Cabinet issue not just about size

Monday, January 16, 2012

Dear Editor,

I've been following the ongoing debate surrounding the new cabinet size and agree, for the most part, it could have been more compact.

The prime minister could've really hit the ground running with her administration, had she presented a leaner, trimmer team. This is why some critics now believe her intention, after taking the oath, must have been to reward as many of the dedicated comrades who stood by her through thick and thin and helped secure the victory.

While I agree with 'Butch' Stewart's comments that the Cabinet is like the executive board of a large private corporation, I don't believe it has to be large-scale to be effective. Unlike the big corporation, governments don't exist for profit, they manage resources for the well-being and security of the country and its citizens.

Most governments consider size (and cost) critical factors, while striving for the right balance of efficiency and effectiveness. If you have a framework of management, it's how you subdivide it to look after specific programmes, projects, tasks, etc that will matter.

Mrs Simpson Miller will no doubt try to justify any increase in costs, if she can produce major returns on that investment over time, by way of improving quality of life and development of the country, but it's still a big risk. Not only is she increasing the operating costs of Government significantly, at a time when Government resources are limited, she's also doing the opposite of what she spoke out against, which really is not a good sign for her own credibility.

A Cabinet considered too large could also open itself to shady areas of overlapping, which inevitably might lead to corruption, even fraud, when things become cumbersome, and you're really not sure which ministry, or who is responsible.

How do you explain, for instance, the entertainment portfolio in tourism and entertainment, when culture is being handled by the ministry of youth and culture. Isn't entertainment part

of culture?

And while Lisa Hanna is perfect for youth and culture, I believe the PM missed an excellent opportunity by not utilising Miss Hanna's superb communication skills and should have added government information to her portfolio. Even sports could have been added to that portfolio since these are relatively small areas or branches that are all related.

Plus, the PM still has to oversee all these areas anyway, so I'm not sure why sports was isolated as a separate area within the Office of the PM.

Miss Hanna, by the way, is one minister to watch closely. She's articulate and a performer who understands the issues. I would not be surprised if someday she becomes Jamaica's second female PM.

Some portfolios make perfect sense, others don't. Peter Bunting, I thought, would have been more effective elsewhere, perhaps finance, given his banking background in the private sector.

My final point has to do with seniority. Yes, there is a good infusion of youth in the new Cabinet, and no disrespect to the elders. But some of those ministers are well past retirement age. I'm concerned about their vision and creative thrust and I wonder whether they will have the physical and mental capacity to even complete the five-year term.

I think they would have served better in shorter-term consulting capacities, on boards, at state agencies or in other contractual roles.

I hope the new Cabinet will nonetheless outperform and exceed expectations, and that greater efficiencies will emerge over time. The PM must not be afraid to make changes as needed.

P Chin

chin_p@yahoo.com

Do you feel buying into Facebook now is a good investment for the long-run?
	Yes
	No

View Results
Results published weekly in Sunday Finance

Username:
Password:

Emergency work disrupts water supply in St Ann

Cabinet issue not just about size