Re: PJ SHAH'S COMMENTS

[Kush Khatri <free_voice@yahoo.com>]

---PJShah <pjshah@del2.vsnl.net.in> wrote:
>
> I think we are too quick to make an exception for defense related
> secrets.  It usually means keeping secrets from citizens and not from
> other govts, including enemy govts.  It is we Indians who pay for the
> defense know a grain's worth compared to US or China.  Besides, even
in  a relatively better working democracy like US, most horror stories
come out of the "military-industrial complex."  What skeletons must be
> burried in India's?!  Just see how the Indian military reacts (and the
> media swallows it unctritically) when it is held accountable for its
> "other" acts in J&K.  Secrecy is actually a lincese to ___ (fill in
the blank).

KUSH'S COMMENTS:
By Defense related secrets is meant those secrets essential for the
security of the country.  I have never heard of such secrets being
available to the public in the US, as it is certainly not in the
national interest to do so.   Mr. Shah is confusing between defense
related secrets and the problems we had with defense acquisitions in
the late eighties.  Secrecy is not a license for corruption.  The
United States government has over the last 20 years developed one of
the best open, corruption free acquisition systems.  Something that
should be a priority in India. But once again you cannot put any of
this together without massive induction of technology in the government.
 
> 
> We have to find a way to keep the party once elected in power for the
> full term.  For that we don't have to move to a presidential system.
> Just an amemdment saying that the party that forms the govt after a
> general election governs for the full term.  No such thing as
> no-confidence motion.  The govt can be dismissed only when the PM is
> impeached by both Houses.  This will allow MPs to vote their
conscience
> on all bills without the fear of toppling the govt. at every turn.


KUSH'S REPLY:
But what happens when no party has a clearcut majority? Is it fair to
keep a "minority" government, such as today in power for full term?
How can you deny the Parliament the right of no-confidence motion? 
Yes, what you can do is put some restrictions on it.  For example, the
no-confidence motion cannot be brought to the floor without 70% of the
members (not a quorum) assenting and not before six months after a new
government has been formed.  Thereafter, the motion can only be
introduced after a period of one year with the same 70% condition.

 
> One more amemdment that says except for the PM and the deputy PM,
> members of the cabinet could chosen from among any qualified citizens,
> not necessarily from the individuals elected to the parliament. 
>Elected individuals will not lose out in the new sysytem, people with
>political  base will always be needed to win the next election.  But
>the new system will allow one more way for a govt to improve its
>prospects for the next  election--by having a person in the cabinet
who >can frame and implement the right kind of policies.
> I think the two amemdments give almost everything that is good about
>the presidential system without a major overhaul of our existing
>system.

KUSH'S REPLY:
YES, THE PRIMEMINISTER SHOULD BE FREE TO PICK THE BEST PEOPLE, HOWEVER
A PROCEDURE WILL HAVE TO BE INSTITUTED SO THAT ONLY "QUALIFIED" PEOPLE
ARE APPOINTED.
REGARDING "LOOSING OUT", PEOPLE WILL LOOSE OUT.  WITH PARLIAMENT AS IT
STANDS THE ELECTED MEMBERS HAVE NOTHING TO LOOK FORWARD TO AS A
LEGISLATOR.  ALL LEGISLATORS KNOW THAT TO BE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE THEY
HAVE TO BE IN THE CABINET.   WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS ON THIS
FORUM.  WHAT IS NEEDED ARE SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS THE GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE AND THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE AS IN THE
UNITED STATES.  WE HAVE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT EACH PARLIAMENTARIAN BE
PROVIDED WITH A MINIMUM OF FIVE STAFF -- A CHIEF OF STAFF, A DEPUTY,
AND THREE SUPPORT PERSONNEL.  IN ADDITION EACH PARLIAMENT MEMBER
SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH AN STATE OF THE ART OFFICE . PARLIAMENT MUST
DIVIDE ITSELF INTO COMMITTEES AND SUB-C0MMITTEES TO CONDUCT BUSINESS
(UNTIL A BETTER SYSTEM IS FOUND) AND EVERY PAISE OF EXPENDITURE MUST
BE APPROVED BY THE PARLIAMENT.  YES, THEN AN ELECTED LEGISLATOR WILL
HAVE SOMETHING TO LOOK FORWARD TO AND SHALL NOT "LOSE OUT."
> 
> > 4) There should be full auditing by Chartered Accountant of the
>funds of  all registered political parties every year. It will be
part >of the Transparency Drive.

NO OBJECTIONS TO AUDITING.  EXCEPT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE IT?
> 
 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list: india_policy@cine.net
Rules, Procedures, Archives:     http://www.indiaconsult.com/indiapolicy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------