by Ronnie Liu
COMMENT | There is a need to distinguish between constructive principled dissent and destructive criticism. It is out of my love for the party and the causes of our struggle that I felt the obligation to state my constructive principled dissent to the amendments to DAP’s constitution than to be part of destructive consent.
I must make it clear that my statement was not intended to challenge the validity of the decision. I will follow and abide by the amendment. However, it is my hope that my solitary reminder may assist the party to reflect and make the necessary adjustments when the next opportunity arises.
Organisations, be it in business, politics or society have realised the dangers of destructive consent and have encouraged and made it an obligation to consider constructive dissent. This was my sincere intention in making the statement.
Collective ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention that existed since the 18th century. It is derived from the Westminster parliamentary feature that the prime minister is appointed based on his enjoyment of the confidence of the majority of the members of parliament and that it is the prime minister who appoints his cabinet ministers. Therefore, the cabinet is collectively responsible for its decisions. If a vote of no confidence is passed against the prime minister the entire cabinet resigns.
Collective ministerial responsibility has two main components.
First, ministers should be able to have a free and frank discussion and these discussions should be kept confidential. Second, that once a position has been agreed upon in the cabinet, all ministers are expected to abide by that position and vote with the government or else resign from the cabinet.
The importance of these two features is to ensure that the public is not aware of the different opinions of the ministers, which at times can vary, and prevent the cabinet from appearing united and strong.
Thus, one of the features of collective ministerial responsibility is to ensure personal loyalty to the prime minister. It is in a cabinet minister’s best interest to support and align with the prime minister’s policies because the minister serves at the pleasure of the prime minister, who can at any time dismiss the minister and appoint others to his position.
CEC member not cabinet minister
It is to be noted that collective ministerial responsibility is a flexible convention and there are exceptions to its application. During Theresa May’s prime ministership in UK, Boris Johnson wrote articles and gave newspaper interviews in which he set out positions that were not cabinet policies. David Cameron allowed ministers to publicly disagree with the cabinet’s position in the Brexit referendum.
A member of the DAP’s Central Executive Committee (CEC), unlike a cabinet minister appointed by the prime minister, is elected by the delegates at the general assembly. The CEC member’s responsibility is therefore owed primarily to the members of the party.
I sincerely believe that the circumstances relating to the anti-hopping amendments and their effect on the democratic processes in the party are of such importance that it warrants my dissent to be voiced. It is to maintain the necessary check and balance within the party.
While defections should incur disqualification, there should also be safeguards to ensure healthy debate within the party to curtail autocratic tendencies of party bosses or provide timely reminders that the leadership may be deviating from the principles of the party struggle.
COMMENT | There is a need to distinguish between constructive principled dissent and destructive criticism. It is out of my love for the party and the causes of our struggle that I felt the obligation to state my constructive principled dissent to the amendments to DAP’s constitution than to be part of destructive consent.
I must make it clear that my statement was not intended to challenge the validity of the decision. I will follow and abide by the amendment. However, it is my hope that my solitary reminder may assist the party to reflect and make the necessary adjustments when the next opportunity arises.
Organisations, be it in business, politics or society have realised the dangers of destructive consent and have encouraged and made it an obligation to consider constructive dissent. This was my sincere intention in making the statement.
Collective ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention that existed since the 18th century. It is derived from the Westminster parliamentary feature that the prime minister is appointed based on his enjoyment of the confidence of the majority of the members of parliament and that it is the prime minister who appoints his cabinet ministers. Therefore, the cabinet is collectively responsible for its decisions. If a vote of no confidence is passed against the prime minister the entire cabinet resigns.
Collective ministerial responsibility has two main components.
First, ministers should be able to have a free and frank discussion and these discussions should be kept confidential. Second, that once a position has been agreed upon in the cabinet, all ministers are expected to abide by that position and vote with the government or else resign from the cabinet.
The importance of these two features is to ensure that the public is not aware of the different opinions of the ministers, which at times can vary, and prevent the cabinet from appearing united and strong.
Thus, one of the features of collective ministerial responsibility is to ensure personal loyalty to the prime minister. It is in a cabinet minister’s best interest to support and align with the prime minister’s policies because the minister serves at the pleasure of the prime minister, who can at any time dismiss the minister and appoint others to his position.
CEC member not cabinet minister
It is to be noted that collective ministerial responsibility is a flexible convention and there are exceptions to its application. During Theresa May’s prime ministership in UK, Boris Johnson wrote articles and gave newspaper interviews in which he set out positions that were not cabinet policies. David Cameron allowed ministers to publicly disagree with the cabinet’s position in the Brexit referendum.
A member of the DAP’s Central Executive Committee (CEC), unlike a cabinet minister appointed by the prime minister, is elected by the delegates at the general assembly. The CEC member’s responsibility is therefore owed primarily to the members of the party.
I sincerely believe that the circumstances relating to the anti-hopping amendments and their effect on the democratic processes in the party are of such importance that it warrants my dissent to be voiced. It is to maintain the necessary check and balance within the party.
While defections should incur disqualification, there should also be safeguards to ensure healthy debate within the party to curtail autocratic tendencies of party bosses or provide timely reminders that the leadership may be deviating from the principles of the party struggle.
RONNIE LIU is a member of the DAP Central Executive Committee (CEC and Sungai Pelek state representative in Selangor).
Ronnie Liu seems to be filled with much angst and frustration with needing to toe the party line.
ReplyDeleteSince we know (I read Raja Petra's article) Ronnie was previously involved in Bersih, it means he can contribute perhaps by going back to Bersih.
Forget DAP and be a free spirit. Do good through Bersih (or some other NGO) since he claims he wants to serve the rakyat.