A tale of 2 parliaments

No legislative body is perfect, and certainly no legislator is immune to emotional response, knee-jerk reaction and shouting matches.

However, as the Malay proverb goes, “buangkan yang keruh, ambil yang jernih” (discard the bad, take in the good), there is no harm in doing a comparative analysis and emulate some of the better aspects of our British and American counterparts.

Firstly, the UK Parliament witnessed an intense debate this week concerning the motion to launch airstrikes in Syria. Prime Minister David Cameron argued that it was necessary to hit the de facto Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) capital, Raqqa and its oil-trading business to shrink the terror group’s operations in eastern Syria.

In some ways, the motion was an expansion of what was already happening in Iraq. British airstrikes in Iraq against Isis (which they now prefer to call Daesh) have been taking place for over a year, with British planes and combat drones having struck more than 380 targets.

After more than 10 hours of tense debate and impassionate speeches, lawmakers voted in favour of airstrikes, by 397 to 223.

Now, why did the speaker of the House of Commons allocate sufficient time for numerous members of Parliaments (MP) from both sides to argue their case?

Why didn’t he just say, like one of our deputy speakers when he refused to allocate more time to debate the motion to suspend the MP from Gelang Patah, “Duduk lah Yang Berhormat. Tak payah lah. Akhirnya undi berbelah bahagi juga.” ?

Before the British MPs enter the House of Commons, Cameron already has the motion in the bag with tacit support of Conservative MPs and some Labour MPs.

In a move that was clearly pre-planned, RAF Tornado jets carried out bombing just hours after the motion was approved. So why did British MPs and the Speaker go through the torment of 10 hours of debate?

Because sometimes, the process was just as important as the outcome. If they have just jumped into voting and vote count, even though the “ayes” will be in the majority, they would have undermined the British Parliament by reducing it to a rubber stamp.

The very essence of the legislative body is to provide the platform for elected representatives to bring up the issues that matter to the people they represent, and to be given sufficient time and space to debate those issues.

When MPs are not given their due time and space to express themselves, it is equivalent to subverting the House and compromising the very foundation of the nation’s democracy which creates the House for such purposes (in our case, the Constitution).

Denial of MPs’ right to function as they ought to be is tantamount to going against the purposes of the Parliament and the Constitution. That is why our MPs must debate the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement (TPPA), not just voting yes or no.

Secondly, shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn broke rank with the leader of the Labour Party and leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.

Benn’s eloquent speech supporting the airstrikes gathered much media attention and applause in the House, while Corbyn issued a dire warning of far-reaching consequences if the UK rushed into using military action with no strategic exit plan.

Now here they are, the two most influential figures in the Labour Party, sitting next to each other in the House, with completely opposing views on the motion.

Did they smear each other’s reputation? Did they accuse each other of betrayals and mutiny? Did Corbyn sack Benn for not agreeing with him? No. Well, at least not yet.

In fact, the shadow Foreign Secretary began his speech by lambasting the prime minister for refusing to apologise to Corbyn and his Labour allies for accusing them as “terrorist sympathisers”.

Benn, who said he is not supporting military action just two weeks ago (that’s for another article), defended his colleague saying, “although my right honourable friend the leader of the opposition and I will walk into different division lobbies tonight, I am proud to speak from the same despatch box as him.

My right honourable friend is not a terrorist sympathiser, he is an honest, a principled, a decent and a good man.

“Now Mr Speaker, we have had an intense and impassioned debate and rightly so, given the clear and present threat from Daesh, the gravity of the decision that rests upon the shoulders and the conscience of every single one of us and the lives we hold in our hands tonight. And whatever decision we reach, I hope we will treat one another with respect,” he said.

Corbyn sat stone-faced throughout Benn’s speech, but he did not stage a press conference to denounce his colleague either. Many of our politicians, from both sides, have much to learn from their British counterparts in terms of maturity and mutual respect.

Thirdly, right after Benn delivered his speech as the shadow foreign secretary, the foreign secretary stepped up and delivered his. The prime minister and Leader of the opposition also responded to each other’s remarks.

This is what it should be like. We shouldn’t be content with any MPs rebutting representatives from the other side. The opposition as a coalition ought to present themselves as the alternative government, with its own organised shadow cabinet.

With this, we will know that a person speaking as shadow cabinet member is doing so with authority, and an authorised spokesperson for the whole coalition on that matter.

Fourthly, many speeches from the UK MPs are worth listening, and are substantive. They came prepared, though unfortunately not all have a keen understanding of the gravity and complexity of their decision.

An effective MP should come prepared to each session and has done research on the issues that he/she plans to raise. That’s a given. But he/she ought to be given enough time to prepare and research.

Surely, no MPs can be expected to study a bill if they are rushed like the National Security Council Bill. The MPs have less than 24 hours to read the whole bill and prepare their response.

Some did not even read the bill and just voted according to party whip. Besides those things, many of our MPs do not have the patience to listen to the other side and deliberate with care.

The result is a shallow response and empty rhetoric filled with recycled arguments and verbal insults. It might be funny and entertaining, but this is a place to make laws, not cheap-frills drama.

Not to mention, our Parliament is half-empty most of the time. If they (especially senior party leaders) do not even have the basic decency to attend the sitting sessions, we can’t take them seriously.

Fifthly, the UK parliament has a special allocation for the prime minister’s question time. Question time is an opportunity for MPs and members of the House of Lords to ask ministers questions.

The prime minister’s questions are currently held as a single session every Wednesday at noon when the House of Commons is sitting, during which the prime minister spends around half an hour answering questions from.

This is an important step to instil accountability and entrench democracy. When was the last time our premier actually answers questions in the Parliament (excluding written reply)?

In fact, when was the last time he took loads of questions from the press? The nation is craving for answers to the many questions surrounding our political, economic and social issues. People lost a sense of leadership when the leader leads in absence.

If we couldn’t implement this yet at the federal level, I implore each state assembly to start this important political culture in their own states. Particularly, the chief ministers of opposition parties who want to make changes and are in position to do so.

The chief minister’s question time or the menteri besar’s question time will usher a new era of good governance, competency, accountability, and transparency.

Sixthly, we shift our focus to the US Congress where they practice public congressional hearings. A hearing is a meeting or session of a senate, house, joint, or special committee of congress, usually open to the public, to obtain information and opinions on proposed legislation, conduct an investigation, or evaluate/oversee the activities of a government department or the implementation of a federal law.

The most recent prominent example is that of Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi hearing, where the public could view the hearing live on television and the internet. In fact, you could search (on YouTube) hearings on many issues such as strategies to combat Isis, healthcare cost, and the federal reserve’s role in the financial crash.

This is what the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearings can and should be. Why on earth do the Speaker, select committees, PAC, and the witnesses need to be fearful of the public?

There is little risk of prejudice to influence the outcome of PAC investigations because their investigation and report are based on factual and credible document reports and testimonials, not Facebook posts by the Rakyat.

Lest we forget the composition of PAC, the fear of public following of the hearings is unwarranted. But instead of taking a step forward, recently we heard of plans to make PAC members take an oath of secrecy. This is moving even more backward than we are already.

The right steps to reform Parliament are all there. We just have to look at and study how some countries manage to have an effective parliament and functional MPs.

Shouts of reforms ring hollow when one does not take initiative to reform when clearly in position to seize the opportunity for change. – December 5, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.