Reform bills needed much more time
Mohamad Hafiz HassanPublished: Dec 23, 2008 3:49 PM | Updated: Dec 23, 2008 3:50 PM
I refer to the letter Don’t rush MCAC Bill through Parliament.
I could not agree more with him that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should not have rushed the Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption Bill 2008 (MCAC) through Parliament. I should say that all Bills should not be rushed through.
Bills are made to go through a legislative process for good reasons. The procedure is set out in Chapter 5, Part IV of the federal constitution and in the Standing Orders of both the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. Essentially based on the procedure in the British Parliament, there are four stages, namely:
· First Reading, where the minister presents the Bill by having its title read out by the Clerk of the Dewan. Even though a formality, it allows for the Bill to be printed and circulated. Be minded that a Bill can be presented for first reading even if it has not been printed and circulated.
· Second Reading, which occurs only when the Bill has been printed and circulated. This is the most important stage. Here the minister in charge explains the purpose of the Bill and outlines its main principles. A debate on its general principles follows.
A good debate can only ensue if members of parliament (MPs) have had sufficient time to study the Bill. In Singapore, no Bill shall be read a second time until it has been printed and circulated to MPs and has appeared in the Gazette not less than seven clear days before the day appointed for the second reading of the Bill. There is no similar provision in the Dewan Rakyat’s Standing Orders. The second reading is also critical because if the Bill receives the requisite number of votes, it proceeds to the committee stage.
· Committee stage, which in Malaysia, is normally a committee of the whole House as opposed to ad hoc select committee which has the power to obtain the views of the public. The following is extracted from Wan Arfah Hamzah and Ramly Bulan’s ‘An Introduction to the Malaysian Legal System’ (2003) at page 46, which paints a sad Malaysian situation:
‘Committee stage: Most Bills are automatically referred to the committee of the whole House, ie at the end of the Second Reading the Dewan, without the necessity of a motion, resolves into a committee. Very rarely is a Bill referred to an ad hoc Select Committee (which has the power to obtain the views of the public).
‘This occurs when the Dewan agrees to a motion to that effect, moved by any member after the Second Reading. Since Independence, only five Bills have been committed to Select Committees, among them the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Bill in 1974 and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Amendment) Bill in 1984.’
· Third Reading, where the Bill is reviewed and debated again, if need be, but only on general principles. If passed, the Bill proceeds to the Dewan Negara.
I wish now to share with the readers an eyewitness account of how a flawed Bill was rushed through Parliament and eventually passed a little more than a year ago. Sometime in July 2007, ICT law expert Professor Abu Bakar Munir (currently Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya) and senior senior law lecturer Siti Hajar Mohd Yasin sat in the Dewan Rakyat.
In an insightful article ‘Another Law with Flaws: Lesson Never Learnt’ [2007] 4 Current Law Journal xvii they recounted the day:
‘It was another sad day, sitting in the Dewan Rakyat, observing the ‘wakil rakyat’ debating, superficially and approving another new law. The Electronic Government Activities Act (EGAA) was passed. The Bill had just been tabled a day before: on July 9, 2007. The EGAA contains loopholes and defects, some of which are so glaring. A number of provisions are with missing words that made them meaningless.’
This reveals another sad Malaysian situation – legislation passed within two days. It is of concern that the prime minister sent the MCAC and the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008 (JAC) for the second and third readings in Parliament.
In the light of the trickling comments on both Bills, I should say that the case for more time to study them has been made out. If it is not about leaving a legacy, then the prime minister should perhaps read what Professor Abu Bakar and Puan Siti Hajar wrote in their concluding remarks in the aforementioned article:
‘The prime minister is said to have a ‘special mission’ for the country, which is to transform Malaysia into a ‘quality nation’, a theme of his electoral and other campaigns. Instead of latching on to the ‘Malaysia Boleh’, Pak Lah came into office attesting to the importance of Malaysians becoming ‘cemerlang, gemilang dan terbilang’ …. The law is us …. It reflects on our knowledge, thoroughness and quality.’
I could not agree more with him that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should not have rushed the Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption Bill 2008 (MCAC) through Parliament. I should say that all Bills should not be rushed through.
Bills are made to go through a legislative process for good reasons. The procedure is set out in Chapter 5, Part IV of the federal constitution and in the Standing Orders of both the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. Essentially based on the procedure in the British Parliament, there are four stages, namely:
· First Reading, where the minister presents the Bill by having its title read out by the Clerk of the Dewan. Even though a formality, it allows for the Bill to be printed and circulated. Be minded that a Bill can be presented for first reading even if it has not been printed and circulated.
· Second Reading, which occurs only when the Bill has been printed and circulated. This is the most important stage. Here the minister in charge explains the purpose of the Bill and outlines its main principles. A debate on its general principles follows.
A good debate can only ensue if members of parliament (MPs) have had sufficient time to study the Bill. In Singapore, no Bill shall be read a second time until it has been printed and circulated to MPs and has appeared in the Gazette not less than seven clear days before the day appointed for the second reading of the Bill. There is no similar provision in the Dewan Rakyat’s Standing Orders. The second reading is also critical because if the Bill receives the requisite number of votes, it proceeds to the committee stage.
· Committee stage, which in Malaysia, is normally a committee of the whole House as opposed to ad hoc select committee which has the power to obtain the views of the public. The following is extracted from Wan Arfah Hamzah and Ramly Bulan’s ‘An Introduction to the Malaysian Legal System’ (2003) at page 46, which paints a sad Malaysian situation:
‘Committee stage: Most Bills are automatically referred to the committee of the whole House, ie at the end of the Second Reading the Dewan, without the necessity of a motion, resolves into a committee. Very rarely is a Bill referred to an ad hoc Select Committee (which has the power to obtain the views of the public).
‘This occurs when the Dewan agrees to a motion to that effect, moved by any member after the Second Reading. Since Independence, only five Bills have been committed to Select Committees, among them the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Bill in 1974 and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Amendment) Bill in 1984.’
· Third Reading, where the Bill is reviewed and debated again, if need be, but only on general principles. If passed, the Bill proceeds to the Dewan Negara.
I wish now to share with the readers an eyewitness account of how a flawed Bill was rushed through Parliament and eventually passed a little more than a year ago. Sometime in July 2007, ICT law expert Professor Abu Bakar Munir (currently Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya) and senior senior law lecturer Siti Hajar Mohd Yasin sat in the Dewan Rakyat.
In an insightful article ‘Another Law with Flaws: Lesson Never Learnt’ [2007] 4 Current Law Journal xvii they recounted the day:
‘It was another sad day, sitting in the Dewan Rakyat, observing the ‘wakil rakyat’ debating, superficially and approving another new law. The Electronic Government Activities Act (EGAA) was passed. The Bill had just been tabled a day before: on July 9, 2007. The EGAA contains loopholes and defects, some of which are so glaring. A number of provisions are with missing words that made them meaningless.’
This reveals another sad Malaysian situation – legislation passed within two days. It is of concern that the prime minister sent the MCAC and the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008 (JAC) for the second and third readings in Parliament.
In the light of the trickling comments on both Bills, I should say that the case for more time to study them has been made out. If it is not about leaving a legacy, then the prime minister should perhaps read what Professor Abu Bakar and Puan Siti Hajar wrote in their concluding remarks in the aforementioned article:
‘The prime minister is said to have a ‘special mission’ for the country, which is to transform Malaysia into a ‘quality nation’, a theme of his electoral and other campaigns. Instead of latching on to the ‘Malaysia Boleh’, Pak Lah came into office attesting to the importance of Malaysians becoming ‘cemerlang, gemilang dan terbilang’ …. The law is us …. It reflects on our knowledge, thoroughness and quality.’
View Comments0