times of showing support or
disagreement, gestures such as cheering, clapping of the hands, thumping the fist
on the table, switching off the microphone, springing up from the seat, staging a
walk out and butting in when a speaker is still in the process of speaking are also
caught. The only notable element of verbal communication that is not reflected in
the reports is the intonation, as observed by Asmah Omar (2006).
Hansards from April to May 2008 were coded and analysed using the method of
content analysis, with the aim of tracing the existence of ethnic sensitivity or
racist remarks. Content analysis serves as a research tool used to determine the
presence of certain words or concepts within texts or sets of texts. The method of
conventional content analysis is used to provide in-depth and critical analysis of
the contents of parliamentary news with emphasis on both the structure of texts,
and the social context.
This study is also concerned with power struggle in terms of MPs representing the
ruling Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Rakyat representing the Opposition. Its
main interest lies in the power relations and the verbal strategies used by the MPs
in exhibiting the verbal prowess that they have over each other, especially over
the opposing party. The following steps were followed:

Page |6
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Download and screen parliamentary hansards that occurred between April to

May 2008;
Find out the frequency and percentage of occurrences of conflicts when MPs
attempt to create conflicting environments in the parliament;
Categorise contents of these conflicting discourse;
Identify the political parties slandering and those being slandered
Identify the various strategies used by MPs to create provocations and to resolve
conflict by means of controlling, challenging, threatening, competing, ignoring
and vengeance;
Examine the negative remarks used by MPs including negative stereotyping,
prejudice statements, discriminating remarks, name calling and/or personal
attacks.

Parliamentary debates
The creation of a conflicting discourse in the parliament can be analysed using the
concept of politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1978). Politeness is defined broadly as
redressive action taken to counter-balance the disruptive effect of face-threatening acts
(FTAs). On the other hand, face is defined as the public self-image that every
member (of society) wants to claim for himself/herself. Politeness is essential in all
human verbal communication as men and women often use words to express
themselves, as well as to hurt others feelings. The FTA approach explains about both
the positive and negative face of the speaker and the interlocutor. The positive
face refers to the positive and consistent self-image that people have or wish to have.
The positive face shows peoples desire to be appreciated and approved of by at least
some other people.
The rational actions people take to preserve both kinds of face, for themselves and the
people they interact with, add up to politeness. Brown and Levinson (1978) sum up
human politeness behaviour in four strategies, i.e. bald on record, negative politeness,
positive politeness, and off-record-indirect strategy. The bald on-record strategy tells
the hearer straight on the face without any effort to minimize threats to the hearer's
face. The positive politeness strategy shows the speaker wishes to establish friendly
relationship with the hearer and recognizes the latters desire to be respected. The
negative politeness strategy recognizes the hearer's face but it also indicates that the
hearer is responsible for imposing politeness on them. Off-record indirect strategies
take some of the pressure off of the speaker by hinting and asking indirectly. However,
it must be reminded that these strategies are not universal but rather culturally relative.
Hence, it is the aim of this study to examine how MPs make use of such strategies to
safe face of their allies and make their rivals lose face in front of others.
As MPs speak their mind in the parliamentary formal setting, they are hence expected
to be polite and mindful. Being polite allows cooperation and compliance to take place
without having to offend the rival party. This ensures prosocial behaviours to be
elicited. Baron, Byrne and Branscombe (2006) mention that individuals tend to be

Page |7
influenced by those they like (p. 343) and this in turn may elicit reciprocity and
compliance from the other party if politeness has been given.
However, among political rivals MPs would use parliamentary debate to put the other
party down, and to make their rivals look bad in front of others. Hence, there is a
strong tendency for them to infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her selfesteem, and be respected. When an MP wants his/her interlocutor to look bad, such
communication is seen as potentially dangerous, offensive, hurtful and/or antagonistic.
This is particularly true when the conversation involves demonstration of hierarchical
power, righteousness to do something, freedom of action and also withdrawal of
constraints.
For the purpose of discussion, this paper will only engage in looking at the content of
the discourse only, in other words, what is said through language. Data which is
spoken in Malay will be translated word for word to keep the essence of the content
spoken. It is realised that translating the selected hansard may not reflect the real
situation, actual meaning or accurate innuendos as intended by the respective speakers
because of the culture that is attached to the language one uses. Nevertheless, a
triangulation between coders can ensure reliability. Further, the translation and
analysis is also counter-checked by language experts in both Malay and English to
ensure accuracy and precision of intent of the respective speakers. Where possible,
reference is also made to the actual communication seen in the video clips to
complement the analysis.
In the Malaysian context, MPs enjoy certain parliamentary priviledges which are
perceived as essential and fundamental to the professionalism of the elected MPs. In
Malaysia this privilege is based on Article 63 of the Federal Constitution and section 3
of the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 (Act 347) which states
that, No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything
said or any vote given by him when taking part in any proceedings of either House of
Parliament or any committee thereof.
Given such prerogatives, Malaysian MPs are well aware that they are not expected to
be accountable for the things said, words used and actions made in parliament whether
in civil or criminal courts. However, the law of defamation, official secrets, obscenity,
blasphemy, and of all other criminal offences do not apply to parliamentary
proceedings (Shaq Faruqi, 2007).
Previous research on the discourses of Malaysian parliamentary debates have shown
that such prerogatives had resulted in making certain MPs more bold and daring and as
a result they had also become unabashed in uttering negative and irresponsible
statements about their rivals. It is rather unfortunate that politicians who enjoy such
parliamentary privileges should choose to ignore the privileges awarded to them in
their capacity as leaders of the human race and some, have, even, refused to accept the
consequences of their belittling and derogatory remarks of the certain other whom they
consider as oppositions.

Page |8

It cannot be denied that most MPs are usually good at talking and in that sense, could
be described as effective orators and some are also eloquent speakers backed by their
linguistic abilities and persuasive skills. Excellent orators can present and perform
well, even if they do not wish to fulfill their promises or do not intend to carry out
their social responsibility to the public at large. Politicians are used to speaking in
public based on texts prepared by themselves or by others. However, when a
parliamentary discourse takes place out of prepared text and presumed context, say in
a heated debate, the situation immediately invites instant or spontaneous reactions
from the interlocutors and their allies. Both verbal and non-verbal responses provide
reliable clues for the interlocutors inner feelings and thoughts. Upon being provoked
verbally, the interlocutor may react instantly to certain provocative statements, as they
too, do not have luxury to think rationally about what is politically correct and what is
not. As such, the reactions to parliamentary provocative debate should carry the same
weight and reflect the same depth due to the spontaneity.
Latest Political Development in Malaysia
As an aftermath of March 8 General Elections, the number of opposition MPs
increased from 21/219 (9.6%) to 82/222 (30.7%) in April 2008. The ruling National
Front (Barisan Nasional) was severely weakened after it was denied its two-thirds
majority in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, the sharp increase in the
number of opposition MPs from 21 to 82 (since April 2008) has made it all possible
for the opposition to become more aggressive to attack; and to stay united when
challenged by the BN parliamentarians. Stronger opposition party has created more
conflicts in the parliament than ever. Live telecast proved to have profound impact on
the form and content of the debates. Hence, it is the objective of this paper to find out
the choice of words and lexical used during debates, and what was the MPs reaction
towards the use of racist language in the Parliament.
Corpus:
This study is based on hansards of 10 parliamentary sittings dated April 30, and nine sittings
on May 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 21 and 22. There had been 30 occurrences of MPs creating
conflicting environment where they directly or indirectly attacked members of the opponent
party. On the first parliamentary sitting after the March 8 General Elections dated April 30,
both the BN and the opposition had a field day picking on the one another, calling each other
names such as big foot, big monkey, under creature. It was the reason why prominent
opposition leader Lim Kit Siang called it A very bad start, a terrible start and an atrocious
start (April 30 Hansard, p.1020).
Analysis of data and discussion
Differences in political ideology within the ruling government and the opponent parties has
resulted in rigorous shouting, name calling and other face-threatening acts all of which can
could easily create, solidify and reproduce racism. Racist discourse in the parliamentary
sitting consists of a repertoire of words, images and texts that are threaded together. The

Page |9
parliamentary debates sourced for analysis was telecasted on television live. Not only were
the events widely reported in local dailies but also discussed in cyberspace. The exchange of
crude remarks among MPs had drawn condemnations from the public as their statements were
circulated nationwide and probably worldwide. The section below discusses the frequency of
attacks made by the respective political parties.
A) Frequency of negative remarks made:
As mentioned earlier, parliamentary meetings are attended by MPs from the various
political components. While the basrisan nasional component is made up of UMNO
(Malay), MCA (Chinese) and MIC (Indians), the opposition, Pakatan Rakyat is
composed of the DAP, (Indians and Chinese) and PAS (mainly Islamic Malays).
From the ten parliamentary sittings sourced from April 30 to May 22, it was found that
conflicts and debates were fairly constant. The following are some of the preliminary findings.
From the table given, it can be seen that only 5% or 10 parliamentarians of the total number of
222 elected MPs were involved in using negative remarks to attack others or to defend
themselves. It seemed clear that individuals who were articulate and confident of themselves
were more outspoken and vocal during the debate in the parliamentary sitting. They made
attempts to attack their opponents via various means such as the use of strategies related to
impoliteness, sabotage, biased view points, silly narratives, stereotypes and negative ideas
about their political rivals. Table 1 shows that there was a total of 31 attacks with the Barisan
Nasional coalition making 23 while the opposition made only 8. This is inevitable seeing that
the latter party was the minority. In addition, while the Barisan Nasional component was only
attacked 8 times out of the total of 31, it seemed that the opposition was attacked a total of 22
times. This phenomenon clearly indicates that the ruling party which is the Barisan Nasional
passed more attacks but were attacked less, as compared to the opposition which suffers a
direct opposite fate.
Table-1. Frequency of MPs Attack on Members of Opponent Party
Party

Attack

Under

Direct

Indirect

Attack
UMNO

21

13

BN
Component

DAP

16

PKR

PAS

Opposition

31

31

18

13

P a g e | 10
B) Parties prone to attacking/counter attacking
Besides the imbalance shown through the virtue of the attacks and being attacked, it appears
that the MPs of the ruling coalition tended to use more racist, aggressive or defensive language
in their speeches. Excerpts illustrated will provide the party and the constituency these MPs
represent in parentheses, for example, Dato Haji Tajuddin Abdul Rahman [UMNO-Pasir
Salak], Datuk Bung Moktar bin Radin [UMNO-Kinabatangan], Dato' Haji Abd. Rahman bin
Dahlan [UMNO-Kota Belud], Datuk Haji Yussof bin Haji Mahal [UMNO-Labuan], Khairy
Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [UMNO-Rembau], Datuk Dr. Marcus Makin Mojigoh [PBS-Putatan]
and others.
On the other hand, the opposition parliamentarians who had acted or reacted aggressively
and/or defensively in their speeches have been identified as opposition MPs like Gobind Singh
Deo [DAP-Puchong], Lim Kit Siang [DAP-Ipoh Timur], R. Karpal Singh [DAP-Bukit
Gelugor], and N. Gobalakrishnan [DAP-Padang Serai]. It also seems that these outspoken MPs
except Lim Kit Siang belonged to the ethnic minorities of DAP (which is a biracial group but
it comprises more Chinese). All these MPs are lawyers by profession.
Below are some of the excerpts depicting the use of abusive language. In Part I, we see the use
of name calling while Part II highlights offensive remarks focusing on mannerisms.
Part I: Name calling
It is a known fact that we do not like someone, we give them names which are either associated
to their traits, behavior, looks or the way they do things. Our past experiences is a strong
influence in how our thoughts affect our attitudes. In the following excerpts, it can be seen
how one MP thrusts the label of an animal as an attempt to show disrespect.
1. Animals pig
Excerpt 3 highlights one Barisan Nasionals MP at name calling. It is a known fact that
Malays are Muslims and one of the many things which Muslims abstain from is the
consumption of pigs (khinzir). It is also a known fact that to associate a Muslim with a pig
is to show disrespect of the lowest kind, synonymous to degrading. It has been mentioned
that PKR is the main opposition party which is led by the previous DPM, Datuk Annuar
Ibrahim. With the UMNO member projecting PKR as Projek Khinzir Raksaksa is akin to
name calling the entire party. However, it is noted that the speaker was cautious to have
used an alternative word for pig khinzir instead of babi which would have been more
derogatory.
Excerpt-3. Attacking the opposition with animal name
Original
20080512.p.40-42
Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar
[Rembau]:
... Hanya daging ayam dan daging khinzir yang
melepasi kadar 100% tahap sara diri, itu pun
tidak cukup bagi satu kerajaan negeri yang telah
meletakkan keutamaan nombor satu

Translation
20080512.p.40-42
Mr Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar
[Rembau]: Only when poultry and pork goes
up above 100% of self-sufficient level, even that
is not enough for a state government which has
given number one priority to the approval of
Mega Pig Project, or its acronym, PKR.

P a g e | 11
pentadbirannya
kelulusan Projek Khinzir Raksasa atau
singkatannya PKR. [Tepuk]

[Clapping]

2.
Animal snake
A snake is a slimy, slippery animal that is not very welcomed by many layman simply because it
is rarely given any good attributes. A person who is a snake is perceived as being evil or
dangerous. Further, we have been shown that proverbs consist of the word snake in a negative
manner like double headed snake, and snakes have also been shown to be bad as the snake in
the animated series of Robin Hood and Nottingham Forest, or local stories of Sang Kancil and
the Snake. In the following excerpt, we see an MP attempting to associate snake with a
particular opposition MP. However, it is noticed that the MP had restrained himself from using
the word, snake or ular verbally. Instead he resorted to a nonverbal sign. It is discriminating
if a MP calls another MP an animal, and in this context, a snake. Snake in this excerpt indicates
that the latter likes to play up emotions of the people by twisting and turning the formers
intention besides using pompous language. This is truly racist and unfair to the interlocutor in
this debate. Excerpt 4 illustrates.
Excerpt 4. Attacking an MP for behaving like a snake
Original
20080507 p. 173-174
Datuk Dr. Marcus Makin Mojigoh
[Putatan]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Yang
Berhormat Titiwangsa ini saya rasa hendak
mempermainkan perasaan rakyat negeri
Sabah. Saya mewakili rakyat negeri Sabah.
Jadi janganlah diputarbelitkan hasrat saya
yang murni ini Yang Berhormat. Yang
Berhormat daripada pembangkang ini suka
cakap putar belit seperti haiwan yang
begitu [Sambil menunjukkan gaya ular]
Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Seperti Yang
Berhormat Ipoh Barat, itu saya tidak
tahulah. Tak apalah Yang Berhormat.

Translation
20080507 p. 173-174
Datuk Dr. Marcus Makin Mojigoh
[Putatan]: Your Honorable Speaker, I
feel that Your Honorable wants to play up
the emotions of people of Sabah. I
represent the people of Sabah. So dont
twist and turn my noble intention Your
Honorable. Your Honorable from the
opposition like to use pompous language
just like that kind of animal
[While demonstating the style of a snake]
Your Honorable Speaker. Like Your
Honorable Ipoh Barat, that I would not
know. Never mind Your Honorable.

Part Two: The attacks of the MPs from the opposition

Our analysis shows that name calling of the animal kind did not persevere among the opposition.
Instead, they chose to refer to mannerisms. This section focuses on the attacks of MPs towards
the ruling coalition related to the debate over the provocation of racial sentiments, and insensible
criticisms, such as associating the opposition with bad mannerism, as shown in the following
excerpts.
1.

Associating an MP with labels of poor behaviour

It is human nature to feel slighted when one is being labelled but more so when it touches on
ones upbringing and culture as excerpt 5 shows. Being biadap is translated as being

P a g e | 12
uncultured and this has many implications including ones poor upbringing, family name,
education and even ones social status is threatened when one is described as biadap.
Excerpt 5 shows one opposition Indian MP trying to be rude with a Malay MP by using terms
like biadap which means uncultured/crude and sombong which means arrogant. This labeling
will upset the Malay MP because being cultured and polite are traits all Malays associate
themselves with (budi bahasa itu budaya kita) and thus, when they are labeled as uncultured, it is
also a personal attack on their upbringing, culture and social class. Sombong is also a word
most Malays are not known for because it is part of their culture to be soft spoken and humble,
thus sombong is also deemed as an attack.
Excerpt-5. The use of uncultured and arrogant
Original
Translation
20080515 p. 117
20080515 p. 117
Tuan N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang
Mr N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang Serai]:
Serai]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ini...
Your Honourable Speaker, this...
Datuk Mohd. Shafie bin Haji Apdal:
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya ingin
menjelaskan apa yang telah dibangkitkan
oleh pertama Yang Berhormat Pasir Salak
tadi iaitu...

Datuk Mohd. Shafie bin Haji Apdal:

Your Honourable Speaker, I wish to
explain what was raised by the first Your
Honourable Pasir Salak just now that is...

Tuan Zulkifli bin Noordin [Kulim

Bandar Baharu]: Melayu tahu menyalak
ya?

Mr Zulkifli bin Noordin [Kulim

Bandar Baharu]: Do the Malays know
how to bark?

Datuk Mohd. Shafie bin Haji Apdal:

Saya ingat. Saya ingat...

Datuk Mohd. Shafie bin Haji Apdal: I

remember. I remember...

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk

Ronald Kiandee]: Yang Berhormat,duduk
Yang Berhormat.

Deputy Speaker [Datuk Ronald

Kiandee]: Your Honourable, sit Your
Honourable.

Tuan N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang

Serai]: Biadab, sombong...

Mr N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang Serai]:

Uncultured, arrogant...

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk

Ronald Kiandee]: Yang Berhormat,
biadab juga unparliamentary Yang
Berhormat.

Deputy Speaker [Datuk Ronald

Kiandee]: Your Honourable, the word
biadab is also unparliamentary Your
Honourable.

Tuan N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang

Serai]: [Bangun][Menyampuk][Dewan
riuh]

Mr N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang Serai]:

[Rise][Interrupted][Roars in the Hall]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk

Ronald Kiandee]: Biadab,
unparliamentary.

Deputy Speaker [Datuk Ronald

Kiandee]: Biadab is unparliamentary.

P a g e | 13
2. Association of ones behaviour to that of a lower social class
Class may be an abstract term for many of us but in many ways, we all like to
think that we are of a better class than the lower class. Who are those in the lower
class? According to sociology studies, the latter refers to those who are
impoverished , uneducated, rough in behavior and speech as well as attire. In
excerpt 6 below, an example of the parliamentary discourse shows one MPs
attempt at trying to debase another with association of behavior. The word
pengemis or beggar is used to debase the dignity of the other as seen below.
Excerpt-6. Attacking ministers for behaving like a beggar
Original
Translation
20080512 p. 52
20080512 p. 52
Dato Samsul Anuar bin Haji
Dato Samsul Anuar bin Haji
Nasarah [Lenggong]: [Bangun]
Nasarah [Lenggong]: [Bangun]
Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:
...sebagai pengemis, beggars. Menterimenteri semua beggar-beggar.
[Dewan riuh]

Mr Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timur]:

...as beggars, beggars. Ministers are
all beggars. [Roars in the Hall]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk

Ronald Kiandee]: Yang Berhormat
Ipoh Timur. Yang Berhormat Ipoh
Timur cukup.

Deputy Speaker [Datuk Ronald

Kiandee]: Your Honorable Ipoh
Timur. Your Honorable Ipoh Timur
enough.

From the four excerpts shown, it appears that ruling and opposition parties will
use whatever means to attack and counterattack. While the respective cultures
have their relevant values and traits to abide by, nevertheless it seems that in
parliamentary debates, they do behave rather immaturely, resorting to name
calling and associating their colleagues with poor behavior traits, a behavior
which in normal circumstances, people avoid doing so as to preserve social
harmony.
It is possible that where likes gather, they feel more solidarity and hence, had the
courage and boldness to make fun or call others names. It is also possible that past
experiences have an impact on the way they think about the opposition party and
so when fired up with passion, they resort to negative or derogatory remarks.
CONCLUSION
In the Parliament, it is a norm for parliamentarians to prove that I/we are more
supreme than them. The issues of morality are often debated in this manner
where I/we behave well and they are not. Justice that lies in the eyes of the
beholder often was debated in the limelight of the parliamentarians party
ideology. By proving them wrong, and us right, this will justify our existence
in the Parliament, hence in the government. The dichotomy between the political
parties has consequence that leads to greater diversity, exclusivity and
differentiation, particularly in terms of party ideology (e.g. UMNO vs. DAP
MPs), ethnic identity (e.g. Malay vs. Indian MPs), political affiliation (e.g.

P a g e | 14
Barisan Nasional vs. Pakatan Rakyat MPs), region (e.g. West Malaysian vs. East
Malaysian MPs) gender (male vs. female MPs) and cultural sensitivity (e.g. keris,
biadap, alcoholism, pigs, snakes), as well as religiosity (e.g. Muslims vs. nonMuslims).
The excerpts of hansards reveal that heated parliamentary debate seems to be
capable of disclosing the sub-conscious and true feelings towards ones political
rivals in the form of racism, ethnocentrism, biases, prejudice, discrimination,
anger and even hatred. UMNO MPs were most articulate and outspoken of all,
due to Malay hegemony and domination in the political arena. Being the majority
ethnic group in the Parliament, UMNO managed to tame other BN component
parties, even though the claims of UMNO MPs were wrong at times. UMNO MPs
attacked using impoliteness (biadap), sabotage (Projek Khinzir Raksasa for
PKR), personal attack (hiding under the blanket of the father-in-law) , biases
(snake), narrow-minded view points (sudah kena tiga botol), association of
behavior (all deputy ministers are beggars), stereotypes (behave like Islam
extremist as you wear attire ala-Taliban) and negative ideas (stupidity, big foot,
monkeys) about their political rivals. It is noted that the rivalry happened among
Muslim MPs of different camps.
It is obvious that some MPs use the House of Representatives as a
convenient battlefield for them to attack their political rivals. Live telecast in
April 2009 had worsened the problem. MPs who utter racist remarks do so to
serve their self interest rather than the public interest, hence taking up time
allocated for debated on more serious issues. Even though MPs who aroused
sentiments and conflicts were told repeatedly to abide by the Point of Order and
other regulations deemed appropriate by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker,
however, no disciplinary action was taken against those who used negative
remarks. The Speaker and Deputy Speaker were hardly in control of some of the
debates. Moreover, MPs who were racist and impolite also received group support
as shown in the cheering and clapping of tables by other MPs. It is found that not
only there was exchange of words between the ruling coalition and the opposition,
power struggle also exists among members of the ruling party. However, the
phenomenon in this particular context appears to be less repressive compared to
the power struggle between the ruling government and the opposition camps.
It is therefore of utmost importance for MPs to be reminded, through this study,
that their speeches and debates in the parliament reflect not only their personal
opinion, but also that of the constituents they represent and sometimes the
government. As elected MPs, they should not take advantage of the chance given
to them to voice out the peoples will. On the contrary, they should always put
social responsibility before their personal interests. They must be alert and aware
of their tendency and selfish desires to make their rivals look bad in the
Parliament. In fact, they should be more responsible with the words they use and
project a more acceptable behavior. If such principles are applied and adopted,

P a g e | 15
this would lead to more politeness (and less damaging dispute), even when MPs
debate about the most sensitive issue or the most unpleasant or undesirable topic.
________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Asmah Omar. (2000). Power relations in parliamentary debates. Kuala Lumpur:
Akademi Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya.

Amir Muhammad. (2007). Malaysian politicians say the darndest things Vol.1.
Kuala Lumpur: Matahari Books.
David, Maya Khemlani. (2006). Threatening faces in Malaysian parliamentary
debates. In A. Thorat (Ed.). Pragmatics (pp. 60-75). Pune: Institute of
Advanced Studies in English (IASE).
Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis as a methodology for rhetorical study.
Retrieved on 7 September 2007 from
http://english.cmu.edu/people/faculty/homepage/ johnstone/ResearchPapers/
Lovenduski, J. & Azza Karam. (1998). Making inroads in Parliament. Retrieved
on March 15, 2008 from http://archive.idea.int/women/parl/ch5a.htm.
Parliament of Malaysia. (2007). Standing Order. Kuala Lumpur: Government
Printers.
Parliamentary hansards. (2008). Retrieved on 8 July 2008 from
http://www.parlimen.gov.my/hansard.php.
Shaq Saleem Faruqi. (2007). YB, mind your (M) Ps and Qs. The Star. 16 May.
Taylor, S.E., Peplau, L.A., Sears, D. (2006) Social Psychology U.S.A. Pears and
Prentice Hall.
Wodak, R. (1989). (Ed.). Language, power and ideology: Studies in political
discourse. London: Benjamin.
Wong Ngan Ling (2009) discussion of Japanese society