One would expect a columnist with accolades of assignments and Harvard mentioned in his resume like Phar Kim Beng would have given a decent commentary to Dato Anifah Aman's response in Parliamant to Malaysia Baru's new Foreign Minister, Dato Saifuddin Abdullah.
Phar reply to Anifah's calling of Saifuddin as not "well-versed" in South China Seas issue was to reduced it to as hackneved.
He then ridiculed the expertise of a former Director General of Maritime Department in the Foreign Minister, who was recently sent to France as Malaysia's new Ambassador, as Anifah's only expert on South China Sea.
Subsequently, he was throwing the names of few diplomats which was not quite clear whether he was potraying Anifah as getting the wrong advise from the wrong people or Saifuddin seek advise from diplomats.
Phar seemed to run down all the diplomats which advised Anifah and Saifuddin. This technique in debate is hackneyed or to mean overused; unoriginal and trite. It is so DAPish to run down without giving a fair and honest assessment.
If the subject is about foreign policy, as Anifah's concern is clearly about (see video above), then there is no objectivity to talk of Anifah and his brother and nephews electoral performance. The voters was not objective in their votes but swayed by Warisan's money, sabotage from UMNO headquarter and local UMNO party worker, and other non-issues.
For a renown columnist, Phar came off sounding childish to question Anifah's right to speak in Parliament.
It is a free country now and more so for a member of Parliament to speak in Parliament. This argument based on locus standi is the one that hackneyed or over-used. In fact, there is an attempt to do away with locus standi to open the window for public issues to be brought to court.
Assuming the vexatious claim that Anifah relied on only one expert is true, it is not hackneyed to conclude Saifuddin is not well verse on South China Seas issue. He had just assumed the position and as one source shared, Saifuddin had confided he is absolutely blur and clueless on what to do at the Ministry. Just do not ask who the source is?
Happen to know a buddy who is familiar with the 9-dash-line issue. Can assure that Anifah had more than one expert advising him and is quite well verse as he was handling and hands on engaging diplomatically on the matter.
Phar is far from knowledgeable or had any glimpse of the background and character of those involved together with the behind the close door incidents on the South China Sea to comment on an issue so dear to a Sabahan like Anifah.
Phar may have a background in foreign policy but to highlight Saifuddin's effort to etablishment a Parliamentary Select Committee on Foreign Policy as achievement is an amateurish attempt to praise the boss of his friend who is Saifuddin's Political Secretary.
It is practised by the US Senate but to have one in Malaysia with members comprising of local politicians, it is impractical. Not even cabinet members and top government servants are familiar with foreign policies as it has always been the strict domain of Wisma Putera.
Inviting the opinion and empowering MPs with tendency to say, "Aku ni YB, atau kau yang YB?" to their constituency on such delicate matter of diplomacy and wide subject of geo-global politics will only extract shallow views and spells disaster written all over.
A scene in the British comedy, Yes Prime Minister was of the Chief Secretary in a state of shock to hear the Prime Minister intend to have lunch on rotation with all the Ambassadors and High Consulate. He said the one lunch with the Ambassador can destroy years of diplomatic manovering.
Saifuddin has a lot to learn and know what was happening in the past before he can bring something revolutionary to claim as his legacy. He has to realise that prior to Anifah, Malaysia signed too few international treaties, convention and bilateral agreements. It was talk, even in those 22 years.
Phar pick on the wrong guy to insult as abysmal failure. For Saifuddin to use Phar to response, it is rather one week late.