It's crazy but some people say that a parliamentary system isn't democratic for this reason--it's because people don't vote for the prime minister. They argue that people will vote for the parties but the prime minister isn't voted by the people. It's different from the presidential system where the president is voted by the people. However, I'm afraid that the presidential system is very prone to mob rule. Meanwhile, I wrote why the parliamentary system would be more democratic than the presidential system. I'm also getting tired of similar people who still believe that the first Marcos Administration was a parliamentary. It had a parliamentary without a parliament, which means it was a fake.
The office of the prime minister
However, becoming prime minister has never been easy. It has seven rigorous steps that are not found in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. How can we expect better leaders if the system itself is lacking? Sure, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines isn't completely flawed. However, by not revising the necessary weaknesses (such as excessive restrictions) then it's really not as good as it should be. Even the first step really sounds intimidating, which is why people should see that it may have allowed President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. to sit in power, despite his questionable claim of a Harvard degree:
Step 1
In order to become the prime minister, one needs to be an elected Member of Parliament (MP) and a member of the majority party. Considering that the PAP has formed the government, and has won every election since 1959, this article is going to assume that it is easier to rise to power with the PAP.
But before even entering politics, certain factors increase the probability of success for someone with ministerial aspirations. A recent study of Singapore’s current ministers and their educational background found out that a typical minister is one who has:
- Studied at an Independent or SAP secondary school
- Went to Raffles, National JC or Hwa Chong for their tertiary studies
- Read business or economics as an undergraduate
- Gained a postgraduate degree, most commonly at the Harvard Kennedy School
Hence, candidates that follow this route seem to have a statistical advantage.
In addition to this, the government’s dominant status and its access to the Public Service Commission – which gives out Singapore’s most prestigious scholarships – allows it to recruit scholars into politics. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew conceded as much, saying that “a person who has done well in Singapore’s scholarship system will eventually be spotted and headhunters from the party will look for him”. This focus on educational attainment seems to be grounded in the belief of Singaporean vulnerability. In other words, for a country where prosperity is “a result of a continuing act of will” the PAP believes that educated and capable leaders are able to come up with plans and measures to cope with a unique set of problems. An article in the Economist also contends that the PAP avoids the types of corruption seen in other one-party dominant states precisely because it constantly recruits, and in the process turfs out established figures “ruthlessly”.
One could complain all they want that the late Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago or Jose de Venecia were the best presidents, the Philippines ever had. Those people would never win by a popularity vote. Instead, we had the likes of Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph Estrada who won instead of the more competent de Venecia. Estrada himself was a college dropout. That means the chances of Estrada becoming prime minister are very low. However, even if Estrada did finish college, read business and economic books in Ateneo de Manila, and may have gained some studies, he would still not last long. One can imagine if he faced off against de Venecia as the Opposition Leader. De Venecia may have wiped the floor out on Estrada for answering foolishly. Estrada may have already been removed by a vote of no-confidence.
 |
| Liputan6.com |
The Head of State of Singapore is a President who is directly elected by the people, following fundamental constitutional changes in 1991. The President possesses certain veto powers over the government which the President can exercise with discretion in certain circumstances. Outside of those areas where the Constitution permits the President discretionary powers, the President must act according to Cabinet advice.
The Executive comprises the Cabinet, which is responsible for the general direction of the Government and accountable to Parliament.
The Legislature comprises the Parliament and is the legislative authority responsible for enacting legislation. More information on the history of Parliament, Parliament House and activities of the House can be obtained from its web site.
The Judiciary's function is to independently administer justice. The Judiciary is safeguarded by the Constitution.
The Prime Minister of Singapore is appointed by the President of Singapore under Article 25 of the Constitution. The President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, also appoints other Ministers from among the Members of Parliament.
The Prime Minister is the effective head of the executive branch of government. The Prime Minister chairs the Cabinet, which is constituted under Article 24 of the Constitution. The Cabinet is the central decision-making body of the executive government. It is an organ of state and central to Singapore's system of government. In practice, all significant decisions or actions taken by the Executive are first discussed and collectively agreed by Cabinet.
In Singapore's case, the president continues to do this according to the Singapore Legal Advice:
Ceremonial role: As the Head of State, the President officiates at state events, and represents Singapore on the global stage in cultivating and enhancing relationships with other countries.
Community role: The President may lend weight to and promote social and charitable causes, as well as attend community events.
Constitutional role: The President has powers provided for under the Constitution which he or she may exercise. These powers can be classified into 3 categories, namely, financial powers, powers concerning the appointment of key office holders, and miscellaneous powers.
Other positions don't get the direct vote of the people, not just prime ministers
If you're reading a boat or an airplane, none of the passengers ever vote for the captain or the pilot. If I ride a boat, the captain is promoted based on his or her competency, not because the passengers voted for him. The captain is promoted based on his or her knowledge and competency in navigation. I wonder what people will have to say if they can't vote for the captain. Maybe, they'll say that it's a totally different issue.
The Philippines, being predominantly Catholic, may want to notice that voting for the next Pope isn't a direct vote by Catholics themselves. I was born during the reign of the late John Paul II. In college, I sat through the papacy of the late Benedict XVI. The Papal Conclave voted for Benedict XVI. When Benedict XVI resigned, the Papal Conclave's final votation was for Francis, the incumbent Pope. I was wondering why some Filipino Catholics are saying it's not democratic if it's not a direct people's vote. Never did Filipino Catholics cast their ballots for the next Pope! So why are they protesting at the idea that the prime minister is not by direct vote?
In the corporate setting, the chairman of the Board of Directors is never voted by all the employees. Only shareholders with voting rights can vote for the chairperson. If certain employees are subject to the employee shareholder status--only they can vote. If not, the other employees who aren't in that status have no voting rights. Maybe, a branch manager can have a voting right but not yet for those who have just started working. Also, customers of a certain corporation have no voting rights either. I can eat in Jollibee all I want but I'll never have voting rights. I have to be a shareholder of Jollibee, in order to have that right!
With these in mind, why are some people scared that the prime minister isn't voted by the people and only the parties into the parliament?