I do not think that the issue of delivery is in contention. Indeed, this government, arguably, presents to the people of Ghana the kind of hope which is unmatched as far as the politics of Ghana is concerned. What is in contention is, the issue of efficiency.

Of course, we don't expect corruption in this government. We also don't want unnecessary spending but we want value for money. All these are not only the expectations of Ghanaians, but also the promise of this government.

But who says after all these we should not demand efficiency from the government, our government?

The argument of many, like myself, is that you do not need more numbers to be efficient. At least history is replete of such examples.

Our call is coming from a particular background. We have been told that the public purse is that slim. But this posture of the government betrays or put in a nice way, doesn't suggest that.

This position of government is analogous to the man of five children who cries over his meagre salary to cater for his family but continues to give birth to more children.

Also, comments suggesting that the end justifies the means and that we wait for the end, which end we are yet to meet are untenable.

I submit that the means is as important as the end given what is under consideration and more particularly given the fact that a country like Ghana is under discussion.

It's true there is no classical definition[denotation] of a lean government. Therefore anyone who tries to offer one will only be exposing his or her ignorance.

Nonetheless, we have seen less number{comparatively with the current government} perform and deliver efficiently here and elsewhere which we tout and are quick to point as best practices.

Any day, we must and should choose efficiency to protect our public purse. And so, between small and more where both can give us same results, we must go for the former. Going for the latter means we fail to protect the public purse.

Also, the argument that 64 persons out of the number, 110, will not take double salaries is inconsequential to the discussion. Because our discussion of lean government {with Ghana as a point of reference} has always taken cognizance of the dictates of the constitution which enjoins the President to select majority of his/her ministers from Parliament.

What even makes it more compelling is what we have been told. That, our figures are not good. Can we have a feel of the figures are not good?

Anyway, National Service Personnel are on the standby for increment. Just a humble reminder.