UK, Malaysia = Irrelevant Senates?
The recent passing of the VSU laws in the Australian senate here has made me realise something interesting. Nono, its not that Italian pasta sucks (I’ve already found that out recently…), its that the parliamentary systems of both the UK and Malaysia operates based on a ‘winner takes all’ modus operandi. The Senate in both countries are useless, irrelevant things, when you think about it. Heck, I don’t even know how senators are elected in Malaysia! After reading this article on Wikipedia on the UK’s House of Lords, I at least got an idea of how it works there.
Basically, in the UK (and I’m presuming Malaysia works similarly as well, correct me if I’m wrong), senators there are all not elected by the people. They are made up of priests, aristrocrats, judges, and some intellectuals on particular fields. Some posts are passed from father to son (aristocrats), while others are elected by the House. Very weird and uncool…..
So based on this, the UK and Malaysia’s system don’t actually have a true ‘House of Review’ in its Senate to review the legislations passed by the House of Representatives (HoR). Since both Senates can’t block laws (they can only delay them), then what are their use? They seem to be to just be a waste of the taxpayer’s money. The party which won the General Elections in both countries gets to pass whatever they want, without any obstacles. The only obstacle they would face (in this case, only in the UK) is that if they become too arrogant in their usage of their power and piss the voters off, the Opposition party will beat them in the next election.
Australia is very different in this aspect. Although it adopted the British Westminster parliamentary system, it also incorporated a US-style Senate here. The Senators here are all elected by the people. No royalty crap for us here! HoR members represents the people, but Senators represent their states. The Senate here have real power to block legislations from the HoR. Furthermore, it’s very rare for the government of the day to have a majority in the Senate, since senators are elected at a different time from the HoR members. Most of the time it’s controlled by the Opposition. This presents a very good check-and-balance mechanism to the government here. Most of the more ‘extreme’ legislations are forced to be watered down by the Opposition in the Senate before allowing it to be passed. In fact, some laws, such as the recent Industrial Relations Reforms (laws making it easier for employers to fire employees) were fanatically opposed by Labor in the Senate for years before the 04 GE.
After the 04 GE, the Liberals won a majority of the Senate seats for the first time in decades. Thus all of John Howard’s pet laws such as the IR Reforms, VSU laws (laws weakening left-wing student unions in unis), and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ISA, Aussie style) were passed without interference. John Howard must be having wet dreams these days… 
The Senate here works the same way like the US President’s relationship with the Congress. When the President’s party doesn’t have a majority in Congress, that’s where the headache for him starts 
Sure, sometimes the Opposition dominated Senate here can reject legislations just because it can, but most of the time they’re pretty reasonable. So all in all, I think that the Aussie political system is much better than the UK’s or Malaysia’s.
Which reminds me, so how are the senators in Malaysia elected again?
Senators here are appointed. The Wikipedia article on our Parliament doesn’t explain much, but it has a breakdown of how they were appointed.
Comment by johnleemk — December 13, 2005 @ 7:12 am
Well, in Malaysia there was time when the King has the absolute power to deny the law from being passed by refusing to sign it. But that was changed in 1980s when the parliament amend the constitution. The law will be enacted withing 60 days even when the King refuse to sign it (correct me with the numbers)
Comment by mypapit — December 13, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
If memory serves me right, and I did take Pengajian Am in Form 6, a law passed by Dewan Rakyat will be enforced, at the latest after 30 days if it’s not sighned by the YDMM Agong. Dewan Negara can only delay the law or give suggestions, but the final say lies on Dewan Rakyat.
I don’t think Dewan Negara is elected based on royalty blood, but at the discretion of the YDMM Agong upon advice. There’s supposed to be 2 from each state in Malaysia, and then a few more people who represent certain interests and minority groups.
The reason Dewan Negara is actually weaker than Dewan Rakyat is because DR is officially elected by the people, and therefore represents the voice of the people. I think this system actually makes more sense rather than giving DN more power, seeing as they were appointed rather than elected.
Comment by junhoe — December 13, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
There are two senators appointed by each state government, further two more for the federal territory by the federal government, and the rest by the Agong, under the “advice” of the Prime Minister.
The same ailment plagues Canada and India too; New Zealand got tired of it so for now, Parliament = House of Representatives.
On the House of Lords, actually the power to delay legislation is a powerful tool used by the Lords to squash many legislation. When the Lords vote to delay a bill, the Commons must redebate the bill. And usually, they would be too embarrassed to approve the bill again, at least in the rejected form.
I would say the German model is a rather useful compromise - their Senate (or Federal Council) is made up of state government delegates (that votes based on the direction of the state governments). Unlike in the US and Australia, those delegates cannot initiate new bills, but unlike the House of Lords, they can stop bills instead of merely delaying them.
The Germans seem to have a better model at least when it comes to federal-state relationships; state powers in America and Australia have eroded far much more than they have in Germany.
Comment by Rajan R — December 13, 2005 @ 5:56 pm
BTW, what’s wrong with the law passed by Senate? How is allowing students to choose *not* to join student unions and pay student union dues and fees something despicable and should be shunned? Freedom of association, baby!
Personally, if I study in the Commonwealth of Australia, in most universities, I probably would opt-out of joining the student union. Don’t want my money, or the very least any imaginery scholarship money funding a union with activities, including political, I don’t agree with, with services I would rarely, rarely use.
Comment by Rajan R — December 13, 2005 @ 6:00 pm
The Lords are there for a reason, and countless of times they have blocked ruthless legislations that were forced through the lower house. The government here has suffered many defeats over its knee jerk anti-terrorism bill by the peers. Last October the upper house tore up the Racial and Religious bill due to its implication on free speech. I am all to democraticising the upper house but right now they are (mostly) there to keep check on the government. Just last week the Law Lords rejected the use in courts, of evidence that may have been obtained through torture.
Comment by Jon — December 13, 2005 @ 6:37 pm
jun hoe: Agreed. But that wasn’t what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the Senates in M’sia and the UK should be changed to enable the public to directly elect senators, like how we vote for our HoR members now. Like Australia’s model.
Rajan R: “On the House of Lords, actually the power to delay legislation is a powerful tool used by the Lords to squash many legislation. When the Lords vote to delay a bill, the Commons must redebate the bill. And usually, they would be too embarrassed to approve the bill again, at least in the rejected form.”
Lol, somehow I don’t see that embarassing the BN MPs anytime soon!
And on that VSU thing, sure thing, you’re free to support the bill. It’s just that many left-wing students here thinks that this is the first step initiated by the government in its quest to introduced Australia’s own UUCA.
Comment by cyrix — December 13, 2005 @ 10:58 pm
The trouble with Malaysia is that it’s very hard to get stats on these things.
However, I did find a very interesting press statement by Lim Kit Siang here: http://www.dapmalaysia.org/all-archive/English/2004/may04/lks/lks3036.htm
which talks about stuff that’s almost similar to what I’ve written. He wants senators to be directly voted by the public as well.
According to what I’ve managed to find, it would seem that the M’sian Senate has failed utterly. It has now become a political dumping ground for BN politicians who have failed to get elected into the HoR (since Senators can also hold ministrial posts, ie: M’sia’s last Edu Minister was a Senator). It is overwhelmingly dominated by BN members. Senators from the opposition, intellectuals, and minorities are almost non-existent there.
If anybody has the M’sian Senate composition, could you please share it with me here? I’m very interested to see how badly it is being abused by BN these days
Thanks!
Comment by cyrix — December 13, 2005 @ 11:01 pm
cyrix:
As I said, Wikipedia has the breakdown. I’m not sure if direct election of Senators would be the way to go - Germany’s system makes sense, as Rajan points out.
Comment by johnleemk — December 14, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
johnleemk: I could only find the rules and procedures of the Senate, not the stats breakdown according to parties. If you’ve seen it, could you please gimme the link? Thanx!
Comment by cyrix — December 14, 2005 @ 11:17 pm
Oh, you wanted a breakdown by party. They don’t have it, then. Only a breakdown by mode of appointment.
Comment by johnleemk — December 15, 2005 @ 7:24 am