For those who have been following the news last week , you would be aware of the proposal by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz to set up a department of parliament purportedly for the purposes of looking into the administrative affairs of Parliament, which has now been watered-down to a single administrative post.

At a glance, the said proposal may be argued by some quarters to be harmless as it would be to merely look into the administrative aspects of Parliament and not its decision-making process. However, a closer scrutiny may reveal that this could be a step into unchartered territory and the consequences could be irreversible.

It must always be remembered that the powers, prerogatives and administrative functions of Parliament must not and should not be handed over to the executive. To allow such a move would be akin to allowing the erosion of the doctrine of separation of powers (or whatever that is left thereof).

The framers of our federal constitution recognised the importance of the doctrine of separation of powers, and as such, saw it fit to have Article 65 of the federal constitution which allows the appointment of the clerks of the Senate and the House of Representatives (or commonly referred to as the secretaries to Parliament) who are responsible for, inter alia, parliamentarian affairs and administrative functions of Parliament.

Further, in relation to the welfare of the MPs, there is a House committee which is responsible for looking into the welfare of the MPs. It must be emphasised that the appointment of the clerks is provided for under Article 65 of the federal constitution and the office is a highly regarded office whereby the clerks can only be removed from office in the manner a judge of the Federal Court would be.

The administrative post as proposed by Nazri Aziz however, is merely his brainchild and not that of the constitution. It is obvious that there is no necessity for the setting up of this new department of Parliament or to appoint a head of administration for Parliament, as proposed.

If there are weaknesses in the existing set-up, then improve on it. Do not create a dangerous precedent by taking away the administrative functions of the parliament and handing them over to the executive.

Perhaps, it is therefore timely for the legislature to revive the Parliamentary Services Act 1963 which was repealed in 1992.