Ministerial Responsibility

Definition of Ministerial Responsibility

- Wade and Bradley defined the doctrine as “Within a democratic state, those who govern should be accountable, or responsible, to whom they govern”.

-Marshall and Moody defined it as “Ministers are responsible for the general conduct of government…”

Collective Responsibility

- Lord Salisbury defined the convention as “It is only the principle that absolute responsibility is undertaken by every member of the Cabinet, who after a decision is arrived at, remains a member of it…”

- It simply means that the members of the Cabinet as a whole must publicly support all governmental decisions made in the Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them. The government must, as a whole, be accountable and answerable to the Parliament.

To uphold such a concept, they must uphold three concepts of collective responsibility, namely;

(i) All ministers must speak with one voice, there must be unanimity

(ii) If there is a vote of no-confidence against the government, the whole government must resign

(iii) There must be cabinet secrecy

 (i) All ministers must speak with one voice, there must be unanimity

- Collective responsibility cannot be upheld if the Ministers do not speak in one voice.

- It is a political necessity. If the government is always differing in public, then it will not be possible for them to run the country properly because they will lose the respect of the people.

-Without one voice, the government will probably collapse in no time.

 -Under this principle, ministers can still differ with each other over policy matters but it can only be done privately.

Is this concept being upheld in Malaysia?

-Yes. The governments in Malaysia and in UK are both speaking in one voice. In Malaysia, the Executive is always speaking in one voice but not as often in UK because currently they are a coalition government.

- Because of the concept of one voice, sometimes the government becomes not accountable. This principle destroys individual responsibility. Whenever a problem arises, the minister will always use the concept of collective responsibility to hide from being accountable individually.

- This concept also lessens accountability in Parliament. The MPs can always hide behind collective responsibility whenever they are questioned about a Bill being passed.

- The MPs always cover and answer for each other whenever possible, especially during question time.

- This concept is training Ministers to be ‘Yes-Man’, since they cannot say no even if he or she really disagrees with a policy.

- The PM becomes more powerful because other ministers cannot disagree with what he says.

- However, at the end of the day, the Executive still needs to speak in one voice. If they don’t, then the government would be unstable.

- The PM’s decisions are always correct. This is because the PM is an elected head, thus, he is supposed to have the support of the majority. Unfortunately, over-abusing this concept destroys individual responsibility.

(ii) If there is a vote of no-confidence against the government, the whole government must resign

- For example, if an opposition party becomes the government and decides to put forth a Bill important to its party or related to its manifesto and it was defeated, then the PM with his Cabinet must resign. It also uses the principle of one voice since the government must resign as a whole.

- It is a good rule that the Executive must resign collectively because they must be responsible and accountable to the Parliament. If the Parliament loses confidence in them, then the people also loses confidence in them, since the Parliament is the representative of the people.

Is this concept working in Malaysia?

- In Malaysia, it will never happen. Although it is a good procedure in reality, it is unlikely that it will be used in Malaysia.

- This is because the Parliament is dominated by the Executive. More than half of the MPs belong to the ruling party.

- Besides that, if Party Whip is used, then all of the MPs from BN must support the Bill, thus, the Bill will never be defeated.

-This 2^nd concept does not really work partially because of the electoral system.

- The First Past The Post (FPTP) system used in Malaysia encourages the government to have too many seats in Parliament. When the government is too strong, the people will suffer. Other parties are too weak, and so they are regarded as not chosen by the people.

- Therefore, collective ministerial responsibility is not upheld.

- Party Whip is another bad system that allows the Executive to dominate the Parliament. In Malaysia, the Party Whip ensures that Bills containing policies from the ruling party will go through as the MPs from the ruling party can only agree to the Bill.

- However, in France, the coalition party, politically unstable, is very good because they will be very accountable. Opposition will remove them straight away if they make faulty decisions, but will merely appreciate them if they made correct ones.

(iii) There must be cabinet secrecy

- Secrecy in Cabinet is necessary to a certain extent. Certain things discussed in Cabinet must not be heard by the people. Something that is injurious to national security has to be kept secret. For example, the amount of war vehicles owned by a country should not be made public.

- However, the government may sometimes hide behind this concept. Even when a certain thing is not related to national security, the government still insists that it is and refuses to discuss about it.

- For example, in question time, the Minister refuses to reveal things with the reason that it is national security.

- Duncan v Cammell Laird

A submarine sank during sea trials with the loss of 99 lives. The families of the sailors who had been killed in the disaster claimed damages from the builders, Cammell Laird. The House of Lords upheld a certificate issued by the Admiralty claiming Public Interest Immunity in relation to the plans of the submarine. Case was dismissed.

-Council for the Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ case)

The government made a decision that the people who work in GCHQ cannot join Unions. It would be injurious to national security. In 1984, the judge said that he will be the one deciding whether the matter is national security or not. The judge reviewed all of the evidence privately, and decided that it really is injurious to national security. After this case, courts were able to determine whether certain materials affect national security.

- Secrecy is bad sometimes because the government hides behind the concept and not to disclose certain things to the public. At least today, the judiciary in UK will be the one deciding whether it is public interest immunity or not.

Individual Ministerial Responsibility

- It means that ministers must be responsible to the Parliament on their conduct or the conduct of their departments.

-There are 4 aspects of individual responsibility that are not stated in the FC

(i) Personal Misconduct

-The general rule for personal misconduct is that ministers should resign, for example, sexual impropriety, gangsterism, corruption or etc.

John Profumo

He was found to have been in a sexual relationship with a prostitute, Christine Keeler. She was also found to have a close personal relationship with a Russian Naval at the Soviet Embassy. When questioned in the House of Commons, Mr. Profumo lied. When the truth emerged, he resigned office.

Chua Soi Lek

He was the Health Minister at the time. He was caught having sex with a young woman in a DVD that was widely circulated. As a result, he resigned from all political posts due to his misconduct.

Dato’ Anwar Ibrahim

He was the Deputy Prime Minister, and he was called to resign following allegations that he was involved in sodomy. He refused to resign.

(ii) Financial Impropriety

- This aspect can also be considered as a part of personal misconduct. The general rule is that a minister is supposed to resign due to financial impropriety.

John Belcher MP

In this case, a Tribunal of Inquiry was established to inquire into allegations of payments being made to John Belcher MP. He received gifts offered with a view to securing favourable treatment in relation to licences granted by the Board of Trade. He resigned office and his parliamentary seat as a result.

(iii) Departmental Error

Crichel Down Affair 1954

In this case, Crichel Down was compulsorily taken by Air Ministry. After the 2^nd World War, the land was transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture. A part of Crichel Down was owned by Mrs. Marten and her husband wanted to reclaim the land. He asked the Agriculture Land Commission whether he could buy back the land but they claimed they have no power to investigate. Mr. Marten brought the matter with his MP, resulting in a request of a report from the Land Commission. The official in charge was told not to approach the previous owners and to treat the matter as highly confidential. The report was full of inaccuracies. Mr. Marten was informed of the decision and advised the Ministry that he would rent the whole land. Mr. Marten’s letters went unanswered and pressed for a public inquiry. The inquiry found inaccuracies in the report and inefficiency in handling the matter. Later, the minister, Thomas Dugdale, accepted responsibility and resigned.

Falklands Crisis

The minister in this case wrongly called back a battleship from Falklands Island and it was taken over by Argentina. It almost triggered a war between UK and Argentina. 3 people were made to resign, Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Luce and Mr. Atkins but the minister did not resign.

- Samy Vellu’s department made a lot of errors, especially in relation to the collapse of the Highland Towers. However, he did not resign at all.

(iv) Policy Error

- It means that ministers pass wrong policies and causes loss to the people. However, ministers generally do not resign over this concept. This is because Ministers usually hide behind the concept of collective responsibility whenever they made a policy error.

- The decision to revert the teaching of Mathematics and Science to English and eventually back to Bahasa Malaysia clearly shows a policy error, but no ministers resigned.

Suez Canal Affair

The Labour government wanted to grow peanuts in Tanzania as a contribution to the African and British economies. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money were used. However, the plan failed and the Minister in charge did not resign.

Why isn’t the concept of ministerial responsibility really working in Malaysia?

- Electoral system (FPTP) favours the ruling party. The ruling party can always hide behind collective responsibility, to speak with one voice, whenever they make an error.

- This concept is still new in Malaysia, Ministers do not understand that they must be responsible and accountable to the people