I am quite astonished to see the dialogue played out in public between potential presidential candidates and the Minister of Law amongst others. It seems that the candidates have one opinion, and Shanmugam has another. Why would the Law Minister even engage in this dialogue? Why not just keep quiet and let the candidates indulge in their fantasy of what to do and how to do it when they win. I say this is a fantasy because, surely, they will not win. Only the anointed one Phoney Tan will win.
After all, the candidates have to survive the PEC screening. Judging by the composition of the members of the PEC, it leaves very little to imagination that as all the members are beholden to the PAP in some form or other, they would disqualify all candidates accept the anointed one. Or, as I have mentioned in my prior posts, they will eliminate the best non PAP candidates and leave a weak one there to run against Phoney Tan. This will at least present some semblance of democracy in the election process and in the independence of the post.
These recent comments by Shan and others have made me think twice. Are the PAP scared that they can actually lose this PE? Is that why they are trying to tell people that the Presidency is not that powerful? Shan’s comments are inarticulate and contradictory on many levels certainly not befitting a top legal mind that he supposedly possess.
He says for example in recent comments to clarify his earlier comments that “it is untrue that only Government endorsed candidates can be influential.” Well, if the position is truly independent as the constitution intended, and as the PAP has claimed, than how can the Govt. endorse any candidates? Should not the govt. stay out of it totally and not endorse or oppose any candidates?
Shan is also insinuating that if there is any disagreement, the courts will decide. Mr Shanmugam said: "If there are disagreements, as previously it has happened before, we can always get it resolved through the courts. When you have check and balance, you must expect that sometimes there might be differences in views. And if there are differences in views, we have a structure and system in place to deal with those differences." Since when has there been any check and balances in Singapore? How can the govt. and ministers win every case against them in the last few decades if there is really checks and balances? Checks and balances through the court system implies that there is an independent judiciary. This cannot be said of singapore’s judiciary, not by a long shot. I guess what Shan is telling all presidential candidates is that if you use your powers in a way that we don’t like. We will bring you to court and since we own the courts, we will win. It also implies an impeachment potential of any president that does not toe the line.
But for all of this to happen first, Phoney Tan has to lose. I don’t think this is possible, but judging from all the comments, its seems like the PAP is preparing for that eventuality. How can this be unless the PEC is truly independent?
As for other related comments:
Shan: And on the President being the voice of the people, Mr Shanmugam pointed out that all public acts, including public speech, can only be on the advice of the Cabinet.
How is this possible? You mean that went Nathan makes a speech at the OCS passing out parade, it has to be on the advice of the cabinet? What about speeches to the Chamber of commerce, or foreign ambassadors, etc. Do all of them have to be on the advice of the cabinet? I don’t think so. If this is the case, than how can Ong Teng Cheong make a speech critical of the govt., saying that they have stonewall him on his attempts to find out the amount of national reserves we have? Did OTC do this on the advice of the cabinet? What Shan needs to do is stop giving the cabinet powers that it never had or enjoyed in the first place, like the vetting of all presidential speeches.
Mr Shanmugam added the President must also be seen as impartial, in particular, on political debate and has to be above the fray on such matters, as he symbolises and represents the entire country.
Well, this statement contradicts his follow on statement that the govt. endorses candidates. How can the president be impartial if he is endorsed by the govt.? Also I recall that Nathan recently commented in a speech on FTs with “we must appreciate foreigners and welcome them…..”. The issue of FTs was huge in the last GE, and is still a very sore political point today among voters. Nathan has plainly entered the political debate on this FT issue on the side of pro-FT ala the PAP’s position. How is he than impartial? Shan should check all this first before he shoots his mouth of, his own president is already very partial on this political topic.
He added the President cannot publicly debate with the government because if he comments on social or political issues, the Office will be "dragged into politics".
However, the President has the power to veto the budgets of stat boards and other govt. orgs if he so desires or if he thinks there is a problem there. In addition to this, he has to publish his reasons for disputing the budget in the govt. gazette for all to read. This is what the law says. I cannot see how the PAP will not defend the budget to the public once it becomes gazetted. The whole world will know the reason why the president did not want to sign the budget. The PAP must and will use the media to present its side and spin it to its best ability. The debate therefore will go public whether Shan likes it or not. E.g. if the President refuses to sign the HDB’s budget and in his reason in the govt. gazette, he states the budget spends too much on housing for non singaporeans. Will the PAP let it slip? No, they will counter in the media with their POV. Right than, it has become a political issue, whether u like it or not. When u put someone in charge of large sums of money, whether u like it or not, sooner or later, the position will become political.
My conclusion is that far from clarifying the role and powers of the presidency, Shan has made it murkier and more confusing. Why? The reason is that he is trying to rein in the perceived power of the president and trying to persuade the public that really, this position is beholden to the cabinet dispite the fact that it is supposed to be independent. So, either, he is not sure that Phoney Tan will win, or recent happenings have cast doubt in the PAP higher echelon that once in power Phoney Tony might not do what they want, so they are setting the groundwork for power curtailment.
After all, the candidates have to survive the PEC screening. Judging by the composition of the members of the PEC, it leaves very little to imagination that as all the members are beholden to the PAP in some form or other, they would disqualify all candidates accept the anointed one. Or, as I have mentioned in my prior posts, they will eliminate the best non PAP candidates and leave a weak one there to run against Phoney Tan. This will at least present some semblance of democracy in the election process and in the independence of the post.
These recent comments by Shan and others have made me think twice. Are the PAP scared that they can actually lose this PE? Is that why they are trying to tell people that the Presidency is not that powerful? Shan’s comments are inarticulate and contradictory on many levels certainly not befitting a top legal mind that he supposedly possess.
He says for example in recent comments to clarify his earlier comments that “it is untrue that only Government endorsed candidates can be influential.” Well, if the position is truly independent as the constitution intended, and as the PAP has claimed, than how can the Govt. endorse any candidates? Should not the govt. stay out of it totally and not endorse or oppose any candidates?
Shan is also insinuating that if there is any disagreement, the courts will decide. Mr Shanmugam said: "If there are disagreements, as previously it has happened before, we can always get it resolved through the courts. When you have check and balance, you must expect that sometimes there might be differences in views. And if there are differences in views, we have a structure and system in place to deal with those differences." Since when has there been any check and balances in Singapore? How can the govt. and ministers win every case against them in the last few decades if there is really checks and balances? Checks and balances through the court system implies that there is an independent judiciary. This cannot be said of singapore’s judiciary, not by a long shot. I guess what Shan is telling all presidential candidates is that if you use your powers in a way that we don’t like. We will bring you to court and since we own the courts, we will win. It also implies an impeachment potential of any president that does not toe the line.
But for all of this to happen first, Phoney Tan has to lose. I don’t think this is possible, but judging from all the comments, its seems like the PAP is preparing for that eventuality. How can this be unless the PEC is truly independent?
As for other related comments:
Shan: And on the President being the voice of the people, Mr Shanmugam pointed out that all public acts, including public speech, can only be on the advice of the Cabinet.
How is this possible? You mean that went Nathan makes a speech at the OCS passing out parade, it has to be on the advice of the cabinet? What about speeches to the Chamber of commerce, or foreign ambassadors, etc. Do all of them have to be on the advice of the cabinet? I don’t think so. If this is the case, than how can Ong Teng Cheong make a speech critical of the govt., saying that they have stonewall him on his attempts to find out the amount of national reserves we have? Did OTC do this on the advice of the cabinet? What Shan needs to do is stop giving the cabinet powers that it never had or enjoyed in the first place, like the vetting of all presidential speeches.
Mr Shanmugam added the President must also be seen as impartial, in particular, on political debate and has to be above the fray on such matters, as he symbolises and represents the entire country.
Well, this statement contradicts his follow on statement that the govt. endorses candidates. How can the president be impartial if he is endorsed by the govt.? Also I recall that Nathan recently commented in a speech on FTs with “we must appreciate foreigners and welcome them…..”. The issue of FTs was huge in the last GE, and is still a very sore political point today among voters. Nathan has plainly entered the political debate on this FT issue on the side of pro-FT ala the PAP’s position. How is he than impartial? Shan should check all this first before he shoots his mouth of, his own president is already very partial on this political topic.
He added the President cannot publicly debate with the government because if he comments on social or political issues, the Office will be "dragged into politics".
However, the President has the power to veto the budgets of stat boards and other govt. orgs if he so desires or if he thinks there is a problem there. In addition to this, he has to publish his reasons for disputing the budget in the govt. gazette for all to read. This is what the law says. I cannot see how the PAP will not defend the budget to the public once it becomes gazetted. The whole world will know the reason why the president did not want to sign the budget. The PAP must and will use the media to present its side and spin it to its best ability. The debate therefore will go public whether Shan likes it or not. E.g. if the President refuses to sign the HDB’s budget and in his reason in the govt. gazette, he states the budget spends too much on housing for non singaporeans. Will the PAP let it slip? No, they will counter in the media with their POV. Right than, it has become a political issue, whether u like it or not. When u put someone in charge of large sums of money, whether u like it or not, sooner or later, the position will become political.
My conclusion is that far from clarifying the role and powers of the presidency, Shan has made it murkier and more confusing. Why? The reason is that he is trying to rein in the perceived power of the president and trying to persuade the public that really, this position is beholden to the cabinet dispite the fact that it is supposed to be independent. So, either, he is not sure that Phoney Tan will win, or recent happenings have cast doubt in the PAP higher echelon that once in power Phoney Tony might not do what they want, so they are setting the groundwork for power curtailment.
