Political Commentary
The Presidential Election of 2011: Paradoxes And Perils of a Politicised Role
The term ‘new normal’ has been used to describe the new political reality in Singapore, including the changes following the General Election of 2011 (GE 2011). Less dramatic and romantic than the other descriptions of ‘a Singapore Renaissance’ and ‘a Singapore Arab Spring’, it nevertheless recognizes that the winds of change that have swept away the norms, assumptions and rules of the old order are more akin to the storms of revolution than to the gentle breezes of step-by-step evolution that the People’s Action Party (PAP) government had always advocated.
Part of this new normal is a new electorate with a ferocious hunger for a new kind of leadership. Since it is a strongly anti-PAP group, it desires the new leadership, first and foremost, to be free of all those detested PAP attributes, notably arrogance, complacency and insensitivity to the needs of the people, that had come in for much excoriation during the GE 2011.
Sensing this need of the people, certain aspirants for the position of President of Singapore quickly realised that the Presidential Election of 2011 (PE 2011) would present the very opportunity for fulfilling it. While the PAP leadership would likely be around for some time, it should still, in the meanwhile, be subjected to checks and balances, and who better to do that than a president empowered by a popular mandate in nationwide polls? Indeed, holding the highest office in the land, he would be in the ideal position to provide just the leadership to feed this hunger for change, which the many placatory gestures of a chastened PAP government after GE 2011, had only succeeded in sharpening.
Thus did these hopefuls get down to the serious work of re-casting the traditional presidential role according to how the people would want it to be. They duly invested it with precisely those leadership qualities so reprehensibly missing in the PAP administration—the ability to connect with the ground, an empathy with the needs of the man-in-the-street, the courage to put up a good fight on matters that affected people’s lives, including those that had been angrily brought up during GE 2011.
In re-writing the role of the president as if he were a Member of Parliament with the whole nation as his constituency, the presidential hopefuls were, in effect, politicizing the role of the Elected President (EP). Whether or not they realised it, they were seriously contradicting the strictly apolitical, primarily ceremonial and custodial role set out in the constitution.
It can be argued that this politicization, if it was an errant or misguided act, could be blamed on the creators of the constitution themselves. In 1991, the PAP leaders amended the constitution to change the system of a government-appointed president to that of an elected one, to give him the moral authority to perform a most vital function, among others: preventing spendthrift governments from raiding the nation’s vast reserves.
The stipulation of the condition of a popular mandate for the presidency was already, in itself, a politicizing act, with all kinds of political implications, whether or not the PAP leaders were aware of it. If they were, they must have dismissed it as of no relevance for their purposes, since it would make no difference for Singaporean voters long used to timid, unquestioning compliance with every government policy.
Never in their wildest imagination could the PAP leaders have foreseen the emergence, in GE 2011, of a fearless, boldly demanding electorate, who went on, in PE 2011, some months later, to seize the very same constitutional amendment to serve their purpose, by re-interpreting the role of the EP exactly as they wanted it to be.
So quickly and enthusiastically was this revised role taken up and promoted in the online media, especially by the new group of mostly young, vocal, Internet-savvy voters, that scant thought was given to the resulting contradictions and paradoxes. Even at the purely theoretical level, these anomalies were troubling; translated into reality, they could in the long run do much damage to the most august office in the land.
Firstly, the politicization had resulted in the creation of a bizarre hybrid role for the EP, made up of two mutually exclusive ones—that of a Member of Parliament whose business was politics, and that of a ceremonial head of state whose business was to stay above it. It was a weirdly composite role where the EP was empowered, on the one hand, to go all out to fight for the people’s interests, and on the other, to be a powerless custodian whose advice the government was under no obligation to heed.
Secondly, it would lead to a forced juxtaposition of strongly opposed behaviors, that is, the regally calm, dignified and benign bearing of a president, at one end, and the relentlessly ruthless and combative approach of the seasoned politician, at the other. In practice, it could mean, for example, the jarring dissonance of a media picture of the president caught up in the raw, brutal competitiveness of a political campaign, superimposed upon his official portrait of smiling fatherly benevolence, reverentially displayed in government buildings nationwide.
In short, the act of politicizing the EP’s role could generate such patently absurd paradoxical statements as to resemble philosophical conundrums:
- The EP is both political and apolitical, both partisan and non-partisan.
- The EP is both a symbol of stately dignity and of the earthy street savvy of the successful politician.
- The EP is given veto power over government decisions in certain areas, but it can be nullified by the government’s own veto power.
The EP’s role would thus be a logically and psychologically insupportable one. Riddled with so many contradictions and paradoxes, it could be seen as both a hopelessly neither-here-nor-there, as well as a something-for-everyone role that had an Alice-in-Wonderland hyperreality about it.
The incongruities of the politicisation were quickly and urgently pointed out by some alarmed PAP ministers. Through the media and public forums, they drew meticulous attention to its deviation from the terms clearly laid down in the amendments to the constitution. They highlighted the constitutional constraints of the EP’s role precisely to refute the liberalities that the anti-PAP camp had decked it with. But in the high spirits that were a spillover from GE 2011, the PAP’s objections apparently had the effect of only increasing the appeal of the newly envisaged role. Imagine, a president at long last who can stand up to the PAP bully on our behalf!
At this stage of the period leading up to the presidential election, there was hence already an ideological polarization of voters into, broadly, those who were pro-PAP and favoured the constitutionally circumscribed role of the EP for its stability, and those who were anti-PAP and accordingly rejected it as yet one more example of a self-serving government policy, that was out of touch with the people’s needs.
By the time of the nine-day campaign leading to election day on 27 August, the reconstituted role of the EP, improbable as it was, controversial as it had become, had already taken root in the popular imagination, accreting very attractive features along the way.
It had become a phenomenon that would determine the shape, tone and flavour of the entire campaign. For what happened was that the four presidential contenders, comprising one closely allied with the PAP government, and the other three stoutly affirming their independence of it, had no choice but to use the politicized image as their frame of reference, if they wanted to get their message quickly and effectively across to the voters. Since the image was so diffuse and mixed because of the contradictions, they could only select that aspect of it upon which they could convincingly build their campaign pledges, or mount their criticism of the rivals. And since the aspects were so different, the candidates could only talk past each other, and not engage in meaningful dialogue or debate.
Thus while each of the four candidates pledged to become a worthy president, the notion of worthiness split into as many individual versions. Indeed, these could be stark opposites, depending on which end of the ideological spectrum the candidate had positioned himself: if staunchly pro-PAP, he could promise to work closely with the government to ensure order and stability, or, if strongly anti-PAP, he could promise to take on an actively independent role of stern watchdog and interventionist, to ensure that the people’s interests were protected. Both stands were equally valid, and each in its own way made sound political sense.
It was not surprising therefore that confusion would set in and that earnest voters, genuinely desirous of voting for the most suitable presidential candidate, would ask with some puzzlement: what exactly is the role of the EP? How do I justify my choice of this or that candidate?
The simplest answer in the end boiled down to this: justification depends on whether you are pro-PAP or anti-PAP. If the first, you invoke the constitution; if the second, you also invoke the constitution, but a different aspect of it.
A constitution so ambiguous, so open to the widest possible interpretations, and hence so manipulable, surely spelt trouble, and indeed made for one of the most bitterly fought campaigns in Singapore’s electoral history.
But today a president has already been elected and will be inaugurated in a matter of days. So what happens now?
The President Elect had quickly made clear in a landmark speech a day after the election that his priority would be to unify a divided society, to reach out to all. In principle, that would mean playing the apolitical role as laid down in the constitution in keeping with his campaign pledge to the 35% who voted him in, as well as playing the completely different, politicised role of an independent-minded EP, as desired by the 65% who did not vote for him. Taking a middle course would please neither; seeking to strike the perfect balance would be virtually impossible. And through it all, there would be pressure on him from the PAP government (now much relieved that he and not any of the other contenders in PE 2011 had got in), to work closely with them to regain the standing so badly lost in GE 2011.
It is, by all accounts, a fiendishly difficult job for the new President, with demands that go well beyond the brave campaign efforts of overcoming his natural reserve and aloofness to mingle with humble folk in friendly camaraderie. The job will be fraught with frustrations, because most of what he says and does, will not go down well with most of the people most of the time—the aggrieved 34% whose preferred candidate lost by a margin so incredibly small it was almost invisible, the 25% who had pointedly supported the contender most conspicuously contrasted with him, and the remaining 6%, that either spoilt their vote or gave it to the fourth, and weakest contender in the contest.
For the first time in the history of the presidency, the President of Singapore will be watched and judged more closely than even the PAP leadership itself. It would appear that without being exactly the sacrificial lamb, he would have to bear the brunt of grievances from the past, and the burden of expectations for the future.
Singaporeans who are seriously concerned about this grotesquely intractable issue of the EP’s role must come to a sobering conclusion: As long as nothing is done to resolve the inherent paradoxes in the constitution, the future could see the following predicaments and troubling scenarios:
The office of the EP will be increasingly devalued and demeaned. It can never shake off the taint from the raw emotions and squalor of the hustings, which will be continued and amplified in the free-wheeling world of the social media, most certainly by the frustrated supporters of the unsuccessful candidates. The Istana will have lost its pristine and hallowed ambience.
In the new intense and unforgiving climate after GE 2011, the EP will be seen as someone who has to earn his keep, like everybody else. Hence his ceremonial role will be viewed as far less significant than the substantial one of, say, advising the government wisely in an economic crisis, helping to better manage the reserves, using the presidential clout to initiate a major humanitarian project, etc. Since his public visibility is necessarily far greater in the first than in the second role, he may be criticized for performing below the expectations of the people who gave him their vote, and maligned by the rest for not justifying the huge presidential salary he is paid.
Two of the three unsuccessful contenders in PE 2011 who had managed to garner very convincing shares of the popular vote have already indicated they are likely to be back in the future. By then, based on lessons learnt in PE 2011, they will have found innovative ways to improve their performance in future presidential elections, with the result that these will get even more raucous, divisive and bitter. Indeed, the presidential election will be increasingly seen as an extension of the general election, and the opportunity to replicate a victory, improve the popularity rating, renew an attack, settle old scores, complete unfinished work, etc. By this time, the election will have frightened away those men (and women) whose sterling qualities make them true presidential material.
The highest office in the nation might lose its special luminosity, as it becomes increasingly influenced by the various personae of the EPs successively occupying it. For the EPs will have come with different, even extreme interpretations of their role, varying from that of vociferous opponent of the government, at one end, to that of quietly submissive PAP adjunct, at the other. The image of the EP may be vitiated to the extent that it no longer inspires respect and regard.
There is a possibility that in the future there could emerge a power centre with immense resources and influence, putting up its own personnel as a presidential candidate, in order to later use his high position to prosecute its own agenda. Such a threat which would be an impossibility in a general election, might eventuate in the relatively new, much less regulated and predictable world of direct voting in a presidential election. The hijacking of such a major institution for insidious purposes must be the ultimate nightmare of the society.
With future presidential candidates more likely to come from the Chinese majority, the very worthy, long upheld goal of having equal representation from the different ethnic groups may be irrevocably lost. This would be a severe blow to multiracial equality and unity in the society.
The paradoxes in the amended constitution could therefore lead to a medley of monstrous scenarios, a shocking array of unintended consequences. It is imperative, surely, that they be looked into and resolved as quickly as possible, as delay will only entrench them in the political landscape, making them useful tools for opportunists and mischief makers. As it is, they have already created disquiet and provoked controversy in a newly revitalized and maturing society that wants to move on quickly to concentrate on more important national issues.
The task of amending the amendments in a constitution that has been in place for more than twenty years is arduous, hazardous work, calling for much patience, courage, honesty and above all, political will. But the effort will be worth it, to protect the dignity, authenticity, integrity and indeed the very raison d’etre of a sacrosanct institution.
August 31st, 2011 at 12:30 pm
The Office of the President of Singapore is dead
Long live the President!
August 31st, 2011 at 12:36 pm
i think the PE or GE2011 reflected the divisive not only within the society but also within the PAP. the ruling party should take a hard look at their own policies whether it is inline with singaporeans aspirations. They should note that they GDP is not the only indicators of their own performance. from this PE and GE , i can say, singaporeans are not daft. they know what they voting for.
August 31st, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Personally I had no issues with the diversity of views expressed by all 4 candidates about the role of the Executive President.
Yes, the role is defined by the Constitution. But the man occupying the office of EP will also shape the nature of the EP office.
Simplistic example. Brad Pitt in a Ferrari with a hot young babe looks cool. Me, a 50 year old man in a Ferrari with a hot young babe makes me look like a Dirty Old Man.
Furthermore the EP’s role can always be amended by via Parliament & Constitution to make the office more in tune with cultural norms. We still have the death penalty in Singapore. But cultural norms does not allow for beheading as a means of execution.
There is nothing wrong with having a diversity of views. We are adults and Singapore is arguably still a democracy.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire, 1906.
Maybe one day all Singaporeans can embrace different opinions without feeling the urge for legal action.
August 31st, 2011 at 1:05 pm
This PE is, in my view, a paradox. The winner is not necessarily the winner, while the loser is also not necessarily the loser. The new President will now have to adhere to Presidential behaviors and constraints per Constitution, as he himself had so vigorously defended during the election. He will be in an extremely awkward position, as he knows he has less than half the citizens supporting him. On the other hand, the second best performing candidate is free to blog, talk and act as he is not bound by the Constitution. His whisker thin loss gives him tremendous clout. This freedom is, in my view, more highly prized than being a President.
In this PE, I think the losers include PAP, SDP and NSP. By their implicit and explicit support given to their preferred candidates, and their candidates unexpectedly poor performances, they loss credibility indeed. While TSJ may have seized a sizable share of the votes, his strong opposition bent has cast doubts on the true motives of his supporting parties in this PE.
By their disciplined neutrality, WP has raised it’s credibility in this PE. Other than Singaporeans, the other winner in this PE is the WP.
August 31st, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Another excellent article Ms. Lim.
The problem is that the portion of the electorate (which is now sizeable) that embraces the politicization of the office of the president will not quietly allow the constitution to be amended for the role to be reverted to being a ceremonial one.
And in any case, the very fear that the PAP had of a “rogue” government forming and therefore needing the supra-power of an EP is perhaps more likely today, or in 5 years time, than it was 20 years ago.
August 31st, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Great article , although im not sure that the Istana was ever as hallowed as you suggest. We have never ever as a nation, culturally had the long historical tradition of a monarchy. It seems a little unnatural to me, it almost smacks of a post-colonial hangover. Yes this elected presidency is messy and the role is in a state of tension, but so what. Let the chips fall where they may, even if it means that the office of president is tainted and loses the regal aura that some want it to have. so what? I don’t see what it actually worth protecting. Is such an office necessary? I would rather live in a society where respect is earned and no office is afforded blind unquestioning reverence. With regards to point 5) hasn’t that already happened in other ways ;] and with regards to point 6) I think a related issue lies with the fact that socio-economic wealth distribution overlaps with racial demography and so some minorities may be left out any future presidency by virtue of the current strict entry requirements.
August 31st, 2011 at 1:54 pm
It all started with the most historical milestone that happened to Singapore since the British withdrawal – ALJUNIED MAGIC
August 31st, 2011 at 2:03 pm
An insightful article and thanks for sharing your thoughts. The sharpened politicisation of the EP is also due to the carry over sentiments from the GE given that it was held weeks apart from each other. What is often forgotten is that there is now a growing disgust about the extreme hate, disrespect, intolerance seen on the online chatter whose sole intention seem to be to carpet bomb the governing team… this has in turn driven 70% of Singaporeans moderates to stand up chose the top 2 candidates and reject obstructionist and confrontational politics. Neither am I sure about WP’s true impartiality as they had floated their quarrel with PA in the middle of the EP elections and this in turn provide further fodder to energize the hard core opposition group. My own predictions over the next 5 years are:
(1) A third force comprising moderates and not fully aligned with PAP and/or WP will emerge and drive their views more aggressively in the online media to counter the incresing radicalisation of political commentary. The silent citizenry majority will not be silent anymore…
(2) PAP will be smarter about publicising their many programs, acts of kindness which benefits ordinary Singaporeans as they realized that they have not been given enough credit on social work done to improve ordinary Singaporeans
(3) Tony Tan will be a worthy President and will over time win over more moderates over with his steady, measured charisma. Tan Cheng Bock will continue to be a social commentater well supported by moderates.
(4) The challenge to engage the young will be a common challenge to all parties but more so with PAP as they are often seen as staid and over-institutionalised. However, a new core group of young moderates will emerge in 5 years and seize the imagination of all Singaporeans (like Nicole Seah) in the next GE. These talent will be more evenly spread amongst parties, providing an interesting leveling of the talent pool.
(5)Issues relating to transportation, housing, FT will largely be addressed with general satisfaction to the moderates. However, for the core Opposition, they will continue to be unsatisfied because they are essentially calling for a revolution. Hence, the moderate voice higlighted in (1) will be energized into action.
August 31st, 2011 at 2:26 pm
I think there is another valuable lesson learnt in 2011, without the GRC lines blurring sentiment, nothing is more apparent of the Singapore heartbeat than the polling result for our EP — that apart from the 35% still sticking to the old norm (i would guess most comes from the older generations/grassroots/conservatives), the next 34% so aptly named the “middle-ground” is still clear of what they want, an apolitical EP, always thinking of Singapore first before anything else, a torch-bearer for the greater good of all Singaporean. So in the next GE, do not forget this vital group, they wish to have PAP control the government but yet welcome a check & balance function that is provided by an independent party to give an alternate view/solution, to pull the reins when the horse is galloping too fast or steering it the right direction. Throw in another capable party like wat WP did, and I am pretty sure they will win the hearts of this “middle-ground” & the GE pretty easily, cos the remaining 25% of the population, i would call the pro-opposition, is already in the bag…well almost, cos we still have the GRCs to contend with.
August 31st, 2011 at 4:04 pm
I would say blame the Presidential Election Committee for giving out COEs to 4 candidates when on strict interpretation of the rules, only one would have qualified. This has opened the political pandora’s box.
August 31st, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Two quick comments:- Responding to JHR’s comments of the Presidential Election Commission qualifying only ONE candidate, this would have had the unintended effect of convincing the electorate that the entire contest had been KELONGED (i.e. fixed or undermined). This would have led to the office of the Presidency being irretrievably damaged and devalued and undermined, perhaps fatally.
Next, I wish to agree with Catherine that the present roles of the Presidency is a terribly mixed up one, something which has mutated into a Monstrous Chimera sporting many different and mutually-contraditory heads & limbs. The entire campaign leading up to DTT winning by the skin of his teeth with a razor-thin 0.34% lead must have given the PAPists a real bad mortal scare. Mark you my words here, massive Constitutional amendments will now take place, force-stripping Istana of every little power until the President cannot so much as visit the latrine without Cabinet’s Advice. Back to the Past of the quiet, obedient, smiling, zero-controversy SPH reporter, ISD chieftain or gynae.
August 31st, 2011 at 4:59 pm
In short, the PAPists will restore the peace of the graveyard to the Istana.
No excitement please, we are PAPists!
August 31st, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Where got ideological polarization or political divide of voters into pro-PAP and anti-PAP in the presidential election?
According to news reports, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Yaacob Ibrahim did not think there was a political divide among Singaporeans despite Dr Tony Tan beating Dr Tan Cheng Bock by 0.34 per cent, garnering 35.19 per cent of the total votes.
He noted that even though voters had to choose between two “very good” candidates, both of them — formerly from the PAP — had a combined vote share of 70 per cent.
He added, “There’s strong support for the party in that sense. But it’s clear that there are people who are divided, as explained by the Prime Minister, (who) were basically having to decide between two very good candidates.”
Well, he should also include the votes of the remaining two candidates, who were related to the ruling party in one way or other in the past, to make it a 100% support for his party.
August 31st, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Please put me on your mailing list
August 31st, 2011 at 6:45 pm
This was one really good article by Ms Lim. This paradox is here to stay, but for many, it is a hope for a better future. If it is a fantasy, then it is not so bad to look at the work done so far, and looking at things are from the most positive levels. It’s a different story for daydreamers.
I think we are all lucky to be voting together in 2011, making history and positively helping to evolve the way of life in Singapore to the next improved phase. I hope this is one way to move forward.
The many analysts among us would have struggled if the outcomes of the ballot boxes worked to a tie of 25%. That there was a winner clearly shows the differences between hope and despair. Whatever way we view the count, a majority disagreed with those who chosed the successful candidate.
In a lighter note, we might as well have a future Presidential election based on a Singapore Idol approach, with a maximum of 5 votes, first one is free and subsequent ones at $5 each. All proceeds goes to a grand presidential charity fund. If that happens, then we would all have a hard time to analyze the voting trends. Now that could be fun, but seriously I am now daydreaming.
August 31st, 2011 at 7:15 pm
The late JBJ in the nineteen eighties warned that significant Constitutional change like the Elected President be approved in a referendum instead of 2/3 Parliamentary majority. A future Govt (PAP or otherwise) may decide to restrict the custodian power of the Elected President with 2/3 vote in Parliament as the ruling party of the day may find the EP is in it’s way to access the foreign reserve in the name of domestic imperatives.
Imagine again an incumbent Govt that has 2/3 vote in Parliament decides to cut the custodian power of the EP with amendment to relevant clauses without going through a referendum !
In short, the EP was created by PAP in accordance to it’s rules and terms. We, Singaporean at large did not have a say over 20 years ago. PAP can also disband this EP if future EP after Tony Tan is a different animal without the need for a referendum.
Next important issue is minority race as EP. Given that EP is nation wide election and Chinese has 75% of votes, it will be a big challenge for minority race to be EP.
August 31st, 2011 at 8:23 pm
My guess is that the citizens are tired of a condescending government that arbitrarily decides everything for its citizens, and chides its electorate as if we were all children, even insulting them and calling them DAFT (the likes of LKY, etc), the two face behaviours of the ruling party, (LHL saying SORRY before the elections and ‘back to business’ immediately after)… etc.
Many of the PAP ministers are comfortably esconced in their ivory towers, chauffer-driven limousines, the highest ministerial salaries in the world, and many other ministerial priviledges that they are too far removed from the day to day realities of the citizens to even begin to empathize what the majority of the people are going through on the ground. Viewed in that light, who are they, really… to make judgements and decisions for the people?
August 31st, 2011 at 8:30 pm
I enjoyed reading this post and the comments immensely. I’ve a few thoughts of my own especially regarding the relationship of parliament and the office of the Presidency.
1) Can WP continue to be silent on the PE? It was deafeningly silent during this PE (I don’t think there was any mischief in the timing of the spat with PA/HDB) but I think they can ill-afford to be silent anymore especially if changes are made to the constitution.
WP will lose some political capital if they continue to be silent and adamant in their stand of abolishing the EP – something which is not going to happen anytime soon at all.
2) TT has repeatedly stated that he will ‘work with all parties’. That remains to be seen but it is important to be seen doing just that. How he intends to do it is a question mark and if he doesn’t do it PE 2016 will be very interesting.
3) I agree with Sivan that the ‘prestige’ and ‘neutrality’ and whatever superlatives accorded to that office is just but a social construct. If future contests ‘reduces’ the prestige of the office (however that can be measured) so be it. The debates and rowdiness that comes with it might do good in sharpening the role and office of the EP.
4) I think the PAP is very smart in awarding TJS the certificate. It might have been in their calculations that giving TJS the cert will reduce TCB’s votes. Pure speculation of course but it hindsight…
August 31st, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Dear Ms Lim,
The constitutional change 20 years ago was opportunistic rather than visionary. The country and its polity was simply too young and too inexperienced itself to recognize the fact that their actions then would have implications as long term as 20 years hence. It had just gone through a generational change where the leaders of the previous 20 year period had been consigned to the knackers yard as it were and to the ‘youngsters’ coming in a 20 years period must have had the distinct ‘smell of eternity’; they all were beholden to the charismatic figure of the ancient leader.
Who, and that to my mind, was the whole object of the exercise, had carved out the position of the elected president for himself, if not for the near but certainly for the next to next term. He must have entertained visions of himself as the benign keeper of gates, quite above any political squabble, but still firmly in control of the nations fortunes (literally)
The ‘real’ question therefore is ‘why not’; was the individual too ambitious himself to be consigned to that merely ceremonial role, or were there even then divisions in the ruling party, quite deliberately kept away from the public eye.
History will (!) tell….
August 31st, 2011 at 10:56 pm
/// The task of amending the amendments in a constitution that has been in place for more than twenty years is arduous, hazardous work, calling for much patience, courage, honesty and above all, political will. But the effort will be worth it, to protect the dignity, authenticity, integrity and indeed the very raison d’etre of a sacrosanct institution. ///
Usually, the best solution is the simplest. Just revert to the good olde days of appointing the President.
September 1st, 2011 at 10:31 am
For some political observers, past politicians, and including the stand taken by the Workers Party, the Elected Presidency is a political manipulation of the PAP which has gone wrong, just like the GRCs would be in the long run when voters started to swing their support to the anti-PAP groups. This goes to show that flirting the electoral system to preserve political advantage is not going to help when electorates decide to change their mind. Better to review the existing FPTP system and do away with the Elected Presidency.
September 1st, 2011 at 7:33 pm
As it is, I don’t feel much for the office of the President. To the extend that I was not even thinking of voting. Much less feel any reverence for it. My question is, and I would also question the relevance of the British Monarchy in the same breath, what is the purpose of having a president? What can he, what has he done for Singaporeans. Do you know what the Thai monarchy has done for the Thai people for hundreds of years in the past. To garner that kind of reverence, you need some kind of relevence.
To me, the question is not whether the president is elected or appointed.
Some commentors pointed out rightly that it is important to note how ANY government in power can actually redefine the limits of the presidential powers. If any constitution admendments could be made, it should seek electorate referendum and not be unilaterally made by governments.
Another point is, there is no more malay presidents in the future, based on the current selection criteria.
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:29 am
first,the blog used too many profound language,think in political commentaries,not many can fully comprehend 100% at 1am lol. I strongly believe in the Reform party post that in truly democratic election system,one must have majority votes.In this PE, fact is the President does not have a majority vote and the constitution is so quick to acknowledge him.Hence, it begs the query, is the “first past the post” election system fair to the people.If it isn’t fair then y is it not changed? Will future elections churn out more elected positions that lack the majority approval? If so, will that be beneficial holistically to society or detrimental? They all need to be answered honestly if the society will reflect to the world that SG is politically world class standard.
September 4th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
You can have all the different structures you want. Monarchy or democracy. Democracy or communist or socialist or whatnot. Parliamentary or presidential power. Parliamentary power with symbolic presidential office or presidential power with upper senate & lower congress. GRC or single seats. etc, etc, etgc.
At the end of the day, the true spirit and the will to ensure the good of the nation is what matters. The working for the benefits & interests of its people must match with whatever loud rhetorics that have been sounded out. Else people will just ignore the system and cynicism & unhappiness will build up and they will redefine how the office must be like and not what it exists now.
September 5th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
“Singapore’s former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has cautioned Singaporeans from turning the current political divide into a national divide. Speaking to some 1800 undergraduates at a dialogue held at the Nanyang Technological University, Mr Lee acknowledged that one thing which will change in Singapore, and which has already happened, is the political divide. He said as long as the political divide does not degenerate into a national divide, it would not have much impact on the growth of the country.”
Hey Catherine, Your prediction more than 10 yrs ago when you wrote that infamous article is finally vindicated! Our National Forecaster is finally admitting it publicly without giving you due credit for pointing it to them yrs ago! Really “Langgar the Tiang”!
P/S: I like reading all your articles becuz almost all of them really “Langgar the Tiang”! Cheers !
September 7th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Go to this website Check Singapore’s state debt and contrast it against US and Malaysia’s. http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock We are doomed. After 47 yrs of Leepublic of Leegapore, we are so doomed. WHY DID THIS HAPPEN? WHY WAS THIS NOT AN ISSUE IN GE2011 AND PE2011? WHERE DID ALL OUR MONEY GO TO???? Screaaaam!!!! On a per capita basis we are TWICE more indebted than lazy, unproductive, over-spending Americans. Corrupt, inefficient bumbling Malaysia has one-tenth our per capita indebtedness. People of Sinkapore, we have been let down, let down BADLY. Let the scales fall from your eyes. Refuse to be deceived anymore. Our glorious fearless leaders are inept, and thats the bleddy HARD TRUTH!!! This whole ”most efficient government in the world meritocracy” claim IS BUT A VENOMOUS RELIGION!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaail…………..
September 7th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Superbrand, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Those figure are public debt. In Singapore, the MAS issued SGS securities to broaden the debt capital market. There is no need to borrow. Net net, the government is a net creditor. Go to the CIA World Factbook, look up Singapore’s public debt and look at the footnote accompanying the figure. Sure, more than 100% of GDP in borrowing looks scary, but if you reserves are a few times that amount, what is the problem? Say, I borrow $1 million from the bank, and my annual income is only $200,000. Is that a problem? What if I tell you that I lent out $3 million, and invested $2 million in bonds and shares.
September 9th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
The Papists have returned to put Catherine Lim and allies in Cold Storage again for the NEXT 5 years.
September 11th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
The office of EP “is” the creation and fear of LKY.
Why does it have so many faults? Its very simple. LKY as usual, dictated it; cronies dare not criticize & probably praised it to high heavens; and a rubber stamp parliament legitimize it. This is a recurrent theme (dictatorship/”emperorship” at work) in history and I wonder why people are still amazed by its failings now.
The support that the PAP could rely upon for so many years were very simple too. It was crafted out of their total control of the media.
Now that the Internet has slightly level the playing field, these fat cats no longer know what to do. In fact, there is nothing they can do. Not even Gaddafi & Assad can shoot their people into submission!
Again, history tells us that the people with access to knowledge and information, will eventually triumph over the dictators or suppressors.
The declaration by the PM that PA serves the govt is a very good example of what is blatantly obviously wrong, being “explained” to be right. This is a political slap to the face of the citizens; a wake-up call to the young; and worst: scoring its own goal to the detriment of the PAP.
Its clear, the Fat Cats are still oblivious to the slowly silently creeping fact that they are already doomed to be voted out of office soon. In history, what is 50 years?
Singapore under LKY was a kitchen experiment that should have ended 20 years ago. His “dish” has turned sour against him and with the nepotism, against his family. By extending it for another 20 years, he has tainted his legacy to be an example of bad government. Our descendants will read a lot of his failures and his mausoleum will be the Latrine of Singapore.
September 12th, 2011 at 7:05 am
We know know 35% of singaporeans are morally corrupt, 35 % are moderates and 30% angry and /or intelligent.
That’s how the demoGraphic cookie crumbles