Parliamentary service: Making independence work for the people

There are moments in institutional history when a reform is about much more than an Act of Parliament. The restoration of parliamentary service is one such moment.

In 1963, Parliament enacted the Parliamentary Service Act 1963 (Act 394), which established a dedicated Parliamentary Service. The Act was later repealed by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1992 (Act A837), with effect from Nov 20, 1992.

For more than three decades, Malaysians have engaged in ongoing discussions regarding the effective fulfilment of Parliament's constitutional duties, emphasising the importance of maintaining independence, professionalism, and institutional capacity.

In 2025, Parliament enacted the Parliamentary Service Act 2025 (Act 869) to restore a separate Parliamentary Service within a framework suited to contemporary needs.

With the Parliamentary Service Act 2025 (PSA) now in operation, we have transitioned from debate to implementation. A more precise question is: What kind of Malaysian Parliament do we want to build?

A modern Parliament requires parliamentary officers with specialised knowledge in constitutional and parliamentary law, legislative drafting, policy research, committee administration, financial scrutiny, international parliamentary practice, and emerging areas such as artificial intelligence and digital governance.

Therefore, our Parliament must have the capacity to manage its administration and develop its professional expertise, drawing on parliamentary practice in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. It cannot effectively scrutinise the Executive if it lacks the administrative capacity, professional expertise, and resources necessary to perform that function.

The parliamentary service supports and facilitates MPs and senators in executing various responsibilities, such as debating legislation, evaluating government policies, scrutinising public expenditure, participating in select committees, and representing millions of Malaysians.

These tasks require both political commitment and institutional capability.

This is the real purpose of the PSA. It is not about creating another bureaucracy. It is about creating the institutional capacity necessary for Parliament to perform its constitutional role. Parliament serves the people, and its administration must support the whole institution impartially.

Distinction matters

It is important to articulate another fundamental principle: Parliament is institutionally distinct from the Executive, and its administrative autonomy must operate within the Federal Constitution.

It does not belong to the government in power or any political party. The government and the opposition are expected to hold differing views, as this is a core characteristic of parliamentary democracy.

The Act establishes a Parliamentary Service Council with responsibility for appointments, financial oversight and staff development. Its membership includes representatives from both Houses, including government and opposition members of the Dewan Rakyat. This gives the principle of parliamentary autonomy a practical administrative foundation.

However, parliamentary independence must never be confused with freedom from accountability. This distinction matters. Parliamentary autonomy does not mean Parliament is above the Constitution; parliamentary officers remain subject to professional standards, and public funds must be managed with proper controls.

The government remains responsible under section 12 of the PSA for providing sufficient annual funding for the parliamentary service.

Despite political differences, a shared institution underlies these divisions: Parliament. Although government members and opposition members occupy opposing sides, they are all members of the same Parliament.

Consequently, parliamentary institutions, facilities, research capacity, committee support, and administrative services must collectively serve the entirety of Parliament.

A professional parliamentary service must maintain political impartiality. Its allegiance should be directed towards the institution and the Constitution, rather than any political coalition that may form the government. A stronger Parliament can help deliver more effective and accountable government.

Good governance

Some may ask whether a stronger Parliament makes governing more difficult. The answer should be that good government should welcome a stronger Parliament. Effective scrutiny does not necessarily obstruct government; it can improve it.

For instance, a minister aware that legislation will undergo thorough examination is motivated to draft superior legislation. Similarly, a ministry whose policies are subject to evidence-based parliamentary scrutiny is encouraged to enhance its policy development.

Furthermore, a government whose expenditures are rigorously assessed is incentivised to allocate public funds more efficiently.

In that sense, parliamentary scrutiny is not the enemy of effective government; it is one of its safeguards. The real test will be whether the parliamentary service develops into a professional institution capable of supporting the work of Parliament for generations to come.

Malaysian citizens should not only engage with Parliament when elections are approaching. Parliament works for them every day. Reform must endure beyond politics. Perhaps the greatest test of this reform will come not when Parliament is politically stable, but when political circumstances change.

Governments change. Coalitions change. Opposition parties change. Members change. But Parliament remains.

Institutional reforms should be structured to endure beyond political cycles.

The parliamentary service framework ought to be evaluated independently of current political beneficiaries.

We must assess both this institution's present effectiveness and its capacity to benefit Malaysia in the next twenty, thirty, or fifty years. This is the true benchmark for institutional reform.

More thorough scrutiny

However, institutional independence alone does not ensure an improved Parliament. Independence must lead to enhanced capability, which in turn should result in more thorough scrutiny. This scrutiny should then lead to improved legislation and governance.

Ultimately, better governance should yield positive outcomes for the rakyat. This is the sequence that must link parliamentary service to the daily lives of Malaysians.

Therefore, we should avoid the inclination to evaluate this reform merely by the establishment of a new administrative framework. Its success should be judged by whether Parliament becomes more professional, effective, transparent, and trusted, that is, a Parliament that truly represents the people.

The institutions that support Parliament must therefore be worthy of the rakyat’s mandate. The restoration of parliamentary service gives us an opportunity to build precisely that institution: a Parliament that can scrutinise without fear, deliberate with evidence, legislate with care, hold the Executive accountable, and be held to the highest standards of integrity and responsibility.

In my capacity as the minister responsible for overseeing legal and institutional reform, I extend my gratitude to the prime minister for his direction and leadership in advancing this reform.

I also thank the speakers of both Houses of Parliament, cabinet ministers, backbenchers, opposition members, senators, parliamentary officials and civil servants for their support and contributions.

The commencement of the PSA and the related constitutional amendments on Oct 1 signify not merely an administrative change but a component of the ongoing evolution of Malaysia’s constitutional democracy. - Mkini

---

AZALINA OTHMAN SAID is minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) and Pengerang MP.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.