Ghui /
Officially, the President of Singapore is Singapore’s head of state. He opens each Parliamentary session with an official address, occupying a position much like Queen Elizabeth II in the United Kingdom.
Image from Britannica
The monarchy has had a long and deep history in the United Kingdom and the royal family is seen as part of British culture and heritage. Thousands of tourists worldwide flock to Buckingham Palace to watch the changing of the guard and millions tuned in to watch the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. Countless souvenirs commemorating the royal engagement and subsequent wedding were sold, generating millions for the British economy. The Queen and now, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (as Prince William and Catherine Middleton are now known) have embarked on various tours overseas to promote British causes and photographers follow their every move. In this regard, I can see and understand why the British people have chosen to continue to have a ceremonial head of state who wields no real political power. They represent British culture and have made significant contributions to tourism.
Can the same be said of the President of the Republic of Singapore?
The Parliament of Singapore is required to provide for the maintenance of the President. This is done by way of a civil list. Overall, the current civil list stands at approximately $11.6 million annually. In short, it costs the taxpayers a staggering $11.6 million yearly to maintain the office of the President. I wonder if the money can be better spent elsewhere.
One might argue that the President has an important role to play. The Constitution enshrines his power to block and veto certain government actions. Theoretically, this would ensure that the government does not have absolute power since the President exists to form a system of checks and balances, preventing the government from riding roughshod over certain key issues, such as the nation’s financial reserves. However, whether or not the President has in effect performed that role is open for debate. Does the President perform a role which cannot be fulfilled by a strong and credible opposition?
Before 1991, the Constitution contained no provisions preventing the government from squandering the nation’s reserves. The government at that time took the view that safeguards had to be put in place to prevent a future irresponsible government from leading the country into financial ruin, and came up with their brainchild: the “elected President”.
According to the Constitution, the powers of the President are broadly threefold:
1. Financial powers
In summary, the President acts as the fiscal guardian of Singapore’s national reserves. His concurrence is required before the government can enter into various financial transactions.
Amongst other things, his approval is needed for the budgets of:
(i) certain statutory boards such as the Central Provident Fund Board, the Housing and Development Board, JTC Corporation and the Monetary Authority of Singapore; and
(ii) certain government companies such as Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Pte. Ltd., Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd. And MND Holdings Pte. Ltd.
2. Powers relating to key office holders
These include amongst other things:
(i) appointing the prime minister; and
(ii) appointing the chairman and members of the advisory board constituted to determine if a person should be detained without trial for security reasons.
3. Other powers
These include amongst other things:
(i) granting pardons and reprieves for offenses or execution and remission of sentences; and
(ii) concurring with the Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau for an investigation to take place even if the Prime Minister refuses.
The above powers are divided into those which the President may exercise in his own discretion and those he must exercise in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet. The President also has to consult the Council of Presidential Advisers when performing some of his duties.
The Council of Presidential Advisers comprise six members and two alternate members. Two members are appointed by the President at his discretion, two are the Prime Minister’s nominees, one is the Chief Justice’s nominee and one is the nominee of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. One alternate member is appointed by the President at his discretion while the other is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Chief Justice and Chairman of Public Service Commission.
Every aspect of the President’s powers are therefore closely affliated and linked to the government.
The first and hitherto only directly elected President was Ong Teng Cheong. His term in office was marked by differences between him and the government concerning the extent of his discretionary fiscal powers. In short, it can be suggested that Mr Ong tried to exercise his powers as a safeguard against the government, but faced resistance from the government.
Following such difficulties, the government limited the powers of the President in 1996 by deciding that a presidential veto can be overridden with a two-thirds majority in Parliament. With one main party ruling Singapore, achieving this requisite two-third majority is far from difficult.
Image from The Straits Times
The incumbent President is S.R. Nathan. He became President in 1999 by virtue of being the only candidate deemed qualified by the Presidential Elections Committee. In 2005, he was again deemed re-elected after a walkover. He is due to retire on the 31st of August 2011.
During his terms in office, President Nathan did not attempt to exercise any of his powers. In fact, former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong once said that the government would give the President no “cause to exercise” his powers.
Ong took his duties seriously and upon taking office in 1993, he requested for an accounting of Singapore’s vast assets, financial as well as physical. When this request was put forward, the then accountant-general unhelpfully responded that it would take “52 man-years” to produce a complete list!
From the above, it is clear that the President has very limited powers and even from those limited powers it would appear, from the Ong Teng Cheong example, that attempts by the President to exercise his powers would not be welcomed!
As such, is the office of the President not a superflous waste of the country’s money?
Perhaps, things will change with the new elected President after President Nathan retires. The seat has after all not been so hotly contested before. This, coupled with the newly politicised population of Singapore, might herald the dawn of a new age for this office.
Be that as it may, we still go back to the original question, can the President’s role as a check on this system not be fulfilled by an effective opposition? Is the role played by the President worth the $11.6 million spent on it? Why rely on the President’s curtailed and artificial powers as a check on the system when the opposition can do the same job at a much lower cost?
The office of the President (with limited powers) was created at a time when there was virtually no credible oppostion on the political scene. That is clearly changing with the stigma of being part of the opposition fading. The role of the President is therefore redundant. In fact, has it ever not been so?
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
The clearest expression where doing absolutely nothing can earn a human being $40 million. I may not and probably never earn that sort of money. But at least when I die, I can say that I was my own man. Nathan and his ilk can never say that. Never.
What a waste of a life.
I am not being malicious. I am just telling it the way I see it. If you cannot accept this. I don’t think the problem lies with me. I believe the problem may well be you.
Look Mr President.
You are given astrosalary.
You are given a palace-upon-tyne.
You are given first class palatial food.
You are given chauffeured limousine.
You are given swiss hospital suite.
You are given emperor’s clothes.
You are given royal class flights
You are given royal living.
All you have to do is
To zip up your gab
And put it in
Your big
Pocket!
You are just cut for international show.
The article misses the entire historical context on why the Singapore presidential role was created.
It has always been ceremonial since day 1. Same thing if Singapore had kept the Queen as Head of State.
It was only with the change to elected presidency that some roles were given.
What is the point of the President?
prez Nathan did so much damage to the prestige and glory of President (#1 man of Singapore, people’s president regardless it is elected or gov-endorsed). The people lost the respect and sentimental eversince he becomes a President. As a President, he is self-centered. Everything is colored with his own self-interest. He has high opinion of himself with a low self-esteem.
So what is the point of having such a Presiident, anyway PAP loves him.
Nathan’s parting short as reported in today’s Straits Times, when asked about the criticisms of his presidency by the social media is “There are all kinds of noises in space” “Government should not give in to populist pressures” thus contradicting his view that as president he is expected to be neutral.
It is as if he has totally no concern with views of the citizens.
He only works to tbe whims and fancy of the ruling party.
He totally forgot that even PM Lee has to make apologies for many wrong policies but based on Nathan’s view PAP should not have made those apologies (giving in to populist pressures)
Robert Teh, 5 July 2011
at least what can be deduced from what President Nathan said or implied was that he isn’t the people’s president afterall!
he views people’s voice as noise.
its reported in MSM, he’s lofty ideals of being a president, that he didn’t quite live up to himself.
hahaa… ^.^
Time to keep track of the promised Change, both in form and substance.
Really missed ex-president Ong Teng Cheong. He is fatherly to all Singaporean, and indeed he has the fatherly looked. He shall remembered forever.
Mice is nice
Haha, he thinks he is people’s president. Some surveys conducted show that people tend to be self-centered. Now president is no. 1 in self-centeredness.
eh LIm but it does not have the same history like in the UK so I also think it should GO. The aritcle did go onto to eleborate on the EP. The EP is a farce anyway. How can you compare the President to the Queen of England. The monarchy in the UK as the writer rightly pointed out is part of British tradition. The President of Singapore is not. Come on, do we know his children’s names? Their wives names etc? In the UK, the children actually study about their monarchs in school. In Singapore, no one gives a toss.
the queen of England opens Parliament as
well.. But his son, Prince Charles was
recently rebuked by the Govt for interfering. Lets not work ourselves
into a coronary. The EP cannot do anything without the approval of the
Govt.
Which goes back to the original point, what is the point of having him? esp since he costs so MUCH? I have lived in Singapore for 60 years. My life would not be affected if that office is cancelled. Nor the lives of my friends who are also about this age and have lived here just as long or longer. It is a waste of resources.
Hi KTK, what has Prince Charles got to do with it? we are comparing Elizabeth II to President Nathan. They are both heads of states. As for Charles, confirm he was told off la. He is not the head of state what.
Well, its just to drive in the point
that titular heads of state all over the
world is for ceremoial purposes. They can’t change Govt policies. For us,
voting for one other than TT is to send
a message (assuming that they get their
COEs so we can vote)!
I see where you are coming from but I still think that it costs too much. I can’t speak for other countries because I am Singaporean and nothing else but at least for Singapore, I do not feel that having president defines my culture nor do I think he makes any contributions financially or otherwise. I agree with sending a message but I rather do that through GE 2016. I rather invest my time and energies into helping our opposition candidates than a rubber stamp president that is sorry to say really not part of Singaporean culture as I know it.
He only know how to EAT, EAT and more EATING. How many feast has he attended during his ears of presidency and how much weigh has he put on already. But todate we have not seen his done any great and memorable stuff for this country. He should refund all our tax monies for his lousy perfermance. I suggest the money be given to the charity and spare the people many rounds of yearly charity show.
“i agree that Pres should go”
I agree with you completely. But GE2016
is 5 years away. I can’t wait that long
to vent my frustration. If they want to
have an EP, there’s nothing we can do about it. I only hope that one of them
gets his COE so I can vote!
Haha fair point. But when I think of his salary my blood really boils.
An expenditure of close to $1 million per month to maintain the President and his entourage is a bloody, f..king waste of taxpayer’s money, particularly when it has been made clear that the President has zero or just token power in the affairs governing Singapore or Singaporeans.
http://diaryofasingaporemind.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/elected-presidency/
A big disservice is reverting the role back to a ceremonial one. Wasted years and money. A sad story in the history of a growing nation.
Scrap the darn position to save big money, save future embarrassment, convert the Istana into a International Playboy Club and High Rollers Casino to help country make big bucks.
I think on this issue, a referendum may be worth it. Singaporeans should be given a choice to decide whether they want a President and not just choices of a president.
However, before this happens, Singaporeans should realise that the PM will then also be the head of state if there is no president.
lim
We must think out of the box. The head of state should be the people. Without anyone to push to, the PM will be collecting more views and opinions from people in deciding on what to do with reserve and how to protect reserves without any more excuses.
Given the collective leadership and a cabinet in charge overseen by a people-centric parliament, there should be no necessity to play wayang anymore.
The ministers can be nominated to attend various functions and ceremonies without evading responsibility.
This has nothing to do with the present discussion, but since posting about Queen of England, I found something interesting about England:
1. Legally the Queen could refuse to assent bills into law from Parliament. BUT no monarch has done it for 200 years or so and it would result in revolution.
2. England has no written Constitution! So no one knows what she can or cannot do. There are also no laws on the subject.
3. But surprisingly, she suspended the Canadian Parliament in 2008 (Canada acknowledge her as Head of State).And
no one voiced objection.
Perhaps the above is common knowledge. They never taught us the above during “History of the British Empire”
lessons (you see, we sang God Save the King when I was in school!).
One does not need power, politically or gained with wealth, to do something to contribute to humanity and leave a positive legacy.
I would see someone as a people’s president if he:
1) Uses the esteem of the Presdiential office to champion social causes derived from a deep compassion for the less fortunate of society. By this, I do not mean attending charity shows or cutting other people’s ribbon. I mean rolling up his sleeve for a cause and using the position of that office to influence others to join the cause.
2) Use the esteem of the office to speak up and right social injustices inflicted upon the people without favor or fear.
3)Use the esteem of the office to show what it means to be a gracious and compassionate society by modelling ones own life in acts of compassion and graciousness.
Those are the opportunities given to the office of the president and you do not need to have powers but only a heart for the people to achieve. If I were to assess whether a president has left a positive legacy or made a difference to the people of Singapore during his term of office, those will be my simple criterias. And if whoever holds this office sees this as not just a position of power but a position that can make a difference to the lives of the ordinary citizens, especially the helpless and the hopeless, then this is not a wasted office.
Please don’t be fooled into removing the EP. Now when good, independent people step up, this is someone’s way of making sure an independent EP cannot asking the correct questions ; think about it: if you don’t want an independent EP questioning you, you might as well remove EP altogether. But if you remove it yourself, it looks bad on you. So get the people to double guess the EP and GET you to remove it.
Before OTC, did we really think hard on where our reserves were?
An independent EP has a role. Focus your efforts on the salary, not the position.
@ Mr Teh
Minister still report to Prime Minister. How can someone below be the “head” of state?
The Prime Minister, contrary to popular belief, is also Singaporean and more importantly elected by Singaporeans (although 40% might disagree).
Government-government protocol would accord such status to the PM by default. Let’s be real, that’s going to happen if the President role is removed.
Some might think that we should appoint another person to take over ceremonial duties. In that case, one gets Nathan!
Take your pick…
The President is the court jester who can be relied upon for advice and entertainment purposes.
lim
It is true the ministers are of lower status than the prime minister and cannot be expected to represent the people as head of state. But not every matter being represented is of such national importance.
Your poser can be broken down into two parts:-
(1) Position or status.
(2) Matter being represented.
If the matter is of great national importance like meeting other governments on major issues the PM should attend.
If the matter is not that important like a keep-clean or courtesy campaigh the minister for the environment can be required to attend.
In this way, we have the opportunity to introduce a distributive leadership where each minister will be made to take direct responsibilities for interacting with people on matters relating to his portfolio.
So it may be a good move to call a spade a spade and create a governing system which do away with wayang where the ministers are seen as being more interactive with the people offering the citizens greater transparency and accountability.
Hi Mr Teh
I agree. But PM will still become de-facto head of state, including NDP march-past if President role is removed.
Some might argue PM should not be swayed by wayang ceremonial duties, and focus on more important things like actual governing. Hence use the president instead.
Why pay PM $4m to stand in front of NDP march-past? Why pay minister $3m only to smile at courtesy campaign? That is the true role of the President.
I think it all boils down to pay. More people will accept the ceremonial role of the President if the President wasn’t paid as much as $4m. One cent money, one cent work.
If pay as much as PM, people compare work to PM. If pay less than minister = no issue.
The office of the president of S’pore is an utter waste of taxpayers’ money!!! We are a city, not a nation (as PAP ministers have told us), so why bother to have a president? Furthermore, under the present political system we have, the president is powerless. It is better to have a two-party system to check on each other, rather than the current one-party system whereby we give the PAP a blank cheque to anything it likes.
Clinging on to the presidency is PAP hypocrisy at its worst. While it touts itself as a no nonsense ultra conservative govt. cutting welfare and essential services to the minimum, it is wasting tens of millions of taxpayers’ money where it suits or benefits its political motive.
lim
Government seems to be always trying to do wayang to justify its policies and show its success.
An authoritative survey has shown that people are rather self-centered.
So we cannot expect government will be people-centered and looking after the citizens.
The PM and ministers will continue look after their own interests.
It is finally the quality of people that counts.
Hence, we need to speak up objectively without fear or favor on what is good or bad government. Your view counts.
Otherwise there is no hope. We may only be deceived for yet another 40 years.
@yamagata
Pls show the facts of what u said and that may change people views on nathan, including me. Otherwisr u are talking cock and Get out of the forum!
Uncle would like to suggest that instead of the President we create a Royal Family of Singapore. Succession will be similar to the royal families of UK, Japan and Thailand.
The first Royal head ie the Emperor will be selected by the current Cabinet since it determines what the President should do anyway.
dear prez,i don why you take our gripe just as noise,and urging not to bow to populist demands,as a concern sg citizen may i know what constitudes populist demands,let me list a little bit and maybe you can make me understand more,sir.
1.is asking for a lower cost of living a populist demand?
2.is asking for a afforddable hdb a populist demand?
3.is asking for a more reasonable pay for civil servants a populist demand?
4.is asking for a reduction in fts a populist demand?
5.is asking for our cpf to be return to us at 55 a populist demand?don forget the money rightfully belongs to us.
6.is asking for more power for the prez a populist demand?
.is asking for a more affordable medical care a populist demand?
7.is asking for a review of unpopular policies a populist demand?
8.is asking for accountatibility a populist demand?
enough said,i hope the prez can explain the rational for saying these are populist demands so that sg citizens will be more aware of the issues,pls don treat it as noise you should take criticism at face value,so that we will be able to improve on it and everyone will be happy,touch your heart mr prez are these not issues that needs to be tackled seriously?
Good dreams evrynite
Wakup yawnin n stretchin.
Get spa massagin n aromatic scrubbin.
Enjoyin erotic turkish bath
In a cool warm jacuzzi
Wallop fresh delux International breakfast
Scrumptious lunch dinner n supper
Drink all kinds of fruit juice n beverages
Usin royal cutlery and crystal goblet
Shit in golden bowl
Don elegant crisplaund day attire
With softhong undergarm
Generous dash of eau d’parfum
Groomed haircomb
Jump into chaffeured limousine
Saluted by aide kongs
Off to VIP boardinroom
To places godknows
Bali phuket acapulco copacabana
hawaian eye n five o
Back fresh n relaxed
Elated with satisfaction beyond compare
Enjoy repeat erotic turkish bath
Change into soft pyjamas
Have dinner n supper
Watch entertaining vidz
Dive into supercozy bed
Good dreams evrynite
To me, if you ask me, the point of a president is to show the PAP is checked by a non-PAP person.
But I can be wrong.
What to do? I am a hum.
I sec 1 never passed.
It has become apparent that there are only three candidates for the presidency: Tan Kim Lian, Tan Cheng Bock and Tony Tan.
From this list, the one I would opt for is TKL.
I would cross out TT as a potential, even if he were among a list of ten, instead of three, candidates vying for this position. From what has been written or known about him, TT should be vetoed out of this election, for the good of Singapore. And this should make a good signal to the papy elites.