Make a better Parliament

Finally, the 12th Malaysian Parliament has had its baptism of abuse and roof-leaking.

Unlike past parliaments, a great deal of public expectation is riding on the current crop of MPs, especially those sitting on the swollen opposition benches. For the first time, the government has decided to broadcast live the first hour of the sitting, comprising the oral question and answer.

The first day of the sitting was marked by ugly name-calling. That prompted the Information Minister to opine aloud whether the live broadcast should be continued. Again, he was wallowing in the old ways, acting as if the administration still has uncontested dominion over the legislative branch of government.

In theory at least, the Parliament, like the judiciary, ought to be on equal footing with the Cabinet of Ministers and the administrative machinery. In doing their job of enacting laws, approving taxes and government allocations, MPs are protected by their privilege of immunity, so that they can speak up without fear and favour.

Unfortunately for Malaysia, the stupid Sedition Act of 1948 still applies to the MPs speaking in the House, and this is a mockery of parliamentary democracy. The sooner this stupid act is repealed, the better it will be for the reformation of our political institutions.

Otherwise, the Malaysian Parliament follows many of the principles operating in Westminster. The proceedings of the Dewan Rakyat are conducted according to the Constitutions, the House Standing orders, and unwritten parliamentary conventions.

The many new MPs in the current Parliament would do well to arm themselves with the latest edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practices which has served as the most authoritative reference text on all aspects of parliament business in Commonwealth countries. When arguing with the Speaker for a certain interpretation of the Standing Order, Erskine May is especially handy.

To recapitulate then, the Parliament is supposed to be independent, and the House is the sole authority in regulating the behaviour of the honourable members. Exactly what constitutes proper parliamentary behaviour and language is not so easy to pin down.

Scanty press reports

In the past, when the BN enjoyed overwhelming majority in the house, the Dewan Rakyat was indeed a rubber stamp for the administration. Nobody gave the Dewan Rakyat much attention, including the ministers, the MPs, and the reporters. Parliament sittings were just a formality to give the government whatever they want, at their whims and fancies. Press reports on the debate were scanty.

The highest political forum in the land was so held in such contempt by the government in those long dark decades that Parliamentary Secretaries were sent to the House, to answer oral questions, and to give government replies in concluding debates.

Parliamentary Secretaries were not members of the cabinet, and they had much less powers and knowledge than full ministers. Most of the time they just read out prepared texts like robots. Since the BN government had their brute two-third majority, it really did not matter how members of the administration discharged their duties in the House. A cow would do just as well. (I have seen many such cows in my time!)

During that time, ministers very seldom attended Parliament sittings, with the former Prime Minister being the chief culprit. They pleaded a busy schedule of other official duties, when in fact, there are no more important official duties in a healthy democracy for a cabinet minister than to be answerable to Parliament in person!

The best improvement after the March 8 political tsunami has been the scrapping of the post of parliamentary secretary altogether, and it is deeply gratifying to note that, with the radical increase in opposition members in the Dewan Rakyat, ministers - and deputy ministers when the ministers are away on foreign trips - now go to the House to answer oral questions and handle their other parliamentary duties.

During the long cold years of Mahathirean winter, the Speaker of the Dewan rakyat ran the House like a school classroom, expecting the MPs to behave like school children. Any slight deviation from the official business at hand was bound to be dismissed summarily.

Reporters were equally apathetic about promoting the spirit of democracy. How could they when the media was treated cynically like a bulletin board for the ruling parties and the government? The only thing that grabs their attention was only when MPs behaved in boisterous manners.

Legacy of colonial history

Since some opposition MPs knew that the only way they could hog the media limelight was to behave outrageously, they indulge in such tactics once in a while to remind the electorate of their presence in Parliament. Karpal Singh was and still is the classic example. Under that kind of oppressive circumstances, you cannot fault him for that, though I myself disliked and refrained from that sort of behaviour in my tenure as an MP.

Many people have expressed their fear that our Dewan Rakyat would degenerate to the state so common in the Taiwan legislature, where fist fights among MPs are common, and even woman MPs can be punched in the face.

What Malaysians do not realise is that during the early period of liberalisation of Taiwan politics, the budding democracy in Taipei was polluted by money and gangsterism. Many members of the underworld were also elected to the national legislative assembly.

In sharp contrast, our Malaysian MPs may have to know their local underworld if he is worth his salt, but I doubt if any of them has any direct connection with gangs. Gang-like behaviour is very unlikely in our Dewan rakyat.

In general, many commentators offering their views on the behaviour of the MP miss the head of the nail.

Like the law courts, the Parliament is a legacy of our colonial history. Like the law courts, the relationship between the ruling and the opposition parties are confrontational. Ministers and backbenchers must be tested with the cut and thrust of their argument. Booing and thumping on the table are part of the Westminster tradition. Without this air of confrontation, if everybody just reads out prepared text, Parliament sittings would bore one to tears.

When I started as an MP in 1982, MPs were not allowed to read from prepared texts, though periodic reference to written notes was kosher. Soon afterwards, a change was made to the Standing Order, and reading from prepared text became a standard practice. The Dewan Rakyat became a primary classroom.

I hope that day will come when the reading of prepared texts would be banned again. Otherwise, even a robot can take part in a parliamentary debate.

But this is a minor point of contention. There is a need for radical reform in order to resuscitate our Parliament from its moribund state of the past two or three decades.

The current Parliament can make a start to make the Public Account Committee (PAC) more effective. In the past, this all-important committee has been flooded by BN members, who - under their obligation to protect their BN government - were less than willing to pursue many of the issues involving massive loss of public funds due to corruption and mismanagement by government departments and statutory bodies. With a more balanced PAC this time, hopefully with an opposition member as chairman or deputy chairman, the committee can play a major role in checking government excecces.

Parliamentary committees are powerful instruments in promoting the democratic spirit of our body politics. Already, there is a proposal for the ACA to submit its report to a parliamentary committee every year some time in the future. A committee like that will take the secrecy away from the government administration and thus diminishing injustices and cover-ups arsing from administrative fiat.

Refreshing changes

Parliamentary Select Committees are also crucial in making the legislative process more transparent and consultative.

Before a piece of controversial legislation is passed, a Select Committee should be formed to hold open hearings all over the country. Interested parties and ordinary citizens can then attend these hearings and present their views in written and oral formats. The Committee will than deliberate over these feedbacks from the public. If amendments to the original legislation are necessary, the committee will make their recommendation accordingly, and present them to the parliament for debate and apporval.

Up till now, the 12th Parliament has seen refreshing changes. For once, parliamentary coverage has been given much more prominence in the media than in the past. But we have yet to develop a crop of journalist who can further the course of parliamentary democracy in Malaysia.

By and large, our journalists tend to give too much emphasis to the personal and the sensational. Sometimes, commentaries on what goes on in the House and in the corridors read like gossip columns. Our media professionals need to go read Erskine May and provide more penetrating analysis on parliamentary practices. They need to educate the public on how our Malaysian Parliament can become the premier legislature in the Commonwealth and the world.

For that to happen, we need to change the federal government first.