http://www.navhindtimes.com/articles.php?Story_ID=072229
Appeasement of MLA's By Tomazinho Cardozo We proudly boast of having a system based on the Westminster model. Unfortunately, our politicians are expert in interpreting the democratic concepts used in these Commonwealth countries for their own benefits. Induction of Parliamentary Secretaries is one such example All of a sudden legal questions on the validity of the appointment of parliamentary secretaries has taken the centre stage in Goan politics. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) praying for quashing the appointments of parliamentary secretaries has already been filed in the Bombay High Court, Goa bench. In the previous government there was only one parliamentary secretary while the present government has inducted in all three parliamentary secretaries. Besides, it has been announced that one MLA will be the Chairman of a Corporation with a Cabinet Minister's status. The commissioner of NRI has also been accorded the status of a Cabinet Minister. In addition to this there are 12 Ministers excluding the speaker and the deputy speaker in a house of 40 MLAs. In fact the trend of having more than 12 ministers crept into Goan politics with the formation of PDF government way back in 1993 when first Mr Churchil Alemao and then Dr Luis Proto Barbosa became chief ministers and Mr Ramakant Khalap, the deputy chief minister. With this exercise, practically every MLA of that term became a Minister. This greed for power and position resulted in the toppling and re-toppling of the successive governments in Goa. In reality Goa earned a tag of being a 'notorious' state politically throughout the country. In fact, Goan politicians borrowed this disreputable trend from other parts of the country. The number of ministers increased every time a new government was formed. Although the Ministerial strength of the Central Government was not more than 12 per cent, there were examples in some states where the percentage of Ministers soared up to even 35 per cent of the strength of the state assembly. More the number of ministers more the wasteful expenditure from public funds. In fact, due to political expediency, the political parties and the politicians misused the freedom of forming the council of ministers. It is for this reason that the central government passed the ninety-first amendment to the Constitution thereby restricting the size of the Council of Ministers to 15 per cent of the total strength of the State Assembly. The amendment allowed a maximum number of 12 ministers in small states like Goa. The ninety-first Constitutional amendment created major problems for the greedy and power-hungry politicians in the country because only 15 per cent of the MLAs could be accommodated in the council of ministers. Coalition governments could not remain intact, as the majority of the MLAs could not be satisfied by the 15 per cent formula. Our ever-vigilant politicians brought in through the back door the concept of 'parliamentary secretary', which is successfully implemented in Commonwealth countries. The functioning of our democracy is similar to the democracy existing in these countries. We proudly boast of having a system based on the Westminster model. Unfortunately, our politicians are expert in interpreting the democratic concepts used in these Commonwealth countries for their own benefits. Induction of parliamentary secretaries is one such example, which is used not for the benefit of the state but for the good of the self. Moreover, there is no Constitutional provision for the induction of parliamentary secretaries in our country. Secondly, the ninety-first Constitutional amendment restricting the size of the Council of Ministers to 15 per cent, with the sole aim of reducing the burden on the public exchequer, is rendered meaningless by appointing parliamentary secretaries. It is for this reason that in a landmark judgement, which will have far-reaching political implications across the country, the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the appointment of eight chief parliamentary secretaries and four parliamentary secretaries in the Himachal Pradesh Government. The judges held that there was no provision for the post of Chief Parliamentary Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary in the Constitution or in any other Act of the state. The also observed that the Chief Minister had no powers to either appoint parliamentary secretaries or administer the oath of office or secrecy. Considering this judgement vis-à-vis the PIL filed in the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, it appears that the fate of the parliamentary secretaries inducted in the Goa government hangs in balance. -- DEV BOREM KORUM. Gabe Menezes. London, England
