new The honourable minister Nazri Aziz has recently made several remarks and offers some 'creative' solutions that are seemingly of the wrong vein. I do not know whether I ought to laugh or to cry.

"We can't have everyone sit in parliament for the whole day for 15 days in a row. You just can't. The seat will get very hot and if you sit too long, you may get piles!" Nazri explained . And his solution?

Backbenchers will be required to have a 'buddy' in the latest move to ensure that attendance in the Dewan Rakyat always meets the required quorum.

In order to solve a problem, we need to revisit very basic questions and assumptions. First of all, we must ask ourselves whether it is a requirement for MPs to attend every parliamentary sitting. If the answer is 'no', then there is no issue. However, if the answer is 'yes', we ought to find ways and means to overcome any problem that may hinder any MP from carrying out his duties effectively.

To determine whether an MP is required to attend every sitting in parliament, we must then ask the very basic question as to what the duties a member of parliament is.

The Cambridge Dictionaries Online defines "member of parliament" as "a person who has been elected to the parliament of a country".

The influential Hansard Society Report into the UK legislative process states: "Parliament does not 'make the law'. That is essentially done by the government which performs the decision-making role in the constitution and secures the approval of parliament for its legislative decisions through its control over the majority part in the House of Commons.

"In practice, parliament's main role in relation to UK legislation is to call ministers to account for their proposals for changing the law by close and detailed scrutiny of both bills and delegated legislation."

Based on these definitions, it does seem that the role of a member of parliament is inseparable from parliament itself and his duty is to call ministers to account for their proposals by "close and detailed scrutiny".

It is therefore apparent that an MP is required to attend every sitting in parliament, for how else can he, in his absence and without participating in the discussion, scrutinise anything.

Nazri however disputed this. "The benchmark for a good MP in Malaysia is not how well he performs in Parliament, but how often he visit his constituency, how many kenduri and majlis he attends and how he looks into the needs of the people," he has reportedly said.

Does not the role of an MP, as defined by Nazri, sound more like the role of a state assemblyman? Am I confused or is the honorable minister confused?

Does this therefore mean that the term, 'member of parliament' is a misnomer in the context of Malaysian democratic practice? And if MPs do not need to perform well in parliament, does it mean that parliament, as a whole, will not perform too?

What then is the purpose of a parliament if it need not be effective? Should we do away with an under-performing parliament altogether? And if so, do we still need members of parliament?

What is the objective of sitting in parliament? To form a quorum or to scrutinise proposed amendments to the law or both? It is obvious that the Barisan Nasional (BN) has been too long in government and has forgotten its role in parliament.

Evidently, our MPs are there to form a quorum in mindless compliance with parliamentary procedures, without going through the meaningful process of 'close and detailed scrutiny' of the issues they are voting for.

Nazri's directive is downright incredulous and will, no doubt, make Malaysia the butt of jokes among more respectable democracies throughout the world. Rather than seeking to arrest the absenteeism problem, Nazri's solution not only encourages further absenteeism but also seeks to endorse and legitimise it.

Our honorable legislative body has been downgraded to a third-class pariah body that does not even understand the purpose and essence of parliament, but merely follows through the motion of an imported parliamentary system.

Ostensibly, the 'buddy' solution can overcome the quorum issue, but without prior scrutiny and debate this is meaningless. If only meeting the requirements of a quorum is required, shouldn't parliamentary rules be changed such that party leaders be nominated to vote on behalf of their party, especially so when Malaysia follows the Westminster model that requires all MPs to vote along party lines?

Isn't this proposal neater as compared to the 'buddy' system that not only looks unwieldy but also sounds downright silly?

Malaysians may have shot their own foot by giving an overwhelming 90.4 percent victory to the Barisan Nasional in the recent general election. BN has clearly indicated that it does not need so many representatives in parliament.

The next logical question is: Should we elect less BN candidates into parliament in future and offer more seats to the opposition to good account?

It seems crystal-clear to me that parliament can only be effective if the present ruling coalition loses its two-thirds majority there.