Faisal Wali
Istana, the Presidential Palace of Singapore
Earlier articles have pointed out that the President of Singapore holds substantive power in 5 areas. They are protection of Singapore’s reserves, appointment of key personnel within the civil service, Internal Security Act detentions, investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and restraining orders connected to the maintenance of religious harmony. The purpose of Presidential election is thus to select a candidate who can best perform his duty in these areas.
The issue is how much do we voters know enough of the Presidential candidates to decide which candidate to vote for? With that, there is an irony of the nature of Presidential contest rules as compared with those that govern our General Elections (GE).
A candidate contesting a ward for the GE may hold more than one rally at his ward. It is even possible for him to speak at rallies outside his ward. One example is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who won and retained Ang Mo Kio GRC, speaking at an Aljunied GRC rally. Mr Low Thia Khiang of the Worker’s Party also spoke at an East Coast GRC rally even as he contested and won Aljunied GRC. That is just for one ward.
A presidential candidate on the other hand has to be elected by all and sundry in Singapore, i.e. all eligible voters hailing from more than just one ward. Thus, it is ironical that while a GE candidate may hold more than one rally at his ward and speak at rallies outside his ward, a Presidential candidate who must reach out to every eligible voter is entitled to only one rally.
Intuitively, we would think that Presidential candidates should need more than one rally, and at rally sites throughout Singapore in order to get their message across to voters living in different parts of the island. However, that is not the case.
The government appears meticulous in its exercise to select potential candidates, each of whom must fulfil stringent criteria. Yet, one rule that governs the process of Presidential contest is a severe contradiction to the government’s ultra-selective stand on the candidates – they are only allowed to hold one rally.
If the government clearly wants the most qualified candidate to ascend to Presidency, allowing only one rally is not consistent with the stand.
Defenders of this rule may argue that Presidential candidates can reach out to the public online or in TV broadcasts. However, one must realise that live crowd engagement in an election rally is different from sending out messages in online or TV broadcasts.
The candidate’s body language, demeanour, response to the crowd cheers or jeers and many other aspects of public relations are at display here. Surely, how well a candidate performs in such rallies could have a deterministic impact on the electoral outcome. TV and online media have their limitations in being unable to demonstrate a candidate’s live engagement with the public.
Surely, the public wants a President who is able represent himself and articulate well within the public sphere.
However, the issue now is that our authorities are functioning like organisers of a best actor contest where contesting actors have to initially meet high bars of entry. However, after that, they are subjected to only one acting contest to separate the winning actor from the rest. The fact is that one acting contest alone does not tell us who is the best actor.
If we want a President who can carry himself well in public, surely allowing him more than one rally that enables him to demonstrate his public engagement skills will allow us the voters to make a more informed choice.
If not, just stipulating for only one rally for each and every presidential candidate is not consistent with a “stringent” stand on selecting candidates for presidential office. After all, public relations is an important attribute that a politician must possess, but unfortunately, we as voters do not have much opportunity to see this aspect of the incoming president.
—
Photo courtesy of Jimmy Liew, Flickr Commons
Is the author of this article stupid or just acting stupid?
Presidential election there is only 1 ward… the entire Singapore is one ward.
And it does not make sense for the candidates to campaign outside
the ward. You expect them to do rally in JB? Batam? or Pulau Tioman?
NAR is fast becoming another TR with article like this.
Hi Tan Ah Beng,
Perhaps your line of thought is one dimensional. While Singapore is one ward for the Presidential Election, you have failed to consider the geographical challenges that each Presidential Candidate must face in reaching out to every voter. There should be more rallies across multiple sites in Singapore to reach out to the populace. The way that TV rallies are conducted in Singapore is too clinical.
Dimensional?? I think you shot your own foot.
In USA, Los Angeles have about 4 million people… (similar to Singapore)…
guess how many times Obama and his opponent made addresses over there
during the presidential election? And geographically it was even more challenging
in the USA where people are very disperse and population density much lower.
Hi Tan Ah Beng,
The dynamics of the US Presidential Campaign is vastly different from Singapore’s. Sure, the population size of Los Angeles is close to Singapore’s while it has a smaller population density. However, the US Presidential candidate has to target the entire country which has a population of 311M. Are you suggesting that a Presidential candidate should not maximise his outreach just because Singapore is smaller?
Secondly, US Presidential Campaign typically starts at least a year before the Presidential Election. Each candidate would be activating sponsors, volunteers and party activists across many states to raise his own publicity. Whether or not a US Presidential candidate has visited a specific town or city, he already has a campaign presence there for a year. This is unlike the ‘shock and awe’ manner which elections are held in Singapore, whereby election dates are not known until the last minute, not forgetting that pre-election campaigning is heavily regulated here.
@Ah Beng:
I think what the author is trying to say by ward is those GRCs and SMCs that make up Singapore. I don’t think the author meant campaigning outside Singapore.
For example, during General Elections, candidates can hold more than one rally at Aljunied GRC. In the presidential elections, it is the whole Singapore, more than just Aljunied GRC.
“A candidate contesting a ward for the GE may hold more than one rally at his ward. It is even possible for him to speak at rallies outside his ward. One example is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who won and retained Ang Mo Kio GRC, speaking at an Aljunied GRC rally. Mr Low Thia Khiang of the Worker’s Party also spoke at an East Coast GRC rally even as he contested and won Aljunied GRC. That is just for one ward.”
I don’t see how relevant your example of US is. You can definitely hold more than one rally in a single state in the US. Sg is definitely different.
I don’t think you really comprehended that article. It will be good for you to comprehend the article first before passing judgements.
@Anon has clearly comprehended the article and has tried to explain to you.
@Ah Beng
To further assist your comprehension of the article, read this phrase by the writer:
“Intuitively, we would think that Presidential candidates should need more than one rally, and at rally sites throughout Singapore in order to get their message across to voters living in different parts of the island. However, that is not the case.”
I really don’t know what kind of reasoning you apply in reading that article..to lead you to your deductions.
Hi Dobbie,
The US example was not directed at the article. It was in response to the comment by Anonymous about geographical challenges for Singapore’s Presidential Election, which I think is an non-issue.
Regards
Ah Beng
Ok, i thought you failed to comprehend when u wrote about the author suggesting contesting outside Sg.
Geographical challenge is a non issue in SIngapore but the issue is that Singapore has only one rally, unlike the US where candidates can hold more than one rally, and even go further without campaign restrictions.
A one rally only in a nine day campaign period is too little and too restrictive.
A one time rally could only reach out to 30,000 plus people, a limitation of approved rally sites previously used during GE2011.
The “one rally only” restriction is to prevent candidates like Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian from stirring up the “check and balance” sentiments which should be inherent in every voters mind when he cast his vote for the Elected President – whether pro-PAP or Pro- Opposition supporters.
It is just ploy to prevent these two EP candidates from reaching out to voters who voted PAP in the GE2011 but are not necessary loyal supporters as such. When weighed against a desire for a Check and Balance role to safe-guard his CPF savings all voters in the EP election has a common self-interest and will discard political party affiliation. This reflect the true fear in the minds of PAP strategist team on the EP outcome.
Come on… when there was a walkover… we complained.
When it was a 2 person race… we complained also.
Now we have a 4 corner fight… and of course we complained again.
Can we take it one step at a time? At least now there is former
opposition party member APPROVED to take part in the race.
That’s a small change in number of candidates, but a giant leap of
faith on liberalisation by the PAP. Rome was not built on one day..
similarly a credible alternative government cannot be formed just
by 1 election.
Remember the Ling How Doong and Cheo Chai Chern days? Did
it did any good for multi-party politics in Singapore?
At least this current opposition team in parliament are taking a
correct strategy… they need to establish themselves in one GRC
and doing well in it before taking on more GRCs and aim to be
alternative government in THE FUTURE (NOT NOW). Some
people mentioned that the WP was too much like the PAP of the old
days… I think that is not a bad thing anyway… PAP of the yesteryears
delivered what the people wanted then.
So IMHO this is the GREAT LEAP FORWARD for Presidential politics in Singapore.
Please also be mindful that the PAP have used up their trump cards. There are NOT
many “Tony Tan” calibre people left that they can put forward for future elections.
Tan Ah Beng:
Please don’t be so disingenious lar. You want to walk small baby steps to change or make larger steps?
Simply put, if elected presidency is such a role of importance, why only one rally? You think complaining has no uses is it? Criticisms highlighted in complaints are the foundation of progress.
Problem with ppl like you who are content with where you are is that you fail to self-examine or self-critique even at every small step, and that is where you fall behind.
Hi Ah Seng,
I don’t think I am falling behind…. in fact I am quite advanced in my age..
Please do not look down on the technological ability of the elders… I had
my own personal computer before the first IBM PC came into the world.
Probably great young man/woman like you are very idealistic and want to
change the world… solve world hunger.. create world peace… and solve
the Israeli/Palestinians conflicts.
I believe in evolutionary changes rather than revolutionary changes. Guess
how much better the life of the people in Middle East are now after the
arab spring uprisings?
Even in China when the liberation ended, things were not too good for MANY YEARS
until Deng decided to open up. In fact I have not heard of things getting much better
after a revolution.
You believe in evolution?
So in what way has the role of president evolved? They now need a Certificate of Eligibility and president has limited powers.
If you understood the concept of evolution, some animals can loose certain parts of their bodies. You know those animals found in caves underground? They lost the use of their eyes.
And it seems our President now have limited role in its function. And with the certificate of eligibility. Show me how has the role of Presidency evolved forwards? Looks like backwards to me.
It certainly looks like the body of the President has evolved backyards. He cannot use certain parts of the body.
THere is nothing wrong with aiming to make big steps, with an ambition to aim comes the desire to work towards it.
Ah Seng,
I think your narrow definition of evolution is the cause of your inability to grasp the conceptual content of my statement.
Have no fear.. let uncle Beng help you. Wikipedia is here to enlighten you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(disambiguation)
Pay attention to sociocultural evolution.
Probably you are also too young to remember that Presidential hopefuls needed Certificate of Eligibility since 1993. This COE is NOT a new thing.
Remembering a bit of history will do you good, young man.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it”
Hi Tan Ah Beng,
Evolution and revolution are 2 different faces of the same thing – change. Either way, nobody can deny change. We shouldn’t reject either of them.
I know what is evolution about, and it is about adapting to the environment.
It has got nothing to do with age, so don’t assume that you are older than my good self. For the record, I have retired.
I just dont see how your playing with the words on evolution has addressed the debate here.
Already, @anon has told you about the restriction of the powers of the president and he is right about the Council of Presidential advisors. You have chose to ignore that and is playing with words like evolution.
And before you sound ignorant, do you know how sociocultural evolution differs from biological evolution?
If anything, since you bring up the point about socio-cultural evolution, even the PAP found it way behind. Why do u think it took GE 2011 for it to understand the impact of new media.
Hi Tan Ah Beng,
Look what I found here on NAR: http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=31629
It is an article written by law professor Thio Li-Ann that explains the evolution of the Elected Presidency.