This is actually a fuller fleshing out of the article I wrote on the train yesterday. Had more time to gather my thoughts and think deeper.
Right now we see messages such as "voting for Change" and "voting wisely" being totted around, when they are actually euphemisms for "vote for the alternative party". But are we really putting much thought into our votes? Yes we may see change, but is it necessary for the better? Makes you wonder why they don't outright say "vote for a better future" or something to that effect.
I previously raised the issue of a unlikely but possible worse case scenario where Tin Pei Ling ends up being appointed to one of the major offices by the Prime Minister's office at the end of this election. Let me review the line of though leading to this possibility.
The Appointment of Ministers
The first point is very straight forward if ground sentiments are to be believed. The 2nd point needs further elaboration. Elected MPs are those that win the election through the voting process of GE 2011. Appointed Ministers, like Ministers of Finance, or Ministers of Foreign Affairs, are selected by the Prime Minister's office, presumably as these people are viewed as the best available candidate to hold the post. These appointed office are usually grouped into 2 tiers, the actual "head" minister, and a more minor post, usually called "second minister of" so and so ministry. Barring capability, another criteria deciding what post the minister gets also depends on experience. The more senior MPs are eligible for one "head" minister appointment, i.e. George Yeo, or may hold 2 minor posts i.e. Lim Hwee Hua who is second minister for Finance and second minister for Transport. The less experienced MPs will usually hold just one minor post, sort of an understudy for bigger roles ahead. One criteria for eligibility though is that they must first be an elected MP, be it via voting or a walkover.
Its the 3rd point that many voters should actually be considering when they think about their votes. Lets talk numbers first.
Opportunity Costs and Requirements of Smooth Transitions
When an incumbent minister gets voted out, it is not just that one position (or 2 if the person holds 2 minor posts) that gets affected; that figure must be doubled. One also needs to consider the opportunity costs of replacing that minister. The one eventually picked to fill up the vacated post might have originally been under consideration to fill up another post. This is especially true if replacement plans are in place for out-going appointed ministers.
Then we have to consider the capability factor. This is where some alternative party supporters might contradict themselves without themselves being aware of it. Much "credit" is being "given" to individual appointed ministers for doing a bad job in a particular sector. Yet they think that the "machinery" can be kept running smoothly once these ministers are out, since the infrastructure is in place to keep things going smoothly. 2 scenarios they fail to consider is that maybe the infrastructure is good because the problematic appointed ministers did in fact do a good job setting it up and keeping it in good condition to be handed over. Or, there really could be something inherently wrong with the system, whereupon it would not be able to function smoothly without proper guidance. Of course this is not a universal truth. Just some things to consider. The main point is that the choice of suitable replacements may be further limited due to the more capable people having lost their election.
Evaluating the Candidate Separate From The Party
Of course, one may blame the PAP for having such a weak field of candidates in the first place. But is that really the case? It would only be true if the capability of the candidate was the only criteria in the voting process, where stronger candidates still get voted for, and the weaker candidates do not. However, looking at the current social media scape, we can easily see that there seems to be a growing number of people who will simply vote for the alternative party just because they do not trust in the system any more, and want to voice their displeasure, or they feel that the need for alternative voices out-prioritizes everything else. What they fail to consider is that if that is the way they intend to vote, they run the risk of disqualifying the more capable candidates from office, the same ones that are supposed to keep the country functioning smoothly while they introduce their alternative voices. Ideology may well triumph over practical concerns.
The Problem with the "Continue to Contribute Even Without Appointment" Suggestion
One suggestion fielded by alternative party supporters in the event of the more capable appointed ministers being voted out is that they can always continue to contribute in a non-office capacity. What they failed to consider is that it is not always possible. The best example of this is in the case of trade, finance or foreign affairs ministers negotiating with their foreign counterparts. If we send in a less experience minister, we will be at a disadvantage. If we send in a "proxy" representative (the out-of-office ministers now working as negotiators), the foreign counterparts will view that as a sign of dis-respect. Note that even MM Lee does not step in as a proxy for PM Lee, even though MM Lee is instantly recognizable and (though some may disagree) respected. Can you imagine the next ASEAN or some other major world world conference where every country fields their Foreign Affairs (or equivalent) ministers, and we are the only ones to send in someone who holds a different/smaller office?
Voting Responsibly VS Voting for Change
Note that I am in no way proposing blind support for the PAP. I am just cautioning against blind support for ideologies such as "change for the sake of change" and cheapening your vote by treating it as a thumbs up/thumbs down button. Our votes are very valuable. If you truly think one particular candidate is better than the other, vote for him/her. If we see a weaker candidates who deserve to lose, vote him/her out. I agree that we need alternative voices, but we also need to have retain the ability to appoint ministers who are capable of operating the machine and keeping the country going while we affect changes. That's how transition periods are, be it company or a country. Blindly voting out the more or decently capable (or less incompetent) ministers means that even if we do get better representation in parliament, it would be at a now real risk of the an unstable government and inefficient ministries due to less qualified ministers in office.
Do you really want Tin Pei Ling as an appointed minister?
Of course, one may argue that the way out of this "rut" is to vote the PAP out of power totally..... Or maybe just Marine Parade. And I hope this does not count as fear mongering. Maybe I just worry too much.
PS: These opinions are the author's own and through deep consideration, uninfluenced by state media (due to self imposed self-censorship since mid April). Author was unable to escape the influence of social media however due to facebook.....
Right now we see messages such as "voting for Change" and "voting wisely" being totted around, when they are actually euphemisms for "vote for the alternative party". But are we really putting much thought into our votes? Yes we may see change, but is it necessary for the better? Makes you wonder why they don't outright say "vote for a better future" or something to that effect.
I previously raised the issue of a unlikely but possible worse case scenario where Tin Pei Ling ends up being appointed to one of the major offices by the Prime Minister's office at the end of this election. Let me review the line of though leading to this possibility.
- Alternative Parties and representatives are expected to get more seats in GE 2011, though the PAP is still expected to have the highest percentage overall.
- The possibility that incumbent appointed ministers lay lose their appointments due to not meeting the 1st criteria of being elected. (Appointments can only be given to elected MPs).
- The Prime Minister's office will have less options to appoint MPs due to the reduced pool size of elected candidates (they can only be selected from the majority party).
The Appointment of Ministers
The first point is very straight forward if ground sentiments are to be believed. The 2nd point needs further elaboration. Elected MPs are those that win the election through the voting process of GE 2011. Appointed Ministers, like Ministers of Finance, or Ministers of Foreign Affairs, are selected by the Prime Minister's office, presumably as these people are viewed as the best available candidate to hold the post. These appointed office are usually grouped into 2 tiers, the actual "head" minister, and a more minor post, usually called "second minister of" so and so ministry. Barring capability, another criteria deciding what post the minister gets also depends on experience. The more senior MPs are eligible for one "head" minister appointment, i.e. George Yeo, or may hold 2 minor posts i.e. Lim Hwee Hua who is second minister for Finance and second minister for Transport. The less experienced MPs will usually hold just one minor post, sort of an understudy for bigger roles ahead. One criteria for eligibility though is that they must first be an elected MP, be it via voting or a walkover.
Its the 3rd point that many voters should actually be considering when they think about their votes. Lets talk numbers first.
Opportunity Costs and Requirements of Smooth Transitions
When an incumbent minister gets voted out, it is not just that one position (or 2 if the person holds 2 minor posts) that gets affected; that figure must be doubled. One also needs to consider the opportunity costs of replacing that minister. The one eventually picked to fill up the vacated post might have originally been under consideration to fill up another post. This is especially true if replacement plans are in place for out-going appointed ministers.
Then we have to consider the capability factor. This is where some alternative party supporters might contradict themselves without themselves being aware of it. Much "credit" is being "given" to individual appointed ministers for doing a bad job in a particular sector. Yet they think that the "machinery" can be kept running smoothly once these ministers are out, since the infrastructure is in place to keep things going smoothly. 2 scenarios they fail to consider is that maybe the infrastructure is good because the problematic appointed ministers did in fact do a good job setting it up and keeping it in good condition to be handed over. Or, there really could be something inherently wrong with the system, whereupon it would not be able to function smoothly without proper guidance. Of course this is not a universal truth. Just some things to consider. The main point is that the choice of suitable replacements may be further limited due to the more capable people having lost their election.
Evaluating the Candidate Separate From The Party
Of course, one may blame the PAP for having such a weak field of candidates in the first place. But is that really the case? It would only be true if the capability of the candidate was the only criteria in the voting process, where stronger candidates still get voted for, and the weaker candidates do not. However, looking at the current social media scape, we can easily see that there seems to be a growing number of people who will simply vote for the alternative party just because they do not trust in the system any more, and want to voice their displeasure, or they feel that the need for alternative voices out-prioritizes everything else. What they fail to consider is that if that is the way they intend to vote, they run the risk of disqualifying the more capable candidates from office, the same ones that are supposed to keep the country functioning smoothly while they introduce their alternative voices. Ideology may well triumph over practical concerns.
The Problem with the "Continue to Contribute Even Without Appointment" Suggestion
One suggestion fielded by alternative party supporters in the event of the more capable appointed ministers being voted out is that they can always continue to contribute in a non-office capacity. What they failed to consider is that it is not always possible. The best example of this is in the case of trade, finance or foreign affairs ministers negotiating with their foreign counterparts. If we send in a less experience minister, we will be at a disadvantage. If we send in a "proxy" representative (the out-of-office ministers now working as negotiators), the foreign counterparts will view that as a sign of dis-respect. Note that even MM Lee does not step in as a proxy for PM Lee, even though MM Lee is instantly recognizable and (though some may disagree) respected. Can you imagine the next ASEAN or some other major world world conference where every country fields their Foreign Affairs (or equivalent) ministers, and we are the only ones to send in someone who holds a different/smaller office?
Voting Responsibly VS Voting for Change
Note that I am in no way proposing blind support for the PAP. I am just cautioning against blind support for ideologies such as "change for the sake of change" and cheapening your vote by treating it as a thumbs up/thumbs down button. Our votes are very valuable. If you truly think one particular candidate is better than the other, vote for him/her. If we see a weaker candidates who deserve to lose, vote him/her out. I agree that we need alternative voices, but we also need to have retain the ability to appoint ministers who are capable of operating the machine and keeping the country going while we affect changes. That's how transition periods are, be it company or a country. Blindly voting out the more or decently capable (or less incompetent) ministers means that even if we do get better representation in parliament, it would be at a now real risk of the an unstable government and inefficient ministries due to less qualified ministers in office.
Do you really want Tin Pei Ling as an appointed minister?
Of course, one may argue that the way out of this "rut" is to vote the PAP out of power totally..... Or maybe just Marine Parade. And I hope this does not count as fear mongering. Maybe I just worry too much.
PS: These opinions are the author's own and through deep consideration, uninfluenced by state media (due to self imposed self-censorship since mid April). Author was unable to escape the influence of social media however due to facebook.....
