The castration of parliament

In Malaysia the term 'wakil rakyat' has become a lie. Our elected representatives do not represent the rakyat but they represent the parties.

COMMENT

By Wan Saiful Wan Jan

Let’s start with the obvious. We are coming closer to Malaysia’s 13th general election (GE13). Unless something extraordinary happens, the parliament will automatically dissolve at the end of April and polling will take place soon thereafter.

And in preparation for GE13, all parties are busy choosing their candidates, with the respective party leaders holding the final say on candidacy.

On the other hand, it may not be so obvious that we are also witnessing another round of parliamentary castration.

At least for the last three to four decades, our parliament has never really played the check and balance role that it is supposed to. What was supposed to be an august and powerful house is, in reality, not at all that powerful.

The executive dominates our legislative processes from start to finish.

I will explain why I believe we are today witnessing the castration of parliament further below. But for now let us take a very brief look at the concept of parliamentary democracy and the independence challenge it brings.

Parliament is a liberal institution created within a democratic system to check the powers of the executive. Led by the Prime Minister, our executive wields huge powers. They can coerce us to surrender our hard-earned money, and if we refuse they can punish us.

Under normal circumstances such coercion would be called robbery. But once the executive passes a law in parliament, it is called taxation and redistribution.

The executive can limit our freedom of speech. They can decide what word we can or cannot use, such as in the case of the “Allah” debate. And they can use force to control our movement, like what we saw during the Bersih rallies.

Under normal circumstances these would be called bullying. But when the executive so decrees, it becomes control of public order.

I can go on listing how powerful the executive is, but I am sure readers get the point.

Because of such huge powers bestowed upon the executive, there is a need for another institution that can provide some balance. This is the parliament.

Members of parliament are supposedly representatives of the people. In fact, the Malay term “wakil rakyat” is a much better depiction of what a member of parliament is supposed to do.

Their job, essentially, is to speak on behalf of the people who elected them, ensuring the executive does not abuse their privileges.

But because we inherited the Westminster parliamentary system, we are faced with the same challenge that all other parliamentary democracies face.

Fusion of powers

According to Democratic Audit, a research body based at the University of Liverpool, the fundamental nature of such system is that there is fusion – instead of separation – of powers between the various branches of our government.

The fusion of powers is particularly true when we look at the Malaysian executive and the Malaysian parliament.

We have a bloated government with an excessive number of ministries, ministers, and deputy ministers because there are so many party leaders that have to be appeased. As a result, many parliamentarians are also in the executive one way or another.

And once they are in the executive, they can no longer play the check and balance role against the executive because of collective responsibility. They no longer independently speak for the people.

This is not a challenge unique to Malaysia. In a 1999 publication by Democratic Audit, they stated that the UK parliament is “reluctant to assert its own rights against the executive, preferring to accept the executive’s views of the conventions which govern their relationship”.

And the same debate exists in many other Commonwealth countries, from New Zealand to Australia to Guyana and Jamaica.

Let us now come back to the reality in Malaysia. As someone who have participated in democratic processes in the United Kingdom before (I was once Head of Policy for the British Conservative Party’s Muslim Forum, and have also contested as a Conservative Party candidate in the 2007 English local elections), I think the problem that we face in Malaysia much more severe compared to the UK.

I admit that there may be many factors contributing to the weakening of our parliament. But I personally feel that one of our biggest problem is the way our candidates are selected.

The selection process

The procedures of becoming a candidate in Malaysia makes our “wakil rakyat” completely dependent on the patronage of party leaders because it is the party leaders who decide who contests in a particular seat.

Party members in both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have very little role in the selection.

This is very different from my experience in British politics. I was selected by the members of my local party, not by central office. The members interviewed me and tested my loyalty, and they have full power to decide whether or not I get to be a candidate.

Similarly, when I was vice-chair of my local party association, I took part in the selection of our parliamentary candidate. I reviewed the CVs of those interested to contest, interviewed them, and organised a “husting” so that all members could vote for the best candidate.

David Cameron as party leader had no say on who ultimately gets to contest in my constituency.

It is for that reason that the British parliament, despite all its weaknesses, plays a better check and balance role than here in Malaysia.

The elected members represent the people, and they are not too dependent on the patronage of party leaders unless they are part of the executive.

But in Malaysia the term “wakil rakyat” has become a lie. Our elected representatives do not represent the rakyat but they represent the parties. Rebellion against the party is unthinkable, even when it is the right thing to do.

Worse, if they sit on the same side, the Mps almost never question their own party leaders. Hence whatever the executive wants they will almost certainly get. The MPs are castrated right from the first day they accepted nomination.

I am pessimistic about our foreseeable future. I think it will be many more decades before we see an improvement of this situation because today all parties employ the same method.

The only way for things to improve is if elected members are allowed to be more independent and they really represent their constituents. Unfortunately, I doubt if I would see that happening in my life time.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my). This article was first published in The Edge.