Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Different functions of Government

Monday, March 01, 2010

Different functions of Government

REX has written about the macro and micro functions of politicians. They have to see the big picture and make macro policies. They have to attend to the nitty gritty of listening to their constituents. It is difficult to find people who have both skills.

In the USA, the elected members of Congress listen to their constituents and debate policies in Congress. Their primary role is to represent the people.

The heads of the different departments in Government (i.e. like our ministers) are appointed by the President, usually with the approval of Congress. They can be selected from anywhere in the country, i.e. from the business sector, academia, the people sector or from elected politicians. If they are appointed from elected politicians, they have to resign their elected seat to be in the Executive Branch of Government. Their seat is taken over by another person who can discharge the role of representing the people.

In UK, the ministers rely on the senior civil servants to administer the policies decided by the Government. They do not manage the administration. They remain largely policy making.

Singapore has a unique system where the Ministers play all three roles. They are over-stretched and do not have sufficient time and attention to discharge these roles properly. This is my humble view.

I prefer the system in USA followed by UK .

Tan Kin Lian

13 comments:

Steve Wu said...: Singapore is a very small country with a very big government. Hence, it is unacceptable that the government cannot even get the basic things done right.

The MPs know that their primary responsibility is to represent the People. Yet there is one or two Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) per week with horrendous waiting times. It is disappointing to learn only Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang fulfil their MP's duties on a full time basis. The solution is so simple that it should be mandated: spend more time with the constituents.

My emails to my MP takes an average of 4 days for an acknowledgement and about a month for a reply (regardless of whether is satisfactory or not). Surely this can also be improved.

MPs are also reluctant to represent the People in parliament over important issues like government inadequacy (too many to list), social justice (e.g. the GST hike did not adequately help the poor), industry regulation (mini-bond fiasco), huge investment losses (by GIC and Temasek Holdings).

The Constitution requires parliament to provide the oversight role in the government. The MPs must be asking questions, persisting in asking questions and demanding proper answers. Sadly, this is not happening at all.

Whatever it is that we had inherited from the British, our parliamentary system is now one minus the efficacy. In any case, the broken system must be fixed soon before it is too late.; March 01, 2010 10:03 AM
Anonymous said...: The question is: are we willing to experiment? Since we have never left our comfort zones, do we understand the effects?

Most of us do not even understand the present system! and I am grateful that many here in this blog are willing to share.

Thank you, all for speaking up.; March 01, 2010 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with Steve Wu.

Let's "spur" our government to try harder; March 01, 2010 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree we need to have a clearer segregation of duties.

I would prefer a modification of the British system.

The Sovereign comprising of the President, Minister Mentor, Senior Minister, Prime Minister.

The House of Lords comprising the Ministers and their deputies and Ministers of States.

Sovereign will have ultimate veto rights.
House of Lords will be doing their executive functions in the cabinet.

House of Commons will comprise all elected members by their constituency (The Sovereigns and House of Lords cannot participate in this election). House of Commons will solely be responsible for the town councils and matters pertaining to their own constituency and need to be full-time. They will also be needed to debate and "AYE" bills in consultation with the House of Lords.; March 01, 2010 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: All our handpicked MPs know where their bread and butter is buttered on. So is it any surprise why they are not questioning?
Those that are good and will be questioning are given more important roles and higher salaries, to the point that they see no point in asking any more questions but to just comfortably amass their millions. Is it any surprise at all?; March 01, 2010 2:51 PM
woodpecker said...: Several elections ago, before the era of the GRCs, there was no such thing as 'town councils'. Everything was centrally managed by the government. It was a much fairer system.

Then the ruling party created this mess.

In order to tilt the field to their advantage, the ruling party changed the law to add new 'town council' responsibilities to MPs. This will bog the opposition MP down with the mutinae of running TCs and have less time to deal with bigger picture issues.

Conversely, those members in the ruling party will have the benefit of the 'affiliated' organs (eg. People's Association) to support them while they go on with their usual routines.

I prefer the previous system. The current system only serves to entrench the incumbents. It is fine when it works efficiently, but when rot sets in, it is extremely difficult to correct it.; March 01, 2010 5:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Both these countries have different system of government.
Us has a system where the powers are separated, ie the 3 branches of government are separated.
The constitution is supreme.
The executive can appoint anyone to the administration. The appointee need not be an elected representative.
In UK it is a parliamentary system. Singapore adopts this system.
Parliament is supreme. The electorate is powerful but it fears exercising that power. The reign of terror has castigated that power. (let's see this election) Parliament can do anything it likes subject to some conditions. The civil service is neutral but in Singapore it is suspected. The executive is everything rolled into one, ie it has the power of administration, legislation and indirect control of the machinery of justice.
The president is titular and performs ceremonial functions like the monarchy, pi swee.The president cannot participate in politics,ie. he has to shut up on any issue even he doesn't like it.

You can see the most democratic is the US system but it is double edged sword. An important issue cannot be bulldozed. It is too slow sometimes to be effective.

The Watchman; March 01, 2010 5:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, for sure I will vote opposition even if the candidate is a dog, cat or rat. Reason is simply to drive spurs into PAP.

I would say that 90% of current MPs are worse than seat-warmers. At least inanimate seat-warmers don't suck away precious oxygen, pollute with carbon dioxide and garbage, nor pee & poo in parliament toilets.

Due to the part-time attitudes of many MPs, I only see them show-face for RC events and pre-election walkabouts.

Our ministers actually play 4 roles, not just 3:
1. wear god-knows-how-many directorship hats in GLCs and private corporations.
2. perform policy-making.
3. running the ministry administration.
4. represent constituents in parliament. This is usually the lowest priority of the 4 roles and outsourced to part-time MPs or usually to PAP "volunteers".; March 01, 2010 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...: I was thinking that "The heads of the different departments in Government (i.e. like our ministers) are appointed by the President.", under our current circumstances, it would be LP--PL.; March 01, 2010 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: "In UK, the ministers rely on the senior civil servants to administer the policies decided by the Government. They do not manage the administration. They remain largely policy making."

It is the same thing here. The highly paid senior civil servants (perm sec, deputy sec etc) are the ones who administer the ministries, not the minister. The minister also is largely policy making.

That's why the day to day administration of the country will not be affected much, if at all, if the govt and the ministers change. Maybe the policy and direction will be changed and also maybe some resistance from below too.; March 01, 2010 8:47 PM
Anonymous said...: 'appointed on the advice of the prime minister' is prefix to any appointment and rubber stamped by the president.; March 01, 2010 9:55 PM
Anonymous said...: whichever system we have, we don't need 1 MM, 2 SM, 2 DPM, 3 Ministers in PMO to assist 1 multi-million paid PM. This I called incompetent!; March 02, 2010 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: MP is assigned to X pte ltd as an independant director !

Retired civil servant is dirctor of pte ltd under Temersek Holding or VWO!

Pls discuss is it a public good?; March 05, 2010 2:11 PM