Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Return to nominated presidency a key call at final hearing

SINGAPORE — In the final public hearing conducted by the Constitutional Commission to review the Office of the President, impassioned calls were made to abolish the Elected Presidency and return to the previous system of nomination by the Government, even as the commission doubted the feasibility of doing so in today’s political climate.

Join our WhatsApp or Telegram channels for the latest updates, or follow us on TikTok and Instagram.

Quiz of the week

How well do you know the news? Test your knowledge.

SINGAPORE — In the final public hearing conducted by the Constitutional Commission to review the Office of the President, impassioned calls were made to abolish the Elected Presidency and return to the previous system of nomination by the Government, even as the commission doubted the feasibility of doing so in today’s political climate.

Among the four parties who presented their submissions yesterday, former Nominated Member of Parliament Loo Choon Yong and constitutional law expert Kevin Tan argued for the President to be elected by Parliament as was the case before 1991.

Dr Loo had said in his submissions that if Singaporeans can accept that a President be appointed through a two-thirds vote by the Parliament, “divisiveness and distraction” can be avoided.

Dr Loo also proposed an eight-member Council for Review to take over the custodial functions of overseeing reserves. Its members, he said, will be appointed by the President upon recommendation from the Prime Minister, Chief Justice and other public leaders.

Dr Tan, meanwhile, felt that instead of engineering the system to ensure minority representation, which would “emphasise ethnicity and difference in politics”, a nominated presidency would allow for a balance between the competence required and ethnic representation.

The four public hearings, which began last month, saw 19 individuals and groups attend. The key issues raised include ensuring minority representation and revising the qualifying criteria for presidential candidates.

Some felt that engineering a system to ensure minority representation would go against the principle of meritocracy. On setting a higher bar for those seeking to become candidates for the presidency, some were concerned it would drastically reduce the pool of those eligible, and further affect the chances of minority representation in the process.

Former Cabinet minister S Dhanabalan, who was the first to speak yesterday, conceded it would be difficult to avoid making special provisions to ensure a minority-race President can be elected. While he remains against the Group Representation Constituency system, Mr Dhanabalan, who had proposed that the principles of the system be applied to the Elected Presidency, said he also has to be a “realist” due to the “very nature of the electorate”.

Dr Loo, defending his proposal to separate the current custodial and ceremonial functions of the Elected Presidency, said there were now “fewer things to quarrel about” after 46 amendments to the Constitution, and the relationship between the Government and the Office of the President need not be “adversarial”.

But commission member Chan Heng Chee, who described Dr Loo’s proposals as “radical”, asked whether it would be “divisive in itself” to go back to an appointed presidential system.Presidential Council for Minority Rights member Abdullah Tarmugi, who also sits on the commission, added: “Do you think we can go back to a system of nomination now, given the kind of society we live in now and even with the views of young people?”

Dr Loo, however, stood his ground, and said a referendum could be called to decide on this.

The commission members also questioned Dr Tan’s proposal, with Professor Chan asking: “Would a nominated president ... enjoy the authority to say ‘no’ to an elected Parliament, especially if the Government of the day may be (of) a different belief?”

Dr Tan said an appointed President would not necessarily be deprived of independence, pointing to the judiciary as an example, which is also appointed by the Government.

But Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who chairs the commission, pointed out that the judiciary has a slightly different role, and does not act entirely as a check on the Government.

Mr Sundaresh also took issue with Dr Tan’s suggestion of having more stringent qualifying criteria for the Council of Presidential Advisers to better support the President.

“If the President doesn’t have the same competence (to) stand up to the council ... are we not going to end up with a situation where … we are actually shifting the centre of gravity of who is making the calls to the council just because the council is more competent in these areas?” he asked.

In response, Dr Tan said he believed the appointed President would have a sense of judgment to make decisions.

Also speaking yesterday was a group of National University of Singapore law students. They suggested broadening the eligibility criteria for presidential candidates to include individuals holding key management posts. They also spoke against introducing provisions to ensure minority representation.

The nine-member commission is expected to make its recommendations by the third quarter of this year. The next presidential election is due by August next year.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to our newsletter for the top features, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.