Commenting on the roles and limitations of the President at a forum held at the Institute of Policy Studies:
The Law Minister noted that the elected president can influence the prime minister through their regular discussions. “Whether the president actually wields influence obviously depends on who the president is,” he said. “If he is someone who commands little or no respect of the prime minister, then of course influence will be limited.’”
via President can only speak and act as advised by the Cabinet
So, is the Minister implying that if the electorate votes in the wrong candidate, they would get an ineffectual President, not by virtue of what said President can offer, does, or says, but by virtue of the regard the Prime Minister has for the individual? Does that not bring into question the regard that the PM and his Cabinet has for the State’s highest office?
During the National Day Parade, over which the President presides, have you noticed that when the National Anthem is played, the President does not sing? It’s not because he is unpatriotic. Rather, as head of State, he is the symbolic embodiment of the State; the State cannot sing a song to itself, right? And here we have Shanmugam basically saying that the PM will pick and choose the level of respect he has for the person occupying said office; that a different level of regard might be shown to a Tan Jee Say as President as compared to a Tony Tan as President. Is that the right way for the Executive to engage with the President? If the people are accused of not thinking highly of the office of President, who do you think they take the cue from? I call on the Minister, if not PM, himself, to clarify their stand on engaging the Presidency.
He goes on to say:
So if he does [act against what has been provided for in the Constitution], what you can do, he’s acting unconstitutionally. Various consequences laid out. I will prefer not to go into that.
Why so coy, Minister? It’s not that hard to explain the procedure that is laid out in the Constitution. I quote:
Vacation of and removal from office of President
22L.(3) The Prime Minister or not less than one-quarter of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in Article 39 (1) (a) may give notice of a motion alleging that the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity or that the President has been guilty of —
(a) intentional violation of the Constitution;
(b) treason;
(c) misconduct or corruption involving the abuse of the powers of his office; or
(d) any offence involving fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude,
and setting out full particulars of the allegations made and seeking an inquiry and report thereon.(4) Where the motion referred to in clause (3) has been adopted by not less than half of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in Article 39 (1) (a), the Chief Justice shall appoint a tribunal to inquire into the allegations made against the President.
(5) A tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice shall consist of not less than 5 Judges of the Supreme Court of whom the Chief Justice shall be one, unless he otherwise decides and such tribunal may regulate its own procedure and make rules for that purpose.
(6) A tribunal shall, after due inquiry at which the President shall have the right to appear and to be heard in person or by counsel, make a report of its determination to the Speaker together with the reasons therefor. [sic]
(7) Where the tribunal reports to the Speaker that in its opinion the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity or that the President has been guilty of any of the other allegations contained in such resolution, Parliament may by a resolution passed by not less than three-quarters of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in Article 39 (1) (a) remove the President from office.
What other consequences is the Law Minister talking about and are they extra-Constitutional? Instead of not going into them, I think the onus is on Shanmugam to explain himself.
Finally, I think the Law Minister missed the point on this exchange:
Tommy Koh: [who moderated the panel] Supposing the president goes to a school for children with a particular disability. Suppose at the end of the visit, he were to say, ‘I’m very impressed by the teachers, I’m very impressed by the students. But I think the physical plan of the school is not good enough.’
K. Shanmugam: Cross the red line? I don’t think so. I think these situations have got to be resolved by common sense. First of all, he will be entitled to say anything he thinks, including the physical plans or the lack of proper care, et cetera, to the prime minister. But separately in public I think he’s entitled to talk about the state of repair or disrepair. And I wouldn’t think that’s crossing the line.
Tommy Koh: Would it cross the red line if he were to go further and say that Singapore has not yet acceded to the (United Nations) Convention (on the Rights of Disabled People)? He should not say this in public?
K. Shanmugam: Absolutely. Which conventions we accede to is an issue decided in Cabinet. There are good reasons why we accede to some and not to others.
So how is pointing out Fact A, “the state of repair or disrepair,” different from pointing out Fact B, that Singapore has not yet acceded to the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People? You can say it, I can say it; pointing out the obvious is not the purview of the Cabinet, last I checked. So, why can’t the President say it? Such an arrangement is akin to giving the President even less freedom of expression than the average citizen. If that is the case, the question might be, we vote for what?
Ridzal graduated with a Master of Arts in International Performance Research from the University of Warwick, awarded jointly with the University of Tampere, Finland, and funded by an Erasmus Mundus scholarship from the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European Union. Prior to pursuing the M.A., Ridzal graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Second Class Honours (Upper) in Theatre Studies from the National University of Singapore.
Presidential Election Watch Part IV – Why “Voice of the People” is a good platform for Presidential Election?
http://de-leviathan.blogspot.com/2011/08/presidential-election-watch-part-iv-why.html
Hi, I was wondering if you’d allow TOC to post this in full on our website. Thanks.
Sure.
Thanks Ridzal. Can you give me your email address? Mine is ravi@raviphilemon.net. Thanks.
Why have Singapore not acceded to the United Nations convention of the Rights of disabled persons is the question I want to ask our cabinet ministers. What Possible drawback can not acceding to such conventions be? So we need to build greater access to disabled people in government and private buildings, so what?
As for the President, irregardless of who wins the votes for President, the cabinet must recognize the President was chosen by the electorate. If the cabinet decides to remove the President because of what he/she says is considered inappropriate, then the onus is on the cabinet to explain to the electorate why they think removal is neccessary. As it will become a precedent and may backfire on the government, i doubt the Cabinet will actually act on it knowing that they will risk alienating the very voters they wish to court.
Precedent is pretty much the reason why this should be discussed and questions raised. Precedent that should not be at the mercy of an 81 to 6 PAP-dominated Parliament. If we accept the Constitution as the highest law of the land, we must question this one man’s interpretation of it and also make sure that it is not easy for an overwhelming PAP majority to bulldoze any changes to it through. As it is, I find that there aren’t enough Constitutional specialists in the field. Bad enough that the populace aren’t asking for more things that are already accorded to them in the Constitution.
Hi Ridzal,
>> You can say it, I can say it; pointing out the obvious is not the purview of the Cabinet, last I checked. So, why can’t the President say it? Such an arrangement is akin to giving the President even less freedom of expression than the average citizen. If that is the case, the question might be, we vote for what?
Just because you and I can say it, doesn’t mean the President or government leaders can say it. There are responsibilities and limitations to each role.
For example, you and I can stand up and say that we think UMNO should lose the next Malaysian elections. Do you think our Foreign Minister or President can stand up and say that?
You and I can say that we think National Service should be cut down to one year. Do you think Khaw Boon Wan can say it in public, considering Defence is not within his portfolio?
My point is that despite what all of us think personally, each role within the government and state have assigned responsibilities and limitations. If everyone thinks they have the right to “override” those limitations and protocols, what will the world come to?
But the way Shanmugam phrased it, it’s not even a matter of opinion anymore; the President can’t even point out a fact like Singapore not acceding to a particular UN Convention, because then it becomes policy. That is problematic. And, at what point does an individual cease having and standing by his opinion? Say Tan Jee Say is against the death penalty. Should he be elected President, does he cease being against the death penalty? Can I respect him if he uses the “outside my purview” excuse and just goes “no comment” when said topic is broached in public?
Yes, I do want politicians and leaders with opinions and the courage to express and stand by them. Otherwise, who are we electing if not critical-thinking individuals to fill public office? More ‘rubber stamps’? Is that the world you would prefer?
I would hope that whoever we elect to public office has the sense not to make any statements that might be construed as interfering in the affairs of another country.
Khaw Boon Wan is also a Member of Parliament. Even if Defence is not within his portfolio, should such a question be debated in Parliament, and there is strong sentiment on the ground, the onus is on the Parliamentarian to speak up for his constituents.
Now, you might argue that the President does not have any other portfolio/does not belong to any other branch of government, so he cannot express himself in any other capacity. But, we make such a big deal of having a popularly elected President; what is the popular vote for? If anything, it is precisely because he does not have any Legislative/Executive/Judiciary powers, except limited veto power, that he should be allowed to speak up. His mandate comes from the people, not the PEC (if it does its job objectively), nor Cabinet, nor the Council of Presidential Advisers; these should serve the highest office in the land, not vice-versa.
There’s either something wrong with the Constitution, or there’s something wrong with the interpretation of the Constitution (‘advice’ interpreted as ‘order’?), or there’s something wrong with the popularly elected aspect of the office.
Actually you are wrong on 1 point. There is no law to state President cannot sing the Nat
Anthem. I have seen Prez Wee Kim Wee sang during the NDP.
Its just that current incumbant is not doing it, which add into people’s impression of
his acutally doing nothing at all during his 12 year tenure
I never said there was a law. It’s a matter of precedent, and possibly protocol, which we inherited from our former colonial rulers (the sovereign does not sing God Save the Queen, for example, and, traditionally, as head of state he is a living symbol of the state) and you’re right, President Wee Kim Wee did use to sing it. In fact, President Nathan was seen singing the National Anthem at at least the first NDP he presided over.
But I guess what I am trying to drive across is that, even as we argue for a more effective President, the symbolic power of the office is as important, if not more. And for Shanmugam to say whether the person occupying the office has influence over the PM depends on the individual is, to me, just wrong. If PM and Cabinet cannot respect the person, they have to still respect the office. I’ve seen people compare our President to the President of the United States; that is not accurate. Better to compare to the British Queen or the Thai King, albeit popularly elected instead of inherited. That’s the level of dignity we want; more than just a rubber stamp.