花3.55億抗通膨保飯碗，雪州用特別州議會示範負責任施政

        這裡要和讀者分享一則新聞。雪州州務大臣阿米於過去週五在雪州立法議會正式推介第二階段，總值將近2.1億令吉的雪州韌性強化配套。兩個月前，雪州政府推出第一階段總值將近1.45億令吉的韌性強化配套。兩個階段的配套加起來一共就是3.55億令吉。

        當讀者們的眼球大多聚焦在許多不事生產和沒有經濟效益的事情，例如柔森兩州州選、國盟內部分裂甚至是羅興亞難民遭排斥一事的時候，雪州州務大臣此時反高潮，跟大家談“韌性強化”配套，彷彿在告訴大家：“我拿3.55億令吉出來，就是不跟你搞政治！”

        這次特別會議在召開前有部分嗅覺特別敏感的媒體以為這是不是我們也要解散州立法議會？事關柔佛州務大臣翁哈菲茲曾經計劃在6月24日召開特別州議會。據消息報導翁哈菲茲打算在會議上宣布解散州立法議會。可能這樣令人有所遐想，以為雪州也來搞這套。

        或許這次特別州議會另一個特別之處，也是許多人不大留意的就是州務大臣選擇在州立法議會宣布如此重大的配套，而不是通過文告、記者會或社交媒體帖文。

        理論上，州行政議員和州務大臣都是民選州議員，必須向州立法議會負責。有鑑於此，如果在會議期間，州務大臣或行政議員在立法議會宣布重大政策，這是良好施政其中一個最佳的典範。通過這樣的方式，議員們除了能夠獲得第一手的資料，也可以現場提問和諮詢相關行政議員，獲得更進一步的答案。

別讓巫統的貪婪再次綁架選民

 

       兩週前，我在本欄寫了一則題為《柔佛選民必須打敗巫統》的文章。文章見報後隔天晚上，森美蘭州務大臣阿敏奴丁也宣布獲得州統治者御準解散州議會。本屆森州州議會任期其實還不到三年，這次州務大臣解散州議會，明顯是逼於無奈。恭喜森州巫統，他們終於如願以償了。

        令人預想不到的是，選舉委員會最後決定把柔森兩州選舉期完全錯開。迄今，選委會尚未提供令人信服的理由。這點我們還是要求選委會給予完整的解釋。選委會不應該以為只要隨便給個答案就可以當作交代。

        過去由於巫統一黨獨大，因此國州議會幾乎都是在同一個時期解散，然後在同一天進行提名和投票。自2008年的政治大海嘯導致五個州政權落入在野黨手中，2013年是第一次出現輿論，擔心當年的國州議會可能在不同時間解散。最終這些由民聯執政的州屬還是跟著聯邦政府的步伐一起解散州議會，沒有為國家人民添亂。

        2018年的國州議會也是同期解散。除了國陣在解散前在國會硬生生通過不公平的選區劃分之外，在野黨執政的州屬完全沒有故意分開選舉。

        事情在國盟於2020年通過喜來登行動奪權後才惡化。首先國盟首相慕尤丁為了拿下沙菲益領導的沙巴州政府，在沙巴州大撒金錢，造成政治不穩定。沙菲益當機立斷在當年7月解散州議會，州選則落在9月26日。

        2020年喜來登行動也導致馬六甲首席部長由巫統的蘇萊曼取代希盟誠信黨的阿德里。沒想到的一年後竟然發生甲州巫統對蘇萊曼的領導有意見，結果他們策動內部政變，導致蘇萊曼被迫在該州在2021年10月解散州議會，讓路於同年11月20日的州選。

        砂州選舉本來在2021年6月就自動解散。無奈當時我國正處於緊急狀態，因此所有選舉都無法進行。當最高元首於11月3號解除緊急狀態之後，砂州州選才能在當年12月18日進行。

其實幾乎整個2020年和2021年，我國如果不是在緊急狀態之中，便是處於行動管制令之中。黎民百姓不是擔心病死就是擔心餓死。學童們因長期待在家中，導致學習進展嚴重受損。這兩年根本不是舉行選舉的年份，可是國盟和國陣為了權力鬥爭，卻可以把選民的利益置之不理。

時間來到2022年1月，柔佛州務大臣哈斯尼突然宣布解散州議會。當時我和團隊在永平和新山兩地助選。到了3月12日的投票日，我還記得當時我的團隊在永平州選區的一個投票站站崗。當時所有選民出門投票還必須戴上口罩。現場所有人，包括選民、選舉官員、檢票員和算票員全部都必須保持一米距離。總的來說，選舉過程非常緩慢且耗時耗力。

國陣巫統在這場州選大獲全勝。這樣一來，黨內的官司派和官職派開始出現競爭，引發同年10月解散國會。巫統這麼做以為可以複製柔州州選的勝利，以便能夠把官司派的法庭案件，包括納吉所面對的貪腐案件全都予以撤銷。

可惜人算不如天算，巫統勝出的國會議席竟然從2018年的54席銳減至26席。

如果當時不是發生懸置議會，導致最高元首諭令各黨派組織團結政府，巫統在缺乏政治資源的情況下還能生存到今天嗎？現在柔森兩州被迫迎來兩場完全沒有必要的州選，難道不是巫統貪婪成性所造成的嗎？

我希望選民能夠溫習這段歷史，因為它似乎正在重演，可惜巫統根本不曾從歷史錯誤中學習。

劉永山

雪蘭莪州立法議會議長

不褪色墨汁貨源考驗柔森州選的選舉管理

        選舉委員會在上周五宣布柔佛和森美蘭州選舉的提名和投票日。由於選委會這兩個毗鄰州屬的州選完全分開，引起全國嘩然。

        首先登場的柔佛州選舉將會於6月27日提名和7月11日投票，森美蘭州則是在相隔一周，即7月18日提名和8月1日投票。這四個日期全部落在星期六。必須提醒的是，目前柔佛州政府部門週休還是落在週五和週六。目前不清楚這和選委會把投票日定在週六而不是週日有關係。

        這裡還有一組日期給讀者參考，那就是國會下議院會議將會從6月22日開會至7月16日。上議院則從7月20日開會至8月4日。這意味柔森兩州競選期將會和國會上下議院會議重疊。因此，希盟和巫統的正副部長助選之餘，也必須兼顧在國會的任務。更甚的是，首相安華預計將在這次國會會議提呈多項重大體制改革草案，朝野議員一般必須在國會駐守。因此，選委會這樣安排其實對正副部長來說是相當吃力的。

        選民之所以嘩然，因為在過去選委會本身多次強調國州選舉同期進行，以便優化資源，節省時間。可是這一次，選委會卻給人言行不一的感覺。選委會主席更是提到他們面對物流和貨源不足的問題。

        到底這是不是選委會的真實原因，還得由選委會解釋清楚。但是管理選舉本身就是一門學問。選委會在十年前就成立屬於本身的選舉學院，即Akademi Pilihan Raya，以便能夠定期訓練所需的官員。因此我認為選委會所面對的人力問題是可以解決的。

        反而，我認為選委會面對最大的問題就是物流問題，也就是不褪色墨汁的供應。這種含有硝酸銀（Silver Nitrate）活性成分的墨汁有其使用限期。選委會不能購買大量墨汁囤貨，因為一旦超過一年沒用，其有效性將會大打折扣。

你觀賞的世界盃比賽不便宜

 

       四年一次的國際足聯世界盃（FIFA World Cup）將於6月12日開幕。此次世界盃將會在北美洲三國，即加拿大、美國和墨西哥進行。對許多馬來西亞足球迷來說，或許這只是四年一次的足球賽事而已。

        可是，在數碼化的浪潮之下，本屆世界盃將與以往大不相同。首先過去20年來，馬來西亞球迷主要透過付費電視，即寰宇電視觀看世界盃。

        然而，今年該公司未能獲得這項全球體育盛事的主要轉播權，據說是因為高昂轉播費造成。你可能以為今年我們無法觀賞世界盃了。不是的。既然寰宇支付不了，團結政府來個平台直播，可謂功德無量。

        通訊部長法米確認，馬來西亞球迷可以透過RTMKlik和Unifi TV營運的平台觀看世界盃的全部104場比賽。不久前，數碼部長哥賓星更是拋出一大喜訊，馬來西亞球迷只要下載MyGOV並註冊MyDigital ID，就可以免費觀賞全部賽事。

日本和平憲法給大馬拒絕神權政治的一堂課

        就在大家聚焦在柔森兩州政局，首相安華自6月8號到10號官訪日本。

        根據媒體報導，安華將會出席6月9日舉辦的“日經論壇” （Nikkei Forum）。期間安華也將會拜會日本首相高市早苗。安華是次出訪日本也符合我國外交立場。在2023年12月，馬日兩國正式將外交關係提升為“全面戰略夥伴關係”。根據網路資料，馬來西亞目前的“全面戰略夥伴”為數不多，就只有美國、中華人民共和國、印度、日本、澳洲和越南。即便是鄰國新加坡、印尼、泰國和汶萊以及前殖民地宗主國英國都不是馬來西亞的“全面戰略夥伴”。

        什麼是“全面戰略夥伴關係”？這是一個外交術語，表示兩國的關係僅次於盟友的關係。這表示馬日兩國領袖和商民在所有方面都會出現更頻密和密切的合作與交流。它是僅次於“同盟關係”的高級別外交關係。

        它意味著馬日兩國在政治、經濟、安全與文化等多個領域，建立起具有戰略性與全面性的深度合作，但不具備軍事同盟的自動參戰義務。即便是國防合作，雖然它不具備軍事同盟強制協防義務，但是日本海上自衛隊過去持續援助大馬皇家海軍，是共同維護亞太地區和平穩定的良善力量。

柔佛選民必須打敗巫統

 

       柔佛州議會何時解散？當輿論還來不及討論和推敲之下突然獲得答案。事情的發展確實令人覺得反高潮。 

        接下來問題是：現在是否應該解散州議會？ 

        有人認為這個問題不重要，畢竟州議會已經解散了。我的看法相反，我們應該把這個問題拋給柔州選民回答，由他們來決定是否應該支持解散州議會的國陣政府。 

        先從時間線來看。上屆柔佛州議會是在2022年4月21日宣誓就任，這表示柔州州議會的5年任期將會在2027年4月22日正式解散。 

Moving Beyond the "Rubber Stamp" Revitalizing the Dewan Negara for a Mature Democracy

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.