Presidential Election 2011

[concern2]

Interesting article, and some insights too:

http://sparkii.blogspot.com/2011/08/presidential-candidate-qualification.html

Presidential Candidate Qualification and the Grand Scheme of Things


“...getting a Certificate of Eligibility to contest the Presidential Election does not necessarily mean that candidates are all \"equally qualified to be President\".” - Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

By far Presidential Candidate (PC) Tony Tan is undeniable the most qualified of the 4 candidates to be the President Elect (PE) for Singapore. His worldly experience and years at the helm of Singapore Press Holdings and Government Investment Corporation as well his statesman demeanour and relatively good looks sets him aside from the others. An honest face that would allow him to pull ahead of the competition should the climate be different.

While PC Tony Tan possesses all the technical qualifications, the political climate has changed against his favour and is now seen as just another contender in the Presidential race. A climate where there was contest for 18 years and where the government has an overwhelming majority in parliament and had made policies in abstraction, habit of provoking the masses and taking token notice to the concerns of the people.

The President Elect (PE) while is a custodian and Head of State does not comment on policies without seeking the consul of the Cabinet. These nuances give rise to the belief that government is seeking a PE who is reserved to rubber stamp recommendation in areas of: spending of past reserves; key public sector appointments; detentions without trial in internal security cases; corruption investigations; and restraining orders to maintain religious harmony, namely the 5 areas as explicitly provided by the Constitution but outspoken and antagonistic when parliament is dominated by the opposition.

The Straits Times commentator supports the notion that partisan politics to be left to parliamentarians and prophesise a view that the PE do not venture beyond the existing known areas.

To different extents, PEs has declared their desire to champion the cause of common people in the form of uniting the people or representing forgotten voices or as an auditor on the government. A voice at the highest level to act as the conscience for the cabinet on policy matters. To speak on behalf of common people when an impasse occurs or when policies have gone awry.

In general, an independent and maverick PE would encourage close scrutiny and debate on bills and expenditure. Institutions that enjoyed a great deal of autonomy in determining acceptable returns and losses and the manner in the usage of funds like Government Investment Corporation and Temasek Holdings would now be more transparent and accountable.

For a PC that shares similar thoughts with the ruling party, it would allow for familiarity and some complacency and thereby becomes a “wild card” in terms of voter determination of independence. For the undecided or opposition leaning voter, the PC needs to convince that he can function independently on matters that are considered secret.

In a context where the ruling party have an overwhelming number of parliamentarians, these members are inclined to avoid probing questions to toe the party line and to use its machinery to suppress opposing view. A compliant PE would therefore accentuate the problem by endorsing on policies and making constitutional changes when required by the Government. The consequent is then the changing the powers to suit the government of the day. Questions on GIC, Temasek Holdings would be muted and these institutions would continue with a free hand in determining its affairs. Probing questions on whether the interest rates for CPF accounts are fair may not be raised from the lack of incentives to do so.

On being the voice of the common people, this concept however noble is problematic since it requires municipal issues to be discussed and this role would be better suitable for parliamentarians to address. Secondly, if the PE behaves like an opposing force with veto powers then the institution responsible for ensuring for the check and balance needs checks and balance itself.

A PE indulgence in partisan politics is seen to appeal to populist demands of embarrassing and antagonising the Government may appear as pet projects rather than that of national interest. However PCs that come up with thought provoking questions and not reliant of rhetoric may be the suitable choice for PE. For PCs with an image problem should consider emphasising his ability to convince he is independent and impartial and dispel notions that no cow is that sacred to slay to really find favour with the public and he is no light weight on meaty issues.

Based on voter structure, it has been commented that in this 4 PCs race, the odds are already in the government favour should the hardcore government group number 40% of the voters. The undecided and opposition groups would number 30% each respectively. By dividing percentages equally on the 3 candidates each will receive only 20%.

[limlim]

hquek:

I think there was a write up on the meanings behind the logo. For TT, besides his trademark specs, it's also indication of having long term view.

Specs is actually for shortsightedness.. he's telling pple that he's \"short sighted\"? cannot see far..

[concern2]

concern2:

Interesting article, and some insights too:

http://sparkii.blogspot.com/2011/08/presidential-candidate-qualification.html

Presidential Candidate Qualification and the Grand Scheme of Things


The President Elect (PE) while is a custodian and Head of State does not comment on policies without seeking the consul of the Cabinet. These nuances give rise to the belief that government is seeking a PE who is reserved to rubber stamp recommendation in areas of: spending of past reserves; key public sector appointments; detentions without trial in internal security cases; corruption investigations; and restraining orders to maintain religious harmony, namely the 5 areas as explicitly provided by the Constitution but outspoken and antagonistic when parliament is dominated by the opposition.

Those who think that just voting in oppositions in GE is sufficient need to rethink. I found a similar analysis here, but it is Mandarin:

\"...在官方说法的假设里，强烈的暗示了非PAP政府是一个流氓政府，非PAP总理是一个无赖总理的价值判断。这正好反映了政府把非PAP政治妖魔化的一贯思维。

这一种解读进一步证实了，民选总统制度的真正目是让PAP选定与认可的总统，在PAP失去政权后，通过总统的权力制衡非PAP政府。如此一来，民选总统的真正工作是阻止非PAP政府的有效运作；当PAP失去政权后，民选总统会成为一个对抗政府的政治平台。\"

extracted from: http://www.sginsight.com/xjp/index.php?id=6864

Tried to translate this, but quite disastrous. Can anyone help to translate?

It basically means that the president's role is a weapon in favour of PAP in times of an opposition dominated parliament.

[Angelight]

Just to correct, PAP did not endorse TT, only the unions and some clans.

limlim:

If PAP can endorse TT, why NS cannot endorse TJS?

As for speaking up, the PM and a few other have been speaking up for TT on MSM rite.. no?

[concern2]

Here is the article in full, in case I have quoted anything 'out of context' - apologies if you do not read Mandarin...


探索独立和背书总统的含义
23/08/11

作者/来源：新加坡文献馆

李显龙在宏茂桥国庆晚宴上呼吁不对抗政治，言下之意，应该是期待人民选出一个不对抗政府的总统。

当然，不对抗政治有益经济发展，但是，总统一旦认真执行宪法赋予的权力，就无可避免的，会出现总统和政府对抗的紧张局面。王鼎昌的民选总统历程就是一个活生生的例子。

根据官方说法，民选总统制度的目的，是为了要制衡流氓政府的危害新加坡社会之不良政策和行为。换言之，民选总统是一个政治机制，是要用来对抗一个无赖的总理。可见，总统和政府对抗是一个必然的设定结果。

从这一个层面来看，李显龙期待的一个不对抗政府的总统，和民选总统制度的官方说法是相互排斥的。从逻辑上来说，只有不做事的总统才可以避免和政府发生冲突，因此，一个不对抗政府的总统，应该是一个无所事事的总统。

那么，政府要如何自圆其说的解释，为何要设立一个不监督政府的总统？一个没事干的总统又为何要领取如此天价的薪金？

为此，另外的一个解读是，李显龙并非流氓政府，所以民选总统没有必要认真的去执行宪法赋予的权力。这其中反映了一种思维，那就是，在人民行动党当政的期间，政府只要一个无所事事的背书总统。

这也就是说，在官方说法的假设里，强烈的暗示了非PAP政府是一个流氓政府，非PAP总理是一个无赖总理的价值判断。这正好反映了政府把非PAP政治妖魔化的一贯思维。

这一种解读进一步证实了，民选总统制度的真正目是让PAP选定与认可的总统，在PAP失去政权后，通过总统的权力制衡非PAP政府。如此一来，民选总统的真正工作是阻止非PAP政府的有效运作；当PAP失去政权后，民选总统会成为一个对抗政府的政治平台。

如果这一个说法可以成立，则明显的，民选总统制度完全是为了保护人民行动党，以及人民行动党利益集团的种种好处，事实上，这是一个利益集团的自私自利的政治行为，完全不是为了新加坡整体利益着想。在这一个真实的政治格局里，人民行动党政府和新加坡人民的利益是相背的。

无疑的，民选总统仅仅是当权者的政治工具。在这种情况下，理所当然的，当下政府心目中的理想总统人选，应该是一个乐意为政府背书的无所事事的总统。

换个角度来说，如果民选总统确实是真有其事的是为了保护国家财富，而不是一个表面说辞，那么，人民行动党政府是不是更应该鼓励人民，选出一个和政府全无瓜葛的独立总统？这个道理是十分简单的。

交易所为何严格要求上市公司委任独立董事？为的就是要确保在没有个人利益冲突的情况下，让独立董事有效的监督和公司有密切利害关系的大股东，防止利益集团做出假公济私的损人利己行为。此外，会计师，审计师，竞赛裁判等等涉及公正判断的专业都严格要求独立性。

套用在新加坡民选总统的政治上，明显的，一个由PAP认可和支持的背书总统，基于利益集团之共生共荣的利害关系，所以无从有效监督政府的所做所为；这种为执政党服务的背书总统，只对当权者有利。反过来看，一个和PAP全无瓜葛的独立总统，才能有效监督政府的所做所为。

天下没有免费的午餐，对抗是一顿丰盛午餐所必须支付的代价。同样的，不去争取就必然一无所得。在政治博弈中，选票是弱势群体的争取力量，当然，有团结才有力量，因为团结就是力量。

[Oppsgal]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/president-play-rules-tan-cheng-bock-150131852.html


Play by the rules? What rules?

[concern2]

OH, didn’t know there is a poll here!

[concern2]

Oppsgal:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/president-play-rules-tan-cheng-bock-150131852.html


Play by the rules? What rules?

I also find this statement ambiguous. Make it sound like \"I will follow the books\". Doesn't put him in good light. Maybe he should choose different words.

[concern2]

Or could it be that he’s trying to win votes from PAP supporters?

[concern2]

By the way, there is a poll going on for Presidential Election in this forum…