Full time MP not a good idea

A very strange article by Rachel Chang in yesterday’s ST made me wonder why she wrote it and what made her came to such a conclusion. At the end of her piece she finally said, ‘MPs here rarely draft laws, and the scrutiny process over government Bills is brief and uncomplex compared with other legislatures…no need to travel long distances to get back to their home constituencies from the capital, nor are they required to raise huge amounts of funds for political activities…’ She took note of the Meet the People Session and the increasing workload but not enough to justify full time MP.

There is also a lack of interest among MPs and potential MPs who are successful professionals to want to give up their profession to be full time MPs. The $16,000 is just not attractive enough for the big income earners to want to become full time MPs.

So, which is the more important justification to say that full time MP is not a good idea, not enough meaningful work or the income of professionals is too good to forgo? It is understandable that top income earners would have little inspiration to want to go into politics and to sacrifice their huge personal income. But this can be resolved in two ways, one, make them ministers or ministers of state when the multi million dollar package will be fairly compatible. The other golden goose that could be a good alternative is to allow them to take up as many directorships as they like. After all the workload of an MP does not need the attention of a full time MP. A caveat is that high earning professionals will make good MPs or even ministers. The reality has proven otherwise. Professionals with their hearts misplaced can caused more harm than good.

There are other views of why people want to become an MP. Some see it as a calling, to serve the people and country, and money is not the most important thing to them. A good example is Chen Show Mao. Some may have made enough bucks and would want to do something more meaningful than just trying to fatten their bank accounts for several generations to feed on.

Seriously, who gave Rachel Chang the idea that MP’s workload is nothing more than a part time job? Actually, an MP’s job can be a part time job and also a full time job. It depends on how much the person is willing to put himself into the affairs of the state and the welfare of the people. If an MP thinks his job is to just spend a little time to meet the people, have a few walkabouts, shake a few hands and kiss a few babies, and suka suka attend a few parliamentary sessions since they are not much legislative work to do except to vote yes or no, then it is indeed a part time job. A machine could do just as fine and cheaper for sure. A machine also does not have a heart.

On the other hand an MP could be so involved in the affairs of the state and the people that there is just not enough time even for a full time MP. It is relative and how one looks at the MP job and how important is his role to better the lives of the people in his constituency and across the nation. Voting in parliament without having to think does not need much time, just 30 seconds to raise the hand.

In a way, a PM or a Minister too can be a part time job. But some will need 25 hours a day to do his job well, or still cannot do his job well. And there are MPs that are so free or so efficient that they can take on as many directorships as they like, advisory roles and full time jobs and still got time to spare to play golf or engage in their favourite past times.

What do you think, MP should be part time or full time?

Kopi level - Yellow