AS Malaysians’ hopes for a more democratic, egalitarian and just society were rejuvenated with the 14th general election, it is appropriate for us to reassess how democratic we are in “Malaysia Baharu”.

The advent of “Malaysia Baharu” has to be coupled with the sort of strong and active opposition which is a vital cog in any parliamentary democracy.

The most important role of Parliament is to scrutinise and challenge the work and spending of the government and the role of the opposition was formed to fulfil that responsibility.

However, the performance of the opposition previously has always been beset and hampered by a lack of financial support from the government.

Opposition MPs who have earned the political mandate from their electorate are often unable to discharge their parliamentary responsibilities dutifully due to a lack of funding.

Often, opposition MPs have been found wanting in debating government business because of a lack of capable parliamentary researchers.

Further, opposition lawmakers’ time for reviewing government documents was limited due to having to juggle between serving their constituencies and representing their electorate in Parliament. The opposition in the past were also not helped by the fact that official documents and briefings were distributed only at the last minute before debates.

The standard of debate in Parliament should be expected to decline if members of opposition are not afforded the time and resources to prepare their materials.

A less-informed opposition would inadvertently lead to a deterioration of the check-and-balance mechanism, and this undermines the ability of the opposition to hold the government’s feet to the fire.

Critics might argue that the recent announcement by Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad over the disbursement of constituency allocations to both sides of Parliament is more than enough to alleviate the lack of financial support for the opposition.

Nevertheless, it must be noted that such allocations were disbursed primarily to the benefit of the constituents and supporting the functioning of a parliamentary service centres of each constituency. It does not assist with an MP’s parliamentary duties.

Financial parliamentary support for opposition MPs is commonplace in countries with well-established democratic traditions. In the United Kingdom, an opposition funding scheme called “Short Money” owes its name to the former Labour MP Ted Short, who was instrumental in its introduction as leader of the House of Commons in 1974.

The Short Money scheme is made available to all opposition parties in the Lower House of Commons, the equivalent to our Dewan Rakyat, and funding consists of:

* A general funding for opposition parties, of £16,938 for every seat won at the last election plus £33.83 for every 200 votes gained by the party for the financial year commencing on April 1, 2016.

* A fixed amount of travel expenses for opposition parties.

* Funding for the running costs of the leader of the opposition’s office, amounting to £789,146 for the financial year commencing on April 1, 2016.

Short Money general funds are largely spent on research support for frontbench (shadow cabinet) opposition and staff assistance for the whip and opposition leader.

Similarly, Taiwan’s lawmakers – government and oppositions – are able to hire up to 14 assistants while the cost was entirely borne by the legislative Yuan.

The introduction and its subsequent continuation of such funding underlines the fact that parliamentary democracies can only thrive if opposition MPs receive sufficient financial support to fulfil their roles. This also ensures that the opposition can continue to function and fulfil its parliamentary responsibilities even if they were voted out of power.

“Malaysia Baharu” could begin with offering a fixed sum of allocation to each MP to hire multiple parliamentary researchers. The role of parliamentary researchers could involve supporting their designated MPs in providing research briefings and drafting parliamentary speeches.

Such processes would allow opposition MPs with breathing space to properly study any governmental bill. This would raise the quality of debate in Parliament and ultimately, improve the standard of policymaking in Malaysia.

“Malaysia Baharu” could set a historical precedent to restore the dignity of Parliament – which was incidentally the 16th promise under Pakatan Harapan’s manifesto – by first acknowledging the role the opposition has to play in Malaysia. T

There should be no elaboration needed for the trials and tribulations the opposition went through during the years of Barisan Nasional rule. The acknowledgement of the opposition must also be paired with the financial support which ensures opposition MPs could function smoothly.

Author Pearl S. Buck once wrote that “the test of a civilisation is in the way that it cares of helpless members”. Similarly, the test of our parliamentary democracy now, relative to how it was in “Malaysia Lama”, should be judged in part on how it supports members of the opposition.

In this way, democracy and the system of check-and-balance in Malaysia will preserved and have an opportunity to flourish. – October 9, 2018.

* 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.