Tweet
How many gov't ministries should we have?
Thursday, June 02, 2011
THERE are individuals who manage institutions or companies whose budget and staff complements are much larger than the entire Government of Jamaica. Hence, there is no rational justification for having a large number of ministries.
Regrettably, the number of ministries is often the result of political party leaders pandering to the inflated egos and infatuation of politicians for the prestige and privilege of being a minister.
Here, both parties have been guilty of this over the years as is evident from the inflated size of their cabinets and shadow cabinets. Some politicians will endure any hardship, any humiliation or spend themselves into debt if necessary, while doing anything to become a minister.
One conventional wisdom is that the way to reduce the size and cost of government is to reduce the number of ministries. This is deemed to be far more efficient and humane than firing 10,000 low-level civil servants.
It is further argued that Cabinet meetings can be attended by anyone so authorised by the Prime Minister and therefore having a small number of ministers would not deprive Cabinet or the PM of having the advice of as many parliamentarians as the PM sees fit.
However, we are aware that given the growing complexities of international trade and relations, there is a pressing need to have an adequate number of ministries to address the many critical areas of need.
An intriguing point of view is that the salary of MPs should be increased while that of ministers should be reduced, so that the incentive to be a minister is service and not higher income and perks. Senators should be paid the same salary as an MP and the Senate should be a true upper chamber. The Senate should not be where neophytes are introduced to Parliament, but where one finishes a political career.
We think it would be useful to amend our Constitution to allow more ministers from the Senate so that the paltry pool thrown up by elections can be supplemented and upgraded by Senators of talent and pertinent experience.
We also agree that there should be term limits for MPs eg four terms, and age limits eg 70 years old, though in the case of the Senate, political parties would be urged to exercise some discretion.
Adequate pensions must be paid to all former MPs and Senators and should be the same regardless of how long someone was in either House. This will make it unnecessary to cling to Parliament as long as possible and length of service would not matter.
Of course, good salaries and pensions must be conditional on an impeccable record of having filed annually, while in either chamber of Parliament, an accurate statement of assets and income, complemented by a sworn statement that no member of the parliamentarian's family or company in which they have an interest, has done any business with the Government of Jamaica.
In this scenario, all parliamentarians must comport themselves in conformity to a strict publicly known code of conduct.
On retirement, pension would be conditional on adhering to the laws of Jamaica. The smaller number of ministers must be picked on merit, ie intelligence, leadership ability, managerial experience and qualifications pertinent to the ministry to which they are assigned.
Now, what is that magic number of ministries that would cover the critical areas of need but not over-inflate the Cabinet? We would be interested in hearing what our readers think.
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/edito...#ixzz1O8Kzr8Sq
Thursday, June 02, 2011
THERE are individuals who manage institutions or companies whose budget and staff complements are much larger than the entire Government of Jamaica. Hence, there is no rational justification for having a large number of ministries.
Regrettably, the number of ministries is often the result of political party leaders pandering to the inflated egos and infatuation of politicians for the prestige and privilege of being a minister.
Here, both parties have been guilty of this over the years as is evident from the inflated size of their cabinets and shadow cabinets. Some politicians will endure any hardship, any humiliation or spend themselves into debt if necessary, while doing anything to become a minister.
One conventional wisdom is that the way to reduce the size and cost of government is to reduce the number of ministries. This is deemed to be far more efficient and humane than firing 10,000 low-level civil servants.
It is further argued that Cabinet meetings can be attended by anyone so authorised by the Prime Minister and therefore having a small number of ministers would not deprive Cabinet or the PM of having the advice of as many parliamentarians as the PM sees fit.
However, we are aware that given the growing complexities of international trade and relations, there is a pressing need to have an adequate number of ministries to address the many critical areas of need.
An intriguing point of view is that the salary of MPs should be increased while that of ministers should be reduced, so that the incentive to be a minister is service and not higher income and perks. Senators should be paid the same salary as an MP and the Senate should be a true upper chamber. The Senate should not be where neophytes are introduced to Parliament, but where one finishes a political career.
We think it would be useful to amend our Constitution to allow more ministers from the Senate so that the paltry pool thrown up by elections can be supplemented and upgraded by Senators of talent and pertinent experience.
We also agree that there should be term limits for MPs eg four terms, and age limits eg 70 years old, though in the case of the Senate, political parties would be urged to exercise some discretion.
Adequate pensions must be paid to all former MPs and Senators and should be the same regardless of how long someone was in either House. This will make it unnecessary to cling to Parliament as long as possible and length of service would not matter.
Of course, good salaries and pensions must be conditional on an impeccable record of having filed annually, while in either chamber of Parliament, an accurate statement of assets and income, complemented by a sworn statement that no member of the parliamentarian's family or company in which they have an interest, has done any business with the Government of Jamaica.
In this scenario, all parliamentarians must comport themselves in conformity to a strict publicly known code of conduct.
On retirement, pension would be conditional on adhering to the laws of Jamaica. The smaller number of ministers must be picked on merit, ie intelligence, leadership ability, managerial experience and qualifications pertinent to the ministry to which they are assigned.
Now, what is that magic number of ministries that would cover the critical areas of need but not over-inflate the Cabinet? We would be interested in hearing what our readers think.
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/edito...#ixzz1O8Kzr8Sq
Comment