|
PROPOSALS TO ENHANCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MALAYSIAN PARLIAMENT
Introduction As the legislative arm of the Government, the importance of the institution of Parliament and its function is undeniable. Nevertheless, the evolution of parliamentary democracy in our country over the years has been marked by a host of negative developments, which have served to undermine its meaningful expression. Consequently, the space available to elected representatives to effectively give voice to various issues of national importance affecting their constituents particularly and the Malaysian public generally have been limited. Such a state of affairs is cause for concern as the role of Parliament is adversely affected and its dignity and continued relevance called into question. This is evidenced, amongst others, by the curtailment of debate time for elected representatives and the restrictions imposed on questions that can be raised by them, the recurrent lack of quorum in the Dewan Rakyat due to frequent non-attendance of members of Parliament (MP) including ministers during parliamentary debates and question and answer sessions, the refusal and failure of the House at times to address and discuss issues of public interest as well as the misuse of the ruling coalition’s majority representation in the House in many instances. In order to tackle the problems and weaknesses that beset Parliament, it is pertinent that a series of positive steps be taken for the betterment of the august body. This is necessary to ensure Parliament’s continued relevance and the effective and meaningful discharge of its functions. The following are proposals which the DAP would like to put forward to enhance Parliament’s effectiveness:
(1) Greater Engagement in Issues of National Importance As the highest forum in the country, Parliament must not abdicate its responsibility to address the various burning issues of the day. It’s failure to give attention to matters of national importance such as the financial scandals involving Malaysian Airlines System (MAS), Perwaja and Renong, mismanagement of public funds like Tabung Haji and the Employees Provident Fund (EPF), the Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) examination scandal, the Kg. Medan tragedy, the controversy surrounding the appointment of the new Attorney General, the outcome of investigations into the Dewan Tunku Canselor (DTC) fire in University Malaya, the formula for teaching mathematics and science in English, the threat of terrorism and the deadlock in water discussion between Malaysia and Singapore has affected the public’s confidence in it. Parliament’s refusal to give due consideration to reports which it had imposed a statutory duty to be presented to the House, such as in the case of the two Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) reports, is also a source of concern. By right, there should have been a special debate on the two reports, namely the Suhakam annual report and the report on freedom of assembly, as well as the reports on the Kesas Highway incident and the commission’s findings of widespread police violation of human rights. The present state of apparent lack of seriousness and political will on the part of Parliament to tackle these matters are certainly disconcerting. Parliament should bear in mind that it owes a responsibility to the Malaysian citizenry to address issues that affect their interest. As such, it must refrain from its passivity and be more conscientious in giving voice to the many far-ranging national issues. For instance, it should give a more liberal interpretation to what constitute definite matters of urgent public importance so that issues that ought to be raised in the House would not be sidelined due to the technical requirements. In this connection, the 24 hours stipulation for emergency motions should also be reviewed to anticipate issues of extreme urgent importance, which warrant immediate attention. It would be prudent to revert to the 4 hours time frame for such motions as practised in the past. At the same time, motions to review the decision of the Speaker not to allow certain matters, which are felt as deserving urgent deliberation by the House, should be given priority and allocated time for debate immediately.
(2) Improved Attendance during Parliament Meetings The problem of lack of quorum in the House is a perennial one, which has been highlighted time and again. The prime minister himself had expressed concern over the poor attendance of MPs in the House. A government MP had also alleged that some ministers were guilty of not discharging their duties. As elected representatives, all MPs, including ministers, should ensure that they are regularly present during question time or debates. There must be no playing truant from parliamentary meetings. With a total number of 193 MPs in the House, it is inconceivable that a minimum quorum of 26 MPs at any one time when the House is in session cannot be fulfilled. The situation is made worse by the lackadaisical attitude of certain ministers who are absent during question time or debates, even when it concerns their own ministry. It is therefore pertinent that an effective mechanism be put in place to raise and maintain a high quality of parliamentary accountability among members of the House. For instance, the daily attendance of MPs should be displayed on the Parliament homepage.
(3) Review of Restrictions on Questions of MPs and Debate Time Available The present restrictions placed on the number and length of questions that can be asked by MPs are unreasonable and should be reviewed. Following the 1998 amendments to the Standing Orders, an MP can only ask a maximum of 10 questions at each parliamentary meeting, even when Parliament can be in session for as long as two months. Furthermore, an oral question is restricted to not more than 40 words and a motion of urgent and definite public importance is limited to not exceeding 300 words. Clearly, such provisions are retrogressive and undemocratic as they impinge on an MP’s right of free and uninhibited speech when raising importance issues. The stipulation pertaining to submission of questions that MPs wish to raise is also another matter that needs to be reviewed. At present, MPs are required to submit their questions to the Dewan Rakyat Speaker 21 days before Parliament sits. Such a rule is outmoded, as questions submitted might already be irrelevant when they come up for asking. Also, the rule does not anticipate issues that may arise later which necessitate parliamentary debate. Instead, submission of questions should be made progressively, i.e. questions for the week need only be submitted at the end of the previous week, so that questions remain relevant at the point of asking. Another rule of practice that is unfair and undemocratic is the 10-minute rule, which limits MPs to only 10 minutes when taking part in the budget debate at the committee stage. Such a restriction prevents conscientious MPs from articulating effectively and thoroughly the needs and grievances of the people they represent. Instead of restricting the time available for debate, more meeting days should be allocated. In view of the increase of parliamentary business and bills, the number of days of sitting should also be increased to allow more time for debate. The current 60 days a year when the Dewan Rakyat is in session is not enough for MPs to engage in quality debates on various issues and bills. Due to the shortage of time, the House would inadvertently gloss over certain matters, which may not be so important but nonetheless warrant debate. Hence, if there is to be a high quality of parliamentary debate, greater room must be given for the meaningful participation of MPs.
(4) Setting Up of Specialist Parliamentary Select Committees In order to increase the effectiveness of MPs, specialist parliamentary select committees covering various fields and areas such as finance, economy, education, information technology, housing and defence should be established. Such a committee system would enable MPs to gain real knowledge of certain subjects and be truly competent in those areas. It would also give greater meaning to the principle of parliamentary control and ensure closer scrutiny of the Executive. In fact, many other Parliaments in the Commonwealth have adopted such a practice where a specialised committee is set up for almost every Ministry. For instance, the House of Commons in the United Kingdom has 34 Select Committees, some of which include Public Accounts Committee, Procedure Committee and Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privileges, and specialist committees such as Agriculture Committee, Education and Employment Committee, Environment Audit Committee and International Development Committee, just to name a few. Aside from the formation of specialist select committees for every Ministry to ensure the accountability of a minister to a particular committee, general select committees should be set up particularly for the following areas, namely Women Agenda, Mass Media, Information Technology, Human Rights and Corruption. Annual reports on these matters should be tabled in Parliament followed by parliamentary debates on the reports.
(5) Public Accounts Committee Should Be Headed by a Senior Opposition MP The current practice of a member of the ruling coalition invariably heading the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is one that is not viable. This is due to the fact that often times, the PAC is hesitant to permit an aggressive scrutiny and audit of any abuses of government funds and expenditures in order not to “rock the boat”. Unlike Malaysia, in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, the tradition has been to choose the Chairman of the PAC from the Opposition since its inception in 1861. This is the main reason why the PAC in Malaysia had been unable to have the same kind of impact as its counterparts in the United Kingdom and other countries, which continued with the proper practice of appointing an Opposition MP to head the PAC. The role of the PAC is crucial as it acts as a checks and balances on any government financial abuses, excesses or malpractices. Its main functions are to ensure that public funds are utilised for purposes prescribed by Parliament so that corruption and wastage are minimised and that sound financial practices are encouraged and carried out. In this regard, the annual PAC report should be an important affair for the promotion of transparency and good governance. Unfortunately, PAC reports in our country do not attract serious interest from the public because without an Opposition member to head the committee, the latter cannot fully realise its role as the highest custodian of public accountability. Hence, it would be a step in the right direction to appoint a senior member of the Opposition to head the PAC to ensure its cutting edge and avoid its becoming obsolete and ineffective. Ideally, half of the membership of the PAC should come from the Opposition as well. Only then can the PAC reinvent itself so as to be more robust and reform-minded and play a further role in initiating the modernisation of the public accountability system as an integral part of the modernisation of government. As a further step, a finance audit committee should also be set up to constantly monitor the administration of public funds approved by Parliament for the current financial year. This is to ensure proper use of those funds since the Auditor-General’s report is always tabled two years later. Such call for public accountability is in step with what the prime minister himself said when he was first sworn in 1981. Another area that should be looked into is the area of committees placed under the Speaker. Since these committees, except the Public Audit Committee, are inactive, efforts must be made to revive them. There should be more of such committees headed by members of the House who are not part of the administration or the Chair and budgeting provision should be provided for them to run the committees. The composition of these committees should comprise members of all parties represented in the House.
(6) Due Recognition of the Role of Opposition MPs There should be a healthy recognition that the Parliamentary Opposition is an integral part of Parliament and plays an important role as checks and balances to the government. Input and participation from Opposition MPs in parliamentary proceedings should be welcomed and not taken lightly or frowned upon. Indeed, there is no incompatibility between a strong government and a strong opposition as both are mutually complementary and necessary to ensure a strong Parliament. The first Yang di-Pertuan Agong, in his royal address in Parliament in 1959, had emphasised the need for the Government to pay heed to the views of the Opposition. On this note, Opposition business should also be regarded and accepted as part of parliamentary business in the same way government business is. By way of concrete expression, Opposition MPs should be accorded the right to initiate parliamentary debates through procedural provisions. One example is to reserve every Thursday afternoon sitting for non-government business. This would allow the Opposition to play a more active role in parliamentary proceedings. In addition, provision should be made to ensure that Opposition MPs have research staff to aid them in their tasks.
(7) Live Telecast of Parliamentary Proceedings In order to promote greater transparency and public awareness of parliamentary happenings, there should be live telecast of proceedings in Parliament, ideally throughout the entire Parliament session. At present, only the Prime Minister’s budget speech is given live coverage on national television. This is inadequate as the public is inevitably shut out from what transpires in the House during the rest of its sitting, save for watered-down news reports and the Hansard (the daily record of parliamentary debates and proceedings), which in practised is rarely if at all accessed. Parliament must therefore give serious thought to the idea of broadcasting the proceedings in the House. This would ensure greater accountability of MPs, since it is the best way for the public to gage whether their elected representatives are playing truant or conscientiously discharging their duties by being present in the House and participating actively in its discussions.
(8) Serious Face-lift to Parliamentary Homepage Needed In the era of information technology (IT), Parliament should be playing a pivotal role in popularising IT among the Malaysian populace. This, sadly, is not reflected in the Parliament homepage, which is seriously lacking in professionalism, imagination, creativity and interactivity as well as timely information about parliamentary developments, whether parliamentary business or verbatim reports of daily parliamentary proceedings. Even where Hansards are concerned, those available on the website are not updated unlike the websites of other Parliaments which provide daily Hansards within 24 hours. One good example is the Australian Parliament homepage, which make available a wealth of important parliamentary information and acts as a gateway to other useful resources. Certainly more can be done by Parliament to give a much-needed face-lift to its homepage, especially when this had been reiterated time and again. There should be a special IT team entrusted with regular and around the clock updating of the homepage and making sure that all important information, including proposed legislation, are put up for the benefit of the public. For instance, displaying the e-mail addresses of MPs will promote interactive participation from conscientious members of the public and making available all proposed bills online in advance would encourage comments and feedbacks from the public as well as allowing MPs time to study them in detail. As a further step, it would be prudent to place the Parliament website under the responsibility of an All-Party Parliamentary Committee to ensure effective management of the homepage. Such committee should be empowered to make policy decisions concerning the format, structure and contents of the homepage.
(9) Comprehensive Debate When Passing Bills Since law making is undoubtedly the greatest role of Parliament, greater care and attention should be given to the debate and passing of bills. In practice, most bills are passed by the House in spite of questions raised and doubts cast on the propriety of certain provisions in the bills. This ought not be the case as the enactment of new legislation or amendments to existing legislation are a serious matter and Parliament is duty-bound to ensure that they are not passed en bloc without deep scrutiny. Instead, bills that are questionable or not in order should be sent back to the Attorney-General chambers for redrafting before being debated again by the House. Before tabling of bills in the House, copies should be made available to all MPs well in advance so that they have the opportunity to study and deliberate over them. In this connection, briefing of bills before they are debated should not be confined to government backbenchers but should necessarily include Opposition MPs in recognition of their role as lawmakers as well. In addition, it is important that public hearings involving NGOs, professionals and key members of society are held where important bills are concerned in order to obtain public feedback and input, which should be used as a source of reference by the House. The same should also apply to important constitutional amendments.
(10) Avoid Abuse of Standing Orders by Ministers In many instances, the Standing Orders have been invoked by Ministers and their deputies in order not to give way to Opposition MPs when replying during debate. Standing Orders are also abused when these Ministers and their deputies relied on them to avoid answering the questions of Opposition MPs. The Dewan Rakyat speaker and deputy speakers should not interpret the Standing Orders in a narrow manner but should give due regard to the principle of democracy to prevent inefficient and irresponsible Ministers and their deputies from seeking refuge under the rules of the House.
Conclusion The DAP believes that the implementation of the above proposals would greatly contribute towards improving the effectiveness of Parliament and ensure its continued relevance as the highest decision-making body in the land. The suggestions put forward, some of which have in fact been pointed out by the government as well, have been made in the spirit of constructive criticism with deep concern for the function and role of Parliament as a whole, and are not meant to antagonise any party, including the ruling coalition. It is the DAP’s firm conviction that only by taking such positive steps can there be a healthy and robust Parliament, which will enjoy the full confidence of the Malaysian citizenry. Only then can the Malaysian Parliament keep pace with other progressive legislatures in the Commonwealth and other parts of the world and the phrase “parliamentary democracy” be given meaningful expression in practice.
|