Joshua Chiang/

“Candidates should run for the office that exists, not the one they wish to have,”

Presidential hopeful Dr Tony Tan

If the past two weeks were anything to go by, the Government is most likely sending a similar message to voters with regards to choosing the next Elected President: “Singaporeans should vote for the office that exists, not the one they wish to have.”
Law and Foreign Minister K Shanmugam had been taking great pains to emphasize that the President’s power is a custodial one, not an executive one. According to him, the President can veto or block government actions in specified areas, but on all matters under the Constitution, must act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet, including speaking out on issues.

“He must follow the advice of the Cabinet in the discharge of his duties, “said Mr Shanmugam at a forum at the Institute of Policy Studies on 5th August.

Two of the four candidates disagreed. “I do not find any requirement (in the Constitution) that the President should be ‘dumb,” wrote Tan Kin Lian on his blog. In an interview with The Online Citizen, Tan Jee Say said that the Law Minister is not the ‘ultimate interpret

er’ of the Constitution.

“When the Law Minister says you must go by the Constitution, let him answer that – where does the Constitution say that there must be a unifying role for the President?” he asked.

However based on past examples, Mr Shanmugam’s opinion might most likely bear out in the court of law.

On 4th April 2011, death row inmate Yong Vui Kong’s appeal for a judicial review of the President’s power in the clemency process was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, made up of Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Judges VK Rajah and Andrew Phang, stated that “the terms of Article 22P [of Singapore’s Constitution] make it clear that the President has no discretion as to how the clemency power should be exercised in a particular case.

“The President may only exercise the clemency power in favour of an offender in circumstances where the Cabinet has advised him to do so,” it added.

On polling day during the 1993 Presidential Elections, the future-People's President only garnered 54% of the total votes

Much earlier, in 1995, then-President Ong Teng Cheong and the Government clashed over the latter’s right to amend an article in the Constitution without the President’s consent, and the release of detailed information on the value of the country’s reserves. Ong referred the matter to a Supreme Court tribunal, which the latter eventually ruled in favour of the Government. (read here)

But unfortunately for Mr Shanmugam and the Government (which has all but fallen short of endorsing Dr Tony Tan as the candidate of choice), what the President can do within the boundaries of the Constitution might be the last thing that’s on voters’ mind.

In a country where the ruling party is the dominant voice, Singaporeans will resort to any given opportunity to have their voices heard. Nevermind the limited powers of the Elected President, it’s the signal that they send to the powers-that-be that matters.

For all his immense popularity as a Member of Parliament, Ong Teng Cheong garnered only 54% of the total votes against a reluctant Chua Kim Yeow, a former accountant general, despite having a higher public exposure and a much more active campaign than Chua. The media tried to downplay the boycott against the PAP –  a headline to the Straits Times article after the elections read “Votes for Chua were anything but a snub for PAP”. But the General Elections two years earlier was comparable.  The PAP won only 61% of the total votes – at that time, its lowest since independence. This time round, the Presidential Elections as a referendum on the PAP will be no different.

But the big question is, what should we then make of this election?

A true reflection of the people’s need

Regardless of who gets to become President, when the final votes are counted, a more accurate picture of where Singaporeans stand across the political spectrum might emerge than, I daresay, what one can infer from the General Elections results.

During the General Elections, the resentment against the incumbent was so high that many were prepared to give the opposition a chance. Almost all the opposition parties saw a significant increase in votes cast in their favour. At the same time, there were voters who do not have any love for the incumbent but played it safe. Better the devil you know than the one you don’t!

But in this Presidential Elections, the choice between PAP and opposition (or, anti-PAP) is no longer that clear cut. Even amongst the pro-PAP camp, there is a choice. Just because 60% of the votes went to the PAP during the General Elections does not mean that Dr Tony Tan will get all the pro-PAP votes. The PAP isn’t one monolithic entity. The older generation among the grassroots might cast their vote in favour of Dr Tan Cheng Bock, also another former PAP member. And then there are those who had voted PAP during the GE, but had also grown tired of the perceived elitism among the higher ranks of the PAP. To them, Dr Tony Tan represents the elite group.

Likewise, it doesn’t mean that all the pro-opposition votes would go to Tan Jee Say or Tan Kin Lian. (While Tan Kin Lian claims to be the most independent of the candidates for not having been a PAP or opposition party member, by virtue of frequently speaking out strongly on various issues, he has all but forfeited the centrist position that he wants to occupy in the eyes of many.) Amongst the opposition voters, there is a sizable conservative group who would not hesitate to vote Workers’ Party, but given a choice between the PAP and Singapore Democratic Party – of which Tan Jee Say had been a member – would pick the former. They are likely to pick the least of the ‘evils’ – namely Dr Tan Cheng Bock.

Much has been said about the unifying role of the President – with every single candidate claiming to be able to play that role. But let’s face it. – voters pick who will best represent them, not who will unify them. The late President Ong didn’t earn the title of the People’s President until he has proven his independent streak.

Those in power, and those vying for political power will do well to pay attention how the votes are cast this time round.

 

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

Thai reformist party to back rival after PM vote defeat

Thailand’s reformist party, Move Forward Party (MFP), will support a rival candidate from Pheu Thai for prime minister after MFP’s leader was blocked by the military and pro-royalist establishment. MFP’s focus is on restoring civilian government and democracy.

Confluence of Najib’s corruption and the peoples’ anger that eventually brought UMNO down.

The recent elections across the causeway has caused a great flurry of…

连锁企业Home-fix 将在本周末关闭最后一家店面

曾称霸新加坡众多购物中心的居家修缮连锁企业Home-fix,将在本周末关闭最后一家店面。 据《商业时报》报导,目前该公司负债约1千980万元,已被置于临时司法管理之下。尽管公司进行债务重组,但其网站仍将持续运营。 Home-Fix一直以“自己动手做家具”为名号打响名堂,但近年来因实际业务规模缩小,因此试图在网路上拓展服务和工作坊。然而,由于转型来得太晚,也随之无法跟上时代的进步。 由于电子商务平台的快速发展与邻里商店的低价商品,为民众提供了实惠方便的物品,取代了Home-Fix的价值,因此Home-Fix除了面临高昂的商场租金,还有来自其他商家的低价竞争,以及经济低靡等各项挑战,也让Home-Fix业务缩小。 Home-Fix创办人兼董事经理55岁刘章祺对债权人表示,公司的财务困境来自店面的亏损,与无法和其他电子商务商家竞争。此外,大世界城与汤申大厦也打击了Home-fix 的两处最高销售商店。 目前两家商店已关闭,而位于勘宝坊以及诺维娜广场的分店也在今年早前被收回。如今根据网上的资料显示,仅剩东凌坊购物中心分店与Tampines One购物中心购物中心分店。 然而,据《海峡时报》记者前往探访,发现东凌坊购物中心分店昨日开始已关闭店面,而Tampines One分店则剩下一些商品在货架上。 公司昨天关闭东凌坊购物中心的店面,今天将与Tampines One的业主商谈,几天后就关闭仅剩的店面。而位于大成区的办公室也基本上空无一人,到处散落纸箱。…

Chee Soon Juan : Free trade deals – we've been had

Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan has written a…