[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok) has proposed that Parliament invest in a new IT system that can check attendance and the number of parliamentary questions posed by a Member.
Such information would make it easier for people to hold MPs accountable, he said on Wednesday (September 2) during the debate on the president’s speech.
Currently, some effort is required to obtain the information, including manual counting, he noted. “I urge that such records be more easily available with an online search platform.”
The proposal is one of several he made to improve parliamentary processes, as part of his call for a greater consensus among parliamentarians for a more stable and mature democracy.
Another of his ideas is to establish a parliamentary record of the result of the proposals of the parliamentarians that the ministers had agreed to study.
He said the Hansard, a written record of all parliamentary proceedings, is “replete with examples of head judges providing waiting responses without the ability to check for updates.”
Members of the public who read the Hansard could not tell if the circuit had been closed.
He also wants parliamentarians, whose proposals are accepted by the government, to be recognized in Parliament, and for the people to have access to it.
Another suggestion is that Parliament provide the option to take an MP speech as read and made public.
It would drive the efficiency of the process, so that time in the House is devoted to genuine debate and points of clarification or disagreement, he said. This would avoid repeating points, which is a waste of time.
Ministers should feel free to reprimand MPs who try to debate without having read political speeches, he added.
Currently, the debate during the second reading of the proposed legislation largely comprises parliamentarians who read their speeches when their turn comes, with little time to react to what others have said.
Mr. Murali also asked the civil service to publish and present a document in Parliament that regularly indicates the number of letters that the administrative and statutory boards receive from deputies who present petitions on behalf of their constituents.
The document should indicate whether the substantive response to the MP was within the time period stipulated in the Government Instruction Manual, which specifies policies, standards, regulations, and codes of practice.
He said voters are maturing and have higher expectations of their MPs, looking beyond political affiliations to the real impact they have on their lives.
His proposals, he added, will help ensure that voters have access to information to make informed political choices and decisions.
“Through this (new) process, it would be easier to assess the full diversity of opinions expressed by all parliamentarians and determine, as a matter of record, where the consensus is and where the points of disagreement, if any, are,” said Murali . .
“This will also hold MPs accountable, and our constituents see if we are really devoting our time and attention to parliamentary business or if we are simply complying with motions.”
[ad_2]
