Towards improving Parliament

Two MPs from opposing camps say the august institution must bring itself on par with other modern parliaments.

VIDEO INSIDE

PETALING JAYA: An effective standing committee system, engaging more with the public, improving the Q&A process were some of the ideas mooted to improve the Malaysian Parliament.

During a discussion in FMT’s Loose Talk between PKR’s Subang MP R Sivarasa and MCA’s Labis MP Chua Tee Yong, both agreed that there was room for improvement with regard to elevating the quality of parliament.

“It is high time we caught up with other modern parliaments. Parliament is supposed to function as a check and balance on the executive, but currently, it is not up to mark in its set up,” said Sivarasa.

He said that in order to improve parliament’s role as check and balance, it has to evolve into a modern one by developing an effective standing committee system.

“The standing committee discusses bills in detail and in public. This is far more effective than having MPs making speeches and asking general questions, which are not always answered,” he said.

Chua on the other hand, opined that it is not always necessary to have a standing committee.

“It is not necessary that you must always have a standing committee, rather, it’s more on how you approach things.

“When I was in the agriculture ministry, I tried getting public participation regardless and made sure that the bill I was trying to push through, the [Animal Welfare Bill], goes through a public process.

“Also, working towards opening for debates on a certain bill before tabling it in Parliament will also provide an effective avenue,” he said.

Sivarasa, meanwhile, said that he was disappointed with the question system, labelling it as “totally out of date.”

“We are given our questions two weeks before a meeting and that is completely out of date. In fact, it is very restrictive and hampers MPs from being effective questioners of the government.

“If I’m writing my question two weeks before the start of the meeting and it is answered three months later, by then it is becomes irrelevant,” said Sivarasa.

Debate time insufficient

He further stressed that the question process should be like that of the New Zealand parliament where an MP can frame a question in the morning, which must be answered in the afternoon.

Chua on the other hand lamented the duration of parliamentary sessions.

“On average, we have about 80 days per session while the UK has 120 to 150 days. That’s why it seems that we are rushing, because we are trying to catch up with time.

 “The time given to debate is unhealthy when we have to stay up to the wee hours. This creates an unhealthy work-life balance for the MPs,” he said.

Sivarasa agreed with Chua and reiterated the importance of a committee system.

“You are right about the restricted time. Thus, modern parliaments deal with this problem through the committee system.

“Having all committees running concurrently, an important bill gets debated in public and gets the appropriate time which it needs,” he said.

With regard to resources for MPs, Chua said it is important for MPs to have more resources.

“It is important to have more resources in terms of researchers who are attached permanently to an MP and paid by Parliament,” he said.

Sivarasa, who agreed, said: “Resources for parliamentarians are important. Most MPs have skills and expertise to offer, but if you want them to function effectively as people’s representatives, then you must give them the resources.”