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.
Png Eng Huat
