The double paradox of the Elected Presidency

There is much discussion and debate in the papers and social media lately on the roles and duties performed by the Elected President as circumscribed under the Constitution.

With the non-PAP candidates putting Tony Tan on a defensive by emphasizing their ‘independence’ from the government, the PAP and the media initially tried to downplay the influence and importance of the Elected President before making a dramatic U-turn after triggering a massive public backlash.

An increasing number of Singaporeans are questioning the rationale of paying the Elected President an astounding $4.2 million dollars a year if he can only open his mouth on ‘advice’ from the Prime Minister which demeans his office and relegates his role to that of a highly-paid ‘puppet’ of the PAP government.

There are two inherent double paradoxes of the Elected Presidency:

Paradox 1: The duties of the Elected President can be done by a President appointed by the Prime Minister

As one of the candidates Tan Jee Say put it succinctly:

“If you want a unifying role, to be good, to be proper, to be dignified, multi-racialism through football, and through doing good, being respected by outside to unify the country… I think that you don’t need an elected President to do that. You can do that through an appointed President, someone appointed by the Prime Minister.”

The last appointed President Wee Kim Wee fulfilled these duties well and was widely respected by Singaporeans though he was not elected directly by them which raised the question on why there is a need to hold an election when the Prime Minister can simply appoint somebody to be the President.

Paradox 2: The primary role of the Elected President is to prevent a ‘profligate’ government from spending the reserves which is a check on the government

Law Minister Shanmugam said the primary role of the Elected President is to prevent a ‘profligate’ government from spending Singapore’s hard-earned reserves. How is the Elected President able to perform this task if he is not independent of the PAP and posses the moral authority and courage to check on the government?

It is not hard to understand these two paradoxes when one delved deeper into the real partisan purpose of the Elected President – which is no more but a contingency plan for the PAP if it loses power one day.

Under the old system, the non-PAP government has the power to appoint a President and the PAP will have no say in the matter. In the present system, the PAP still stand a chance of putting in its own candidate into the Istana to check on its political opponents in office which explains the stringent criteria favoring senior officials in the establishment.

The PAP’s ‘duplicity’ is again evident in the way they manipulate the system to suit its own selfish interests – if the PAP forms the government, the Elected President can only act on its ‘advice’, but if another party forms the government, the Elected President will be permitted to check on it to prevent it from dismantling the PAP system of government to entrench and perpetuate its political hegemony.

Pamela Tien