The proposed room of $ 200 million

Although Parliament has gone back on the proposed new $ 200 million room. It is imperative that well-meaning Ghanaians examine the origin of the project and the implications of this idea.

There are a number of factors to consider when we dissect the idea as a whole.

1. The fact that parliament even considered the project in the first place means that the body does not think about the very people it seeks to represent. If you represent a people still suffering from various signs of poverty, including students sitting under trees to learn in the twentieth century world and dilapidated clbadrooms where students are sent home when it's going to rain, hospitals that lack of facilities and equipment. It is therefore justifiable that any attempt to live in luxury at the expense of the population arouses repugnant comments and rightly so.
2. Consider the first global player in democracy vis-à-vis Ghana. The United States, with all its rich resources, has a population of about 350,000,000 and is represented by 535 congressional delegates, 100 members of the Senate and 435 in the House. By implication, a Congress delegate represents approximately 654,206 people. Ghana has a population of about 30 million and is represented by 275 parliamentarians. Each MP represents on average 109,091 people. A congressman represents six times more people than a member of parliament in Ghana, but they are able to represent them effectively and put the executive power in check for all its excesses. Representation in Ghana is inefficient and responsibility for executive oversight is not a subject to write. In Ghana, members of parliament do not make laws, they only approve bills prepared by the executive in laws. In U.S. The laws were developed and prepared by congressional leaders, but they have time to check the executive power.
3. If the Ghanaian parliament believes that the current chamber is too small, it can adopt legislation to reduce the number of representatives. After all, who needs 275 people to approve an executive bill or loan agreement that seems to be their main concern? If we look at the parliamentary sessions, we find that on average one-third of the members are always absent, except when they deliberate on issues that disturb their well-being.
4. KT Hammond's statement that Parliament was not sitting under the trees to do its job was irresponsible and unnecessary. After all, nobody asks the house to meet under a tree. However, if the parliament was effective it sat under a tree that would benefit Ghana. After all, students are sitting under trees to study in Ghana, so it would not be a bad idea that if our parliament sat under a big tree for business, it would save a lot of money country, the cost of air conditioning, lighting, etc., would all be backed up in the national bag.
5. Nii Lamptey's statement that our parliamentarians are the lowest paid in the subregion could also be addressed by reducing the number of parliamentarians. If we do that, we can afford to pay them more. If they seem to work well and in the interest of Ghana, we can afford to pay them well. In view of the foregoing, the argument that Parliament must abandon this meeting is a call in the right direction.