Informed law making: Parliamentarians should be educated and consistently reminded of their primary role as lawgivers, says the writer. — The Star
ONE of the key functions of parliamentarians is to debate and pass laws, which form the backbone of a nation’s governance framework. In Malaysia, however, many parliamentarians are often unprepared for debates on critical laws, especially those that directly impact the liberties and rights of citizens. This lack of preparedness has led to the passing of laws without a thorough understanding of their provisions and potential effects, resulting in legislation that may undermine fundamental rights and the rule of law.
Laws are not merely procedural; they shape the social contract between the government and its people. They define the boundaries of government power, and when poorly crafted or inadequately scrutinised, they can be exploited to infringe upon personal liberties, weaken democratic safeguards, and erode trust in governance. It is therefore alarming when lawmakers, whose primary duty is to ensure the creation of just and balanced laws, lack the requisite knowledge or preparation during parliamentary debates.
Malaysia has witnessed the passage of several controversial laws that have been criticised for impinging on individual freedoms or being overly vague in their application. Laws affecting freedom of speech, assembly, and personal liberty have often been passed without adequate scrutiny or debate. Some parliamentarians may not be fully aware of the intricate legal implications of such laws, nor do they seem to foresee the long-term impact on citizens’ rights. This results in a situation where bad laws slip through the cracks and create unintended harm to society.
A particularly troubling area is the passage of criminal laws that do not adequately protect the rights of citizens or violate fundamental legal principles, such as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. For example, under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act, witnesses are compelled to answer questions during interrogations without proper regard for the principle of voluntariness, as outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). The CPC emphasises voluntariness and protects the rights of the accused, but the MACC Act has created concerns over coercive practices in investigations, potentially violating due process.
Similarly, the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFA) was introduced to monitor and curb money laundering activities. While the intention behind the act is commendable, its implementation has led to concerns over excessive enforcement powers, particularly regarding asset forfeiture and restrictions on individuals before their guilt is proven in court. These laws sometimes shift the burden of proof onto the accused, contradicting the principle of being innocent until proven guilty.
Another area of concern is the potential abuse of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) Act due to poor drafting. The broad and often vague language in the MCMC Act can give enforcement agencies excessive discretionary powers over the regulation of communications and online content. This opens the door to arbitrary enforcement, misuse, and potential abuse of power. Poorly defined terms and wide enforcement authority can stifle freedom of expression, as the law can be used to silence dissent or regulate media without proper checks.
In these instances, these laws reflect a worrying trend: fundamental constitutional rights and civil liberties are being sacrificed under the pretext of criminal law enforcement. The erosion of rights in the name of fighting corruption, terrorism, or other crimes can have long-term negative consequences on the rule of law and democracy. Civil liberties, such as the right to a fair trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the presumption of innocence, are pillars of a free society and should never be compromised, even in the pursuit of criminal justice.
The root of this issue often lies in a lack of legal education and training among some members of Parliament. While not every parliamentarian is expected to be a legal expert, they are the nation’s lawmakers, and as such, they must possess a solid understanding of the legal framework within which the government operates. A deep appreciation for constitutional principles, the limits of governmental power, and the protection of individual rights must guide their decision-making.
Parliamentarians should be educated and consistently reminded of their primary role as lawgivers. There should be ongoing programs to brief lawmakers on upcoming legislation, clarify legal language, and discuss the broader consequences of certain laws. Legal workshops, consultation with constitutional experts, and comprehensive pre-debate briefings can empower parliamentarians to make more informed decisions.
Another important aspect of this problem is the lack of accountability among some lawmakers when it comes to their legislative responsibilities. Parliamentarians are elected representatives of the people, and they are expected to act in the best interests of their constituents. However, the passage of bad laws often goes unnoticed by the public until these laws are enforced in ways that harm individual freedoms. By the time the public becomes aware, it is often too late.
It is therefore crucial that parliamentarians understand their constitutional role and realise that they are not mere rubber stamps for government proposals. Every piece of legislation should be scrutinised, debated, and understood thoroughly before being voted on. To ensure this, mechanisms such as legislative review committees, public consultations, and expert panels should be further strengthened within the Malaysian legislative process.
Debates in Parliament should be the cornerstone of the legislative process. These debates serve as a platform for questioning, critiquing, and improving proposed laws. However, in many instances, parliamentary debates in Malaysia have been rushed, with insufficient time given to examine the full scope of a bill. This undermines the essence of parliamentary democracy.
Time should be allocated for extensive and meaningful discussions, especially on laws that impact the liberty of the citizenry. Parliamentarians must approach these debates with a clear understanding of the issues at hand and be willing to challenge laws that may have detrimental consequences. Parliament must ensure that civil liberties are never sacrificed under the guise of law enforcement.
Parliamentarians must always be mindful of the long-term effects of the laws they pass, regardless of the subject matter. This is particularly important when it comes to laws that touch upon sensitive areas such as religious affairs. The fear of populist reprisals should not be an excuse for parliamentarians to shirk their duties. As responsible lawmakers, they must ensure that even religious-related laws are scrutinised with the same level of care and attention as any other legislation.
Law making is one of the most critical functions of any Parliament, and it is a task that should not be taken lightly. The passage of poorly thought-out laws, particularly those that affect the liberty of the citizen, is a grave concern in Malaysia.
Parliamentarians must be more prepared, educated, and mindful of their responsibility as the nation’s lawmakers. It is imperative for lawmakers to prioritise the nation’s long-term stability and integrity over political convenience or immediate popularity.
Senior lawyer Datuk Dr Seri Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is the founder and chairman of Yayasan Rapera, an NGO that promotes community-based learning activities and compassionate thinking among Malaysians. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.
