THE proposal by the Standing Orders Committee to shorten parliamentary speeches ('Less speech time for MPs in Parliament'; last Wednesday) is rather strange given that we are expecting a diverse group of Members of Parliament and Non-Constituency MPs after the impending general election.
The current time limit of 30 minutes is already short to engage in a meaningful debate in the House. Why is there a necessity to shorten it further to 20 minutes?
The argument cited in last Wednesday's report - that other Commonwealth countries are not as generous as Singapore in giving lawmakers time to speak - tells only half the story.
Although parliamentarians in Britain are allowed to speak seven to 15 minutes, and it is five to 20 minutes in Canada and five to 30 minutes in Malaysia, these legislatures meet a lot more times in a year than ours.
The House of Commons in Britain met for 139 days during the 2008-2009 session; the House of Commons in Canada met for more than 120 days last year; and the Malaysian Parliament met for more than 70 days last year.
Our Parliament sits for fewer than 30 days a year and each sitting lasts half a day. In the thick of the financial crisis last year, the House met for only 27 days. That is an average of 2.25 half-days a month for 84 MPs to file questions, debate on policies, and enact laws. On top of that, we have another nine Nominated MPs and one Non-Constituency MP who are supposed to join in the debate as well.
Are we pushing the productivity drive in Parliament a little too far?
It is rather comical to see some of our MPs speaking faster and faster as the clock winds down.
Although we cannot measure a House by the number of times its elected members meet in a year, we would certainly like to see more robust engagement in policymaking and budget debate in Parliament.
Cutting the time limit for MPs and ministers (from 60 minutes to 40 minutes for replies) by more than 30 per cent is not the way to go if we are serious about opening up our political landscape.
(ST Forum, Nov 15, 2010)
The current time limit of 30 minutes is already short to engage in a meaningful debate in the House. Why is there a necessity to shorten it further to 20 minutes?
The argument cited in last Wednesday's report - that other Commonwealth countries are not as generous as Singapore in giving lawmakers time to speak - tells only half the story.
Although parliamentarians in Britain are allowed to speak seven to 15 minutes, and it is five to 20 minutes in Canada and five to 30 minutes in Malaysia, these legislatures meet a lot more times in a year than ours.
The House of Commons in Britain met for 139 days during the 2008-2009 session; the House of Commons in Canada met for more than 120 days last year; and the Malaysian Parliament met for more than 70 days last year.
Our Parliament sits for fewer than 30 days a year and each sitting lasts half a day. In the thick of the financial crisis last year, the House met for only 27 days. That is an average of 2.25 half-days a month for 84 MPs to file questions, debate on policies, and enact laws. On top of that, we have another nine Nominated MPs and one Non-Constituency MP who are supposed to join in the debate as well.
Are we pushing the productivity drive in Parliament a little too far?
It is rather comical to see some of our MPs speaking faster and faster as the clock winds down.
Although we cannot measure a House by the number of times its elected members meet in a year, we would certainly like to see more robust engagement in policymaking and budget debate in Parliament.
Cutting the time limit for MPs and ministers (from 60 minutes to 40 minutes for replies) by more than 30 per cent is not the way to go if we are serious about opening up our political landscape.
(ST Forum, Nov 15, 2010)
3 comments:
Does it matter, the PAP MPS have nothing worthwhile to say. They either sing praises or blow their own trumpets. Perhaps the PAP in anticipating more opposition in Parliament and this is pre emptive
Hey, you can't fault them for being forward looking...
Why do I say that?
I suspect it's because they fear that they are going to lose more seats and are hence taking precautionary measures now...hahah
SOC should think out of the box. Why should same pie be cut into smaller pieces for more "eaters". Can't there be a larger pie? Why so ngiow and narrow? What's the problem with our brains!
Post a Comment