Shahrir Samad in London

Dato Shahrir Abdul Samad is a must-know name to observers of Malaysian politics. As Chair of BN Backbenchers’ Club and the Malaysian Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, it seems like he is always at ease to speak up his mind. I must say that among the many MPs, this is one BN MP who is a bit different from others. He once described his latest mission as “Dalam fasa ini, saya ingin menyumbangkan pengalaman saya untuk memulihkan kembali martabat ahli-ahli Parlimen biasa melalui kedudukan saya sebagai Pengurusi, Kelab Ahli Parlimen Barisan Nasional (BNBBC) dan Pengurusi, Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negara (Public Accounts Committee atau PAC), berserta juga untuk membantu mengembalikan keutuhan Parlimen sebagai institusi penggubal undang-undang yang luhur.” Shahrir’s is a great agenda. He seems to talk my language of wanting to strengthen the parliament and of wanting MPs to speak up for their constituents without fear or favour. Coming from a BN MP, some of his ideas about parliamentary reforms are very exciting indeed. Knowing Malaysia and its parliament, and the huge challenges Shahrir will face, I was eager to hear his progress report. Shahrir’s talk in London on 18 December 2005 was an opportunity not to be missed. According to Shahrir:

1. He was in London to meet his counterparts in the British PAC. I think this must be Edward Leigh MP, the Conservative Chairman of British PAC. Shahrir wants to improve the effectiveness of his PAC and he wants to see if he can learn from the British PAC.

2. Malaysian voters elect MPs to parliament. MPs subsequently appoint the government. Thus, the institution with real mandate from the people is the parliament, not the government. There is a widespread misconception in Malaysia that our elections are to elect ‘the government’.

3. Since the parliament holds the real mandate from the people, the government needs to come back to parliament to be made accountable and to get their programmes approved.

4. It is not possible to totally split the parliament from the government. After all, the government itself is formed by people who are themselves parliamentarians and at the same time represent their parties. But it is possible to make the parliament more independent. (NB: Shahrir stressed the difference between total independence – which is not possible - with more independent – which is what he is working for. I concur with this view.)

5. Malaysian Parliament now is not independent enough. Even the Parliament’s budget is lumped together with that of the Prime Minister’s Dept.

6. Shahrir believes it is right for him, a BN MP, to be chairman of PAC. In Britain, the PAC’s chairman is usually from the opposition because it is possible for that one day he will become British Prime Minister. In Malaysia, it is more likely for him (Shahrir) to be the Prime Minister than the Leader of the Opposition. According to Shahrir, the Malaysian Leader of the Opposition has, and I quote, “no chance of becoming Prime Minister”.

7. Asked if it is in the interest of Malaysian democracy for the Opposition to be strengthened, Shahrir gave an ambiguous answer. To him, the fact that BN holds more than 90% of the seats is good and healthy for Malaysian democracy. It is only now that BN MPs are brave enough to speak up. It is only with such huge majority that BN MPs are comfortable to call the government to account.

8. If BN’s majority is reduced Shahrir said that, I quote, “we may become more tyrannical”. So, we must ensure BN’s majority, I quote, “gets bigger”. In short, as a reformer, he wants the parliament to be stronger. He wants the government to accountable to parliament. He wants MPs to really represent the people and ensure governmental transparency and accountability. For these reformist agenda, Shahrir must be applauded. But I also have one big concern about the philosophy idolized by Shahrir. It seems that he believes a good government can only be produced if one party holds a massive majority over the opposition. A strengthened opposition is not in the interest of Malaysia. A smaller BN majority will possibly result in a “tyrannical” government. A reduction of BN majority will produce a secretive government. According to Shahrir's logic, his reform to strengthen parliament is best achieved by ensuring BN wins even more seats. If we were to extrapolate, Shahrir’s most ideal situation is one in which there is no opposition MP and one party controls all the seats. The last time I checked, people who hold similar views to Shahrir - that it is best for one party to control all seats and that a strong opposition is not beneficial to the country - are leaders of the communist party in China.