Tag Archives: Debate

What’s wrong with the Parliamentary Service Bill?

Uncategorized,

On the surface of it, the new Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 that was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat on Monday for first reading would seem like an actualization of the much-debated need to reform Parliament and finally give it independence from the executive.

On closer examination, however, the initial euphoria would quickly dissipate. The bill is entirely aimed at enlarging Parliament’s staff and separating it from the civil service. It is simply a new structural organisation of how Parliament will be managed, no doubt, independently of the civil service.

There is no mention, however, of how it will affect the duties and conduct of Members of Parliament. It offers no solution on how MPs can form a democratically-installed government in the face of a hung Parliament, which is the most urgent and immediate issue facing MPs and the reason why the past two administrations and the current one were formed by undemocratic means.

The bill will enable Parliament to manage its own administration through the establishment of the Parliamentary Service and Parliamentary Service Council.

All the staff will be appointed from the general public service but will be separate from the civil service schemes.

According to media reports, in the explanatory section of the bill, under the heading “financial implications”, it is stated: “This bill will involve the government in extra financial expenditure the amount of which cannot at present be ascertained.”

The government will fund this enlarged, independently administered Parliament but the scope of authority, duties and objectives are not spelt out which raises questions as to how the government will maintain separation when it funds this new entity.

Funding isn’t necessarily a tool to control, but the conditions or reasons for funding must be clearly stipulated so that it is in black and white where the funds come from and that the funders will have no say or influence in the administration of the new entity.

Another question is whether the “extra financial expenditure” will come from the government coffers or include funds from other sources. If from other sources, will the funders be able to influence this new entity? If this is not clearly stated in the bill, then the independence of this entity is merely a facade, when in actual fact its funders can influence the new administration of Parliament.

If this new entity is not entirely independent, then the new Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 is a waste of time and resources.

Already, questions are being asked on the independence of this new entity.

In addition to the Parliamentary Service Bill 2025, a Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2025 was tabled to amend certain articles to bring the proposed law in line with the Federal Constitution.

Among the articles amended is one of significant note, namely Article 65 which is being amended to allow the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint secretaries to the parliamentary houses.

This is extremely unusual for a parliamentary democracy to allow the constitutional monarch to appoint secretaries to Parliament although the appointment may be regulated by federal law.

How democratic and how independent can this new parliamentary entity be if the king can make appointments to it?

The new Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 is a staffing bill, as Opposition leader Hamzah Zainuddin describes it, and provides no good reason to be introduced except, perhaps, to justify the amending of Article 65 to enable the king to extend a hand of influence into a democratic institution.

This is not the first time that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s government has tabled an amendment to a bill to extend the king’s influence into government. The Police Act was amended to make the king the honorary Commissioner of Police. What that role meant was not elaborated but the bill was passed without debate on the amendment.

The Mufti Bill was also announced for tabling but was met with much criticisms for being undemocratic as it empowers an unelected mufti to make independent decisions from the government and whom the king can have complete access to as the head of Islam of the nation.

One wonders what is the motive of the government in tabling bills involving the king for debate when by law the king and rulers are above the law and can’t be debated? Unless the intent is to pass the bill without debate? If so, then it is a surreptitious means of giving the king reach into government and blurring the lines of separation of powers between parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy that is clearly indicated in the Federal Constitution.

Amendments involving the king and rulers should not be tabled in Parliament unless they are brought for debate by the people. To know if the people want such amendments, a referendum should be held, and if the majority approves, then the amendments can be brought to the Dewan
Rakyat for debate.

Only laws by, of and for the people are brought to Parliament for debate. Parliament is not the forum for unelected elites to impose their laws on the people when the people are unaware that such laws are being tabled and which their representatives by law can’t debate as they involve the king.

Neither should the government table such laws — since they can’t be debated — before the people are told of such impending changes. The fact that the people were not forewarned of such constitutional changes and yet the bills are tabled suggests subtle deception in using Parliament to pass laws that can’t be debated and without the knowledge of the people.

MPs need to show that they understand democracy and the significance of both the Parliamentary Service Bill 2025 and Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2025 when debating them.

The people will be watching to see if the MPs will fight to ensure that our democratic institutions remain democratic or if they will compromise them in exchange for parliamentary allocations and other benefits and continue supporting these efforts at undermining parliamentary democracy.

A dangerous scenario

Uncategorized,

What is wrong with this picture: Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim debating with convicted former prime minister Najib Razak before a 400-seat, capacity-full hall with opposition leaders seated in the front row? Is anything wrong at all with this picture?

To Najib’s supporters, this is another successful PR campaign legitimising Najib’s comeback to politics and they will see nothing wrong with their Bossku exchanging ideas with another politician. It affirms their Bossku’s credibility.

But, what do discerning voters see? Firstly, they see opposition leaders — Anwar and the others who attended the event — as thumping their noses at the judiciary which convicted Najib. It is the same message sent at the Hari Raya event at the Istana where Najib was seated at the high table with the Agong.

Some people may argue that Anwar is in a similar position to Najib. After all, he was pardoned by the Agong and Najib may want a similar pardon. There is, however, a huge difference between the two. Anwar didn’t mess with government money; Najib did. So, how can we trust the words of a convicted criminal? And, why is Anwar giving credence to Najib’s words when the latter’s actions are questionable?

Very clearly, both and those who attended the debate are disrespecting the judiciary. Should we support such leaders?

Secondly, the presence of Najib’s supporters at the debate is expected. They follow him wherever he goes to provide the carnival feel to his presence and removes the guilt of his conviction and makes him more endearing to his support base.

The presence of opposition leaders at the function, however, indicates that Anwar has their support but to do what? That is the other disturbing message that this picture sends. Opposition leaders are willing to go along with Anwar even if what he is doing is objectionable.

It appears, too, that the media is going along with this clear breach of principles. They played up the debate when nothing new was stated by either participant. The fact that Najib is a convicted criminal is downplayed. Even when he sneezes, it gets media space. The criticisms against Anwar are few and so protectively mild.

There should be much greater objective investigation in the media of Anwar’s antics than has been demonstrated so far, and Najib should be ignored. This is extremely important because Anwar’s current course of action very clearly facilitates the return of Najib/Umno to head the government with Pakatan Harapan (PH) parties on its coattails!

Why else would Anwar sign a Memorandum of Understanding with an Umno prime minister and engage in a pointless debate with a convicted former Umno prime minister?

To the discerning voter, it appears as if Anwar is playing a double game. If PH can form an alliance with other parties that would be considered. But, apparently, Anwar is doubtful that would happen especially since PKR and DAP, both in PH, have been losing their seats in all the recent elections. Hence, his openness to negotiating with Umno.

If Umno wins enough seats in a general election and if PH joins it to form a majority even with fewer seats, PH gets to be in government. The price for it is Najib’s political legitimacy!

That is the reason why I have painted the above picture as it sends a very dangerous message — Najib’s comeback is being facilitated by PH knowingly or unknowingly. Urban voters who form the vast bulk of support for PH now have to be very careful to think whether to vote for PH.

We don’t know what Anwar is up to because we can’t rely on the media which tends not to investigate him. But if the MoU and the recent debate are anything to go by, voters need to be extremely wary of PH parties.

More than ever now there’s a need to form a new coalition in which PH is no longer central to provide the alternative to an Umno-centred coalition. Until such a coalition emerges, a general election may be detrimental to Malaysia as it may bring Najib back with the help of opposition parties.

Debate and anti-hopping bill favour Najib

Uncategorized, , ,

It is very likely — if the events subsequent to the famous Sheraton moves are anything to go by — that the scheduled debate between former prime minister and now Umno adviser Najib Razak and PKR president Anwar Ibrahim and vice-president Rafizi Ramli will turn to Najib’s advantage.

Rafizi threw Najib a dare to debate the financially-troubled Sapura Energy Berhad after the latter suggested a government bailout of the company. Najib took up the dare on the condition that the debate was with Anwar with Rafizi alongside.

In doing so, Najib framed the debate as one between equals, a former prime minister and the current Opposition leader. It lends credibility to his position as a force of influence and diminishes his conviction for criminal charges in the eyes of his supporters which, precisely, is his objective.

In addition, he is turning the debate into a major public relations exercise as he wants to live stream the debate. Najib sees the debate as a chance to “rock it!” Live-streamed and rocking it as he engages with an equal, his credibility enhances in the eyes of his voter base. His voters will see him as having an intelligent discussion with opposition politicians and will be impressed, seeing him as a capable leader holding his own.

Even if he loses the debate in that Anwar and Rafizi may succeed in rebutting him, he will still come out smelling like a rose because he framed the debate as one between friends on opposing sides of an issue who are simply “rocking it”! So, in gentlemanly fashion, he would graciously accept defeat, offering a handshake to the winners as they are still friends. His target voter base will be warmed to know the debate between the Malay leaders was so amicable even if Najib lost. Another of Najib’s public relations exercises which will bring about the desired payoff. More votes for his side — Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN)!

But, what will PKR get?

PKR is probably hoping that their attempt at an expose will undermine Najib’s appeal. Will it work against his PR campaigns? So far it hasn’t. PKR was thrashed in all the recent elections in Malacca, Sarawak and Johor while Najib successfully worked the crowds and won without discussing issues and simply humbly smiling a lot and identifying with the base.

(Of course, there’s that other issue of alleged cash incentives that follow his campaign trail. That’s just the icing on the cake. They come together, the voters know!)

Can PKR match it? Or will the issues Anwar and Rafizi raise fall like water off a duck’s back?

If PKR is hoping to lure the fence-sitters, Anwar and Rafizi, perhaps have not fully understood that the fence-sitters don’t need convincing. They are already convinced about who Najib is and voted for Pakatan Harapan (PH) in the 2018 general elections to get rid of him only to be disappointed by PH by the subsequent decisions it made which have brought him back to a position of influence.

So, engaging Najib in any form whether through a debate or a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with his party is just playing into his hands. He benefits at the expense of the other side.

Besides, the Sapura Energy issue is of national importance as it involves taxpayers’ money and should be discussed in the Dewan Rakyat which will expose the issue to a wider national audience.

With regard to the MoU, is it also another chance to play into Najib’s hands? Apparently, Bersatu is not keen on passing the anti-hopping bill — a condition of the MoU — which means the government is not confident the bill will be passed with a two-thirds majority, which is the requirement for the bill to be passed.

PH parties want the bill passed and have declared they will support it. Other opposition parties have not made their stand.

In the current political scenario, which party stands to gain the most from passing the anti-hopping bill? Umno, because if some of their MPs leave to join other parties, Umno will be unable to form a majority government. So, it serves Umno’s purpose for the anti-hopping bill to be passed.

The Umno-led government has deferred the introduction of the bill to a special Dewan Rakyat sitting next Monday but as of yesterday it was announced that the bill will not be introduced but an amendment to the federal constitution will be introduced instead which must be passed with a two-thirds majority to “facilitate” the future passing of the bill.

If the bill can’t be passed now with a two-thirds majority, what needs to “facilitate” the passing of the bill in the future? It can only mean one thing: The introduction of the amendment to the federal constitution is meant to allow for the passing of the anti-hopping bill later with a simple majority and not a two-thirds majority.

That may be possible even if Bersatu MPs oppose the bill. If that’s the case, MPs must be allowed to vote according to their conscience. If the anti-hopping bill can not get a two-thirds majority of support from the MPs, it should be shelved. This bill is too significant to be passed with only half the house supporting it.

It was reported that Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob will be holding a meeting on Sunday to inform the MPs what the amendment to the federal constitution will entail. Whatever that is, MPs must be allowed to vote according to their conscience.

It is unethical to twist the constitution to pass an amendment with the help of an MoU in order for the easy passing of an important bill that will affect every constituent in the country just so that a bill is passed with a simple majority to protect political parties — particularly Umno in the current political scenario — and bring back a leader and his cohorts to power aided and abetted by opposition parties.

Umno stands to gain but PH may see losing more ground.

That is playing into Najib’s sleight of hand!