Chan Jia Hui
Istana, the Presidential Palace of Singapore
It is a reasonable assumption to make that in any job entry criteria, the more selective it is, the higher the likelihood that such a position is going to impact more lives. Such is the responsibility that comes with that position.
The criteria that an individual must pass in order to qualify for candidature for Singapore’s presidency is an example of an extremely stringent one. The individual must hold high political office, i.e. being a cabinet minister, be a top law officer as either Attorney-General or Chief Justice, a high-flying civil servant or a holder of a very important position of a company in the private sector, namely being the chairman of the board of directors of a company with a paid up capital of at least $100 million.
One impact of such criteria is that the pool of potential candidates shrinks. Furthermore, this leads to allegations that potential candidates are likely to come from People’s Action Party (PAP) or harbour close links to the party. It appears so if we explore the career history of current presidential hopefuls Mr Tan Kin Lian, Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Dr Tony Tan.
Kin Lian was formerly a CEO of NTUC Income – NTUC is an organisation that has enjoyed close links with the PAP historically since the Devan Nair days where individuals have held appointments in both organisations. Cheng Bock was a former PAP candidate and Member of Parliament, and works as general practitioner. Dr Tony Tan was not only a former PAP candidate, but was also former Minister for Defence and Deputy Prime Minister.
It is reasonable to expect the President to exert greater responsibilities that impact the lives of Singaporeans that comes with the stringent criteria for electoral participation. The reason for such stringent criteria appears to lie with the financial powers of the president.
The President of Singapore is the fiscal guardian of our past reserves, and transactions involving the use of such reserves require the President’s approval. The President’s approval is also needed if the budgets of various government statutory boards such as Central Provident Fund Board, or Housing Development Fund board are likely to draw on their past reserves.
Similarly, for Government companies such as Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Pte Ltd, MND Holdings Pte Ltd and Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd, they have to consult the President’s approval if they wish to draw on their past reserves.
In addition, the President may withhold or give his assent to a Supply Bill in order to allow the Bill to come into effect. What culminates in the Supply Bill is that the government establishes its planned revenues and expenditures for the financial year.
The Minister for Finance will next present the budget to the parliament before the start of the new financial year, in which the expenditure past and projected will be debated among Members of Parliament (MPs). Once parliament agrees to the budget, approval is granted by passage of what is known as the Supply Bill. For the Bill to come into effect, the President has to give his assent.
The President may withhold assent to the Supply Bill for a given fiscal year if it is likely to draw on the past reserves. However, the withholding of assent may be overruled by a parliamentary resolution passed by at least two-thirds of all elected MPs. This limits the powers of the President, as he can be overruled by MPs, and he may not provide a check and balance if parliamentary spending for a given year may be approved by majority of MPs but not necessarily be in Singapore’s best interest, as an example.
Furthermore, the President’s financial powers are limited by changes in our constitution over the past decade. Amendments in 2004 allowed government companies and statutory boards to transfer their surpluses to each other or to the government without the President’s scrutiny. Article 148I further allows the government to transfer its past reserves to any statutory board or government companies without the President’s consent.
There is one implication of Article 148I, in addition to the 2004 amendments coupled with the fact that the President can be overruled by the parliament over yearly budgeting issues: the perception of the parliament exerting greater power and responsibility over Singapore and Singaporean’s lives as compared with the President is reinforced.
Herein lies the irony. The barriers that qualify one to be a parliamentarian (MP) isn’t as stringent as that required of a presidential candidate, vote casting results aside. So long as one is not a bankrupt and can foot the electoral deposit of $16,000 as per rules of the latest parliamentary elections, one can participate in the elections.
One does not necessarily need to be a minister, top civil servant, top legal officer or chairman of the board of directors of a company with a paid up capital of $100 million. Even a freelancer, who doesn’t have a steady stream of income can contest in the parliamentary elections.
The irony does not stop there. An MP exerts greater responsibility over the lives of Singaporeans. He has to deal with mundane problems like car parking issues to more major bread and butter concerns like helping residents to search for jobs during Meet-the-people sessions.
The responsibility does not stop there. He has to deal with the financial and accounting side of things in running his ward, namely that of the town council accounts under his charge. He also has to sit in parliament to debate on issues that concern all aspects of Singaporean’s lives from housing to healthcare, education and what-not.
Last, but not least, the constitution allows him and his fellow MPs to exert a bigger say over the President on budget expenditure even if it meant the use of past reserves. All that is needed is a parliamentary resolution passed by more than two-thirds of elected MPs to overrule the President’s refusal if any.
To digress, if the responsibility of the President is to be a fiscal guardian, wouldn’t it entail a previous financial background? Then, we are not looking for a top civil servant, top legal officer or other non-finance-related but high-flying positions to fulfil the job of a President. Rather, we are looking for specific skill sets. Just as we need a medical practitioner to perform a medical procedure, similarly we need a finance expert to handle finances.
In terms of finance background alone, Kin Lian and Tony appear to boast of such on their CV. The former has done actuarial work and managed multi-billion dollar assets at NTUC Income, while the latter has a background as a mathematician and banker. For Cheng Bock, the verdict is not out on the depth of his financial knowledge and management skills.
Qualifications aside, the irony over the stringent requirements of a Presidential candidate in comparison with an MP wannabe remains ever so conspicuous. The latter exerts a great deal of responsibilities over Singaporeans’ lives directly and his job scope also involves finances. Furthermore, he debates on issues that concern many if not all areas of Singaporeans’ lives.
Yet, it is ironical that it takes more to qualify as a Presidential candidate as compared with an aspiring MP.
—
Photo courtesy of Jimmy Liew, Flickr Commons
‘Qualification’ aside, most of the Presidential Aspirants who claimed to want to work for the wellbeings of the people SHOULD HAVE participated in the Last General Election which will allow them to do more than what a lame president can.
AND
the aspirants know, BUT, they pragmatically choose the more rewarding and colourful ceremonial role.
Lol…………
There is only one president while there are 80+ MP.
If an MP is irrational, it is easy for other MP to overrule him. The President cannot be easily overruled.
The president can be overruled by the MP, if there is two-thirds majority when they pass a parliamentary resolution.
President can still be vetoed by the MP, Sg Lee
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/does-president-074244310.html
“He has no centre of power (Prof S Jayakumar), cannot make policies (K Shanmugam) and is tied down by the Constitution (S R Nathan). Even his power over the country’s reserves and senior civil service appointments were curtailed in 1990 when a change in the law dictated that Parliament can override a presidential veto on reserves or key public service appointments with a two-thirds majority if the President did not accept the advice of his advisers.”
Of course, the unstated question here is, why do we need an Elected President anyway?
Or, for that matter, why do Government Ministers (and Mr Inderjit Singh) feel the need to put their support behind Dr Tony Tan’s presidential bid? Given the limitations on Presidential power, surely it does not matter to them? Or are they concerned over having to overrule the decision of an EP through Parliament and subsequent fallout?
Ah, for every one thing that we learn about the EP, two new questions pop up.
@sg lee
‘If an MP is irrational, it is easy for other MP to overrule him. The President cannot be easily overruled’
First the President had no whatsoever rights to even propose a rule. The President is meant only as a rubber stamp for the PAP. Nobody needs to overrule a rubber stamp who is supposed to be gagged and blindfolded.
The only reason why PAP set such stringent entry regulation is to ensure that there is as little possible challenge to the Presidential Election as PAP wanted. They even hoped that nobody will stand for the EP election except their ENDORSED candidate!