Reinventing accountability
Salbiah AhmadPublished: Oct 25, 2005 4:29 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
The outcry to Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Nazri Abdul Aziz's 'Department of Parliament' was noted as 'historic'. In a rare consensus, the majority of parliamentarians including those in the ruling coalition (BN) gave Nazri a beating, so to speak.
The furore over Nazri's initiative saw the department reportedly demoted to an office to inter alia oversee the inspection of 'toilets', a euphemism, we were made to understand for services and amenities available to the Yang Berhormats.
Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, leading the charge, raised concerns if the setting up of the department would impact upon Parliament's independence, autonomy and effectiveness. Parliamentarians were not consulted over Nazri's initiative, which was reported to have been approved by the cabinet-parliamentarians.
We might understand the opposition's consternation if this was a disguised ploy to put Nazri somehow in charge of parliamentary affairs, thus making a mockery of the doctrine of separation of powers.
The outcry to Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Nazri Abdul Aziz's 'Department of Parliament' was noted as 'historic'. In a rare consensus, the majority of parliamentarians including those in the ruling coalition (BN) gave Nazri a beating, so to speak.
The furore over Nazri's initiative saw the department reportedly demoted to an office to inter alia oversee the inspection of 'toilets', a euphemism, we were made to understand for services and amenities available to the Yang Berhormats.
Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, leading the charge, raised concerns if the setting up of the department would impact upon Parliament's independence, autonomy and effectiveness. Parliamentarians were not consulted over Nazri's initiative, which was reported to have been approved by the cabinet-parliamentarians.
We might understand the opposition's consternation if this was a disguised ploy to put Nazri somehow in charge of parliamentary affairs, thus making a mockery of the doctrine of separation of powers.
The consternation from BN-majority parliamentarians is something else. Even the casual observer may note that the executive is really the body 'wearing the pants' in Malaysia's constitutional democracy, not its legislature.
There is no report if the raised voices of BN members and backbenchers were in support of opposition and civil society voices on separation of powers et al. The fuss appears to be one of putting the minister "overseeing parliamentary affairs" in his place.
The drama even eclipsed the AP issue for a while, an issue which also had the 'historic' consensus of members, albeit on different platforms.
This year, even saw a BN minister, S Sothinathan reprimanded and chastised by the House. But are things changing towards that so-called world class Parliament? It's not just the Parliament's library surely which requires upkeep.
Power executive
Government under the inherited Westminster system comprises of Parliament, the executive and the judiciary. The executive is the cabinet under the leadership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Liew Chin Tong in his article on Nazri's 'survival game' writes that in 2001, the Prime Minister's Department employs 9,673 persons as opposed to Parliament's 157! The figures alone indicate the importance and power of the executive.
By convention, the prime minister and his cabinet as elected members of Parliament sit alongside other elected MPs to whom they are ultimately responsible. Cabinet ministers are supposed to take charge of their departments with assistance from junior ministers and the civil servants. The prime minister and his cabinet colleagues as a whole are responsible for the overall direction of government policy.
There are supposedly, within the executive itself, internal checks and balances. One is through the advice, knowledge and experience of the senior civil service and the other is through the collective discussion in cabinet. The prime minister and ministers render account for their actions and policies and their departments' actions to Parliament, both collectively as a government (Art. 43 (3) Federal Constitution) and individually as ministers under the principle of ministerial responsibility.
The prime minister and his cabinet rule in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. In constitutional terms, the king rules on the advice of his ministers who comprise the government. This government is confronted in Parliament by the king's loyal opposition. Thus the major democratic checks are exercised by Parliament. In recent memory, BN politicians went on an election rampage of sifar pembangkang ('no opposition') which one can construe to be highly unconstitutional.
Pak Lah's watch
We might ask for instance, why the AP issue surfaced during Pak Lah's watch and not his predecessor when decisions were made on the national automobile policy by Dr Mahathir Mohamad, his cabinet with minister Rafidah Aziz.
The prime minister may be primus inter pares ('first among equals'), but there is a mechanism by convention which holds him accountable as minister and the chief executive.
The idea of collective responsibility carries with it an implicit promise that ministers acting together, are prepared and able to restrain a prime minister or minister, who might otherwise not observe the rules of the game. The cabinet is supposedly a counter-weight to Parliament's inability to control or check government. It is supposedly a restraint on arrogant prime ministers and over-zealous ministers.
What has not happened in terms of the internal checks and balances and the overall democratic check by Parliament in the AP saga before this? Whatever the responses to that, it does not however absolve Pak Lah's cabinet and government from responsibility as the same coalition was returned to power in 2004.
It is worth repeating that august principle of government accountability: the prime minister and ministers render account for their actions and policies and their departments' actions to Parliament, both collectively as a government and individually as ministers under the principle of ministerial responsibility.
Thus whether for example the AP issue is over or not over as a national concern, the fact remains that we must still scrutinize the mechanisms of government accountability which have probably failed in this instance. Have we for instance evolved new mechanisms to overcome the failures of implementing the principal of ministerial responsibility? Is this principle falling into disuse? How central is this principle in Malaysia's borrowed Westminster anyway?
Regime change
One mulls that all political parties and parliamentarians should make it their business to think about government accountability, in case there is a regime change for one. In any case, as voters, we should check if the current government is clear on this principle as surely this must be a criteria in whether they get voted into office in the next round.
The key executive institutions and actors for who are responsible for making government policies and taking its decisions are several. It includes the prime minister, the cabinet and cabinet committees, ministers and senior civil servants in government departments, public bodies, corporate and other organized interests which work closely with government officials to formulate policies.
These organisations are 'executive' because they influence, make and carry out government's major decisions and their decisions and policies impact directly and indirectly on our lives as citizens. They also influence the administration of justice and the quality of freedoms and civil liberties of the population.
As the public it is reasonable for us to look into the structure, organisation and operation of these institutions. This exercise will help us determine government accountability.
This requires transparency of government decision-making processes. Government must ensure that it consults widely and equally in making policies and laws. It must be responsive to public opinion. It has to be representative of a range of political interests and forces. It must be subject to a rule of law in its conduct and use of its wide discretionary powers. Thus the internal organisation of the key executive institutions is critical for the democratic capacity of the political system.
Reform agenda
Revelations regarding political corruption should not be met with cynicism of government processes but instead be the impetus for demanding greater accountability.
All governments require an element of discretionary power to govern effectively. However as the recent AP scandal has shown, we are in the dark about formal and transparent rules of conduct for prime ministers, ministers and cabinet business generally. If there are rules, they are neither transparent nor effective to prevent arbitrary conduct by a determined prime minister or ministers.
Do we have a rule book for ministers? Ministers in United Kingdom had a document regulating ministers' conduct called Questions of Procedure for Ministers (QPM) issued by the cabinet. This was a state secret until John Major made it public in 1992. Tony Blair re-titled and updated it into the Ministerial Code in 1997.
The Ministerial Code includes key sections on ministers' duty of openness in Parliament, ministers' financial propriety, their dealings with civil servants and inter alia new rules on centralizing the presentation of major policies.
It may be fair to say that the electorate has a right to know these things. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is one way to encourage transparency in government. The enactment of a FOIA is one of several alternative models of accountability of government in the face of a weakening implementation of ministerial responsibility.
It is hoped that the responsible ministers in Pak Lah's government and opposition parties should not let this moment pass without seriously studying the weaknesses of the current system and advocating for a comprehensive constitutional reform agenda that will put government accountability back on the table.
The furore over Nazri's initiative saw the department reportedly demoted to an office to inter alia oversee the inspection of 'toilets', a euphemism, we were made to understand for services and amenities available to the Yang Berhormats.
Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, leading the charge, raised concerns if the setting up of the department would impact upon Parliament's independence, autonomy and effectiveness. Parliamentarians were not consulted over Nazri's initiative, which was reported to have been approved by the cabinet-parliamentarians.
We might understand the opposition's consternation if this was a disguised ploy to put Nazri somehow in charge of parliamentary affairs, thus making a mockery of the doctrine of separation of powers.
The consternation from BN-majority parliamentarians is something else. Even the casual observer may note that the executive is really the body 'wearing the pants' in Malaysia's constitutional democracy, not its legislature.
There is no report if the raised voices of BN members and backbenchers were in support of opposition and civil society voices on separation of powers et al. The fuss appears to be one of putting the minister "overseeing parliamentary affairs" in his place.
The drama even eclipsed the AP issue for a while, an issue which also had the 'historic' consensus of members, albeit on different platforms. This year, even saw a BN minister, S Sothinathan reprimanded and chastised by the House. But are things changing towards that so-called world class Parliament? It's not just the Parliament's library surely which requires upkeep.
Power executive
Government under the inherited Westminster system comprises of Parliament, the executive and the judiciary. The executive is the cabinet under the leadership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Liew Chin Tong in his article on Nazri's 'survival game' writes that in 2001, the Prime Minister's Department employs 9,673 persons as opposed to Parliament's 157! The figures alone indicate the importance and power of the executive.
By convention, the prime minister and his cabinet as elected members of Parliament sit alongside other elected MPs to whom they are ultimately responsible. Cabinet ministers are supposed to take charge of their departments with assistance from junior ministers and the civil servants. The prime minister and his cabinet colleagues as a whole are responsible for the overall direction of government policy.
There are supposedly, within the executive itself, internal checks and balances. One is through the advice, knowledge and experience of the senior civil service and the other is through the collective discussion in cabinet. The prime minister and ministers render account for their actions and policies and their departments' actions to Parliament, both collectively as a government (Art. 43 (3) Federal Constitution) and individually as ministers under the principle of ministerial responsibility.
The prime minister and his cabinet rule in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. In constitutional terms, the king rules on the advice of his ministers who comprise the government. This government is confronted in Parliament by the king's loyal opposition. Thus the major democratic checks are exercised by Parliament. In recent memory, BN politicians went on an election rampage of sifar pembangkang ('no opposition') which one can construe to be highly unconstitutional.
Pak Lah's watch
We might ask for instance, why the AP issue surfaced during Pak Lah's watch and not his predecessor when decisions were made on the national automobile policy by Dr Mahathir Mohamad, his cabinet with minister Rafidah Aziz. The prime minister may be primus inter pares ('first among equals'), but there is a mechanism by convention which holds him accountable as minister and the chief executive.
The idea of collective responsibility carries with it an implicit promise that ministers acting together, are prepared and able to restrain a prime minister or minister, who might otherwise not observe the rules of the game. The cabinet is supposedly a counter-weight to Parliament's inability to control or check government. It is supposedly a restraint on arrogant prime ministers and over-zealous ministers.
What has not happened in terms of the internal checks and balances and the overall democratic check by Parliament in the AP saga before this? Whatever the responses to that, it does not however absolve Pak Lah's cabinet and government from responsibility as the same coalition was returned to power in 2004.
It is worth repeating that august principle of government accountability: the prime minister and ministers render account for their actions and policies and their departments' actions to Parliament, both collectively as a government and individually as ministers under the principle of ministerial responsibility.
Thus whether for example the AP issue is over or not over as a national concern, the fact remains that we must still scrutinize the mechanisms of government accountability which have probably failed in this instance. Have we for instance evolved new mechanisms to overcome the failures of implementing the principal of ministerial responsibility? Is this principle falling into disuse? How central is this principle in Malaysia's borrowed Westminster anyway?
Regime change
One mulls that all political parties and parliamentarians should make it their business to think about government accountability, in case there is a regime change for one. In any case, as voters, we should check if the current government is clear on this principle as surely this must be a criteria in whether they get voted into office in the next round.
The key executive institutions and actors for who are responsible for making government policies and taking its decisions are several. It includes the prime minister, the cabinet and cabinet committees, ministers and senior civil servants in government departments, public bodies, corporate and other organized interests which work closely with government officials to formulate policies.
These organisations are 'executive' because they influence, make and carry out government's major decisions and their decisions and policies impact directly and indirectly on our lives as citizens. They also influence the administration of justice and the quality of freedoms and civil liberties of the population.
As the public it is reasonable for us to look into the structure, organisation and operation of these institutions. This exercise will help us determine government accountability. This requires transparency of government decision-making processes. Government must ensure that it consults widely and equally in making policies and laws. It must be responsive to public opinion. It has to be representative of a range of political interests and forces. It must be subject to a rule of law in its conduct and use of its wide discretionary powers. Thus the internal organisation of the key executive institutions is critical for the democratic capacity of the political system.
Reform agenda
Revelations regarding political corruption should not be met with cynicism of government processes but instead be the impetus for demanding greater accountability.
All governments require an element of discretionary power to govern effectively. However as the recent AP scandal has shown, we are in the dark about formal and transparent rules of conduct for prime ministers, ministers and cabinet business generally. If there are rules, they are neither transparent nor effective to prevent arbitrary conduct by a determined prime minister or ministers.
Do we have a rule book for ministers? Ministers in United Kingdom had a document regulating ministers' conduct called Questions of Procedure for Ministers (QPM) issued by the cabinet. This was a state secret until John Major made it public in 1992. Tony Blair re-titled and updated it into the Ministerial Code in 1997.
The Ministerial Code includes key sections on ministers' duty of openness in Parliament, ministers' financial propriety, their dealings with civil servants and inter alia new rules on centralizing the presentation of major policies.
It may be fair to say that the electorate has a right to know these things. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is one way to encourage transparency in government. The enactment of a FOIA is one of several alternative models of accountability of government in the face of a weakening implementation of ministerial responsibility.
It is hoped that the responsible ministers in Pak Lah's government and opposition parties should not let this moment pass without seriously studying the weaknesses of the current system and advocating for a comprehensive constitutional reform agenda that will put government accountability back on the table.
View Comments0