Political Commentary
Challenging the Out-of-Bounds Markers for an Elected President
Seventeen years ago, the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Goh Chok Tong, sternly warned government critics about what they could and could not criticize, using the golfing term ‘out-of-bounds markers’ which has since then become part of the political lexicon.
But in the General Election of 2011 (GE 2011), a newly emboldened, energized and subsequently triumphant electorate went all the way of criticism, sparing no personage in the People’s Action Party (PAP) leadership, no matter how long feared, nor any PAP policy, no matter how well established. Thus they removed, in one fell stroke, all the hated markers, clearing the way for even the most outspoken critic in the future.
Now, just some months later, they clearly want to do the same for the President of Singapore. For he too is hampered by out-of-bounds markers, the special constraints imposed on him by the constitution which forbids him to say or do anything that might be construed as disapproval of government policy. By challenging these markers and removing them, they want him to be an independent voice of the people, that dares raise itself, whenever necessary, on their behalf. Judging by their fervid, boundless activity in the Internet in the run-up to the presidential election, it is clear that they want to continue to use the same powerful instrument to achieve their purpose. If they succeed, they will in effect change forever the role of the Elected President (EP) and secure another people’s victory this year, surely one of the most remarkable years in Singapore’s electoral history.
But this time, the challenge is very much complicated by a powerful counter-challenge by the government, in the form of that most sacrosanct instrument of the social compact—the constitution. The constitution clearly spells out the role of the EP in its nature and scope: it is custodial, not executive; it is in harmony with, not against, the decisions of the government; in tone, it is dignified, in bearing stately, not cantankerous and demeaning of its high office. To refute the claims and promises of independence made by certain presidential hopefuls, PAP ministers have painstakingly drawn attention to these strictures in the constitution.
But the vociferous anti-PAP camp, still flush with the success of GE 2011, has little patience for the legalisms and punctilio of a constitution, as can be seen in the vigorous, unbridled exchanges among netizens bent on bringing out into the open allegedly past misdeeds of those hopefuls who are perceived to be favoured by the government. The prevailing attitude seems to be that since the constitution was created more than 20 years ago by a self-serving government that provided it with enough ambiguities to allow for an interpretation that will always suit their purpose, it is no longer relevant. Indeed, it contradicts the new spirit of openness, transparency and expanded powers for the people, ushered in by the watershed GE 2011, that a humbled PAP leadership has actually acknowledged and promised to promote.
Ironically, in the midst of the government’s deliberately conspicuous efforts to establish a more amicable relationship with the people (which some observers consider as needlessly effusive and overdone, detracting from the image of strong, confident leadership ), the estrangement persists in its most exacerbated form in the current EP controversy.
In addition to the unbridgeable gap between the diametrically opposed perceptions of a purely custodial role, on the one hand, and an actively adversarial one on the other, there are the following equally irreconcilable divergencies: where the government insists that the EP has veto power in only the five areas specified by the constitution, which include the protection of past reserves and the appointment of key personnel, the critics clearly want the EP to have a say in a whole array of other issues, especially those that had been their greatest concerns in GE 2011, namely, the ministerial salaries, the employment of foreign workers and unaffordable housing—and, presumably, any issue which affects the lives of Singaporeans. Where the government emphasizes dignity, gravitas and acumen as the most important qualities for the EP, the people want to see fearlessness, courage and readiness to stand up to a powerful government. Where the government wants the presidential voice, if it needs to be critical, to be so only in quiet, private consultation with the Prime Minister, the people will be satisfied with no less than open and public accounting.
In short, the differences are so vast that beyond the vague general agreement that the president must uphold the integrity of the highest office in the land, there is no common meeting ground. Every discussion on the EP is hence an impasse from the start.
Indeed, so intense is the clamouring of the people for change, so adamant is the government about preserving intact the constitutionality of the presidential role and so riddled with anomalies is the constitution itself when subjected to tests of real-life applications (as was evident in a recent forum where the Law Minister bravely answered questions put to him by academics and political analysts) that the rancour is likely to continue well beyond the election on 27 August, regardless of who gets elected.
The new president, no matter how he chooses to play out his role, will be in the unenviable position of being continually scrutinized and criticized in the light of his previous formal association, or absence of it, with the PAP. If he had been a former stalwart in the PAP administration, and had been publicly favoured by the government, he will be seen as just one more in a line of perfectly acquiescent, cosily harmonious presidents, exactly as the PAP had always intended and desired. If he had been formerly a member of the PAP but had pointedly distanced himself from it, whatever efforts he makes at asserting his independence will be overshadowed by the past links, or even seen as the sheer futility of trying to shake off an unshakeable, deeply entrenched PAP mentality. If he had never been a PAP member, the expectations of him will be so unrealistically high that whatever evidence of independence he displays will elicit disappointment as being not enough. And since the presidential salary is tied to ministerial salaries, any angry response to the outcome of the review currently being undertaken, will not spare him.
In the new political climate after GE 2011, the greatest loser might just be the EP, because he will have to bear the brunt of the anomalies, confusions and conflicts of a society that has been suddenly and unexpectedly thrust into the flux of transition. He will be stuck in an impossible situation, for the out-of-bounds markers set out in the constitution will strait-jacket him, making a mockery of his popular mandate and the will of the people who had directly elected him. He has continually to maintain the difficult balance between the need, on the one hand, to present the magisterial bearing and calm composure and detachment expected of a president, and, on the other, to project an image of empathy and affinity with the man-in-the-street, all the time aware that he is being watched and judged, and that the savage criticisms and relentless exposure of his private life, that he had endured during the run-up to the election, will by no means end with the high office he now holds. Rightly or wrongly, he will be linked with a government that has fallen so far in the people’s regard that close association with them is seen as something of a taint. With the traditional protective mantle of his office stripped away, he will be at the mercy of netizens who themselves enjoy the protective anonymity of the Internet.
The experience of the presidential election of 2011 could well be the most bruising, divisive and ugliest election in Singapore’s history. It may be necessary when a system ends up with nobody being a winner, and everybody having a bad taste in the mouth, to take another look at it, and subject it to an honest review.
August 14th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Frankly speaking, if the people is united, the people could shift the centre of power from the parliament to the presidency!
The only question is are we united?
The above is hypothetical, so isd don’t arrest me, please!
August 15th, 2011 at 2:18 am
as a respected novelist, I feel you would made a great President….
the truth is under the current EP system, neither of our 1st 4 president would have been elected and neither would you.
They have turn this into a farce…
the only true Check and Balance is the elected opposition member of Parliament.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:15 am
You wrote: “He will be stuck in an impossible situation, for the out-of-bounds markers set out in the constitution will strait-jacket him”
Actually, the nature of out-of-bounds markers is the opposite of being set out in the constitution. What Shanmugam and company would want Singaporeans to believe is that these constraints are firm and explicit, when in fact they are tacit and ultimately grounded on unwritten British convention.
But is it so obvious that British constitutional convention must apply here without question? There is a fundamental difference between the UK and Singapore. Over there, there is a hereditary monarch. Here, the president is elected — the purpose of which is to give him a personal, democratic mandate.
If in an election campaign, he proposes to do something and the people knowingly vote in him, can it be incontestibly argued that he cannot do it (so long as it is not expressly disallowed by a clause in the constitution)? Can’t the opposite be argued? That the people want him to do it, and has given him the necessary mandate? In a democracy, the people are sovereign.
Thus, the first struggle is to contest these out-of-bounds markers as Singapore develops its own constitutional conventions. Ultimately what becomes of the office is what the people of Singapore will want of it.
August 15th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I wish I could express myself as well and you and Alex. As far as I am concern, the ultimate authority are the voters and not the straight jacketed interpretations from certain self-serving quarters.
August 15th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
But why do we need this “farce” to start with? Why do we spend so much money on an election to put a figurehead into the “highest” office in the state? Given the limited sphere that the EP can operate, it really doesn’t matter to me who gets elected. i’m not an apathy citizen, just a normal man on the street which doesn’t understand the reason for having this election.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
/// Seventeen years ago, the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Goh Chok Tong, sternly warned government critics about what they could and could not criticize, using the golfing term ‘out-of-bounds markers’ which has since then become part of the political lexicon. ///
Catherine, I think George Yeo used the term OB markets even earlier in 1991. In golf, OB markers are clearly shown by stakes driven into the areas of the golf course, beyond which playing is not allowed and will be penalized. However, for the Singapore political scene (or minefield), the OB markers are invisible. All we could surmise then was that race, language and religion are some of the forbidden areas. The rest are not spelled out. If we do not know where the OB markers are, how are we expected to avoid them?
Which was why 17 years ago in 1994, you were taken to task by Goh Chok Tong for playing beyond the OB markers because of the article “The PAP and the people – A Great Affective Divide” that you wrote. As you can see, what you wrote hardly touched on race, language or religion, yet you were penalized for transgressing the invisible OB markers.
At least with the EP now, they are trying to plant some clearly visible OB markers. This is certainly an improvement over the previous invisible ones. However, I suspect they will keep the rest of the OB markers invisible to give them maximum flexibility in deciding where and who has gone out of bound.
To President Nathan, Shanmugan and Tony Tan, that which is not specifically spelled out is forbidden, whilst to Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say, that which is not specifically forbidden is allowed.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Simply brilliant and coincides with most of my sentiments…..
Every voter for the EP polling day should read It prior to casting his vote.
Viva la Cathy Lim!
August 15th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
As we so clearly seen in the last general elections, Singaporeans desire a multi-party parliament. This is a correct desire because single-party rule had always led to single-person rule and finally to very messy uprisings. In a multi-party system, there are bound to be more conflicts. In order to settle these conflicts and for the government to function despite these conflicts, Singapore will need some strong institutions. I feel that the elected president can play a role in this regard. The other hope is to have a truly independent judiciary. My guess is that we need both.
August 17th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Catherine is jumping the gun; Singaporeans are a charitable lot. When it suits them. Of course, that depends on who actually gets into the hot seat.
@Alex: The President cannot do anything except with the advice of Cabinet, save for areas in which he can act in his discretion in art 22P. We’ve had a case illustrate that recently, which you would very well know of: Yong Vui Kong v PP.
August 18th, 2011 at 9:45 am
I’m not sure how many people realize that their elected MP’s might also be effectively muzzled when it comes to voting in parliament. I refer to: http://www.parliament.gov.sg/leader-house scroll down to Parliament Whip and you will see
“Often regarded as the disciplinarians controlling MPs in their respective parties, the Whips ensure that there are always sufficient party members in the Chamber to support the party’s position and that MPs vote according to the party’s line. Occasionally, he may “lift the whip” and allow MPs to vote according to their conscience.”
Several points:
Am I reading this matter correctly? ie that MP’s have to vote party line unless the whip is raised
Exactly how many times has the whip been raised over the last 46 years vs how many times has it NOT been raised?. These statistic is most revealing because it tells you exactly how much voice your elected (PAP)MP actually has.
Exactly what would happen if a PAP MP refused to vote party line?
Exactly who is it that formulates ‘party line’?
If my interpretation of the above is wrong, I really would like to know. But if I’m reading this right then I wonder
1 why this crucial matter was not picked up during all the pre-GE2011 furor.
2 if someone netizen would like to pick this up and run with it?
August 19th, 2011 at 8:07 am
The only groundswell are the netizens who have found a voice in cyberspace. There is still a government in power voted in by the “people”. Yes there is disgruntlement, but the simple majority of the “people” still voted in the government. The silent majority appears to wield some power though not in the noisy, and sometimes ill-disciplined internet conversations. Do you also listen to them who do not speak out/ can’t speak out but still support the government (i.e PAP)? What are their fears of the noisy oppositional crowd?
August 19th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Yes the constitution today might have boundaries for the EP & the EP will have to perform to the best of his abilities to keep to his pre-election promises.
However, the votes for the EP, can be an important “predictor” of the shape & form of the future constitution. The votes, not only determine who the EP or winner is, it will signal the “loyalties” Singaporeans have for the PAP party & the PAP majority parliament.
Let’s say Tony Tan is elected, which might not be so much of a surprise but garnered a low margin of win, say less than 60% (the same as the GE results) or even in the 30% range. What happens? Do we think that the incumbent government will sleep well for the next 4-5 years? If this EP election is a predictor of the voices of the people, the next GE might bring in more opposition & the re-writing of the constitution can be a possibility.
Of course, if the impossible becomes possible i.e a non PAP government endorsed candidate wins, the incumbent government will have many sleepless nights & the nightmare journey of huge & fast future losses will be guaranteed.
So while the role of the EP today is limited or even ceremonial, it can transform the landscape for the future of Singapore. That is the real, much understated power of this EP election.
August 19th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Looks like PAP help the next President paint himself into the corner.
Nevertheless, what is written in the Constitution can also be changed if necessary.
If only the PAP leaders had not got so greedy and stopped listening to the people, they would still have the moral authority to govern.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Catherine, you forgot one thing,and this is the psychoanalytical basis of the evolution of the Presidency from one of purely ceremonial to one having Ceremonial-Custodial-Supervisory functions. This is because in the 1980s, it was the Grand Old Man himself who envisaged this grand vision of retiring in the Istana as some sort of President Emeritus, the Boss Behind the Curtain, a Capo de Capo, who still can apply the brakes or leverage against Parliament, drawing his legitimacy from the fact (or hope) that he was voted in by the people directly. After the 7 May GE in which there is such a violent electoral backlash, this is no longer possible. The people can no longer be trusted. If The Grand Old Man stands as a presidential candidate now, he runs the very real risk of being mauled by protest voters and lose face irretrievably. So he does not dare put himself forward now. What then becomes of the Presidency? Now, the evolved newer and better ”Version 2” Presidency with vastly increased powers then becomes a sort of Frankenstein (or should that be ”PAPenstein”) Monster, which is, even as we speak, rampaging through the cityscape of Singapore, making all manner of unpredictable and frankly out-of-control statements and confusing the people. The presidency is the mutant that escaped from the mad scientist’s lab. What untold damage and confusion such a mutant will wrought on our political landscape boggles the mind. All bets are off now. I can only humbly agree that the disconnect between the expectations of the people (fired by all the speechifying done by the Tan, Tan, Tan & Tan) and the legal stipulations in the Constitution will be so wide as to cause even more chasm and and schism between the state and the people it purports to govern. This huge fault must be laid at the door of the Mad Scientist himself. Yet another anomaly is raising its ugly dead: the dreaded RACE issue itself. There are mutterings in the street that all four candidates are Chinese (and all Tan’s, to boot!). Where are the minority candidates? If this goes on, won’t every subsequent Presidential Election be Chinese dominated? Hitherto, the Istana operated on a sort of racial rotation system. This is has completely broken down. The Presidential Election Commission cannot produce minority candidates by fiat, nor can it disqualify any Chinese candidate if he fulfils the requirements to run. Shit. We are in trouble.
August 19th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
意识形态政治生态将摧毁新加坡。美式或欧式民主政治已经沦陷为讨好政治。新加坡也渐渐的步上后尘。 谢谢有些知识份子在加快摧化过程。 民主政治将来到新加坡。不分好坏，拥有就好。
August 19th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
The Gate Keeper, arr…yes of course and again, Catherine as usual a well and thought proking writing and article therein that warrants the comments from various interesting ‘bloggers’ who having their own views have forgotten to say the least,”thank U” for the pleasure of reading as well as enchance their brains into ticking afterall, when does Singapore or for that matter, Singaporeans start thinking to fight for their basic of ‘rights’ abeilt the fact that we have neither the Constitution of USA either of First or even the Forth amendments to start with so, here goes ‘nothing’ on additional commenting save the fact Ms Catherine, i have always enjoy and shall continue to enjoy with great pleasure your penmanship…only a handful indeed very few handful could master writing like yours…
August 19th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
I love all Singaporeans regardless of race, religion or riches. My race is human race (not rat race); religion i have none because now I am having intimacy relationship with Jesus Christ, He is my husband and I’m only His bride-wife-queen; my riches is uncountable . Thanks Catherine, your mind imagination is better than the present propagandist of ten men in white combined. Enjoy peaceful and discovery wealth with all Singaporeans : water cure: drugs kill.
August 19th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I believe the five stars values of President Hopeful Tan Kin Lian can encourage Singaporeans to care for one another and be united as One People with Singapore Spirit singing One Voice of the People.
The Hi-5 Stars Values :
Honesty, Fairness, Positive Attitude, Courage, Public Service.
August 19th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Extremely well written article, even though the tone is bit pessismistic
I offer a perspective on how a win by the different candidates would be viewed. Having candidates from different background allows the people to make their choices based on their wants / feeings or the first time. In a way, it can also be viewed as a barometer of the people sentiments.political analysts can determine the feelings on the ground. A clear message is sent to the govt as to the areas they need to focus on in their policies moving ahead.
A win by a PAP x stalwarts would indicate that despite the PAP poor showing in the last election, the general public still has confidence in the PAP mode of governance. Like the prodigal son who has learnt its lessons and has found found its way home, alll is forgiven. The people has realised that the PAP way is still the way for optimal economic growth . The govt would be given a boost in confidence to further its work in this difficult turbulent economic uncertainty. Economic growth is not everything but in todays uncertain environment but is more important than ever.
The govt can focus on what they view as important in the big picture. The people would be willing to make sacrifiaces for the greater good but the impact needs to be carefully managed being lesson learnt from the GE.
A win by a former associate who distanced himself would indicate the people preference of someone who understand the inner workings and yet is independant. The govt knows that they need to tread carefully and that a balance between economic growth and people sentiments is necessary. Sacrifiaces by the people should be avoided. Managing public opinion would be crucial if any policies with a remote chance of making averse impact may occur. This is kind of the middle of the road, hedge your bets kind of mentality. A sign of poliitical inmaturity of sitting on the fence, wanting something and yet not willing to stand up for it.
A win by someone without any PAP links would indicate that the govt need to work really hard to maintain their positions (and high salaries). People sentiments are at tipping point and the PAP is really on he slide. Short term focus on people welfare and wants is most important. Forget about the big picture and focus on the people. use more of the reserves to help the people if need be(which would force the EP to show how he support the govt actions in managing the people sentiments vs being a prudent 2nd key). Long term we may be not be growing at as optimal rates and may lose some competitiveness but at least the people feel happier. As other countries focus on their growth, whether we can recover the competitiveness is a risk we need to take.
I think there is a fourth type of candidate, an x PAP associate who is perceived to be at loggerheads with the PAP. This is a knee jerk support the underdog reaction. A win by this candidate would be dangerous – again a sign of political immaturity. The govt will not be able to get any signals from this other than that the PAP is loathed. the PAP may be paralysed in its future actions as it is always second guessing how the pubic woud guage its actions
history is written by victors, the future is shaped by writers. Question: which candidate do I support? how are the arguements flawed. what other inference can you make?
August 19th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
In a functioning Democracy, the only taboos or “Out of Bound Markers” should be those which are clearly spelled out in law ie:
Discussion on ALL other topics should be fair game and ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED by an engaged citizenry in dialogue with their elected representatives.
Is it not time we aspire to join the ranks of 21st Century mature democracies ?
The Constitutional points raised in this article are all well and good, but for the average Singaporean (make that all Singaporeans) the reality is that this PE is a de facto referendum on whether or not the PAP has learned anything from its’ lacklustre GE showing.
The mood on the ground does not appear sweet for the PAP with voters seeing this as an attempt to consolidate power in the hands of the Party elite in the person of Dr Tony Tan. Many PAP loyalists will vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bock in anger of his treatment and what they perceive as a divide between the powerful Party leadership and the lower ranking “drones”.
The issue of his son’s NS deferment, his perceived “cold” personality and his association with past unpopular policies will weigh against Tony Tan – not to mention his association with the PAP elite.
For the first time in an election, the PAP faces a “split vote” situation which is not to its’ advantage.
Tan Kin Lian will also dilute the potential vote pool for the PAP leaving the prospect of a close fight between Dr Tony Tan and Tan Jee Say on the cards.
If those who are tired of PAP arrogance, empty promises and motherhood rhetoric rally around Tan Jee Say, his chances of winning this PE are quite promising, and I for one will not be surprised.
A Tan Jee Say victory will create space for democratic forces to breathe and speak with new energy and purpose, while banishing some of the residual climate of fear and suspicion in the country.
Vote Wisely for an open and Free Singapore.
Majulah Singapura !
August 19th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
The original purpose of the PAP in making the President to elected and to have some executive was just in case there is the possibility of the PAP loosing more seats in parliament to the opposition, the PAP would transfer more executive powers to the EP that the PAP would expect the EP to be a PAP man like TT. The EP would then be like the president in the Philipine, or Russia. The EP would then take away executive power from the PM. LKY would never expect that the EP could be someone who is not beholden to the PAP This EP election is therefore important that TJS who Is never a PAP member be elected as the EP If TJSbecomes the EP it would be a important indication that the EP has been morphed into someone that LKY least expect
sg
August 19th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
At the heart of the struggle to achieve a non-PAP EP is the unhappiness with the first-past-the-post electoral system felt by the 40% who voted opposition and got only 7% of the seats. If these voters can put their man in the Istana, it would be seen as a moral victory of sorts, despite his limited powers to rein in the government. Still a fearless EP who breaks out of the shadowy confines of closed-door consultations by publicly voicing his concerns on national issues would provide for lively debate in the public domain. Whether to neuter this pesky EP would be a real dilemma for the ruling elite.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Knowing fully well what is the role of the elected president and its limited function (to be exact “rubber stamping”), no wonder MM would never consider himself for president.
August 19th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
The original purpose of the PAP in making the President to be elected and to have some executive powers was just in case there is the possibility of the PAP loosing more seats in parliament to the opposition, The PAP would then transfer more executive powers to the EP as the PAP would expect the EP to be a PAP man like TT. The EP would then be like the president in the Philipine, or Russia. The EP would then take away executive power from the PM. LKY would never expect that the EP could be someone who is not beholden to the PAP This EP election is therefore important that TJS who Is never a PAP member be elected as the EP If TJS becomes the EP it would be a important indication that the EP has been morphed into someone that LKY least expected …
August 20th, 2011 at 1:13 am
Will one believe that ex-PAP person will severe all ties and emotions with PAP? Why, we still have old boy/girls assoc or alumni. Can one be sure that when he/she gets married to a bad (vice-wise) spouse and insists on the spouse to severe all ties and communications with his/hers old pals or partners and remain so forever? The emotional and sentimaental urge still lingers on. I bet you.
The thought of the EP’s and governing party’s offices should be far apart and not in proximity is a divine move. A noble notion.
True blue Singaporean citizens show our discontent (which has been caged up for unpteen years) to the PAP govt that we want true liberty and demoncracy. Vote the Non-PAP candidate to represent our aspirations freely. Viva le Singapore. Merdeka majulah Singapura!
August 20th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/08/20/tan-jee-say-crosses-swords-with-tony-tan-over-isa/
Hey Catherine, I think your prediction coming true! Just few days intonthe EP campaign we can now sense the tension and desperation happening esp the kiasu PAP camp! They say EP is above politics. My foot! They are not facing the reality. How can EP which is seeking the mandate of the citizens be above politics? It is proven otherwise now!
I always love to read your articles. Very eloquent and well analysed! Thks for the fantastic read! Cheers!
August 20th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
I wish I had thought of press ganging you,Catherine,for the Elected Presidency
August 20th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Singaporeans,should avoid electing someone who has never been a PAP member.The only candidate to satisfy this criteria is Tan Jee Say.He was a scholar who had studied in Oxford,and is intellectually capable of playing the role of President.As President Mr Tan Jee Say will be able to engage with foreign dignitaries and would not become an embarassment to Singapore.Apart from him, only TT can fulfill this role. However, it is important that we at last have someone like TJS who has never been a PAP man.The importance of this, is that he will be able to act as check and balance to our reserves. You may know that the PM,LHL had passed a bill allowing the transfer of funds from GLC to Temesek without the consent or knowledge of the president.By passing this bill,do we need a second key to protect our reserves; when the parliament can always seek to pass any bill they want with regard to our reserves without the consent of the president? The question that need to be asked is why then do we need a second key especially if the president is going to be someone endorsed by the government?It is like just having a duplicate key to a safe. All past presidents have been endorsed by the government. Hence the importance of voting someone like TJS who has never been a PAP member.He would be able to fullfill his responsibilities of the president independently and not be beholden to the leaders of the PAP.
August 20th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
/// Freddie August 20th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Singaporeans,should avoid electing someone who has never been a PAP member.The only candidate to satisfy this criteria is Tan Jee Say. ///
Freddie – you mean Singapore SHOULD ELECT someone who has never been a PAP member.
August 22nd, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Sorry TWOG it is a topographical error.Singaporeans,should avoid electing someone who has never been a PAP member. My statement should be elect someone who never been a PAP member.
August 26th, 2011 at 12:14 am
For “If he had never been a PAP member, the expectations of him will be so unrealistically high that whatever evidence of independence he displays will elicit disappointment as being not enough.”, I do not agree with your assessment.
In fact I believe the opposite is true for two reasons: 1) Everywhere on the internet, the anti-PAP crowd is by far the most vocal. They are likely to be more lenient to someone without PAP baggage. 2) Nathan’s 12 years of oblivion, at least in the eyes of the public, is a benchmark that is as good as non-existent. So for any successor to surpass, if not match, that non-existing benchmark requires no sweat. Unless the government threatens, behind closed doors, to prosecute at the slightest mutiny, the candidate with zero PAP link is unlikely to self-gag and do worst than Nathan.