A minister depends a lot on public servants to prepare him/her to perform his/her constitutional, legal or accountability responsibilities. This is expected since the range of task and responsibilities a minister is expected to perform and take up is so huge, without the assistance and advice of their departmental staff, it is not possible even for a superman to carry them out on their own.

A minister will obtain advice from a range of sources, but primarily from officers within the department. There is no obligation on a minister to accept advice, but it is important that it be considered carefully and fairly.

Ministers are not expected to bear liability for the unauthorised action of their ministerial staff or advisers. Likewise, ministers cannot delegate their responsibilities to their staff, nor should they pass the buck to other ministries when such tasks and responsibilities fall squarely under their jurisdiction and responsibility.

This is why Wan Sou Hai's argument in his letter, ' Unfair to blame minister for tribunal's fiasco ', baffled me.

As housing and local government minister who presented the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Amendment Bill 2001 to parliament in October 2001 and promoter of the bill, Ong Ka Ting must bear full responsibility for the fiasco that exploded recently when the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled that the Housing Tribunal had acted ultra vires of its jurisdiction in adjudicating disputes over property bought before Dec 1, 2002.

Ong can blame the AG's Chambers for negligence, or claim that de facto Law Minister Rais Yatim did not have able legal professionals to work as parliamentary draftsmen, or even contend that the High Court had decided against the interests of more than 5,000 house buyers who had filed their claims with tribunal since its inception.

But Ong cannot shirk or shake off full responsibility for the negligence in omitting to insert a retrospective provision in the Amendment Bill.

To impose retrospective criminal sanction against housing developers who did not comply with their contractual obligations will be against the constitution, but this may not be so for civil liabilities, especially when the developers do not enjoy any 'right' to breach their promise to the house buyers as contained the sale-and-purchase agreements in the first place.

But for a court or a tribunal to exercise any jurisdiction, parliament must first of all give them the power to do so. In this case, the Act does not give or spell out clearly the Tribunal's power to hear disputes that arise before December 2002.

Why did Ong prepare a defective amendment bill - and ignore the call by members of parliament who took part in the debate in October 2001 - which has resulted in the current chaos? Why was the "extensive consultation" that he claimed had been carried out did not even consider the proposal by the House Buyers' Association to insert a retrospective clause?

Blaming the AG's Chambers or the draftsmen for the bill, is definitely not fair. Can every ministry then blame the AG's Chambers every time they come up with a defective law which causes hardship, victimising instead of helping the public?

Although the AG's Chambers' appeal against the High Court judgment await decision, they should be preparing for the worst and an amendment to the defective Housing Tribunal law seems inevitable .

Own up and say "sorry" and rectify the mess - this is the least Ong Ka Ting should do. Blaming him for the blunder he has created is fully in accordance with the principle of ministerial responsibility, and will give vent to public unhappiness at the mess created by a minister who had clearly failed a major ministerial test.