Pakistani Premier Nawaz Sharif is not the only ruling party leader in the world who has been slammed for not showing up regularly to the national legislative houses as his Indian, Malaysian and British counterparts have also faced similar criticism from domestic media outlets and opponents for their poor attendance
The All India Trinamool Congress Party even took a dig at the premier, maintaining that India did not need a foreign minister with Modi himself travelling abroad always.
"The Hindu" had added in its December 2, 2014 report: "Apart from introducing his cabinet colleagues in Parliament, Modi has spoken only once in Parliament, as per his detractors; that was the mandatory PM’s reply to the discussion on the motion of thanks to the President’s address. Further, it was Finance Minister Arun Jaitley who had introduced new ministers to the Rajya Sabha last week (November 2014) after the House met for the first time following the cabinet expansion."
It is imperative to note that in the four sessions that the current 16th Lok Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament) had met for in 2014, the legislative house had sat for 67 days, and Rajya Sabha for 64 days.
While Lok Sabha’s productivity for the year was at 84 percent that of Rajya Sabha had rested at 73 per cent.
While it is the norm in parliament for Indian MPs to attend the House when it is in session, many law-makers are often found absent on days when business is conducted and many times both Houses have to ring a bell for the quorum to be completed.
On Narendra Modi's attendance record in both houses of the parliament, the PRS Legislative Research had stated on its website: "This MP is a minister. Ministers represent the government in debates, so we do not report their participation. They do not sign the attendance register, ask questions, or introduce private member bills."
Interestingly, some famous Indian celebrities nominated for the 12 Senate seats reserved for those who have rendered meritorious services in arts, sciences or social services, have also been hit hard in the past by both media and opposition for their poor attendance.
Those proposed for the Lok Sabha under the same criteria have also been rebuked strongly for not going to the assembly floors.
For example, according to the August 15, 2014 edition of the Fox Sports, Indian cricketing great Sachin Tendulkar was under fire because of his poor Senate attendance record (just three per cent) since 2009, although he had earned praise by refusing to make use of a Delhi house allotted to him, calling it a waste of tax payer’s money and for offering to cover his own expenses.
Fox Sports had stated: "Revered by a billion people and the closest thing to a bona fide sporting deity the planet has seen, but whisper it quietly: Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar is starting to attract the odd detractor. It’s got nothing to do with cricket. His numbers tell their own tale — 15,921 runs in Tests and 18,426 in one-day internationals, both records. Then there’s his 100 hundreds and 200 Tests. No, Tendulkar has been drawing fire because of his abysmal attendance record after going into politics and taking a seat in the Indian upper house, the Rajya Sabha."
The news channel had added: "Tendulkar was still playing cricket when he took the oath in June 2012 to join the 250-member Rajya Sabha after being nominated by the Indian government. But since then he’s only managed to turn up to the Delhi parliament on three occasions, including zero days this year after 46 consecutive absences. In his defence, at the time he let it be known that representing the people wasn’t his main focus."
Tendulkar was quoted as saying: "See, I am a nominee. So, I didn’t go to anyone to say that I want to become a Rajya Sabha member. It is an honour which I accept with full respect but I am here because of my cricketing career."
Similarly, Bollywood actress Rekha had been another nominated Senate member, who had to face the wrath of the Opposition parties for participating in only seven sessions of the House since her induction in 2012.
Her attendance record was hardly five per cent.
Samajwadi Party MP Naresh Agarwal had said: "These MPs were selected so that they can be present and make a difference in the society. But I have never seen him in the house."
DP Tripathi, an MP of the Nationalist Congress Party, was even harsher. "Their performance in the house has been despicable to say the least. This is an insult to the Indian Parliament and such people should not be nominated to this house."
When actress Hema Malini's 14 per cent attendance record (2012-2014) in Lok Sabha was discussed, she had responded aggressively: "I will work for my people wherever I am."
However, a currently estranged BJP legislator and another leading Bollywood actor Shatrughan Sinha, who had served as a Cabinet minister between January 2003 and May 2004, had the most decent attendance record of 77 per cent in the Lower House of Parliament during 2014.
Amitabh Bachchan's wife Jaya Bachchan had also fared better than most with a 58 per cent attendance record in Senate from 2010 to 2013.
According to the February 22, 2014 edition of the "Indian Express," Vice President of the Congress, Rahul Gandhi, had an attendance of just 42 per cent in the 545-member Lok Sabha, much below the national average of 76 per cent.
PRS Legislative Research data quoted by the "Indian Express" showed Rahul had participated in just two debates during the entire term of this 2009-2014 Lok Sabha. He had asked no questions and had brought in no private member Bills.
Coming to Malaysia, the country's sitting Prime Minister, Najib Razak, was mocked by political and media critics in October 2015 for attending just 26 out of 358 days (not even 10 per cent) of Parliament over a stint of five years.
A local media house had viewed: "This indicates a dismal record for leadership effectiveness in an August body. For a nation still considered a fledgling democracy of some 55 years, the ruling party and its leaders' commitment to parliamentary sessions and its norms is an important indicator, many would think, of democracy in law and in practice. And even any unwitting display of disregard for reasonable and responsible attendance can be construed as misplaced arrogance of the ruling elites towards these institutions and the electorate. Just imagine the plight and chaos in rule of law and its practice if the judiciary resorts to such manner of selective delinquency!"
Najib Razak, the eldest son of Malaysia's second Prime Minister Abdul Razak Hussein and nephew of country's third Premier Hussein Onn, is still in the news for corruption allegations surrounding, after millions of dollars had "somehow" come into his personal accounts.
The September 4, 2015 edition of "The Guardian" had reported that the Malaysian Prime Minister had quietly cancelled his appearance and keynote speech at an anti-corruption conference after organisers had warned him he would have to respond to allegations surrounding how millions of dollars (US$700 million) linked to the debt-laden state fund "Malaysia Development Bhd," had landed his bank accounts.
In the United Kingdom, sitting Premier David Cameron had participated in just around 17 per cent of votes in parliament during his first tenure in office, while during his second tenure following the May 7, 2015 general elections, Cameron’s voting attendance record is closer to 33 per cent---relatively better than before.
Between 2001 and 2005, when Cameron was a backbench Member Parliament, his voting record in the country's parliament had stood at about 67 per cent---a sharp contrast!
And from 2005 to the 2010 general election, the parliament in which he was the Leader of the Opposition, Cameron had voted in 25 per cent of votes.
According to a November 2013 study of the globally-acknowledged free-market British policy think tank called the "Centre for Policy Studies," this state of affairs can be attributed to the impact of responsibility on men sitting in the highest offices.
This think-tank had also discussed former British Premier Tony Blair's participation/attendance record in the parliament by taking into account the views of a Conservative Party legislator, Andrew Tyrie, who had highlighted the problem of Prime Ministerial neglect of Parliament under Tony Blair---characterising Parliament as "Mr. Blair's Poodle."
According to the July 23, 2015 edition of "The Guardian," Tony Blair had only voted in 251 out of 3,024 votes between May 1997 and June 2007, averaging an attendance record of less than 10 per cent.
The "Centre for Policy Studies" had reported: "In his first parliament from 1997-2001 Blair participated in only 8.6 per cent of votes in parliament, and the following parliament from 2001-2005 he voted in only 7.5 per cent of votes. Blair also holds the record for the lowest level of participation in a single parliamentary session (a parliamentary year) for 1997-98 when he took part in only 5 per cent of votes. In contrast Blair’s predecessor John Major consistently had participated in upwards of 30 per cent of votes in each session for which he was PM, and in his final session as PM participated in well over 40 per cent of parliamentary votes."
Conservative politician, Andrew Tyrie, had observed: "The decline of Prime Ministers’ activity in Parliament is of long standing but it has sharply accelerated since 1997. Except to make statements and his annual Prime Minister’s Questions, Tony Blair rarely visits the Commons. In the first two full Parliamentary sessions, the Prime Minister had led his government in debate on the floor of the Commons on only three occasions – less often than any prime minister in recent history. He also rarely appeared in the House to vote, giving MPs, particularly those on his own side, little opportunity to buttonhole him informally. His voting record is inferior to that of any prime minister since the war."
Giving justification of Tony Blair's absence from the British legislative houses, the "Centre for Policy Studies" had opined: "The long term trend suggests that prime ministerial participation has been in decline since the war. This may be the result of a growth in prime minister’s duties, in particular their overseas responsibilities. While overseas trips are now much easier than in an earlier age when the PM could be away for several weeks at an overseas summit, partly as a result, there are now many more of such meetings."
The British think-tank had stated:" In an average year the British prime minister can expect, at least, to attend: the annual G8 summit; up to four European Council meetings; a trip to the UN; a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting; and several meetings with other heads of state most notably the US president. If one adds to this trips related to the launch of military action which dominated the terms of Blair and to some extent Cameron, then there are many occasions when the PM is simply not around to vote."