Originally posted by PRP:
[b]3
PMs
MM & SM salaries are very closed to PM's salary.That means
after they stepped down as prime minister,they still do the same
work (or at least get quite similar pay as PM).So we roughly have 3
PMs.
For a little red dot,having 3 PMs is unique but our proud GDP is
the reason(according to the govt).Who says a small country can't
have 3 PMs?
My complaint is it spend too mcuh of public money on their
slalaries.[/b]
The creation of the posts SM and MM suggests that PM is not the
best and he needs to be mentored and if the mentoring varies from
people's wishes and aspiration the PM is not responsible and MM too
being only a mentor or adviser is also not responsible for the
outcome.
That has many implications such as the following:-
(1) Mentor is not a normal minister who is expected to be
answerable to any duties or performance. He can mentor without
responsibility for any outcome of his mentoring even if mentoring
goes wrong. So MM is a redundant position which is created with
power but without responsibility.
MM can push for a casino and if casino fails he need not
resign.
(2) PM is not able to act on his own and if he acts on advice of MM
he can say that it is the cabinet or MM's decision and not his own
decision.
(3) All the elections and MPs are redundant, and just for show as
MPs probably have no power to elect their own PM and if they ever
disagree with MM's mentoring as to who should be the PM they may be
overruled or sidestepped because there is no constitution to
resolve such a crisis or conflict.
(4) PM will have to be paid three salaries for in addition to his
own salary the public have to pay the salaries of SM and MM.
(5) In the event MM and SM disagree who has higher precedence or
authority?