- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
- Points
- 0
A presidential contest will be good for S'pore
It would give presidency moral authority and raise debate on key issues
By Elgin Toh
WITH all eyes trained on the upcoming parliamentary general election, few voters realise that another significant poll could, in theory, happen before it. Few voters did, that is, until Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong reminded them of that possibility over the weekend.
While the general election does not have to take place until February next year, the race to become Singapore's head of state must yield a winner in the three months leading up to Aug 31, the last day of Mr S R Nathan's current six-year term.
The prime minister has the power to decide the exact date of the presidential polls between June 1 and Aug 31. In 1993, the only occasion when Singapore had a contested presidential election, polling day was Aug 27. The two races since the first - 1999 and 2005 - have been one-horse races. No would-be challenger to the candidate sanctioned by the ruling party has made it past the Presidential Election Committee (PEC) since 1993.
Two prospective challengers applied to the PEC for eligibility certificates in 1999: private tutor Ooi Boon Ewe and opposition politician Tan Soo Phuan. The three-man PEC found neither qualified under constitutional requirements that a candidate have experience in high public office or helming a large corporation. The PEC found that Mr Ooi had been bankrupt twice and Mr Tan a prison record.
The 2005 election looked more promising initially. Many saw a contest in the offing when Mr Andrew Kuan, former chief financial officer (CFO) of JTC Corporation, announced his candidacy.
He did not meet the 'hard' criteria in the Constitution, since he had been CFO of a statutory board, not its chief executive officer or chairman. The PEC had the discretionary powers to give him the green light by declaring his experience 'comparable' to those stated in the law. In the event, though, the PEC turned him down on the grounds that his experience was not, in fact, 'comparable'.
The result is that the elected presidency has seen two walkovers since its creation in 1991. For the good of the presidency and of Singapore, that ought to change.
In the first presidential election in 1993, leaders from the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) supported a contest. So committed were they to a contest that former deputy prime minister Goh Keng Swee and then Finance Minister Richard Hu persuaded a non-PAP man, retired accountant-general Chua Kim Yeow, to stand against the PAP-sanctioned Mr Ong Teng Cheong.
Mr Ong, who eventually won, himself said that 'there should be a contest to give the elected presidency the moral authority'.
Similarly, in a post-election statement congratulating Mr Ong, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said: 'This contest is better than if Mr Ong had been returned unopposed. Mr Ong now has a clear mandate to be Singapore's fifth president.'
The remarks by Mr Ong and Mr Goh coincide neatly with the logic behind the elected presidency when it was created in 1991 through constitutional amendment. The changes transformed a purely symbolic office into one with veto powers over the reserves and key public appointments.
Mooting these changes in 1984, then PM Lee Kuan Yew said: 'Of course the newly elected prime minister would be furious to be thwarted. Therefore, it may be better for the president to be elected by the electorate, instead of Parliament, so that he can have the moral authority to intervene.'
Seen in this context, having a string of uncontested presidential races is less than ideal, for two reasons.
First, if victory at the polls gives the elected president a 'mandate', then a walkover must represent a missed opportunity at receiving such a boost. Repeated walkovers would, furthermore, contribute to the impression that presidents are not generally chosen by the people, thus further weakening the presidency.
Former Nominated MP and Attorney-General Walter Woon hinted at this when he told this newspaper in 2005 that 'the reluctance of good people to stand is the greatest threat to the institution'.
Second, a contest is usually accompanied by a debate on important issues concerning the presidency - a debate highly desirable in a healthy democracy.
Opposing candidates would not be the only participants: An election would provide citizens with the opportunity to examine issues, express their views, and make a collective decision via their voting slips.
I, for one, would like to see more discussion on what would or would not warrant using the reserves. Any criterion for this would presumably change over time as societal values evolve, so it makes sense for every new set of presidential candidates to debate this afresh. That cannot happen without a contest.
Granted, it is not the Government's job to ensure a contest. However, it went out of the way to engineer one in 1993. And so, one natural question that arises is: Wouldn't the arguments for doing so in 1993 still apply in 2011?
That said, I am not in favour of the Government manufacturing a contest. After all, no self-respecting electorate in a democracy would require the ruling party to provide it with all its electoral candidates.
[COLOR="_______"]There are at least 800 Singaporeans who qualify unequivocally to run for the presidency, according to one estimate by the prime minister's press secretary in 2005.[/COLOR]
If Singaporeans really believe in the need for a presidential electoral contest, they need to start working harder to convince more than one of these Singaporeans to run. But if Singaporeans can live with the disadvantages of not having a contest, who am I to argue with them?
[email protected]
It would give presidency moral authority and raise debate on key issues
By Elgin Toh
WITH all eyes trained on the upcoming parliamentary general election, few voters realise that another significant poll could, in theory, happen before it. Few voters did, that is, until Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong reminded them of that possibility over the weekend.
While the general election does not have to take place until February next year, the race to become Singapore's head of state must yield a winner in the three months leading up to Aug 31, the last day of Mr S R Nathan's current six-year term.
The prime minister has the power to decide the exact date of the presidential polls between June 1 and Aug 31. In 1993, the only occasion when Singapore had a contested presidential election, polling day was Aug 27. The two races since the first - 1999 and 2005 - have been one-horse races. No would-be challenger to the candidate sanctioned by the ruling party has made it past the Presidential Election Committee (PEC) since 1993.
Two prospective challengers applied to the PEC for eligibility certificates in 1999: private tutor Ooi Boon Ewe and opposition politician Tan Soo Phuan. The three-man PEC found neither qualified under constitutional requirements that a candidate have experience in high public office or helming a large corporation. The PEC found that Mr Ooi had been bankrupt twice and Mr Tan a prison record.
The 2005 election looked more promising initially. Many saw a contest in the offing when Mr Andrew Kuan, former chief financial officer (CFO) of JTC Corporation, announced his candidacy.
He did not meet the 'hard' criteria in the Constitution, since he had been CFO of a statutory board, not its chief executive officer or chairman. The PEC had the discretionary powers to give him the green light by declaring his experience 'comparable' to those stated in the law. In the event, though, the PEC turned him down on the grounds that his experience was not, in fact, 'comparable'.
The result is that the elected presidency has seen two walkovers since its creation in 1991. For the good of the presidency and of Singapore, that ought to change.
In the first presidential election in 1993, leaders from the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) supported a contest. So committed were they to a contest that former deputy prime minister Goh Keng Swee and then Finance Minister Richard Hu persuaded a non-PAP man, retired accountant-general Chua Kim Yeow, to stand against the PAP-sanctioned Mr Ong Teng Cheong.
Mr Ong, who eventually won, himself said that 'there should be a contest to give the elected presidency the moral authority'.
Similarly, in a post-election statement congratulating Mr Ong, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said: 'This contest is better than if Mr Ong had been returned unopposed. Mr Ong now has a clear mandate to be Singapore's fifth president.'
The remarks by Mr Ong and Mr Goh coincide neatly with the logic behind the elected presidency when it was created in 1991 through constitutional amendment. The changes transformed a purely symbolic office into one with veto powers over the reserves and key public appointments.
Mooting these changes in 1984, then PM Lee Kuan Yew said: 'Of course the newly elected prime minister would be furious to be thwarted. Therefore, it may be better for the president to be elected by the electorate, instead of Parliament, so that he can have the moral authority to intervene.'
Seen in this context, having a string of uncontested presidential races is less than ideal, for two reasons.
First, if victory at the polls gives the elected president a 'mandate', then a walkover must represent a missed opportunity at receiving such a boost. Repeated walkovers would, furthermore, contribute to the impression that presidents are not generally chosen by the people, thus further weakening the presidency.
Former Nominated MP and Attorney-General Walter Woon hinted at this when he told this newspaper in 2005 that 'the reluctance of good people to stand is the greatest threat to the institution'.
Second, a contest is usually accompanied by a debate on important issues concerning the presidency - a debate highly desirable in a healthy democracy.
Opposing candidates would not be the only participants: An election would provide citizens with the opportunity to examine issues, express their views, and make a collective decision via their voting slips.
I, for one, would like to see more discussion on what would or would not warrant using the reserves. Any criterion for this would presumably change over time as societal values evolve, so it makes sense for every new set of presidential candidates to debate this afresh. That cannot happen without a contest.
Granted, it is not the Government's job to ensure a contest. However, it went out of the way to engineer one in 1993. And so, one natural question that arises is: Wouldn't the arguments for doing so in 1993 still apply in 2011?
That said, I am not in favour of the Government manufacturing a contest. After all, no self-respecting electorate in a democracy would require the ruling party to provide it with all its electoral candidates.
[COLOR="_______"]There are at least 800 Singaporeans who qualify unequivocally to run for the presidency, according to one estimate by the prime minister's press secretary in 2005.[/COLOR]
If Singaporeans really believe in the need for a presidential electoral contest, they need to start working harder to convince more than one of these Singaporeans to run. But if Singaporeans can live with the disadvantages of not having a contest, who am I to argue with them?
[email protected]
