Howard Lee/
Speculations are that the Presidential elections will be in August. Already, candidates-to-be are beginning to stake their claims and game plan, and the usual scrutiny of credentials has begun.
Much has been said about whether the Presidency should or should not be supported by the ruling People’s Action Party. Some have cast doubts as to whether Tan Cheng Bock or George Yeo, if he makes the decision to contest, are suitable for the role given their past affiliations with the PAP.
It is clear that the President should not at any point feel beholden to the PAP, given his or her primary role to act as a check and balance to the government. I say primary, since with the recent General Elections, the Singapore electorate has arguably awaken and there is an increasing desire from the ground for such a role to be felt, inside or out of Parliament.
In addition, former Senior Minister S Jayakumar has publicly warned candidates-to-be to be mindful of the limitations on the President’s powers as determined by the Constitution. I respectfully disagree, and in the light of the recent general elections, and for the fact that Jayakumar is no longer part of the Singapore governance structure, his views should never be entertained. It is clear from the general elections that the people are looking for change and will not be afraid to stake their choice of office holders based on their promises. The Presidential elections should not be the exception.
President hopefuls should be given the chance to kill sacred cows as well, so long as it benefits Singapore and Singaporeans. If the next elected President promise positive change, including to the President’s roles and responsibilities, and succeed in doing so, or have tried in vain, let that be for the people to judge at the end of his or her term.
For if a candidate wishes to win over this electorate and take up the pivotal role as President, PAP support (or the lack of it) is irrelevant, so long as he or she can demonstrate sufficient independence from the ruling party. In our current political climate, independent thought defines you as a person, not as part of an entity, and aligns you closer to the people you are seeking votes from.
If you wish to be elected by the people, them you must answer to the people. Let that be your promise come the Presidential elections, and let that be the scorecard of your tenure, before we decide to vote you in or out, or petition to have you removed before that is due.
So the following is a wish list, partly mine, partly from some in TOC, but in true democratic style, open to you, as citizens, to add, subtract or recast. May it be a signpost for our President wannabe, as an indicator of the people’s wishes.
Of the OTC legacy
Ong Teng Chong remains one of my most trusted public figures. As a former heavyweight of a political party, my instant reaction would ordinarily be to double doubt his candidacy. But despite a narrow win that would even have solicited derision from many weaker PAP candidate in the recent general elections, his follow-up actions has spoken volumes to the contrary. Ong had done his level best to hold the ruling party accountable for what goes into and out of the reserves. His immortal words, “If you ask me to protect the reserves, then you’ve got to tell me what I’m supposed to protect”, should be the benchmark for any President hopeful. It has nothing to do with authority, but everything to do with duty to the people. The way forward for the next President should be towards the full disclosure of the people’s money and for the complete accountability of our sovereign wealth funds.
Of ceremony and causes
It is not uncommon to see our Presidents grace occasions, anything from official openings to charitable events. But what exactly are their inclinations towards charities? Sure, there is an “all and sundry” scope for the highest office holder, but even as Tan Kin Lian vouches to donate part of his Presidential salary to fund a new charity for needy students and seniors, how genuine is the act of giving? What are the passions, the specific causes that the next President champions? It is fine to say “half my pay will go towards charity”, but is it a formality, a lip service, or is he or she genuinely interested and participating in the people’s causes?
Of top positions and value-adding
Many heads of states will not fail to pay their dues to the President, although technically, our head of government is the Prime Minister. If these visits are limited as mere formalities, then we are indeed over-paying our President. What could be the possible expansion of this role for it to be meaningful to the citizens? Perhaps candidates need to show citizens what they plan to do to complement the role of the Prime Minister is this aspect. A good start will be the examination of the President’s role as the head of the civil service. This could be a tenable first step towards a clearer separation of the government from party politics.
Of justice and mercy
Following the time of Wee Kim Wee, the role of the President to commute death sentences has significantly diminished. S R Nathan, in effect, had zero to his record. Perhaps there were no justifiable death row cases on which the newer Presidents could have made a clear ‘no’ decision, but if lives are at stake, perhaps it is time for his role to be formalised to take on a ‘maybe’ quotient. A President who willingly fights for an expansion of this role, say, for all cases to be presented to him for deliberation, no matter the Judiciary’s verdict, would demonstrate a concern for the sanctity of life and for the people. The President might be very useful as the voice of reason and compassion, when our laws become too rigid for our own good, and maybe set the tone for reform and progress.
As we move into a new era of political awareness in the electorate, so too must the role of the President evolve. We need to demand that Presidential hopefuls go beyond telling us they are qualified, but their plans for taking Singapore forward.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Any country that sustains a manipulative, non-transparent and abusive form of governance certainly does not need an elected president, whose existence is a mere liability to the nation;
a living puppet and coffershaver.
@sustain
“This article got its facts wrong.
1) Ong Teng Cheong can’t compared to Nathan in terms of charisma and dignity.
2) Wee Kim Wee can’t compare to Nathan in terms of intellect and being articulate.”
what bullshit are you sprouting.
Nathan was never elected by the people. He enjoyed walkover, not once, but TWICE. his competitors were prevented from even getting into rink.
Ong teng cheong was elected. so, on that score, Nathan is a nothing president, someone PAP put there to scratch their back and of course, scratch the president’s back in return, with pay obscenely increased to 4 million.
Dear Robert
” Tyranny of the Majority” is the sophisticated term for what you represent. Do note that politics being politics is ever changing, the fact is that Politicians adapt and accomadate in order to stay in power. Do u believe for one second that the PM would have “changed” if not for the advances of the WP ?. The PM has adopted and adapted, will it be enough well we shall see the next round.
Politics will shift but over the course of elections, you might not get everything you want or desire in politics in Singapore as part of the 40% but you will get a shift, and similarly for the 60% who voted PAP.
Middle ground and compromise politics.
Locke
believe me, someone will sets out or change all the rules to almost impossible as to disqualify all contesting candidates if there is no chance of getting one of his choice, Possibility is Nathan may be called to extend his term to avoid any new elected one to start questioning about our reserve which has already been buried into the unknown. If one can changed any rules to satisfy one’s needs all these years, this coming PE is no exception, just watch the play unfolding.
The real dilemma is that we need an EP to allow the release of more funds for the govt to spend more on the populance. Its already quite clear that the PaP govt has ‘under-invested’ in the well being of Singaporeans. They need more funds for babies, more funds for the poor and needy, more funds for the suffering middle or sandwiched class..etc. Its time to take from the reserves otherwise people who has suffered will go to their graves without ever getting any help from the garment.
Lockeliberal,
People have trusted the 1st generation leaders for their particular brand of political concepts and ideas such as their foresight, insight, and leadership for forty plus years.
Their trust has been partly vindicated, yes up to 1980s. There were some progress made, people have jobs and they were able to bring up a generation living in the low-cost public housing with affordable housing that lead to further economic progress.
But leaders have led them down once they tasted success and power. They became self-centred, arrogant and over-confident of their abilities.
They began to tweak and gerrymander to stay in power with tweaking and gerrymandering of laws and regulations to make their jobs easier at the expense of people’s needs and aspirations as follows:-
(1) Taxing but holding back on services to the people using the fear tactics and assumption like danger of welfarism to serve their own purposes of making their own job easy and trouble free
(2) Practizing Self-praising and self-serving policies of all kinds to justify their so-called leadership and world’s best performance unable to accept criticisms from the people over their own shortcomings and incompetence.
It came as a shock to the leaders that the younger generation voters have lambasted the leaders with so much resentments as witness by their attack on GRC, authoritariams with use of libel suits and ISAs to clamp down on dissent.
Is such a system of authoritarian rule good for Singapore.
I hope you see the point of view from overall governmental perspective.
The solution is change. People must see real change based on substance and not the same mighty arrogance as exhibited by some of the incumbents who are still around.
The turning point will be realistic assessment and confirmation of change.
I for one will be the first to congratulate PM Lee if he is seen as a genuinely change leader of his own making.
Dear Robert
All that you have stated are policy issues which are not within the remit of the presidency. I agree with you on many of the issues raised but they have to be settled every five years and in convincing more of the 60% PAP to vote for the Opposition.
PM has decided to change or made efforts to change, only time will tell whether it is enough , but my view remains that only a stronger opposition can force more change on the PAP.
That said and done even if the PAP changes it both in substance and style it will not be a 100% change but rather a gradual rolling back but that is again a humble opinion.
Locke
If I am the PM, Law Minister or anyone in the Ruling Party, I will not change because I see a population of cowardly people who will not move a finger when his fellow citizen is caught by the ISD for no declared reason and when another is bankrupted by a judge in Court for saying somethings against the establishment. I am beginning to applaud the fact that we are paying this bunch of officeholders in Government several orders of magnitude more than their counterparts even in superpower countries. The most fascinating aspect of the group is that it has a watchdog who has all his teeth pulled out but paid top dollar even above the highest paid amongst them. My fellow citizens we are dealing with the devil.
Bob,
The problem is that the EP’s role as it is now provided for by the constitution, can’t go beyond the limits imposed on his office by that same constitution.
But I agree that Singapore should consider expanding the EP’s powers. As things stand, I wonder whether the EP can even properly fulfill his limited duties of safeguarding the reserves and ensuring the integrity of top civil service positions. For example, does the EP know the accounts of TH & GIC – given that both deal with our reserves? President Ong had a very tough time on this.
The EP was created on a certain premise – to check a bad government. And in the PAP’s worldview, such a government would most likely be a non-PAP government, and never itself.
1) who is Jayakumar? Do not be intimidated by his statements
2) EP still must listen to Cabinet. So pay him $4million to do what?
3)To qualify as a candidate he must have been a CEO of huge corporation so does EP still need $4million to sustain him?
4) EP is a priviledged position and calls for conviction to serve the people. As custodian of our wealth and protector of citizens, he/she should never b enticed by monetary gains to enter office.
5) all potential candidates so far have links with the ruling party. Can I trust anyone of them at all to protect the citizens interest ?
6) what choice do we have? No real change or choice until and unless we change the constitutional role and powers of the EP at parliamentary level. Do we have that?
Some people said Ong, when in the Trade Union job, sometimes held meetings till the wee hours of the morning, obviously overworked himself, so developed cancer.
According to Press reports, Mrs. Ong, even though a busy professional lawyer, also worked hard for keeping house, children and husband together, so husband could concentrate on work.
Such selfless son and daughter of Singapore, you seldom find in this mad, materialistic world any more.
“Yue Liang dai biao wo de xin”, this song is dedicated to the memory of President Ong and Mrs. Ong.
God bless them, and also the family.
That fatso has been such an embarrassment to Singapore for so long yet has the flab to say he might be back.
Why SG cannot disclose the assets in GIC and Temasek in details?
Remember Thai baht was ambushed in 1997 Asia Financial crisis .
There is no better biz than to short or long sell a currency like SG,if successfully.
So, disclosing all details in SG financial arsenal is a invitation for troubles.
Lockeliberal,
If government’s is sincere with change, many problems can be solved.
Face often is the obstacle that divides the world. It will likely prevent change.
Like you said, only time will tell. This is where the problem is. Few people can that hypocrisy like this. Obama has scored change in quite a big way. Now people are telling him, they cannot wait.
A gradual rolling back is not a good way. People have been short-changed whether in public housing, public transportation or medicare.
The gradual Speaker Corner type of slowly giving some semblance of freedom smacks of hypocrisy – saying one thing while doing another. There is a lack of consistency and trust now.
It is essential to re-build that needed trust. But there is a question of face. See Gan must praise Khaw to make him feel good. Khaw must not allow LKY’s tax-and-pay-all-fees policy to be unscrambled to save his face.
What citizens want everywhere is the same – they want some form of venting of their passions to have good government.
By being pushed to change, it is already a loss of face.
How does PM deal with face lies the ultimate solution.
@ sustain
Are you Nathan?
lionnoisy 13 June 2011
Why SG cannot disclose the assets in GIC and Temasek in details?
Remember Thai baht was ambushed in 1997 Asia Financial crisis .
There is no better biz than to short or long sell a currency like SG,if successfully.
____________________________________________
Wah wah wah, somebody become economics professor now. There was no or minimal short-selling of Sing dollar because we have the US dollar reserves to back up our exchange rate, not because we didn’t disclose our reserves.
Alitheia,
What is provided in the constitution already contains big enough roles including protection of reserves and consent to appointments of key officers.
What is implied is even more – protection of moral fibre of society, promotion of loyalty and togetherness of community etc.
So Prof Jayakumar’s advice that the president’s role is limited and he has to act according to advice of government is not quite true.
He has the additional implied duties as mentioned. If he does not agree with government’s advice, there may be a constitutional crisis that is all. Government cannot afford this happening.
Dear Robert
A constitutional crisis is unhealthy. We would be careful with the implied roles and the symbolic roles. He leads and sets an example and hopefully the government follows.
For example he could donate any amount of his salary to charity above 500,000 as an example but neither should he state publicly his disagreements with any government policy.
Locke
Lockeliberal,
Where there is a constitutional crisis, it shows there is a problem, right?
For example, if ministers started to benchmark with Bill Gates’s, Steve Jobs’ or their right hand men’s salaries, and the president disagree with presidential council/government’s proposals or appointments and there is a crisis.
Don’t you think this will kind of constitutional crisis provides a safer way of resolving major problems through either holding back or re-consideration (except the face element) Isn’t this crisis a sign of desired maturing of Singapore moribund autocratic democracy which is so one-sided favoring convenience of government and the rich and powerful elites.
Isn’t this a safety valve to let off steam of emotion that otherwise will eventually lead to violence and unrest?
@Lockeliberal,
you wrote: “He leads and sets an example and hopefully the government follows.”
Hopefully? Can’t be.
Then why have an Elected President with the specified roles?
Dear Robert
The problems are meant to be resolved through an election and through the ballot box within Parliamaent. The presidency whether elected or appointed is not meant to be round two of what was settled in the ballots. The constitution allows for a limited role and moral authority but he is not meant to be a check on the executive and parliament. If you believe that his powers should be increased then well the only way is through parliament and constitutional amendments.
The problems of a constitutional criss arise when a president exceeds his political powers as prescribed constitutionally.
This is distinct from the problems facing the country which is the perogative of the executive to manage.
Locke
Altheitia
Its not provided in the constitution.
Locke
Dear Robert
Lets take it one step at a time. There can be disagreement if the Gov and the President of the day disagree over the exercise of his duties and how they are performed. I believe the constitution allows for a thirty day respite and then the governments wishes will override the Presidents, if there is no agreement during that period. That is a disagreement but it is allowed for within the law as is the process of settling the issue
However if certain government policies not linked to his powers within the constitution are not liked by the President it is not within his office to disagree publicy in any form.
Locke
Dear Lockeliberal,
I am not referring to the procedural stuff where the ruling party itself will have pre-empted so as not to allow the president to question.
There cannot lots of matter not strictly procedural e.g. morality, issues of public interests or simply interpretations of facts or intention of laws are at disputes.
I have already given examples such as in appointing of a minister benchmarked to CEO or right-hand men of Microsoft or Apple.
In form, government may insist on getting its way. In substance the president may ask a simple question, like how am I to sign our consent to use reserve if I am not able to receive facts on the balance in the reserve.
Or, he may ask “don’t you think it is morally wrong and against public interest to get into a job and recommend how much to pay one’s own salaries which is an offence in many cases prosecuted for frauds not just in Singapore but in many other cases under the company laws.
In order words, parliament may be procedurally supreme but it has no right to go against the general public laws or morality of society grouped as public interest.
Constitution and laws are only the form. They are open to interpretation and assumptions. Where interpretations are immoral or contrary to public interest, and laws are silent, then president surely can disagree. In such cases, it is clear that even if the executive wants to go by the 30-day grace to overide the matter, the government may stand the risk of being criticised by the president as has happened in ex-President’s request for figures on reserves.
Can you really say that government can do no wrong?
Did OTC had a state funeral respectful of the most loved people’s president?
Will all presidents have state funerals?
Dear Robert
The minister’s Salary that is a policy and political issue to be dealt with by the PAP during elections. It has cost them votes in 2011 and if it is not dealt with it will cost votes for them in 2016.
The President as an office is meant to set the tone but not to criticize the policy or the government of the day. He can at best refuse to accept any salary say above one million and donate the rest to charity thus setting an example which the government can or cannot follow. If it does not follow then well it will remain an electoral issue at a subsequent GE which will cause the PAP votes and more votes.
Interpretation and intention of the law. Christ what are u talking about ? If the Highest court in the land rules in a certain way , then the laws as it is interpreted STAND. The President has no authority to intervene or to comment, certainly he is not meant to interpret the law and give rulings like a judge.
Wether parliament is against general public law is for the courts to decide and not the president
The government will get policies wrong , itwill have to answer for the policies but the President has not or is not designed to be that check . The check is in the law’s and in in the ballot box every five years
Locke
At least you now acknowledge that the government is not so omnipotent after all the elected president should be reduced to a dummy as you seemed to suggest.
Laws and constitution as you should have read from my previous posts are easily tweaked to suit the ruling party’s own purpose and agenda. For example, use of libel suit to repress political oppositions and GRC and electoral boundary re-drawing and threat to delay estate upgrading and giving out of pre-election goodies to win votes.
There are many instances of libel suits against political opposition and use of ISA against innocent people called Marxist conspirators, and transfer of judge Michael Khoo, the trust and confidence of the judiciary has already been somewhat dented. (See a recent divorce case where the judge boldly decided a woman’s look as her basis for determining her worth of in settlement and re-marriage)
Does it mean that just because such a ruling party has been returned to power, the voters are deemed to have given the ruling party the mandates to do all these or to give them excuses for any errors.
This fact that the government is not perfect and may do wrong may be the primary reason for a judiciary to administer the laws of the lands justly with regard to equity and not just the written form.
Now let’s be honest, you have claimed the judiciary has so much final authority in deciding what is in the laws and regulation as wanting to prevail over all the role of elected president.
What have our judges done in the face of all the wrongful tweaking of election and other laws to suit the ruling party’s own political agenda.
Isn’t it lucicrous to accept your assumption that the judges are so final in judging based on words and substance.
No wonder based on such ludicrous assumptions, that the ruling party has been given this and that people’s mandate that there became over-bold in such wrongs.
Let’s be honest. The voters only decide on who to vote on some general feeling about overall qualities not old and new candidates, old and new parties period.
Let us not try to put words into the electors’ mouth. They have only voted in GEs on general characteristics or qualities of the new and old parties/candidates (in fact they have been deprived from exercising their right to vote due to GRC for years until 2011) and not on a referendum vote on specific policies like GRC or ministerial windfall pay based on fanciful benchmarking or plucking from thin air in past elections to allow the government to claim mandate.
Having used their power and tasted goodies and enjoyed all the benefits in this manner does it mean it is okay for the government like you said to do the same again and again.
Come on. Do not press assumptions unchallenged and unproven over the limit.
Take a look at our Constitution – Part V, Articles 21-22I.
It covers the existing functions of the EP.
Question: Can the EP exercise these functions? Has any EP done so?
Dear Robert
I have helped out the opposition long enough sweated enough for a GE Breakthrough in 2011 to understand what you are talking about. That however is tempered with my own education in University and study as to how political change and changes in society happen and Singapore will evolve of that I cam confident.
No Government is Perfect , No judicial system is perfect but as the system evolves as society and culture changes. You can name mistakes within the PAP system, I will likewise name mistakes within the UK of both justice and governance,
The President governs for ALL SINGAPOREANS irrespective of who he or she is WP SDP PAP. and supporters of all parties should keep that in mind. He unites us all , he does not divide.
I hate to SAY this but LAWS are judge based on the words not on emotion not on equity, and yes that system of written law will evolve and laws will change as society changes but the PRESIDENT should not and cannot comments on LAWS and legal issues except if it touches on his powers and roles as constitutionally laid down
Elections are based on ALL ISSUES not just the issues that Robert feels are paramount. If a Minesterial Salary was enough of an ISSUE the damage to the PAP would be a lot bigger but the numbers speak against it.
You might be a single issue dogmatic voter but the middle class vote looks at many other issues and balances it in his or her mind as to wether he or she should vote PAP or not. Trust me when I say I have grappled with this issue in my years in the opposition.
Locke
Dear Locke, You must have led a very sheltered life in Singapore if you do not know that the Ruling Party have used the British ISA laws to such good political effect that in the 50 years of their power dozens of political prisoners are incarcerated without trial. If they don’t go so far with you they will use their incredibly corrupt judges to bankrupt you on libel charges on the thinnest of evidence of salience and damage even though it bears the truth of the state of affairs. look around you and check who manages our government companies, the mind splitting salaries they write themselves, the importation of an overwhelming foreign population into Singapore in the space of 5 short years, the useless President with less than the powers of a jaga sitting spendidly lounging in the Istana, nevertheless ready to jump to his feet to talk with the assent of the crafted Law whenever his political masters beckon, the conflicts of interests everywhere with elites connected to the ruling party having interests in private enterprises and holding decision making posts in Government and making use of their Government authority to assist their private efforts in business, the ease with which powerfully connected lawyers get the ISD, ISA, MUIS and other state Institutions to run errands for them, usually tormenting their clients’ enemies with framed police action oftentimes not even bothering to state any reasons for the police action, long term and stubborn disregard of the correctness of the public views on calamities hitting the citzenry like flooding, unprecedented joblessness among the people, pride and self aggrandisement without shame,saying that high salaries must be paid for them to do their jobs honestly. These are all symptoms of a deep criminality at the heart of the present state of Government. If you are a Johonny Come Lately, kindly ask around. Robert Teh is naturally very disturbed by this all pervading menacing corruption emanating from the highest echelon of the Ruling Party. We citizens will not tolerate the situation for another 50 years. for sure. As there is an Arab Spring , there will be springtime also in Singapore. It may be close at hand.
Lockeliberal,
This last election in GE 2011, has been called a watershed election from the beginning. But as it turned out, it is more than a watershed. It has come as a wake-up to the government not to take people for granted and not to continue to practise its authoritarian rule supported by an entourage of self-praising elites and institutional professionals from the Straits Times, to the media people and various experts from respective fields to mull over real problems with justifications and slanted statistics.
People do not buy their self-praising and self-justifications even though many of the professionals speaking out for them through forums on TV or nice writing in the Straits are eminently qualified. People can tell the nuances of slanted statistics used to justify wrongful policies on housing, judiciary independence etc.
PM Lee himself the least likely person of all to accept the netizens’ negative feedback which have been going on for years but being ignored largely has surprisingly admitted the many criticisms on housing policies and influx of foreigners that cause huge social problems as the ruling party’s major policy mistakes. The ministers concerned who have been most persistent to impose authoritarian self-praising wrongful policies were taken heavily to task. They were removed to some relief. MM Lee the founding father who augmented all the major policies of convenience which came under the heavy criticisms decided to retire from the cabinet.
The institutions relied upon by the ruling party to assert its authoritarian rule like the compliant Straits Times, the professionals in the respective field who have been regularly used by the ruling party as its mouth pieces to support all sorts of wrongful policies from profiteering on people’s lands acqquired for public housing to huge influx of foreign labors to make them citizens to bolster their votes etc should know better people’s rightful resentments over the authoritarian rule.
Therefore, when you painted such a look-good picture on rule of law, and our so-called world-class judiciary, and the objective view of government versus prsident’s roles, it will be seen as only attemps at justifications.
PM Lee himself should know what he is up against. He is facing an electorate which is not daft or easy to fool like before.
He cannot rely on putting up some so-called experts or professionals to appease the people’s resentments with merely the same old justifications and window dressing.
As I have stated a number of times, Laws and regulation even democracy, capitalism, freedoms and rights are only the form. They are merely put up to give some semblance of legitimacy to government’s running of the country. Laws were being tweaked to suit the government’s own purposes.
There is a need to bring about real change and not the same wayang again and again. People are able to see through hypocrisy and will know what to do – whether to accept the government as a changed government or to continue to with their resentments in whatever way they see fit.
One thing is for certain. If there is sincerity and real change, the people will cooperate. They only do not want to be taken for granted like a three-year-old kid again and again like always.
If there is change, laws and regulations no doubt will be respected. There is no need to use so many insinuations and threats to get people to respect the judges. Judges will be respected without such obstentious threats with contempts of courts and ISA. The people are the final foundation in running the country, not the laws and regulations as you have implied.
Otherwise, do not blame people for criticisms. As I see it there will be more shocks come GE 2016.
No doubt the powers, if any, of the President are constrained by the Constitution, but if I am not wrong, the govt has made some changes to the Constitution not long ago [within last 30 years?].
If I am right that the Constitution has been amended, then can the Constitution be amended again, to enhance the President’s powers, to abolish the presidency or to replace the presidency with a council of members with non-political affiliation [thru signing an affidavit]?
Would somebody with legal expertise provide clarification?