AG-PP separation bill reform in name only

 

YOURSAY | 'Do not sell a half-reform as historic.'

Wong Chen to vote against AG-PP bill, six PKR MPs also seek clause change

PinkJaguar7289: This is reform in name only. If Parliament is merely “informed” of the public prosecutor nominee and allowed to give comments, then the government is treating MPs and the rakyat like decorative furniture.

Real reform means public hearings, parliamentary scrutiny, asset declarations, and a clear vote before such a powerful office is filled. DAP must answer this honestly. With so many seats in Parliament, is this the reform mandate the rakyat gave you?

The party that once roared about institutional reform now appears too comfortable swallowing weak compromises in the name of coalition survival.

Tigers should not become lapdogs just because power has changed hands.

And to Karpal Singh’s sons: where do you stand? Your father was called the Tiger of Jelutong because he stood against executive abuse, selective prosecution, and cosmetic democracy.

Would he have accepted a bill in which Parliament only gets to “comment” while real power remains elsewhere?

Do not sell half-reform as historic. A toothless appointment process will only create a new office with old habits.

“Do not call it reform when Parliament is reduced to a comment box. The rakyat voted for watchdogs, not coalition lapdogs.”

GrizzledWarrior@ PinkJaguar7289: Accountability requires a correct target.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said drafted this bill, chairs the Parliamentary Special Select Committee (PSSC) that reviewed it, and owns the revised Clause 18 as the minister responsible.

Umno/BN holds the institutional authorship. Start there.

DAP’s silence is a separate and legitimate concern - but separate. Conflating the two by invoking Karpal’s sons muddies both critiques and lets the actual drafter off lightly.

More critically, no MP has voted for anything yet. The Constitution (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2026 is still at the debate stage.

Subang MP Wong Chen, supported by six PKR MPs including Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Abdul Karim and Ampang MP Rodziah Ismail, held a press conference yesterday specifically rejecting Clause 18 and proposing public confirmation hearings, a Dewan Rakyat vote, and mandatory asset declarations.

That is parliamentary scrutiny functioning as designed.

Fire the lapdog charge after the vote. Firing it before the debate concludes is not accountability - it is theatre that targets the wrong party at the wrong stage for the wrong reason.

Karpal fought executive overreach, selective prosecution, and cosmetic reform. His primary adversary was Umno.

Pointing his legacy at his sons before they have even voted, while the minister who drafted the toothless clause stands unchallenged, inverts everything he stood for.

GP2025: These MPs’ stance is correct. The amendments they want are also correct.

Article 18’s wording implies that the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) selects the nominees, and the MPs comment. That’s not right.

The process laid out by these MPs is also correct.

The bill must make it clear that even a sole candidate submitted by the JLSC must be vetted according to the process laid out. JLSC should have the option to submit one name or more if there are candidates of equal calibre.

The two-term bill, too, should not be passed, not by an unconstitutional government.

Right now, we don’t have good candidates for the prime minister’s post. So why give underperforming PMs two terms? Wong Chen is not thinking correctly.

He should spearhead an effort to get MPs from both sides to submit a request to the Dewan Rakyat speaker to set in place a process or start a convention to choose a prime minister with the support of the majority.

If he can do that, he will get my vote!

GreenFalcon2290: Pretence at reform, which usually means control not in the grip of the governing parties but the broader citizenry, theoretically represented in Parliament.

I say theoretically, because I doubt very much elected representatives discuss anything with their constituents, most of whom wouldn’t have a clue what the seeming nuances are.

It’s not so much the education system, as is being said in the comments section - after all, we are provided a brain each - but the feudal nature of society and the deification of authority.

Not a single government has even begun any process to democratise the system for nearly 70 years.

YellowIguana5684: This is a really big issue. The Bar Council and several reform NGOs and researchers have already similarly voiced concerns over a still-flawed bill amendment.

Is Azalina, the bipartisan PSSC, and the present government not interested at all in pushing a good bill that fundamentally changes the political landscape by ensuring powerful appointees - the attorney-general and public prosecutor - are held accountable by the public through a systematic vetting process by Parliament, not just a mere presentation and suggestion?

If this bill is tabled with flaws and fails, then expect the government to blame Bersama-aligned MPs for failing on reform.

It is better to have a flawed bill than not at all. We rakyat deserve a much better bill amendment.

Rupert16: The seven PKR MPs’ stance on the AG-PP Bill is correct.

There’s no point in taking the trouble and doing a sandiwara (theatre) to come out with a bill that is half-cooked and does not meet the intent in full and proper separation of the powers of the AG and PP.

BrownWalrus3447: Wong, I do not think you are acting rationally. Let the bill go through and amend later if required. Sometimes, MPs are childish.

You may not like Wong, but if you stop voting for Pakatan Harapan, is an Umno MP smarter?

UNDECIDED: Isn't a special select committee consisting of MPs, as revealed by Azalina yesterday, what Wong is asking for?

Maybe he is just emphasising the point that he will not vote unless Azalina does what she says? - Mkini