Teresa Kok

Time to let MPs decide, say experts
Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
May 8, 06 7:19pm

Coming from across the political spectrum, members of parliament and law expert today said the resignation of Shahrir Abdul Samad as chairperson of Parliament’s Backbenchers Club signified a crossroads of sort.

Lawmaking can either change to become the ‘grand inquest of the nation’ as it was meant to be, or continue to be an exercise in rubber-stamping bills, they said when commenting on the decision by Shahrir to quit last week when he failed to get other government backbenchers to support a motion tabled by the opposition.

The motion was to refer to the parliamentary privileges committee a news report which claimed that the Malacca BN MP had asked the state authorities to ‘close one eye’ regarding a company importing illegal timber.

Member of parliament Zaid Ibrahim (BN-Kota Baru) said everything hinged on the government’s attitude towards the national legislative assembly and whether it was treated as an independent institution or otherwise.

“At the conceptual level things must be clarified. If you see Parliament as an institution that is independent in the general sense of the word, then you’ll trust it to make its own decisions, you’ll reform Parliament accordingly, and you’ll use the whip accordingly,” said Zaid.

“But if you don’t want to let go and see it Parliament as an appendage of the party or of cabinet, then, of course, you can’t do those things,” he added.

At the same time, said Zaid, changes are needed to replace the current practice of cabinet ministers instructing the Attorney-General’s (AG) Chambers to draft bills that are then passed by MPs without any objections.

“If that’s the system, then parliamentarians are just rubber-stamping the issues,” said Zaid.

Bit By Bit Process

He said if parliamentary principles elsewhere were anything to go by, MPs should sit together with the AG’s office, discuss the policies with parliamentary legal counsel and select committees before returning it to cabinet for approval.

“They have very detailed deliberations. They go through things bit by bit, so that the final product, as far as possible, reflects the wishes of Parliament. Today, it’s a reflection of what the minister or department wants,” said Zaid (pix, left)

“What is needed is both a cultural, mindset change, as well as an institutional or process change,” he added.

Constitutional expert Shad Saleem Faruqi suggested that Malaysia follows the Westminister model, where such committees as on foreign affairs or human rights, after the second reading of a bill in question, are tasked with looking into the details of the proposed acts.

“On the floor of the House of Commons, (the MPs) may be docile and ultimately support the government. But in the committee upstairs, they speak not on party lines but speak according to conscience,” said Shad.

“We, sadly, do not have this tradition of committees. That would be a way of loosening things a little bit, to have more committees so that every backbencher can play a role on one committee or another and express his views and make his contribution,” he added.

Shad, legal advisor to Universiti Technologi Mara, agreed with Zaid in that institutional or procedural changes were not sufficient in themselves to develop a Parliament that stood on its own apart from the executive branch of government.

Courage To Speak

“Ultimately this is not a matter of law but more a question of how secure the government feels, its political maturity, the numbers they have in parliament, whether it encompasses a majority or lack of it, and the government’s attitude’s towards the opposition.

“If the government’s attitude is that the opposition is an unmitigated evil which has to be put down, then things will be as they are now, that everything (coming from the opposition) has to be opposed.”

“MPs should be allowed to assist Parliament to play its role as the ‘grand inquest’ of the nation. That’s what the Parliament should be, the grand inquest of the nation, to be able to hold the government and civil servants accountable,” said Shad.

Law professor Abdul Aziz Bari, however, insisted that legal mechanisms can only go so far without MPs who have the courage to speak and act in accordance with their conscience.

Abdul Aziz noted that Shahrir had also resigned in 1987 in protest the dismissal of Supreme Court president Salleh Abas during the judiciary’s tussle with the government over its independence.

“Most of these issues are a matter of practice, not really of law,” said Abdul Aziz, a constitutional expert with the International Islamic University Malaysia.

“We have enough to learn from the more established democracies, especially the UK, but it is the attitude which stands in the way. MPs want to show off their ‘talent’, wanting to impress the premier in the hope that he will pick them up in the next reshuffle,” he said.

Sphere Unrecognised

Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, meanwhile, said parliamentary reform did not signify the relegation of the party whip to history.

It only meant that it should only be reserved for ‘confidence’ motions on crucial matters involving party policies and programmes, such as the national budget.

On other matters such as questions of morality, social issues and decisions involving parliamentary integrity, independence and sovereignty, MPs should be able to exercise their own conscience, said Lim.

“We should have developed a parliamentary tradition and culture, a parliamentary perspective, where MPs can take a stand and rise above their political and party differences.

“There should be a sphere concerning a common position for MPs to rise above party differences. We should have begun to expand that area. But presently, we haven’t even recognised such a sphere,” he said.