In his letter to malaysiakini, Khoo Kay Peng asked: What is a 'first-world parliament' and '... what should we do in order to reach the level of a first-world nation?'

Personally, I think that it is more appropriate for Malaysia to pursue the aim of a 'first-class parliament' rather than a 'first-world parliament.'

A 'first-class parliament' is a parliament that fulfills its intended objectives effectively. The business of parliament is not to govern the country but to call to account those who do. It is through the criteria of exercising scrutiny and ensuring accountability from the government that the activity of parliament - and its individual MPs - can be meaningfully assessed.

'Scrutiny' implies bipartisan, evidence-based and rational evaluation, aimed at improving governmental policies and avoiding errors.

A 'first-world' parliament, on the other hand, refers to the kind of parliamentary practices upheld by first-world governments. Ostensibly, the fact that a government is in a first-world country does not necessarily imply that it successfully practises a 'first-class parliament'.

It is indeed sad that even as the people have given the Barisan Nasional coalition a 90.4% control of parliament, the minister in charge of parliamentary affairs is not even confident that he can muster 26 members out of a total of 198 to attend parliament to form a quorum.

The excuses given by the honorable minister to condone such unbecoming behaviour include MPs having to perform other more important duties (read 'escapist' activities) and the overly luxurious leather seats that 'cause piles' through long sitting.

University students, however, have never complained about hard timber-strip auditorium benches or plastic chairs, even though they have to sit for long hours every day for three years.

I, however, strongly believe that the real reason for truancy and high absenteeism among members of parliament of the ruling coalition is because parliament has become a meaningless ritual for rubber-stamping governmental policies and actions.

As with any country that practises the Westminster model, members of parliament are not allowed to vote according to conscience but are required to vote at all times in line with the government's position.

While it is obviously expedient for the government of the day to adopt such an approach, it does very little to improve the quality of governmental policies and actions nor helps it to avoid errors in decision-making. This is the inherent weakness of the Westminster model that many countries adopting it are facing.

In Free Votes in Australian and some Overseas Parliaments, Deirdre McKeown and Rob Lundie wrote:

"The Australian Democrats and some independents have called on the major parties to allow a free vote on all issues, arguing that all issues considered in parliament require the application of conscience.

This system is possible in the United States where votes do not bring down the government. The budget deadlock between Democrat President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress that led to the 1995 shutdown of the US government did not bring down the president. But a Westminster government would never have survived this situation.

In the Westminster system, every vote is seen as a vote of confidence in the government of the day. A government must win all votes on the floor of the House.

If political parties agree to a relaxation of the rules governing confidence, there would be a possibility of more free votes.

In theory this would mean that no longer would defeat of government bills be tantamount to a motion of no-confidence, so government MPs would be able to vote against their party without fear that such a vote would bring down the government."

Given that there are two major democratic systems in the world, each with it own inherent strengths and weaknesses, wouldn't it be possible for Malaysia to adopt a hybrid system that would offer this country the best of both worlds?

Rather than going through the mindless motion of a voting ritual where the outcome has already been predetermined at the polls, couldn't the Malaysian government adopt a dual-level voting system that allows for free voting among its members of parliament on the first level and a second voting if necessary, say one month later, based on party lines?

Would not the government want to hear from its own members of parliament what they really think? And where voting is along party lines at the second level, wouldn't the nomination of party leaders to represent their respective parties be more appropriate than forcing its own members to vote for or against something that they may not personally believe in?

Evidently, this dual-level voting is nothing new or novel. Hasn't Dr Mahathir Mohamad introduced this system in regards to royal assent of bills and legislation under the constitutional amendments of 1984? And isn't it true that incorporated companies have been practicing this for a long, long time?

A first-level free voting among members of parliament would obviously encourage and stimulate open debate and provide the signal and danger alert to the government, should its proposals be ill-conceived and not thought through thoroughly.

Alternatively, it may improve the quality of the proposals made by the various ministers so as to bring about better benefits to the country and its people.

To be sure, no single person or group has the monopoly of good ideas. It is therefore well for the government to listen to every view, whether it be from its own members of parliament or from the opposition, so as to improve the effectiveness of its proposals before they are etched in stone.

Should a vote go against the government's proposal, the minister concerned shall go back to the drawing board and make all necessary amendments and refinements to be tabled in a subsequent sitting.

In this subsequent sitting, it shall be the moral responsibility of the minister concerned to explain the rationale for his differing views to parliament and then demand a poll in which nominated party leaders shall have one vote for every member of parliament that it represents.

This obviates the need for mindless voting by members of parliaments who have, in any case, had their say earlier on.

No democratic government intentionally comes out with policies and actions that are aimed at hurting the people that elect them to power. As such, it is likely that even with free voting, the first level of voting would suffice.

However, there may be instances where bitter pills have to be prescribed for the longer term benefit of the people. Under such circumstances, there may be divergent views between the ministers and parliament, in which case, the government, after due and careful consideration of the objections raised, may decide to proceed forthwith with its earlier intention, albeit with appropriate modifications if necessary.

An honest and responsible minister must, however, be prepared to admit to a mistake and promptly withdraw his proposal if such is found to be ill-conceived, and not to proceed forthwith merely to 'save his face'. After all, no single person or group is infallible.

Malaysia has done itself proud by proving to the world how we have successful transformed a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural nation into a peaceful, stable and prosperous country with its own unique brand of governmental policies. In the spirit of "Malaysia Boleh," we can now show the world how we can improve on the Westminster model to better meet the objectives of a first-class parliamentary democracy.

Admittedly, to call ourselves a third-class parliament at this point in time is really an overstatement, what with the high truancy and absenteeism rate in parliament that would have put the most undisciplined school to shame.

A half-dead, underperforming parliament would more appropriately describe the present state of affairs. And Nazri Abdul's remarks, that 'when we want to make changes, we cannot be dictated by what people outside think', does not help at all to keep the policies and actions of the government attuned to the state of public opinion, more so, coming from the minister in charge of parliamentary affairs himself.

The suspension of Lim Boo Chang and Tan Cheng Liang, two MCA state assemblypersons, who abstained from voting against an opposition motion to defer the Penang Outer Ring Road project is an insult to the principles of democracy.

Isn't it ironic that our people's representatives are not allowed to fight for the very people who voted them in? For how can any country, in its right mind, punish thinking members of parliament for speaking up and reward non-thinking ones who merely endorse the government's proposals without giving them even one iota of thought?

Is it not true that the government did eventually come to its senses and made an about-turn that reinstated both state assemblypersons, thereby making a mockery out of its own earlier decision? Isn't it obvious that something is really wrong with our democratic system of government?