In the US, the cabinet is appointed. But the members of cabinet are members of the executive, not members of the legislature, and cannot vote on bills. Of course they cannot; they have no mandate! Also, they are appointed by a president who is directly elected. If the performance of the cabinet is no good, the people only need to remove the president at the next election. They do not have to remove half the members of parliament. Also, the presidential elections are conducted in a democratic environment, with a free press, a preponderance of ideas and no lack of people who will act on them since they do not live in a climate of fear or in a culture of sycophancy.

Where there are bichameral legislatures, with upper and lower houses, it is possible for there to be unelected ministers, but these ministers have limited legislative powers because they sit in an unelected chamber. Also, unelected houses have their roots in ridiculous class structures that thankfully Singapore does not have (though sadly it seems to be emerging). Singapore rejected that form of parliament, and quite rightly so.

It is not legitimate to stuff parliament with partisans for political purposes. I am sure all are agreed on that. Yet, it is difficult to see how Nominated Ministers, in Singapore’s political landscape, can in the long term result in anything else.

UK & US have powerful independent bodies including the media as Govt watchdogs besides equally strong oppositions. Think for yourself the case of Spore!

- We are not newborns! They don’t have to tell you or vet your speeches. Its called self-censorship and you know exactly what will get their tails wagging.

http://hri-kumar.blogspot.com/2009/06/nominated-ministers.html

My suggestion in Parliament last week to allow the PM to appoint Ministers from outside the pool of MPs has attracted support, criticism and speculation.

Some people speculated I was putting forward the suggestion on someone else’s instructions. That is not how things work. No one tells me what to say or vets my speeches. The first time the leaders knew of my speech was when they heard me in Parliament.

//The emphasis is not simply to reduce their pay but to propose something better. Political masters and civil servants must be considered separately. The type of people that can excel in one is different from the other//

I agree.

//If it is personal wealth they seek, they are not the ones we need.//

I could not agree more. Excellently put it.

Indeed, top government remuneration is an opportunity for the opposition to score here too as the ruling party is in denial that this matter is a lightning rod for discontent. It is a good idea to remunerate them sufficiently so that they are not distracted to look for supplementary income by leveraging on their positions but in the construct either greed got into the way or they forgot that good politics does not equal to good commercial sense (NKF at one stage made the same error when it forgot that a charity is not the same as a commercial enterprise).

The emphasis is not simply to reduce their pay but to propose something better. Political masters and civil servants must be considered separately. The type of people that can excel in one is different from the other. Let us make some suggestions for all the political parties to think about bearing in mind that good proposals should bring into government good politicians with passion for improving the lives of all citizens and whose present and future material needs are sufficiently taken care. If it is personal wealth they seek, they are not the ones we need.

Eunice Olsen likely woken up to the fact she’s not to keen to just “make noise” & so left. likely a women with an independant thinking brain, ambitious go getting is not going to just “make noise” sit or stand. leave before learned helplessness sets in.

just my observation.

some/most of the elites walk-over one, how to choose?

aiyoyo

//In particular, they should start by laying out clearly a promise to propose a bill to put the GRC voting system and future constitutional changes on voters rights to referendums//

I agree and in future the 14 GRCs should only have two candidates each, one a minority candidate and the other a non minority candidate. There is no legitimate reason to have a 5 or 6 member GRC.

More importantly the Opposition Caucus should promise to lower the pay of the ministers and top echelon of the civil service, help the elderly poor folks and up the baby bonus if they are voted in to form the new govt.

// and future constitutional changes on voters rights to referendums//

I also agree with you here too as only the citizens can change the constitution.

Can the management committee in a social club change the club’s constitution?
No, the social club’s constitution can only be changed by three quarters of the members voting to make the change.

//Knowing how thin-skinned the ruling party is, the opposition parties must be careful they are not charged with ‘campaigning’.//

Such “opposition caucus” would be advised by a team of constitutional lawyers so that it won’t run foul of the law. But this needs a large organization and plenty of money and talented people to run it.

//I agree, they need to get their acts together well before elections are formally called.//

If they wait until the election date is announced it will be too late and if they think that they can take on the PAP’s well-oiled political machinery by going to the GE with a fragmented group of small, poorly funded opposition parties they will live to regret it and deserve to be relegated to stay in the political wilderness for the next 44 years.

Good suggestions for the opposition parties to develop their strategies. In particular, they should start by laying out clearly a promise to propose a bill to put the GRC voting system and future constitutional changes on voters rights to referendums; the intent is to prevent changes that suit a majority party. The GRC was sold as a way to bring some minority representation into parliament but has since been over-exploited to bring in others without true mandates from the constituencies at the expense of other parties or independents. It is a good idea turned into a bad one. If excesses are not checked it tends to get worse, and relying on self-regulation is no assurance – yes we may get a generation of good people but human weaknesses creep in along the way, especially now that the skewed money benefit for the ruling has become a distraction from passionate public service. It doesn’t matter if the proposed bills are likely to be defeated but it gives a reason to vote them and test their sincerity.

I agree, they need to get their acts together well before elections are formally called.

Sorry, last 4 words in the penultimate paragraph should read “a run for the money.

//Curious on May 31st, 2009 9.42 pm, In this issue, I agree with you.//

Thank you Joel. IMHO, the strategy for the Opposition Caucus should be to pool resources and talents, work the ground early and mobilize the constituencies with a view to contest EVERY GRC and SMC in the next GE.

This needs a lot of organization and money and fund-raising should start immediately.

Last week Obama was in Beverly Hills , California to attend a US$3 million fund-raising dinner for the Democratic Party. Each plate cost the 1000 or so attendees US$2,500. And many couples paid US$35,000 for dinner and a photo opportunity with the President.

In Singapore I suggest that a few similar, less-expensive fund-raising dinners be organized at say a posh hotel each time plus a nationwide fund-raising campaign by telephone calls and through the internet but all such activities must not violate The Political Donations Act.

Since the opposition parties currently have little or no visibility, the Opposition Caucus must think big and strive to project a “visibility” by drawing up a list of “shadow ministers” of really talented people in Singapore to give the PAP a run of the money.

Then the Singapore people can judge for themselves whether the Opposition Caucus’ team of “shadow ministers” has the credibility and ability to replace the PAP should they win the next GE and if they like what they see IMHO they will vote for them without hesitation.

Whether they make good use of the opportunity is up to them. If they do then all Singaporeans will benefit.

It is indeed and the worst part of it all is that the people are now being made into players of their political game. We have been made the reason for the changes. I am not interested in their politcal game. All I want is for my interest as well as the interests of my Singapore family to be well looked after.

Why are we paying for their political games, just like Hougang and Potong Pasir residents have been paying for their choice of an opposition leader? This is not governing. I really do not know what it is called.

Our parliament already resembles a bicarmel house. Walkover PAP MPs form the Upper House while Non-Walkover PAP, Opposition MPs, NCMPs and NMPs form the Lower House. It is a sad state of affairs.