Ms Chua's piece is insightful and well thought out. As she has pointed out, convention in the West in the past 50 years or so on the 'doctrine of ministerial responsibility' called for ministers to take responsibility when things go wrong during their watch, she and cited instances when this was done.

She recounted that, in the 19th century, ministries were small and ministers had personal independent knowledge of most decisions. Resignation by ministers, for mistakes made not by them but by subordinates, was a form of accountability.

Clearly, however, as she pointed out, this has evolved and cases of ministers resigning over their subordinates' mistakes are rare. Recent cases where ministers resigned revolved around personal wrongdoing, financial impropriety or disagreement over policies.

Even in the 1983 case of mass escape of Northern Ireland's Irish Republican Army prisoners from the Maze maximum-security facility, only the prison's governor (equivalent to our prison superintendent) was removed following the report of a special inquiry into the case.

The minister and his deputy remained in their posts. Mind you, 38 insurgents convicted of armed militancy escaped and this was in Britain, a nation held in the highest regard for democracy and the rule of law.

Finally, what about the case of British defence secretary John Nott whose resignation following Argentina's seizure of the Falkland Islands was rejected by then prime minister Margaret Thatcher?

She wanted him to continue as it was his duty to stay and see Britain through to victory, which was achieved.

In our case, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, must stay on, as he is duty-bound to continue the ceaseless combat against the scourge of terrorism which Singapore faces. As his record shows, he is the right man for the job.

Thomas Quek