Democracy in Malaysia
Transcript of Democracy in Malaysia
[Type text]
Introduction
Parliament is derived from the French word “parlement”. Parler is to speak where parlement is
a discussion or a realm to throw out opinion in decision making. Parliament in a literal way
means a legislature.A Legislature is a type of representative deliberative assembly with the
power to create, amend and ratify laws. The law created by a legislature is called legislation or
statutory law. Parliament is the law making body in most democratic countries. Despite having
one person making law in authoritarian or dictatorship, parliament is a center of to discuss and to
decide in making a law. These three words parliament, legislature and democracy stand in one
line of similarities and connection.
Abraham Lincoln’s great description of democracy, government by the people, for the people, of
the people, is true if we look upon the voting system or electoral system where as from the
beginning of forming a government, party system, passing legislation, decision, choosing a
leader and etc are made through voting process. Therefore the power is in the hand of the people.
The selected people or group (government) is just a representative to execute input and command
from the below, theoretically.
Here is the definition of democracy quoted from Wikipedia, “Democracy is a system of
government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by
citizens. In modern times it has also been used to refer to a constitutional republic where the
people have a voice through their elected representatives. It is derived from the Greek;
democratia which was coined from (dēmos), "people" and (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle
of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states,
notably Athens. In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of
1
[Type text]
government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted
definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy include. The
first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that
all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.”
Practically speaking, a vice versa situation occurred in few countries and scenario. The reasons
behind these are the kind of system which is practiced nowadays in modern times. Democracy is
divided into various types and guidelines. There are many types of democracy to be listed but
few are commonly used which are constitutional democracy, parliamentary democracy,
republican democracy. Not to be confused that many dictatorship have called them self
“republics” but generally do not protect the rights or liberty of their citizens.
To speak about parliament, there are many types of parliamentary system exist the modern time.
Each of this type differ from many aspects but parliament exist as the main law making body.
Parliamentary republic will be looked upon to compare and contrast with presidential republic. In
short presidential republic is a system of government where an executive branch exists and
presides separately from the legislatures.
We will discuss further on this topic on Parliamentary democracy:
2
[Type text]
Parliamentary democracy
Parliamentary democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as
opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy,
government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review,
checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people government is exercised
by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the
legislative parliament elected by the people
Types of Parliamentary Democracy
There are broadly two forms of Parliamentary Democracies.
Westminster System or Westminster Models tend to be found in Commonwealth of
Nations countries, although they are not universal within nor exclusive to Commonwealth
countries. These parliaments tend to have a more adversarial style of debate and the
plenary session of parliament is relatively more important than committees. Some
parliaments in this model are elected using "First Past the Post" electoral systems, (e.g.
Canada, India and the UK), others using proportional representation, e.g. Ireland and
New Zealand. The Australian House of Representatives is elected using the alternative or
preferential vote while the Senate is elected using PRSTV (proportional representation
through the single transferable vote). However even when proportional representation
systems are used, the systems used tend to allow the voter to vote for a named candidate
rather than a party list. This model does allow for a greater separation of powers than the
3
[Type text]
Western European Model, although the extent of the separation of powers is nowhere
near that of the presidential system of United States.
Western European Parliamentary Model (e.g., Spain, Germany) tend to have a more
consensual debating system, and have semi-cyclical debating chambers. Proportional
representation systems are used, where there is more of a tendency to use party list
systems than the Westminster Model legislatures. The committees of these Parliaments
tend to be more important than the plenary chamber. This model is sometimes called the
West German Model since its earliest exemplar in its final form was in the Bundestag of
West Germany (which became the Bundestag of Germany upon the absorption of the
GDR by the FRG).
To what extent is the parliament as a democratic law making body? Parliament is a legislature
body in parliamentary system government. Democratic literally means upholding a democracy
and democracy means a situation or system in which everyone is equal and has the right to vote
and make decisions. In the nutshell, parliament is a law making body that has an option and
decision made accordingly to the favor of people’s interests in order to uphold the democracy.
To say some irrelevant or impracticable idea, a decision may not be discussed or be informed to
whole citizens because it is out of mind to gather millions of people in one hall. This is
ridiculous. Therefore in the mother of parliament model, the Westminster model provides a
representative system for each constituency and the parliament in Westminster system, is the best
description of a PARLIAMENT AS A DEMOCRATIC LAW MAKING BODY. We will look
upon Westminster model in detail. Quoted from Wikipedia:
4
[Type text]
“The Westminster system is a democratic, parliamentary system of government modelled after
that of the United Kingdom system, as used in the Palace of Westminster, the location of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. The system is a series of procedures for operating a
legislature. It is used, or was once used, in the national legislatures and/or sub-national
legislatures of most Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth nations, beginning with the
Canadian provinces and Australian Colonies in the mid-19th century. There are other
parliamentary systems whose procedures differ considerably from the Westminster system.”
Malaysian parliament is modeled after this Westminster system and we follow almost of these
characteristics stated below:
a sovereign or head of state who is the nominal or theoretical holder of executive power,
and holds numerous reserve powers, but whose daily duties mainly consist of performing
the role of a ceremonial figurehead. Examples include the British monarch, the presidents
of many countries and state/provincial governors in federal systems.
a head of government (or head of the executive), known as the prime minister (PM),
premier or first minister, who is officially appointed by the head of state. In practice, the
head of government is almost always the leader of the largest elected party in parliament.
a de facto executive branch usually made up of members of the legislature with the senior
members of the executive in a cabinet led by the head of government; such members
execute executive authority on behalf of the nominal or theoretical executive authority.
parliamentary opposition (a multiparty system);
an elected legislature, often bicameral, in which at least one house is elected, although
unicameral systems also exist;
5
[Type text]
a lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or
blocking) Supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a
confidence motion. The Westminster system enables a government to be defeated, or
forced into a general election, independently of a new government being chosen.
a parliament which can be dissolved and elections called at any time.
Parliamentary privilege, which allows the Legislature to discuss any issue deemed by
itself to be relevant, without fear of consequences stemming from defamatory statements
or records thereof.
minutes of meetings, often known as Hansard, including an ability for the legislature to
strike discussion from these minutes.
Most of the procedures of the Westminster system have originated with the conventions,
practices and precedents of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which are a part of what is
known as the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Unlike the unwritten British constitution,
most countries that use the Westminster system have codified the system in a written
constitution.
However, uncodified conventions, practices and precedents continue to play a significant role in
most countries, as many constitutions do not specify important elements of procedure: for
example, some older constitutions using the Westminster system do not mention the existence of
the cabinet and/or the prime minister, because these offices were taken for granted by the authors
of these constitutions.
PM in Westminster have a lot of power in executive and may perform any decision. This might
have two effects, if the PM is a prospective, charismatic and competent he may please the whole
6
[Type text]
citizen by fulfilling his manifesto. But a different situation may occur, because mainly in this
model the PM is elected from the winning party in election party. He may not be the favourite
person in the eye of the citizen but he have trusts at his party member. Therefore he may face a
lot of oppose in parliament and by the people. This is how it works. In parliamentary democracy,
there are certain models like questions time and etc. members of executive which is also the
Member of Parliament may have a debate decision between the other members of the parliament.
Therefore opinions are voice out and any uncertainties will be answered in the parliament. Even
though a PM in Westminster model may have the power in the government but mostly they have
to obey the constitution if they went overboard. For example, a PM must accord to FC and if he
fails to do so he may be voted out if he has lost the confidence of the majority of parliament.
Upper House Membership
In Westminster system, not all members of parliament is elected by vote, for example members
in upper house, some are appointed by the head of government. In the case of Malaysian
government, the ratio of appointed members and elected members of dewan Negara is 44:26.
How can a parliament uphold democracy it members are appointed. This is absurd. That is why
upper house nowadays are given less power compared to the lower house. Upper house may just
have the power of reviewing even though in some cases they have the rights to veto and delay
law making process. Intended primarily by the framers of the Federal Constitution to be the
defender of state interests and a revisory body, the Dewan Negara originally comprised more
elected members. It has crushed any hopes that the Dewan would play an effective role in the
legislative process.
7
[Type text]
Regarding the appointed members of upper house, if we look on the bright side, proven the
picture in Malaysian case, where traditionally Barisan Nasional control 2/3 of seats in
parliament. They can form a government and based on the system executive members must came
from either each of the both houses. For example, Dato Seri Sami Vellu is the only person who
can handle the work ministry while others are unfit for the position. In the recent general
election, he lost his position in parliament and unable to retain his office in the cabinet. Then the
PM may appoint him as a senate in the Upper House as a staircase to become part of executive
member. The PM has the power to appoint he see that no other MP are suitable for the position.
To look on the bright side, the department of work may be held by someone competent but
unpopular rather than popular but not competent. But still this is against the idea of democracy as
Dato Seri Sami Vellu does not represent the people. So people’s interests are not voice out but
the nation’s future is secured.
In the worst case scenario, some members of upper house may have a lifetime power and seat in
the parliament. House of lords is the best example of the scenario. “…..Membership of the House
of Lords was once a right of birth to hereditary peers, but following a series of reforms the
House now consists almost entirely of appointed members…” This situation is curb by the House
of Lords Act 1999.
Legislatures
Legislatures are often called parliaments under parliamentary systems while it’s called congress
under presidential system. The obvious differences from these two systems is presidential system
have a stricter separation of powers whereby the executive does not form or appointed by a
8
[Type text]
legislative body. Normally, heads of government cannot be selected and be dismissed by the
congress. They also may not make an early desolation as may be in parliamentary system.
Briefly, these are the characteristics of congressional system that have certain differentiation
between parliamentary systems in separation of powers. Whereby in parliamentary system it has
more kinds of checks and balances between those three organs. Therefore further discussion
would be in parliamentary systems as it is the key heart of democratic law making body.
Some people may say that in parliamentary system, legislation can easily be passing. This is
because the executive is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislation.
A parliamentary system, or parliamentarism, is distinguished by the executive branch of
government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed
through a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the
executive and legislative branches, leading to criticism from some that they lack checks and
balances found in a presidential republic. Parliamentarism is praised, relative to presidentialism,
for its flexibility and responsiveness to the public. It is faulted for its tendency to sometimes lead
to unstable governments, as in the German Weimar Republic and the French Fourth Republic.
Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and
the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head
of state often being an appointed figurehead with only minor or ceremonial powers. However,
some parliamentary systems also have an elected president with many reserve powers as the head
of state, providing some balance to these systems.
The term parliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different parties in
coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the product of an electoral
9
[Type text]
system known as proportional representation. Parliamentary countries that use first past the post
voting usually have governments composed of one party. The United Kingdom, for instance, has
had only one coalition government since World War II. However, parliamentary systems of
continental Europe do use proportional representation, so, outside the Commonwealth of
Nations, it can be said that PR voting systems and parliamentarism go together.
Parliamentarism may also be heeded for governance in local governments. An example is the
city of Oslo, which has an executive council as a part of the parliamentary system.
Modes of Constituional Amendments
A written constitution that is immutable may become useless with the passing of time. Changing
social, political, and economic conditions will require changes to the constitution. Realizing this,
the Reid Commission recommended a method which ‘should be neither so difficult as to produce
frustration nor so easy to weaken seriously the safeguards which the constitution provides.
The Reid Commission in Reid Commission Report recommended that”
“Amendments should be made by Act of Parliament provided that an Act to amend the
constitution must be passed in each house by a majority of at least two thirds of the members
voting. In this matter the House of Representatives should not have power to overrule senate. We
think that this is a sufficient safeguard for the states because the majority of the senate will
represent the States…”
The modes of Malaysian Constitutional Amendments are provided in Article 159 and Article
161E of Federal Constitution:
Amendments requiring a two-thirds majority
10
[Type text]
Most provisions of the constitution can be amended by a Bill enacted for that purpose and which
is supported by not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of each Dewan on its
second and third reading. This may be considered as the common method of amendment.
Amendments requiring a simple majority
Certain provisions of the constitution can be amended by an ordinary bill which is supported by a
simple majority of members present and voting in each Dewan. These provisions are set out in
Article 159(4). They cover some matters of considerable importance, for example:
the admission of any state to the federation,
the composition of the Dewan Negara and the rules concerning the election and the
retirement of its members
restriction of freedom of movement within the federation, and of freedom of speech,
assembly, and association
Creation of inferior courts, and the jurisdiction and powers of the High Courts and
inferior courts.
Amendments requiring the consent of the Majlis Raja-raja
the amendments of a number of provisions require, in addition to a two thirds majority, the
consent of the Majlis Raja-raja. These provisions, considered the most important in the
constitution, concern what are called ‘sensitive issues; the Majlis Raja-Raja itself, the precedence
of Rulers and Governors, the federal guarantee concerning the institution and succession of
Rulers, the special position and privileges of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak,
legitimate interest of the other communities, and citizenship. The spectrum of provisions was
expanded in 1971 to include provisions concerning restrictions on freedom of speech in the
11
[Type text]
interests of internal security and public order, and any law passed there under prohibiting the
questioning (but not the implementation) of also requires the consent of the Majlis Raja-Raja, in
addition to the consent of the state itself.
The advantage of parliamentary democracy
Some believe that it is easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is because
the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch
and often includes members of the legislature. Thus, this would amount to the executive (as the
majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes in order to pass
legislation. In a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the
legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or
predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. Former US President
Bill Clinton often faced problems in this regard, since the Republicans controlled Congress for
much of his tenure. Presidents can also face problems from their own parties. Accordingly the
executive within a presidential system might not be able to properly implement his or her
platform/manifesto. Evidently, an executive in any system (be it parliamentary, presidential or
semi-presidential) is chiefly voted into office on the basis of his or her party's
platform/manifesto. It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily instituted
within a parliamentary system.
12
[Type text]
In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations
that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a unipersonal presidential system, all
executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial
executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give
Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong
president to a system more structurally similar to a classical parliamentarianism. Iraq similarly
disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system would be equivalent to Shiite
domination; Afghanistan's minorities refused to go along with a presidency as strong as the
Pashtuns desired.
It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of
parliamentarianism. The premier seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president,
and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an
actual person.
In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for producing serious
debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any
time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of the United States to be unnatural.
There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and
Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These
scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing
parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third
World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing
coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30 countries to have
13
[Type text]
experimented with American checks and balances, "All of them, without exception, have
succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly." A recent
World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption.
The conclusion is:
1. Easier in making decision— the president is unable to dissolve government and order a
new election, which a British Prime Minister is well within his or her rights to do. In a
parliamentary system, the government may introduce legislation, but within a presidential
system the chief executive cannot, although he is permitted to veto legislation. There is
always, however, within a presidential system, a clear division between the legislative
body and the government.
2. Tendency towards democratic — some political scientists say that parliamentary are
more democratic rather than presidential system. According to some political scientists,
such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in nearly every
country it has been attempted. Parliamentary government is always democratic although a
presidential system is never parliamentary. Within the parliamentary system, both the
legislature and the chief executive must be in agreement on policy, and if they aren’t,
they must work at it until they are. A British prime minister is always a member of
parliament but in a presidential system, the chief executive of a presidency as well as all
members of the executive branch of government, except the vice president, cannot be
members of Congress.
14
[Type text]
3. Separation of powers — Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation
between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being
the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being an elected (either
popularly or through parliament) president or hereditary monarch. Though in
Parliamentary systems the prime minister and cabinet will exercise executive power on a
day-to-day basis, actual authority will usually be bestowed in the head of state, giving
them many codified or uncodified reserve powers, providing some balance to these
systems.
4. No Impediments to leadership change — the important difference between the two is that
while the leader of a parliamentary system can be forced to resign and call an election at
any time, presidents serve fixed terms and can't be removed, short of impeachment or
disability, until their terms are over. Also in a parliamentary system the parliament can
vote a governing body out of office, while the United States Congress, except in extreme
cases of impeachment, cannot.
15
[Type text]
Disadvantages of parliamentary democracy
One main criticism of many parliamentary systems is that the head of government is in almost all
cases not directly elected. In a presidential system, the president is usually chosen directly by the
electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, separate from the legislature.
However, in a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the legislature, often under
the strong influence of the party leadership. Thus, a party's candidate for the head of government
is usually known before the election, possibly making the election as much about the person as
the party behind him or her.
Another major criticism of the parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported advantage:
that there is no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament,
and therefore no substantial check on legislative power. Conversely, because of the lack of
inherent separation of powers, some believe that a parliamentary system can place too much
power in the executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little
scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. However, most parliamentary systems
are bicameral, with an upper house designed to check the power of the lower (from which the
executive comes).
Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has, or even a dominant
party system, as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes unstable. Critics point to
Israel, Italy, India, the French Fourth Republic, and Weimar Germany as examples of
parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, votes of no
confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have made effective governance impossible.
16
[Type text]
Defenders of parliamentarianism say that parliamentary instability is the result of proportional
representation, political culture, and highly polarised electorates.
Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi criticized the parliamentary system of Iraq, saying that
because of party-based voting "the vast majority of the electorate based their choices on sectarian
and ethnic affiliations, not on genuine political platforms."
Although Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for allowing an election to take place at
any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. In some systems, such as the
British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so avoid
elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a
party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system. This
problem can be alleviated somewhat by setting fixed dates for parliamentary elections, as is the
case in several of Australia's state parliaments. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the
Belgian, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date.
Alexander Hamilton argued for elections at set intervals as a means of insulating the government
from the transient passions of the people, and thereby giving reason the advantage over passion
in the accountability of the government to the people.
Critics of parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the
community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to parliament
since there is no option to "run for prime minister" like one can run for president under a
presidential system. Additionally, prime ministers may lose their positions solely because they
lose their seats in parliament, even though they may still be popular nationally. Supporters of
17
[Type text]
parliamentarianism can respond by saying that as members of parliament, prime ministers are
elected firstly to represent their electoral constituents and if they lose their support then
consequently they are no longer entitled to be prime minister. In parliamentary systems, the role
of the statesman who represents the country as a whole goes to the separate position of head of
state, which is generally non-executive and non-partisan. Promising politicians in parliamentary
systems likewise are normally preselected for safe seats - ones that are unlikely to be lost at the
next election - which allows them to focus instead on their political career
A parliamentary system is that the head of government is in almost all cases not directly
elected.
No truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and
therefore no substantial check on legislative power.
Parliamentary system can place too much power in the executive entity, leading to the
feeling that the legislature or judiciary has little scope to administer checks or balances on
the executive.
Parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, votes of no
confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have made effective governance
impossible.
Parliamentary instability is the result of proportional representation, political culture, and
highly polarised electorates.
A ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so
avoid elections at times of unpopularity.
Parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a
functioning presidential system.
18
[Type text]
Parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the
community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to
parliament since there is no option to "run for prime minister" like one can run for
president under a presidential system. Additionally, prime ministers may lose their
positions solely because they lose their seats in parliament, even though they may still be
popular nationally.
Why royal assent?
“A Ruler may reign but not Rule”
In republicanism, conceptually separate from democracy republicanism, included the key
principles of the rule by the consent of the government and sovereignty of the people. In effect
republicanism meant that the kings were not the real rulers, but rather the people.
Why do we need Royal Assent in democracy? Is it for upholding interests and rights? In some
parliamentary democracy countries, they have a constitutional monarch. Normally in amending a
law, the final process is a royal assent. Figuratively, the assent must be fixed to a bill before it
can become a law. The question arise here is for what purpose is the royal assent if the bill is
already being given “assent” by the people. Who are move sovereign in democracy? The people
or the ruler? Luckily in modern days or in constitutional monarch exactly, the ruler is just a
symbol to uphold certain privileges or dignities of the citizen and their assent is just a part of a
process. By hook or by crook they have to give assent in any bill pass by a parliament. For
example is in article
19
[Type text]
Parliamentary democracy is said to have less tendency to fall into dictatorship or authoritarian
government. This is because parliamentary democracy system is to uphold the concept of “rule
of law”. In most parliamentary democracy, constitution is highest law of the land. No man can
make any law they please.
In authoritarian country, only single person has the power vested in his hand to control the whole
ratio. In Parliamentary democracy, representatives from each constituency are gathering in lower
house of parliament. They will voice out any problems faced by his or her people. But is it all
problems are voice out in the parliament? Or just a problems from this subordinate being voice
out? The MP’s in real world would just voice out his subordinate’s problem in order to maintain
his position and support. MP’s tend to adopt a “cronyism and nepotism” in their leadership.
Party System
MP’s and members of cabinet are bound to their party system. They have seniority and some
decision to be obeyed even though they are not agreeing with it. But most of MP’s may not
disagree because they have either step down or get out from the party. With this situation certain
ridiculous decision and law pass may not satisfy the citizen. People’s voice may not be hear and
certain people will suffer while MP’s are having privileges
Imagine if the compositions of parliament members are half opposition and half government
What would happen? Is this situation give effects to a good decision making in the parliament or
just a barrier for the government to pass law, because certain Bill must be passed with two third
majorities in second and third reading. Therefore people’s interest may not be properly cared.
Firstly the government cannot implement most of their manifesto in the general election. For
example, conventionally Barisan Nasional has always retained their 2/3 majority in the
20
[Type text]
Parliament but for 12th General Election, they have lost support in parliament and failed to
maintain 2/3 majority for the seats.
MP’s are said to represent their constituent, but in reality MP’s are the representative of their
own political party. All their policies, opinions and ideologies are standardized by their party
system and they may not come across the decision of their leaders.
In modern political trend, a big support to a coalition party may bring benefit to their supporters
as a lot of agenda can be carried out with a majority support. But if one political party had
always maintain a two third majority, tendency of a corruption to happen is undeniable. As in
Lord Acton’s aphorism “absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Parliamentary sovereignty vs. Constitutional sovereignty
The Malaysian Federal Constitution although based on the British Westminster model, is closer
to the Indian Constitution in substance and form. The obvious the difference is where in UK,
Parliament is sovereign, not the Constitution.
Suffian L.P pointed out in Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2MLJ 112, 113:
“The doctrine of supremacy of Parliament does not apply in Malaysia. Here we have a
written constitution. The power of parliament and of State Legislatures in Malaysia is limited by
the Constitution, and they cannot make any law they pleased”
In contacts of Malaysian parliament, any law passed must follow the structure of the Federal
Constitution. In UK, the parliament is above the constitution, and they can make any law they
please. Which doctrine of supremacy is more supporting the idea of democracy?
21
[Type text]
If we look upon the forming of Federal Constitution itself, it is based on Reid Commission report
and it is drafted based on Westminster model by five Judges of commonwealth countries.
Eventhough in the final process of the report, the Malay rulers and political leaders are consulted
but nobody from Malaya Federation involved in this drafting process.
Furthermore, this Federal Constitution is so called Rigid because of the amendments process
requires majority support and Parliament cannot make any law they pleased. Time has changed
and so happen to people’s interest. Anything in the FC may not be relevant in present or the
future times, so it needs to be changed. In democracy, people are the highest maker of the law
and in parliamentary democracy they have Legislature to pass and discuss the law they want.
So to what extent a parliament in the Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy can exercise their
democratic power?
In reality, our Federal Constitution has been repealed a lot of times and some believe that
Constitutional Supremacy does not apply in reality, in fact Parliamentary Supremacy is
maintained through the ease which constitutional amendments have been achieved since
independence (because the government in power has maintained a two-thirds majority in both
Houses of Parliament) and the judicial attitude in the interpretation of the constitution.
Furthermore, parliament may pass law, provided in Article 149 and Article 150 of Federal
Constitution regarding the subversion and emergency declaration. In emergency the power will
be conferred to the Yang Dipertuan Agong. The Article 149 clearly permits the act of parliament
to retain someone under the Internal Secutiy Act 1960. Section 73(1) Internal Security Act
1960: "Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in
respect of whom he has reason to believe that there are grounds which would justify his
22
[Type text]
detention under section 8; and that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in any
manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to maintenance of essential
services therein or to the economic life thereof."
Section 8(1) of the ISA provides that ‘(i)f the minister is satisfied that the detention of any
person is necessary …’ then s/he may issue an order for his/her detention. The three grounds
given in Section 8(1) upon which the order may be based is where a person has acted in any
manner prejudicial to the:
a) security of Malaysia or part thereof; or
b) maintenance of essential services; or
c) economic life.
ISA has been very controversial in Malaysian political scenario. But in democracy view, ISA
does not consult the consent of people in detaining someone. The detainee may voice out
something for the rights and liberties of people. Mainly, the detainees came from opposition
political party. In fact our former deputy Prime Minister was convicted in many allegation such
as sodomy, corruption and etc.
Majority vs Minority
Austin Ranney defines democracy as “ a form of government organized in accordance with the
principle of popular sovereignty, political equality, popular consultation, and majority rule”
Therefore democarcy is characterized by four features”
23
[Type text]
The ultimate power to make political decisions is vested in all people
Each adult citizen has the same opportunity as every adult citizen to participate in the
decision making-process. This means “one person-one vote” and indeed, the freedom to
choose from alternatives.
Public policies are made only after ascertaining the wishes of the peole.
All political decisions must be made according to the wishes of the majority
Each nation of the world consist of a majority races, colours and religion and includes some
minorities which normally came from aboriginal tribe and people who migrated from another
part of the world from a long time ago. Parliament plays an important role to ensure that majority
interest are taken care. But what about the minority? In some country, monorities are neglected
in areas like economy, education and priviliges. Does that mean a minority is not right? Majority
does not always carry the rightful decision. They may swing to a wrong decision and minority
who oppose has less power in the parliament. Parliament needs to have certain limittation and
provision regarding the minorities to ensure their safeguards. That is why in most part of the
world, ethnic demolitions are widely done by the majority. For example in Iraq, Saddam Hussein
had killed many Qurdish.
Arrend Lijpart, Robert Dahl and others have argued persuasively that democracy depends very
much upon the beliefs of the political leaders about the legitimacy and necessity of a democratic
government. It would seem impossible to maintain democracy if those active in politics are not
committed to democratic values and ideals. MP’s in Parliament have to play their card well in
Parliament to uphold the democratic value in their law making process.
24
[Type text]
Conclusion
25