A Facebooker observed that whenever Mahathir expressed his opposition to any new government initiative or actions, he is either covering up for past sins or up to something. When two of his sons were investigated by MACC, obviously he is not pleased.
Mahathir expressed concern with the much lauded Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 that was passed. Sinar Harian reported him justifying concern of "outsiders" controlling the administration of Parliament and favouritism in the staffing creeps in.
A check with those close to those involved with the Bill turned out the Act had existed before but repealed in 1992 by you know. Typical of Mahathir need to have his hands everywhere to control and dictate things.
Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi explained:
Constitutional role restored
BY SHAD SALEEM FARUQI
REFLECTING ON THE LAW
Star Online Monday, 17 Mar 2025
The Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 is a good first step towards creating a parliamentary service that enjoys some autonomy from the executive.
LAST week, the Dewan Rakyat passed two Bills to enhance the autonomy of our Parliament.
A little bit of history is in order. Under the Parliamentary Service Act 1963, the employees of Parliament were part of a service separate from and independent of the public service.
Regrettably, the 1963 Act was repealed in 1992. The executive then took charge of the administration and finance of Parliament, and the selection of officers and employees were handed over to the Public Service Department, Treasury, and the Prime Minister’s Department.
The Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 is a good first step towards creating a parliamentary service that enjoys some autonomy from the executive.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Law and Institutional Reform Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said deserve our congratulations for righting this 33-year-old wrong.
Parliamentary Service will now be managed by a Parliamentary Service Council of 16 members, 13 of whom are from Parliament – five from the Dewan Negara, eight from the Dewan Rakyat – and three from the top echelons of the public service.
The Dewan Negara members are the President, deputy President, Clerk to the Senate, and two Senators nominated by the Selection Committee and approved by the House.
Dewan Rakyat members are the Speaker, two deputy Speakers, the Clerk to the Dewan Rakyat, and four MPs nominated by the Selection Committee and approved by the House. Commendably, out of the four MPs, two must be from the Opposition.
The Bill will enable Parliament to have an independent or semi-independent administrative, human resources, and financial framework.
However, some flaws have been highlighted by critics.
First, the Bill falls short of the original 1963 legislation in one area. Under the 1963 law, the Clerks of the two Houses enjoyed a security of tenure like Federal Court judges.
That safeguard for independence has been excluded.
Second, members of the Service are appointed by the Council but the terms are determined by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under sections 2(3), 6(3), 7(8), 8(8), 13 and 18(2)(a). As a constitutional monarch, His Majesty mostly acts on advice. Therefore, the influence of the political executive on the terms and tenure of parliamentary service members may not end.
Third, as scholar Maha Balakrishnan has pointed out, the Bill does not tangibly expand Parliament’s financial autonomy. The Council is only given the power to oversee all financial matters relating to parliamentary service, which is not a clear vesting of control over its budget, revenue, and expenditure.
Fourth, the Bill, though well-intentioned, has a narrow aim. Perhaps this was so because a comprehensive Bill for the reform of Parliament will require years of consultation prior to its drafting.
Nevertheless, it needs to be pointed out that strengthening the position of parliamentary staff does not do much to address the broader issue of the quality of MPs, quality of debates, inadequate scrutiny of Bills, and the unfulfilled role of Parliament as the grand inquest of the nation to keep the executive answerable and accountable.
Hopefully, a future Bill will address the need to strengthen Parliament’s efficacy in all its major constitutional functions, the most important of these being:
1. Giving democratic legitimacy to the government appointed by the King – Article 43(2).
2. The making, amendment, and repeal of laws – Articles 66-68, 159 and 161E.
3. Enforcing responsibility, accountability, and answerability of the government – Article 43(3).
4. Providing authority for the raising and spending of money – Articles 67, 96-104.
5. “Constituency function” by Dewan Rakyat MPs.
6. Reviewing the government’s exercise of emergency powers – Article 150(3).
7. Approving of electoral boundaries by the Dewan Rakyat – 13th Schedule.
8. The Dewan Negara’s function of representing the 13 states, the federal territories, distinguished persons, and minorities – Article 48.
9. Protecting Malay Reserves – Article 89.
Due to space constraints, this article will examine reforms of the legislative process only.
Parliamentary institute: On the lines of Intan (National Institute of Public Administration) and lkap (Judiciary and Legislation Training Institute), we need an Institute of Parliamentary Affairs to train MPs in the fundamentals of our Constitution and laws like the Sedition Act.
Familiarity with the technicalities of the Standing Orders, craftsmanship of legislative drafting, and legislative interpretation is also needed.
The institute should have a budget office to enable MPs to decipher the intricacies and long-term implications of budgetary proposals. It is noteworthy that unlike in most democracies, our MPs do not have legislative assistants to assist them in their multifarious functions. This is a contrast with the United Kingdom where for 600 MPs they have 3,500 legislative assistants.
Official Secrets Act (OSA): All Bills are embargoed and subjected to the OSA. The democratic practice should be to be open about impending Bills. The government should issue policy papers on proposed Bills to enable citizens to provide feedback and contribute to the discourse. Decisions in which people participate are decisions they are likely to respect.
Legislation committees: Elected legislatures are – or should be – the principal forum for deliberating, debating, and passing laws instead of rubber-stamping the decisions of an authoritarian executive.
Regrettably, the criticism is heard often that our Parliament merely legitimates; it does not legislate. During proceedings, MPs have their say, the government has its way. To strengthen parliamentary scrutiny, bipartisan parliamentary committees to examine Bills before or after the second reading must be set up as a matter of course and not infrequently, as at present.
Committee work during adjournment: Reformers suggest that given the very lengthy periods when Parliament does not meet, parliamentary committees should be allowed to function both during an adjournment and a prorogation. It is in committee work that Parliament blossoms into “the grand inquest of the nation”.
Post-enactment committees: I have long suggested that all Bills should contain a clause requiring the minister(s) concerned to appoint a post-legislation citizens’ committee to meet periodically and report to the minister on the working of the law concerned.
Private MPs’ Bills: Private Members’ Bills are allowed by Standing Orders and should be encouraged as these may involve participation by NGOs and reflect the democratic impulses of society. The Speaker’s office should draw lots and those whose names appear in the top three slots should be allocated time and financial aid (as in some democracies) to submit their proposals.
In the United Kingdom, up to 20% of Bills passed are Private Members’ Bills.
Role of Dewan Negara: The Dewan Negara is supposed to be a revision chamber. It can propose amendments. It can delay a money Bill for a month and a non-money Bill for a year.
Regrettably, it acts mostly as a rubber stamp. It rejected a Dewan Rakyat Bill for the first time in Malaysian history in 2019 by defeating Pakatan Harapan’s proposal to repeal the infamous Fake News Act.
Concurrent sessions: To lighten the legislative load of the Dewan Rakyat and to enable greater scrutiny of legislative proposals, some politically non-controversial, non-money Bills should originate in the Dewan Negara. This will require both Houses to sit concurrently. No law forbids concurrent sessions.
Executive power to delay enforcement: Bills, including constitutional amendments duly passed by the Houses and signed by the King, are often left hanging because the executive had inserted a clause empowering it to choose the date of enforcement. If the executive fails to act, the will of Parliament remains unenforced. The Undi18 Act passed and gazetted in September 2019 suffered this ignominy for about 18 months.
Subsidiary legislation: Subsidiary legislation outnumbers parliamentary legislation by a huge ratio. Yet it goes unscrutinised. A joint committee of both Houses on subsidiary legislation must be appointed to advise Parliament on whether to accept or annul a subsidiary law.
Law reform commission: Life is always larger than the law, and existing rules must remain dynamic to respond to the felt necessities of the times. An independent law reform commission should be set up to report its proposals to a special parliamentary committee.
Parliamentary sessions, meetings, and sittings: The parliamentary calendar – its summoning, prorogation, and dissolution – are largely in executive hands. Our Dewan Rakyat meets about 80 days a year. It should meet more often, as in the UK where the House of Commons meets about 180 days a year. A law on a fixed term Parliament should also be considered.
Daily agenda: In the determination of the daily agenda, the leader of the House (who is a government minister) has the dominant say. Under Standing Order 15 of the Dewan Rakyat, government business shall have precedence. Instead, the Speaker should have some independence in the matter.
To sum up, the Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 is a good beginning and an important part of an evolutionary process. However, besides separating parliamentary service from the public service, other reforms are needed.
A future Bill should address the training of MPs to perform their democratic functions more effectively and also the broader issues of the institutional efficacy of our elected parliament.
--------------
The bill would certainly be in the right step for more needed to reform to elevate the performance of MPs and Parliamentary process. Its getting really disgusting to see the low quality of discussion and debates in Parliament, often interspersed with shallow and petty political quarrels of low value to the citizens.
Perhaps that was what Mahathir systematically wanted; a Parliament subservient to the executive, the low quality of discussion and debate enables the executive to be heard and ultimately could easily control the narrative and denigrate it to merely as rubber stamp.
If the reforms listed could be restored or introduced, the true capabilities and leadership qualities of MPs could and offer choices of succession plans for the future. The present system overemphasised on party-based selection according to hierarchy and popularity.
No chance of those easily controlled by Mahathir or his manouvering could rise up to the top.
Click Here to Read More..
