CARETAKER Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin offered parliamentary reforms, among others, in return for bipartisan co-operation if he won the parliamentary vote of confidence, which had been scheduled for September 5.

In a special address last week, Muhyiddin said if he won the vote, there would be a more stable and inclusive government that would recognise bipartisan input in managing the Covid-19 pandemic.

As expected, the offer was supported by the government lawmakers. The proposal of parliamentary reforms would include to equally divide the chairmanship of Parliamentary Select Committee between the government and opposition.

As equally expected, the Pakatan Harapan (PH) presidential council and various opposition MPs rejected the offer outright, calling for Muhyiddin to resign as his majority support in the Dewan Rakyat was in doubt. The latter did resign on Monday.

One opposition MP, though, begged to differ. Damansara MP Tony Pua even called out to his colleagues in opposition to give “full consideration” to the offer. 

In legal parlance, such an offer of reforms should not end as an offer, but should be accepted to create a binding relationship to start the reform work.

When it comes to reforms – or changes – it’s never too late.

Parliamentary reforms have been long overdue. Bits of reforms might have started in 2018, but should have been earnestly pursued as early as March 2020.

However, the government decided to postpone the first meeting of the third session of the 14th Parliament, originally scheduled for March 9-18, 2020.

Parliament could have been convened as scheduled so that lawmakers could vote on a motion of confidence for Muhyiddin. That way, the legitimacy of his premiership could be established on the floor of the Dewan Rakyat.

Or at least to pursue parliamentary reforms through bipartisan co-operation and support for a virtual or hybrid sitting of Parliament. Together with it, e-voting in the Dewan Rakyat.

Muhyiddin’s parliamentary majority, which would have been tested in May 2020 at the earliest, was further pushed back to July 13, 2020, when then Dewan Rakyat Speaker Mohamad Ariff Yusof released a media statement that he had received a letter from Muhyiddin, as leader of the house, that the parliamentary sitting would be cut short due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

So, the Dewan Rakyat sat only for May 18, for the Royal Address. There was not to be a hybrid sitting or e-voting to this day.

Elsewhere, history was made. On April 22, 2020, the United Kingdom’s House of Commons sat hybridlike, prompting the speaker Lindsay Hoyle to declare it the beginning of the digital system and the “springboard for further modernisation of Westminster”.

On May 13, 2020, the House of Commons marked another significant milestone in its more than 200-year history when its MPs successfully voted on a motion using an online platform.

Using a system installed on the MemberHub platform, MPs were invited to cast their votes on a motion through their computers or handheld devices during a 15-minute window.

The voting system was successful following “a rigorous set of trials and a tight four-week implementation period.

House of Commons staff, in particular, worked around the clock to implement the form within a matter of weeks, in collaboration with other wings of parliamentary machinery, including the Parliamentary Digital Service.”

Here, by 4pm today, our MPs are required to submit Surat Akuan (statutory declaration) to “clearly and distinctly state one MP whom you believe can be the ninth prime minister”.

If commercial entities have long secured transfer of monies, big or small, even to the last cent, why can’t our Parliament secure ‘votes’ of our MPs through e-voting?

Parliament is a national institution and one of three branches of government. While the other two branches – the executive and judiciary – have all gone virtual and hybrid in some of their proceedings, Parliament had to meet physically on July 26.

Now MPs will have to state their choice of prime minister via facsimile, email, or WhatsApp.

Such a situation can stare us in the face when we are in the habit of ignoring reforms.

“Ignorance” and “ignoring” come from the root word “ignore”. Ignorance may be bliss, but not ignoring. – August 18, 2021.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* 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.