Having entered the rough-and-tumble world of politics at the age of 24, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz finds himself  wearing more than one hat these days. Apart from having to perform his duties as MP for Padang Rengas, he is also a member of the cabinet. He thus has a leg each in the legislative and executive branches. In addition, he is also chairmen of two parliamentary caucuses - Human Rights and Good Governance and Myanmar. After spending a week in Kelantan helping the Barisan Nasional wrest the Pengkalan Pasir seat from PAS, and looking worn out from the effort, Nazri takes time off to have a conversation with B. Suresh Ram, on what keeps him so much in the news nowadays.

theSUN: Why are you in politics? What drove you to enter politics?

I am in politics by accident. When I came back from UK (after completing his law studies), the person who moved my call to the Bar was Haji Suhaimi (former Umno Youth chief Datuk Suhaimi Kamaruddin). At that time, he was the Umno Youth chief and under the Umno Youth constitution at that time, he had the power to appoint to the executive committee two people under the age of 30.

At that time I was 24 years old, and so Haji Suhaimi after he moved my call (to the Bar) and after having had dinner with me, said he was appointing me (to the ommittee). I did not immediately say yes, and I told him that I would think about it.

After a week, my uncle who was also my master, said Suhaimi was his friend and would really like me to accept it (the appointment). After a week of being advised by my uncle, I accepted.

Some people say that once you enter politics, it's difficult to let go. Do you think it is true? Have you any regrets joining politics?

Ya ... once you enter politics, it is difficult to get out, because you are used to the life and you know in politics you have people around you, and once you leave politics, you feel lonely, you feel you are useless and that is why I think they want to come back.

I have no regrets joining politics. I have enjoyed every moment of it.

In your own assessment, do you think you have done well in politics? The highest post you held was as acting Umno Youth head after Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik stepped down. You did not contest for the post, and you did not contest for any party post in the last party election.

I think the highest post any ordinary Umno member wants to be is a minister. Not even a seat in the supreme council. This is my opinion.

I think being a member of the cabinet is the highest achievement. I have achieved (it). To me, politics is all about serving, so it makes no difference whether I am a member of supreme council or not.

Because I am already a minister, I feel the post would help me to serve the people and so I am quite happy.

Your first cabinet portfolio was entrepreneur development minister. It was here that you had some kind of altercation with the Anti-Corruption Agency and it became quite controversial. What actually transpired?

The altercation with ACA was because it was taking a long time to investigate something which was not even about me. It was about the Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board.

When it came out in the papers, and as CVLB was under me, suddenly the focus was on me. The election (General Election 2004) was drawing near, the delay would certainly be a question mark over me.

And I was worried that if it went on till election day, I would probably be dropped just because the ACA was looking at the CVLB.

I knew all along that the allegation by that chap was not true. It (the probe) was taking too long. All I did was to tell the ACA to proceed quickly (with the investigation).

And because of that, some people took offence and suddenly I got to know that they wanted to arrest me, put me in a hotel and question me.

And also because of ... orang kata apa? ... trying to blow up their investigation ... which is not the case. I asked the ACA to hurry up.

As you know, the Attorney-General announced there was no case against me.Not because I asked them to cover up the case or slow down or otherwise. I did what I thought was right.

When you were told you were going to be in charge of parliamentary affairs, how did you define your role and was there any model that you followed?

I was surprised when the prime minister reminded me of a conversation I had in 1999 with Tun Daim (Zainuddin) in which I asked whether I could go to the Prime Minister's Department to take charge of Parliament.

I was surprised that Pak Lah remembered it (the conversation in 1999). He knew that I would like to be in charge of Parliament.

When I became minister in charge of Parliament, the prime minister reminded me (that) he wanted me to ensure Parliament functioned (properly).

Because he said our majority was really big, which was 92%. The prime minister does not want Parliament to be a rubber-stamp.

The prime minister wants a Parliament where we debate everything. He told me because our majority is big, we must be seen to be listening.

I understood what he meant. I did not look at any particular model, such as Westminster, which we should follow.

I think we have to build our own model, through trial and error and then we just have to move on in accordance with the needs in Malaysia.

We don't have to copy any other model. I saw the need to have a select committee, and I talked to the PM and he agreed to it.

That is why now you see a lot of select committees. There are two now and coming to  three. (Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code, National Unity and National Integrity.)

I also always thought that we should move beyond partisan politics. We must recognise the fact that we are all elected members, and it does not depend on your position or otherwise.

So in a move to go beyond partisan politics, we should have a caucus ... where we can look into issues which are close to the heart of the public, such as human rights.

I thought about all these, such as the setting up of the Myanmar Caucus.

I think Malaysia should be confident of itself. For example, if democracy is good for Malaysia, it should also be good for neighbouring countries. A point in case being Myanmar.

So that is why I thought why not push for a caucus to promote democracy in Myanmar. Also it was urgent this year, because Myanmar was about to take over as chairman (of Asean). It would be very embarrassing for us. So this was one issue which we took up and succeeded.

In fact, we were the ones who started and now there are Myanmar caucuses in all the other Parliaments in South East Asia.

And then, of course, there is human rights. This is important because it cuts across party politics. We are elected members and despite having different political leanings, there are issues which are common to us.

One example is the issue on ear-squat. I defended Teresa Kok (DAP member for Seputeh). It is not a question of being pro-DAP or pro-BN.

We are pro-people. These are the people's problems. If they can't get redress from somewhere, where else do they go? They come to Parliament or go to their elected representatives.

That is why we have to be pro-people and besides, this (Dewan Rakyat) is the House of the People.

So, when you asked what model I used, it would be to run it (Parliament) in a way where it would assist ordinary people.

Early last year, there was a lot of talk about a New World Parliament, a reform of our Parliament. In fact, there was a forum on the subject which you attended. You talked about it and you were for it. Do you still believe in what you said then?

Yes. I still believe there is a lot of reform to be done. Not just physically Parliament itself but also the mindset of the MPs.

When I became minister in charge of Parliament, I engaged the Opposition, because I think they are also important in Parliament.

It is possible to work together now, which is how it should be.

Yes, I still believe we should have a First World Parliament and I would continue to strive towards this.

In our system, it is actually difficult for there to be a true separation of powers between the Legislative and the Executive branches. Since members of the Legislative are also members of the Executive, could there still be independence?

Tough ... it is difficult. Probably because of the mindset of not only the public but also the MPs themselves.

You can't run away from the fact (that members of) the Executive are also members of the Legislative. Not only that, they are also leaders of the party in power.

So it is really difficult for us to accept and whether we can come to the level of, say Britain, where the backbenchers can cross the line, and get away with it. But it is not possible here.

Here if a backbencher crosses the line and goes against the government, then you know for sure, in the next election he will be dropped; (this applies) not only to the government but also to the Opposition.

For example, the Member of Parliament for Nibong Tebal (Goh Kheng Huat) ... in the last Parliament he went against the leadership of the DAP. You see, this time around he is not nominated. This is something which is not yet an acceptable position in Malaysia.

Bringing back the Parliamentary Services Act is one way to restore the independence of Parliament as an institution but you seem to balk at the move. Doesn't bringing in a Head of Administration further reduce that independence?

When a member of the Senate spoke on the need to bring back the Parliamentary Services Act, I responded positively. But this is a decision to be made by the Whip (Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak).

We discussed the matter with the Whip and we found that the Parliamentary Services Act is about the employees of Parliament.

What we are talking about (in this case) is the independence of MPs and since 1993 when the Parliamentary Services Act was abolished, we have seen that not only is Parliament stronger, it is also more independent in that MPs are free to air their opinions, even to the extent of criticising the government, which you have never seen before.

To say bringing back the Parliamentary Services Act will bring back independence to Parliament ... it does not have any bearing at all. It (Act) is just like window dressing.

When you have the Parliamentary Services Act, it means it is a closed service. When it is a closed service, there will be in-breeding.

Through in-breeding, the service will start to have its own rules which may not be the policy of the government.

For example, the wearing of the tudung for staff. Under the General Service, there is no requirement for female public sector employees to put on a tudung.

But here (in Parliament), we see even though they are now under General Service, there is a tendency to impose their own regulations.

Two young girls (in Parliament) who are not Muslims were told to put on tudung.

And the other thing is that we can't get the best people to work in Parliament because if I am a young man starting work in the government, I would not want to join Parliament if it is a closed service as there is no prospect.

But if it is an open service, I would not mind joining, because I know, even if I come to Parliament, there is still a chance of kenaikan pangkat (getting promoted).

There is also a tendency in a closed service of becoming a Malay civil service. It is not going to be a Malaysian Civil Service. This is not good.

Now in a General Service you find it is so difficult to introduce this Malaysianisation of Civil Service, what more in a closed service.

So that is why after having given it much thought, we agreed (that) reviving the Parliamentary Services Act is not good for us.

Did you bring in the Head of Administration because you were dissatisfied with the way things were being run?

When I became minister in charge of Parliament, the prime minister clearly said that I must look into all matters involving Parliament - everything from the physical building to the needs of MPs.

What I found was the Secretary of the Dewan Rakyat also acted as general secretary of the whole Parliament. He is burdened with everything. Not with just the work in the Dewan but also when it comes to such things as parking, toilets, Speaker punya rumah and other things which rosak.

I think it is not fair to him, to be burdened with all these.

When I attend cabinet meetings, there are instructions with regards to Parliament. Then I have to bring this to the Dewan secretary. But he has got so much on his plate that sometimes cabinet decisions are not implemented.

Because of that, I discussed it with the Chief Secretary to the Government and asked him how to go about this. He said we could probably have an officer here (in Parliament) with the responsibility to solve problems that have nothing to do with the Dewan affairs. So we can free the secretary.

That is how we came up with the decision and it was approved by cabinet.

So what I did was to improve Parliament, not to form another power base.

I am a Member of Parliament, and I do not want to set up something which would rival Parliament.

In the Indian cabinet, there is a minister in charge of parliamentary affairs. But he stays away from actually running the administration of Parliament. He merely ensures the necessary drafts and Bills are sent to the Clerks of Parliament. Your thoughts on this?

We cannot look at India when it comes to the Parliamentary Services Act. Over there, the minister of parliamentary affairs ensures the flow of Bills.

Because in their Parliament, to get a Bill discussed is not easy. In their Parliament (the composition) is 50:50 between the Opposition and the Government bench. But it is different here, we cannot have the same.

Over here, all Bills originate from the Executive, so there is no problem at all. Hardly do we see a Private Member's Bill.

So if I am minister in charge of parliamentary affairs and follow the Indian model, it would mean I won't have any work. It would be an easy job-lah.

I have a different role. I act as the bridge between Parliament (legislative) and the Executive. Anything the Executive wants and seen to be done in Parliament, we will relay to Parliament.

And then, if there is anything of Parliament that needs to be channelled to the Executive, I will do that. I have access not only to Parliament but I also sit in the cabinet. This way, a lot of things get done.

For example, the Human Rights and Good Governance Caucus, if I am not in the chair, it would then be just MPs airing their opinions.

However, with the caucus and the Minister in Parliament, who is its chairman, things get done on whatever grievances that are brought up to the caucus.

I can immediately have access to the cabinet, my colleagues are there, I will inform them and the particular minister would be concerned as it affects his ministry. So that way, you get things done.

So this our own model, we don't have to follow other countries.

With the administration head in place, will the MPs be getting what they have been seeking, such as research assistants and better facilities?

Yes. Definitely they will. Because the head of administration is always in contact with me and will follow up on matters; such as claims which have to be settled in two weeks. All these have been conveyed to the head of administration and he keeps tabs on the progress, position and the status (of issues).

You seem like a man with many contradictions, especially in terms of the many hats that you wear. As a minister in charge of Parliament you seem to stand against more independence but as a chairman of two caucuses you seek more freedom on matters such as human rights and Myanmar with emphasis on Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom. You also want the University and University Colleges Act removed and more freedom for university students.

As I said, I am doing this because I am pro-people. That is how we all should be. It is also easier for me because the prime minister is also pro-people.

Sometimes, the prime minister wants something and the apparatus of the government and agencies are not on the same wavelength, and thus they would not implement what the prime minister wants.

The prime minister wants something and they do something else. So in a way I see my role as that of seeing to it that what the prime minister wants are implemented at the level of the implementing agencies.

Sometimes you take your job as an executive too seriously. When provoked, you shout MPs down. You are seen as scolding them. Some people are actually scared of being verbally abused. They call you a bully.

I am very passionate about my job. I am a lawyer by training and I believe in freedom of association and freedom of speech.

If I answer passionately, don't blame me, because that's how passionate I am in defending the government and my position.

You will find people like Lim Kit Siang (Parliamentary Opposition Leader) going berserk and shouting. I don't feel offended because he is passionate about his job. So it is the same with me.

If I am seen as being very hard and go strongly at a particular person at a particular time, that is because I am passionate about my job. Don't be angry or blame me for that.

I don't look at it as vengeance (on his part). It's all in a day's work.

Outside Parliament, it is different. I know you have a job to do, and I have a job to do, it's just who is better. For example, I remember one occasion (when) I was angry with Kula (DAP Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran).

He was trying to show that the government is racist, in the sense that we don't recognise CSMU (Crimea State Medical University) degrees.

He was implying that two years ago the then minister of education said there were too many Indians there, and was trying to relate it to the issue of non-recognition of CSMU.

Which I think is very racist. I hate racism, you know, and I think that it is not right to accuse the government of de-recognising CSMU because there are too many Indians. That is not right. We are a government which takes care of every ethnic group.

I don't like it. I cannot understand human beings can hate each other because of differences in skin colour and political leaning.

That's why when I saw what Kula was trying to do, I lost my cool. I shouted at him because I hate racism, irrespective of whether it comes from the Opposition or the government.

Sometimes I lose my cool because I cannot believe that in 2005 there are people, including those in government, who still think that way.

Many people say that our MPs cannot be referred as lawmakers, as they do not make the laws. Mostly, they approve that which has already been decided. What's your take on this?

You know that in any country when they have a Westminster-style Parliament, there is also this system of the Whip. You even have this in the UK. The Whip means that once the government decides on something, everybody must support.

And you know, we have a big majority and naturally when it comes to voting on a Bill, we will use the Whip.

But this is something which you have to live with. We allow some latitude for MPs to criticise but when it comes to making a decision, we use the Whip.

If you call this rubber stamping, then even in the UK it is rubber stamping.

Is a Unicameral (single House) not efficient, when compared to the present system of a Upper House and Lower House?

This Bicameral is more of a window dressing, rather as a check and balance. But we all know that appointments to the senate are done by the government. Even if you do it through the Unicameral way, there is still only one Parliament.

So it makes no difference whether we are Unicameral or Bicameral. When the government is strong, that is what you are going to see, that all Bills come from the executive and 100% it is going to get through.

You can't run away (from it). This is a fact of life. Let's not kid ourselves. This is the system and it has been there for more than 40 years and we will continue to be like this.

If the public somehow one day decide this is not a good system, then it is entirely up to them.