New laws promise reform but leave ordinary people on the sidelines

In a democracy, government is not a divine entitlement nor an ethnic or class right. It rests on the people’s trust.

The legitimacy of government arises from an implied contract. People surrender certain freedoms, obey laws, pay taxes and accept regulation. In exchange, they get services that enable their participation in public life. These include fair laws, responsive policies, better hospitals and schools, and safer streets. They are also supposed to get a system that allows them participation in government beyond the ballot.

The people should not be beggars at the gates of power. They are co-authors of governance. They expect services not as charity, but as part of the state’s covenant.

Two recent acts of Parliament raise expectations but fall short of delivering on this democratic promise. The Government Service Efficiency Commitment Act 2025 (GSECA) and the Parliamentary Service Act 2025 (PSA) represent missed opportunities. This note explores the gaps in both.

Government Service Efficiency Commitment Act

The GSECA introduces four laudable principles:

• Service efficiency: Government services should be fast, accessible and user-friendly.
• Governance responsibility: Ethics, transparency and accountability must guide every agency.
• Structural reform: Institutions must evolve with society and technology.
• Regulatory effectiveness: Bureaucratic hurdles must be reduced to encourage civic participation.

To enforce these, the GSECA requires:

• A 25% reduction in regulatory load (the red tape) every three years
• A ‘one in, one out’ rule – new regulations must replace old ones
• Oversight by the chief secretary, who monitors agency service ratings
• Publication of performance reports, influencing budgets and incentives

These are bold steps. But behind the metrics lies a deeper story, one of limitations and missed opportunities.

People left out

The GSECA lacks formal channels for public feedback. Agencies evaluate themselves, but the people, the actual users, have no official way to rate or critique public services. The result is a technocratic feedback loop, measured internally rather than democratically – without beneficiaries having a role.

A truly transformative reform would:

• Build people-led rating platforms and feedback mechanisms.
• Ensure dignity and empathy in every interaction with public services.
• Treat people as co-creators of governance, not peripheral observers.

Efficiency alone is not enough. If the people are excluded, reform becomes performance theatre – clean spreadsheets masking a messy reality.

Civil service – vital but unaccountable

Malaysia’s civil service is a powerful channel for government operations. It implements policies, manages public institutions and delivers essential services.

Yet despite its central role, it remains structurally unaccountable to the people. Civil servants are answerable to their ministries and superiors, not to the public they serve. Performance evaluations are internal, and public complaints often lack formal resolution channels.

Initiatives like the Madani Rakyat programme (PMR) aim to bridge this gap through outreach and communication.

But the absence of institutional mechanisms – such as people-led audits or independent ombudsman oversight – means the civil service operates with limited public scrutiny.

The GSECA could have addressed this by embedding direct accountability to the people. Instead, it reinforces a top-down model. Here, service delivery is measured by internal metrics rather than lived experience.

Soft enforcement

Despite its bold principles, the GSECA lacks teeth: no penalties for underperformance, no corrective action for substandard reports, and just voluntary participation by state governments, risking uneven outcomes.

Most critically, the act omits an institutional safeguard essential for democratic governance: an ombudsman-style office. Such a body could receive complaints, mediate solutions and publish independent reports. Without it, the people are left with no real recourse – and the government, with no honest mirror.

Towards people-centred governance

Reform must go further. It must not only refine bureaucratic systems but also make them more human.

Recommendations:

• Institutionalise public feedback: Build platforms where the public can evaluate and shape services.
• Establish independent oversight: Introduce a public ombudsman to enforce accountability.
• Localise innovation: Let states tailor reforms while aligning with national standards.
• Monitor public servants: Remind them they are servants of the people and make them accountable to the people.

Legislation can require efficiency, but unless the law incorporates a mechanism to enforce its principles, they will remain in the lawbooks as empty aspirations.

Parliamentary Service Act

The PSA has been hailed as a landmark achievement, a revival of the 1963 act with the same name.

It’s seen as a move to restore Parliament’s autonomy from executive control. This separation is vital for a healthy democracy. It ensures that the government of the day can be effectively scrutinised by the people’s representatives.

But by focusing almost exclusively on internal power regulations, the PSA reveals a critical blind spot. It mistakes the mechanism for the purpose. True parliamentary autonomy is not an end in itself. Its legitimacy derives from its ability to enhance Parliament’s accountability to the public.

By staying silent on this crucial aspect, the PSA secures Parliament’s independence from the government but fails to strengthen its bond with the people – the very source of its power.

Beyond rubber-stamping

The theory behind the PSA is sound. For Parliament to perform its core functions – law-making, oversight and representation – it must be equipped with independent resources.

This is unlike a problematic executive-controlled parliamentary service. Here, clerks, researchers and administrators are answerable to a government ministry. This creates an intrinsic conflict of interest. How can a committee clerk pursue a line of inquiry that embarrasses a senior minister, if the clerk’s career prospects depend on the executive? How can a research unit provide unbiased analysis of a government bill if its funding is controlled by the same government?

The PSA corrects this by establishing a Parliamentary Service Commission. This gives Parliament control over its own budget and staff. It’s a necessary and welcome step. It provides the tools for accountability.

Glaring omission

Yet possessing the tools is not the same as using them for the public good.

The PSA’s critical failure is that it does not define how this autonomy should serve the people. It focuses on making Parliament stronger against the executive, but not more accountable to the public.

Three key public-facing roles are missing.

• Duty to report on MPs: An autonomous parliamentary service should publish real-time data on MP attendance, participation in debates, committee work and voting records. This transparency is the bedrock of electoral accountability. Without it, the PSA protects MPs from their constituents rather than empowering constituents to hold MPs to account.
• Duty to explain legislation: Law-making is often shrouded in jargon. Parliament should produce plain-language summaries of every bill. It should create public-facing tools to track a bill’s progress, and act as a neutral public information office. Without this, the legislative process remains a black box.
• Duty to facilitate public commentary: Public participation should not end at the ballot box. A modern Parliament would create formal channels for people to contribute to law-making. This includes digital platforms for public submissions, committee hearings open to civil society, and obligations to respond to the people’s input.

There is sound precedent for such an approach in the way the government is progressing legislation on the right to information. The Centre for Independent Journalism, an NGO, and other similar bodies have been invited to participate, even lead in the drafting of the new legislation.

Guardian of legitimacy

An independent Parliament must do more than manage its own staff; it must serve the public interest by:

• Publicising legislation in the pipeline
• Educating the public on new laws and their implications
• Hosting discussion forums for civic engagement
• Ensuring transparency of debates and committee proceedings

These are not administrative niceties. They are part of the constitutional covenant. Parliament’s legitimacy depends on its visibility, accessibility and responsiveness to the public it serves.

Incomplete revolution

The PSA is an incomplete revolution. It addresses executive dominance but ignores parliamentary opacity. It changes who holds the keys to the building, but does not instruct them to open the windows and let the public see in.

The framework for independence, however, is now established. The challenge for civil society, the media and conscientious MPs is to demand that this framework be used for its proper purpose.

The Parliamentary Service Commission must adopt public accountability functions as part of its core mandate.

Only then will we have a truly open, transparent and participatory Parliament. Until then, this milestone remains only half-crossed. The PSA may be a victory for the institution, but not yet a victory for the people it is meant to serve.

If the GSECA and the PSA are to honour the spirit of constitutional democracy, they must go beyond internal restructuring. They must listen, disclose and engage. They must treat the people not as recipients of governance, but as its rightful co-authors.

Until then, the promise of reform remains unfulfilled because of a lack of inclusion.

The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.

AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama

1. Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
2. Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
3. Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
4. Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
5. Lawan rasuah dan kronisme

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: