The ugliest election in Singapore history?

COMMENT

Seventeen years ago, the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Goh Chok Tong, sternly warned government critics about what they could and could not criticize, using the golfing term "out-of-bounds markers" which has since then become part of the political lexicon.
 
But in the General Election of 2011 (GE 2011), a newly emboldened, energized and subsequently triumphant electorate went all the way of criticism, sparing no personage in the People’s Action Party (PAP) leadership, no matter how long feared,  nor  any PAP policy, no matter how well established. Thus they  removed, in one fell stroke, all the hated  markers, clearing the way for even the most outspoken critic in the future.

Now, just some months later, they clearly want to do the same  for the President of Singapore. For he too is hampered by out-of-bounds markers, the special constraints imposed on him by the constitution which forbids him to say or do anything that might be construed as disapproval of government policy.

By challenging these markers and removing them, they want him to be an independent voice of the people, that dares raise itself, whenever necessary, on their behalf. Judging by their and fervid  boundless activity in the Internet   in the run-up to the presidential election, it is clear that they want to continue to  use the same powerful instrument to achieve their purpose.

If they succeed, they will in effect change forever the role of the Elected President (EP) and secure another people’s victory this year, surely one of the most remarkable years in Singapore’s electoral history.
 
But this time, the challenge is very much complicated by a powerful counter-challenge by the government, in the form of that most sacrosanct instrument of the social compact – the constitution. The constitution clearly  spells out the  role of the EP in  its nature and scope : it is custodial, not executive; it is in harmony with, not against,  the  decisions of the government; in tone, it is dignified , in bearing stately, not cantankerous and demeaning of its high office. To  refute the claims and promises of independence made by certain presidential hopefuls, PAP ministers have painstakingly drawn attention to these strictures  in the constitution.
 
But the vociferous anti-PAP camp, still flush with the success of GE 2011, has little patience for the legalisms and punctilio of a constitution, as can be seen in the  vigorous, unbridled exchanges among netizens  bent on bringing out into  the open allegedly past misdeeds  of those hopefuls who are perceived to be  favoured by the government.

The prevailing attitude seems to  be  that  since the constitution was created more than 20 years ago by a self-serving government that provided it with enough ambiguities to allow for an interpretation that will always suit their purpose, it  is no longer relevant. Indeed,  it contradicts the new spirit of openness, transparency and expanded powers for the people, ushered in by the watershed GE 2011, that a humbled PAP leadership has actually acknowledged and promised to promote.
 
Ironically, in the midst of the government’s deliberately conspicuous efforts to establish a more amicable relationship with the people (which some observers  consider as  needlessly effusive and overdone, detracting from the image of strong, confident leadership), the estrangement persists in its most  exacerbated form in the current EP controversy.
 
In addition to the  unbridgeable gap between the diametrically opposed perceptions of a purely custodial role, on the one hand, and an actively adversarial  one on the other, there are the following equally irreconcilable divergencies:

1) Where the government insists that the EP has veto power in only the five areas specified by the constitution, which include the protection of past reserves and the appointment of key personnel, the critics clearly want the EP to have a say in a whole array of other issues, especially those that had been their greatest concerns in GE 2011, namely,  the ministerial salaries, the employment of foreign workers and unaffordable housing -  and, presumably, any  issue  which affects the lives of Singaporeans.

2) Where the government emphasizes  dignity, gravitas and acumen as the most important qualities for the EP, the people want to see fearlessness, courage and readiness to stand up to a powerful government.

3) Where the government wants the presidential voice, if it needs to be critical, to be so only in quiet, private consultation with the Prime Minister, the people will be satisfied with no less than open and public accounting.
 
In short, the differences are so vast  that beyond the vague general agreement that the president must uphold the integrity of the highest office in the land, there is no common meeting ground. Every  discussion  on the EP is hence an impasse  from the start.

Indeed, so intense is the clamouring of the people for change, so adamant is the government about preserving intact the constitutionality of the presidential role  and so riddled with anomalies is the constitution itself  when subjected to tests of real-life applications ( as was evident in a recent forum where the  Law Minister bravely  answered  questions  put to him by academics and political analysts) that the rancour is likely to continue well beyond the actual election  on 27 August, regardless of who gets elected.
 
The new president , no matter how he chooses to play out his role,will be in the unenviable position of being continually scrutinized and criticized in the light of his previous formal association, or absence of it,  with the PAP.

If he had been a former stalwart in the PAP administration, and had been publicly favoured by the government, he will be seen as just one more in a line of perfectly acquiescent, cosily harmonious presidents, exactly as the PAP had always intended and desired.

If he had been formerly a member of the PAP but had pointedly distanced himself from it, whatever efforts he makes at asserting his independence will be overshadowed by the past links, or even  seen as the sheer futility of trying to shake off an unshakeable, deeply entrenched PAP mentality.

If he had never been a PAP member, the expectations of him will be so unrealistically high that whatever  evidence of independence  he  displays will elicit disappointment as being not enough. 

And since the presidential salary is tied to  ministerial salaries, any angry response to the outcome of the review currently being undertaken, will not spare him.
 
In the new political climate after GE 2011, the greatest loser might just be the EP, because he will have to bear the brunt of the anomalies, confusions and conflicts of a society that has been suddenly and unexpectedly thrust into the flux of transition.

He will be stuck in an impossible situation, for the out-of-bounds markers set out in the constitution  will strait-jacket him, making a mockery of  his popular mandate and  the will of the people who had directly elected him. He has continually to maintain the difficult balance between the need, on the one hand,to present  the magisterial bearing and calm composure and  detachment expected of a president, and, on the other, to project an image of empathy and affinity with the man-in-the-street, all the time aware that he is being watched and judged, and that the savage criticisms and relentless exposure of his private life, that he had endured during the run-up to the election, will by no means end with  the high office he now holds.

Rightly or wrongly, he will be linked with a government that has fallen so far in the people’s regard that close association with them is seen as something of a taint. With the traditional protective mantle of  his office  stripped away, he will be at the mercy of netizens who  themselves enjoy the protective anonymity of the Internet.
 
The experience of the presidential election of 2011 could well be  the most bruising, divisive and  ugliest election in Singapore’s history.  It may be necessary when a  system ends up with nobody being a winner, and everybody having a bad taste in the mouth, to take another look at it, and subject it to an honest review.

The writer is one of Singapore's best-selling authors. This article was first posted on her blog.