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

Gas supply from Indonesia to Singapore will cease by 2023

By 2023, Indonesia’s Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry is looking to stop…

Hong Kong police offer bounties for 8 prominent overseas activists

Hong Kong police offer HK$1 (US$127,644) million bounties for information leading to the capture of eight democracy activists based abroad.

列艺术界为“非必要服务” 文艺界人士质疑《海时》扒高踩低

近日一项有关必要工作相关调查结果出炉却引发争议,结果显示,艺术工作被评为“最非必要的工作”,高达71巴仙的人认为,疫情期间艺术工作属于“非必要”(non-essential jobs)引发艺术工作者的反弹。 该调查出自《海峡时报星期刊》,其中询及哪些工作对于新加坡发展至关重要,结果显示,高达71巴仙的人认为艺术家不重要,其次是电话销售、公关专员、商业顾问与人力资源经理。 该结果引发艺术工作者的不满,本地社会企业Artsolute创始人、素有乌敏岛“胡须”画家之称的陈世平在《We, The Citizens 》上发表评论,解释艺术对新加坡的重要性。 他指出,该调查内容间接误导国人对于“重要”和“必要”的概念。他认为,必要和非必要的工作之间的差异在于一项是对于健康和安全产生立即效应,而另一项则是对人类进步和社会心理福祉有益的工作。 陈世平也坦承,考量到许多人不了解艺术的情况,因此许多创意活动例如视觉和戏剧艺术,被迫将作品数码化。 尽管在阻断措施到逐步解封阶段,艺术和娱乐行业鼓励数码化,然而数码化也构成许多艺术工作者限制。 他也指出,在基本需求面前,艺术和创意经常成为被淘汰的首要考量,这是正常的,但随着时代的变化,人们不再只重视基本上需求,而是要重视不同人的价值。 “许多媒体和娱乐工作,都是透过艺术领域直接或间接创造的,并且可能成为经济复苏的重要部分。” 文化活动吸引游客…

造币厂发售李光耀纪念章和半身像 引网民挞伐被迫下架

新加坡造币厂(Singapore Mint),日前推出刻有已故建国总理李光耀头像的纪念章和半身像,但很快就在网络招来抨击,昨日才刚开买不到一小时就被迫撤回。 据了解,在造币厂的官网已找不到有关李光耀纪念章或半身像的相关订购资讯。 根据《海峡时报》报导,造币厂是在昨日发声明称,配合李光耀逝世五周年,在“敬仰新加坡”(Singapore Salute)系列下,推展有关纪念章和半身像,价格介于10至1888新元不等。 此前,造币厂在该系列下,配合新加坡开埠两百周年还推出莱佛士纪念章。 不过,此次李光耀纪念章则引来不少网民抨击,认为这似乎有违逝者遗愿,后者不希望在他身故之后,对他有任何的“造神”(个人崇拜)。 有者也毫不客气抨击此举是否要“消费往生者?”网民提醒李光耀曾强调自己不希望如莱佛士一样被当作丰碑来供奉,而只是透过他为新加坡留下的发展来纪念他,不是透过肖像、纪念币或路名。 新加坡造币厂是胜科集团全资子公司 造币厂是胜科(Sembcorp)的全资子公司,而我国主权基金淡马锡控股,则拥有胜科集团49.5巴仙的股权。 回溯2015年,现任总理李显龙曾在国会回应议员提问,指“政府未来“绝对可以”考虑在我国钱币上使用李光耀的肖像来纪念他。 当时他声称李光耀对于个人崇拜的现象十分谨慎,也强调自己不要任何的纪念碑。…