This is what the new Cabinet looks like arranged according to age.
Quick comparison of the 2 Cabinets:
| Cabinet | 2006 | 2011 |
| No. of Members | 21 | 15 |
| Average age | (At 2006) 54 | (At 2011) 53 |
| Average years in Cabinet | (At 2006) 12.4 | (At 2011) 9.4 |
| % with no Private Sector experience | 43% | 67% |
| % of Males | 95% | 100% |
| % of Non-Chinese | 24% | 33% |
This is a smaller and slightly more ethnically-diverse, but not exactly younger Cabinet.
Its Ministers are 25% less experienced as members of Cabinet, and more than 80% have only worked in the Public Service and/or uniform services, i.e. with no private sector experience.
In fact, 100% of the 3 new Ministers were from Public Service and uniformed services, and read Economics at undergraduate level.
.........................................................
On the whole, I think it's a fallacy to maintain a 'young' Cabinet, i.e. in the early 50s. Age is meaningless.
Diverse experience in Cabinet counts. And that, has decreased significantly with this new line up.
In terms of tendency for group think, one may use the % with no Private Sector experience as a proxy. Not looking good in this department.
I think losing Raymond Lim is tragic.
Though many people are angry with transport issues, it is important to realise that Raymond Lim did not create these problems. His predecessor (who has quietly exited from politics in 2006) and other ministers did.
As Minister of Transport, Raymond Lim did try to clean up whatever he could, e.g. restricting supply of COEs. But he could not have effectively eradicated the problem of overcrowding of MRT trains, because the root cause of this problem does not lie within his portfolio. The root cause is the influx of foreigners. Only officers in MOT would know what else Raymond Lim had to deal with.
In addition, Raymond Lim's profile is remarkably different from the rest in Cabinet. How many Cabinet members have 2 undergrad degrees and have worked in academia, private and public sectors?
No female ministers. Women who have been in Cabinet since 2006 such as Grace Fu and Amy Khor cannot match up with the newbie MG Chan Chun Sing who has been appointed Ag Minister for MCYS and MICA without even being Minister of State or Parl Sec.
I don't wish to examine the line up for Ministers of State and Parl Secs... It's just ridiculous.
Does this even make sense?
That Teo Ser Luck is made Minister of State (Trade and Industry), while Dr Amy Khor is also merely Minister of State?!
That AP Ho Peng Kee, former Vice Dean of NUS Law Faculty, joined politics in 1991 and retired 20 years later only as Senior Minister of State.
There is certainly some kind of rank-inflation going on for certain factions, and is not based on competence.
I wonder how MTI officers feel, having to seek their new Minister of State's approval. "Can you leave... yeah yeah yeah... One last cheer for me! Teo Ser Luck! Teo Ser Luck!!"
(See for yourself here at 2.18 min)
What a joke.
At this rate, Singov is gonna degenerate into Yes, Prime Minister, where the civil servants are in general smarter and more prudent than the politicians, and have to expend energy all-day-long on how to avoid a situation where the not-so-smart politicians make silly decisions. This will inevitably lead to more morale issues amongst civil servants.
Perhaps some of the heavyweight Ministers can make up for the inherent weaknesses in their new portfolios. Placing emphasis on the Manpower portfolio is a move in the right direction. Like I've mentioned earlier, the root problem is the influx of working foreigners, and that PM Lee did not include this in his apology during GE2011. Hopefully, the new DPM is not only about GDP-enhancing and will find ways to ameliorate the situation.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar