THE reintroduction of the Parliamentary Services Act 1963 will ensure true separation of powers between Parliament and the executive while returning autonomy to the house, experts said.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia constitutional expert Faridah Jalil said this would allow Parliament to administer itself and its finances without government interference.

“Parliamentary staff is made up of those in the civil service, but we need staff who are impartial as they will be dealing with people with multiple political views,” she said on an online forum co-organised by electoral watchdog Bersih 2.0 and the Institute of Political Reform and Democracy.

“They need to have impartiality and no inclination toward a specific party when doing their duties.”

Currently, staff appointed to Parliament are derived from the civil service while the finances of the House comes under the purview of the Treasury Department.

Faridah added that Parliament should have the power to pick staff based on merit instead of being obliged to  recruit a civil servant based on seniority.

“There is a large talent pool in Malaysia that we can tap into. The staff should be (selected) based on merit, not seniority in the civil service. They must also be interested in Parliamentary processes and capable.”

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law) Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar today said that the new government would reintroduce the Parliamentary Services Act to accord more independence to Parliament.

The act was repealed in 1992 after then Dewan Rakyat speaker Zahir Ismail unilaterally had it removed from the books.

Abolishing the role of parliament and law minister

DAP strategist Liew Chin Tong said the role of chief administrator for Parliament should be returned to the Dewan Rakyat speaker.

“I hope Wan Junaidi will ld do a great service for parliament and the nation by aiming to be the last minister for parliamentary affairs, and help end the position of chief administrator.

“He should return the prestige and roles of the secretary of Dewan Rakyat as the chief administrator and secretary of Dewan Negara as deputy chief administrator of Parliament.”

He added that the leader of the house, who managed the parliamentary agenda in consultation with the speaker, leader of the opposition, government chief whip, and opposition chief whip, need not be the prime minister.

“An experienced minister with deep understanding of parliamentary affairs such as Wan Junaidi could be assigned to be the official leader of the House, just like in Westminster or the Australian Parliament.”

Liew also called for the setting up of a parliamentary service commission.

“When there is a service free of the executive, parliament will be more effective for the people and we will have good governance as the government checks and balances system works well.”

More level playing field

Bersih 2.0 chairman Thomas Fann said the reintroduction of the act could level the playing field in Parliament, especially with a the government that did not command a two-thirds majority.

“The parliament will become a stronger institution, no matter who becomes government, it will not be a winner takes all situation.”

Liew added that the only way to deal with a 50-50 parliament and a 50-50 electorate iswasto accept that Parliament must be fair to both the government and the opposition.

“A fair and rule-based parliament will allow for bipartisanship to thrive, which is most needed now so that the nation can overcome the pandemic and to rebuild the economy.”

Aira Azhar of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs, however, cautioned that effort to restore the act might not get bipartisan support.

“My worry is how sustainable the proposals will be to reintroduce this act and whether it will get bipartisan support. 

“If for some reason there is another change in the government, there may not be political will to continue with these changes.”

Umno Youth exco member Bastien Onn, meanwhile, questioned the focus on the act when other institutions were in dire need of reform.

“Why is it only now that we feel the need for parliamentary reform when there are other institutions that we need to look into?

“The judiciary should be given more focus rather than the support staff in parliament,” he said.

Onn said he also did not see how the reintroduction of the act would help parliamentary processes such as debates and the tabling of bills.

He disagreed with Liew that the role of Parliament and law minister should be abolished as it was needed to monitor parliamentary affairs. 

As for having civil servants serve as Parliamentary staff, Onn said he did not see a problem as civil servants were rigorously screened before they were transferred.

“The process of selecting civil servants is a (painstaking) one. We can’t deny that they have the capability to run parliament.” – September 3, 2021.