Askmelah note: PAP has meddled with the political system so much that it creates a whole new set of problem that are even more difficult to solve and detrimental to the long term political development of Singapore. The fact that no one protest and don’t care does not mean the system is functioning well, it only shows the years of suppression of freedom on speech of dissidents and press have resulted in political apathy in its people. When the time comes when the political elites are corrupted, that will be the doomsday of Singapore, that will be the price we all pay for allowing a nanny state to flourish.
There is a new guessing game in town, on what changes the Government has in store for the political system here.
This, after politics made a surprise appearance in the President’s Address at the opening of the new Parliament.
Since it is so rare for the “P” word to be the subject of so much attention in this particular formal setting, I should quote exactly what President Tony Tan Keng Yam said: “Our political system has delivered stability and progress for Singapore. But this system must be refreshed from time to time, as our circumstances change. The Government will study this matter carefully, to see whether and how we should improve our political system so that we can be assured of clean, effective and accountable government over the long term.”
The President mentioned three modifications to Singapore’s first-past-the-post electoral system: Nominated MPs, Non-Constituency MPs and the Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs).
More tellingly, he highlighted the Elected President (EP) as “another critical element that fosters resilience and stability in our political system”.
It is anyone’s guess which of these four are up for refreshment, but the smart money is on the EP.
Several notable pundits have zeroed in on it, a sure sign here that something is afoot.
I hope this does not mean a quick decision without a thorough airing of the issue.
Though no political system is unchanging, neither should it be tinkered with lightly each time things turn out differently from the original script.
The reality in democratic politics is that it is invariably unpredictable, especially when the society is undergoing rapid change.
It is not possible to devise a perfect system that anticipates every possible scenario, and the best-intended plans will go awry as Singapore has found out.
Take the GRC scheme.
When it was first conceived in 1988, it started with only three-member GRCs, and was meant to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament, and nothing more.
But barely three years later, the Government expanded the scheme to include four-member GRCs, and in 1997, six-member slates.
Various arguments were made to justify the changes, from making for more efficient town councils to allowing easier entry of rookie politicians meant for higher office by fielding them in big GRCs helmed by senior ministers.
But politics has a funny way of derailing the best-laid plans, and when the People’s Action Party lost Aljunied GRC in the 2011 General Election and, with it, two ministers and a designated Speaker of Parliament, it didn’t seem like a good idea to have too many large GRCs.
The talk now is of further reduction in their average size.
It shows what can happen in politics and why it is best to keep any scheme simple and be as clear as possible about the objectives.
Better still, steer clear of multiple goals and overcomplicated ideas.
The best example of this is one-man-one-vote, which has survived the decades. Despite its alleged failings, its simplicity is what makes it durable.
The EP is another example of how a seemingly rational proposal at the time can result in many unintended twists and turns.
When the Constitution was changed in 1991 to allow for a popularly elected president with limited discretionary powers, it was meant to be a check against a rogue government.
But trouble emerged almost immediately with the very first EP, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, who collided with the Government over his role in keeping watch on the country’s reserves.
Who would have thought that a former minister who had worked so closely with his Cabinet colleagues would clash with them so openly?
But it was nothing compared to what happened in the 2011 Presidential Election, when four candidates campaigned with differing views on the proper role of an elected president.
It opened the eyes of many to the pitfalls of having a politicised president with his own ideas of how he would check an elected government.
Who would have thought this would become an issue when so much care had been given to who could qualify to become a presidential candidate, with the cards stacked in favour of those from the Establishment?
Once again, politics proved to be a slippery eel.
So, there are calls now to make the criteria even more restrictive, or to scrap the scheme altogether.
The problem is that while clever minds can think of all sorts of ideas in anticipation of all sorts of future scenarios, no one can predict the one unknown that matters more than anything else in politics: the electorate itself.
How it responds to challenges, what values shape it most, what its concerns and aspirations are have a greater bearing on the political outcome than the structure itself.
The Government used to say that it was better to have good people in charge of a bad set-up than a rogue leading an otherwise working system.
Honest and competent leaders can overcome the problems of a broken institution, but a corrupt one will undermine even the best.
I think the same can be said of a people.
Whenever the Singapore electorate has been asked to decide, it has shown itself to be responsible and sophisticated and to know instinctively where its interests lie.
It is not easily fooled by empty promises or beguiling leaders.
At every election, especially over the past 10 years, Singaporeans have voted with their heads and hearts in the right places. They do not need an over-elaborate system to protect them from themselves.
So, here is a radical proposal: Go back to what it was when Singapore gained independence in 1965, with the House comprising only elected members from single-seat wards and with an unelected, ceremonial president.
If this is too far a step to take, and if minority representation is too important to forgo, go back to the original three-member GRCs.
Such a system is simple and durable and does not make any presumption about all the possible futures that might emerge.
That future is in the hands of the Singaporean voter, as it rightly should be.
Singapore’s political system: Tweak, tinker or overhaul?
Source: The Straits Times Jan 24, 2016
While the system is in good heart, what areas might the announced review look at to ensure its health in the long term? Insight explores the issue on pages B2-B6
Singapore’s political system must be refreshed from time to time as circumstances change, President Tony Tan Keng Yam said on Jan 15 as he announced that the Government will study it for possible reforms.
No details were given in the President’s speech about the review, but ministers and MPs may touch on the topic in this week’s debate on his address.
What changes might be in store?
If it is a tweak, then perhaps it will be to the Non-Constituency MP and Nominated MP schemes, which debuted in 1984 and 1990, respectively, and have been expanded gradually over the years.
But if it is to be an overhaul, an obvious potential change is to the office of the elected president.
It has been 25 years since the president started being chosen via an election instead of being appointed by Parliament, in the last major overhaul of the political system.
To be sure, the system has been continually refined, such as having MPs be elected in teams in group representation constituencies.
But even smaller tweaks, such as the introduction of the Cooling-off Day in the 2011 General Election, are a re-engineering of sorts, to keep up with the heat of debates online.
But the political climate of 2016 is very different from that of 2011.
While the People’s Action Party suffered a 6.5 percentage point swing in votes against it in GE 2011, GE 2015 gave the party its strongest mandate since 2001 – 69.9 per cent of the vote.
On the review’s timing, political watcher Eugene Tan said: “It’s the Government’s way of seeking to manage the pace of political change, rather than have that pace dictated to it.
“It seeks to pre-empt criticisms that the political system is long overdue for a review.”
Why are political changes afoot now?
With a strong electoral mandate behind it, now may seem an odd time for the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government to review the political system, a move announced by President Tony Tan Keng Yam on Jan 15 at the opening of Parliament.
After all, why bother to fix what isn’t broken?
And doesn’t doing so now run the risk of giving sceptics the impression that the PAP is seizing the chance to entrench its dominance?
NCMP, NMP and GRC: Issues to address
Trends in minority representation and alternative voices – how do they affect the current schemes that address these issues?
Singapore’s trio of political siblings introduced more than 20 years ago – the Non-Constituency MP, Nominated MP and group representation constituency (GRC) schemes – may be due for an update.
The NCMP scheme turns 32 this year. GRCs were born 28 years ago, and the NMP scheme, 26 years ago.
These innovations have allowed alternative views to be aired, and ensured minority communities are not shut out, said President Tony Tan Keng Yam on Jan 15.
But they have also run into some unanticipated trends along the way that Singapore’s leaders could not have envisioned in the 1980s.
Insight looks at what the Government could address in its review.
NON-CONSTITUENCY MPs
The NCMP scheme, which offers parliamentary seats to the best-performing losing opposition candidates, was first introduced in 1984.
There is one stark difference between then and now.
No opposition candidate had won a seat in the 16 years between December 1965, when 13 opposition Barisan Sosialis MPs walked out of Parliament, and 1981. Then, vocal critics such as the late Workers’ Party (WP) leader, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, said the scheme was an attempt to dissuade voters from electing opposition members.
But since the WP won five seats in Aljunied GRC and one in Hougang in the general elections in 2011 and last year, there have been six elected opposition MPs in the House. Ms Lee Li Lian’s victory in the Punggol East by-election made it seven between 2013 and last year.
So today, the People’s Action Party (PAP) is not the only party in the House.
But it is worth looking at whether this mechanism to ensure representation of alternative views in Parliament should remain or change with the political conditions of the day.
National University of Singapore (NUS) political scientist Reuben Wong is in two minds about it.
“In 1984, NCMPs came about because Singapore wanted to ensure alternative voices who would not be from the PAP. But the WP has won a GRC twice, so we don’t really seem to need it any more.
“On the other hand, I’m not sure that the WP would continue to thrive without having NCMPs for exposure,” he says, adding that the WP won Aljunied GRC last year “by the skin of its teeth” – 50.95 per cent of the vote share.
Another issue that appears to be coming to a head: the need for clearer public understanding about what happens when an NCMP seat has been declined.
The WP’s Lee Li Lian turned down the seat offered to her for being the best performer among the losing candidates in the elections last year.
Party leaders have declared they want another of its office-holders, NUS sociology don Daniel Goh, to occupy the seat instead.
But it is not an automatic process that the next-in-line top losing opposition candidate is offered or entitled to the seat.
There has been no equivalent precedent for passing an NCMP seat within a party.
After the 1984 polls, the WP rejected the offer of an NCMP seat to its candidate M.P.D. Nair, who scored 48.8 per cent of votes in Jalan Kayu.
An offer was then made to the next-best loser, Singapore United Front candidate Tan Chee Kien, who also rejected it.
‘DISASTER’ FOR CHINESE
It would be a disaster for the Chinese community in Singapore if Singapore wakes up one day to find that we have an all-Chinese Parliament.
THEN DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER GOH CHOK TONG IN 1988, on the need to guarantee a multiracial Parliament.
Leader of the House Grace Fu has shed light on the procedure, and on Parliament’s role in the process, now that Ms Lee has declined to take it up. Ms Fu has said that the WP has to file a motion in Parliament to declare the seat and to propose an alternative candidate for the NCMP seat.
The WP did so on Jan 15 and the expected debate on it this week will help shed light on the NCMP scheme and the stance of parties towards it.
NOMINATED MPs
Since the NMP scheme was first adopted in 1990, nips and tucks to its limits have been made.
In 1997, the maximum number of NMPs was raised from six to nine, its current limit, and in 2002, an NMP’s term was extended from two to 21/2 years. The scheme was also made permanent in 2010.
What has not changed is its purpose: to offer Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation and to evolve a more consensual style of government where alternative views are heard.
IMPROVE SELECTION PROCESS
Singaporeans don’t know the identities of those seeking to be appointed NMPs as Parliament does not make it public.
SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY LAW DON EUGENE TAN, a former NMP himself, who says the selection process can be made more robust, transparent and accountable.
Observers such as NUS political scientist Hussin Mutalib still point to the need to consolidate greater citizen participation in politics.
But the way of doing this is less clear. Does the NMP scheme continue to be an appropriate way of doing this, or is it becoming obsolete with the rise of the Internet?
Social media and other mechanisms for public feedback, such as national conversations and the government feedback unit, may have diluted the need for the presence of NMPs in the House.
Society has also become more diverse but the seven functional groups represented by NMPs (business and industry, the professions, the labour movement, social and community organisations, media, arts and sports, tertiary education institutions, and civil society) have not changed.
Are the groups in need of an update?
Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan, a former NMP himself, says that the selection process can be made more robust, transparent and accountable.
Currently, different functional groups have different processes and rules on nominating applicants for consideration by the Parliament’s special select committee.
“Singaporeans don’t know the identities of those seeking to be appointed NMPs as Parliament does not make it public,” he says.
But Parliament does benefit from having views and ideas put forth by MPs who are not bound by party positions and the party whip, says Assoc Prof Tan. The NMP scheme also enables sensitive issues to be raised in Parliament, he says, citing immigration and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues.
GRCs
The main criticism of the GRC system is how much it has grown since it was set up in 1988. It began with 13 three-member GRCs. But the law was changed in 1991 and in 1996 to increase the maximum number of MPs per GRC from three to four, and then to six.
On one hand, leaders agree on the need to guarantee a multiracial Parliament. Said then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1988: “It would be a disaster for the Chinese community in Singapore if Singapore wakes up one day to find that we have an all-Chinese Parliament.”
While this had not happened in Singapore, he made the case for amending the Constitution to exclude this possibility in the future. Such multiracial teams would also act as a check on candidates who may be tempted to play the race card and exploit communal sentiments in order to win votes, he added.
But larger GRCs were criticised for increasing the chances of rookie PAP candidates riding into Parliament on the coat-tails of heavyweight candidates in their team.
Opposition parties also said the GRC requirements made it harder for them to field teams.
Observers say that the guarantee of a multiracial Parliament can still be achieved with smaller GRC sizes.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has acknowledged as much, having pledged as early as 2009 to reduce the average number of MPs in a GRC from 5.4 to five, and to increase the number of single-member constituencies (SMCs). These changes were introduced in the 2011 General Election, when the number of SMCs was raised from nine to 12.
The latest boundary changes now bring the average number of MPs in each GRC to 4.75, down from anaverage of five in 2011.
Two six-man GRCs remain: Ang Mo Kio and Pasir-Ris Punggol.
Each has two members of a minority race on its team: Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar and Mr Darryl David in Ang Mo Kio GRC; and Mr Zainal Sapari and Dr Janil Puthucheary in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC.
NUS’ Prof Hussin said it is worth looking at further reductions to the number and size of GRCs.
This would let more individuals contest SMCs on the basis of merit, he said. It would also go some way towards consolidating meritocracy and multiculturalism in Singapore, he added.
A look at how the elected presidency, NMP and NCMP schemes came about gives a pointer to the Govt’s review amid a strong mandate.
With a strong electoral mandate behind it, now may seem an odd time for the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government to review the political system, a move announced by President Tony Tan Keng Yam on Jan 15 at the opening of Parliament.
After all, why bother to fix what isn’t broken?
And doesn’t doing so now run the risk of giving sceptics the impression that the PAP is seizing the chance to entrench its dominance?
But the political trends of the past decade – from the growing desire for alternative voices, to how some candidates politicised the presidential elections – make this as good a time as any to embark on reforms, say observers.
In his address to Parliament, Dr Tan spoke of the need for Singapore’s political system to be broad-based and to encourage clear electoral outcomes.
At the same time, it must have appropriate checks and balances, opportunities for alternative views to be aired and considered, and ensure minorities will not be shut out.
It is likely, then, that any proposed political changes will be measured against these criteria, with the aim of enabling a stable and effective government in the interest of all.
This is likely to stay constant no matter what is under review – be it the elected presidency, Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system, Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) or Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme – all of which Dr Tan mentioned in his speech.
PAST CHANGES: EP, NCMP, NMP, GRCS
In fact, Singapore has often tweaked its political system to keep in step with the times.
Dr Tan acknowledged as much when he said: “This system must be refreshed from time to time, as our circumstances change.”
NCMPs, NMPs and GRCs were three examples of alterations made to the Westminster parliamentary model in the 1980s and 1990s, to guarantee minorities and alternative voices a place in Parliament.
And in 1991, the appointment of the President by Parliament was converted into a process of one elected directly by the people.
The move came alongside expanding the constitutional powers of the President to consent to any drawing of national reserves and appointments to key public offices.
The PAP tends to float ideas for debate long before a law is actually passed. An elected presidency was first raised by Mr Lee in his National Day Rally of 1984. It went through several rounds of debate before being passed in 1991.
It was argued then that the President should also have the moral authority to exercise these new custodial powers – hence the need to be elected by the people.
This would be a check against Parliament and ensure that the government of the day taps the reserves for spending only in a way that is prudent and disciplined.
Presidential candidates were also required to not be members of any political parties, as the President – meant as a force of stability in politics – had to be above party politics.
The NCMP scheme was created in 1984 to ensure there would always be a minimum number of non-government MPs in Parliament even if, say, the PAP garnered all the elected MP seats at the polls.
In fact, from December 1965 when 13 Barisan Sosialis MPs walked out, to 1981, there was not a single non-PAP member elected to Parliament.
The PAP won all the seats at the four general elections in 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1980, as well as all by-elections in 14 constituencies in the same period. This streak ended only when the Workers’ Party’s J.B. Jeyaretnam was voted into Parliament in the 1981 Anson by-election.
Amid this backdrop, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew proposed the NCMP scheme. He pointed to how the electorate had changed, with more than 60 per cent of voters aged 40 and below.
“They were teenagers or toddlers when the struggles were enacted in the 1950s and ’60s. They have no idea how destructive opposition can be,” said Mr Lee in 1984.
Having NCMPs in the House would give younger voters a taste of opposition politics, he said, adding that they would also “learn the limits of what a constitutional opposition can do”.
In his support of the motion, then MP Chandra Das also questioned whether an entire PAP-filled Chamber was healthy for Singapore in the long run, pointing to the need to watch for the possible disenfranchisement of those who voted repeatedly for opposition parties.
In 2010, the maximum number of NCMPs was raised from six to nine, although no more than three NCMP seats have been offered in each Parliament because the number depends on how many opposition candidates are elected.
Another change to satisfy the desire for alternative voices in Parliament was the NMP scheme in 1990: this entails an MP not elected, nor even having to go through the election process like an NCMP, but selected by a committee.
Like NCMPs, these non-partisan MPs would not be allowed to vote on constitutional amendments but could join in parliamentary debates. Then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said the scheme was in response to the public’s desire for more alternative views, while wanting the PAP to continue as the Government.
Some felt that PAP MPs did not adequately air and press views as they were subject to the Government whip and had to vote along party lines, Mr Goh acknowledged.
The NMP scheme would encourage political participation and contribution, and accommodate constructive dissent and alternative views, he said.
As for GRCs, they were mooted in 1988 to ensure a minimum number of representatives in Parliament from minority races.
The need to secure a multiracial Parliament was first raised by Mr Lee in 1982. And Mr Goh in 1988 spoke of concern over a trend of “young voters preferring candidates who were best suited to their own needs without being sufficiently aware of the need to return a racially balanced party slate of candidates”.
Making it mandatory for some candidates to campaign in multiracial teams would encourage the practice of multiracial politics by all political parties, said Mr Goh.
Along the way, other ideas were proposed. Those that did not gel with the spirit of the times were not adopted.
These included the idea of proportional representation – in which parties are allocated seats in Parliament according to their share of the vote – which was brought up in commentaries and even in Parliament.
But Mr Lee argued that this would lead political parties based on race and religion, which would polarise a socially diverse Singapore.
It would also lead to weak coalition governments, he added.
The changes to Singapore’s political system did not come out of nowhere, but were responses to political trends.
What are today’s changing circumstances?
WHY REFRESHMENT IS NEEDED
Two trends stand out.
First, the desire for alternative voices, especially as young voters – who tend to be less enamoured of an overwhelming one-party rule – come of age at each election.
PAP leaders acknowledged as much during the recent hustings, and promised to listen to alternative voices and consult the public more widely. The GE 2015 results suggest that younger voters acknowledged this engagement even though the trend towards greater diversity and plurality is likely to continue.
Second, the elected presidency may be less of a force for stability in politics now.
This is because the presidential election has become increasingly politicised, with some observers describing it as a proxy for party politics. In the 2011 Presidential Election, the Government’s preferred candidate, Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, won by a slim margin of 7,382 votes.
As for the desire for alternative voices to be heard, this is less clear now that the NCMP and NMP schemes have helped achieve this to some extent.
WHY NOW?
With an eye to political stability, the PAP government may be wanting to address these trends sooner rather than later.
Add to this its strong mandate of 69.9 per cent from GE 2015, and this would help explain why it is embarking on a review now.
Observers point out that not only does it have the backing of voters, but also doing so from a position of strength is preferable to taking action when one is on the back foot.
“With a strong electoral mandate, having the review takes away a large part of the sting that the process and outcome are wholly self-serving,” says political observer Eugene Tan, a law don at the Singapore Management University.
“Imagine if such a review was attempted after GE 2011.”
Retired PAP MP Inderjit Singh says the mandate signalled that voters trust the PAP to make policy changes for the good of the nation.
“This is the best time for the PAP to consider changes to the political system that will be for the good of Singapore in the longer term,” he said. “Also, we have a President who works well with the current government, so it will be easier for the Government and the President to work on the changes together.”
The PAP has also tended to be pre-emptive instead of reactive.
When mooting NCMPs in 1984, Mr Lee said: “The Government need not introduce this legislation, but to do nothing may do the next Parliament and the people a disservice.”
Mr Goh, in response to opposition politician Chiam See Tong, who opposed GRCs as Malays had always been elected into Parliament, also said: “We are not talking about history. We are trying to anticipate a problem in the future.”
The PAP also tends to floatideas for debate long before a law is actually passed.
An elected presidency was first raised by Mr Lee in his National Day Rally of 1984. It went through several rounds of debate before being passed in 1991.
Says Associate Professor Tan: “There will still be criticism that the effort is ultimately concerned with entrenching the PAP’s dominance.” But he cautions against knee-jerk judgements, saying: “Let’s see the process and the outcome.”
Keeping the presidency a force for stability
To do a U-turn or not to do a U-turn on the elected presidency?
This question was posed by public intellectual and dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Kishore Mahbubani in a column in The Straits Times last week.
With the next presidential election due by August next year, this debate, first raised in the aftermath of the 2011 Presidential Election, has become timely again.
At its crux: What to do about the disconnect between the purpose of the elected president and the process of electing the president.
The office of the president is a force for stability in the political system, said President Tony Tan Keng Yam a week ago.
Singapore’s leaders in the late 1980s thought so too, when mooting the constitutional amendment to establish an elected president. At that time, Parliament appointed the president.
In two White Papers and debates in the House and on television, the Government set out its case for the elected president: He was needed as a custodian and checking mechanism to protect Singapore’s national reserves and the integrity of its public services.
This would help deliver stability and progress for Singapore, which would be in its long-term interest.
To act as such a stabiliser, the president had to be above party politics and play a unifying role.
Fast forward to the 2011 Presidential Election.
Four men threw a hat into the ring. The winner, Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, beat the runner-up, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, by 7,382 votes – a difference of less than 2 per cent.
The election was widely seen as divisive – a far cry from the unity and stability the elected presidency was created to bring about.
Why?
Chiefly because many among voters did not understand the rationale for an elected president, or the constitutional limits on him – or perhaps did not agree.
An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) poll of more than 2,000 Singaporeans after the 2011 election found that four out of five wrongly thought the president ensures that the Government manages the economy wisely.
Three in four thought wrongly that he was free to speak publicly on national issues he deemed important.
“Voters thought the elected presidency was a separate locus of power whose constitutional role was to be a countervailing force to the elected parliamentary system of government,” says Singapore Management University law don and political watcher Eugene Tan.
This despite former senior minister S. Jayakumar – who was involved in drafting the constitutional amendment – stating unequivocally during the 2011 hustings that the president was not “a centre of power unto himself”.
Instead, the president was bound by the Constitution, which gave him only “discretionary, custodial power” in protecting the reserves, key public-sector appointments, Internal Security Act detentions, investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and restraining orders under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
Even in these five areas, the president had only blocking powers and was not allowed to initiate decisions or policies, he said.
WHY THE CONFUSION?
Some of the confusion may have stemmed from voters’ unfamiliarity with the office.
Associate Professor Tan points to the changes in Singapore’s demographics since the 1980s – the voters born after Singapore became independent outnumber those born before. A first-time voter aged 21 in 2011 would have been a year old during the 1991 debates on the elected presidency.
Another explanation: Some voters deliberately wanted a more activist president rather than a unifier.
“A younger generation of voters is not too enamoured with a one-party dominant system. Voters regard such an extended period of political dominance as not just an aberration, but an un-level playing field,” says Assoc Prof Tan.
Still, such views about younger voters do not gel with developments seen in the 2015 General Election, where the ruling party’s vote share rose to 69.9 per cent – suggesting that voters were not uncomfortable with the People’s Action Party (PAP) continuing to be dominant in Parliament. And as an IPS survey of 2,015 voters found afterwards, the biggest shift towards the PAP came from those aged 21 to 29, as well as from those aged 65 and older.
Commentators nevertheless maintain that a correlation exists between the Government’s policies and actions and how voters react. And indeed, in 2011, the politics of the general election – held just three months before the presidential election that year – appeared to influence the latter.
With fewer candidates, the argument goes, chances are that the mandate the winner receives will be more decisive. This can be done by tightening the eligibility criteria for presidential hopefuls, which have been unchanged for the last 25 years.
“In 2011, anti-PAP sentiments played out during the PE (presidential election). This was not expected of a PE,” says retired PAP MP Inderjit Singh.
Some presidential hopefuls then found it useful to “over promise” in their campaigns as a way to win votes.
“The process of electing a non-partisan and apolitical president through competitive means is likely, at one extreme, to lead aspirants to consider popular, if not populist, means to win votes,” says Assoc Prof Tan.
In the wake of the 2011 Presidential Election, commentators questioned the process of the national electorate directly electing the president, no doubt mindful that the close winning margin that year could also be seen as a reflection of how divisions in politics can impact outcomes.
A week after the election, prominent businessman Ho Kwon Ping, who is Banyan Tree Holdings’ executive chairman, and IPS director and then ST associate editor Janadas Devan wrote: “You cannot hold an election for an apolitical office and not expect politics to intrude.”
Mr Singh tells The Sunday Times: “If we start seeing the same issues at a parliamentary election influencing the presidential election, then we need to look at what the real objective of an elected president is and see if we can achieve the same objective through other means.”
Other possible trends also point to the elected presidency being due for a review, say observers.
For instance, candidates of the right stature may be more reluctant to run for the office, given the politically charged nature of the contest. Furthermore, minority representation is not assured.
Some have voiced the worry that the electorate will vote based on race, making it harder for minority-race candidates to be elected on their own merit.
Says IPS senior research fellow Gillian Koh: “There is a desire to see minority representation in the symbolic and ceremonial parts of that role.
“But some have no confidence that a minority candidate can ever be voted into office.”
What sort of changes could address these concerns?
POSSIBLE LEVERS
One idea is to shrink the pool of eligible presidential candidates.
With fewer candidates, the argument goes, chances are that the mandate the winner eventually receives will be more decisive.
This can be done by tightening the eligibility criteria for presidential hopefuls, which have been unchanged for the last 25 years.
The field of eligible Singaporeans is much larger now since the qualification requirements were drawn up in 1991, says Assoc Prof Tan.
For example, a presidential candidate must have served for no less than three years as chairman or chief executive of a company with a paid-up capital of at least $100 million, or in any other comparable position of seniority.
But with many more companies now with $100 million paid-up capital than there were in 1991, it is worth looking at whether this bar should be raised, he says.
“This will reduce the size of eligible persons, but it is a worthwhile trade-off,” he says.
“By raising the bar, we can help to ensure that those eligible are up to the task, given the larger and more demanding scope of the elected president’s custodial role.”
Another more controversial idea is to change who elects the president. Mr Kishore, for instance, suggests returning to Parliament the power to appoint the president.
This would ensure that the president can be rotated among minority groups and be chosen on the basis of merit, not popularity.
Another variant of this suggestion is letting an electoral college nominate the presidential candidates and elect one of these.
This was the idea mooted by Mr Ho and Mr Janadas in their column in 2011. As they explained: “If our aim is an apolitical and impartial president, our means for choosing one should be commensurate with that aim.”
As for Mr Singh, he has suggested Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament, instead of the current single legislative chamber. He adds that the Upper House of elected and appointed members can choose a president from among themselves.
However, observers say that returning this power to Parliament as it is would weaken Singapore’s political system by removing an important layer of checks and balances.
This is especially so if the president retains his powers of safeguarding the reserves.
Some of these ideas have been criticised as being elitist.
Having an electoral college appoint the president, for instance, shows a lack of trust by the elite in the electorate, said retired top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow in 2011.
“If you try to change the rules when it’s not going your way, I think the electorate will not respect you for it,” he said.
It would also not be wise to ignore voter sentiment. And while presidential candidates in the United States, for instance, are pre-selected by party caucuses, it is the voters at large who have the final say.
According to the IPS survey, 91 per cent of respondents said the elected president must be chosen through an election.
Of the elected president’s powers to approve spending of the reserves and key civil service appointments, some argue that he should also have the political mandate to wield them.
Dr Koh, arguing why the president must receive the popular mandate, says: “It is critical that he or she has the political mandate to counter the popularly elected frontbench.”
The timing of such a move is also up for debate – whether changes should be made now, before the 2017 presidential election, or after.
Mr Singh argues that any changes to the presidency should come after the next presidential election “so that Singaporeans see the objectivity of the changes proposed, which is for the good of the longer-term politics of Singapore”.
Whichever the case, more clarity – via public education, perhaps – is needed on the role of the president, and the government, just as it did when the idea of an elected president was first mooted, will have to make its case and win over the public for any proposed changes it has in mind.
Charissa Yong
Recent Comments