Let civil servants execute govt schemes rather than advisers
IN HIS reply on Tuesday ('Advisers and MPs have different roles') Mr Lim Yuin Chien, Press Secretary to the Minister for National Development, stated the difference in roles between Members of Parliament (MPs) and grassroots advisers.
While I can accept that opposition MPs cannot, and should not, be placed in a position where they are held accountable for government policy, surely the unelected grassroots advisers, who are not members of the Government but merely of the ruling party of the day, may only be held accountable to the party, and not the Government.
Furthermore, for their personal role in implementing national programmes, funded by taxpayers' money, grass-roots advisers gain personal political mileage.
This not only gives the ruling party of the day an unfair advantage, but also blurs the distinction between party and government activities.
In the interests of transparency and accountability, it would be best if the implementation of public policy is de- politicised, so as to leave no doubt that the primary beneficiaries of taxpayers' funds are the public, and not political parties or politicians.
To that end, the best people to execute policy in a fair and impartial manner are civil servants, who are accountable to the Government, and by extension the public, rather than a particular political party.
Civil servants already competently execute most national programmes, under the direction of their elected political masters, so it makes little sense to task specific aspects of implementation to unelected political appointees.
Matthias Chew
IN HIS reply on Tuesday ('Advisers and MPs have different roles') Mr Lim Yuin Chien, Press Secretary to the Minister for National Development, stated the difference in roles between Members of Parliament (MPs) and grassroots advisers.
While I can accept that opposition MPs cannot, and should not, be placed in a position where they are held accountable for government policy, surely the unelected grassroots advisers, who are not members of the Government but merely of the ruling party of the day, may only be held accountable to the party, and not the Government.
Furthermore, for their personal role in implementing national programmes, funded by taxpayers' money, grass-roots advisers gain personal political mileage.
This not only gives the ruling party of the day an unfair advantage, but also blurs the distinction between party and government activities.
In the interests of transparency and accountability, it would be best if the implementation of public policy is de- politicised, so as to leave no doubt that the primary beneficiaries of taxpayers' funds are the public, and not political parties or politicians.
To that end, the best people to execute policy in a fair and impartial manner are civil servants, who are accountable to the Government, and by extension the public, rather than a particular political party.
Civil servants already competently execute most national programmes, under the direction of their elected political masters, so it makes little sense to task specific aspects of implementation to unelected political appointees.
Matthias Chew
