By Aneeq Roslan
Standing committee or more commonly known to some as Select Committee (though there are differences between them) is an integral organ of parliament that helps function as check and balances. I am to assume that many, especially in Malaysia aren’t very familiar with the origins, functions and importance of such committee formations. That is largely to do with the fact that our Parliament does not actually gazette the existence of these committees. In simple terms, standing committees are permanent legislative panels that consider bills and issues and may recommend measures for consideration to the House of Parliament/Congress. Select committees differ slightly, these are committees formed on specific policy issues and they often only exist for a certain period (not permanent). It is important that one understands that they do not have powers to impose laws nor sentence anyone to jail.
But why is this important? Let’s draw our attention to the recent case in the United States for the supreme court judge nomination, Brett Kavanaugh. In the United States, the 9 supreme court judges are usually nominated by the current President depending on who’s tenure ends during the administration. The retirement of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in July 2018 meant that the supreme court had a vacancy and thus saw President Trumps nomination, Brett Kavanaugh as a hopeful replacement. In the United States Congressional process, all nominations for supreme court judges, heads of federal bureaus and secretaries of states must go through for what is called Congressional Hearings, for which they must face the Senate Committee (term used for standing committees in the U.S) responsible on the matter/issue, only then will the senate vote and if a majority is achieved, the nomination becomes an appointment. The hearings are conducted following the format of a judicial panel, hence anything said is considered to be on oath. Now long story cut short, after 4 days of hearing, the committee convened for an additional day after reports of Kavanaugh sexually assaulting a woman while in high school, Dr Christine Blazey Ford. Having subpoenaed the accuser to present herself, the Senate Committee then went on to catechize both Ford and Kavanaugh on the issue. As a result of this baffling issue, when the Committee voted to move the nominations to the whole Senate, Republican Senator Jeff Flake in the most unlikely circumstance, chose to block the move and extend the nomination until a 5-day FBI investigation was conducted. But in spite of having the investigation, Kavanaugh was confirmed as a Supreme Court Judge with a 50 to 48 senate majority vote. Although a victory, but only by a slim majority. This as many would view, a significant tenet of the democratic process. The slim victory represents that a large chunk of the American people disagreed with the appointment and as a result of the hearing, the citizens will be warier of their judiciary matters in the coming years. Bottom line is, the citizens have become more informed of the whole issue, presumably making matters to come ahead, a complicated task for the administration. It may, dislodge the position of Republicans in Congress for the coming mid term elections.
Now how does all this have anything to do in our interest? First of all, the idea of a congressional hearing allows for public office bearers to come clean to the public before assuming any role, it allows public figures soon to bear office to be chosen based on merit and suitability and thus the idea that all of them are bounded to Congress and their responsibility and actions will always be scrutinized equally by both sides of the quorum should any misappropriations be present. Put this on a larger picture, the outcome of this issue is debatable between both sides. Democrats believe that going beyond his sexual assault claims, what the man stands for on judicial grounds is dangerous for the people. Conversely the other half claims these accusations were inconsistent and Kavanaugh’s track record makes him more than qualified. The vote shows how close this race was and why it was severely important to have gone through the whole process. Not all Democrats voted against and not all Republicans voted for. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin III agreed to vote for Kavanaugh however, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski broke away from her party and voted against. This is democracy.
Let’s take this context back to Malaysia. For the past 60 years of independence, all our Chief Justices and 15 Federal court judges have been appointed by the King “on the advice of the Prime Minister”. With due respect to the constitution, this should remain. But consider this situation as to who the Prime Minister should pick to advise the King. Recall recently that former Prime Minister Najib Razak re-appointed Chief Justice Raus despite being beyond the retired age. Juggle up all the conspiracy theories and reasonings behind the appointment, many have cited that this was so that Najib's 1MDB cases would not be brought to further court hearings. Imagine that if we all somehow moved to a parallel universe where Malaysia had a standing committee for judiciary matters, would the appointment of Raus have been possible? Maybe yes, maybe no. But what’s important is that the democratic process would have allowed the public to witness who their new Chief Justice, guardian of the rule of law is going to be. If found to be unworthy, the voting process within the select committee would have prevented the nomination to move on to a Parliamentary vote, thus denouncing the appointment of Raus and would therefore force Najib to find other candidates. For all we know, maybe a Malaysian version of Jeff Flake could have appeared, and we could have saw more justice in the whole 2.6 billion scandal without hiccups. By and large, this process goes in line with the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary. As well as that, it sets the tone for a more mature Malaysian political sphere which will allow sensible public policy to be crafted that is best suited for the rakyat.
Similarly, this whole process as outlined above is of course applicable to the appointment of other public positions. To name a few, the appointment of all 15 Federal Court Judges, Bank Negara Governor, the Attorney General, CEO of GLC’s such as Khazanah and PNB, MACC Chief, Electoral Commission chief and even Cabinet Ministers should go through similar process.
The Standing committee can also convene to canvass on certain bills before going to the Dewan Rakyat. For example, the bill to implement GST or SST would have had to go through a Standing Committee for Budget or Finance, where it shall be scrutinized and polished by both sides. It will later proceed for a Select Committee voting and if a majority is earned, only then can it be tabled to the Dewan Rakyat for debate and voting before moving out to the Dewan Negara.
This whole standing committee philosophy is not only limited to the appointment and scrutinization of figures bearing public office. Additionally it extends to everyone bounded by the law, i.e the citizens. Only recently, the issue on Cambridge Analytica and their infiltration to private information via Facebook made headlines. Considered as a security breach, the Senate Committee for Commerce as well as the Judiciary convened together to question Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg on everything relating to the issue. The hearing has now allowed law makers to design new policies and laws to tackle the issue through the information they garnered. As well as that, the public were made known more of the issue and its underlying problems. In the US, Congress can subpoena anyone within their soil to testify in senate. Failure to do so can be a breach of Congressional law, or more known as ‘Contempt of Congress’. Similarly, in Malaysia the same powers should be assumed to Parliament. To make this clearer, if Malaysia had a standing committee for Commerce, Judiciary or Corruption, someone like Rosmah Mansor & Najib Razak who were heavily linked to the 1MDB scandal or Isa Samad on the FELDA issue, can easily be summoned by Parliament to testify for a hearing and thus ripe more understanding of the whole issue for the public.
The importance of Standing Committees for the Malaysian Parliament is endless, but one of the other key highlights is the fact that it allows Members of Parliaments from both sides of the quorum to understand the functions of Ministries that the Standing Committee is tasked to evaluate. With that, if there was a change of power after a general election, the new government being formed would then be able choose ministers from those MP’s who previously served in a Standing Committee dealing with the said ministry. This would annihilate the whole notion that an opposition coalition can’t rule as government due to their lack of experience.
Standing Committees as I have intricately explained, is a crucial organ to parliament and critical to the whole democratic process. Malaysia is long overdue to have such systems implemented and I am all to believe that many of our MP’s are already pushing for this to be introduced. Select committee’s will help reinstate faith in the 3 branches of our government. It will in the future, prevent further bulldozing of decisions by a single powerful figure (i.e the prime minister) and thus promote the idea of a more consensus parliamentary system. It removes absolute power to the executive; the process limits the practices of dictatorial traits in the country’s highest level of governance. Most importantly, it will prevent the re-occurrence of events such as the controversial appointments of Chief Justice Raus, Attorney General Apandi Ali as well as allow for policy matters such as GST, Oil Prices, ECRL and HSR to be drafted congruously. And as a given, avert the corruption scandals of 1MDB, FELDA and the several others we've come to learn.
Comments