Source : YouTube.

The report by the Constitutional Commission headed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon on the Elected Presidency review has been released on last Wednesday (7 September) .

The review that was initiated by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong took six months of deliberation based on feedback from four public hearings and more than 100 written submissions.

One of the key recommendations offered by the commission is that it suggested safeguards to ensure a minority president can be elected from time to time, by reserving a Presidential Election for a racial group if it is not represented for 5 terms.

Only if there is no representative from the racial group would the election be opened to all, and the reserved election will be brought forward to the next election.

Channel News Asia (CNA) in a collaboration with the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) had earlier conducted a survey and posted an article on 18 August on race relations which resulted, according to the media, that most Singaporeans prefer someone of the same race to hold the nation’s highest position.

The survey, was conducted between June and July, on a nationwide survey of 2,000 citizens and permanent residents on their views on relations between the country’s four major races.

However, more than 90 percent of the readers who commented on the article disagree with what the research had said.

Speaking in an interview with MediaCorp which was aired on 4 September, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated that the proposed changes are not tokenism, but the right step for Singapore’s future, as under the current system, minority candidates would find it hard to be elected.

He said, “It is a very necessary symbolism of what we are as a multiracial society – what Singapore means, stands for and what we aspire to be.”

However, this recommendation also raised people’s disbelief on the issue and spurred them to comment that the ruling party, People’s Action Party has double standards on the Presidential Candidacy and its own choice of Prime Minister:

  • Tan Desmond wrote, “Mr PM Lee. Why not hold a national referendum asking Singapore citizen if we want a minority president by force or let us choose the best man available that day. Are we so childish even after 50 years of nation building?”
  • Terence Sim wrote, “So it is not just ‘if a(ny) minority president is not elected’ but ‘if a president is not from a particular racial group for so and so terms’. It’s worst than I thought.

    How many ‘Official’ minorities is the Government going to acknowledge for this program. We will have Indians and Malays. How about Eurasians, Arabs or other minor groups? Will we end up with a Presidential office which rotates in a round-robin style among all the ethnic groups? It does not seem to serve much purpose except to parade our minorities for minority’s sake.

    It’s not a very bad idea but the proposed execution is terrible and instead promises to further divide Singaporeans along our ethnic lines. If the system already believes that we will be biased in our voting and attempts to preemptively compensate for it, we will most likely follow suit. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

  • Kumar Pillay, “My question is so much hype that Singapore cannot have a Chinese president all the time thus this new initiative. What about becoming a PM? To me it’s silly. I am a Singaporean and it does not matter who becomes the president or PM. Why are we selecting by race and not a Singaporean.”
  • Thorsten Oliver Marquardt wrote, “What if more than one race has not been “represented” after five terms? This is a very like scenario considering all the different races that exist.”
  • Lee Harry wrote, “Why PM candidate cannot be minority – totally unethical move.”
  • Shawn Yee wrote, “When a malay president gets elected, he/she will not earn any ounce of respect from the masses. He/she will be known as the token president, even if he/she was fully qualified. This is what happens when affirmative action is introduced. Candidates get discredited and racial tensions are fueled. Also, this changes the voting mechanism. Why is there not a referendum held so that the public can decide for themselves. It’s always a case of Lee Hsien Loong decreeing regardless of public opinion.”
  • Guo Xiongwei wrote, “Why dun we have that rule for DPM & PM? Anyone knows if we ever had a Malay for DPM…. or PAP thinks Malays are not suitable for those 2 positions?”
  • Bruce Lim wrote, “Let’s do this for the prime minister as well.”
  • Dominic Goh wrote, “Ensuring minority races gets a chance to be President. Why not start with the PM position first.”
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

李玮玲揭总检察署向律师公会投诉林学芬

总理李显龙妹妹李玮玲医生于昨晚10时42分,在个人脸书揭露总检察署针对李显扬妻子林学芬,为建国总理李光耀准备遗嘱一事,向新加坡律师公会提呈逾500页的投诉信。 总理弟弟李显扬也分享了该贴文。李玮玲认为有关投诉重提过去李显龙透过个人律师的指控,总理认为林学芬在参与草拟遗嘱上身份有利益冲突,因为她是李显扬的妻子,而他的丈夫却会是遗嘱分配的受益人。 虽然总理前律师黄鲁胜已回避此事,然而现任的副检察长仍是前人民行动党议员Hri Kumar。 李玮玲认为,这是史无前例地在涉及私人遗嘱事项上,动用司法程序。 “李显龙对父亲的遗嘱,以及父亲要拆除欧思礼路38号故居的意愿感到不满。父亲在五年前完成遗嘱和附录时,就已经告知所有子女和律师。在2015年,在李显龙的敦促下完成遗嘱认证。” 当时,包括李显龙等各造,都接受有关遗嘱乃是父亲的真实意愿。但是李显龙仍透过其部长成立的委员会,在2016和2017年攻击有关已受承认的遗嘱。 在初期,有关委员会也从未向李玮玲和李显扬透露有关委会成员名单。直到2017年总理夫妇被指涉滥权后,才公布名单。 李玮玲在帖文中写道:“李光耀作为备受尊崇的律师,从未对其遗嘱有任何非议。没有任何受益人向律师公会投诉,包括向律师黄鲁胜咨询意见的李总理。为何直到现在,由总检察署攻击父亲的遗嘱。我们的看法是整件行动没有任何价值。” 李玮玲也提到过去一年半总检察署也对李绳武的私人脸书贴文事件紧咬不放,那些分享贴文的人士也没被针对。 总检察署:林学芬有失职表面证据 另一方面,总检察署在答复媒体询问时指出,李显扬妻子林学芬作为专业律师,在位李光耀准备遗嘱一事,有失职之嫌的表面证据,表面触犯法律专业(专业行为规章)第25节条文和第46节条文。…

Record 42 imported COVID-19 cases detected since circuit breaker with 60% from India

The Ministry of Health (MOH) reported that as of yesterday (10 Jan),…

PM Lee Hsien Loong wishes speedy recovery for Malaysian PM's surgery

Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak successfully underwent a minor surgery…

NEA to provide weekly water quality information for the popular recreational beaches

The National Environment Agency (NEA) announced today (7 October) the provision of…