For the life of me, I don't see how religious talk can hijack the latest Young Republic thread. Then again...
A: Any comments about the non-contest?
Would it have been really embarrassing for Singapore to have an average upper middle class guy becoming the president?
With the strict criteria for qualification, why do we need a presidential election in the first place?
Reviewing the late Dr Wee Kim Wee's career, he should not have qualified as president either. Yes he was a rather senior journalist, and he had been on ambassadorships here and there. But nothing close to having a hundred million dollars of assets to manage.
B: > If, as you say, the job of the president is a serious one, should we
> make the eligibility criteria for the post less strict so there can be
> more democratic choice?
Yes. There should be no 'active citizen' or 'silver mark in taxes' kind of criteria. We got over that 200 years ago. The current criteria clearly favour the rich and well-connected. It is revolting.
> What sort of criteria would you then propose so that the people would
> definitely not vote in dunces for president?
The 'criteria' I suggest is an election. It is called 'democracy'. Have you heard of this new-fangled idea?
> If the problem is the PEC, then who would you rather assess the
> suitability of Singapore's president?
The electorate. See above.
A: *** asserted to me last night, that people would vote according to religious and/or racial loyalties. It hadn't occured to me that Singaporeans would have voted in Andrew Kuan simply because he is Chinese, but..hmm...
C: The argument that people would vote along racial lines, leading to underrepresentation of minorities, isn't particularly well supported by the record. David Marshall, anyone? And our first elected opposition member after decades of PAP monopoly was JB Jeyaretnam - who overcame not only the 'disadvantage' of being a minority but also the disadvantage of not being from the ruling party, in a constituency (Anson) that wasn't particularly dominated by minorities to any extent.
D: i'm lazy to do detailed research so i might be wrong here. but what is the current list of responsibilities/powers of the elected president? i was only able to find the following.
"Under the revision, the President is empowered to veto government budgets and appointments to public office. He can also examine the Government's exercise of its powers under the Internal Security Act and religious harmony laws, and in investigations into cases of corruption."
is this for real? for some reason (hmm...) i don't recall any of these powers being utilised.
the main duty i know of is to approve/disapprove initiatives dealing with the reserves. does this actually require experience of heading a company with net worth $100m? if so, why do chief justices, attorney-generals, or psc chairmen qualify? granted that they have held senior positions in the civil service, but is there the
'required' financial experience?
if you read today's straits times, somewhere in the commentary section (i think), there was a short article on the role of the elected president. and it discussed matter-of-factly how LKY had created the post not as a check against the current government per se, but rather against rogue governments (ie if the opposition ever came to power). while not exactly a new idea, the fact that it's stated so blatantly
is rather... disgusting.
what a wonderful world.
Me on A's credulous remarks:
>Another concern would be precisely because the public does not
>understand the significance of an elected president. If it is deemed
>to be less than an important office, a presidential election, being
>universal, would serve as a means to vote against any candidate
>endorsed by the ruling party, even if he was in fact, the most
>qualified.
Perhaps the public does not understand the significance of an elected president because they don't have one.
The public also does not understand the significance of a Member of Parliament. We cannot let them make irresponsible choices. Politics is "a perpetual struggle between good and bad forces... The good can continue to win decisively if Singaporeans continue to elect their Government and MPs responsibly." Evidently we cannot elect a President responsibly, so we need the PEC to screen candidates.
If it all comes down to qualification, why don't we have an entrance exam and an interview for our President? The most qualified candidate who impressed the interview panel the most would then become President. Oh wait...
>Note that for now, the campaign period also lasts at most a week or
>so, and it is not at all clear that this is enough time for
>sufficient scrutiny to be placed on the candidates.
And who fixed the campaign period at being one week?
>Then again democracy means the people get the kind of elected
>president they deserve, doesn't it =)
Are you taking the piss here? I can't quite tell with you.
At least in the Soviet Union you could vote, even if there was only one candidate on the ballot. The number of spoilt/blank votes cast would be an effective and somewhat real measure of the support the candidates enjoyed.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.