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.