by: Muhammad Farouq Bin Osman/
The impending race for the Singapore Presidency should set us thinking what the position really is all about. I have always felt that the office serves, first and foremost, as a potent symbol of our multiracial ethos. It was for this reason that in the years preceding the establishment of the Elected Presidency, an unwritten convention was adopted whereby a representative from each of Singapore’s four major ethnic groups assumed the highest office in the land on a rotational basis, as was the case for our first four presidents.
However, this changed following the Constitutional amendments of 1991 which mandated for the president to be directly elected through universal suffrage as opposed to being appointed by Parliament. Add to that the stringent eligibility requirements which severely limit the pool from which a presidential candidate could be chosen.
An implication of this current arrangement is that the significance of the office of the head of state as an embodiment of Singapore’s multiracial heritage is diminished. The very essence of the Presidency as an expression of our inter-ethnic unity carries less weight today than it was during the years before the scheme was introduced, since the ethnic factor is not as relevant a consideration now in the presidential selection process.
Yet we know that surely, the president’s role is not just limited to guarding the reserves and ensuring the integrity of public service appointments, but to encompass the intangible albeit no less important function of being a living proof of our national identity and values.
Many have argued on the altar of meritocracy that the ethnic background of the presidential candidate should matter less than his or her qualifications or experience in public service. However, this line of thought precludes the fact that our first four presidents, who were not subject to the Elected Presidency scheme were appointed based on their impeccable character and sterling record of leadership and service to the nation anyway.
There is therefore no conflict of interest between having a system of ethnic rotation for the Presidency and the need for suitably qualified candidates.
Such a system should be enshrined in the Constitution to guarantee equal representation for all ethnic groups in the Presidency. This is where only persons of a particular ethnic group are allowed to offer themselves as presidential candidates in a designated year.
After all, a similar principle governs the rationale behind the Group Representation Constituency system.
–
This letter was originally sent to the Straits Times forum page but was rejected for publication.
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
It’s important for EP role to be rotated among the 4 major ethnic groups to reflect our multiracial society. There are occassions though, when the torational basis has to give way to someone who suits the role best – someone who cares for the people, someoen who is dignified, someone who is independent of any political party, and someone who has at least some financial expertise to be an effective guard on the reserves.
In light of this, all 4 of the current EP hopefuls are well-qualified in their own ways. But unfortunately, although good as they are, our current president Nathan has fulfilled the role best. It will be a tough choice between these 4 EP hopefuls, but Nathan should contest again, then it will be straightforward. It will be hard to find another candidate as good as Nathan was a long time.
All the discussion about the EP should be and should have this and that is important. But this is more important that the EP is elected by the majority of the people and not by a set of rules set up by a few people. If the intention is to determine the outcome of the election, then don’t have an election would be better.
“In light of this, all 4 of the current EP hopefuls are well qualified in their own ways.”
Fortunately they are good as they are, unlike our current President Nathan that has not fulfilled the role best. It will be a tough choice between these 4 EP hopefuls, so Nathan knows he should not contest again, then it will be very malu to be kicked out. It will be easy to find another candidate as good as Ong Teng Cheong was a long time.
Of the 5 Presidents, Nathan seems to be the worst we ever had. Thank goodness he finally realises that,
I agree with the writer had the Presidency was what it was before LKY change the rules regarding keys to an empty Treasure Box???? or a Pandora Box????
Being the 3rd generation Singaporean, I have seen Singapore develops from 3rd world country to a major world player; from meagre economic follower to one of main economic trendsetter. With changes in spectrum of economical, political and social landscapes, it is only imperative to look back on how Singapore’s magnitude achievement on these areas. It stems down to its people; multi-racial people. Yes, the leadership of the governance can be applauded for these achievements, but its people who makes things happened, it unwavering support to the government of Singapore for which spun more than 50 years spoke itself until the recent election. The people too decided the outcome of the election. Choosing a good governance, the people too have a vocal choice to determine the survival of future Singapore. Similiarly, to the issue of Elected President. Majority of Singapore feels that academic creditials and political know-how alone shall not be the deciding factors in electing the next President, lest to say a good President. The Elected President shall embody the holistic figure of the President himself. He shall represents every fabric of racial background. The rotaton of racial-based elected president should remain. This will enable that meritocracy and democracy and more so stated in Pledge “regardless of race, language or religion is preserved”. The 4 Tans competing for the Elected Presidency seat is far-fetched from what the people of Singapore wants and hope for. Let give Ahmad or Hassan or for that matter Abdullah to be the next President of Singapore. The is because, it is a ripe time that Singapore or Singapura to have a MALAY President after such long due. Yang DiPertuan Negeri. late Yusof Bin Ishak was late Malay so-called President. Does the existing governance hear what the people on the ground want for? It is 46 years long due.”Judge a person on his disposal or attributes not his background, creed or colour”. A Malay President can’t carries out his responsibilities or discharge his authority in just? or his Malay background hinders his candidacy? or our governance lost its democracy and meritocracy stand? Let ponder and decide.
cpf funds dwindling la.. tts why harder and harder to take out.. common sense
@popcorn,
Well said.
But I was wishing that SR Nathan would contest EP 2011. Then he would truly know how an unpopular President he is.
really strange, some of u guys agreed non-chinese candiddate will not be able to win EP, but yet u guys disagree on GRC?
The elected President of the future will be new citizen PRC, India Indian, etc. Local population will be dinosaur baby. All the new citizens will be fast tracked into civil service and Parliament etc. They will form the next generation 5G SAF Universal Soldier.
I feel the rotation cycle (whether for 1 term or extended to another) should cover 4 ethnic representation presidencies comprising 2 Chinese, 1 Malay, 1 Indian and 1 other (Eurasian or some others) in any order of sequence based on meritocracy and availability of suitable persons.
The next President should ideally be a Malay. This is not only long overdue; it will also dispel the perception, particularly amongst the Malay/Muslim community, that the Government distrusts Malays holding specific high offices, including the presidency.
As the Elected President has no executive powers except the restricted ones granted by Parliament, I see no reason why Malay should not contest this time around.
There is ex-Minister Ahmad Mattar, retired Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi, ex-senior Minister of State Zainul Abidin and one or two others whose names I cannot recall.
Zainul Abidin, in particular, is an excellent candidate. A very open-minded and personable man with an infectious smile, he gets along very well with people of all races.
This is one candidate the Government can endorse openly without damaging repercussion. I also suspect the Workers Party may support him along with the PAP.
My choice preference for Presidency for the moment is Tan Jee Say followed by Tan Kin Lian. If Zainul stands he will get my vote and probably that of my family members too.
This suggestion is worthy of consideration because the fabric of our society has been impacted with the considerable influx of new citizens from all over,who may or may not know,wittingly or unwittingly,what our core values are.
Everybody who loves Singapore should support this proposition.
Majulah Singapura !
There is no restrictions to a man or woman from any racial group, to run for president , is there? Don’t erect an issue which is not there. Zainul Abidin is free to stand for election if he picks up the forms.So are candidates from the Indian community.It will be colorful indeed if a David Marshal walks into the Election Office to pick up the forms.
yamagata, just get out of the well and see SR Nathan the way the rest of us see him.
btw are you his son-in-law, or maybe he served your Japanese grandpa during the occupation?
NEVER suggest any racially motivated, “ethnic-protection” policy to the PAP govt because they will conveniently twist it and politicize it to their own sordid advantage. Just look at the GRC mess, the ridiculous HDB prices (Chinese only can sell to chinese, malay-malay etc).
I totally agree with Muhammad Farouq and iknowbetter. We need a rotation of Head Of State to reflex our multiracial country. I have live in Singapore under British rule, Self rule, under Malaysia and then Independence and have never felt more belonging to a country when we we under the first four President.
This EP idea is a disservice and a very selfish political act by our exPM. By having EP and setting a high criteria for the candidate he has somehow marginalized our minority Malay. Eurasian and Indian from qualification. Those minority candidates who can qualify, they will be most probably be associated or in his party.
It is time to revert the Presidency to ceremonial one where he is truly neutral,
and never associated with any political parties. So a academic and professional
who has charisma and diplomacy can be President.
Leave politic to the political parties. If you want more safe guard then have GE to elect a Upper and Lower House MPs in Parliament but it is still not a foolproof as one party may have majority in both houses. But that is democracy at work.
yamagata, apple compared to apple,
comparing nathan with nair, would preferred nair. as he is just himself, drowned himself to the point of being a puppet of miw now, i know his “difficulties”…hahaha
don’t believe in equality and fairness, and strangely i accepted that there is no fairness and equality.
If there is going to have equality and fairness, it should be by % of the population by ethnic group.
EP IS A BIG CIRCUS,
COMING TO TOWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MONEY CIRCUS, CAUSED BY LKY AND CROYNIS
What meritocracy? Do you how difficult it is for non-chinese Singaporeans in this country to get any opportunity? What kind of fairness is Singapore to begin with? IF the chinese are complaining about lack of jobs, what about the non-mandarin speaking Singaporeans…they don’t even a shot at promotions. They’re struggling more. Singapore is not a meritocracy. It’s purely run on favouritism.
After 40 years old, whoever you are, you have difficulties in getting a job in Singapore, especially for the blue collar workers.
I am very sure there is no favouritism in our Government for the locals.
Race is overrated. Why do we have to spend our lives calling ourselves chinese, indians, malay or “others”. The concept of race is actually a very warped one. If you don’t teach our kids what is race etc, they’ll never learn to be judge pple by their skin colour. I’d like to think that the govt’s obsession with race is actually divisive.
The Elected President was started with then PM GCT and DPM LHL. There was big arguement between the Opposition MPs Chiam and JBJ. There was Live Telecast of Questioning between them in which Like Father Like Son did LHL answer the questions. Just for reader to know why Elected President was mooted in 1992.
Extract from web site
The video clips of the Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_SajLLycGo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuKeg2ceYAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i75GECNtEh0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZWdrFPS1aU
INTRODUCTION
NARRATOR: This morning, a TV debate was recorded between the People’s Action Party and Opposition parties on the proposal for an Elected President. Mr Goh Chok Tong and Brigadier-General Lee Hsien Loong represented the People’s Action Party. Mr JB Jeyaratnam represented the Workers’ Party, and Mr Chiam See Tong, the Singapore Democratic Party. The moderator was Professor KS Sandhu. We bring you now the debate in English, unedited.
Rules of the TV debate: The duration of the debate will not exceed 60 minutes. 50% of the time will go to the People’s Action Party and the other 50% to the Opposition parties as a group. Timekeepers will alert participants when their time is up.
Format of the debate: The debate will start with opening statements. The People’s Action Party will be given 6 minutes, and the Opposition parties as a group 6 minutes – 3 minutes for each Opposition party.
This will be followed by a debate on positions. The People’s Action Party will have 12 minutes to cross-examine the positions of the Opposition parties. Then, the Opposition parties will cross-examine the People’s Action Party’s position for 12 minutes. 6 minutes will be allotted for the moderator to seek clarifications.
The debate will end with closing statements. The Opposition parties first. They will be given 6 minutes – 3 minutes for each party. The People’s Action Party representatives will then have 6 minutes to make their closing statements.
The moderator’s ruling regarding duration, relevancy to the issue debated, and other related matters will be final.
MODERATOR (MOD): As all Singaporeans know, the government last month published a White Paper to provide for an Elected President to safeguard accumulated national financial assets and the integrity of the public services. Also, that this proposal has become an election issue. Indeed, there have been calls for a TV debate on this by Opposition parties. Responding to such calls and associated public interest, the SBC took the initiative to organise such a debate and approached the PAP and the main Opposition parties to participate in it.
Accordingly, to participate in this debate on the Elected President proposal are on the one hand the PAP, and on the other, the Opposition Workers’ and Singapore Democratic Parties. Representing the PAP are Mr Goh Chok Tong and BG Lee Hsien Loong. While the Workers’ and Singapore Democratic Parties are represented by Mr JB Jeyaratnam and Mr Chiam See Tong respectively.
The debate will comprise essentially of three parts: opening statements by the competing parties, followed by rebuttals and clarifications, and finally, closing statements. I’m the moderator, and my job is to enforce the rules agreed upon as well as to keep the debate on schedule. In this regard, the participants have been again reminded that time is of the essence and any unnecessary deviation from the topic under debate would be a golden opportunity missed.
With these guidelines, it is time to get the debate underway. To do so, I have great pleasure now in inviting Mr Goh Chok Tong to make the opening statements on behalf of the PAP. Mr Goh.
OPENING STATEMENTS BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY
GOH CHOK TONG (GCT): Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Elected President is to protect our reserves. These are your hard earned savings, your CPF money, which is looked after on your behalf by the government. Presently, the only safeguard is the integrity of the PAP government. If an irresponsible, unscrupulous and dishonest government should one day come into power, they can spend your money without telling you about it. When you retire at 55 and try to withdraw your CPF, it will be gone. Hence our proposal to create an Elected President.
First, to safeguard reserves and secondly, to protect the integrity of the civil service. How can it do this? The Elected President must consent if the government wants to spend reserves which it itself has not accumulated, to make certain key appointments, for example, appointments to members of the Public Service Commission or judges of the Supreme Court. The Elected President will have the custodial powers, custodial powers to say no in these two key areas, and the moral authority to block the elected government again in these two areas. He will not have the right to initiate policies himself even in these two areas, be given any powers in other unrelated areas, or be an executive President, like the US or French President. It is a two-key safeguard mechanism. To unlock the reserves and take out the money, both keys must be used. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet hold one key, and the President, the other. The veto powers over key appointments are necessary to protect the judiciary, the SAF and other key institutions from political corruption, to prevent an unscrupulous government from packing the Public Service Commission or the MAS with corrupt appointees who will do their bidding and spend the reserves secretly without telling you or even the Elected President.
The Opposition have claimed that the Elected President proposal is designed for Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In fact, the PM has told the Cabinet that he was not interested in the job. He wanted to say this publicly. I have told him not to do so because I know that there are many Singaporeans who would like him to be the first Elected President, and anyway, he should not close the option, because I believe he has a lot to contribute to Singapore even after he has stepped down as Prime Minister. He is a national resource. The Elected President proposal is a major change in our Constitution. That is why the PAP wants it to be thoroughly discussed and debated and endorsed by Singaporeans. The government has been thinking about this, about how to safeguard your reserves since 1982. The Elected President was first publicly discussed in 1984 before the last general elections, and the government has deliberately released the White Paper on the Elected President before this general election so that it will be fully debated before the electorate. After the general elections, the government will table the bill in parliament on the Elected President. The proposal will be put to a select committee so that more views can be heard. Now, I do not believe in government by referendum, but if despite the prolonged consultation, at the end of the process, there is no consensus on the Elected President, then despite my reservations, we will put the question to a referendum.
In 1984, both Workers’ Party and SDP campaigned on the platform of denying the PAP a two-thirds majority, so that they could not amend the Constitution to create an Elected President. They failed. The government had the time and the majority to push the Elected President proposal through this year before we call for an election. It chose not to. Why should it want to ram through the Elected President proposal or any other hidden proposals after the general elections? Why should it want to do so when we have not done so before this? Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENTS BY WORKERS’ PARTY
MOD: Mr JB Jeyaratnam.
JB JEYARATNAM (JBJ): The Workers’ Party’s position is very clear. The issue is not whether there should be adequate safeguards to protect the financial assets of the country, that there should be adequate safeguards to prevent an irresponsible government from squandering our financial assets is accepted by the Party without question. But the Party believes that already we have adequate safeguards in our institution of parliamentary government. The issue is whether the supremacy of parliament, the body of the people as the final check over the government, should be diminished, whether the parliament should surrender its role and its powers to one man over whom there would be no control under these proposals. The Party is firmly convinced that government should remain accountable to the people through parliament. That is the essence of parliamentary government. We accepted this when we became self-governing. The fact that hitherto parliament has not been effective as a check on government is not due to any weakness in the system, it is due to the PAP’s deliberately followed policy of reducing parliament to a rubberstamp of the government, by blocking the growth of any opposition in parliament.
Now that the PAP perceives that parliament may begin to play its rightful role with the emergence of an effective opposition, the PAP proposed to circumvent this by this plan to transfer parliament’s powers to the man they have already decided should become President. Under the proposals, the President will not only control our financial assets, he will be given powers over the appointment of Supreme Court judges and key personnel in the public service. The magnitude of this power cannot be exaggerated. The President can under these proposals thwart a government elected by the people from carrying out the mandate of the people. These are fundamental changes to how we govern ourselves, and if these changes are to be made, the people should be first asked in a referendum whether they agree to surrender their powers to one man over whom they would have no control once he is installed until his term is over. Remember, he is not accountable to parliament. What the proposals do is to lock the people out of what is theirs.
OPENING STATEMENTS BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
MOD: Mr Jeyaratnam, we must stop. Mr Chiam.
CHIAM SEE TONG (CST): Thank you, Mr Chairman. We must first crystallise the issue in this debate. The PAP is saying that we need an Elected President to safeguard our national reserves. To the SDP, safeguarding the reserves is not the issue. The issue of safeguarding our financial reserves is only a deception, a distraction, a diversion from the real issue, and that is the people of Singapore do not want an Elected President. This can easily be proven if the PAP dares to hold a national referendum. At this referendum, the question can squarely be put to the people of Singapore, quote, “Do you want an Elected President?” unquote. I know the majority of people of Singapore will say no to that question. A national referendum must be held as the issue of the Elected President is so vital to our political system. It concerns the survival of democracy and the survival of our parliamentary system as we know of it today. If the people of Singapore gives the PAP two-thirds majority at the polls, this will be the last time the people shall be voting under the parliamentary system as we know of it today. The real purpose of the PAP to introduce the Elected President is to deprive the people of Singapore effectively the one-man-one-vote system. Yes, the real purpose of installing an Elected President which has executive powers ultimately is to deprive the people of Singapore the one-man-one-vote system. The threat to the change to the one-man-one-vote system was made by the Prime Minister in the early morning hours of December 23rd 1984 after the last polling day. The people of Singapore must demand on a national referendum.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY
MOD: Well, we have the opening statements. Now it is time for challenging the statements and rebuttals.
LEE HSIEN LOONG (LHL): If I may direct my first question to Mr Chiam. Mr Chiam, do you recall that in parliament on August the 12th, Mr Goh Chok Tong spoke on the subject of the Elected President, and asked you to confirm that you are in favour of making changes to our system in order to ensure that our reserves not be depleted.
CST: Yes.
LHL: And you said yes.
CST: Yes, we agree that there should be.
LHL: You agree there should be checks.
CST: There should be checks. We should have hundred, a thousand Gurka troops if you want to take care of our reserves.
LHL: It’s that simple.
CST: Eventually, these Gurka troops instead of taking care of the reserves; they will be imprisoning the people of Singapore. That is why we are concerned.
LHL: That is why we don’t have Gurka troops. Are you suggesting that?
CST: Well, take another example. If the government without me asking put ten policemen in front of my house. They say, the PAP says that ten policemen is to guard me for my safety, but I say no, they are to put me under house arrest. That is why I object to an Elected President.
LHL: You agree that it is necessary to safeguard the reserves.
CST: That is not the issue at the moment. The main issue is whether or not we want to deprive Singapore of our parliamentary system.
LHL: Do you also agree to the need to safeguard the civil service?
CST: By all means, civil servants, reserves, they must be safeguarded.
LHL: They must be protected, and some changes have been made to do so.
CST: But these two are not the issues at the moment.
LHL: But you have conceded. This is the purpose of the proposal.
CST: We are saying that the purpose of the proposal is to have an Elected President with executive powers, eventually leading us to a fall of government which we do not want, maybe a dictatorship, and then our reserves will really be lost then.
LHL: Can you explain how it will be possible for the President to have executive powers when all he can do is to say no to the government spending money which has been accumulated by previous governments, not by itself? It can tax, it can spend, it can plan, it can implement. The President has no say, but only protect money accumulated by previous governments, including CPF money.
CST: We all know the proposal, but our innermost fear is that when the PAP is threatened in 1992, and you have the majority, you have two-thirds majority, who will stop you from amending the Constitution further to hand over more executive powers to the President, internal security, finance, defense?
LHL: You therefore concede that the proposal does not contain executive powers, because you are talking about a hypothetical situation which may or may not arise.
CST: No, Mr Lee. We are going to establish something in our society, in our country, which is going to be there for ages to come, and we don’t know who is going to abuse that system that you are going to establish. What the people of Singapore is worried is the powers that will eventually end up in the hands of one person.
LHL: What about the powers which are presently proposed to be given to the Elected President? Do they or do they not constitute executive powers?
CST: Of course they do.
LHL: They do, because he can say no.
CST: Yes.
LHL: You are aware that we have a Presidential Council for Minority Rights.
CST: Well, if they are given discretionary powers, I think they are, but they are not real safeguards.
LHL: You are aware that there is a Presidential Council for Minority Rights.
CST: What has the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, up to date, what has it done?
LHL: You know that…
CST: As far as I know, there is nothing effective about it.
LHL: Mr Chiam, can you answer the question?
GCT: Are you aware or not aware that there is?
CST: Of course. There was a big debate in the 60s on it.
LHL: You know that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights vets all bills before they are sent to the President.
CST: Well, I read my papers, parliamentary papers. Yes, of course.
LHL: Yes. It has custodial powers. It can say no to bills if it deems them discriminatory.
CST: Discriminatory only in regard to certain matters of affecting the community, the community at the moment.
LHL: Yes, yes, in the same way as the…
CST: If there is going to be racial problems or disrupting racial harmony in Singapore.
LHL: Yes, it has the power.
CST: Yes.
LHL: It is not an elected body. Is it an executive body?
CST: We are talking about electing an…installation of an Elected President, and here you are, you are diverting the issue by saying that there should be a person to take care of our national reserves and appointing of our civil servants. These are only as I have said, perhaps you do not understand me, a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is that your government is going to install one person with executive powers, and you can please tell me whether or not there is any provisions to check parliament from further giving any more powers to the President.
GCT: Mr Chairman, Mr Chiam is being cross-examined. He should give the answer.
MOD: Yes, yes. Straight.
LHL: Is or is not the Presidential Council for Minority Rights an executive body? It has custodial powers. Does that make it an executive body?
CST: Well, there’s nothing…..
LHL: It doesn’t, so why not say so.
CST: It doesn’t say anything about, you know, stopping the use of reserves.
LHL: But it has powers. It can prevent parliament from passing bills, any bills.
CST: The Presidential Council for Minority Rights, its purpose is set up to ensure that no bills would disrupt our racial harmony in Singapore.
LHL: Correct, and the Elected President is set up to make sure that no bills or any other government measures would eat into reserves accumulated by previous governments. Specific purposes. Those are custodial powers, similar to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights.
CST: No, they are not.
LHL: Does that make the Elected President an executive one?
CST: Yes, of course, as I have said so.
LHL: And the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is also an executive body?
CST: The fact that the President is able to stop the use of finance without….
MOD: Mr Chiam, I think we will get the debate going if you could answer his question directly, and then we can come back to your turn.
LHL: Are you opposed to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights which has custodial powers?
CST: Well, there is no necessity…
LHL: You do not oppose that.
CST: There is no necessity for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. I was not in politics when it was formed.
LHL: You would get rid of it. Mr Jeyaratnam, you would surely agree with Mr Chiam that there is no need for such a Presidential Council or indeed any safeguards whatsoever to the system.
CST: So far, you…so far, there is no law which is passed in parliament which has been refused by Presidential Council except I know of one in which parliament overruled the Presidential Council in the GRC proposal, that is what has happened.
LHL: Is that true?
GCT: No, that’s not true.
CST: You have made laws that cut out the powers of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. That is what you have done.
MOD: That’s not the answer.
GCT: We haven’t heard the answer from Mr Chiam.
MOD: Do you want to respond, Mr Jeyaratnam?
JBJ: Was I asked a question?
LHL: Yes, you were asked a question. Do you agree with Mr Chiam that we should scrap the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and it has an executive function?
JBJ: I think there is a confusion of thought here. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights protects the minorities’ rights, their culture, and their, you know, way of life. Now, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is not effective. Perhaps you have forgotten that parliament can override the presidential committee’s decision on any bill by itself passing the bill again with a two-thirds majority. Are you aware of that? So that the presidential committee is not effective. I, my Party, would like to see the presidential committee for minority rights made really effective.
LHL: But it has in no way diminished the standing of parliament, neither will the Elected President. Now let me ask you another question. Mr Chiam, you say the Elected President denies people one-man-one-vote.
CST: Yes.
LHL: In America, they have one-man-one-vote?
CST: Yes.
LHL: They vote for a President?
CST: But their system is different.
LHL: They vote for a President?
CST: Yes.
LHL: Therefore, an Elected President does not in itself mean that one-man-one-vote is diminished.
CST: Yes, but we have a different system here.
LHL: Can you answer the question, Mr Chiam?
CST: Yes, what is it?
LHL: The question is, in America they vote for a President.
CST: Correct.
LHL: They also have one-man-one-vote.
CST: They have got an electoral system where they have other people to vote the President.
LHL: And they have democracy.
CST: Yes.
LHL: We will have an Elected President with powers far fewer than the American President. We will have one-man-one-vote too.
CST: Effectively no, in time to come.
LHL: Why does that follow?
CST: Because if you have two-thirds in parliament, and when there is a threat to overthrowing you, as stated by the Prime Minister in 1984, then you will amend the Constitution…
LHL: Mr Chiam, if we have wanted to amend the Constitution…
CST: …to give more powers to the President and that will be the end of one-man-one-vote.
LHL: If we had wanted to amend the Constitution, why do you think we did not do so before the general election?
CST: Well..
LHL: We have the majority. You campaigned on this issue in 1984 if you will remember. You failed.
CST: No, we were against the Elected President.
LHL: Yes, and you failed. If I may quote you, in your first election rally, you said, “If the PAP is returned again, parliamentary and democratic government here will be changed to a presidential system in which power will rest with a few or one person.” We have not done that.
CST: Yes, I still stand by it.
LHL: Have we done that?
CST: Because the time has not come yet. Once it comes, you will do it, your government will do it.
LHL: Why do you think we have not done so all these years? Since 1966, there was no Opposition in parliament until ‘81 when Mr Jeyaratnam was elected, and then in ’84, you were elected, and in ‘86 Mr Jeyaratnam was disqualified, and you were alone again. All these years, we have never passed any bill, or amended any constitutional provision, without full debate, discussion, and public explanation. Why do you think we want to do so now?
CST: Because at the moment you don’t perceive the threat. Once the threat is there, I believe, unless you give us assurances, you will go ahead to amend the Constitution to hand further powers above those proposals.
LHL: If the threat is there, Mr Chiam, it will be too late for us to do anything, would it not?
CST: No, you can amend the Constitution in one hour on a certificate….in one afternoon, on a certificate of emergency, three readings, one, two, three.
LHL: Which could be done without an Elected President.
CST: No, you must have an Elected President first.
LHL: No, why? We can have the three readings without the Elected President?
CST: Well, you would not have the moral authority…
LHL: (Loud laughter)
CST: You would not dare to. That is the only reason why you want to go for election.
LHL: So without the Elected President, we would not dare, with, we would. It’s that simple. Can I ask you one last question? Do you understand the President’s powers to restrict spending is only on old money, not new money?
CST: Well, that is a very difficult issue…
LHL: You understand that.
CST: Because even Dr Toh himself says that it is difficult to determine what is old money and new money.
LHL: Mr Chiam, we are not debating Dr Toh here. Do you understand that?
CST: We understand…
LHL: Why do you object to restrictions on spending old money?
MOD: I think we should move on to Mr JB Jeyaratnam now. It’s your turn to ask the questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY WORKERS’ PARTY
JBJ: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We’ve been told that this plan was first mooted in 1984.
GCT: ’82.
JBJ: ’82. Alright.
GCT: ’84, publicly.
JBJ: Pray why in 1982, and not before? Was it because the 31st of October saw an Opposition member in parliament?
LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, you flatter yourself. In 1972, the Constitution was amended to prevent sovereignty from being surrendered.
JBJ: Will Brigadier-General Lee answer the question?
LHL: Because you ran the line, in 1982….
JBJ: Mr Chairman, will Brigadier-General Lee answer the question?
LHL: In 1982,…
JBJ: Why in ‘82?
LHL: Because by 1982, a sufficiently large amount of reserves had been built up, that we were worried for Singaporeans that should something happen, their savings would not be protected, before that there was no money.
JBJ: Was there a large jump in the reserves from ’81 to ’82?
LHL: These are cumulative…
JBJ: Please answer the question.
LHL: The PAP…
JBJ: Was there a large, a big jump in the reserves?
LHL: The reserves have been building up year by year because we have never touched them.
JBJ: But why, before ’82, this plan was never hatched up?
LHL: Why should we not?
JBJ: But why, I’d like to know. Would you please answer that question?
GCT: Mr Chairman, there’s always a time to introduce certain amendments. This was discussed first in 1982. Mr Jeyaratnam would like to think that this was prompted by his victory in Anson.
JBJ: Well, that’s not what I think, Mr Goh. That’s what the public in Singapore think. That’s so plain to everybody. May I move on to the next question? Do not these proposals make a radical change to the parliamentary system?
LHL: Yes, they make a radical change to our Constitution.
JBJ: Thank you, and let’s move on to the next question.
LHL: And that’s why they have fully discussed and are being presented for the population to decide upon them in the election.
JBJ: May I make the next question? You agree that they make a radical change. If you look at your White Paper, you say there should not be any radical change, but now you admit there’s going to be a radical change. Why don’t you go to the people on this radical change?
LHL: As Mr Goh has explained, we will take it step by step. First, a White Paper, debated, explained. Second, major general election issue. We didn’t have to do that, but we have chosen to make it a general election issue. You notice, Mr Jeyaratnam, that in your paper, Towards a Caring Society, you have made no mention of the Elected President, have you?
JBJ: But you don’t answer my question.
LHL: Because…
JBJ: You have admitted that this makes a radical change and this is my Party’s stand, it is going to reduce the role and powers of parliament further
LHL: Can I ask where in your programme you have covered this subject?
JBJ: Please don’t evade my question. We are here to debate this issue, not what appeared and what not appeared in the Hammer.
LHL: You are presenting this as a fundamental issue of momentous significance. We agree…
JBJ: It is. It is.
LHL: Well, where is it in your programme?
JBJ: Brigadier-General Lee, will you please answer my question?
LHL: Where was it…
JBJ: And not try and, you know, evade the issue by saying, oh, you didn’t raise this before.
LHL: Did you raise it?
JBJ: I’m raising it now.
LHL: Did you raise it in the Party’s political broadcast on Sunday?
JBJ: Now, next question for you, Brigadier-General Lee or Mr Goh Chok Tong. Under these proposals, where is the check on the President? Where is the check on the President, can you tell me?
GCT: Well, the President does not have the power to initiate any policies. He cannot, on his own, change any policies. That lies with the government.
JBJ: I’m not asking you about initiating policies.
GCT: I have not yet completed my answer….
JBJ: Where is the check on the President’s use of his powers?
GCT: The President does not initiate any policies. It is the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that do so. The President can decide to say no to certain proposals of the government. Your question is where is the President checked?
JBJ: Where is the check on the President?
GCT: Right. Hence, the need to have an Elected President. The check is with the people. If the President does not do a good job, the people will throw him out very quickly.
JBJ: Well, have you seen your proposals on how to throw the President out? They are very cumbersome and tortuous. Have you seen that?
GCT: The President has got to go before the people every six years.
JBJ: And yet you take the line that it is cumbersome to go to the people now, at this precise moment.
LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, we have not said that. You have not listened to Mr Goh’s opening statement.
JBJ: I have listened.
LHL: What we said was, first, debate it in the general election. Then, introduce a bill in parliament. Then, have a select committee hearing. You may present your proposals, alternative views, objections. And if at that point, after all the debate, there is still a need for a referendum, we will do so.
JBJ: May I come back to my question?
MOD: Your colleague, JB, also wants to raise a point.
JBJ: May I come back to this question? Do you agree that the President is not accountable to parliament? He cannot be made to answer to parliament if he decides not to allow the government to spend any reserves or he blocks the appointment of any civil servant. Do you accept that?
GCT: The President is accountable to the people, and..
JBJ: The question is, is he accountable to parliament? Please.
GCT: He is accountable to the people.
JBJ: You don’t answer my question, Mr Goh. Where does he say that he can be summoned to parliament to answer these questions?
MOD: Well, his reply is he is accountable to the people.
JBJ: Doesn’t that diminish the supremacy of parliament? Does it not?
LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, you’re dying to lord it over the people, aren’t you?
JBJ: Parliament is the people’s body. I’m not lording it over them. I’m defending the people’s rights. Parliament stands for the people.
杀人放火金腰带，修桥补路无尸骸!
“To those (leaders around the globe) who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist” – President Barrack Obama.
oing to be unseated. There was no mention about the preservation of our financial reserves. There was only utterances of fear on the part of PAP losing power. By all means, we have safeguards. Like I’ve said, you have hundred, 200 hundred Gurka troops to guard our reserves. But what the people of Singapore are worried is that these Gurka troops instead of guarding the reserves, is going to imprison them. That is the fear. You give powers to one person, and eventually, instead of using it just to keep our reserves, it can be used against us.
CLOSING STATEMENTS BY WORKERS’ PARTY
MOD: Mr JB Jeyaratnam.
JBJ: Thank you, Mr Moderator. This issue, or these proposals rather have been put forward on a fallacious assumption that only the PAP contains within its ranks honest men, and slanderous statements made of the opposition parties that they’re all crooks. I resent that very strongly and it’s not worthy of the PAP to make that statement, shows the kind of people we’re dealing with.
I’m surprised that I have not been asked what the Workers’ Party’s alternative proposal is, and I will now tell you. A much better safeguard would be to require the government to get the unanimous vote in parliament before it begins to use in parliament before it begins to use any of the foreign reserves or the assets. In that way, the government will have to come to parliament, explain its proposals, why it needs the money, and the whole thing will be debated, and if parliament, the government party and the opposition object to this and reject it, then the Prime Minister can advice the President if he thinks that he has to have access to the reserves to dissolve parliament and to call for elections and go to the people. That seems to me to be a much more effective safeguard of our reserves than to give it to the President. As I’ve pointed out, the President under these proposals cannot be summoned to parliament. He cannot be asked to explain why he has made any decision about the reserves or over the appointments. Contrast this to the United States, the President there can be checked by Congress. Every key appointment that he makes must be approved by the legislative bodies. And if Congress doesn’t approve of any decision, it can withhold the supply of money from the President from implementing it. It seems to me, to the Party, that the PAP is fraudulent in its reasoning and its attempting to perpetuate this PAP hold over Singapore by introducing these proposals which are purely designed to pass from a parliamentary government to a dictatorship. Thank you, Mr Moderator.
CLOSING STATEMENTS BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY
MOD: BG Lee.
LHL: Mr Chairman. The PAP has deliberately made the Elected President a key issue in this general election. Otherwise, we will not be here today. We seek the people’s mandate to implement the proposal. Our purpose is very simple: safeguard CPF savings, prevent an unscrupulous government from squandering them without telling you or consulting you. The Elected President will stand guard over these reserves and should they be in any danger, he will sound the alarm. The Opposition are against having a guard or an alarm. You must ask yourselves why.
The Elected President will also have to consent to key appointments in the civil service, because otherwise his powers to protect the reserves can be circumvented. You just put the wrong man in, he will do the job surreptitiously for a crooked government. The Opposition says there’s no need to do anything, all is well. They say that this is a way for Mr Lee, the Prime Minister, to hold on after he has stepped down as PM. They say this will lead to an executive president, and water down our one-man-one-vote system. They are wrong.
First, Mr Chiam and I think also Mr Jeyaratnam have already admitted that there is a need to do something to safeguard our reserves and to uphold the integrity of our public service. So it’s not a difference of principle. It’s only a question of how it should be done.
Secondly, Mr Lee is not interested in this job. He doesn’t want the job. Why should he? He’s already said he doesn’t want to and we have held him back from saying so publicly. And in any case, as he has explained, if he wanted to hold on to power, this is not the way to do it. All he has to do is to be Secretary-General of the Party, and that would be enough.
Thirdly, the Elected President’s powers are purely custodial. He cannot do anything. He can only say no. And they are only restricted to two areas: key personnel and money. He cannot extend his influence to other areas. Even Mr Chiam has no objections to these two proposals. His fear is this will lead to horrendous consequences. Totally unfounded, of course. But even as it stands, he has no objection to the intrinsic powers which will be given to the President. And one-man-one-vote will be quite unaffected. In America, they vote a President. It’s one-man-one-vote. In France, they have a President and Prime Minister, it’s one-man-one-vote. And in Singapore too, nothing would have changed.
Now, we must ask ourselves why the Opposition opposes a two-key system. The PAP has never had to touch the reserves all these years. Is the Opposition intending to touch them as soon as they come into power? Why oppose? If they oppose, what is their alternative? Mr Chiam has sketched none. Mr Jeyaratnam’s alternative is a unanimous vote in parliament. What that means is that if Mr Jeyaratnam or Mr Chiam are the two Opposition members in parliament, they will effectively be the Elected President, because they would have complete veto powers in one constituency on the basis of Potong Pasir.
JBJ: But the Prime Minister can then go to the country.
LHL: So the proposal has been invented on the spur of the moment, and we have yet to hear one from the SDP.
CST: That is not an issue.
LHL: That is an issue, because the SDP, if it is against this proposal in practice, but not in principle, then it is your responsibility to produce an alternative possibility. Now the opposition is asking the electorate to deny the PAP a two-thirds majority, as if except for this majority, the Elected President would be imposed on people The PAP has had more than a two-thirds majority for more than 20 years. We have never abused it. Why do we need to do so now? A referendum? Well, if need be, we will have a referendum. Let us go through the whole process first. Argue, debate, vote in elections. Second reading in parliament, select committee and then if there’s still fundamental objection, we will hold a referendum, and it will be properly entrenched and the votes will be produced. The question is not whether the PAP has a monopoly on virtue, we don’t claim that.
JBJ: Don’t you?
LHL: The question is how can we make sure that whoever governs Singapore is a good government. Never mind whether he’s a PAP one or an Opposition one. Mr Jeyaratnam takes umbrage at some of the things which have been said about the Opposition candidates but none of them are untrue.
JBJ: What about the PAP Ministers?
LHL: The concern is how do we make sure that whoever is in charge, your money is protected. So think carefully, decide whether you want your money protected, that is what the PAP wants to do. And vote according to your decision on Saturday.
CONCLUSION
MOD: Thank you. Well, gentlemen, I’m afraid we have run out of time. I wish we had more time listening to the arguments.
JBJ: Thank you, Mr Moderator. That’s what I’ve been asking for.
MOD: But that’s what we have. And we must bring this debate to a close. In doing so, it remains for me to say how grateful I and the organisers are for your participation. Thank you. Thank you.
PEOPLE OF SINGAPORE YOU NEED TO WAKE UP AND TAKE THE STEP OF FAITH TO CLAIM YOUR POWER…….
Should not develop an unhealthy preoccupation with president race (Sad that some of the comment went out of the context).
The current president nathan is inactive and just performing the role of the president as dictated, receving $4m per year. To matter it worse, he is the gov-endorsed for 2 terms. During the last 5 years, we are facing an influx of foreigners, oppositions are still weak, rocket price for property. Simply, don’t feel that he exists at all. Almost forgotten about him till the coming EP.
If anything, at least a man of KACHANG PUTEH calibre could become President. And ours did so for 12 years pocketing more than peanuts! Isn’t this world fair after all? Strange, it also goes to show it is possible to be paid ridiculous sums for doing almost nothing. Surely, there is something we do not know about.
I’d rather have a donkey at the helm than a puppet. Even a donkey gets lazy yet it still does a great deal more work than a puppet (that has to be “manipulated” by a forced hand).
12 wasted years at the Istana with no report card.
Why only criticise Nathan, when you got a whole lot monkeys sitting in parliment drawing their fat salaries and doing SFA for the country.
The EP scheme goes to show how far the PAP will go to stay in power.
PAP had & will do anything to get things their ways & anything to their advantages.
Rotation of the presendancy to maintain ‘Racial harmony’?
Important only when the PAP say so.
Otherwise, racial harmony is not important if PAP felt threatened of losing their absolute power.
For the PAP, no policy or constitution is cast in stone, the only matter is that they must hold absolute power.
The article raises a fair question imho. Should the EP be rotated based on ethnic grounds?
If so, does it breach the constitution which requires non-discrimination on race grounds?
By corollary, is our current system racially prejudiced that requires such an adjustment?
For the last question, I think the answer is theoretically no. Anyone of any ethnicity who fits the non-racial criteria can stand for elections. In practice, we end up with all 4 candidates are of chinese descent.
Rotations itself create problems. If we reflect the multi-racial make-up, would chinese then argue that chinese having more of the ratio have a president that serves longer than the rest? Its a slippery slope.
@iVOTEahMENG
Nathan had no choice but to work for the Kempaitai, or else they would have taken his life. Anyone in his position would have done the same thing, including you, for survival. So don’t come here preaching how righteous you are.
someone that had a bad image that worked for the kempaitai, should not be a president in the first place (not that he is an indian, malay, chinese, eurasia, mynamar, vitnamese, javanese and not related to any race or national). There are many scholars risked their live, fight against the japanese and refuse to surrender to the japanese or work for them.
In retrospect, our family should feel proud of our grandfather, who was imprisoned by the Japanese Army during WW2, for being a literate and a traitor to Japan, he refused to admit it as it’s untrue, being maligned by a local Chinese translator working for the enemy. He was tortured and upon release when Japan surrendered, he died of malnutrition and injuries.
Agree with “British” that Nathan who worked for the Kempetai should not be made a President of Singapore. So “the background noises” uttered by Nathan are not so background after all, they are backed by historical facts, which forced Nathan to come out to defend himself.
So glad our grandpa was not a coward.
PAP got GRC, got minority MP but never minority PM. Different colour President is useless, as he got no power anyway. We want a transparent President, he must be rainbow coloured.
popcorn 18 July 2011
Agree with “British” that Nathan who worked for the Kempetai should not be made a President of Singapore. So “the background noises” uttered by Nathan are not so background after all, they are backed by historical facts, which forced Nathan to come out to defend himself.
…………………….
you all think its that all?
admiral ajinomotor yamagata…
you asked for more..i give you someore..
guess ow many injun traitors that landed in singapoor in 1943 fight ALONGSIDE with the kempatai? fwah lau…
…………….
credit to wikipedia
The Second INA
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in full military uniform.In a series of meetings between the INA leaders and the Japanese in 1943, it was decided to cede the leadership of the IIL and the INA to Subhash Chandra Bose, since a number of the officers and troops who had returned to PoW camps, or had not volunteered in the first place, made it known that they would be willing to join the INA only on the condition that it was led by Bose.[11] Bose had, at the start of the war in Europe, escaped from house arrest to make his way to Germany, reaching Berlin on 2 April 1941. In Germany he convinced Hitler, in a series of conferences, to support the cause of Indian Independence,[12] forming the Free India Legion and the Azad Hind Radio By early 1943, Bose had turned his attention to Southeast Asia. With its large overseas Indian population, it was recognised that the region was fertile ground for establishing an anti-colonial force to fight the Raj. In January 1943, the Japanese invited Bose to lead the Indian nationalist movement in East Asia. He accepted and left Germany on 8 February. After a three-month journey by submarine, and a short stop in Singapore, he reached Tokyo on 11 May 1943, where he made a number of radio broadcasts to the Indian communities, exhorting them to join in the fight for India’s Independence
On 4 July 1943, two days after reaching Singapore, Subhash Chandra Bose assumed the leadership of the IIL[citation needed] and the INA in a ceremony at Cathay Building. Bose’s influence was notable. His appeal not only re-invigorated the fledgling INA, which previously consisted mainly of POWs, his appeals also touched a chord with the Indian expatriates in South Asia as local civilians, without caste, creed and religion- ranging from barristers, traders to plantation workers, including Khudabadi Sindhi Swarankar working as shop keepers – had no military experience joined the INA, doubled its troop strength.[13]
An Officers’ Training School for INA officers, led by Habib ur Rahman, and the Azad School for the civilian volunteers were set up to provide training to the recruits. A youth wing of the INA, composed of 45 Young Indians personally chosen by Bose and affectionately known as the Tokyo Boys, were also sent to Japan’s Imperial Military Academy to train as fighter pilots
The Second INA, commanded by Subhash Chandra Bose, started with 12,000 troops
End of the INA
Troops of the Indian National Army who surrendered at Mount Popa, April 1945.As the Japanese withdrawal from Burma progressed, the other remnants began a long march over land and on foot towards Bangkok, along with Subhas Chandra Bose. The withdrawing forces regularly suffered casualties from allied airplanes strafing them, clashes with Aung San’s Burmese resistance, as well as Chinese guerrillas who harassed the Japanese troops. At the time of Japan’s surrender in September 1945, Bose left for Manchuria to attempt to contact the advancing Soviet troops, and was reported to have died in an air crash near Taiwan
…………….
no wondored in prataa presidente future publication..he ADORED his IDOL and admired the great…Subhash Chandra Bose
worst of ALL..the 143th newmedias didn’t check the facts and history BEFORE it even granted a full page tribute to hte ougoin prataa presidente who bring in 12,000 foreign talents to hunt and kill fello singapooriums
last butt not least..
our pap ministers made him not ONCED butt TWICE the presidente of singapore where the peanut senile minister ECHOED
a presidente of singapore must hav HONOUR and DIGNITY
in order to be qualify as a presidente
might as well recalled phey yew cork to return and norminate himself as the next presidente as well?
so in closing me arguement case..
yamagata/sustain..do you know ow to hury curry yourselves?
yes or no will do?
Let bygones be bygones and make a new beginning, a new Singapore..
forget old problem 18 July 2011
Let bygones be bygones and make a new beginning, a new Singapore..
………………….
and let tony tan became the next ^ELECTED^ presidente?
who is helpin the 16 unmployed proton pasir town council long term workers?
sitoh? the newly pap erected mp who proclaimed..let all start afresh?
and last butt not least..do you take the bus/mrt to work? you don’t mind the fares increased?
do i see leekingyou says 35secs nia..give them a chance ley for a new beginin..a new singapore as well?
After all these years we should be just “Singaporeans”. No need to segregate into whatever racial groups. Should get rid of the race section on our NRIC. Chinese Singaporeans are not PRC’s, Malay singaporeans are not malaysians, Indian singaporeans are not Indians. No need for presidents to represent china, Malaysia/India anymore.
Forget old problem? No way.
Grandpa died in 1945, being born a few years after his death, did’nt have chance to see his face, only an old crumpled photo remains.
Still look at Japanese Nationals with suspicion, still look at those who worked for them during the war years with suspicion, including Nathan and LKY.
I would commend Muhammad Farouq Bin Osman for his thoughts/arguments as expressed in his article. They merit consideration and further discussion.
My first reaction is to question whether, in the first place, there is a need for a president, considering that the presidential powers, as laid out in our Constitution, are politically limited. The presidents of other countries, who are usually the political head of state, are vastly responsible for their country’s political and economic welfare. Someone has recently cited data [in this forum, I think] comparing the emoluments of presidents of some countries, including the President of Singapore. And if I am correct, the Singapore’s President is top on the list for being the highest paid.
For me, it’s a bloody waste of taxpayers’ money, to be spending about S$1 million per month to maintain the President and his office and staff. As several PAP elites have made clear in recent weeks, our President has very little political clout. It is hard to argue that we are getting our money’s worth, in productivity terms, for maintaining the presidency. Apart from the so-called responsibility of being the custodian of our reserves, what our President does or can do can be carried out by a senior minister, someone in the Cabinet, for instance.
Installing a new president after each four-year period, based on ethnicity? If we were to revert to the previous system of selection by the Singapore Parliament, we would be risking selection based on the ruling party’s choice; and that might mean the selection of someone who is closely affiliated to the ruling party. But this is something we now want to avoid.
We want a President who is, if possible, independent of political affiliation. Also, when it comes to selection of a person from a particular ethnicity, we may find our choices limited or hindered, in terms of caliber or character.
The current system does not prevent or prohibit anyone from contesting by reason of his ethnicity alone; but the main drawback of the current system is the setting of high stringent criteria for anyone wishing to become president.
Voting through a public process seems to be a good way of electing a president; provided the candidates are persons of good standing. Sometimes we have no choice; sometimes our choices are limited.
maybe TOC can conduct a strawberry poll with the 4 Tans & President Nathan’s name on popularity vote?
:)
Elected presidency by definition would favour the majority race.
Maybe one term majority race, next term minority race? Decided by PEC?
@iVOTEahMENG
History is never a simple black and white affair and learning to distinguish and even welcome the various hues of grey that colour our understanding of the past in is a very necessary part of any holistic historical vision.
Put in the most straightforward way, it is simply erroneous to call Netaji (Subhas Chandra Bose) and the INA a bunch of “traitors”. Is fighting against one’s colonial overlords that morally repugnant a suggestion? Perhaps calling the INA “freedom fighters” might be a tad myopic and simplistic, but they are certainly no more (or less) treasonous, cowardly or committed than say, the MPAJA, for example. History is a complex terrain of crisscrossing forces and fuzzy, complicated and contested “truths”…to assert a narrowly particularistic view of the past, one informed by an intolerant discourse centred around essentialist notions of identity, ethnicity, “race” or nationality does no one any favour.
I am not interested in S.R. Nathan’s employment records during the occupation. I am not interested in the upcoming election either because the existing institution of the elected presidency simply leaves a lot to be desired. Even if Nathan’s record as President has been a nondescript one, there is still no justification for criticisms of one person to be laced with ugly race-baiting slurs and puerile ethnic stereotypes.
Ryōma
it is simply erroneous to call Netaji (Subhas Chandra Bose) and the INA a bunch of “traitors”. Is fighting against one’s colonial overlords that morally repugnant a suggestion? Perhaps calling the INA “freedom fighters” might be a tad myopic and simplistic,
………….
sinced you wanna harped on YOUR idol and hero..the grreat socalled freedom fighter for INDIA indians…
yes no?
butt you don’t maimed and killed india indians..you just killed a few thousands singaporeans as a test to show your idot hero what a great mgr wannabe he is?
can i go to a indians temple to do a tuapeikong whitelotus trances?
yes no?
eveb malaysian yellow tees wearers are not allowed to hav a picnic in honglim park?
why? their ketupats is not halah?
and if YOU had bothered to study instead of dancin @ a coconut tree by the ganjes river…you would had known the FIRST INA
didn’t switched sides..they fight alon with the colonial british troops and many FIRST INA died for SINGAPORE!
If you want to start talking about rotation, how about the fact that 100% of Singapore’s past presidents have been male, and 100% of the current candidates are also male?
In the interests of fairness therefore, there should be equal representation for all genders in the Presidency. How come 100% of Singapore’s presidents have come from 50% of the gender demographic, and the other 50% have never been represented in the Presidency? Let’s redress the balance by only allowing persons of a particular gender to offer themselves as presidential candidates in a designated year.