PARLIAMENTARY reform is not merely about changing administrative arrangements; it is also about correcting the institutional balance of the nation.
At its core, the implementation of the Parliamentary Service Act 2025 represents a decisive step towards restoring Parliament as an independent legislative institution within Malaysia’s democratic system.
True institutional reform requires more than intent. It demands political will, administrative preparedness and the willingness to confront structural limitations within the existing system.
This reform compels us to ask a deeper question: Are we truly prepared to build a Parliament that is independent, professional and fully functional, or are we merely adjusting the existing system without addressing its structural limitations?
This is not a minor administrative matter; it is a fundamental question about the architecture of the state.
Correcting the structure of the state
For almost 32 years since the repeal of the Parliament Service Act 1963 in 1992, the Parliament of Malaysia operated within a framework that remained highly dependent on the executive branch, particularly in matters concerning administration, human resource management and institutional governance.
Under such circumstances, the doctrine of separation of powers, the cornerstone of any functioning democracy, could not be fully realised.
A Parliament that depends on the executive to manage its own service structure will inevitably face limitations in discharging its constitutional role as an effective check and balance mechanism.
This is why the parliamentary reform must be understood not merely as an internal administrative adjustment but also as a structural correction in the governance of the country.
The Parliamentary Service Act 2025 clarifies one fundamental principle: Parliament is no longer to be viewed as an administrative entity operating under the executive. Rather, it is the legislative institution of the nation with its own constitutional position, responsibilities and institutional identity.
Parliament as a legislative institution
Having a distinctive separation of power is crucial. Parliament cannot continue to be managed using the same mindset, systems and administrative frameworks designed primarily for the executive branch.
If the current practices continue, reform will remain cosmetic. It will amount to a change in terminology rather than a transformation in structure, culture and institutional practice.
The Parliament of Malaysia cannot be equated with other government agencies. Enforcement bodies, technical agencies and regulatory institutions all operate within the executive framework.
Parliament, however, stands as the legislative branch of the state, entrusted with drafting legislation, scrutinising public policy and ensuring that governmental power is exercised responsibly.
For this reason, officers serving Parliament must no longer be seen merely as ordinary administrative officers or personnel temporarily placed within the parliamentary system. Considerably, they are Parliamentary officers serving a legislative institution that requires a distinct level of professionalism, institutional independence and specialised competence.
Parliamentary officers must understand democratic processes, legislative procedures, public policy and the principles of accountability. More importantly, they must possess the professional capacity to provide impartial and institutionally sound advice without being bound by the interests of any particular branch of power.
Parliamentary Services Council
The establishment and empowerment of the Parliamentary Services Council is of critical importance. The Council must not be treated as just another administrative committee. It must be recognised as the core mechanism through which Parliament’s autonomy is translated into practice.
If the Council does not have meaningful authority over appointments, promotions and disciplinary matters, then the autonomy of Parliament will remain merely rhetorical.
Institutional autonomy cannot survive as a slogan; it must be reflected in real decision-making power.
The hybrid system
Parliamentary reform must be implemented with pragmatism. This is why a hybrid approach has been introduced as a transitional mechanism.
This approach has, at times, been misunderstood as a compromise. In reality, the hybrid approach is a controlled transition strategy.
Existing systems cannot be dismantled abruptly in a manner that could disrupt institutional stability. However, the old system cannot be allowed to dominate to the point of undermining reform.
Under the hybrid approach, certain areas of human resource management, administration and finance will continue to be supported by the public service structure.
Meanwhile, the management of the Dewan Negara and Dewan Rakyat will be strengthened through the implementation of the Parliament Service Act 2025.
Simultaneously, Parliament will also engage directly with the Finance Ministry on matters relating to budgetary allocations and financial requirements. This is an important step towards ensuring that Parliament is able to plan and manage its institutional needs with greater clarity and independence.
Nevertheless, it must be stressed that the hybrid model is a transitional phase and not the final destination.
Building parliamentary expertise
Institutional reform will not succeed without the continuous development of specialised expertise.
The creation of a dedicated service scheme for Parliament is therefore no longer optional; it is a strategic necessity.
Existing service schemes were designed primarily to meet the needs of the executive branch. Parliament, however, requires legislative specialists, high quality policy researchers and officers who are deeply competent in law-making processes, democratic governance and parliamentary procedure.
If Parliament continues to rely solely on generic service schemes, it will not be able to develop deep institutional expertise. The existing system will merely rotate officers without building continuity of knowledge, experience and institutional memory.
Career progression must also be addressed. The relatively small organisational structure of Parliament means that conventional promotion opportunities are limited.
Without a structured time-based career advancement mechanism, Parliament risks losing its best officers simply because their experience, expertise and contributions are not systematically recognised.
A time-based system does not mean automatic promotion without merit. Rather, it is a mechanism that recognises experience, competence and contribution while maintaining strong performance assessment standards.
Attracting the best talent
A modern Parliament cannot rely solely on internal talent development. The world today is shaped by increasingly complex and interconnected issues, including rapid technology advancements, artificial intelligence, big data governance,fiscal policy, digital economy, geopolitics, cybersecurity threats, international agreements, misinformation and disinformation as well as emerging regulatory challenges and ethical challenges
Without a structured mechanism that enables Parliament to recruit specialised expertise through lateral entry or targeted talent acquisition policies, the institution risks responding more slowly than the rapidly evolving and high technical issues it is constitutionally required to scrutinise and regulate.
The entry of specialised external talent can accelerate institutional capacity building and improve the quality of national checks and balances.
A courageous decision
Ultimately, the question is no longer whether this reform is necessary. The real question is how much longer we are prepared to delay it.
Every delay carries institutional consequences. Parliament will remain dependent on the executive. The function of checks and balances will remain constrained. Public confidence in democratic institutions will continue to be tested.
The reform of the Malaysian Parliament is not a reform for parliamentary officers alone. It is a reform for the integrity of the national system, the balance of power and the future of Malaysia’s democracy.
Malaysia now stands at an important point in its institutional history. We may choose to preserve the old system with minor adjustments, or we may choose to build a Parliament that is truly independent, professional and fully functional.
Both cannot happen at the same time. The choice must be clear. And the decision must be transformative in addressing future challenges.
DATUK DR AHMAD HUSAINI ABDUL RAHMAN
Chief administrator
Parliament of Malaysia
