Role of SM

king108 SG · 2006-05-04T16:50:10+00:00

We should plan ahead instead of waiting for result to reveal since we are 1st world standard country. We treasure talent, FM Yeo is a talent. You agree?....

king108 SG

I fully agreed that SM is important..Just wondered what is the role and can we have more SM(s). I think will be good for Singapore, as least they are there to help our PM. Your view.

Medicated Oil SG

PM should be the leader of the party and the ruling party.

There will only be one head in the family.

When you have too many cooks, you spoiled the soup.

In the Singapore context, is the PM so useless that he need so much assistences from the past PM as SM ?

I dun think so.

king108 SG

Laughing Don't say until like that..More SMs so that they can assist PM in running the country is like providing more varities..chief chef is still PM. Instead of standard 1 theme of dishes, we can have indian, malaysia, chinese, english for all guests in any one gathering and every guests will be well and better serve..

king108 SG

Laughing So can we have more for that purposes. I think yes which is also in line with the government promotion of recognision to those capable minister.

dragg SG

i dont understand why our govt needs a SM and a MM.

is the PM is not good enough?

king108 SG

Our PM is definitely good. MM can only have 1 and only 1. While I was looking for possibilities of having more SMs to help our PM to deal with existing trend where world event changed rapidly..I am looking at SM as a dominated officers instead of a elected MPs due to their heavy responsiblities in the government and private sectors.

lftwgr SG

While we're on the topic of SM, MM and M&Ms, can we say what exactly it is that these new fangled posts' duties are?

They act in an advisory role right? So why did the MM play a prominent role in negotiation with Alpa-s? AFAIK, it should've been the Minister for Manpower taking up that fight. Or why is SM used as a political PR tool now?

One more thing, if we value SM and MM's inputs into how government is run, then what about the old guard ministers like Tony Tan, Richard Hu, etc.? They were giants in their time, so I'm sure they have a lot of experience to enrich government right? Rather than sitting on the sides at Stat boards or Temasek.

I think as time passes and more PMs become eligible for SM role, there is a need to define what role they should play, and how much say they get in the cabinet.

I am looking at SM as a dominated officers instead of a elected MPs due to their heavy responsiblities in the government and private sectors.

Whether they have to be elected MPs or not would depend on the role and responsibilities they assume in the cabinet. If they are taken to be similar to Ministers without Portfolio, then it is not in the people's interest that they become life-long positions.

king108 SG

Laughing Thanks for reminding me that SM are actually act only as advisory role. Hence, it may not required to be elected MPs in order to carried out such roles. Am I rite?

I think even like Former DPM Tony Tan can be SM, both current DPMs can also be dominated as SMs. Their role will be helping PM beside advising. They are definitely talented and can help our PM in many area. Like Former DPM Tony Tan good in banking..can considered to be assigned to China to look after Singapore financial arms in China, DPM if SM can go india where to help us to create more opportunities in India and Middle East where the market is really big.

Even FM Yeo can be considered to be very talented can be PM representative at all time to go round ensuring bonds with our neighbours are always healthy..

They are many many more..which I may not be able to think of yet..I would believe that they will be proud to do that service for PM and fellow singaporeans. I believed that they will agree with what I mentioned, don't you?
Laughing

lftwgr SG

Thanks for reminding me that SM are actually act only as advisory role. Hence, it may not required to be elected MPs in order to carried out such roles. Am I rite?

No I said it depends on their roles, and right now, it doesn't seem like they are merely advisers. As you would say, they are like the PM's 'representatives', out to handle the dirty work for the PM (like resolving the Alpa-S dispute).

If MM was really acting as an advisor, he would've sat in on the negotiations and let the Minister for Manpower handle the talking, only interrupting to ensure there is a smooth flow and that discussions stay on topic.

So I think it is only right that SM and MM be elected posts, not nominated ones. At least that way, they are still accountable to the people.

king108 SG

I respected all Ministers and believed they had established talents beside the qualification they had. Hence, PM should really considered to appoint some of those recognised ones as SM so that they are there to help him with advise. Running of town and garden is the role of a full time MP which should be elected.

Keeping them as SMs will benefit singapore as they are able to create more wealth for us singaporeans. I believed that they will be proud to serve singapore further even after retired. I really treasured their talents and really would beg them to serve our PM for the sake of singapore as appointed SM.

Leave the running of town councils to elected full time MPs.

lftwgr SG

Are you suggesting that perhaps all Ministers (Manpower, Defense, Health, Education, Environment, Trade & Development, Home Affairs, etc.) should be political appointtees?

Fortunately for us, we have a Westminster system of government where all ministers have to be elected MPs, so at least the executive (government) is accountable to the legislative (parliament), and every 4-5 years there is this thing call an election where citizens can decide if they've done a good job.

If all the ministers were political appointtees, then we would be no different from the American system where the Secretaries serve at the pleasure of the President.

And if you look at (very) recent history, GW Bush has managed to appoint some of the most inept Secretaries and Under-secretaries in the history of the US because of political backslapping (Rumsfield, in particular, was a favorite of Dick Cheney).

No thanks, but I'd stick to what we have now.

robertteh SG

For a parliamentary system, or democracy to work efficiently and effectively, there has to be safeguard against tyranny by those in power through legalistic controls and gerrymandering. Of the three realms of government, now only the executive has power with judiciary and legislative playing second fiddles.

This aspect of our governing system is an undesirable part of our system. This part has to evolve to a more satisfactory balance and check system.

In our case, the basic laws relating to the proper coordination and smooth functioning of our democracy or parliamentary democracy has been overriden by a strong executive through all kind of legalistic gerrrymandering of existing laws which effectively render the constitution a dead document.

Now the executive is the over-domineering branch of government which runs all areas of the government to its wishes and desires to serve the narrower agenda of the party in power. The system is losing its objectivity, accountability and transparency. People are losing their rights to offer views and opinions resulting in many problems.

In our system, the various parties are not working together but are contending with laws passed by the more powerful executives. We have no way to check on gerrymandering of laws from GRC to Sedition Act and self-approval of ministers' inflated salaries and retirement gratuities. More are coming like upgrading of HDB estates priority to citizens who are loyal to the government.

Under this sort of circumstance, it is not quite a good idea to give the leaders additional powers to appoint outside parties to hold executive powers like the MMs or SMs. There will be more gerrymandering with more powers to the few in power leading to corruptions and nepotism which is the greatest danger of all.

SG,LauBaiXing SG

I'm making a wild guess for the main role only ha.........
1) Sucking Monies ?
2) Stealing Monies ?

sbst275 SG

His signature is on the new series of the SGD notes Laughing

pikamaster SG

THe future will not be the same as the present, and definitely not the same as the past. However cruel this may be, unless we freeze Singapore in stasis, experience is going to be increasingly less and less important...

iceFatboy SG

my first impression is of letter S+M = S**K MONEY.

king108 SG

Laughing Please lah..SM = Senior Minister. Hence their pay must be high so that it justified their post..if they are able to earn more for singaporean..Why stop or prevent. However, I am asking for SM to be appointed instead of elected MPs. As we know Fulltime MP are more concerned with our daily surrounding..Unlike Ministers where they are doing things much more demanding. Hence we shall tried all means to retain those that retired to be SM and even considered some of the existing one to be SM so that they can continue to serve singapore regardless they are elected MP or no. Why take the chances on talents...it's a loss to us if they cannot serve..

Hence, appointing SM is good for everyone.

Laughing

Pronewbie SG

I really do respect some of the older guards of the PAP. People like George Yeo, Teo Chee Hian.. But what I don’t understand is why the they were overlooked for Prime Minister duty. Singaporeans should be allowed to vote for Prime Minister approval, even though he is the only candidate.

pikamaster SG

Well, if u really want them, then at least they should be made fully non-partisan i.e. drop out of PAP when they become SMs, or selse the political field will be skewed even further towards them. And btw, why not include CST as an SM too? hmm... he is nearly as old as MM.

But seriously, I think a first-world country does not need SMs and MMs, because first-world MPs should be able to manage on their own without any help whatsoever. And besides, like I said earlier, times change and we ahve to change along with them. older SMs and MMs will be resistant to change, and this will be detrimental to the nation's future growth.

cheers,
the pikamaster (who salutes GMS and frowns at Gomez)

king108 SG

Laughing Any CEO will wanted his trusted man..

Hence, the SMs I am asking, needed not to be vote in government..They are not to involve in voting in bill. However, they can advise PM. Besides that they are required to carry out duties assigned to serve PM so that singapore can be better.. Wouldn't that be good for us. Laughing

It is better that he is a party member cause he must have belief else how can we trust him

We must treasure talent..as singapore resource is restricted..We needed to give them the title so that they will be recognised when meeting foreigner minister. ("Senior" is always respected then anyone..and is lower than Prime Minister") That will make their work outside singapore easily.

Support this appointed SM..good for singapore, good for singaporean.. Laughing