That sounds like more quangos? I'm not an expert on them but the way people complain about them, they have a penchant for wasting fantasic amounts of money, and have no accountability even by the standards of the civil service.

Politicians are simultaneously engaged in a desperate struggle to close down the defunct ones while opening up more, because they are a great way to avoid responsibility, which of course is one of the major operational goals of the civil service.

▲

alephnerd 4 days ago | parent [-]

Not like Quangos - Statutory Boards at least in Singapore are a part of a ministry, but they are given full autonomy [0] to recruit, administer, and manage within their remit as legislated.

Quangos are a half assed attempted at doing something similar while trying to include some "inclusion", but with none of the checks and balances.

The reality is, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a say on water management or R&D prioritization.

[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_boards_of_the_Sing...

	▲	MrDrDr 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Was not aware of these - thank you for sharing. But I’d be concerned that such organisations will not stand the test of time, from say a sustained period of governmental (on in this case institutional) incompetence. I’d like to see some mechanism (competition perhaps) that would allow the system to self correct - when the group responsible fail for a sustained period of time. Not saying I have any answers.