I watched the British prime minister over British telly this morning and could not help but listen with admiration at the parliamentary process that was at play. Here was a prime minister not resting on his laurels but providing a blueprint for his government's domestic policies and (almost) patiently addressing each and every point brought up by the opposition.

I may have missed it, but I did not hear anyone shout 'Stupid!' or personally degrade a fellow MP. Such an act would have brought about an immediate furore in the British Parliament and lead to an eventual public outcry.

Such a process should be evident in Malaysia as well. After all, our system is based on Westminster. And in a country that has 'bersopan-santun' as one of its cherished traditions, professionally-conducted statements and rebuttals should be the norm.

The reality is quite different though. Dialectic is probably an alien word to most of our MPs. Gentlemanly conduct? I find it almost amusing that some of society's problems eg, teenage delinquency, are blamed on the negative impact of so-called Western influence (I remember the phrase 'budaya kuning' from my SPM days) while despicable acts by the pillars of our democratic proceedings are either conveniently swept under the carpet or brushed aside with unconvincing excuses.

It is high-time we collectively shift our focus to the appreciation of intellectual and rational thought when voting in our politicians instead of being swayed by religious or racial rhetoric. If we want to truly embrace globalisation, then we should compare our leaders on such a platform as well. The prodigious intellect of Gordon Brown for example, is well-known.

If our leaders are serious about competing on a global scale or of achieving the 'vision' of having Nobel laureates right, left and centre by 2057, we would do well to mop up the cobwebs in the higher echelons. Of course, no country is perfect (hence George Bush being president), but we can always try.

I believe that the argument for the live telecast of parliamentary proceedings over RTM is valid and we should actively lobby for such an inclusion. The parliament owes this to itself. It is powered by the rakyat and we should be able to keep tabs on its activities just like any other stakeholder.

Contrary to the earlier statements by a minster of the rakyat 'not being mature' enough, I believe that intense public scrutiny will not only bring about more appropriate behaviour in oiur Parliament but might help ensure debates that are pertinent to the needs of society.