In the lawmaking process, Bills should NEVER be hastily rushed through Parliament.

Draft Bills should be first circulated among lawmakers, civil society, stakeholders and interested parties and should be properly and thoroughly researched and studied by all parties concerned. Feedbacks on improvements to the draft Bill must be considered and amended, if necessary before being tabled in Parliament.

Show us the draft to replace the EO first, says Gobind

July 5, Malaysiakini

Show us the draft to replace the Emergency Ordinance if you want our feedback, said Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo. Gobind said Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi should also give an assurance that the new laws do not have provisions of detention without trial. If the minister welcomes ideas and suggestions, show the opposition the draft and ensure there will be no such provisions of detention without trial. Whilst we are open to suggestions for reform and ideas to improve our criminal justice system, we in the DAP must make it clear from the very outset that we will not support nor participate in any discussion involving laws which provide for detention without trial, he said.

In 2011, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had announced the repeal of the EO which provides for detention without trial. As a result, thousands detained at the various detention camp have been released.

Critics, including the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) under the Prime Ministers Department, claimed the move had resulted in a rise in crime cases, resulting in proposals to introduce new legislation. Yesterday, Ahmad Zahidi was reported to have said the first draft of a new set of laws to replace the EO was with the Attorney Generals Chambers and the minister welcomed new ideas and suggestions from the opposition and non-government organisations to make it effective. Inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar also welcomed the move, saying the new legislation should be looked at seriously. Gobind, who is DAPs national legal bureau chairperson, emphasised that detention without trial is open to serious abuse and goes against basic human rights. Everyone has the right to be heard as it is protected and guaranteed in our federal constitution. We are of the view that there is no need for a new set of laws to replace theordinance as existing laws are sufficient to deal with the situation. He urged that a complete study be done on how improvements can be made at all levels, including better enforcement of current laws in order to meet the pressing problem of crime in the country. Yesterday, Gobind claimed the EOs removal two years ago was hastily done.

New laws to replace the Emergency Ordinance

B Y MU ZL IZ A MU ST AF A JU LY 04, 201 3

The first draft of a new set of laws to replace the Emergency Ordinance (EO) is now at the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (pic) said the government decided on the new laws following the spike in crime after the abolishment of the EO and the Restricted Residence Act. "We welcome new ideas and suggestions from everyone, including opposition leaders and non-governmental organisations to ensure the new laws are effective," he said. "They can channel their suggestions to me. If they don't send in their suggestions, they should not complain when the law is introduced," he said. Ahmad Zahid said the Home Ministry will also set up a task force to track down drug lords and pushers who were freed after the EO was repealed. "We found that many of them went back to their old ways after the preventive laws were repealed and they were released from detention." The Malaysian Insider recently spoke to several senior police officers who alleged that the repeal of the preventive laws saw more than 2,500 detainees released back into society. Police also claimed that the former detainees were now back to their old ways while police had one hand tied behind their backs. Ahmad Zahids announcement of the new laws comes after Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Nancy Shukri told parliament on Monday that the government is prepared to enact new laws to replace the EO to deal with escalating crime. DAP Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo today faulted the government for the spike in crime. The government should accept and concede that it's earlier decision to repeal the laws was hastily made, without proper study nor due regard for the consequences which would follow. "I have raised this before. I have asked the government to explain what it planned to do given the fact that the repeal of the EO would result in the release of hundreds if not thousands of persons said to be hardened criminals, back into society, he said in a statement. Gobind said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was just interested in the governments image when the decision was taken to repeal the preventive laws. He said Najib should not hide behind complaints by the police to convince Malaysians that preventive laws are necessary to justify bringing back the EO. He should acknowledge that the problem isn't the result of the repeal of the EO alone but a combination of many factors and the failure of the government to find solutions to all these problems. "Bringing back the EO would be wrong as Parliament moved to repeal it because it involved detention without trial which led to serious abuse over the years.

"What is now required is a complete overhaul of the laws which relate to police powers and detention. The government should now go back to the drawing board and come up with a holistic plan to solve this problem at all levels," Gobind added. - July 4, 2013.

Fear and loathing greets new law to replace Emergency Act

B Y JE NN IF ER G OMEZ , MUZ LI ZA MUS TA FA , EL IZ AB ET H ZA CH AR IA H JU LY 05, 201 3

The new law to replace the former Emergency Ordinance Act (EO) that allowed criminals to be held for years without trial has drawn flak from different quarters even before its critics have been told what is in it. The Bar Council was fearful it would reincarnate the old discredited law. Senior opposition leader R Sivarasa declared it irrelevant. Human rights group Suaram just called it a ploy. Christopher Leong, chairman of the Bar Council, is opposed to the return of the EO dressed under a new name. "The Bar has not seen and does not know what the proposed new law looks like or contains. And we certainly do not favour what would be the effective recasting of the EO. "It is not acceptable because it is easily open to abuse," he said, pointing out that the government has recognised this and repealed the old act in Parliament. He was commenting on a report that the first draft of a new set of laws to replace the EO is currently with the Attorney-General's Chambers. Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had said the government decided on the new laws following the spike in crime after the abolishment of the EO and the Restricted Residence Act. Leong said the authorities have not shown any tangible data or evidence connecting the spike in street crimes to the repeal of the EO. "Measures to address street crimes include upgrading the capacity and abilities of police personnel. It is not about equipping them with power to detain without trial," he stressed. However, Leong said the Bar recognised that there may be grounds to consider new legislation to deal with syndicated crime. "We are open to the idea of new legislation to deal with syndicated crime but it should not be the EO dressed up under a different name. We are open to discussing this with the AG's chambers," he said.

PKR Subang MP R Sivarasa said better policing, not new laws was needed in the country. The police already have plenty of power, it is just that they themselves are not capable of executing it, he told reporters at Parliament yesterday. Sivarasa said the police should not blame the spike in crime to the repeal of the EO as they had been given 18 months to prepare for it. He noted that they had sufficient time to charge those under detention. If there is evidence to show they are involved in a crime, why dont the police just charge them in court?" He said when the EO was repealed, more than 2,600 detainees were released. "Everyone then blamed those released on the spike in crime," Sivarasa said. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) executive director Nalini Elumalai said it opposed any laws that allow indefinite detention without trial. She said the call to replace the EO with another law is a ploy by the police and Home Ministry to cover up their failures. Nalini felt the police should work at improving their criminal investigative department instead. July 5, 2013.

SUHAKAM tolak Ordinan Darurat dilaksanakan semula, gesa polis dipulihkan

O LE H MD IZW AN JU NE 27 , 2013

Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM) menolak gesaan supaya Ordinan Darurat (EO) dilaksanakan semula bertujuan untuk menangani peningkatan kadar jenayah, sebaliknya mencadangkan supaya pasukan polis dipulihkan. Pengerusinya Tan Sri Hasmy Agam berkata cadangan tersebut merupakan satu langkah retrogresif (mundur) kerana ia melanggar Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan prinsip asas hak asasi manusia, khususnya Artikel 8(1) dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Artikel 7 dalam Perisytiharan Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat (UDHR). "Pelaksanaan semula EO merupakan satu langkah retrogresif.

"Semua orang adalah sama di sisi undang-undang dan berhak mendapat perlindungan samarata di sisi undang-undang," kata Hasmy dalam satu kenyataan media hari ini. The Malaysian Insider baru-baru ini melaporkan pendedahan kenyataan seorang pegawai tertinggi dalam pasukan polis mengatakan tugasan untuk memerangi jenayah terganggu kerana undang-undang pencegahan telah dimansuhkan. Susulan laporan tersebut, pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat (PR) membidas pasukan polis dan menggesa mereka daripada berhenti memberi alasan pemansuhan Akta Darurat pada 2011 sebagai punca peningkatan jenayah di dalam negara tetapi sebaliknya menyifatkan punca sebenar adalah salah guna sumber pihak berkuasa. Menurut Hasmy lagi, langkah Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak pada tahun 2011 tersebut wajar dihormati sekiranya mahu demokrasi di dalam negara berfungsi sepenuhnya serta selari dengan matlamat negara yang mahu mencapai taraf negara maju menjelang 2020. "Kerajaan atas inisiatif Perdana Menteri berkenaan penggubalan undang-undang selaras dengan keperluan masyarakat kontemporari merupakan satu kemenangan bagi pejuangpejuang hak asasi manusia yang mana kita semua adalah atau seharusnya menjadi seperti itu sebagai rakyat kepada sebuah negara yang berhasrat mencapai demokrasi yang berfungsi sepenuhnya. "Oleh itu, kita haruslah menyokong keputusan berkenaan ke arah mencapai taraf negaranegara maju," terangnya lagi. Hasmy juga berkata kadar jenayah boleh diperangi oleh undang-undang sedia ada dimana suspek penjenayah boleh didakwa menerusi proses yang sah, disamping pasukan polis dipulihkan dengan beberapa penambahbaikan. "SUHAKAM berpandangan bahawa dakwaan kesalahan jenayah boleh ditangani oleh undang-undang keseksaan termasuk Kanun Keseksaan yang membenarkan suspek penjenayah didakwa menerusi pembicaraan awam yang adil di mahkamah. "SUHAKAM juga berpandangan bahawa pihak berkuasa perlu meningkatkan keberkesanan mekanisme siasatan, pencegahan dan pemantauan jenayah, serta program pemulihan untuk bekas tahanan," kata beliau lagi. Putrajaya telah mengatakan dari 2009 hingga 2012, kadar jenayah kebangsaan menurun sebanyak 27 peratus sementara jenayah jalanan menurun sebanyak 39.7 peratus. Polis mengatakan kadar jenayah juga jatuh enam peratus untuk suku tahun pertama 2013 berbanding tempoh yang sama tahun lepas tetapi beberapa kumpulan mempertikaikan angka tersebut, mengatakan ianya telah diubah.

Kes terbaru yang mendapat perhatian awam adalah tentang pembunuhan dan percubaaan merompak terhadap wanita berumur 52 tahun Irene Ong di Bukit Gasing pada April lalu yang mengundang rasa marah dan sedih ke atas pemergian wanita tersebut. Pengerusi Pemantau jenayah MyWatch R. Sri Sanjeevan mengatakan Putrajaya dan polis hanya memberitahu jenayah adalah satu persepsi dalam tindak balas terhadap kebimbangan awam. MyWatch menuduh polis Februari lalu mengubah statistik jenayah, mendakwa kes-kes ragut dan samun tanpa senjata api serta kecurian dan pecah rumah, adalah lebih tinggi daripada indeks jenayah diterbitkan dari Januari hingga Oktober 2011. Pihak polis walau bagaimanapun menafikan melakukan memanipulasi angka jenayah negara. - 27 Jun, 2013.

MPs and lawmaking

By Ding Jo-Ann and Koh Lay Chin | 21 April 2013 | Read [0] Comments | Post Print This

MEMBERS of Parliament (MPs) are also sometimes called legislators or lawmakers as they sit in the legislature and pass laws. But how far do Malaysian MPs play this role? A majority of the 113 MPs who responded to The Nut Graphs MP Watch: Eye on Parliament project recognised that one of their major roles was to be an effective lawmaker. However, many MPs complained about the lack of resources to fulfil this role. Many MPs also commented on Parliaments limited role in actually formulating laws.

This begs the question: If MPs are not being enabled and entrusted in the fullest sense of the word to make the laws in Malaysia, who is? And what will it take for elected lawmakers to reclaim their rightful role? Who makes law? Currently, the Attorney Generals Chambers and relevant ministries draft most of the bills presented in Parliament. And according to some MPs, once these bills are presented to Parliament, they are hardly amended, no matter how lively the parliamentary debate on it may be. MPs are always referred to as lawmakers, said Kota Raja MP Siti Mariah Mahmud from PAS. But we are only debating and passing or voting against laws drafted by the government We are never involved in drafting the laws or enactments unlike other parliaments. After all the debates, not a comma or a full stop will change. The DAPs Tony Pua, who is also Petaling Jaya Utara MP, echoed this, saying Parliament had become a rubber stamp for the executive. He pointed out that even Barisan Nasional (BN) MPs were hampered by the system. Even when they raised good questions about a bills provisions, it did not necessarily result in any amendments. So what needs to be done to give MPs more say in the lawmaking process? After all, whats the point of having them sit in Parliament if they dont significantly influence the drafting or amendment of legislation? Whats the purpose of MPs being the peoples representatives when in reality, the executive has all the say? Lawyer Andrew Khoo, convener of Civil Society Initiatives for Parliamentary Reform, says MPs should have a much larger role in lawmaking than they currently do. At the moment, Parliament appears to be a debating chamber to score political points, and generally doesnt really change the course of legislation, he tells The Nut Graph in a phone interview. Process of lawmaking Every bill passes through several stages before it can be approved. It goes through a first reading, when it is formally read out to Parliament. It is then tabled for second reading, when the bill is debated. It then goes through a committee stage, which should scrutinise the bill and propose any necessary amendments. After it passes the committee stage, the final version of the bill is debated and put to a vote after the third reading.

Andrew Khoo (Pic courtesy of Andrew Khoo) Khoo, however, says the committee review is highly ineffective in Malaysia because Parliament is sorely lacking in setting up select committees to go through bills in detail. In fact, many times, Parliament tends to have a committee of the whole House and rushes bills through. Its possible to have the first and second reading on one day, and then go to the committee stage on the second day, with the third reading done at the end of that day. So legislation can be passed in just two days, Khoo says. Because bills are rushed through, there is little time for consultation. But having proper select committees would change that. These committees would theoretically be able to consult various parties, including those most affected by the bill, and independent experts. It would also allow MPs time to present the bill to their constituents to allow them to voice their feedback. Insufficient resources Even if lawmaking was made more democratic with the setting up of proper select committees, would MPs have enough resources to scrutinise bills in greater detail? Respondents to the MP Watch project painted a rather woeful picture when asked whether Parliament provided enough resources for them to perform their roles. Many MPs seemed a rather harried lot, having to balance between reading stacks of material to participate in parliamentary debate and servicing large constituencies. Some, such as Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) MP Johari Abdul (Sungai Petani), said they had no space to work in Parliament. Umno MP Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan (Kota Belud) echoed this, saying it was important for MPs to have offices where they could do their work, have meetings and meet people. Umno MP Idris Haron (Tangga Batu) said perhaps MPs could have office cubicles and one permanent assistant. Rembau MP and Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin (Rembau) said Parliament needed a good resource centre with a comprehensive collection of magazines, journals and books, along with access to online research portals.

But the overwhelming request from MPs was for Parliament to bear the cost of research assistants to help them digest the voluminous information needed for them to be effective in their lawmaking. Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who is also the Santubong MP, said Malaysian MPs are paid about RM10,000 a month, with a basic monthly salary of only about RM6,000. Of that income, MPs need to rent constituency service centres and pay staff to run the centres and a personal assistant, if they hire one. There is hardly any money left for MPs to engage research assistants on top of all their other expenses, as elucidated in the previous chapter.

Logo of the US Congress research unit (Wiki commons) Fuziah Salleh (Kuantan) said it was disappointing that Malaysias parliamentary research unit only had 16 research assistants to serve 222 MPs, compared to the 700 staff in the US Congress research unit that assists 200-plus Congress members. Any improvement in MPs lawmaking role, such as by setting up more select committees, would therefore have to be accompanied by increased expenses to enable MPs to play that role effectively. Khoo says Parliament could make a start by setting up select committees and hiring research assistants for each committee. The research assistant could conduct research with the results distributed to all the committee members, he says. Khoo says it would be worth the additional cost to allow MPs the resources to carry out their duties effectively. Its better to pay for the research to be done so that laws are made correctly, than pay for the mistake of making inadequate or inappropriate laws. Theres a cost involved there as well, but because we dont monetise it, we dont realise how big that cost is, he points out. Interestingly, all of the 18 MPs in MP Watch who said they had enough resources to carry out their roles as MPs were from Barisan Nasional (BN) component parties. Out of these 18, 12 were either current or former ministers or deputy ministers. This included former Housing and Local Government Minister Tan Sri Ong Ka Ting (Kulai), and former Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor (Putrajaya). Opposition disadvantage

10

Additionally, opposition MPs generally feel they are financially disadvantaged because they do not have access to the RM1 million-per-constituency fund from the Prime Ministers special fund. The RM1 million allocation is meant for all MPs, but anecdotally has only been disbursed to BN MPs. Many, like Mohd Yusmadi Mohd Yusoff (Balik Pulau), said this allocation was clearly just for BN MPs as he had not received a single sen.

Shouldnt there be equal funding for all political parties? Opposition MPs also dont have access to civil service support. When a law is proposed, BN MPs get briefed on the legislation by civil servants, says Khoo. But civil servants arent allowed to brief opposition MPs. So opposition MPs have to go around asking nongovernmental organisations or the Bar Council to brief them so they can understand the proposed legislation and give intelligent input during debates. The inequality of resources between government and opposition MPs is a cause for concern. Opposition MPs, after all, also represent a significant proportion of Malaysians. In fact, researchers say that in peninsular Malaysia, the BN narrowly lost the popular vote. Opposition MPs should therefore have equal resources and better access to the lawmaking process than is currently the case. Some BN MPs also support better resources for all, including for the opposition. MPs, regardless of party, should be allocated research assistants and a proper office in Parliament or somewhere near, said Umno MP Saifuddin Abdullah (Temerloh). This is the practice of many advanced democracies. This is so that the MP can really play a lawmakers role, he added. The MCAs Teng Boon Soon (Tebrau) concurs on providing equal resources to opposition MPs. If we only provide allowance for ruling party MPs, what about the

11

interests of the people who disagree with the ruling party? They have the same rights and they deserve protection equally, he said. Far to go Malaysian MPs seem woefully lacking in resources to conduct good research, unless backed up by party or government resources. Structures such as select committees that allow for greater scrutiny and public consultation are not in place. There is an imbalance in resources between opposition and government MPs. Like Thursdays child in the nursery rhyme, it looks like the Malaysian Parliament has far to go towards playing a more effective and significant part in the lawmaking process.

This essay first appeared exclusively in Understanding the Dewan Rakyat, together with other analyses on how our government works. The book also contains the profiles of the current 222 MPs and how they and their parties would vote on key issues of democracy. The book is available at PusatLoyarBurok.

12