exclusive Shahrir Abdul Samad's declared mission is to reform Parliament and set the tone for legislators to take the lead in implementing the National Integrity Plan (NIP). He speaks his mind in a recent exclusive interview with malaysiakini .

How do you propose to reform Parliament?

Shahrir: This is why we are asking for the Parliamentary Services Act (PSA) to be revived. Once Parliament has operational control, it becomes an organisation independent of the civil service, of the government.

Ultimately, one of its role is to check on the government, to approve government work, bills, expenditure as well as check on policy implementation. The independence is necessary if Parliament is to perform its basic role of proposing legislation, approving financial bills and checking and monitoring how money is spent. Laws are not just about individual rights but includes the government's duty to serve public interest.

My point is that we must have parliamentarians who do not only have the ambition to be a member of the Executive but also feel proud to be parliamentarians, to specialise in a particular area, to be experts in a particular subject. That, I think, is the essence that we want to get at. It's not the end all and be all that you must be a minister, deputy minister or parliamentary secretary.

Why the sudden move to revive the PSA?

The MPs are quite clear about wanting it. They want to get out of the civil service mindset, that this is not really the best possible way for Parliament. Reinstating the PSA will boost the integrity campaign and the mood to implement the NIP. We're expecting some kind of decision by next March.

The argument against this, however, is that Parliament is a closed service and therefore has many disadvantages such as that the good ones cannot enter or leave... or sometimes the bad ones. There's nothing wrong with a closed service although there are certain disadvantages of being part of the civil service. But do you sacrifice the principles for these individuals? There are ways to correct the situation since Parliament would have the authority and capabilities to handle this internally. Just as any other organisation would have its own mechanisms, Parliament should also be able to discipline its own members.

We talk about discipline, we debate about why this government department has failed and all that, and we ask them to act. But if you talk, you must walk the talk and there's no excuse to say that these are the disadvantages of a closed service... that you can't get rid of a bad apple. So, how do you expect the police to get rid of bad apples as what we've been talking about? How do you expect a government department to get rid of the rotten apples? We ourselves as an organisation would have all these mechanisms installed under the PSA.

What are the areas in need of urgent reforms?

Back to the issue of independence in the financial and human resource policies. All these are captured in the PSA. The reason we are pushing for its revival is to achieve the objectives under the NIP. We think that Parliament is the easiest institution or group to achieve that because we are very focused with about 200 MPs and 300 staff, small enough to be able to administer itself.

How do you instil integrity?

Not just the institution but also the members. If every member is dedicated, professional, remains focused on the job and does it well, then the institution benefits. It's also about making the role of a parliamentarian attractive. Some people may be better-suited for state legislatures and not Parliament. This ensures careful consideration in the decision-making that goes on in the party leader's head, a kind of quality control. These will be deliberate choices political parties will make as the institution moves towards performing its role and exacts its demands upon those being considered for a parliamentary seat.

What do you think is the current perception of Parliament?

From the feedback I receive from the ground, I think they are quite happy with what is happening in Parliament, that there is a lot of openness and a lot of debating going on. There is now video-streaming and webcasting, which even malaysiakini uses to prove a point. Like everybody else, it ( malaysiakini ) has its own point of view and a certain clientele. So, of course malaysiakini will pick and choose whatever it likes.

For example, it put the MP for Jerai to prove a point but not another video. There is always a selective process and we don't blame them. (It would be the same) if RTM prefers to put another video and have another way of getting MPs to express their views, to be known to the public through various programmes. To me, the end result is that there is great interest in what's happening in Parliament compared to previously where you used to see combative situations between the ruling party and the opposition.

You see the BNBBC as being the closest to a UK-like parliamentary party. What happens when there is a disagreement with the executives, who are also political party leaders?

We've had occasions where we have disagreed and the leader has come and met us. For example, there was a vote to be taken not too long ago on increasing the MPs' allowances as a consequence of an increase in salary for the civil service. Many of us felt that we shouldn't accept it because we didn't want to be associated with the developments in the civil service since we don't see ourselves as part of the civil service. So, the PM came and met us, and told us that we should take it.

The point is that he had to come and talk to us and explain to us why we should take it. The reason at that time was that it would be too cumbersome to change it. The structure has been that way and it's too early to change it because we don't yet have that financial independence. So, although the will of the Executive prevailed in the end, it was achieved through the leadership of the political party more than just the government leadership.

How was the situation prior to the PSA's repeal?

Although I wasn't an MP at that time but I can tell you how it was back then. There was self-accounting but as to the disciplinary part of it, there was a reluctance to use the power that Parliament had, powers given to the Speaker, to the committee to hire and fire. But if we look at Parliament in terms of every new term, then you set yourself certain objectives where you see what happened during the 11th Parliament and try to outdo it, improve on it. In the past, we had a self-accounting function, we managed our own funds and we made sure that MPs would not be restricted in their duties by the lack of money or the delay in payments.

What makes you think the same reluctance would not prevail now?

If we are telling government departments and organisations how to behave and yet fail in our own domain, then we do not have the credibility. Here we are in the House telling everybody that this and that should be done and to buck up. We are critical, telling off other agencies and yet we cannot take action against our own. Then we cannot blame anyone else for being inefficient.

How do you rate Parliament's efficiency?

Now it's bad because we can't get support staff quickly as we have to survive within the civil service mindset. So, every problem we face will have to be solved within the bureaucratic mindset, that's been the approach. For example, the secretary of Parliament is only Superscale or Jusa C. Therefore, how we look at Parliament is how we see the head of administration. He cannot talk or step beyond his level, beyond the bureaucratic arrangement. He can only be C because he has a certain number of people below him.

Furthermore, our roles and responsibilities are defined within the civil service context. They say that an MP's allowance is this much, equivalent to a particular grade, so he cannot have a diplomatic passport. When I go overseas and tell the immigration officer that I'm a member of Parliament, the first question I'm asked is 'why don't you have a diplomatic passport?' It is because the civil service looks at you being paid RM6,000-7,000 and in a particular grade which, in the civil service, does not entitle you to a diplomatic passport unless you are in the diplomatic corp. We become trapped in the civil service mindset.

How much have you achieved?

We're just at the take-off stage. We're ready to have the PSA, ready to have Parliament as independent as people think it should be. MPs are enjoying being MPs. They don't look at jobs in the Executive or on the front bench... I feel this. We also have research assistants with expertise in various fields. Maybe we're just a showpiece now and we don't want to be that. We must be alive and relevant. By having the researchers now, they can start networking with their peers and other research institutions which can help raise the prestige of Parliament.

There are individual MPs making their mark and are able to speak with authority on a particular subject, and that is acknowledged. Not all expertise is with the government. It's no longer a situation whether you're an important member of the party, it's what you say... substance over form. Aside from what happens in the Lower House, Parliament also has special select committees and the Public Accounts Committee which I'm chairing. It would surprise a lot of people to learn that we just got our own office and staff after 48 years!

This is significant because it gives an institutional feel with proper record-keeping and continuity of work. Without an office and staff, we will all have to perform as a committee purely by our own wits and devices without any support. People were very surprised when I tell them that the PAC (14 members) has been doing all this without support and having to depend on the same parliamentary staff. Now, we're trying to change that.

There is also an interest for the public to visit Parliament, not to see it as an imposing building but with a sense of history. At the moment, we have visitors coming from schools listening to what's happening. But there is that interest, I notice it even among my own constituents. It's just that the current facilities are not as complete as we would like them to be. For example, as a visitor you must be led through to see and understand the political history of the country.

You should be able to feel or sense this, to go through the library with perhaps the largest collection of books on Malaysian politics, an archive with access to information useful for academic research, to find a copy of every law ever passed. These things are necessary to strengthen the institution of Parliament. At the moment, the library is just a collection of books.

There's no direction, no depth, no identity to it. It only has books that are sent by publishers, a mere library or storage/shelves of books when it could be the central hub of information on Malaysian political history and politics. At least then, there would be some significance to it in becoming relevant and have a sense of connection with Malaysians.