MPs’ low attendance rate unacceptable

I REFER to your report, “No Quorum, So House Adjourned” (the Sun, 25th July), which happened a day after the prime minister had voiced his dissatisfaction with the attendance of his cabinet members and their deputies and hoped it can be improved.

To halt parliament proceedings due to lack of quorum was certainly a black mark and does speak well of our MPs.

With 35 members out of 222 parliamentarians in the hall after the bell was sounded means 15.7% of our elected representatives from both the political divide were present, a low attendance rate by all counts and should not have happened considering it was the first sitting of parliament after GE14.

There are numerous national issues which needed attention, debated and addressed urgently but to find our MPs missing in action was certainly not welcomed by the voters who voted them into office.

I agree with the suggestion that absentees should not be given allowances if they are absent, instead they ought to be penalised by their respective party or even censured by parliament if compelling reasons were not offered for their absence.

Another suggestion is for their respective party whip to enforce discipline upon their MPs unless they have to attend to something more serious than their participation in parliament lest our MPs incur public displeasure and distasteful remarks as to their whereabouts.

Standing Order 13 should change by raising the minimum MPs present from 26 to allow parliament to proceed, which is merely 11.7% of the 222 parliamentarians to 74 to reflect a sizeable number of MPs present in order to have a meaningful parliamentary session. That is a third or 33.3% of the 222 parliamentarians to allow parliament to proceed, not too much to expect from them.

To our MPs, bear in mind you are under the public’s radar and your absence without good reasons may incur public wrath and scorn without measure and may affect your re-election at GE15.

Tan Eng Bee Kajang