“If the most important position in the world – the US Presidency – can be left to a democratic vote by citizens, I don’t see why Singapore cannot do the same.”

Darn right Mr Giam… let’s bring on 8 years of GEORGE W BUSH!!!

Hi,
Your choice of the US President is interesting. Given the results of Bush policies for the last 8 years, one could argue against popularly elected presidents! Personally, I have supported the notion that any Singapore citizen can run for the presidency. Until 2004 when I saw first-hand that Bush can get re-elected for a second term!

Coming back to your article at hand, what you project is not impossible, but it presupposes that our generals and civil servants will wreck the country to get the PAP back into power. We need to have some measure of faith in the people we put in public office. Take for example, which Elected President challenged the government the most? Former PAP member and ex-DPM Ong Teng Cheong!

Lets have the following dialogue:

GL: Great leader. PP: People.

GL: No. U cannot compare Singaporeans to Americans. We have very short nation hood and our people are not well educated…

PP: From 1959, we have 50 years of nation hood. Our people are not well educated? All of us below the age of 57 were educated by you, trained by your, brain washed by you and you feel that they cannot be trusted…

GL: Eh, eh….i

Is there any implication?

you think the PAP would allow this EP system to take place in SG? well, unless the entire nation protested then maybe so, but then again do you think that LKY and his ppl would just keep quiet and forgo all those $$$millions flowing to them from the taxpayers?

I would like to suggest that an elected president must be elected and there is no walkover. If there is one candidate, he or she must secure at least half of the popular vote of the citizens. If he or she is unable to do so, then another candidate can be put forward. In this way we can truly say that the president was duly elected by the majority of the citizens.

While I understand the logic of lowering the conditions for someone to stand for election, your proposal may bring about too many candidates. Given the high remuneration of the position, this may entice all sorts of people to stand for election.

Anyone any idea ?

the investigations are on-going due to overwhelming number of cases involved in alleged money laundering.

The allegation is using the People’s money and transfer this money through a complex network (using the expertise and advise and services of investment experts) and then this money end up in that guy’s relatives’ bank accounts.

Also alleged was some of this money has come to sginapore.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/06/content_10156245.htm

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2008/09/05/173278/MJIB-to.htm

Political commentators of TW alleged that its possible the entire ministeries were involved and also many well-known private sector tycoons.

Even if no such problem may exist here, it is still wise to have a system in place to prevent such kinds of problem.

Is it impossible for this kind of problem to happen in singpoare till eternity?

Selamat!
accountant wong of GG Gulai non-profit orginization.
supporter of peanut comics

an elected president should and must be on a one man one vote system since he or she is chosen by the citizen of singapore and no such thing as GRC walkover.

tiredsingaporean,

how can ONE MAN ONE VOTE…. how can Scholar one vote and PSLE also one vote… how can graduate one vote, non graduate also one vote… how can Wee Cho Yow one vote his driver also one vote…. haha….. I remember sone great man ever hinted that One Man One Vote should be changed…. I think this GREAT SAGE alone should be given 5,000,000 votes….

9) jy on October 26th, 2008 11.10 pm
why cannot? scholars, graduates, non-graduates, wee cho yow or cho wee yow, driver or hawker, all also citizens of singapore ma? all also pay tax what! of course must be adults lah!

Tiredsingaorean,

Ah ha… now u said “ALL ALSO PAY TAX WHAT”… You hit the jackpot. Got pay tax, got vote. Pay more tax more vote. Pay No tax, No vote. Your thinking is getting closer to the enlightened. great sage .. Very much closer than you iknow…

The GREAT SAGE is always right, always win.

of course lah, I meant ALL ALSO KENNA PAY TAX, so ALL ALSO ELIGIBLE mah!
hehe . . .

In Singapore, you can be assured that our ministers will not stoop so low as President Chen. Ours are too well-paid to risk doing that.

Why would you want to do a “Mr Chen” when you are earning $1 mil minimum excluding your bonuses.. and other directorship, chairmanship etc etc.

Their President Chen is paid very pathetically for a country that has a larger national reserve than Singapore.. Bigger economy than Singapore.. Bigger population than Singapore… On top of that, President Chen has a tougher job setting policies as he has to deal with the opposition parties inside parliament. President in Taiwan is very very very hard job.

So.. was President Chen underpaid… ? You Bet!..

If our ministers are getting $1mil, I think President Chen should be paid $10mil. If he was getting that amount, he wouldn’t even need to money launder.

i think your scenario is as hypothetical as you’ve said so yourself.

consider this, should the opposition be voted into power, whether with or without 2/3 majority, you can be very sure that the political climate would have totally changed.

even with these stringent criteria for the ep, the voice of the people, on that day, will be able to change them. i say this because if the pap were to lose an election, it will not only lose the authority to govern but it will see many of its member jumping off the sinking ship.

but i still think the pap will still try to win back the electorate because i don’t think they will do a ‘barisan socialist’ and walk out.

the people will carry the next govt through because they would be an educated and informed electorate by then.

Germ.. I admired you more and more each day..
You bring a sense of balance to this forum.

i do not agreed with the current presidential qualifications

in singapore, if you are not govt’s elitists it is impossible you can be of high post in psc. just look at how many of the “scholars” are in their system. but does scholars know how to rule a country well? i dont know.

but in US, anyone who has the capability can achieve anything as long as he trieds hard enough

tats the big difference

Hi jy, tiredsingaporean and isa;

You(all) make this thread very lively and I admire your senses of humours!

Love to have more from YOUs!!!

patriot

“GL: No. U cannot compare Singaporeans to Americans. ”

We cannot compare Singapore to Amercia because Singapore has MORE GOOD YEARS & GOLDEN PERIOD ! Is it not true or unless LKY is lying.

“In Singapore, you can be assured that our ministers will not stoop so low as President Chen. Ours are too well-paid to risk doing that.”

Exactly our ministers will not stop so low. The worst that our ministers have done is just to enforce the law that no private investigator can investigate these mini-Lees and coffers so to prevent President Chen’s saga from happening. Ours in very proactive rather reactive when it comes to protecting themselves. No corruption will ever happen because anyone who try to expose the corruption will be destroyed first hence Singapore is so lucky that no corruption ever exist PUBLICLY. Long live Singapore !!!!!!!

Wouldn´t the ruling party still be able to exert control on the Elected President through the Council of Presidential Advisors, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and Presidential Council for Religious Harmony?

The Elected President cannot exert veto power without majority consent from the Council of Presidential Advisors.

Think about why the elected presidency was set up in the first place?

Why has it become irrelevant? It was constrained and overruled to perform what it was intended : the check excesses.

Fix it instead of conveniently dumping it.

Ah Yah.

All the new PM needs to do is to tell nominated president — “I got the mandate of the people.

You got what mandate? From whom?

You block what we want to do — I tell people you nominated president refuse to help people.

I then withdraw policemen from Istana and yr home.

Gd luck to you, brudder.”

By having nominated president, PAP is cutting their own balls off if they lose GE.
The nominated president’s mandate is from PAP govmin, not the people.

PAP did not realise that an elected president would be the focus of unhappiness with govmin. Ong teng Cheong showed this. So PAP moved to nominated president.

But this meant that he longer had mandate from people to oppose in-coming govmin’s policies.

PAP goofed up big time.

2) grognard – Yes, Ong Teng Cheong performed admirably by going against the PAP. I believe that a man/woman can have an independent mind even if they were previously partisan. But it needs some time, which is why I proposed 3 years. I don’t think we want a President to do nothing for 3 years and only realise his non-alignment in his 4th year of his presidency, right?

14) gemami – Excellent point. That is my hope too.

20) Donaldson Tan – No the ruling party can only override the President’s veto with a 2/3 majority vote.
21) Donaldson Tan – Again, the President CAN ignore the advice of the CPA, but Parliament can override him with a 2/3 vote. That is my understanding of the wording of the Constitution. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not a lawyer.

16) 123 on October 27th, 2008 1.30 am

Gosh, please go read up and do research on US govt. You think there’s no elitist system there? Do you know how well connected the Bush family, the Clinton family, Kennedy, Nixon etc are, and how entrenched and powerful the hidden powers in the US govt are? You seriously believe the US President is the most powerful person in the world? Come on! How many hidden powers pull the puppet strings on the Presidency la!

Come on, I’m not for elitism, but please go do more research before you quote and cite e.g. in other countries! You think there’s equal opportunities, and meritocracy in US? Please go read up, thanks! I hope you’re still young, so you have time to learn this, and perhaps go live in US for 10 years and witness the truth!

1) Bush Supporter and 2) grognard – In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, Bush was facing Democratic contenders who were both uninspiring and, some would say, baffoons themselves. One claimed he invented the Internet, while the other was a flip-flopper — he voted for the war in Iraq BEFORE he voted against it. I’m not surprised the American people chose Bush both times.

It’s not just the electorate which will scrutinize the candidates. In a competitive political environment, the candidates will do a much better job scrutinizing each other than some ivory-tower committee can, as we have seen in this year’s US primaries and general election.

From the perspective of Chen Shui Bian’s corruption, it was possible because all checks and balances was under his control. Only a change of the government exposed his crimes.

Can we see the possibility of the same happening in Singapore when you have your wife, your father and a obedient President looking after the country’s reserves ?

Who can guarantee that such a thing cannot happen in Singapore ?

27) Alan Wong on October 27th, 2008 1.05 pm
well said, try appointing one of the oppositions to be one of the member looking after the country’s reserves and you will see all the shocking things start to surface, and on one end says that we are an open garment but the other end says GIC need not have anyone to report to, THINK! small kids also can tell you go fly kite!

15) isa on October 27th, 2008 1.19 am Germ.. I admired you more and more each day..
You bring a sense of balance to this forum.

thanks for the compliment.
i have to thank people like yourself who have contributed to my ongoing education in cyber discussion.

i am encouraged that my views have brought about a sense balance.

thanks again

26) Gerald Giam on October 27th, 2008 12.04 pm
1) Bush Supporter and 2) grognard – In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, Bush was facing Democratic contenders who were both uninspiring and, some would say, baffoons themselves. One claimed he invented the Internet, while the other was a flip-flopper — he voted for the war in Iraq BEFORE he voted against it. I’m not surprised the American people chose Bush both times.

No, George W Bush won because his campaign team and Karl Rove was better able to misrepresent facts, blow isolated quotes out of proportion, and be economical with the truth.

TOC used to have some integrity, but it seems to be like a propaganda machine these days.

I would further add:

1.) Entrench a comprehensive bill of rights
2.) Give judges security of tenure
3.) Provide legal aid for any citizen in criminal and bill of rights cases

30) TOC is the new Karl Rove – That is your view that Bush won because of Rove’s lies. It may be true, but it doesn’t mean my assessment lacking in integrity. And whose propaganda are you saying TOC is pushing? Karl Rove’s? PAP’s? Come on! Please be fair. This is my opinion and my “propaganda” (if you want to call it that way). No one asked me to write it.

I believe some feels the online citizen is becoming more and more like a anti-PAP propaganda machine because of the articles.

It is skewed towards the lambasting of everything PAP/govt has done, treating every news with skepticism, with ulterior motive.
You can say the mass media is a propoaganhda machine .. but do you want to become one too?

I understand that writing during your freetime might mean time pressure to write without proper research or much thought into the pros and cons.

So, I feel a more balanced article would be one that takes up discussion of a topic with the pros and cons. It’s like doing our academic reports .. Get the Pros, Get the Cons, your thesis and Anti-thesis.. and synthesize the two…

Cool down Gerald.. I think it’s not unthinkable why your views were associated or presumed to be that of TOC’s, since you was Dy Editor and are the senior writer…

28) tiredsingaporean on October 27th, 2008 1.17 pm 27) Alan Wong on October 27th, 2008 1.05 pm
well said, try appointing one of the oppositions to be one of the member looking after the country’s reserves and you will see all the shocking things start to surface, and on one end says that we are an open garment but the other end says GIC need not have anyone to report to, THINK! small kids also can tell you go fly kite!
———————————————–

The 10,000 investors learnt the sad way that TRUST can be unwise at times.

While people can Trust everything in life, a system still has to be inplace to show beyond any reasonable doubt that no similar problem will EVER happen.

But is it possible to have such a system considering that people can break a system?

Before proceeding I want to be clear that there is no evidence to suggest that there is a problem in singapore. At least, I do not have it. And the sole purpose of this is to discuss and share the concern about this aspect. Hope my stand is clear.

According to SCV channel 49,52,54 or 56 political commentary programes (very high quality programs indeed), it was alleged that though on paper or by law or by the design of the system, top secret info about money laundering given by International Anti Money laundering agency EGMONT Group, to the CHIEF of Taiwan’s Money Laundering Prevention Center (MLPC) , was leaked to TW ex-president Bian. This top secret info involves Bian.

As can be seen in the above hypothetical scenario / alleged incident that happened, a sound system can be bypassed easily by the people responsible, accountable, and tasked to uphold the INTEGRITY of the system.

The allegations or rumours generated by well-regarded political commentators suggested that Bian was very successful and effective in controlling his ‘team’ by not just using REWARD power but also more critically, ‘bar bings’ of his ‘team’. Can you imagine the effectiveness of such command and control?

Thus, I shared with all of you the interesting story of TW. This story is limited to TW only. For now.

Regards
Accountable Accountant Selamat wong aka Mee Siam Dulai very nice

Agree with germani on the point about PAP members leaving when PAP loses power. The PAP has always prided itself on the ability to attract and retain some of the best educated members in its ranks. Those who have successful careers or could have successful careers outside of politics join because they are virtually guaranteed the chance to play a decisive role in Singapore politics. If the PAP shows that it too can lose an elections, I think that guarantee no longer stands and anyone wanting to join will not only have to consider how big a role he wants in local politics, but also how much he actually agrees with the PAP’s manifest and what the PAP stands for.

Its not a big, unchanging PAP vs. the rest game.

On the need for GIC/Temasek to be transparent or otherwise:

I read a book called “When Genius Failed”. It was a story about the the rise and subsequent crash of a hedge fund called Long Term Capital Management. To cut a long story short, LTCM got into problems when they bet wrong on exchange rate spreads. Compounding the problem, when they disclosed their trading positions to investment banks to raise new capital, they got front-run, meaning that their positions got sold by other financial institutions because they saw a large sale looming (meaning prices will almost certainly fall).

Moral of the story: (1)Don’t make wrong bets on currency exchange. Failing that, (2) try to keep your positions secret.

(1) is obvious, but hardly assured. (2) means GIC/Temasek will have to remain “not transparent”.

PS: The book has many interesting facts, but I am highlighting only one facet to make my point.

If the existing systems remain unchanged , in the next 1000 years, if someone other than the Lees take helm of spore, can anyone guarantee ALL investment is SAFE ? Who will know if boo boo strikes ? Imagine investing for 1000 years. no boo boo ? Lets hope.

Lets look forward to Retirement with money in the bank.

While I agree with your stand to reduce the prerequisites for running for president, I think some reduction of the president’s power should also be in order. The power he/she wields is quite large in principle (although in practice the president will not deliberately and unnecessarily generate problems for the government), and I think this may be a potential trouble in any democracy.

This is especially true if you’re lowering the criteria for running for president: there is a higher probability (though still small) of nonsense person snatching that post. In such a situation, this person can wreck havoc to the functioning of the government.

On a separate note, I want to point out that your comparison of the US president and the Singapore president is ill-justified. The US has a presidential system of government (as opposed to Singapore’s parliamentary system), so the president is both the head of state and head of government.

To clarify, a head of state is a symbolic representation of a state (or country). In Singapore, it’s the president; in UK, it’s the Queen of England; in Thailand, it’s the king; etc.. They serve no role in the day-to-day running of the government. Instead, they have two roles: first is the intervention into the country’s parliament in certain restricted ways; second is the official representation to receive foreign dignitaries. In presidential systems like the US, it is unique in the sense that the head of government is also the head of state.

So when US citizens vote for the president, it’s more for the role of the head of government than the head of state. As such, it may be misleading to compare the two. On the lighter side, the other parliamentary government’s head of states I’ve mentioned are inherited instead of elected, so we’re still not so bad after all…

[...] article was first published on The Online Citizen. [...]