Electing a President in Singapore

PE 2011 Nomination Day

2011-08-19T13:17:00.001+08:00

Presidential Candidate Broadcast - Tan Kin Lian

2011-08-18T23:48:00.001+08:00

Tan Jee Say's Presidential Candidate Broadcast

2011-08-18T23:47:00.001+08:00

Dr Tony Tan's Presidential Candidate Broadcast

2011-08-18T23:46:00.000+08:00

Dr Tan Cheng Bock's Presidential Candidate Broadcast 18 Aug 2011

2011-08-18T23:40:00.001+08:00

Dr Tan Cheng Bock interview on Nomination Day

2011-08-18T23:37:00.000+08:00

Dr Tony Tan interview on Nomination Day

2011-08-18T23:36:00.001+08:00

Tan Kin Lian interview on Nomination Day

2011-08-18T23:35:00.000+08:00

Tan Jee Say interview on Nomination Day

2011-08-18T23:31:00.001+08:00

Nomination Day: Tan Kin Lian

2011-08-18T23:29:00.001+08:00

Nomination Day: Dr Tony Tan.

2011-08-18T23:28:00.001+08:00

Nomination Day: Tan Cheng Bock

2011-08-18T23:26:00.002+08:00

Nomination Day: Tan Jee Say

2011-08-18T23:26:00.000+08:00

Criteria to be nominated as Presidential candidate I

2011-08-18T22:51:00.000+08:00

As I scour through the various youtube podcast, most of the PE 2011 candidates (excpet one ) hardly mention the constitution. They should study the Constitution carefully and master the boundaries laid out so they understand the role of the Presidency in a much clearer light.

I think on a lighter note, we should make the following as social criteria for one to be eligible for PE nomination:
must have stayed in a HDB 3 room flat for at least 5 years
must have taken the MRT to work for at least 5 years
must have eaten at non air-con hawker centres for at least 15 years
must have bought & queued at NTUC Fairprice for at least 15 years
must have made a loss from HDB flat sale at least 2 times
must have paid COE when it was at its peak for at least 5 times
must have sons who did their compulsory NS for 2.5 years

Have a good laugh !

Tan, Tan, Tan.. Tan Cheng Bock, Tony Tan or Tan Kin Lian for President

2011-08-18T18:27:00.000+08:00

President constitutionally obliged to act on advice of Cabinet: President Nathan - 07Aug2011

2011-08-18T18:22:00.000+08:00

Aug 7, 2011

SINGAPORE: Amid ongoing public discussion on the role of the Elected Presidency, President S R Nathan has reiterated that the office has its constitutional obligations.

In an interview with Channel NewsAsia, Mr Nathan said these include acting on the advice of the Cabinet and of the Council of Presidential Advisers on matters under the Constitution.

In his 12 years in office, Mr Nathan said there was never any occasion in which he had to demand information from the government.

He said: "I have absolute access. Every Cabinet meeting, every Cabinet paper has been sent to me so that have opportunity to look at them beforehand. And when I have questions and when I meet the Prime Minister or the Senior Minister periodically, we do exchange views. What I have in mind, I'll raise with him, and what they have in mind they'll raise with us, beyond the formal exchange of information."

The President has to consult the Council of Presidential Advisers when exercising his custodial and discretionary powers.

In 2009, with a global crisis in the horizon, Mr Nathan and the Council requested to be briefed by the Ministry of Finance, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and relevant agencies on the potential impact on Singapore.

Mr Nathan later approved the use of past reserves to fund measures to fight the recession.

He said: "We knew that we were in a state where inevitably we had to do something. So at that stage, the government came up with the proposal of the Jobs Credit Scheme and the bank guarantees. We in our judgement and the Council of the Presidential Advisers in their judgement, felt that we had to respond and that's when the process worked. We had a formal letter from the government explaining what they wanted, and also what it was to do with the way to alleviate the consequences of this downturn. That was the stage when the Council recommended that I approved it and I did it."

The President also does not act independently when asked to grant pardons on the death penalty.

Mr Nathan said: "One would like us to and like me to exercise it freely but I've got to act on the advice of the Cabinet as provided by the Constitution. However sympathetic you may be, one has to think of the overall good of the community as against an individual. I know it is a painful exercise."

Mr Nathan said he understands the expectations that people may have of the President but he said it is not his place to comment on their views.

Law Minister K. Shanmugam clarifies comments on President's role - 07Aug2011

2011-08-18T18:18:00.001+08:00

President candidates on their symbols - 17Aug2011

2011-08-18T18:16:00.001+08:00

PE: Dr Tan Cheng Bock suggests merging Mendaki, Sinda, CDAC - 17Aug2011

2011-08-18T18:12:00.001+08:00

PE: Tony Tan commented on the jeering at nomination centre - 17Aug2011

2011-08-18T18:09:00.001+08:00

PE Nomination Day: Tan Jee Say wants to be govt's auditor - 17Aug2011

2011-08-18T18:07:00.000+08:00

PE: Tan Kin Lian eyes constructive ties with Prime Minister - 17Aug2011

2011-08-18T18:04:00.001+08:00

PE 2011 - Vote For Tan Jee Say

2011-08-18T18:03:00.001+08:00

Tan Jee Say: fundamental issues of conscience

2011-08-18T17:51:00.000+08:00

Challenging the Out-of-Bounds Markers for an Elected President

2011-08-18T17:02:00.001+08:00

Source : http://catherinelim.sg

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,