THERE was recently a discourse on how the Parliament should be given space to handle and discuss private member bills, and this is no less due to the fact that the former deputy speaker Azalina Othman Said had submitted a private member’s motion for a recall election bill during this parliamentary session.

Since the newly appointed Parliament and Law Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar categorically confirmed that Attorney-General Idrus Azizan Harun had been instructed by the cabinet to draft an anti-hopping law that will most likely be tabled in the foreseeable future, the chances of Azalina’s private member’s motion seeing the light of day and being debated is inconsequential for now.

Nevertheless, Azalina, being a former deputy speaker and law minister during BN’s reign herself, should know best that the motion that she had proposed would never be read nor debated if the government does not allow it.

A case in point being the controversial RUU 355 bill that seeks to enhance the Syariah Court’s power. The private member’s bill was tabled by PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang in May 2016 and, under normal circumstances, the reading of the bill would be superseded by either government bills or motions.

And yet, it was through the ‘blessings’ of the BN government at that time that Hadi’s motion to table the RUU 355 was expedited to the first parliamentary business of the day on May 26, 2016.

On that day, Hadi’s private member’s motion bypassed four government bills, one government motion and nine private member’s motions.

Ironically, it was the same Azalina, being the law minister at that time, who enabled the fast track of the bill as the Standing Order 14 (2) states that only a minister can move a motion to proceed before any business of the day, outside of the stipulated agenda under the order paper.

To conclude, any private member’s bill in Parliament first has to be ‘approved’ by a minister and, should the house complete its stipulated agenda, the government can always prevent the private member’s motion from even going through its first reading by adding government bills or motions. This is done in order to drown out a private member’s motion as Standing Order 15 (1) states that government business will always take precedence over private member business on the order paper in any parliamentary session in Malaysia.

Therefore, to answer the question posed earlier, Azalina’s private member motion calling for a recall election is unlikely to succeed regardless of the intention of the government towards recall elections.

If the government has no desire to pursue this policy, Azalina’s motion might not even appear on the order paper or, even if it did, the government would counter it with a litany of government business.

For this ongoing parliamentary session, Tuaran MP Wilfred Madius Tangau has submitted a private member motion suggesting the government establish a federal-state council that focuses on the economy and health policies, which will be chaired by the prime minister and the opposition leader as deputy chairman.

The proposal is indeed a breath of fresh air to our parliamentary proceedings if only it is allowed sufficient space and time to be debated in Parliament.

Even in the event that the government broadly agrees with the issue within a private member’s bill – as in the case of Azalina’s call for a recall election – the government is more likely to ignore Azalina’s motion and submit the government’s own version of recall elections.

Azalina should be duly credited for bringing awareness of the issue to the public by submitting a private member’s bill, but the inability of backbenchers from both the government and opposition to legislate still stands.

Aside from denying the right of backbenchers to legislate, the way our Parliament interprets and values private member’s bills has inadvertently weakened the Parliament’s hold on the executive.

Since there are no specific days where private member’s businesses are prioritised, or when backbenchers are given a space to introduce motions without interference, the government – more precisely the prime minister as the leader of the house – gets to dominate the parliament’s agenda-setting.

Other than giving a greater voice to backbencher legislators in Parliament, any progressive reforms in upgrading the facilitation of private member’s bills would significantly reduce the power the executive has over Parliament.

If the standing order is amended to allow days for private member’s business, then Parliament would be unlikely to be abused and forced to convene for a day like May 2020.

Additionally, if backbencher MPs are given free rein to table private member’s motions without interference from the government, Muhyiddin Yassin’s legitimacy as prime minister would have very much been challenged in Parliament, instead of being instigated through an announcement of a withdrawal of support from Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

Equal allocation and equal representation in select committees would undoubtedly strengthen our Parliament, but, all in all, the root cause of our enfeebled Parliament lies in the exclusive power the government has in setting agenda.

The only remedy to this institutional defect is to restore some form of legislative power to backbenchers and that means ensuring the legislative chamber grants every MP the power to make laws, regardless whether one is from the frontbench or backbench. – September 26, 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.