Parliamentary Services Bill Falls Short Of Standards Says Constitutional Expert

---

In a recent interview with FMT, constitutional expert Shad Saleem Faruqi described the Parliamentary Services Bill as “rudimentary”.
KUALA LUMPUR: The recently passed Parliamentary Services Bill 2025—aimed at restoring the legislative body’s operational autonomy—fails to fully uphold the safeguards enshrined in a similar law repealed more than 30 years ago, a constitutional expert said.

Shad Saleem Faruqi said a significant shortfall in the bill was the removal of job security for clerks of both houses of Parliament.
He said that under the Parliamentary Services Act 1963 (PSA), clerks who acted as secretaries of the lower and upper houses were appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
They had the same security and tenure as federal court judges and could not be arbitrarily dismissed, said Shad.
“They would be allowed to operate independently and cannot be removed except on similar grounds as Federal Court judges. That has now been taken out,” he told FMT.
Shad said without security of tenure these clerks may potentially be exposed to political influence.
He also said while the new bill was a step forward, its contents were “rudimentary”.
The Parliamentary Services Bill was passed on March 5 with the aim of establishing a parliamentary service which is independent of civil service.
The previous version of the legislation was repealed in 1992, with parliamentary service employees placed under the Prime Minister’s Department and overseen by a minister.
Shad said there was also little clarity as to how the proposed Parliamentary Services Council—tasked with recruitment, training and financial management—will be structured.
The council has 16 members including Dewan Rakyat speaker and his deputies, the Dewan Negara president, public servants from the treasury, representatives from the public services department and several other senior civil servants in parliament, he said.
“And only six MPs (will be on the council). How will they be appointed? Will the opposition be represented in the council?”
Neither does the bill establish a dedicated law reform commission under Parliament, a crucial mechanism for updating and refining legislation on finances, bills and amendments, he said.
Shad also expressed concern that the frequent politicking that takes place when the Dewan is in session could prevent MPs from speaking out without fear or favour.
“Let’s say I am an ordinary MP, part of the ruling party. I will be a bit reluctant (to speak up) because I may not be given the ticket in the next election.”
Due to that, he said most of the check-and-balance must happen at committee level.
“If you want the Parliament to be effective, improve the committee system. The committee system is the key in improving the effectiveness of Parliament (so that) frank discussions take place.”
Shad also said a law reform commission was crucial as the task is presently handled by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).
Although the AGC has a law reform committee, it is not independent of the executive, he said.
“There is conflict of interest. There should be an independent law reforms commission,” he said, adding that the commission should be run by MPs with law degrees from both sides of the aisle. - FMT

---