INDIVIDUAL ministerial responsibility is a convention practised by Westminster democracies, which simply put, means a minister takes personal responsibility for wrongful actions of his or her ministry, its officials and staff.

This doctrine serves three main purposes; first, it protects Cabinet (and Parliament) from being dragged into scandal, second, it protects the integrity and reputation of the Ministry concerned, and third, it promotes accountability and good governance.

This doctrine is usually applicable when the decision in question was the sole decision of the Minister, or when the Minister has sullied his or her office by conduct unbecoming of him or herself, especially those involving corruption or personal misadventures. For matters brought to Cabinet, collective ministerial applies instead, where in collegial spirit, members often band together to defend an executive decision, regardless of their personal opinion on that matter.

Although commonly seen as a hindrance to individual ministerial responsibility, it remains quite a necessary counter-weight and serves to maintain a certain degree of stability in day-to-day executive government work.

What happens when the Minister appears to have been misled by a person or group, and unintentionally misleads Cabinet and then rescinds the decision? Can he or she do so without consulting Cabinet?

According to the recent IMAMs fiasco, yes. In this specific incident, the Minister, Deputy Minister and Secretary-General of the Ministry issued separate and, at some interconnecting instances, conflicting, statements. Other ministers, including the PM and DPM also weighed in.

But this issue is likely to die down, and no resignation is likely to take place. Simply because taking responsibility or ownership of an opinion or failure is not a common practise in the Malaysian political sphere.

The only exceptions that come to mind in recent history would be Chua Soi Lek, when he resigned his Health Minister’s post after being embroiled in a sex tape scandal.

Other than that, ministerial resignations in Malaysia are only usually caused by a fallout with the party leadership, or losing one’s internal party election.

Compare this to the UK, which has seen ministers resign over misleading statements, pension fund issues, non-performance of ministries, or taking personal responsibility for bad elections performance. Even their shadow ministers from the Opposition practise this. So do party leaders for both camps, from their official party positions, routinely. Some even do so multiple times in the course of their career.

In other parts of Asia, like South Korea or Japan, this is similarly a common practise.

Occasionally, we do have ministers who step up to the occasion, such as Hindraf’s Waythamoorthy or former minister of law Zaid Ibrahim, but they are too few and far in between.

Resignations are also rare from the Opposition side of the bench, one of the rare ones in recent history being the rarely-heard-of-deputy-party-whip for PKR, who resigned over the failed bloc vote strategy employed by Pakatan Harapan during the last Budget vote.

Although the Opposition bloc does not hold any official government post at Federal level, a shadow Cabinet is now long overdue. Apart from taking on the Government on issues in a more systematic and clear manner, accountability can still be demonstrated via vacating those positions should the shadow executive fail to perform. Though largely theoretical and theatrical rather than having an actual impact on the administration, it gives the Opposition another avenue to prove their sincerity in governing.

If that is not good enough, perhaps parties from both sides of the divide that demand accountability from Ministers, whether their ally or adversary, can demonstrate as such from their internal party affairs. Any internal misdeed that derogates from the party’s stance or tarnishes its image; proven cases of corruption, misinformation, broken promises, failed strategy, mishandled party elections (we have ample example of these), should be met with a collective culture that expects voluntary removal from the party leadership, to keep it clean, consistent and beyond reproach.

Practise helps people believe what’s preached. – December 19, 2017.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.