- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 38,563
- Points
- 113
The USA system on Paper is better, but the people must be united and there is a strong sense of identity. If the country is fragmented, the USA system will be worse. But looking at the Westminister System, the cabinet is not elected by the people. Cabinet ministers are chosen by the party. And often many of the cabinet ministers know nuts about the ministries they are running anyway.
For the USA system, the cabinet serves at the President's pleasure. Can be sack anytime, in the west minister system its a cabinet reshuffle. For the USA, cabinet must be approve by the senate etc a which are the elected representatives so there are checks and balances. Cabinet members are also often experts in their field. (Like Robert Gates).
For Singapore's case because the ruling party controls everything which is nothing more than a 1 party dictatorship. an elected President will help balance out the excesses. That is why i prefer a Presidential system as compared to a full West Minister system. There are just too much horse trading and control by unelected party heads for the british system.
The problem being Singapore doesnt have a senate--unlike even Malaysia, where there are two houses.
The US system is too diffused. And the Cabinet is still unelected; 99% of the time the Senate approves the candidate.
In the Westminster system, the Ministers are tested many times--elected by the people, then handling both constituency and Ministerial position. In the US, each cabinet member just does his or her stuff. So Hilary Clinton woh earns less than SG's FM doesnt need to bother about a constituency.