May 29, 2011

The Presidential Elections

Very shortly after the PAP had lost in Aljunied GRC, the media asked ex-Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo if he would run for President. He replied quite affirmatively that he would not.

The decisiveness in his response would have surprised some political watchers. After all, George had just become jobless. Furthermore he has the right sort of background to be President. One would have expected George to at least reserve his position and say something along the lines of "I don't know yet. I'll think about it and decide later."

But a more recent TODAY article (that is not even about George Yeo) gives us a clue as to why George Yeo had been adamant about not running for President. The background to this article is that ex-PAP MP Tan Cheng Bock had just expressed his interest in running for President. And this is what his ex-fellow PAP MPs had to say about it:

PAP MPs surprised Dr Tan might run for President

04:47 AM May 28, 2011
by Teo Xuanwei

SINGAPORE - News that his former comrade-in-arms Tan Cheng Bock, 71, has declared his intention to run for President caught veteran backbencher Inderjit Singh off guard.

The Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency Member of Parliament (MP) told Today: "For Presidential Elections, there's always been a candidate that the Government supports ... it's quite clear that we will be fully behind this person so it will be very awkward (to have Dr Tan in the contest)."
What do these lines tell you? Firstly, that the PAP had already decided who should run for President. Secondly, that George Yeo was not the guy. Thirdly, that the PAP groupthink is so strong that George absolutely would not consider rocking the boat. George does not dare to be the President, if the PAP has already decided that someone else should be.

This brings to mind George Yeo's parting words, when he spoke to the media and said that he would not run for President. He said something like this, "I'm too much of a free spirit to run for President". This was a somewhat curious choice of phrase - and in fact, it attracted a degree of speculative twitterings among Singaporeans. One can't help but wonder - why would being a free spirit obstruct a person from being the President, any more than, say, being the Foreign Affairs Minister?

Perhaps I'm reading too much between the lines. But my instinctive feel is as follows. As mentioned earlier, the PAP has already decided who should be the President - and the PAP has decided to give him its full support (note Inderjit Singh's words - "we will be fully behind this person"). Whoever he is, this person himself would no doubt have been heavily involved in the discussions.

And if he does become President, it may well transpire that he feels beholden to the PAP (which selected him, and endorsed him, and gave him its full support). The expectation may arise that he is obliged to lend his support to the PAP. In other words, the President would not be a "free spirit". He can't do what he really wants. He can only do what the PAP wants. The favour has to be repaid.

This is pretty scary - especially if you understand what the President's role is all about. Let me explain. One of the President's main functions is to preside over the the appointment and dismissal of very senior civil servants and public officers. Specifically, the President has veto powers to stop the government from dismissing these people:

(1) the Chief Justice, Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court;
(2) the Attorney-General;
(3) members of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights;
(4) members of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony;
(5) a member of the Legal Service Commission;
(6) the Chief Valuer;
(7) the Auditor-General;
(8) the Accountant-General;
(9) the Chief of Defence Force;
(10) the Chiefs of the Air Force, Army and Navy;
(11) a member of the Armed Forces Council;
(12) the Commissioner of Police; and
(13) the Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

What's the idea here? Well, the President is supposed to protect these senior civil servants / public officers so that they can perform their duties without fear of political reprisal. This is a very important check & balance.

Just for example, suppose one day, a PAP minister is suspected of criminal wrongdoing - let's say that it's something to do with misuse of government funds. The Auditor-General discovers this while performing an audit, and would want to make a police report. The Commissioner of Police would want to launch a full-scale investigation against that PAP minister. If there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, the Attorney-General of Singapore would want to prosecute the case, and the District Judge would want to hear it.

But at the same time, all these persons - the Auditor General; the Commissioner of Police; the Attorney-General; the District Judge - could be afraid to do the right thing. After all, they might get sacked (it's the government that employs them, after all). This is where the President comes in. The President has the power to protect these people. Unless the President agrees, none of these people can be sacked or otherwise removed from their posts.

That's why it is important to have a truly independent President. A free spirit, if you want to call it that. A President who didn't receive any favours from the PAP, and who doesn't feel obliged to return any.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would think that as long as PAP can win more than 90% seats in General Elections, all other issues, including Presidential elections, are secondary.

Remember what happened to the late President Ong Teng Cheong when he queried the government about the reserves?

And remember, with the GRC system, there can only be win big or lose big outcome in General elections.

The only real change to all things, including elected Presidency, is when the opposition wins big and form the government.

So you want real change? Wait for that day to come, if at all.

Anonymous said...

"Mr Goh also said Singapore has what he described as a "beautiful arrangement" - with an Indian as President, a Chinese as Prime Minister and a Malay, Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed, as potential Speaker of Parliament."

The President should preferably be someone from the minority races, in order that we can have a "beautiful arrangement". George Yeo is a Chinese, so he's not an ideal choice.

Secondly, George Yeo is too smart for the job. You see, as a smart guy, he'll have lots of things to say and questions to ask, but as you pointed out, he would feel beholden to the PAP and so has to keep his mouth shut. But being who he is, he can't bring himself to do that - it's beneath him and so he won't accept the Presidency.

Anonymous said...

And therefore? Mr Wang, you must finish your essay. You can't leave the things you really want to say unspoken. Hope to see an addendum sometime soon :)

Anonymous said...

I am not well educated like PAP ministers and their scholars but if the President is supposed to be impartial can he be endorsed by a political party?

Surely one of the reasons for REFUSING a certificate of eligibility to a presidential candidate is that he is ENDORSED by a political party. Conflict of interests lah!

Anonymous said...

I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO STAND FOR ELECTION

Anonymous said...

Remember what was the rationale when the government decided to have GRCs? Because they feared that minority race candidates may not get elected in a SMC.

So what happens if there is a minority race Presidential candidate vs Tan Cheng Bock?

It will be interesting to see what is the outcome in the above and also whether GRC rationale is still valid.

Anonymous said...

I will be blunt and say that I will vote for whoever runs against the candidate chosen by the PAP. I really do not have to decide or think about it. It is a natural choice that I have been exercising for decades, because I cannot agree with the way that things are being done.

Why? If there is someone intending to run against the PAP reserved candidate, that person contesting must apply for a certificate of eligibility or whatever they call it. In other words that person must be, to my mind, be well qualified for the job. If so, why not give him the job in the hope that he can do a better job than someone beholden.

Since they are making all the ridiculous rules, regulations and conditions so difficult for aspiring candidates, and have for years pushed into the Presidency seat their own candidates and disqualified others, we should as citizens, send a another clear message to them that we have enough of the puppet show.

Anonymous said...

Actually PAP or LKY is quite naive to think that the President is supposed to guard against any misuse of the country's reserves especially when a non-PAP govt is in power.

History has shown us that corruption can come in so many different forms, such as putting up your own relative or crony to be in charge. A very clean President elected today can turn to be very corrupt in the future.

So what check and balance is really there to prevent a clean President from ending up like Chen Shui Bian especially if the Presidential hopeful is fully under the control of of an equally corrupt Prime Minister ?

Anonymous said...

Mr Wang,
thank for explaining the job of president. Now that I know that Nathan is chosen to protect the interest of PAP and LCY ! See how the corrupted judges and president will just listen to LKY and persecute the innocent as long as LKY likes it and continue with life.

Tan Cheng Bock , we support you as president !

Anonymous said...

The appointment holders you listed are all appointed by the PAP governemnt. Hence, they are all PAP people. Having a PAP-friendly President is to ensure that these appointment holders cannot be removed just in case of a "freak" election result that returns the Opposition to power. PAP needs these appointment holders to maintain the "status quo" whilse they regroup.

For this Presidential Elections, PAP is giving us TWO PAP candidates - Tan Cheng Bock and another who has yet to be named.

Looks like a deck of "marked" cards!

Anonymous said...

In case anyone doubt that there is no groupthink and there is no intimidation in the party,

just look at what LCY says

Lee Kuan Yew to Singaporeans: Don’t rock the ‘foundation’

http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/04/26/lee-kuan-yew-to-singaporeans-don%E2%80%99t-rock-the-%E2%80%98foundation%E2%80%99/

Of course, we know what the foundation is. It is the Lee and PAP's foundation and culture !

and Yet pinky just say that PAP party can act as opposition party ! But yes they did, they will simply oppose everything true opp party propose. That is what opposition party means to PAP

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Wang
"He Whose Name Cannot Be Mentioned" once said many years ago:
"Nothing ever happens by accident in Singapore."

So of course a position like the Presidency will have a pre-ordained annointed one waiting in the wings.

The criteria for eligibility is so strict, probably no more than 300 Singaporeans qualify.

And these 300 or so Singaporeans would long ago have come under "radar surveillance".

Just as they qualify for the Presidential office, they are also potential leadership material for the Opposition. They have to be monitored.

Old joke I heard about Chua Kim Yeow who "stood against" PAP endorsed Ong Teng Cheong.

Chua Kim Yeow was at a dinner party while awaiting the results of the Presidential election results. Initial rumours started filtering out that he (Chua Kim Yeow) may have won.
Upon hearing this, Chua Kim Yeow turned pale. He stood up on the dining table and demanded and immediate recount!

Anonymous said...

Maybe, just maybe, the PAP knows what Singaporeans are thinking, so they will put up their own 'openly supported and highly touted' candidate and, in order to have a semblance of an election showpiece, put another of their own 'secretly supported' candidate, ahem, someone like Tan Cheng Bock Esq.

There you are, we are still fooled because the qualifying criteria will make sure that no one else can put a foot in.

Trebuchet said...

Our Constitution also says that this '2nd Key' can be turned (well, over-turned, anyway) in some cases by a 2/3 majority vote in Parliament, a 2/3 vote at referendum (this, I have no issues with) or if he says nothing for 30 days about a Bill presented to him for his assent.

Reading through the 16 sets of amendments since 9 Aug 1965, I keep seeing lines like this:

"(A) Where the President, contrary to the recommendation of the Council of Presidential Advisers, refuses to concur with [something or other] under clause (...), Parliament may, by resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in [some prior article or para], overrule the decision of the President.

"(B) Upon the passing of a resolution under clause (A), the President shall be deemed to have concurred with [something or other] on the date of the passing of such resolution."

Anonymous said...

Unlike GE candidates, Presidential candidates are a totally different breed altogether.

I don't think any right thinking and qualified person will want to contest the presidency and be in the spotlight if there are no "push" factors.

Definitely not for the money or the prestige, which they would already have. And also put oneself into a "restricted" lifestyle if elected.

Anonymous said...

LKY once openly endorsed the idea of a military coup if the PAP lose power. part of the equation is that the president would prevent the govt from using the country's funds.

so... its not just that a PAP pres will protect a PAP minister.
a PAP pres can actively provoke a coup.

lorongm said...

I liked the example you had given, but the fact of the matter is that a District Judge is not the same as a Judge of the Supreme Court, and he can be removed overnight, and the President has no veto rights over it, nor, for that matter, does the matter have to be referred to Parliament for a decision (unlike for the removal of a High Court judge). Eg, what happened to SDJ Michael Khoo (as he then was) in the 1980s.

Amused said...

Mr Wang,

The system is so corrupt that the presidential elections are quite meaningless. Whatever expanded power PAP granted the president previously, it can easily take it away with its super majority parliamentary power. Just look at how twisted the Constitution has been manipulated under PAP rules. Further, the judges are appointed by PAP to begin with. Any judge that dares to rule against PAP will be, and has been, removed from the bench. Sure, some of these people may have conscience and honor after all, but they are very few. Ong Teng Cheong is one but see what happened to him.

I just don't see how things can really change with PAP in power. We can hope for a Gorbachev in the new leader. Unfortunately LHL is not one of them. George Yeo is a smart person and he is bailing out (with his millions.)

Gilbert Koh aka Mr Wang said...

Hi Lorongm:

Technically you're right. A District Judge would have to be removed by the Legal Service Commission. However, do note that the LSC is also protected by the President. Thus a DJ can be protected by an LSC which can be protected by the President.

As for the Michael Khoo case, this was not a good example because that case came from the 1980s, before the constitutional office of the Elected President was created. Our previous Presidents, prior to the 1990s, were pure ceremonial figures, without the powers that the Elected President has.


Hi Amused:

No, the powers of the Elected President are not so easily taken away.

The Constitution itself allows the President to block parliamentary changes that seek to limit or reduce the President's powers, unless Parliament holds a referendum and 2/3s of the citizens vote in favour of reducing the President's powers.

Important to understand this - the prevalent thinking in the 1990s was that LKY was creating the Elected President office for himself. For reasons we'll never know, he never took up (or has not yet taken up) the post - perhaps because he decided later to create two other new types of posts - "Senior MInister" and "Minister Mentor" - and take those up instead.

Anyway, the point is, if LKY was creating the EP post for himself, he wouldn't have allowed his own powers to be usurped so easily. Hahaa. ;)

Amused said...

Mr Wang,

I hope you are right and that PAP will not devise some schemes to undermine future independent President (wishful thinking?!) Free speech is protected under the constitution but you can hardly practice free speech in Singapore.

Regardless, it is critical that the Presidency is independent so there will be checks and balances for the good of the country.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Wang, while we see the storm brewing in the Presidential elections, another storm is picking up on the internet.

The grassroots structure. Or the supposed politically "a-political" nature of the People's Association.

Any wise words from you?

Anonymous said...

I am so glad you brought this topic
up.In your earlier article, I commented about the lack of checks
and balances in our political system.
The idea and duties of a President
is a vital piece of check& balance.
And as you have alluded, the
concept is brilliant but the spirit is lacking.The contribution of LKY to our country is undoubtedly profound. However, in my humble opinion,his top-down management style has really stunted the maturity of our state.
My fear is this Mr.Wang,the tidal
wave of change demanded on PAP
could be so strong now,that it cannot unwind the mistakes of the past fast enough . Then... your guess is as good as mine.

Anonymous said...

One important pt brought up here is the reserves. The very thing that the EP was created for. There must b full disclsure to the nx President. If even he doesn't knw then it begs the qn of who does? Surely Tharman, PM n LKY? So what is this nonsense abt 150 man years to compile this info? Full disclosure pls

Anonymous said...

"Our previous Presidents, prior to the 1990s, were pure ceremonial figures, without the powers that the Elected President has.


Hi Amused:

No, the powers of the Elected President are not so easily taken away.

The Constitution itself allows the President to block parliamentary changes that seek to limit or reduce the President's powers, unless Parliament holds a referendum and 2/3s of the citizens vote in favour of reducing the President's powers.

Important to understand this - the prevalent thinking in the 1990s was that LKY was creating the Elected President office for himself. For reasons we'll never know, he never took up (or has not yet taken up) the post - perhaps because he decided later to create two other new types of posts - "Senior MInister" and "Minister Mentor" - and take those up instead.

Anyway, the point is, if LKY was creating the EP post for himself, he wouldn't have allowed his own powers to be usurped so easily. Hahaa. ;)
May 30, 2011 9:12 AM", Mr Wang.

The Above maybe the Case as stated, however, is the President any match to a Parliament that is almost exclusively formed by a single political party? And who form the President's Advisory Committee?

Anonymous said...

"Our previous Presidents, prior to the 1990s, were pure ceremonial figures, without the powers that the Elected President has.


Hi Amused:

No, the powers of the Elected President are not so easily taken away.

The Constitution itself allows the President to block parliamentary changes that seek to limit or reduce the President's powers, unless Parliament holds a referendum and 2/3s of the citizens vote in favour of reducing the President's powers.

Important to understand this - the prevalent thinking in the 1990s was that LKY was creating the Elected President office for himself. For reasons we'll never know, he never took up (or has not yet taken up) the post - perhaps because he decided later to create two other new types of posts - "Senior MInister" and "Minister Mentor" - and take those up instead.

Anyway, the point is, if LKY was creating the EP post for himself, he wouldn't have allowed his own powers to be usurped so easily. Hahaa. ;)
May 30, 2011 9:12 AM", Mr Wang.

The Above maybe the Case as stated, however, is the President any match to a Parliament that is almost exclusively formed by a single political party? And who form the President's Advisory Committee?

Anonymous said...

Mr Wang, I have been thinking. Now I am starting to wonder if PM Lee, with respect, understands what the people really wanted from this elections.

The expression of angst is not just about the issues that PM has diligently started to address, and many I think quite well planned by PM.

But the root of issues is that the people are disenchanted by the non-consultative nature of our politicians and national policy formation. Cutting Ministerial wages, increasing HDB flat supplies are treating the sypmtoms.

I think the people are still waiting to see the change in attitutes from our politicians. The root of our angst and displeasure.

And this includes the unfair ground rules and near exclusive and sometimes blurring line in use of national resources for national and party objectives termed generally as "Government activities".

Anonymous said...

Isn't the President supposed to be elected? Aren't the candidates suppose to campaign for votes just like any political competition? President in name, Puppet in reality.
The sight of President sitting in the Star Awards in Ch 8 and being paid $4.2m p.a. sucks!

Anonymous said...

The PAP should not wait for another poor showing like the GE 2011 to scramble to roll out feedbacks and reviews.

If the PAP really wants a genuine democracy and healing process then they should REVEIEW the Presidential Election process now and do away with many of the obstacles created to filter out all but those they (the PAP) feel comfortable with.

Would they DO IT? Can they DO IT? Or will it need a poor showing for them to start REVIEWING again? If that s the case then the PAP is surely not worth being a government.

Anonymous said...

On the comment on grassroots earlier (sorry to digrest Mr Wang), I found this on another forum and thought it good for thought.

"actually the problem is the solution. or rather the solution is the problem. the pap uses pa for grassroots feedback. they make it a national system so that nobody can say it is party line since pap happens to be the gahment. the only thing we can criticise is oppos area the grassroot work for pap appointed candidates.

The solution for pap to make sure got ground harmony and feedback is the grassroot system. but over the years they make the grc system. when mp can get "safe ride" they start to take it easier than last time. grassroot instead of serve citizen feedback, later slowly become more serve mp and disseminate "national policy". the more unhappy of us have call it propaganda, but really it is individual perception. and here is the problem. the feedback no longer is people to mp, but become reverse become loudhailer from mp to people. this is why pap lost (or win) so badly this round.

over the years because of being monoploy, the grassroots also become more slack and tired. more is become tired and maybe lack passion because they no longer need to do much and still can survive well as organisation. lack of competition is become a bad thing instead of a good thing.

now the younger voters come up, are used to having no feedback channel. they no longer want to talk to the grassroot who want to pump them with "national policy". that is why the younger voters turn to internet and some even form their own groups. the 2011 erection also got reports that there got a very small number grassroot "defect" to oppos. but cannot say they "defect" since it is a "national grassroot" which has no political affinity so they are free to choose. a lot of younger voter vote oppo also because they dulan this kind of grassroot system that they feel is unfair and use country money to help party appointed candidate.

what I see PM Lee challenege is he dare to dismantle this and make it at least LOOK more fair or not. what I can suggest PM Lee do is retain this as national system. but since it is national system, it cannot "own" grassroots. pa is can become like the master charity like that. control the rules, regulations and resources. the grassroot is become party own one. so the pa is like register whichever party want to have grassroot in the area. the grassroot all operated by the party will have meeting with pa every month to report transparency and feedback. pa will approve funding and cc whatever facility booking or event for grassroot event.

like this it become fair. but actually give pap the upperhand. because all grassroot is now belong pap. the oppos will not have enough grassroot in all area and will show up badly. then got competition possiblity will make the grassroot work more for resident. like this also better for resident as more grassroot there for them to join and become active.

but I think PM will not do like this. already the pay cut he facing so many resistant. if now he do this refrom to grassroot, he will face revolt in party. he is between rock and hard place. must and need to reform, but cannot move too much because party resistant, so will get public criticise say he not sincere to change. "

Cat Lover said...

Might as well have my little pussy cat as the president if the president elect is not independent. At least my cat is cute and she eats very little.

May Rulers of the World Be Righteous said...

Why need a second key when the lock can be changed. Haha, it is uniquely Singapore. So smart people like George Yeo knew this so he does not offer himself to hold the second key.

Anonymous said...

Ngiam Tong Dow is a better choice.
Though retired from politic, he is actively participating in national discourse.
He had spoken many times on national policies.

Anonymous said...

we already voted more opposition into parliament to check on them

lets now vote for a non PAP candidate

why?

because with a non PAP candidate,he can check on the garment,and that is what the garment doesnt want,they have dark secrets to hide

with a ex PAP candidate,he is much a PAP man even thou he is not active,and their dark secret will be save

a black jaguar is still a black jaguar,only that you cant see their spotted coat clearly

Anonymous said...

Please discuss Tan Cheng Bock's views on detention without trial.

Winking Doll said...

Those who don’t want Tony Tan to be the president please share the facts about Tony Tan’s “track record” with your friends, families, neighbours, colleagues, etc.

http://young-pap.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

Just today, I provided details of his “track record” to change the minds of 2. They previously based their decision on MSM information about Tony Tan’s resume. E.g. He presents a dignified image of Singapore when interacting with foreign heads of states, with his GIC experience he can help grow the economy, blah, blah, blah. But they did not know the *FACTS* about his *actual performance* on-the-job.

Mind you, they are literate and internet-savvy folks. So don’t assume that the young internet-savvy folks would have heard the truth about Tony Tan’s “track record” or about the “Patrick Tan scandal”. Please for the sake of Singapore’s future, share! The more the merrier!