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.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Earnings drop for 2nd consecutive quarter

by Leong Sze Hian I refer to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM)…

离开马国护照没盖章 夫妇险“非法出境”

我们常在出国时听到身边人叮咛,护照必须带着。岂知,现在要变成,出境时必须确保护照有盖章,盖章上的日期要对,否则就算有护照,一样惹上官司。一对夫妇回到新加坡时,却在马国出境时,护照上没有盖章,被冤枉成“非法出境”。 有关的狮城夫妇,郑美贤(49岁)和丈夫日前开车到马国,接了家人准备回国。出境柔佛时,发现关卡人员并没有为他们夫妇俩的护照盖章。 当时车上五人,郑美贤和丈夫,以及小叔都持有新加坡护照。他们在下午一两点过马来西亚关卡后,开始检查所有护照,却发现,只有女事主和其丈夫的护照没有被盖章。 他们当时不断翻找离境的盖章,塞车45分钟过去了,还是依然没有找到。 亲友建议重办护照 女事主表示,基于没有盖章,成为“非法出境”,因此她的亲友都建议她重办护照,否则不能再次入境马来西亚。 她指出,当时原本计划带着家人到马来西亚云顶度假,甚至已经订好酒店了,但是因为担心再去马来西亚会有麻烦,所以取消行程。 女事主随后拨电向当局询问,期盼有更好的解决方法。“据我了解,出境除了盖章,还有扫描护照。” 她指出,当局表示,系统应该有她和丈夫的处境资料,因此建议她到驻新加坡的马国大使馆求助,以便解决此问题。 护照上盖错出境日期 此前,《新明日报》也曾报道一名我国男子到马国游玩时,护照上盖错了出境盖章的日期,盖成了隔日的出境日期。 男子当时和朋友出境,看到护照的盖章“有问题”,曾表示要朋友停车,让他回到柜台解释和纠正错误。但是其友人表示害怕会被引起误会,惹来麻烦,因此拒绝停车。他唯有直接离开关卡。…

PM says Chinese immigrants came to seek fortunes but many were fleeing from poverty due to opium menace

This Monday (4 Feb), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong sent a Chinese…

WP/AHTC/PRPTC court case – making a mountain out of a molehill

I would think that it would be common practice to cross your…