Endless reports of ministers' speeches fill our newspapers and television news. On a typical day last week, I counted three speeches given by one minister. Just the physical act of delivering them would consume the whole day: travel time, the inevitable kompang and bunga mawar welcome, the speech itself, and of course, the ensuing long drawn-out reception.

I have not yet included the time to write those speeches. As a Malaysian would say, "Where got time to work lah!"

The speeches themselves are nothing but endless exhortations, corny clichs, and bombastic bromides. "Be efficient", "be productive" and other equally inane remarks are the standard fare. Ask these ministers how to be efficient or productive, and they are, well, speechless. Our leaders suffer from what I refer to as the [#1] Sultan Syndrome [/#] (Feb 24), believing that what they say would miraculously effect changes, just like with the Sultan's titah .

As if their words are magic wands; say it and it shall be so. If only the problems facing our country are that simple!

These ministers ought to know that they are appointed to be the chief executive of their agencies - to make and execute policies. They are not departmental cheerleaders or preachers pontificating endlessly. While our minister bragged about the country being the centre of educational excellence, our schools crumbled, dropout rate sky rocketed, and graduates of our public universities are unwanted in the marketplace.

These performances of our ministers and political appointees are predictable. Examine their background. In contrast to their counterparts in America or south of the causeway, few have excelled outside of politics. They may have degrees (often in "soft" disciplines like Malay or Islamic Studies) but that was the extent of their achievements. Few among them are successful entrepreneurs or polished professionals. They may be lawyers but one would certainly not trust one's fate in court to them.

These ministers and senior officers are rarely sought after by the private sector on their retirement - an embarrassing testimony to their caliber. If not for Petronas, Pernas and other 'Nases, they would be unemployed on leaving government service. In contrast, American cabinet officers, being highly accomplished individuals, are in such great demand that few stay very long in government, so lucrative are the outside offers. Malaysian ministers stubbornly cling on till they are kicked out.

There was much hype in the recent appointment of a non-politician and supposedly prominent academician to the cabinet. Alas his performances thus far have been lackluster. Not surprising. He may have been a former vice-chancellor, but there is no legacy of his tenure there. He was appointed to the top academic post despite his glaring lack of scholarly accomplishment. Another typical political appointment.

Unable to comprehend or appreciate the enormity of the problems facing them, our ministers resort to banalities. While our schools are collapsing, our new minister saw fit, as his first mark, to abolish Bahasa Baku, only to reverse himself a few days later. Having learnt that lesson he, like his seasoned colleagues, now reverts to endless speech making and opening ceremonies.

Another prominent appointee was Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. This character was chairman of Bank Simpanan Nasional and a director of no less than 90 companies. Not bad for a Malay Studies graduate. The question is, how come his executive talent was not recognised before he became Umno Youth chief? Now that he is no longer a political heavyweight, his managerial ability rapidly vanishes.

There are two devastating consequences in appointing these lightweights. One, the department is deprived of much needed leadership. Two, and a more dangerous impact, these inept appointees would, to protect their flanks, denigrate capable subordinates. Promising officers are banished to the hulus and inconsequential divisions, lest they become a threat to the boss. One sure way to make a dim candle appear brighter is to snuff out the shining ones. Thus mediocrity begets more of the same, and the whole system crumbles.

Political appointees are a feature of modern democracy, to ensure that the bureaucracy is answerable to the people. Besides, at the upper levels in any organisation, technical competence alone is not enough. One needs to have superior people skills and be politically savvy. One must also share or at least sympathise with the goals and philosophy of the party. The danger comes when politics is the only consideration. Executive ability, while in itself is insufficient, is nonetheless a prerequisite. One way to ensure competence is to appoint only those who have excelled in some other fields.

The crafters of our constitution, in their wisdom, did not mandate that ministers be members of parliament. A persuasive argument can be made against appointing politicians. The skills necessary to win an election are not necessarily the ones needed to run a department. In Malaysian politics, the only "skill" needed to be elected, at least until recently, was to be nominated by the party. Sycophancy, hardly the correlate of excellence, becomes the prime determinant.

America counts among its cabinet members top military commanders, chief executives, successful entrepreneurs, accomplished professionals, and renown academics. Our illustrious Tun Abdul Razak went outside of politics to select Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Chong Hon Nyan and Ghazali Shafie. Our nation deserves such acclaimed appointments.

Meanwhile, if our present sorry lot of ministers stop giving speeches and attending endless ceremonies, they may well have the time to learn and understand the nation's myriad problems. And the country's newspapers would no longer be filled with meaningless reprints of their mundane speeches. Our journalists may then get to do some real reporting and give their readers much needed hard news instead of the usual fluff. And Malaysians would definitely be better served.