In light of this, FMT takes a closer look at why some are excited, and what it means for the future of Malaysia’s Parliament.
Why is it being “revived”?
The Parliamentary Services Act was first enacted in 1963, just a few months before the formation of Malaysia. It allowed Parliament to act as a truly independent body, running its own affairs, selecting its staff and controlling its expenditure.
However, it was repealed in 1992, under the first Mahathir administration, with parliamentary affairs subsequently being placed directly under the Prime Minister’s Department.
In the years since, its return has been called for on various occasions. In January 2020, Dewan Rakyat deputy speaker Nga Kor Ming said a replacement bill would be tabled in the March sitting of the lower house, but this was derailed by the Sheraton Move that resulted in a change in government.
Why do people want it back?
The argument for the law is that it would better define the separation of powers that is central to the Westminster parliamentary system, whereby the legislature (Parliament), the executive (the Cabinet) and the judiciary (the courts) are supposed to be independent of each other.
Currently, the government plays a significant role in the affairs of Parliament. Expenditures must be approved by the finance ministry, for example, and government agencies like the Public Service Department (JPA) are responsible for staffing and maintenance.
Those in favour of the act say since the Parliamentary Services Act was repealed there have been incidences of direct interference by the executive in the legislative branch, thus allowing Parliament to be used as an extension of the government at times.
If allowed to be more independent, proponents believe laws will be able to undergo greater scrutiny and parliamentary select committees (PSC) will be strengthened, without the possibility of government intervention.
Assuming these committees are given adequate funding, some believe it will allow the legislative branch to formulate and table laws more tailored to the needs of the people, rather than the needs of the government of the day.
Who is in favour?
On the government side, Umno Supreme Council member and former deputy speaker Azalina Othman Said recently told FMT that such a reform is possible, but will require bipartisan cooperation and it is possible that some constitutional amendments may be needed.
“We need to bring back the independence of Parliament,” she said. “If you have Parliament running like a government department, how is it supposed to monitor the government?”
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has also been a vocal proponent, stating in November 2020 that in addition to giving the institution greater autonomy, it will also provide better benefits for Parliament staff, whose employment is currently under the Prime Minister’s Department.
“We should consider the state of the act which was enacted in 1963 and repealed. I am concerned with the welfare of Parliament staff who have not been given fair attention as their positions (benefits) are not worth the workload.”
Members of civil society have also expressed the need for such a reform, with Bersih 2.0 stating it welcomes the statement from Wan Junaidi.
Thomas Fann, who is chairman of the electoral watchdog, expressed hope that the opposition will be engaged to provide feedback on the proposal, and that it could be enacted before the next general election.