Biased Observer

Word is that there are snide murmurings amongst the ranks that a certain senior minister has not quietly taken a back seat but is instead traipsing about grabbing valuable headline space away from a not-too-happy prime minister.

Not happy not happy lor. Who's yo' daddy?

True or not, I can't help but be vaguely amused by the whole situation. You mean 15 years ago, when the farcical designation of senior minister was created, no one had the foresight to realise how the sins of the father would be visited upon the son? So one person's self-indulgent refusal to take a graceful step 'down' resulted not only putting his son as number three (after the mentor and the senior), but severely undermined the son's authority and credibility by unwittingly designating two others as having greater 'clout' in the political hierarchy.

Unlike the title of President, there is nothing remotely ceremonial about the senior minister and minister mentor. Though some might argue that all three are publicly elected officers with important political obligations and being President is not the figurehead of the days of yore, I would have to tactfully disagree. A friend of mine, well placed in the political hierarchy and closely involved in the electoral process, showed her cards when she asked absently over coffee, "So who do you think will be appointed the next President?"

If there was ever a more notable freudian slip....

By singling out members of the parliament for the special titles of senior and mentor, we are tacitly creating a class of politicians that are too important to be returned to the common pool of a mere minister or even, heaven forbid, member, and need to be treated differently. Or is that deferentially? Perhaps it is a holdover of the still strong Asian tradition of respecting one's elders, even if one's elders are senile and batty and possibly incontinent. Age trumps all. The problem is not with the title, but with the fact that these titles are bestowed on active elected officials. Had they been retired advisors it wouldn't have been as problematic. After all, they are no longer part of the official government hierarchy, and a political party is free to designate their members however they wish.

Titles of elected officials should be immutable, in that they should not be created or customised based on individuals. Nobody should be accomodated, given 'face,' because of who they are. Once that exception was made, the precedence created has become a veritable can of worms for a group that valiantly tries to wave the banner of meritocracy in the face of endless accusations of nepotism.

Let's see them try to put that rabbit back in the hat.