THERE seems to be a national script in place for when details of a public scandal is exposed — be it mismanagement of taxpayers’ funds, corrupt practices or leakages.

There will be the chorus of public outcry and attention-grabbing headlines. In some cases, there might even be investigations, which may or may not lead to the sanctioning of the implicated public officials.

But what if mismanagement of public funds and leakages can be minimised or prevented altogether?

The answer to that is that a lot of these scandals could have been avoided in the first place if there had been sufficient and regular oversight of the executive branch of government.

Here, Parliament has the obligation to keep tabs on economic governance on behalf of taxpayers. Yet, this is rarely the case in Malaysia.

There is now a renewed push for parliamentary reform, specifically for more empowered parliamentary committees, to provide checks and balances to the executive.

The argument is for members of Parliament, as the people’s representatives, to be more proactive in the administration of the country by playing the “watchdog” role in keeping public officials on their toes, especially on matters pertaining to the financial management of budgetary allocations.

Last week, the Malaysian Economic Association (MEA) held a one-day public forum to reignite public discussion on the role that Parliament must play as the highest level of oversight of the executive.

Speakers at the event discussed ideas for parliamentary reform in Malaysia so that Parliament can be empowered to play a much more proactive role in scrutinising economic governance by the executive branch of government.

It is becoming more crucial than ever for Malaysia to get serious about reforming key public institutions in order to exercise oversight of governance by the executive branch of government. This is to ensure accountability and transparency in policymaking and implementation as well as spending of taxpayers’ funds.

At the forum, former deputy prime minister Tun Musa Hitam warned that Malaysia is in crisis mode, given the lack of sound economic governance amid a backdrop of increasingly challenging economic growth prospects.

For many years, Malaysia enjoyed rapid economic growth and had strong institutions that served their purposes. Earlier economic policies, implemented based on economic and social considerations, to a large extent achieved their objectives.

But things seem to be falling apart.

“Since the late 1990s, cracks have been slowly appearing and gaps in the governance of leading institutions began to widen,” Musa cautioned.

He alleged that Malaysia has accumulated a significant total of RM104 billion worth of losses due to large public scandals, and this does not include the “smaller” cases of corrupt practices and leakages. That is equivalent to nine klia2s and a little over one-third of the 11th Malaysia Plan budget of RM260 billion. 

Musa also pointed out that recent scandals register much bigger losses, such as the 1Malaysia Development Bhd fiasco, which could incur financial losses of at least RM42 billion.

“More recent cases show a severe lack of transparency and accountability, made worse by the use of secrecy legislations to avoid public disclosure and accountability of both senior public officials and the minister in charge.

“In the case of 1MDB, the combination of poor governance in the company, the Ministry of Finance and other government agencies meant that even Parliament was unable to exercise its role as the top institution, which should have rightly demanded that executives performed their functions judiciously,” Musa said.

“We are in crisis mode, a crisis of governance and integrity. We must act quickly to restore good governance. This is the key to sustain investments, ensure economic expansion and job creation.

“Where should we start? Here comes the difficult part. Strong institutions are the backbone of a well-functioning democracy,” said Musa, who gave the welcoming address at the forum.

The case for good economic governance is clear.

According to the World Bank’s Governance Global Practice, countries with strong institutions prosper by creating an enabling environment that facilitates private sector growth, reduces poverty, delivers valuable services and earns the confidence of citizens.

“Countries capable of controlling corruption are able to use their human and financial resources more efficiently, attract more foreign and domestic investment and on average, grow more rapidly. There is a strong and positive correlation between the principles of good governance and a country’s per capita GDP,” says the World Bank.

According to Musa, Malaysia has reached a tipping point where good governance has failed at the top institution and cascaded into the executive arm of government. If left unchecked, Musa warned, it would not be long before investors take flight due to loss of confidence in the way the economy is managed.

“For sound governance architecture to ensure the economy is well-managed, public funds need to be fairly allocated to serve national interests. This responsibility rests squarely on the top-tier institution, which is the Malaysian Parliament.

“Best practices must be in place through a structured governance framework, which would literally force parliamentarians to play the appropriate oversight functions,” Musa said.

This framework should facilitate Parliament’s oversight over the executive in implementing economic policies appropriately, and sound financial management of the public sector. What’s more, non-compliance with governance blueprints must result in the investigation and sanctioning of implicated public officials.

The need to empower parliamentary committees

Malaysia’s Federal Constitution does provide for separation of powers between the three branches of government: Parliament, the executive and the judiciary.

Indeed, the Standing Orders that govern proceedings in the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara provide for the establishment of standing committees for each house. The Dewan Rakyat has five Parliamentary selection committees — Committee of Selection, Public Accounts Committee, Standing Orders Committee, House Committee and Committee of Privileges. The Dewan Negara, meanwhile, has four standing committees — Committee of Selection, House Committee, Committee of Privileges and Standing Orders Committee.

Former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Hishamudin Yunus, however, lamented that unfortunately, no great use of Parliamentary select committees have been made.

Hishamudin, who is now a legal consultant at a large legal firm, put forth a case for reform in order for the Malaysian Parliament to play an effective and meaningful role. He zeroed in on the reform of the special select committees to look into matters of legislation, governance and public interest issues.

As an example, Hishamudin noted that Malaysia does not have a permanent Special Select Committee on Bills even though the legal framework is already there in the Standing Orders.

Bills are rarely sent to a special select committee for scrutiny. Bills are made available to MPs and the public only after the First Reading.

“We take, for example, the recent controversial National Security Council Bill 2015 that was rushed through Parliament and passed late at night last December in spite of fierce public criticism.

“Our Parliament is supposed to make laws but what happens in reality is that the executive makes the laws. The role of Parliament is only to give it the stamp of legitimacy,” said Hishamudin.

He added that the Cabinet recently rejected the Dewan Rakyat Speaker’s proposal for a Committee on Bills on the “lame” grounds that a special select committee on legislation would slow down the law-making process and incur heavy cost.

Apart from looking into legislation, Hishamudin also proposed that Parliament carries out its oversight function by establishing appropriate special select committees. Currently, Parliament plays its oversight role mostly when the House is in session, either during debate time or at the question and answer time. There is also the Public Accounts Committee to look into the Auditor-General’s Report or issues relating to financial matters.

“There is already in place a legal mechanism for Parliament to appoint special select committees to inquire into specific issues. Unfortunately, in practice, special select committees are rarely appointed,” Hishamudin said.

Kluang MP Liew Chin Tong recalled that only four select committees sat in the past decade. Two of them did not produce any reports when Parliament was dissolved in 2008 while the other two — the Select Committee on Criminal Procedure Code Amendments in 2006 and the Select Committee on Electoral Reform in 2012 — produced excellent reports. However, these committees were chaired by ministers and predominantly staffed by ministry staff.

Borrowing from best practices

At the MEA forum, four speakers from other countries shared the parliamentary practices in their home countries: the UK, Australia, Indonesia and India.

Norman Baker, the former minister of state for the UK, said it is indeed preferable for Parliament to have a wide range of committees, one for each government department, to enable it to scrutinise policymaking and implementation.

As the UK Parliament’s website explains, much of the work of the House of Commons and the House of Lords takes place in committees, which examine issues in detail, from government policy to proposed new laws.

The UK Parliament has over 100 committees in the House of Commons that look into the workings of government departments as well as five committees in the House of Lords that look into the more thematic issues of the day.

Current committees in the UK Parliament are looking into matters that include the UK’s future economic relations with the European Union, retail banking market review and the UK’s tax policy.

Most committees have 11 members selected by the parties in a secret ballot but more importantly, government ministers are not allowed to be part of these committees so that they can be held accountable.

“The government regularly updates these select committees. MPs can question public officials. The process is transparent, the public can attend and it is broadcasted. Any report requires a reply from the government within 60 days.

“What it achieves is that it holds the government to account,” said Baker.

Baker also stressed the need for Parliament to be independent of the executive for it to work effectively. “Parliament cannot be dependent on the government of the day for funding.”

The UK Parliament has its own staff who are not government staff and a budget for MPs’ pay. Select committees are chosen by Parliament through secret ballot. They have their own staff and employ experts paid for by Parliament.

“The government has no say on that matter,” said Baker.

Drawing from the Australian Parliament experience, former Australian House of Representatives Speaker Anna Burke pointed out that parliamentary committees play an active role in the oversight of the executive as well as looking into issues of public interest.

“The committees conduct investigations but sometimes they can conduct roundtables as well. So, it’s not just adversarial. A lot of it is really good fact-finding initiatives … We bring together experts in the field. So, it’s not just about questioning the government of the day,” Burke said.

She added that the Australian Parliament holds Senate Estimates meetings three times a year where relevant ministers and public servants must appear before the Senate Estimates inquiry.

“The Senate Estimates holds them to account for taxpayers’ money. Where have we spent it and how? If we cannot justify that, then we shouldn’t be in government,” Burke said.

India’s Parliamentary Oversight and Engagement Specialist Amitabh Mukhopadhyay stressed the importance of Parliament’s role in scrutinising the government budget.

“A vote on the budget is not a simple cash authorisation. It is a performance-linked authorisation. The budget is important because it includes fiscal, monetary and pricing policies,” Mukhopadhyay said.

What do we want for Malaysia?

Reform seems to be an upward battle in Malaysia, especially when it comes to suggestions to exercise more oversight on the government.

Liew acknowledged that the general mood in Malaysia now may be one of hopelessness, chiefly with the conduct of both the government and the opposition. Yet, he believes it is timely to think about the way forward.

“Everyone I talk to say the opposition is hopeless, the country is hopeless. Fine. But I think it’s a good time to think about what we want after this … what could be in a different society,” he said.

Malaysia now has several choices to make with regards to Parliament’s role and governance.

“Do we want to return to pre-2008 [days] of one-party supremacy [in Parliament] or do we want a 50-50 balance? Do we want the chambers [of Parliament] to be a theatrical sideshow or a collegial working Parliament?

“Do we want an executive that jealously guards its powers or do we want an open government co-governing with Parliament? Do we want a presidential prime minister or a parliamentary government with a strong Cabinet, strong backbenchers and strong opposition?” asked Liew, a second-term MP of opposition party DAP.

In answering his own question, Liew said he wants to envisage a strong Cabinet where ministers complement each other and act as checks and balances for each other. He also wants strong parliamentary committees comprising retired ministers and MPs who aspire to be in government.

“Having a strong Cabinet, strong Parliament, strong opposition, is not mutually exclusive,” Liew said. 

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.