Appearing on a TV1 programme yesterday morning, member of parliament Shahrir Samad - who is also chairman of Backbenchers Club (BBC) - was making a case on the maturity of the Malaysian Parliament as the house of the people's representatives.

I must beg to differ with Shahrir. In my opinion the level of freedom allowed our MPs - and their maturity - is a far cry compared to those who served during Tunku Abdul Rahman's tenure and the early period of Tun Abdul Razak's premiership.

Compared to Dr Burhanuddin Hilmi, Dr Zulkifli Mohamad (of PAS), Ahmad Boestamam (of Partai Sosialis) Dr Tan Chee Khoon (Parti Buruh) and the Seenivasagam brothers of the PPP of yesteryears, the present crop of MPs make very poor comparison.

If Shahrir says that the new prime minister Abdullah Badawi wants to see a more open discussion in the Dewan Rakyat, then Shahrir and his men and women as well as those from PAS and DAP have a lot of catching up to do.

First, in the true Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, the 'three-line whip' should be used very, very sparingly. Only on occasions like a 'no confidence motion' against the government is the three-line whip is enforced by government 'whips'.

At the moment, government backbenchers are made to feel that they are under the 'three-line whip' all the time. Apart from a select few, I don't see others who are that vocal (obviously for fear of not coming back because candidacy for general elections is still decided in Kuala Lumpur).

Secondly, one great aspect of Westminster system is that MPs can register their concern on strong issues through 'early day motions' or EDMs where MPs from both sides put down their signatures and then table the motion in the House, later to be picked up by the media. Do we see it here? Hello, I don't think so.

Thirdly, our MPs - like those in Westminster or their counterparts in Capitol Hill - should be given a chance to table Private Members Bills on issues he or she feels strongly about. The government should not have the monopoly on wisdom.

Finally, I will have a chuckle when a judge says in a court of law that the duty of the court is to interpret the wishes of Parliament because it was the Parliament that passed the law.

What I want to know is whether our MPs and senators were given enough time or whether they even bothered to scrutinise all bills clause by clause during the committee stage before agreeing to its third reading.

My suspicion is that provisions in a bill prepared by the government are waved through and whatever deficiencies are dealt with later in the form of amendments.