What oversight role do MPs want beyond JCLSC name notifications?

Question

Accepted Answer

MPs want a bipartisan, open hearing process to vet nominees, not just JCLSC name notifications

Several PKR lawmakers want Parliament to play a stronger oversight role in the planned constitutional amendments that split the Attorney General (AG) and Public Prosecutor (PP) offices. They argue the current mechanism under Clause 18—where the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JCLSC) must inform Parliament of nominated names and allow for comments—does not provide genuine scrutiny. MPs instead call for a bipartisan parliamentary vetting process with open and transparent hearings where Parliament can rigorously examine nominees on behalf of the rakyat.
Clause 18 is viewed as too limited for real scrutiny
The lawmakers point to Clause 18 as a key issue, saying it only requires the JCLSC to notify Parliament of nominated names and permit comments. Subang MP Wong Chen described this approach as “perfunctory and devoid of genuine oversight,” characterising it as falling short of meaningful vetting. In their view, the notification-and-comment step does not amount to substantive parliamentary examination.
MPs say they should not act as a “mere rubber stamp”
The lawmakers frame their position around the role of Members of Parliament in reform work. They state that MPs should not blindly support bills but instead carefully scrutinise proposals to promote better governance. They also emphasise that MPs should not serve as a “mere rubber stamp” when reviewing candidates for the top prosecutorial post.
They want bipartisan vetting for JCLSC nominees
Wong Chen said what is needed is a bipartisan parliamentary vetting process for nominees proposed by the JCLSC. This would involve Parliament examining nominees rather than relying on a limited feedback mechanism. The call is specifically tied to nominees for the country’s top prosecutorial position under the AG and PP separation plan.
The hearings should be open and transparent for Parliament to examine nominees
The lawmakers also stress that the vetting process should use open and transparent hearings. They describe this as a way for Parliament, on behalf of the rakyat, to rigorously examine nominees. In that model, oversight would be conducted through structured hearings rather than only through JCLSC notifications and comments.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What oversight role do MPs want beyond JCLSC name notifications?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends