LETTER | Let Parliament be the 'grand inquest of the nation'

LETTER | In a public lecture at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (Isis) Malaysia in June 2020, law professor Shad Saleem Faruqi referred to the Malaysian Parliament as the "grand inquest of the nation".

According to the Oxford Dictionary, ‘grand’ denotes the largest or most important thing of its kind. Similar words are main, principal, and foremost, among others.

By ‘inquest’, the eminent scholar must have intended it to mean a body of people appointed to hold an inquiry, investigation, inquisition or probe.

It is a grandiose (magnificent) but fitting description.

It is what the Federal Constitution envisages. The highest law of the land has 49 articles of the constitution (out of a total of 183) to deal with the composition, qualification, legislative powers, financial powers, privileges, and procedures of our Parliament (Articles 44-68, 73-79 and 96-112).

Constitutional functions

According to Shad, the Federal Constitution reposes in Parliament no less than 11 constitutional functions, two of which are oversight of executive policy and performance to ensure accountability, answerability, and responsibility of the political executive to Parliament; and control over national finance.

The latter includes oversight of financial policy, examination of the use of financial resources optimally, allocation of the annual budget, and review of the reports of the auditor-general to examine how the allocations were utilised.

The last must mean review by the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara, and not just parliamentary select committees – in particular, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

It is true that Standing Order No 77 of the Dewan Rakyat provides for the appointment of the PAC for the examination of, among others, “reports of the auditor-general laid before the house in accordance with Article 107 of the constitution”.

However, Article 107(1) itself says that the auditor-general “shall submit his reports to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who shall cause them to be laid before the House of Representatives”.

Under parliamentary terms, to lay is to formally present to Parliament. The purpose of laying a paper or document is to make the information in the document available to the house and to MPs.

Flawed argument

What constitutes laying is a matter for the decision of each house. In the United Kingdom, laying is the taking, during the existence of a Parliament, of such action as is directed by virtue of any Standing Order or other direction of the house.

Accordingly, the house may so decide that a document laid before it shall be debated. The authority of the house is clearly laid out by the constitution.

Article 62(1) allows each house of Parliament to regulate its own procedure, pursuant to which the Standing Orders are made.

Article 63(1) provides the constitutional guarantee that the validity of any proceedings in either house of Parliament or any committee thereof shall not be questioned in any court.

Based on the above, there is no reason not to share the reference to Parliament as the “Grand Inquest of the Nation”.

The nation can therefore agree with Parliament speaker Johari Abdul’s decision to debate the 2021 Auditor-General’s Report in Parliament.

Given the mandate and constitutional guarantee of Articles 62(1) and 63(1) respectively, any argument against the decision to debate the 2021 Auditor-General’s Report is flawed.

It boggles the mind that a commotion should erupt in the Dewan Rakyat following the move by Perikatan Nasional (PN) MPs to object to the motion to debate the report and the seats in the opposition bloc were empty as the Dewan Rakyat proceeded to debate it.

Let Parliament be the grand inquest of the nation.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.