So the new Cabinet line-up is out. If I have to describe my reaction on the Cabinet reshuffle, I would say it is "bewildering but not unexpected".

The description is most apt for Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim. Frankly, it is a matter of time before Wong and Mah step down from Cabinet because of the need for leadership renewal and the issues raised against them during GE2011. So it is not beyond anyone's imagination that they would vacate their seats on the government frontbench before the next General Election.

What is bewildering is that the Prime Minister choose to retire Wong and Mah immediately after GE2011. With the departure of MM Lee and SM Goh, and the loss of George Yeo, it seems that the Cabinet is rather stretched. I will not comment on the performance on Wong and Mah for the past few years (after all, it is subjective), but one have to admit that they are experienced ministers. Of course, perhaps in the reshuffle, the Prime Minister may consider that leadership renewal and changing the public perception to the Government are the main overriding concerns.

Neither am I surprised that Tharman Shanmugaratnam will be made a Deputy Prime Minister, especially after the departure of George Yeo from politics and how the Prime Minister repeated his trust on the Finance Minister at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum. On a side note, this would mean that Tharman will no longer be running for the position of Managing Director of International Monetary Fund.
Indeed, I am under the impression is that the Cabinet is rather stretched in terms of experienced and talented personnel.

What is the most bewildering, however, is the arrangements made for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). As I have earlier mentioned, I am bewildered by the retirement of Raymond Lim. I expected that he would stay on in MFA as its Second Minister, in order to ensure continuity in the political leadership and policies within the Ministry. His retirement would mean that political leadership in the MFA will start from an almost clean slate, given the impending departure of George Yeo, Raymond Lim and Zainudin Nordin.

Interestingly, K Shanmugam has been shifted from the Ministry of Home Affairs to the MFA. While I admire his brilliant intellect and eloquence in speech, I have expected him to stay in MHA for a while longer before any change to his portfolio. In fact, he has only taken over from Wong Kan Seng a few years ago. But I trust in DPM Teo and Shanmugam's capabilities to manage well in their new portfolios.

Heng Swee Keat provides another surprise, having being made an instant member of the Cabinet and to hold the helm at the Education Ministry. Aside from revealing the prominence of Heng among his batch of newly elected MPs, it shows that the Prime Minister is taking the issue of leadership renewal seriously. MOE is considered as one of the heavyweight ministries, along with MINDEF, MOF, MHA and MFA. To be placed in this position reveals the Prime Minister's confidence in the former Managing Director of Monetary Authority of Singapore's capabilities and experience.

Aside from Heng, the next star of GE2011 is naturally Maj-Gen (NS) Chan Chun Sing, who has been appointed Acting Minister for Ministry of Information, Communications and The Arts. Personally, my only advice for Chan is that he should really build on his Public Relations and Communication skills. No doubt, Chan has been (trying to) portray a simple lifestyle and close to the heartland folks, but I have to say that his tone and style of speaking (as one can infer from the media so far) does not really endear him to many people.

Having being dubbed as the core of the fourth generation leadership, his appointment is nothing surprsing - though I must add that I prefer Bri-Gen (NS) Tan Chuan Jin to Chan. For Chan's own good, he should really learn from Tan on how to carry himself and speak in the media. Walking the stairs to communicate with residents is not enough. It is only a publicity stunt, at most. To truly be a humble man, you do not need news on what you have done to show you are a simple person. Gradually, time will tell and how you behave is a more reliable indicator. If he is not able to change the perception that some may have of him (as expressed online), there is no way he is going to connect to the netizens (who are obviously Singaporeans).

With 4 newly elected MPs placed on the government's frontbench, it seems that the governing party is taking the issue of leadership renewal seriously. The reshuffle also suggests that the Prime Minister has heard the electorate's concern of a government that is losing touch with the grassroots, and thus explaining the decision to allow the retirement of elder statesmen.

But I hope - and pray - that this reshuffle is not done at the expense of having a shortage of experienced and talented personnel. It is nothing new in Singapore's political context to have a minister to head two ministries, but Tharman is heading both Finance and Manpower Ministries. It may be overstretching for the new Deputy Prime Minister, who is also concurrently Chairman of MAS. This suggests the first instance of lack of experienced and talented personnel to specialise in one ministry for each minister.

The second instance could be found in the appointment of Heng as Education Minister. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with making a new MP a full minister. In fact, this is widely practiced in other parliamentary democracies whereby sometimes the Prime Minister may not even have prior ministerial experience (c.f. Tony Blair and David Cameron of the United Kingdom). One cannot help but to think that leadership renewal is urgent because there are not enough talented and tested personnel within the frontbench, and thus Heng is chosen because of his performance while in Public Service.

In the context of PAP's leadership renewal, seldom are MPs directly appointed to full ministerial positions. Shanmugam is one of the few exceptions, having being made Minister of Law and Second Minister of Home Affairs in 2008. For most ministers, they are either being made Acting Minister directly after a General Election, or work their way up from being Minister of State and being made Minister after a year as Acting Minister. And to be entrusted with a heavyweight ministry, the minister in question must be either a trusted politician, or have been groomed for succession as Second Minister for some time. This frequently occured in MINDEF (c.f. Dr Ng Eng Hen), MHA (c.f. Shanmugam) and MOE. Heng's appointment suggests that there is no time to be wasted, and there is no one else available to take over from Ng Eng Hen due to more pressing need in other ministries.

With the departure of MM Lee Kuan Yew and SM Goh Chock Tong, it is hoped that the PAP will herald a new age of politics in Singapore. But I believe the MM and SM Goh need not step down to reiterate that point. After all, they are only in advisory capacities and do not make major decisions. Furthermore, the core make-up of the new Cabinet retains most of the Cabinet ministers before GE2011, albeit with change in appointments. What it takes to show that a government is learning from an election is not a change in personnel, but in the policies made. Indeed, the essence of reform lies in whether the same people remaining could learn from mistakes and change the policies if necessary, and not lies in whether the personnel has changed.

-

On a sidenote, I cannot resist but to comment on Tan See Jay's call for by-elections to be held in Tanjong Pagar GRC and Marine Parade GRC.

Constitutionally, there is no basis for by-elections to be held after a Cabinet Minister resigns his or her political appointment. Neither is there an expectation that any minister will remain in Cabinet after General Elections, for the tenure of office is recommended by the Prime Minister to the President. So there is no legal provision for a by-election to be called, just because Ministers resign or are no longer appointed to the frontbench.

Aside from the legal aspect, no rational being would voluntarily resign a seat in Parliament to make business easy for their competitors, unless there are compelling reasons. If one really have to find a precedent elsewhere in the world for by-election, the nearest example I could think of is the 1961 Bristol South East by-election in 1961.

The by-election occured when Tony Benn automatically lost his seat in the Commons following his father's death and his own elevation to the House of Lords as the new Viscount Stansgate. That triggered a by-election, and Tony Benn continued to stood and won against Malcom St Clair, with 69.5% of the votes even though the voters clearly know Benn could not qualify for a seat in the Commons as an hereditary peer. Benn was disqualified from taking his seat despite the outright majority and St Clair became the new MP for Bristol South East. However, St Clair also promised to vacate the seat and respect the wishes of the voters if a change in law allows Benn to qualify for Commons again. And indeed, St Clair voluntarily resigned after the Peerage Act 1963 allows hereditary peers to disclaim their peerage and stand for Commons election. This was done on the basis of the mandate which Benn won in 1961 and 1963 by-elections.

The aforementioned precedent (which is not binding in Singapore) proves 2 things. Mandate is given on the basis of majority, and SM Goh won more than 60% of the votes in Marine Parade GRC. Secondly, if the voters truly like you, they would vote for you no matter whether you are a hereditary peer (or Senior Minister, in this context) or just an ordinary Member of Parliament. After all, as a constituent, you are concerned whether this MP can contribute to and represent your constituency.

In the case of Tanjong Pagar GRC, it was understood that there are interested candidates who wish to contest in the GRC but failed to meet the requirements at the stipulated time. Under the laws relating to Parliamentary election, MM Lee and his team won unopposed. It is perfectly legal, and if any team expresses interest in the GRC should wait to stand in the next General Elections. There is no logic or purpose for the PAP team to hold a by-election just because other political parties wish to compete now (assuming if this is the case).

The fallacy which Tan See Jay makes, in my opinion, is that he links respect for a person with ministerial office. Or at least, that is what he suggests in the statement.

"With regard to Tanjong Pagar, where Minister Mentor Lee is, a lot of opposition parties, out of respect for him, did not contest and also because they thought that he would continue as Minister Mentor."

If you do not contest in Tanjong Pagar because "out of respect for" MM Lee, you choose to do it because of him a person. A ministerial office do not automatically translate into respect for the office-holder. More importantly, it seems that Tan is suggesting that voters vote for PAP in Tanjong Pagar and Marine Parade because the main concern is to allow Cabinet Ministers to continue serving in office.

However, this idea is not coherent with the political behaviour among the electorate in GE2011. If voters really think Cabinet ministers must be re-elected due to their office, Aljunied GRC would have voted otherwise to retain George Yeo and 2 other frontbench colleagues (and indeed, I am saddened that George Yeo has lost). Clearly, voters do weigh national and constituency issues before making their choice at the ballot box. At least, this is what Aljunied and Hougang voters have demonstrated.

More importantly, PAP's manifesto for Marine Parade GRC did not state that SM Goh and his team should be voted in order to allow SM to remain in Cabinet. In other words, there is no compelling reason for a by-election to be called as there is no breach in the SM's manifesto. It seems to me that whatever SM has promised to his constituents has no relation to his political office. His commitment is to his constituents, and there is zero mention of any necessity of the constituents to vote for him to secure his political appointment.

Thus, at least from my own point of view, there is no legal or legitimate reason for a by-election to be called. No law or constitutional convention has been breached, or is there any incoherency with the principles of democracy. The call for a by-election on the premises suggested by Tan is an illogical course of action, and should not be taken seriously. In fact, once elected, a public office holder must fulfill his or her moral obligations to the community. Unless there are compelling reasons, to resign before the parliamentary session ends (or in this context, begins) suggests that such responsibility is taken lightly and there is a breach in the moral contract to serve. One should then really consider if by-election is necessary, especially when it proves no point and waste time and money in this case.

Labels: Comparative Politics