COMMENT | Give opposition, backbenchers a voice in Dewan Rakyat agenda

COMMENT | Project Stability and Accountability for Malaysia (Projek Sama) calls on the government and lawmakers on all sides to give the opposition and the government backbenchers a structured role in setting the Dewan Rakyat’s agenda.

This requires a reform of the Standing Orders to require the legislative agenda to be consulted and determined by a cross-party committee, and to reserve a fixed share of parliamentary time for private members’ business, including both government and backbenchers and opposition, in every session.

The proposal, made by Wawasan Negara’s secretary-general Saifuddin Abdullah, should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee or a special select committee tasked to consider procedural reform and modernisation in the Dewan Rakyat for proper study, not dismissed through media soundbites.

Projek Sama is disappointed that several Pakatan Harapan lawmakers have rejected the proposal outright, calling it “pointless” and a “waste of time”, and said it is unsuitable because the opposition lacks “maturity”.

Much of the objection is directed at the conduct of the present opposition, particularly its walkouts and boycotts. Projek Sama reiterates that parliamentary rules are not written for an opposition leader or one parliamentary term.

They are written for the office, and they will apply to whoever occupies it after the next general election. That could include the very parties now rejecting this reform.

Harapan’s own component parties sat on the opposition benches for decades. They knew well what it meant to be shut out of decisions about what matters Parliament would debate, when, and for how long. Dismissing a structural reform because one dislikes the current opposition is short-sighted.

The walkouts cited by the critics were largely disputes over scheduling and agenda. That makes the case for the reform, not against it. When the opposition has no institutional channel to shape the agenda, walking out becomes one of the few ways it can register dissent.

Govt retains majority

Some have argued that the government alone bears the responsibility to govern and must therefore control the agenda. No one disputes that the government of the day must be able to pass its legislative programme. But giving the opposition a structured role in agenda-setting does not mean veto over government business. In practice, such a role can take two forms:

First is consultation. A consultative House Business Committee, chaired by the speaker, would bring together the government, the opposition and backbench members of parliament to discuss the parliamentary calendar before it is fixed.

The government would keep the final say over its own business. But it would have to hear objections, requests for adequate debate time and urgent matters in a formal sitting, and account for its decision openly.

Second is reserved time. A fixed share of sitting days set aside for motions and debates chosen by the opposition. In the UK, opposition parties are entitled to a set number of Opposition Days each session.

Since 2010, a Backbench Business Committee has scheduled business that is not government business. Canada, likewise, reserves allotted days for the opposition to set the subject of debate.

Throughout, the government retains its majority, its legislative programme and full control over executive decisions. The opposition simply gains a guaranteed voice in how parliamentary time is used. This is common practice in mature democracies, including the UK and Canada.

Fair platform

More importantly, Projek Sama has been consistent in our call - that democratic consolidation requires that every political party, whether in government or opposition, has a fair platform to perform, to be scrutinised, and to compete for the people’s mandate.

This is why we advocate for equitable constituency development allocations for all MPs regardless of party. It is also why we support institutionalising the shadow cabinet and giving a meaningful role to the opposition in shaping parliamentary business.

Narrowing that space weakens Parliament as a whole, and the accountability of every future government.

The timing makes these remarks especially regrettable. The new Parliamentary Services Act has just come into force, a milestone meant to restore Parliament’s independence from the executive. That independence will be hollow if the Dewan Rakyat’s agenda remains, in practice, the executive preserve of the government of the day.

A confident government has nothing to fear from a stronger opposition. Fair play in Parliament is the ultimate test of democratic maturity, ensuring our democratic institutions remain robust and accountable to the rakyat, whoever holds power tomorrow.

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

COMMENT | Do we need a Parliament? Musings in the haze

Azalina: New Parliament Services Act to strengthen lawmakers, benefit public

COMMENT | Parliamentary service: Making independence work for the people

Parliament's independence from Putrajaya kicks in today

COMMENT | Can Parliament influence our foreign policy?