Why do PKR MPs call Clause 18 ‘perfunctory’ and lacking oversight?

Question

Accepted Answer

PKR MPs Argue Clause 18 Lacks Genuine Parliamentary Oversight for Prosecutorial Appointments

PKR lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to Clause 18 of the proposed constitutional amendments, which aims to separate the roles of the Attorney General and Public Prosecutor. They contend that the current wording of Clause 18 is "perfunctory and devoid of genuine oversight" because it fails to establish a robust parliamentary vetting process for candidates nominated for the crucial prosecutorial position. Subang MP Wong Chen specifically criticised the clause for merely requiring the Judicial and Legal Service Commission to inform Parliament of nominees and solicit comments, which he argues does not constitute meaningful scrutiny on behalf of the public.
Insufficient Vetting Mechanism Under Clause 18

The core of the objection lies in the described mechanism within Clause 18, which PKR MPs believe falls short of adequate parliamentary involvement. This clause reportedly stipulates that the Judicial and Legal Service Commission need only inform Parliament about nominated candidates and allow for comments. Such a process is seen as a superficial step, lacking the depth required for a rigorous examination of individuals who will hold significant prosecutorial power.
Call for Bipartisan Parliamentary Scrutiny

In contrast to the current proposal, PKR lawmakers are advocating for a more substantial role for Parliament in the appointment process. Wong Chen specifically called for a bipartisan parliamentary vetting process that would involve open and transparent hearings. This approach, he explained, would allow Parliament, acting in representation of the rakyat, to thoroughly examine and assess nominees, ensuring a higher standard of accountability and suitability for the role of Public Prosecutor.
Concerns Over Sidelining the Dewan Rakyat

The opposition from PKR MPs stems from a broader concern that the proposed amendments, particularly Clause 18, could effectively sideline the Dewan Rakyat from a meaningful role in vetting top prosecutorial candidates. They view their duty as MPs not to passively approve legislation but to critically scrutinise reforms to ensure better governance. The current draft, as interpreted by these lawmakers, risks reducing Parliament to a mere rubber stamp rather than an active participant in a vital appointment process.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why do PKR MPs call Clause 18 ‘perfunctory’ and lacking oversight?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

2

0

0

Share with friends