Speech by YB Lau Weng San on 30th November 2025 at Majlis Senator Malaysia (MSM) 2025 in Swiss-Garden Genting Highlands.
Last year, I was invited to speak at a forum organised by Majlis Senator Malaysia (MSM) on the topic of 'Moving Beyond the "Rubber Stamp" Revitalizing the Dewan Negara for a Mature Democracy'.
I think it will be good if some of my talking points can be reproduced and I have no intention to simply repeat the clarion calls for reforms made by politicians and scholars in the past. Rather, it seeks to reflect on the calls for reform raised in the past, provide a glimpse of what has happened to the Dewan Negara recently, and outline the reforms that have been undertaken or can be made by the Senators.
For decades, the Dewan Negara in Malaysia has suffered from a crisis of identity and perception as its Upper House of the Federal Parliament. Often derided as a "rubber stamp" for the Lower House or a "retirement home" for political veterans, the Senate's constitutional potential as a robust check and balance has arguably remained unfulfilled. A review of parliamentary discourse spanning the last decade reveals a consistent yearning for reform, yet structural hurdles remain. To restore the sanctity of the Dewan Negara, we must bridge the gap between its intended constitutional function and its current political reality.
Constitutional Mandate and Constraints
The Dewan Negara has the authority to revise, improve, or delay bills passed by the Dewan Rakyat. Ideally, the Dewan Negara should operate in a less political way as compared to the Dewan Rakyat to ensure objective legislative scrutiny. However, under Article 68 of the Federal Constitution, if there are unresolved differences between the two houses, the Dewan Rakyat can bypass the Dewan Negara after one month for money bills and no less than one year for non-money bills. It is important to note, however, that Article 68 is not applicable to constitutional amendments, which strictly require a two-thirds majority in both Houses.
The Crisis of Function: Oversight vs. Subservience
In short, the primary mandate of the Dewan Negara is to act as a house of revision, a "cooling chamber" that scrutinizes legislation. However, historical evidence illustrates a failure to perform this duty effectively. As highlighted in the writings surrounding the National Security Council (NSC) Bill in 2015, the Senate failed to utilize its power to delay or reject hasty legislation that threatened civil liberties. Instead of acting as the "conscience of the nation," the Senate often mirrors the partisan composition of the Lower House. Executive dominance has historically stifled the Senate's ability to act as an independent arbiter.
Furthermore, the prestige of the Senate has been undermined by the executive branch itself. Newspaper reports from 2016 and as recently as 2023 highlight a recurring grievance: Ministers often skip Senate proceedings, sending deputies in their stead. Former Senate President Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar (who is currently the Tuan Yang Terutama Governor of Sarawak) had to explicitly reprimand the executive for this lack of respect, reminding them that Parliament represents the institution of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Without the direct accountability of Ministers, the Senate cannot effectively scrutinize government policy.
The "House of States" Dilemma
The Dewan Negara was originally conceived to protect the interests of the states against federal overreach. However, the composition has shifted drastically away from this intent. Legal scholars point out that the number of federally appointed senators (44) vastly outnumbers state-elected senators
(26). This imbalance renders the "state voice" negligible.
To remedy this, a return to the spirit of the Reid Commission is necessary. Proposals to increase state representation, specifically the suggestion that each state should elect three senators instead of two, would help in balancing and strengthening the voice of the states at the Upper House level.
Sabah, Sarawak, and MA63
More critically, the specific interests of Sabah and Sarawak must be institutionalized. Recent discourse suggests granting a "veto power" to East Malaysian senators regarding constitutional amendments. If 35% of the Senate seats were reserved for East Malaysia, this would operationalize the safeguards promised under MA63, ensuring the federal constitution cannot be altered to the detriment of Borneo states without their explicit consent.
This writer proposes that besides focusing on the number of seats in Dewan Rakyat allocated to Sabah and Sarawak, the discussion should not undermine the representation of the two states at the Upper House. This should be viewed as part of the effort to strengthen the voice of Sabah and Sarawak within the Federal Legislature.
Pathways to Reform
Drawing from the collected documents (as in the references), three key reforms are essential to transforming the Senate into a credible legislative body:
1. Institutionalizing Executive Accountability
The Senate must not be a secondary chamber for answers. The Dewan
Negara has long pushed for a mechanism similar to the Dewan Rakyat’s "Minister’s Question Time" (MQT). A dedicated slot where full Ministers (not deputies) must answer to Senators is vital. As argued by Senate leadership in 2016, you cannot "tie up the ministers unless it is important," but issues of national interest debated in the Senate are important. Procedural reforms must compel ministerial attendance.
2. Diversifying Representation
Most recently in the UK Parliament, a bill to remove all remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords was approved and received Royal Assent; this ends a centuries-old tradition in order to modernise the institution, preventing it from degenerating into an ageing old-boys' network. Back home in Malaysia, the perception of the Senate as a political "retirement village" must end. The proposal to appoint Youth Senators offers a refreshing avenue for relevance. By reserving seats for competent individuals under 30 or experts in emerging fields (technology, climate change), the Senate can provide perspectives often missing in the political bickering of the Lower House. Appointments should be meritocratic and inclusive, moving away from purely political rewards.
3. Strengthening the Committee System
The academic analysis on parliamentary reform points to the necessity of Select Committees. The Senate has the luxury of time and a "calmer" atmosphere compared to the Lower House. It should leverage this by establishing robust Select Committees to review bills and budgets in detail before they are voted on. This would allow the Senate to provide the "second thought" that the constitution envisaged, focusing on technical quality and human rights compliance rather than partisan bickering.
Conclusion
The Dewan Negara stands at a crossroads. It shall not be taken as a ceremonial appendage, but it can seize the momentum for reform to become a true legislative partner. The blueprints for improvement (restoring the federal-state balance, enforcing ministerial accountability, and diversifying membership) are already on the table. It is not a lack of ideas that holds the Senate back, but a lack of political will to loosen executive control. For the sake of a maturing Malaysian democracy, the Senate must and can be allowed to find its teeth and be relevant to the livelihood of the people.
YB Lau Weng San
Speaker Dewan Negeri Selangor.
