Pros and cons of fixed Parliament term

PETALING JAYA: On June 10, Malaysian ambassador to the US Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz suggested the Federal Constitution be amended to set a fixed five-year term for Parliament.

The former law minister said he met Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to discuss the matter, adding that the move would put a stop to attempts to topple the government, as previously happened.

However, a lawyer and a political analyst said there are pros and cons to the idea of a fixed parliamentary term.

Lawyer Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo said a fixed term would reduce democratic accountability because it allows for governance without the worry of being voted out of office.

“However, if there is a natural disaster or a financial crisis, the government may not be able to overcome it by putting long-term strategies in place as it would be bound by the fixed term.”

Kokila said a fixed term could also hurt democracy if it is not implemented carefully, adding that mechanisms should be put in place to dissolve the government earlier if necessary, such as in the event of a national emergency or a weakened government.

But she also said a fixed-term parliament would offer better political stability as it would remove uncertainties and make it more difficult for politicians to engage in horse trading or political manoeuvring.

“There will also be greater accountability because the government will have an incentive to perform well and to deliver on its promises.”

She said under Article 55(2) and (3) of the Constitution, a parliamentary term shall be five years but may be dissolved earlier by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. This means a government is supposed to last five years, but the King has the power to dissolve Parliament earlier.

“This provision is intended to give Parliament a degree of stability and prevent the government from staying in power indefinitely. The King’s power to dissolve Parliament earlier means this stability is not absolute.”

Kokila said weak governance can negatively impact the country’s economy, adding that similar to having the hung Parliament in 2022, uncertainty and inconsistency in policy implementation will discourage domestic
and foreign investments, hinder economic growth and contribute to a decline in business confidence.

Nusantara Academy for Strategic Research senior fellow and political analyst Prof Azmi Hassan said the government and the Opposition were not doing their core jobs.

“So, on the surface, a fixed term seems like a good idea.”

He said the Opposition’s core function is to ensure check and balance in Parliament.

“It is not supposed to make attempts to form the government. At the same time, the government should concentrate on running the country instead of continuously having to fend off takeover attempts from the Opposition.”

He said based on the current political scenario, where no single party received a majority in the 15th general election to form the government, a fixed parliamentary term would benefit the country.

“There is an urgent need to end the bickering between the Opposition and the government so that they can return to doing their respective jobs.

“A fixed parliamentary term with a minority government in power could present a lot of problems in running the country as it might not be able to do its job, and this uncertainty could last for five years. The ideal situation is the government should see out at least four years of its term before elections are called.

“Currently, the country is in a Catch-22 situation, with no real solution available. Therefore, it is important to explore all possible options,” Azmi said.

from Highlights https://ift.tt/2ReKD0c
via IFTTT