Flushed with political
capital from a trouncing 70% mandate captured at the September 2015 General
Elections, the PAP Government kicked off its 13th Parliament in January 2016 by
announcing plans to make changes to Singapore's political system.
Presumably to serve Singaporeans,
but perhaps to serve the PAP's hegemony, the plans would include changes to the
Elected Presidency (EP).
Appointment of a Constitutional Commission
In a generous gesture
towards open and consultative governance, the PAP Government commissioned nine
highly credentialed, well-known Singaporeans (the “Commission”) to study and make recommendations to the Government on
certain aspects of the EP.
Significantly, this
would be only the second constitutional commission since Singapore's
independence. The only other time we had a constitutional commission was on 12 August
1965, just three days after Singapore's independence, when Prime Minister Lee
Kuan Yew sought Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin to convene a commission to
recommend a Constitution for the new Republic.
Notably, the Government
confined the Commission to three specific aspects of the EP:
- a mechanism to safeguard minority
representation;
- the
qualifying criteria for candidacy; and
- the role of the Council of Presidential Advisers.
The Commission immediately
organized a nationwide public consultation, in the process of which the
Commission received 107 written submissions and heard oral representations from
19 contributors over four full-day public hearings.
The appointment of the
Commission and public consultation it undertook received the full measure of
coverage by the mainstream media.
In August 2016, the Commission
submitted its 183-page
Report
to the Government.
Regarding the aspect of a
mechanism to safeguard minority representation, the Commission recommended a
reserved election scheme. When a member from any racial group has not occupied
the President’s office for five continuous terms, the next Presidential
elections should be reserved for candidates from that group. In the event that
no suitable candidate from that group emerges, that election would then be
opened to candidates of all races. The reserved election would then be deferred
to the next presidential election, and the practice of holding a reserved
election will continue until a candidate from the racial group for which a
reserved election had been convened is elected as President.
White Paper
In September 2016, in
response to the Commission’s Report, the Government released its
White
Paper on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill
(the “
Bill”) that would bring in the
changes to the EP.
According to the White
Paper, the Government and accepted in principle the Commission’s main
recommendations.
In particular, the
Government agreed with the Commission’s proposed safeguard mechanism of holding
reserved elections when a particular race group has not been represented in the
Presidential office after five continuous terms.
However, in some areas
the Government rejected the Commission’s recommendations or accepted them with
modifications, so there were a number of recommendations which did not make it
to the Bill which the Government presented to Parliament for debate.
Interestingly, the
Commission took the liberty of deviating from the confines of its terms of reference
to put in a recommendation that the EP be abolished altogether, suggesting that
we should go back to the old system of appointing the President. The Commission
suggested that the President’s symbolic and custodial roles be “unbundled” and
divided into two different institutions. The appointed President would serve his
symbolic and ceremonial role as the Head of State with the custodial role given
to an appointed specialist body. The Commission thought that a nominated presidency
would better suit its symbolic function as a unifying figure who represents
multi-racial Singapore. Predictably, the Government categorically rejected the
Commission’s idea of returning to a nominated presidency.
Qualifying Criteria for Candidacy
Regarding the aspect of qualifying
criteria for candidacy, the Commission made three recommendations:
- That the offices of the Accountant-General and
the Auditor-General be removed from the list of public-sector qualifying
offices;
- That the period which qualifying public sector
candidates must hold office be increased from three to six years; and
- That the benchmark of $100
million in shareholders’ equity required for private sector candidates be
increased to $500 million.
Of those three
recommendations on qualifying criteria for candidacy, the Government rejected
all but one.
The Government rejected
the Commission’s recommendation to remove the offices of the Accountant-General
and the Auditor-General from the list of public-sector
qualifying offices under the automatic track. As such, there was no provision in the Bill
to amend the existing list of public-sector qualifying offices.
The Government also
rejected the Commission’s recommendation to double the duration which
applicants must have served in the qualifying public-sector office, from 3 to 6
years. The duration which applicants
must have served in the qualifying public-sector office would remain as 3
years.
We now know that had that
particular recommendation been adopted, Halimah Yacob who was Speaker of
Parliament for 4.5 years (14 January 2013 to 7 August 2017) - would not have
qualified.
On the other hand, for
private sector aspirants, the Government accepted the Commission’s
recommendation to increase the benchmark of $100 million to $500 million in
shareholders’ equity. It later transpired
that two aspirants from the private sector were found ineligible to run for the
EP on the basis of failing to meet this new criterion.
- Did the Government play double standards when it
rejected the Commission’s recommendation in respect of public sector candidates
while accepting the Commission’s recommendation in respect of private sector
candidates?
- Were the qualifying criteria for public sector
candidates set too low?
- Indeed, how challenging is the role of a Speaker
in a parliament where the opposition number 6 MPs out of 89?
- Were the qualifying criteria for private sector
candidates set too high?
- Does the emphasis on financial competency
undermine the EP’s equally important symbolic function as a unifying figure for
multi-racial Singapore?
- How can we be assured that qualifying criteria
for candidacy did not privilege the ruling party and the political elites at
the expense of democracy and the political independence of the EP?
The Government’s Prerogative
The Government chose to
appoint a Commission to study and make recommendations to the Government. The
Government chose the members of the Commission and determined its terms of
reference. It is the Government’s
prerogative to accept, reject or modify any of the recommendations made.
The Government’s
decision on which of the Commission’s suggestions to pick, discard or modify,
is not open for debate.
What the Government put
up for Parliament to debate on was the Bill - the end result of the
Government’s cherry-picking exercise.
On 7 November 2016, the
Bill was tabled to Parliament. It was at this point, that the Prime Minister dropped
the bombshell. The Government had decided that when the Bill was passed, the
next presidential elections would be one reserved for Malays. By the
Government’s reckoning, the five-term count starts from President Wee Kim Wee.
The Bill was debated in
Parliament over three days. 39 Members
of Parliament (MPs) — including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and five
ministers weighed in.
Needless to say, the
Bill was passed by Parliament on 9 November 2016.
For record purposes, the
Bill was passed by a vote of 77 to 6, with all six elected MPs from the
opposition Workers’ Party objecting.
With the passing of the
Bill, Singaporeans braced themselves for a presidential election reserved for
Malays.
On 7 August 2017, Halimah
Yacob, a member of the PAP since 2001, resigned from her positions as Speaker
and MP, and from her membership in the PAP to announce her a candidacy for the
2017 presidential election. Her decision to run was endorsed by the Prime
Minister as well as many other PAP leaders, making it crystal clear to everyone
that she was the PAP’s choice.
On 28 August 2017, the
Government issued the Writ of Election.
On Nomination Day, Halimah
Yacob turned out to be the only applicant eligible to run for the EP under the
changed rules. On 14 September 2017, merely 37 days after leaving the PAP, she become
the 8th President of Singapore.
The PAP made as if switching
immediately from active PAP politician to non-partisan unifier for all
Singaporeans was no big deal. But for
other Singaporeans, her close ties with the ruling party begged the question: when
she becomes President and start holding the second key, can she really act independently
from the ruling party and be an effective check on the Government? The question
became rhetorical as she was the only candidate for the EP.
The cancellation of
polls came as a shock to Singaporeans. All the months and months of talk about
the EP engendered by the mainstream media, got many Singaporeans geared up with
anticipation for the excitement of hustings and electioneering, and for the
privilege to mark their choice with an X on ballot slip. News of a one-horse
race was not just a let-down. Singaporeans felt robbed of their participation
in politics.
Moreover, that the 2017
presidential election was to be one reserved for Malays was already mired in
controversy. For many Singaporeans, the Government’s reasoning that the count
should start with President Wee Kim Wee because he was the first President “
who
exercised the powers of the Elected President” was incredulous, failed
logic and difficult to swallow. Singaporeans
are clear in their minds that our first Elected President was Ong Teng Cheong.
A 5-member Court of Appeal’s dismissal of a legal challenge to the Government’s
insistence on starting the count with President Wee Kim Wee, did little to
assuage the widespread cynicism that the Government would have their way even
at the expense of logic.
The PAP Government has
the dubious distinction of making many innovations to our political system: the
Nominated Member of Parliament scheme, the Non-Constituency Member of
Parliament scheme, the Group Representation Constituency scheme, and of course
the EP. Our Constitution has endued numerous amendments, usually coming into
effect shortly before an election. In
the cynic’s view, it’s like moving the goal posts so that the opponent can
never strike a goal.
The recent amendments to
the Constitution to change the EP rules coming in just months before the 2017 EP
elections, is par for the course with the PAP.
Is the PAP Government’s
constant tinkering with our political system a form of gerrymandering?
The 2017 presidential
elections becoming a one-horse race, the citizenry’s contempt and suspicion
that the whole episode was but a charade to shoo-in a ruling party stalwart –
did the PAP Government see that coming?
Was the PAP Government a
victim of its own gerrymandering?
Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
2 October 2017
