THE decision to degazette 54% of the Kuala Langat North Forest Reserve (KLNFR) by the Selangor government shows there is very little political will to protect the rights of the indigenous people to their traditional lands and according to Greenpeace, the KLNFR is home to the indigenous Temuan people for more 150 years.

Degazetting the KLNFR will cost the Temuan community their homes while the potential ecosystem damage caused by degazetting is well documented and publicised by various environmental groups. The state government has also delayed the move due to public backlash.

The decision to make parts of KLNFR available for development has also exposed the subservience of the state assembly to the executive.

It was just in November that the Selangor legislative assembly voted unanimously to protect forest reserves in Selangor. Unless the state assembly moves another motion to negate this motion, it should be crystal clear that forest reserves may not be degazetted in Selangor.

In this case, the state assembly which represents the will of the people has decisively spoken in one voice. Therefore, it is completely undemocratic that the Selangor government has chosen to defy and undermine the state assembly.  

Plus, the decision to degazette KLNFR was only made public because of written queries submitted by assemblymen in the assembly sitting.

Furthermore, it was only through question time in the assembly that the public found out the decision was made in May 2020.

Thus there is reason to believe that the state government has not been forthright with even the assemblymen themselves and that its decision was made rather clandestinely.

Furthermore, the Selangor government has demeaned the state legislative chamber to defend the degazettement. Selangor Exco member Hee Loy Sian stressed that the decision to degazette half of KLNFR is a compromised decision considering the objections to it.

He also declared that the government is not bound to the state assembly’s motion.

Firstly, the motion that was passed last year is not leaving any reasonable doubt when it is worded: that the state assembly shall urge the state government to defend the status of forest reserve in the whole of Selangor.

Thus there is no question of how many hectares are allowed to be degazetted but rather no forest reserve shall be subject to degazettement at all under the agreed motion.

The Selangor government should have objected to the motion at the time instead of voicing disagreement now.

Hee’s second argument is even more laughable. If a private member’s motion does not have a binding effect on the executive, then by the same logic,  a confidence motion should have no effect on the position of the executive.

I am surprised that a PH exco member could come up with such an excuse especially when the coalition has been consistently calling for Muhyiddin’s legitimacy to be tested through a confidence motion.

Any agreed or disagreed motion in the legislative chamber should be accorded the utmost importance because it represents a collective decision after debate and deliberation.

If the legislative chamber is where the people’s voice is represented, then the agreed motion should be upheld as sacrosanct and a democratic decision.

The fact that a motion that has obtained bipartisan support could be batted away as non-binding tells us the sincerity and commitment of PH when it comes to making our legislative chamber truly independent of the executive.

There are certainly important reforms that the Selangor has led and paved the way for in terms of parliamentary reform.

The recognition of the opposition leader and formation of the Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency are important improvements that was spearheaded by the opposition, but nevertheless, most political parties still view the legislative chamber as an appendage to the government rather than an independent body that would ensure cleaner and more competent governance.

By refusing to heed the decision made by the state assembly, PH risks losing the moral high ground on matters of parliamentary reforms as opposed to its political opponents. Instead, the opposition would be viewed as arguing for parliamentary reforms purely for political expediency.

Like charity, parliamentary reforms also begin at home. It is certainly unparliamentary to stealthily pursue a policy that the assembly was clearly against and if the Selangor government should be arguing its case for degazettement on the assembly floor if this is the policy direction it wishes to undertake.

If PH really wishes to reform Parliament as it has promised to do, it should begin by respecting the Selangor state assembly. – September 5, 2021.

* 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.