An Open Letter to Indranee Rajah: Here’s a First World Parliament for you

Dear Ms Rajah

I read with interest your rebuttal of Gerald Giam’s letter (ST, Sat Apr 23, 2011).  I am not siding with any party.  I would simply like to present you with my version of a First World Parliament that marries both the ruthless efficiency of the Singapore Parliament with the charming self-deprecation of the English Parliament.

We are all wonderfully aware of how superior to the rest of the world our Parliament is, so much so that any perceived attempts to “block constitutional amendments and other government parties” by the Opposition parties would draw a swift and sharp rebuttal from you. Besides, the Straits Times has devoted many pages (front page, prime news space, etc.) together with prominent headlines to defending our Parliament’s sterling track record of introducing various life-enhancing legislations unopposed.  Why the hell (forgive the use of such an unsavoury word, but I’m only learning from your ex-Army chief comrade) would we want an alternative Parliament modeled after a debt-crisis-ridden country like the United Kingdom?

Hell aside, Ms Rajah, here’s my modest version of a First World Parliament that looks a bit like what we have now and also a bit like what the UK has now.  In short, it’s uniquely First World.  The worth of any parliament should be assessed by the policies it introduces and the rigorous debates that lead to their introduction.  The first half you should be familiar with, the second half probably not because, of course, currently our parliament is largely composed of members from the same party.

Now, now, there’s no need to be agitated.  I’ve heard your arguments – and Sim Ann’s too – that diversity of views can exist within the same party.  But perhaps you suggested that with a tinge of irony?  Surely I don’t have to bring up the name Ong Teng Cheong?  Oops, I’ve done that.  Don’t worry – I’ll smack my broken wrist on your behalf.

Apart from encouraging rigorous, self-critical debates, a First World parliament should also incubate politicians who have the gumption, moxy and gung-ho to initiate debates on so-called controversial issues, such as ministerial pay,  sex education in schools, HDB’s discriminatory policies against singles (where even married PRs seem to enjoy more privileges!!!), and institutionalised discrimination against gender variant individuals in schools, workplaces and the army where we are given three-digit classifications that basically stigmatises us as mentally unstable.

I’m not saying that PAP MPs all sing the same tune.  Take the feisty Lily Neo for example.  She has repeatedly championed the rights of the poor and underprivilged – but to no avail.  Ideally, in a First World Parliament, we would have a critical mass of Opposition Party candidates who would not only dare to champion issues that are “controversial” but who would also be able to block indiscriminate ministerial pay hikes.  Currently the NMPs and NCMPs (what a mouthful!) are not in the position to do so.  Once the vote has been taken, we can then introduce the mutually-agreed upon policies/legislation with the ruthless efficiency we are so famous for.

And the ultimate aim of establishing a First World Parliament would not be to “gain power”, but to seek “accountability”.   This desire is very unique indeed.

---