Chan Jia Hui
The final verdict is out. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong introduced sweeping changes to our cabinet. The changes saw the retirement of Mr Wong Kan Seng, Mr Raymond Lim and Mr Mah Bow Tan, along with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong who have stepped down.
There were some changes in portfolios. Mr Khaw Boon Wan is now Minister for National Development and his Minister for Health post is taken over by Mr Gan Kim Yong. Mr Teo Chee Hean is made Minister for Home Affairs. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan is now Minister for Environment and Water Resources and his previous post at the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports is held by newcomer Mr Chan Chun Sing who will be Acting Minister.
The outcome of which candidates will be selected to take up various ministerial portfolios is a keenly anticipated one among political observers. In the days leading up to the announcement, speculation is rife among members of the public as to which minister is the most popular and will stay, who is likely to leave, and who will replace him.
There is however, a more feasible and democratic way to select our ministers. Have all the Members of Parliament (MPs) elect the cabinet ministers, and make this an annual affair. The reasoning and justification for this are simple. Since MPs will engage the cabinet minister in parliament on policy making and ministry specific issues, they will be in a good position to judge which parliamentarian is in the best position to lead the ministry.
The system to elect our ministers can work in a similar way as our parliamentary elections. MPs can nominate their choice of fellow MPs to ministerial positions. There will be a period of hustings in parliament when the potential ministerial candidates present their plans, proposals and policies that they feel is best for their targeted ministry to move forward. MPs can determine which candidates have the best ideas and vote accordingly.
The presented plans, proposals and policies of the various potential ministers can also be communicated to the public via the media. This will spark public interest and generate debate about the viability of various ministerial candidates’ ideas. Increasing public engagement and involvement in such debates bodes well in terms of fostering government policy awareness among Singaporeans.
Granted that it will take a longer time to determine who gets to lead various ministries, such a system of minister selection ensures the candidate with the best plans, policies and proposals will head the ministry. Even though a minister is absent during the period of “parliamentary hustings”, our civil service can still function ably.
Upon election of the minister, the latter will address the parliament on the progress of his ministry. He will also address any issues or criticisms revolving around his ministry.
Having such a system in place to elect our ministers will ensure only the most capable of individuals are selected to lead the ministries. If a particular minister is unable to deliver on his promises or does not perform to expectation, he will lose his appointment to another candidate whom fellow MPs feel can do the job better.
There is talk of moving towards a first world parliament during the elections. Surely, having a system in place requiring our ministers to be elected by MPs goes a long way towards first world parliament status. Potential ministers should be judged based on the merits of their proposals and plans for the respective ministries and this is subjected to vote. It will be a contest as such to determine who has the best ideas to take our ministries forward. Ultimately, Singaporeans will be the winners, and our parliament too.
—
Photo courtesy of superciliousness, Flickr Commons
We might as well have another election just to select cabinets… hmm …
Firstly, this article assumes that within a political party, there is no democratic process by which their members are selected to become Ministers.
Secondly, the Singapore Constitution provides that the executive authority of Government resides in the Prime Minister and his cabinet (as well as the President). That means, the Constitution imposes collective responsibility for “the general direction and control of the Government” on the entire cabinet, and not individual ministers. This suggestion to “elect” Ministers into office is inconsistent with the present system of Government, which we inherited from the British.
Finally, to follow on from the above, I think there are good reasons why the Constitution imposes collective responsibility for “the general direction and control of the Government” on the cabinet. It is because good Government does not result from one or two capable individuals leading individual ministries. Rather, it results from generally capable individuals leading ministries which work together for the common good.
If there is a competitive process as you propose, there is a risk of open, unhealthy competition between ministers. A few examples : the Minister for Finance may refuse to provide or delay the provision of funds to the Minister for Community Development, in order to sabotage the latter’s political career. The Minister for Defence may publicly criticize the Minister of Foreign Affairs when visiting a foreign country, because he disagrees with the latter’s pacifist approach to foreign policy.
And if individual ministers are elected by MPs, should not the Prime Minister be elected by the same process as well? And if the position of Prime Minister is open to contest by your suggested process, would there be a risk of unhealthy competition between Ministers who aspire to become Prime Minister?
I am also skeptical that the possibility of changing Ministers annually will lead to the continuity and stability necessary for good government.
Finally, and please pardon my slightly stronger words here – I think this article discloses a naïve and idealistic obsession with the democracy as a system for government. There is no denying that a democratic process often results in good governments which act in the interests of the electorate. However, an extreme democratic system in which politicians have to compete all the time to get their views heard and to win votes, there may be too little room for compromise and for politicians to work together for the collective good.
@Muse:
Do you have any evidence of political process within ruling party to select ministers? Do tell us. From what I understand, there is an intensive interview process to select ministers. That is all i know. Please tell us if there is any.
Why is there a necessarily an unhealthy competition between ministers? Writer was suggesting potential cabinet ministers apply to portfolios they are targeting and come up with policies in their ministry of interest. Your talk of competition among ministers will only happen if a minister from one ministry sabotaging the other minister whose ministry he is eyeing.
I don’t see why you should make an assumption that such an approach will result in loss of continuity in miinstries. If a minister is doing a good job, and has the confidence of fellow MPs, and gets voted in, why not? On the other hand, if he does not perform, he will be voted out.
I think article is not naive. If you have a situation where 3 political parties are split 29 seats each then how, surely there must be a democratic process to select ministers.
It is a daft system. Change.
In the US, the cabinet is appointed by the ELECTED PRESIDENT, no election needed…. at least over here the ministers have to be elected as an MP first.