I find this political commentary by Catherine Lim really interesting however
I still think that there is a fair share of Singaporeans who wants an independent
EP that has a well balanced approach to being the 'check and balance' and one
that unites the country by being both a voice for the people and the government.




Seventeen years ago, the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Goh
Chok Tong, sternly warned government critics about what they could and
could not criticize, using the golfing term ‘out-of-bounds markers’
which has since then become part of the political lexicon.

But in the General Election of 2011 (GE 2011), a newly emboldened,
energized and subsequently triumphant electorate went all the way of
criticism, sparing no personage in the People’s Action Party (PAP)
leadership, no matter how long feared, nor any PAP policy, no matter how
well established. Thus they removed, in one fell stroke, all the hated
markers, clearing the way for even the most outspoken critic in the
future.

Now, just some months later, they clearly want to do the same for the
President of Singapore. For he too is hampered by out-of-bounds
markers, the special constraints imposed on him by the constitution
which forbids him to say or do anything that might be construed as
disapproval of government policy. By challenging these markers and
removing them, they want him to be an independent voice of the people,
that dares raise itself, whenever necessary, on their behalf. Judging by
their fervid, boundless activity in the Internet in the run-up to the
presidential election, it is clear that they want to continue to use the
same powerful instrument to achieve their purpose. If they succeed,
they will in effect change forever the role of the Elected President
(EP) and secure another people’s victory this year, surely one of the
most remarkable years in Singapore’s electoral history.

But this time, the challenge is very much complicated by a powerful
counter-challenge by the government, in the form of that most sacrosanct
instrument of the social compact—the constitution. The constitution
clearly spells out the role of the EP in its nature and scope: it is
custodial, not executive; it is in harmony with, not against, the
decisions of the government; in tone, it is dignified, in bearing
stately, not cantankerous and demeaning of its high office. To refute
the claims and promises of independence made by certain presidential
hopefuls, PAP ministers have painstakingly drawn attention to these
strictures in the constitution.

But the vociferous anti-PAP camp, still flush with the success of GE
2011, has little patience for the legalisms and punctilio of a
constitution, as can be seen in the vigorous, unbridled exchanges among
netizens bent on bringing out into the open allegedly past misdeeds of
those hopefuls who are perceived to be favoured by the government. The
prevailing attitude seems to be that since the constitution was created
more than 20 years ago by a self-serving government that provided it
with enough ambiguities to allow for an interpretation that will always
suit their purpose, it is no longer relevant. Indeed, it contradicts the
new spirit of openness, transparency and expanded powers for the
people, ushered in by the watershed GE 2011, that a humbled PAP
leadership has actually acknowledged and promised to promote.

Ironically, in the midst of the government’s deliberately conspicuous
efforts to establish a more amicable relationship with the people
(which some observers consider as needlessly effusive and overdone,
detracting from the image of strong, confident leadership ), the
estrangement persists in its most exacerbated form in the current EP
controversy.

In addition to the unbridgeable gap between the diametrically opposed
perceptions of a purely custodial role, on the one hand, and an
actively adversarial one on the other, there are the following equally
irreconcilable divergencies:
where the government insists that the EP has veto power in only the five
areas specified by the constitution, which include the protection of
past reserves and the appointment of key personnel, the critics clearly
want the EP to have a say in a whole array of other issues, especially
those that had been their greatest concerns in GE 2011, namely, the
ministerial salaries, the employment of foreign workers and unaffordable
housing—and, presumably, any issue which affects the lives of
Singaporeans.
Where the government emphasizes dignity, gravitas and acumen as the most
important qualities for the EP, the people want to see fearlessness,
courage and readiness to stand up to a powerful government.
Where the government wants the presidential voice, if it needs to be
critical, to be so only in quiet, private consultation with the Prime
Minister, the people will be satisfied with no less than open and public
accounting.

In short, the differences are so vast that beyond the vague general
agreement that the president must uphold the integrity of the highest
office in the land, there is no common meeting ground. Every discussion
on the EP is hence an impasse from the start.

Indeed, so intense is the clamouring of the people for change, so
adamant is the government about preserving intact the constitutionality
of the presidential role and so riddled with anomalies is the
constitution itself when subjected to tests of real-life applications
(as was evident in a recent forum where the Law Minister bravely
answered questions put to him by academics and political analysts) that
the rancour is likely to continue well beyond the election on 27 August,
regardless of who gets elected.

The new president, no matter how he chooses to play out his role,
will be in the unenviable position of being continually scrutinized and
criticized in the light of his previous formal association, or absence
of it, with the PAP. If he had been a former stalwart in the PAP
administration, and had been publicly favoured by the government, he
will be seen as just one more in a line of perfectly acquiescent, cosily
harmonious presidents, exactly as the PAP had always intended and
desired. If he had been formerly a member of the PAP but had pointedly
distanced himself from it, whatever efforts he makes at asserting his
independence will be overshadowed by the past links, or even seen as the
sheer futility of trying to shake off an unshakeable, deeply entrenched
PAP mentality. If he had never been a PAP member, the expectations of
him will be so unrealistically high that whatever evidence of
independence he displays will elicit disappointment as being not enough.
And since the presidential salary is tied to ministerial salaries, any
angry response to the outcome of the review currently being undertaken,
will not spare him.

In the new political climate after GE 2011, the greatest loser might
just be the EP, because he will have to bear the brunt of the anomalies,
confusions and conflicts of a society that has been suddenly and
unexpectedly thrust into the flux of transition. He will be stuck in an
impossible situation, for the out-of-bounds markers set out in the
constitution will strait-jacket him, making a mockery of his popular
mandate and the will of the people who had directly elected him. He has
continually to maintain the difficult balance between the need, on the
one hand, to present the magisterial bearing and calm composure and
detachment expected of a president, and, on the other, to project an
image of empathy and affinity with the man-in-the-street, all the time
aware that he is being watched and judged, and that the savage
criticisms and relentless exposure of his private life, that he had
endured during the run-up to the election, will by no means end with the
high office he now holds. Rightly or wrongly, he will be linked with a
government that has fallen so far in the people’s regard that close
association with them is seen as something of a taint. With the
traditional protective mantle of his office stripped away, he will be at
the mercy of netizens who themselves enjoy the protective anonymity of
the Internet.

The experience of the presidential election of 2011 could well be the
most bruising, divisive and ugliest election in Singapore’s history. It
may be necessary when a system ends up with nobody being a winner, and
everybody having a bad taste in the mouth, to take another look at it,
and subject it to an honest review.




Check out her blog at Catherinelim.sg