No, not that inflation swirling outside the House, sending food, health care and transport prices up.

But MPs made fewer speeches and kept them short and sharp during the nine-day Budget debate marathon.

Their discipline was in contrast to the long-winded days of some years ago. It prompted Leader of the House Mah Bow Tan to declare approvingly that inflation had been kept in check.

This year, 62 MPs filed a total of 401 cuts, he said. To speak on a ministry's plans, an MP tables a token 'cut' of its budget. He withdraws the cut after the minister responds to his queries.

Each member gets a total of 18 minutes to speak on his combined cuts over the nine days. A Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) chairman gets two minutes extra.

The time limits were introduced in 2005.

The happy outcome? 'It has kept inflation in the number of cuts in check,' Mr Mah said, beaming.

The 401 cuts now were 'a far cry from the heady days of 2003 and 2004, when we had more than 700 cuts,' he said.

Better yet, short and focused speeches raised the quality of this year's debate, he observed.

He singled out the clarification time as the liveliest. This is when MPs and ministers engage spontaneously after the main debate. It is a test of ministerial mettle.

'Both front and backbenchers (were) at their most natural and oftentimes most eloquent and witty, and this is what a good debate needs.'

He praised Speaker of Parliament Abdullah Tarmugi for being flexible with the guillotine, letting the debate run on 'when the subject matter was interesting and the exchanges hot, all the while keeping an eagle eye on the clock'.

He advised MPs to be present in the chamber to move their cut and watch the time. 'Members should not try to deliver a three-minute speech in one minute or file half-minute cuts - and I counted three half-minute cuts,' he said.

'Remember, if the Minister cannot understand you, he cannot give you a reply.'

Mr Mah's closing remarks clocked in at 4.5 minutes.

Matching him in wit and brevity was Mr Tarmugi. Time, too, was on his mind. 'As usual, I have had to remind a few MPs - the regulars that is - to keep to their guillotine times,' he groused.

But new MPs came in for praise. 'The new MPs did well both in their delivery and the substance of their speeches and most even succeeded in keeping their cuts well within their times,' he said.

Recalling that MP Indranee Rajah, chairman of the GPC for Defence, had volunteered six new MPs for the armed forces fitness test, the Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT), he quipped:

'Six of them apparently made history when they were summarily volunteered in this House by the chairman of the GPC for Defence to do extra IPPT to demonstrate that MPs, too, had a role to play in enhancing the physical fitness of our armed forces.'

Along the way, he asked a close friend to honestly assess the debate performance of the MPs. This friend said: 'It's like mineral water, some sparkling, others still.'

The Speaker added: 'The quality of the debate was indeed high. There was a readiness to question and to probe and there were indeed several robust exchanges... This bodes well for our Parliament.'

Unexpectedly, the debate finished a day early, taking nine days instead of the more usual 10. Mr Tarmugi deadpanned: 'Now, this is rather reminiscent of our national Budget for the last financial year, when we actually anticipated a deficit but ended up with a surplus.'

Once again, a deficit turns into a surplus...

siewhua@sph.com.sg

GOOD DEBATE TAKES TIME

'There were many good speeches and some outstanding ones, both from the front as well as the back bench.

There were, unfortunately, a few that went on a bit too long, and here I must confess, in hindsight, that I am one of the guilty parties. I will try and learn from this...

The main objective is to have a good debate: enough time for MPs and office-holders to engage in meaningful debate so that the people can have their views heard and clarified, yet keeping it productive so that we can get on with our work.

This means having to sit beyond the scheduled time of 7pm on some days.

But the good news is that, as a result of this dynamic scheduling, we have been able to finish the debate one day ahead of schedule.'

MR MAH BOW TAN, Leader of the House and Minister for National Development