This blog provides a platform for further discussion on the Office of the Elected Presidency. All views are welcome. The site is moderated and posts that are racist, libelous or offensive in some manner will be referred back to the sender. This site closes on 16 August 2011.
Role and Scope. Article 21(1) of Singapore’s Constitution states that the President shall exercise all the functions under the Constitution “in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet” with some exceptions. The exceptions are stated in Article 21(2), and the speakers at the Forum highlighted the following exceptions: withholding of consent to the use of reserves and key appointments in the public service; withholding of concurrence with the Government on preventative detention; giving concurrence to the Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau to proceed with an investigation; and the power to overrule the Government on its decision to issue restraining orders under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The President must consult with the Council of Presidential Advisers in performing his functions relating to the reserves and appointments. The Elected President has an important ceremonial role as the Head of State, but also these ‘custodial’ powers. The President also has frequent closed-door discussions with the Head of Government (the Prime Minister) and can share his concerns on national issues with him.
Can the President do more than what is expressly stated in the Constitution? Should he?
Balancing the Power of the Institutions. The Forum examined the constitutional limits of the Presidency. The office functions within the context of a Parliamentary system that gives the executive power to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Participants asked if Singapore would benefit from having a more pro-active President whose moral authority could be called upon to provide a sense of calm in times of social unrest, for instance, or improve services for the disabled. The speakers explained that the sense of the President being above the fray would be compromised if he publicly comments on public policy beyond the scope dictated by the Constitution.
If the President were to speak up on issues beyond those prescribed by the Constitution, would it affect his non-partisan, unifying role, and circumvent Singapore’s parliamentary system of government?
Selection Process. The process of pre-qualifying people who wish to run for the Office of Elected Presidency by the Presidential Election Committee (PEC) was discussed. The system is designed to allow the PEC to establish who has the necessary skills and expertise to wield the functions of the Elected President. Speakers suggested that the process is a very critical one and one of them suggested that the PEC should account for its decision in some manner to maintain a high level of trust in the system.
Is this the ideal process? Does it absolve citizens of the responsibility to investigate the suitability of candidates themselves instead of depending on the PEC to determine who is eligible and who isn’t?
More about the IPS Forum on 5 August 2011 can be found here.
To post a comment, click the comments link below.
As the President is to be elected (or re-elected) by ALL Singaporeans, citizens should have a factual basis to make an informed decision. Especially for a re-election, the incumbent would have a track record of up to 6 years (or multiples thereof).
ReplyDeleteDo we citizens currently have a factual basis to assess our President even during re-election???
Prof Thio Li-Ann replied at the Q&A post-Forum that the President's past performance in available online. But she has subsequently clarified that the reasons for his Presidential Assent are supposed to be in the gazette and that she does not know of an e-version.
Although I know of the e-Gazette, it should be noted that annual subscription rate is steep and only 5-day free access is granted to the public.
This means official record of President's past perf is NOT readily accessible to voters. [I have since written in to The Office of the President suggesting that the relevant Govt Gazettes should be included in the Istana web-site.]
Nonetheless, Govt Gazettes would likely NOT document the nuances, complexities and trade-offs inherent in weighty presidential responsibilities.
Minister Shanmugam said that constitutionally the President "(a) must follow the advice of the Cabinet in the discharge of his duties; and (b) cannot act or speak publicly on issues of the day except as advised by the Cabinet."
Why is the President as the HIGHEST PAID POLITICAL OFFICE HOLDER of our land voted by ALL Singaporeans prohibited from giving quarterly or semi-annual account of the issues raised or actions (or non-actions) decided upon by him/her ultimately?
What does that say about Respect and Trust of the President and/or the People?
How would this serve to build the political maturity of our People in our young nationhood (even though we are not a country but a city)?
I reckon that most Singaporeans do NOT expect daily political theatre (whether subtle Wayang Kulit or full-length Chinese Opera) from the President's Office.
Such quarterly or semi-annual account by the Elected President would merely reflect the PAP Govt's "aspirations" of Transparency and Accountability to assure Singaporeans of:
(1) effective Institutional Check-and-Balance;
(2) resonant Representation of the People; and
(3) archival Track Record of the President's past performance and service to the Nation that in turn would provide Singaporeans with a factual basis for making an informed decision for re-election at the end of the incumbent President's tenure.
As pointed out by me at the Forum the structure of the Elected President needs changes.
ReplyDeleteArticle 19 provides eligibility based on $100m paid up capital is defective where its NTA is less than its liabilities can be a "bankrupt" coy.where it cannot pay its debts in full.
A 2$. coy with $billion assets after all liabilities is much superior.CEO is not qualify.to stand for president.
Chairman of $100m coy is qualify to stand and may not have any executive powers but only conducts meetings of the board/General meetings. CEO manages the same coy with full executive powers is not qualify to stand for president under Article 19.(3).
Present Statutes of the Elected President is nearly 20 years now and needs fine tuning to suit its present needs and aspirations of citizens.Transparency/independence of officials must be there in the apptments of Presidenial Advisors/PEC.if we are to move forward for a better future.
With Regards.
Kennethchew