DEWAN Rakyat Speaker Johari Abdul is ambitious in wanting to see a reformed parliament, which has a notorious history of always being beholden to the executive.

It is not an exaggeration to say parliament has left a lot to be desired when it comes to scrutinising the executive and its function.

This reputation was further damaged by the government of Muhyiddin Yassin.

The shenanigans of a one-day parliament in 2020, opposition motions rejected unreasonably and, most important, the inability of the lower house to test its confidence in the prime minister over the past two years exposes the urgent need for overhaul.

The introduction of prime minister’s questions (PMQs) is perhaps a low-hanging fruit the Speaker could reap by presiding over the session, so long as the prime minister consents.

As Anwar Ibrahim’s honeymoon period as prime minister begins to end, an unprecedented PMQ session would perhaps signal to the public that this government still retains its reformist zeal.

With the opposition also beginning to get its act together, the amendment of the standing order to make PMQs a permanent feature in Malaysia politics would invite little resistance, with the opposition relishing the opportunity to back the prime minister into a televised corner by posing tough questions. 

PMQs originated from the UK, perhaps the most famous feature of British politics.

Some would even argue that the career of a British prime minister is defined by how he or she responds to questions asked in parliament.

Some of the finest moments of Margaret Thatcher’s career as the UK’s first female prime minister came from the PMQs, where she was able to take all the difficult queries in stride and wiped the floor with her passionate eloquence to render her political opponent speechless in awe.

The now much revered “No, No, No” speech made by Thatcher in defiance of further European integration of the UK came from a question by the then opposition leader. 

However, no matter how Thatcher argued her case, that speech could not prevent a further split within her party.

In fact, she was so convinced that her pro-European deputy prime Minister Geoffrey Howe was forced to resign due to their irreconcilable views.

Howe’s resignation was arguably the last straw and her party mustered the courage to remove her as prime minister.

In an attempt to make a spectacle of her Eurosceptic credentials in front of everyone, Thatcher had inadvertently accelerated her own political demise.

You may say that PMQs in this case did not fulfil its role of holding the government accountable, but made politics a personality confrontation, which only exacerbated the division within the government. 

While PMQs may have compelled some form of direct accountability – where the prime minister has to defend every action by his government – it would also run against the principle of collective responsibility if the prime minister is expected to give a detailed response to every question.

If the opposition leader ever asks a question on detention without trial, the onus should ideally fall on the home minister to respond if the prime minister does not have a strong view.

However, PMQs means the prime minister cannot be seen as politically weak and may have to answer questions to topics that may not have even been discussed by the cabinet.

Neither could the prime minister afford to answer truthfully for fear that his cabinet colleagues might force him into a humiliating U-turn.

The worst-case scenario is PMQs might risk inflating the power of the prime minister.

This is perhaps why most PMQs in the UK fall short of major policy announcements or monumental government decisions.

They are rather the prime minister extoling political platitudes or past achievements of the government.

Instead, the PMQs has at times been relegated to an ugly confrontation lacking meaningful debate, where the prime minister and the opposition leader try to outmanoeuvre each other with soundbites.

Having said that, the PMQs is still something you would rather have, as many democratic societies are desperate for a session where the prime minister can be held to account publicly.

Nevertheless, for a world with politics that chases instant gratification, PMQs has more or less become a platform for politicians to play to the gallery, rather than scrutinising the prime minister. – February 12, 2023.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.