COMMENT PM Najib Razak's further expansion - "reshuffle" would be complete misinformation - of his already bloated cabinet demonstrates a serious malaise in Malaysian politics: public offices are treated as private spoils, to be shamelessly shared and used as instruments to purchase and reward loyalty.
With the six new additions, Najib's frontbench now has a total of 62 members, namely 35 ministers (with PM and DPM each holding another portfolio) and 27 deputy ministers running 24 ministries.
Deducting six senators among them, Najib's 56 frontbenchers make up a quarter of Dewan Rakyat, meaning every one out of four elected parliamentarians is on the government payroll.
Considering that the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional has only 134 parliamentarians, every two out of five BN parliamentarians is enjoying the power and perks of an executive office!
This is perhaps the worst record of ministerial office packing in Malaysia's history.
While Abdullah's administration in 2004 was larger, with a total of 75 ministers, deputy ministers and parliamentary secretaries, the BN then had 199 parliamentarians in the 219-member Dewan Rakyat, which means only one of three BN federal lawmakers was given a frontbench job.
This raises a question whether the government is using executive offices to buy off its own parliamentarians to prevent backbench revolt.
That Najib's supposed "cabinet reshuffle" ending up as "cabinet inflation", with none of the underperforming ministers being dropped as rumuored, suggests that Najib is, perhaps, so weak within his party and coalition that he has no power to sack any minister or deputy minister.
‘Unavoidable’ insults public intelligence
Najib's argument that his bloated cabinet is "unavoidable" is completely an insult to the public's intelligence. Thanks to malapportionment and gerrymandering, Najib has controversially obtained a 47% mandate only to run the government, not to treat the government as his private property.
Cabinet bloating is not only avoidable, but it in fact must be avoided at all costs.
Ministers are appointed to serve the nation, not at the whim of the prime minister to pack it with his loyalists.
Every frontbench position must, therefore, must be justified, because they cost public money and proliferation of ministries and ministerial positions may only burden the civil servants and decrease their efficiency.
Every Malaysian has every right to ask: why does Malaysia with a population of 30 million need 35 ministers to run 24 ministries (excluding the prime minister and his deputy), costing us RM5.9 million a year in their total pay?
When India with more than 1 billion people can do with 23 ministers, US with 317 million can live with also 23 ministers,
UK with 63 million people can go along with also just 23 ministers, and Australia with 24 million can be run by just 18 ministers, why do we need 35 ministers (nearly twice the Australian size)?
Specifically, why do we need 10 ministers in the Prime Minister's Department? With one more addition, they can even form a soccer team!
Why bloated dept needs puncturing
It's time to break up and downsize the prime minister's department. If there are so many important portfolios to be managed, why aren't they made ministries so that the ministers can run their own department? And why are there 10 ministers and 1 deputy minister?
The ministers in the prime minister’s department now look like assistants to the PM and DPM, who place many important agencies under the ministry under their direct control.
In fact, the expansion of that department has weakened many ministries and the power of balance in the cabinet.
For example, the transport minister (incidentally just filled in this round of expansion) does not control land public transport from rails to buses because this is under the Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) which is under the prime minister’s department.
It's time to put a cap on the frontbench's size. Why do we need two ministers in the finance and education ministries? Most of all, why should the PM double as finance minister?
In the Westminster system, is not the finance minister supposed to check and balance the prime minister by controlling the purse string of the government?
And it's time to not just put a cap on, but also perhaps to cut, the size of Parliament?
Do we really need 222 parliamentarians when India with some 40 times our population can manage with 543 parliamentarians, US with some 10 times our population does well with 435 Representatives and Indonesia with some 8 times our population with 560 members of Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat?
May be we need. May be we don't. We will need a debate on this - when were we last asked on how big the Parliament should be?
Certainly we need no further increase of parliamentary seats riding on electoral redelineation - which, without parliamentary reform, will only mean shorter time for each parliamentarian to speak and worsen dysfunction as a legislature.
Politicians - whether in the ruling coalition or in the opposition, whether at federal or state - must stop thinking that their mandate is a blank cheque to create jobs of ministers and parliamentarians for their party loyalists.
The business of bloating political institutions - whether it is the prime minister’s department, the cabinet or the parliament - must stop.
Elected politicians are paid to run the countries, not to create jobs for their loyalists so that they can stay in power.
Even if legal, institution bloating is but another form of political corruption. Let's not forget this malaise in our pursuit for free and fair elections and democracy for Malaysia.
MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH is the chairperson for the Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (Bersih) and the executive director of Empower. She believes politicians are bad masters if not made good servants through free, fair and competitive elections.
With the six new additions, Najib's frontbench now has a total of 62 members, namely 35 ministers (with PM and DPM each holding another portfolio) and 27 deputy ministers running 24 ministries.
Deducting six senators among them, Najib's 56 frontbenchers make up a quarter of Dewan Rakyat, meaning every one out of four elected parliamentarians is on the government payroll.Considering that the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional has only 134 parliamentarians, every two out of five BN parliamentarians is enjoying the power and perks of an executive office!
This is perhaps the worst record of ministerial office packing in Malaysia's history.
While Abdullah's administration in 2004 was larger, with a total of 75 ministers, deputy ministers and parliamentary secretaries, the BN then had 199 parliamentarians in the 219-member Dewan Rakyat, which means only one of three BN federal lawmakers was given a frontbench job.
This raises a question whether the government is using executive offices to buy off its own parliamentarians to prevent backbench revolt.
That Najib's supposed "cabinet reshuffle" ending up as "cabinet inflation", with none of the underperforming ministers being dropped as rumuored, suggests that Najib is, perhaps, so weak within his party and coalition that he has no power to sack any minister or deputy minister.
‘Unavoidable’ insults public intelligence
Najib's argument that his bloated cabinet is "unavoidable" is completely an insult to the public's intelligence. Thanks to malapportionment and gerrymandering, Najib has controversially obtained a 47% mandate only to run the government, not to treat the government as his private property.
Cabinet bloating is not only avoidable, but it in fact must be avoided at all costs.Ministers are appointed to serve the nation, not at the whim of the prime minister to pack it with his loyalists.
Every frontbench position must, therefore, must be justified, because they cost public money and proliferation of ministries and ministerial positions may only burden the civil servants and decrease their efficiency.
Every Malaysian has every right to ask: why does Malaysia with a population of 30 million need 35 ministers to run 24 ministries (excluding the prime minister and his deputy), costing us RM5.9 million a year in their total pay?
When India with more than 1 billion people can do with 23 ministers, US with 317 million can live with also 23 ministers,
UK with 63 million people can go along with also just 23 ministers, and Australia with 24 million can be run by just 18 ministers, why do we need 35 ministers (nearly twice the Australian size)?
Specifically, why do we need 10 ministers in the Prime Minister's Department? With one more addition, they can even form a soccer team!
Why bloated dept needs puncturing
It's time to break up and downsize the prime minister's department. If there are so many important portfolios to be managed, why aren't they made ministries so that the ministers can run their own department? And why are there 10 ministers and 1 deputy minister?
The ministers in the prime minister’s department now look like assistants to the PM and DPM, who place many important agencies under the ministry under their direct control.
In fact, the expansion of that department has weakened many ministries and the power of balance in the cabinet.For example, the transport minister (incidentally just filled in this round of expansion) does not control land public transport from rails to buses because this is under the Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) which is under the prime minister’s department.
It's time to put a cap on the frontbench's size. Why do we need two ministers in the finance and education ministries? Most of all, why should the PM double as finance minister?
In the Westminster system, is not the finance minister supposed to check and balance the prime minister by controlling the purse string of the government?
And it's time to not just put a cap on, but also perhaps to cut, the size of Parliament?
Do we really need 222 parliamentarians when India with some 40 times our population can manage with 543 parliamentarians, US with some 10 times our population does well with 435 Representatives and Indonesia with some 8 times our population with 560 members of Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat?
May be we need. May be we don't. We will need a debate on this - when were we last asked on how big the Parliament should be?
Certainly we need no further increase of parliamentary seats riding on electoral redelineation - which, without parliamentary reform, will only mean shorter time for each parliamentarian to speak and worsen dysfunction as a legislature.
Politicians - whether in the ruling coalition or in the opposition, whether at federal or state - must stop thinking that their mandate is a blank cheque to create jobs of ministers and parliamentarians for their party loyalists.
The business of bloating political institutions - whether it is the prime minister’s department, the cabinet or the parliament - must stop.
Elected politicians are paid to run the countries, not to create jobs for their loyalists so that they can stay in power.
Even if legal, institution bloating is but another form of political corruption. Let's not forget this malaise in our pursuit for free and fair elections and democracy for Malaysia.
MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH is the chairperson for the Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (Bersih) and the executive director of Empower. She believes politicians are bad masters if not made good servants through free, fair and competitive elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.