PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

Teacher: Mr.William Anthonysamy Malaysian Studies Group Assignment

CONTENTS Topics Page

Cabinet Parliament Parliamentary Monarchy Parliamentary Hybrid Unicameral System Malaysian Parliament

Cabinet Parliament
A cabinet is a group of government officials and in some countries is known as the Council of Ministers. It is the central decisionmaking group. This usually applies in countries that uses the Westminster system. The cabinet decides the tactical direction and the policy of the countries. However, in countries with a presidential system, the cabinet does not work as a collective legislative influence. They will work as an official advisory council to the head of the government. This means that the president gets opinions and advice for upcoming decisions from the cabinet. Besides that, the cabinet officials will administer executive branch government agencies or departments. Sitting members of the legislature will appoint the members of the cabinet and they will remain as members of the legislature while serving the cabinet. In Malaysia, members of the cabinet are appointed from the lower house of Parliament also known as the Dewan Rakyat.

Typically the members of the cabinet are given the title Ministers. They will each hold a different responsibility and duty for the government. The size of cabinets varies but usually they will consist of around 10 to 20 ministers. Researchers have discovered an inverse correlation between a countrys level of development and the cabinet size. On average, the more developed the country is, the smaller its cabinet will be. Historically, cabinets originated as smaller sub-groups of the English Privy Council which was a formal body of advisors to the Sovereign in the UK. The term cabinet comes from the name for a relatively small and private room used as a study. Under the Westminster system, members of the cabinet are collectively responsible for all government policy. All of the ministers of the cabinet whether senior or junior must publicly support the policy of the government, regardless of any private reservations.

In theory, all cabinet decisions are taken collectively by the cabinet. In practice however, many decisions are represented to the various sub-committees of the cabinet, which will then report the the full cabinet on their findings and recommendations. After all these recommendations have been agreed by the ministers of the cabinet who are holding the affected ministerial portfolios, the recommendations will then usually be agreed upon by the full cabinet with little or no further discussion. There are some documents related to the cabinet which are confidential. These documents are known as cabinet deliberations Cabinet documentations associated with such deliberations will only be publicly released after a considerable period of time after the cabinet disbands. The relationship between the cabinet and prime minister is quite significant. Since the prime minister is the person from whom the head of state will ultimately take advice on the exercise of executive power, which includes the expulsion of ministers from the cabinet and the reshuffle of the portfolios in the cabinet, this causes the prime minister to have a high degree of control over the cabinet. Usually the spreading of responsibilities among the cabinet for the overall government is done by the prime minister and it is a matter of preference.

Advantages

Cabinet system was created in a parliamentary system during the past because it benefits the society with the equality and fairness. A parliamentary system that uses cabinet system is more probable to avoid contradictions and disagreements between cabinet members of the executive branch because the cabinet system is that it effectually produces plans for legislation, and the limited number of members in the cabinet allows for decisions to be made relatively swiftly.

Besides that, cabinet system also benefits party and personal loyalty to the prime minister who is the leader of the system. Solidarity within the cabinet can strengthen the prime minister's party and accelerate policy decisions and interests of that party. Presidential democracies often lack the ability to pass legislation in times of emergency or instances of national security.

Also, the existence of a shadow cabinet, which is made up of members of the opposition party, means the actions of the current cabinet are constantly under scrutiny.

Disadvantages

As time passes after generations, the hunger of greed starts growing in the leaders. Critics of parliamentary democracies say that the prime minister as head of the parliament has too much power in the passing of legislation. Because cabinet system forces the cabinet ministers to publicly agree with the prime minister's decisions, political debate and internal discourse is hindered.

As all members of a cabinet have the same political allegiance, it cannot be said that a wide range of society members are represented when legislation is discussed. This could lead to an unbalanced legal system which might results unfairness in the society. When disagreements occur within the cabinet, collective agreements can be nearly impossible, resulting in the stoppage of policy change and new legislation. Cabinet system is then

dependent on the mutual agreement and collective unity of the cabinet and its members.

Recent reports from the United Kingdom propose that cabinet government has "progressively weakened" since the World War II, and virtually disappeared under Prime Minister Tony Blair which was in office starting from 2 May 1997 until 27 June 2007. The corrupted parliamentary system has a big effect on the cabinet system and how it supposed to benefit the society.

PARLIAMENTARY MONARCHY

What is a parliamentary monarchy? A parliamentary monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch represents head of state. It differs from absolute monarchy in which serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution. Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the Monarch may have strictly Ceremonial duties or may have Reserve Powers, depending on the constitution. They have a directly or indirectly elected prime minister who is the head of government, and exercises effective political power. As in most republics, a constitutional monarchy's executive authority is in the head of state. Today constitutional monarchy is frequently combined with representative democracy, and represents a

compromise between total trust in the political class, and in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth. Though the king or queen may be regarded as the government's symbolic head, it is the Prime Minister who actually governs the country. Frequently, monarchical institutions have played crucial roles in thwarting coups d'etat efforts, and the overthrow of democratic institutions by fascist or communist movements. For example, the attempted 23-F coup in Spain in 1981, the 1981 and 1985 coup attempts in Thailand. In the Spanish and Thai cases action taken by the king proved decisive; in the case of Grenada the call for outside assistance was made by the Governor-General (Sir Paul Scoon). Contemporary constitutional monarchies include Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Granada, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.

The Advantages of a Parliamentary Monarchy A common feature of governments based on the UK system is that the Head of State is separated from the Head of Government. The monarch can therefore serve as a head of state and represent the country while the day-to-day running of the country is carried out by the government, with the Head of Government being the Prime Minister. Another good reason is that having a monarchy can stop collapse of the country. In 1981, the Spanish Government were taken hostage in a coup; King Juan Carlos responded with a televised speech denouncing the coup and urging people to stand up for their democratic government; soon it was restored. Thailand avoided two similar attempts around that time thanks to their monarchy. Furthermore, they need not elect a new person for a new term to reduce a heavy amount of expenditures in an election and also they are frequently more respected as compared to an elected person as he or she is only in for a term only.

Finally, the king or the queen symbolizes a historical authority whom has served the nation in history.

The Disadvantages of a parliamentary monarchy Many a time, in a parliamentary monarchy, IF a single person rules in a state for a long time (mostly for a life time), the citizens of the country will not have a chance to remove him or her if he or she is not functioning according to the will of the people. Furthermore, when a person has knowledge that he or she has authority for a lifetime, he or she will not have the intentions to work for the betterment of the citizen of the state as he or she knows that they are not answerable to anyone. Finally, it can cost money to keep and often serves no apparent purpose other than to keep traditions going. Some monarchies have existed alongside fascist dictatorships, such as in Italy.

References: <http://www.monarchist.org.uk/constitutionalmonarchy.html> Official website of the British Monarchy. Retrieved 8 March 2013. <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Advantages_and_disadv antages_of_a_constitutional_monarchy> Wiki Answers. Retrieved 8 March 2013.

Parliamentary Hybrid
Parliamentary hybrid is a system where two political system combine together to dictate the country. Generally, Hybrid refers to a system where the president has been elected separately and shares the executive power with the Prime Minister. This system was named in 1978 given by the political scientist Maurist Duverger to describe the French Fifth-republic. It is also known as semi-presidential system. France is one of the country that practice this system. Other than that, Finland, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Haiti, Kenya and Syria also practice this system to rule the country. As we all know, the French system is the hybrid model most often cited as semipresidential system. In this system, the President has broad powers. For example, the President nominates the Prime Minister and selects his own cabinet, over which he presides. The President, his cabinet and attending bureaucracy initiate and draft most legislation. The French President, like some others in hybrid systems, has some areas where his power is well defined, such

as in the conduct of foreign affairs. The legislature of France is totally different with parliamentary system. They cannot force the resignation of the President but the President may dissolve the parliaments Lower House, the National Assembly. The President can also remove the Prime Minister who is effectively the head of the cabinet and legislature. Similar to the parliamentary model, the National Assembly can also force the government (the Prime Minister and legislative leaders) to resign by passing a motion of censure. Thus, in the French model, while the Prime Minister is vulnerable to removal from both the legislature and the President, the President cannot be removed prior to the end of his/her electoral term. Where as in Finland, by contrast, this particular aspect of the separation of powers is explicitly stated in the constitution: "foreign policy is led by the president in cooperation with the cabinet". The French hybrid system functions more smoothly when the majority party in parliament is also the party of the President, but this needs not always be the case. However, this system has sometimes resulted in a situation of cohabitation, whereby the separately elected President may face a Prime Minister and

majority party in the legislature from a party different than his own. This case already occurred in years 1993 and 1997. This situation has the potential to combine the possible negative aspects of both presidential and parliamentary systems, leading to conflict and deadlock. As in a parliamentary system, party discipline is encouraged, as deviation would potentially bring down the majority party and its Prime Minister. At the same time, party discipline may discourage cooperation with the President, paralyzing the policy-making process. This prospect is tempered by the fact that the President can dissolve parliament and remove the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is encouraged to play a balancing role, as he or she must maintain the confidence of both the President and the legislature. If we draw a picture of the French political system, it does not looks like the British system because France has President to order the country. It also would not look like American system because there are parliament and prime minister in France.

UNICAMERAL SYSTEM
1. CHARACTERISTICS
There are a few different types of legislatures that can be formed in a parliament. One of these is the unicameral system. It is one of the most prevalent and easily identified types of parliamentary systems. The most distinguishing feature about this parliamentary system is that it only has one legislative chamber, which can also be known as a parliamentary chamber. This system of having just one legislative chamber is practiced in various countries.

However, they are most commonly found in homogenous unitary countries which are rather small, whereby the practice of having two or more legislative chambers is seen to be pointless. This was due to the fact multicameralism was seen as pointless for various reasons. Multicameralism primarily exists on the basis that different social or ethnic classes were to be guaranteed representation. However, certain countries would have a weak regional identity, leading there to be no need for multicameralism. A rare few countries like New Zealand abolished the multicameralism and adopted a unicameral system. A few other countries on the other hand merged the two different chambers into one, like Sweden for instance. This system can be most commonly found in Communist states. In these states, the parliament would be the overall ruling power. Approximately half the worlds sovereign state practices the unicameral system. These countries range from China, the worlds most populous state and Vatican, the least most populous state.

Advantages of Unicameral System

The proposed of unicameral system have a few advantages over the present of the bicameral system. Firstly, the present of bicameral system allow an institutional gridlock between the senate and the House of Representatives because the bifurcated organizational structure and divergent selection processes involved, open the upper and lower chambers to control by opposing political parties. Moreover, the proposed unicameral system bars any institutional gridlock, because the Senate will be merged with the House of Representatives, which will be the unicameral Congress. Therefore, the party that assumes majority control of Congress, assumes undivided legislative powers. Secondly, because the separated organizational structure and independent selection processes involved, open the

legislative and executive branches to control by opposing political parties. Furthermore, the President will be merged with Congress, which will be the Parliament. Thus, the party that assumes majority control of the Parliament, also assumes the power to elect the chief executive. Lastly, the election system for president and the Senators is only for rich and famous candidates, because the selection process involves direct national elections at large. The rich candidates that can afford to spend billions to campaign and make themselves known to the country voters nationwide. The famous candidates are the entertainment, sports and media celebrities who no longer need not campaign nationwide because they are already known to the nation voters at large. Rich and famous candidates thrive their best in direct national elections at

large where popularity generally takes precedence over performance.

DISADVANTAGES

As with any other thing, this system too has its failings. The most dominant disadvantage of this system is the lack of restraint that is laid upon the majority. This is most clearly seen where the leaders of the legislative system is also heading the executive system. This flaw is a cause for the downfall of a legislative system. Because without anyone to curb the absolute power held by only one chamber, the system eventually fails itself. After all, who is watching the watchers? The practise of this unique system also brings about another flaw. This detriment is the possibility of certain social or ethnic classes being underrepresented, or worse yet not having a single representative in the parliament. In turn, this causes the welfare and issues of the minorities to be neglected or overlooked in favour of the majority. Careful

consideration of certain policies and rules can be easily overlooked since there is no true curb to their power. The passage of bills could be affected by the fickle feelings of humankind. Furthermore, the use of a multicameral system ensures that a lot of people would work together to pass a bill. This system would curb the production of horrible bills and policies. In addition, it is also easier to alter the structure of a parliament than to correct their flaws. By having more than one legislative chamber, it will ensure that the entire parliamentary system will be kept in system.

Malaysian Parliament
Definition: A parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state which features a fusion of power rather than a separation of power among the executive and legislative instituitions and power. In Malaysia, the parliamentary system is based on the Westminster system, a democratic parliamentary system of government shaped after the politics of the United Kingdom. (typically found in Commonwealth of Nations). The bicameral (mixed government) practiced in Malaysia consists of the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat) and the Senate (Dewan Negara). Third component of the Parliament is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of the State.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16608580/The-Parliamentary-System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Malaysia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

Characteristics
The main function of the Parliament is to be responsible for examining, passing, amending and repealing federal laws and policies, approving the governments expenditures and new taxes and also act as the forum for debate regarding national affairs. The Parliament is divided into three components: Yang di-Pertuan Agung, Dewan Negara and Dewan Rakyat.

Yang Di Pertuan Agong as the Supreme Head of State in Malaysia.The power of the head of state is limited, it is mainly a symbolic display of the nations sovereignty.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong has the rightful power to uphold and protect the rights, customs and traditions of the Malay people and also the administration of the Islamic religion in each state as His

Royal Highness holds the position as the Islamic Religious Head for the States of Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak, and the Federal Territories.

The Parliament is subordinate to the Head of State, the Yang diPertuan Agong, under Article 39 of the Constitution : The executive authority of the Federation shall be vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and exercisable, subject to the provisions of any federal law and of the Second Schedule, by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet, but Parliament may by law confer executive function on other persons. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Malaysia#Article_39 http://www.malaysia.gov.my/EN/Main/MsianGov/GovParliament/P ages/GovParliament.aspx The Dewan Rakyat consists of 222 members of Parliament (MPs) which are elected from general elections held every five years or when Parliament is dissolved by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister. Each member represents a constituency. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints the Prime Minister, the Head of Government from the Dewan Rakyat to head the Cabinet (the executive branch of Malaysia's

government) , whose members are appointed by the Yang diPertuan Agong on the prime minister's advice. The Dewan Negara consists of 70 members, appointed to a three-year term for a maximum of two terms. Members of Parliament are permitted to speak on any subject without fear of censure outside Parliament; the only body that can censure an MP is the House Committee of Privileges. exception to this rule are portions of the constitution related to the social contract, such as the Articles governing citizenship, Bumiputra (Malays and indigenous people) priorities, the Malay language, criticising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and judges. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints the Prime Minister, who is the Head of Government but constitutionally subordinant to His Royal Highness, from the Dewan Rakyat.

According to the Article 43 of the Constitution, members of the Cabinet can only be selected from members of either houses of Parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Malaysia

Firstly, some believe that it is easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. Therefore, this would amount to the executive possessing more votes in order to pass legislation. However, in a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature.

Accordingly the executive within a presidential system might not be able to properly implement his or her platform/manifesto. It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily instituted within a parliamentary system. Besides that, a parliamentary system has appealing features for nations that are ethnically or racially divided. In a parliamentary system, power is more evenly divided as compared to a presidential system where executive power is concentrated in the president. This particular feature is vital in such nations as there wont be a case where there is an imbalance in political power between different races which in turn would cause racial unrest. Furthermore, power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of a parliamentary system. The premier seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a political party and its political ideas rather than voting for an actual individual person. There are also no impediments to leadership change in a parliamentary system. The important difference between the two is that while the leader of a parliamentary system can be forced to resign and call an election at any time, presidents serve fixed

terms and cant be removed until their terms are over. Parliament can also vote a governing body out of office.

Also, the ministries are in constant touch with legislature, whereby the opposition party reviews every policy of the government carefully .It means that, the government will be alert to what is good to the country because the opposition will give their feedback on every government policy. In a parliamentary system, the government cannot be despotic. For example, the government cannot adopt a policy which will be opposed or dislike by the public because this will affect the confidence of the public towards the existing government which in turn can cause the government to be dissolved. Lastly, countries that have a parliamentary system have a higher tendency towards democracy. Some political scientists may conclude that parliamentary systems are more democratic as compared to presidential systems. This is because within a parliamentary system, both the legislature and the chief executive must be in agreement on policies.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19220289/Democracy-inMalaysia http://www.scribd.com/doc/16608580/The-ParliamentarySystem

Disadvantages

The timing of elections can be abused by the ruling party in a parliament.This is due to a lack of a standard election calendar.The ruling party can delay elections from happening,thus extending their rule over the supposed limit of years as compared to the presidential system which only allows a limited amount of years before another presidential election is called.This allows the ruling party to conduct the elections whenever they are confident of sealing victory.In times of unpopularity,they can choose to delay the election to avoid defeat and hence a loss of

power.For example,Barisan Nasional has been delaying our nations very own election for a number of months now due to a reported fear of losing the major vote.This allows more time for them to win over the hearts of the people in that delayed time frame.This will probably lead to a major change in electoral results favouring them. Also,candidates who have a significant number of supporters in a nations community are unable to run for the prime ministers post as it does not resemble the presidential system whereby anyone can run for office.Prime ministers could also lose their position if they lose their seat in parliament due to a loss in their own constituency.This might damage the country in times of transition if he still is supported by the vast majority of society. Another major flaw in the parliamentary system is that there isnt any independent body to oppose a certain legislation or law that is passed by the government.In some cases,this might lead to an imbalance in legislative power. There is also very little incentive for larger parties or coalitions to listen to very small party issues or ideas,which results in small opinion being flat-out ignored.

Major coalitions who seek to gain power also need to establish an understanding amongst their constituent parties.If this general consensus is not achieved,an instability occurs in that countries leading coalition.For example,in our own backyard,the opposition parties like PKR and DAP have yet to agree on the Islamic State Law which was proposed by PAS.If they were to win the election,this issue and many others to come will be a thorn in their side and might lead to instability and unrest in our country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system http://enfranchise.wordpress.com/advantages-disadvantages-ofa-parliamentary-system/ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_advantages_and_disadv antages_of_parliamentary_and_presidential_systems