The government replies to the People why No elections
It raises more questions
Overall, I must commend the government for replying. It shows some maturing of the political process to engage the world, the media and the Singaporeans.
1) “In contrast, Singapore’s President is chosen in a nationwide, one-man-one-vote direct election. Indeed, the Constitution requires him not to belong to any political party, so we cannot rely on the party system to provide any safeguards. Therefore aspiring presidential candidates must meet exacting standards of competence, experience and rectitude.”
I think there are rooms for much safeguards if the institution was strengthened. The Presidential council, impeachment by parliament and the media. MORE Importantly, the best safeguards are the people’s votes for his reelection. “Exacting standards” are just standards, the president when comes to power may “do the “wrong thing” too”
2) “I agree that the PEC should be accountable and, as far as possible, transparent in its decision-making process. Members of the PEC are well-qualified and experienced individuals who hold specific appointments, such as the chairman of the Public Service Commission. The Government cannot arbitrarily appoint members of the PEC.
I hope Singaporeans will appreciate why these individuals should be shielded from political pressures. They need to assess objectively and dispassionately whether candidates meet the qualifying criteria, based on their best judgment. They review information submitted by the applicant, and confidential reports from persons and organisations who know him. Public hearings are likely to politicise the decision and discourage those who know the applicant from giving frank and forthright assessments.”
Is he suggesting that lack of transparency helps in giving “frank and forthright assessement”? Should parliament be “closed door dialogues” then so people can speak “frankly and forthrightly”? Come on..Top civil servants when making political decisions for the rest of the country should at least be open and transparent on the outcomes of the assesment. Confidential reports? PLEASE….
3) “It is also erroneous to suggest that the Government is reluctant to see a contest for the presidency. The Government has no reason to discourage a contest - after all it amended the Constitution to create an elected presidency in the first place.”
The actions of the PEC, the overwhelming endorsement of the offical candidates, the lack of transparency of the PEC process over the last weeks suggests otherwise.
4) “But it must be a contest between qualified and worthy candidates. Having a contest in which manifestly unfit candidates participate, just for the sake of having one, will only lower the dignity of the high office and damage the reputation of Singapore.”
Please enlighten me in what way was Andrew Kuan really “manifestly unfit”? He had a pretty distinguished career managing large sums of money? Job hopping is unfit for Presidency? How about saying that he change careers [like hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans] to experience different occupations so as to better understand the people of Singapore?
Why the high standards for presidential hopefuls
THE Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao and Today have in the past week published letters and commentaries on the Presidential Election.
When lamenting the absence of a contest, several writers argued that the criteria for eligibility were overly stringent, and surmised that this reflected the Government’s reluctance to see a contest. Some also questioned the accountability of the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC), with one proposing that we follow the United States, where nominees for senior administration positions go before a Senate committee which examines them in public.
I thank all the writers for their views. However, some of the views seem to stem from a misunderstanding of the presidency in Singapore.
Unlike the US President who is the chief executive of the government, the Singapore President plays a different role: he is vested with custodial, not executive, powers to protect the country’s financial reserves and ensure the integrity of key appointments.
Furthermore, the US system is based on two major parties which select their respective presidential candidates through a complex system of primary elections, followed by a collegiate system of national elections to choose the President.
Similarly, in Singapore the choice of prime minister is not left entirely to the electorate. He is chosen by the Members of Parliament as the person who commands the confidence of the majority in Parliament. The Prime Minister thus has to satisfy his own political party’s selection criteria and leadership tests.
In contrast, Singapore’s President is chosen in a nationwide, one-man-one-vote direct election. Indeed, the Constitution requires him not to belong to any political party, so we cannot rely on the party system to provide any safeguards. Therefore aspiring presidential candidates must meet exacting standards of competence, experience and rectitude.
The Constitution sets out these qualifying criteria clearly, and entrusts the PEC with the responsibility to ensure that voters have suitable persons to choose from as their President.
I agree that the PEC should be accountable and, as far as possible, transparent in its decision-making process. Members of the PEC are well-qualified and experienced individuals who hold specific appointments, such as the chairman of the Public Service Commission. The Government cannot arbitrarily appoint members of the PEC.
I hope Singaporeans will appreciate why these individuals should be shielded from political pressures. They need to assess objectively and dispassionately whether candidates meet the qualifying criteria, based on their best judgment. They review information submitted by the applicant, and confidential reports from persons and organisations who know him. Public hearings are likely to politicise the decision and discourage those who know the applicant from giving frank and forthright assessments.
Some commentators, like Ms Lydia Lim of The Straits Times, referred to a small select group of men and women who have occupied the top positions in Singapore’s public- and private-sector organisations, who qualify to be presidential candidates. But this group is not small. It includes ministers and other public-sector appointment holders, plus chairmen and CEOs of companies with a paid-up capital of $100 million or more. There are 440 such companies, so there must be 700 to 800 people in Singapore who qualify.
There is nothing to stop any of these persons from standing, if they believe they have a chance of winning and can do the job better than other candidates.
It is also erroneous to suggest that the Government is reluctant to see a contest for the presidency. The Government has no reason to discourage a contest - after all it amended the Constitution to create an elected presidency in the first place.
But it must be a contest between qualified and worthy candidates. Having a contest in which manifestly unfit candidates participate, just for the sake of having one, will only lower the dignity of the high office and damage the reputation of Singapore.
Chen Hwai Liang
Press Secretary to Prime Minister
Public Consultation which is sincere but perhaps not enough to change the outcome of decision such as Casino?
