Topics tackled ranged from National Service and education reforms, to the tweaking of the Central Provident Fund and the Nominated MP (NMP) scheme. Some of these new, active MPs took advantage of the more open House by sharpening their thinking and rhetorical skills in the debate on policies; a number went on to become ministers and respected backbenchers in their own right.

All things being equal, the knowledge that the Whip will be lifted fosters vibrant debates, even if some feel the conclusion is a foregone one.

For example, in November 2002, some political observers, including a PAP stalwart, remarked beforehand that lifting the Whip on the debate over reforms to the upper secondary and junior college curricula was not likely to affect the outcome much.

Even so, with the leeway to vote according to their conscience, the MPs' sincerity came through powerfully in their speeches. The thorough debate spanned three days and saw more than 28 MPs--almost half of them new parliamentarians--speaking up.

Many spoke from the heart, without mincing words. Dr Amy Khor argued for the new curricula to benefit the less academically orientated young Singaporeans alongside the more academically-orientated--suggesting that otherwise, the curriculum changes could foster "organised Darwinism".

Another new MP then, Ms Indranee Rajah, questioned the fundamental yardstick of our education system's success and its emphasis on mathematics and the sciences. The Education Minister's replies were similarly robust. He ended his speech by urging his colleagues to back the motion so as to send a strong signal to stakeholders to support the changes.

Finding more occasions to lift the Whip on parliamentary debates will allow MPs to put their words into action. For example, when the NMP scheme was put to a free vote in 1989, MP Tan Cheng Bock who opposed the scheme was able to vote against the scheme according to his conscience.

In 1969, 10 MPs abstained from voting for the abortion Bill when the Whip was lifted, thus signalling their opposition to the Bill.

Members of the public and an MP argued in March last year that if the Whip for the casino Bill were lifted, it might encourage MPs to debate more from the heart, thereby better reflecting the sentiments inside and outside of Parliament. Such a result can only strengthen the link between MPs and their constituents.

Lifting the Whip more frequently would allow the new MPs and ministers to be tested on their ability to forge consensus in the making of public policies. It would aid ministers to be more persuasive in rallying their fellow MPs and, by extension, the public, by sharpening the rationalising of unpopular policies.

And while there are other vital requisites to a good minister, such a practice might help the PAP identify potential candidates in the next Cabinet reshuffle.

With the constant expectation of intense levels of debate in the House, new MPs and ministers might develop sharper political instincts. The Opposition MPs would also be challenged to do their job even better, against outspoken PAP backbenchers.

Even though the heightened level of parliamentary debates did not sustain itself throughout the entire 10th Parliament, due to the passage of time--in retrospect, that such lively results were seen at all attest to the fact that a vibrant Parliament benefits both the people and the parliamentary process.

Should not the 11th Parliament kick off with the same positive note and spirit as the
previous one?