Independent of What? The Elected President

"Independent of what?" With that pithy answer to a press question about how an EP should function, then-Presidential candidate Nathan had succicintly spelt out how he perceived the role of the EP.

Senior Minister Lee's comments echo this view that the EP is merely custodial in function without any executive discretionary power and has to act on the advice of the Cabinet. Lee had also stated if an activist ex-cabinet minister who becomes EP, it is the ex-Cabinet minister who "must change [his] mindset" is in stark contrast to President Ong's valedictory exhortation that it's the civil service, and presumably, the Cabinet, who should change the mindset about the EP. Lee is, perhaps, laying down the law that an EP should know where the EP stands in the pecking order of Singapore political life.

Lee is definitely correct that the EP is and never will be an executive President. The President has to act on the advice of the Cabinet and is not allowed to go on policy frolics on his own. I would view the EP is an emergency brake blocking a "rogue government" spending our reserves or making bad appointments. But like most brakes, it needs some brake fluid and in my view, independent and impartial information about the rationale of the proposed expenditure is that brake fluid. There is probably the necessity for an independent ombudsmen body to collate, retrieve and analyze the information.

An EP has to invariably sing the libretto composed, arranged, prepared and performed by the one and only Executive, the Cabinet. However, there comes a time when the EP has to go solo. But unlike tenors who are usually born talented, making decisions about vetoing proposed expenditure of copious amounts of other people's money requires strict scrutiny of the information. Usually, such information should be independent and from an independent information retrieval and gathering unit.

What my concern is that the little discretion that the EP has, must be exercised and based upon, at the very least, impartial information, independent of what the government is whipping up or spinning out to support airy spending schemes or plans. What is the basis for the EP to conclude that the government is squandering its reserves? No matter how much Lee may wax lyrically about the caliber, the gravitas or the grace of those who become the EP - the goalkeeper EP has got to have the right equipment if he is going to play the game. Even Man Utd's Peter Schmeichel had to wear some gloves.

I am loathe to use this example but it is the most easiest that comes to mind. The US executive and legislative branches have their own independent set of dismal scientists - the economists - gathering, churning out, sifting and assaying the facts and figures about Federal, Congressional and every kind of spending. In Singapore, the EP was going to have to wait for some 50-plus man-years just to find out what we have. Enough said.

The EP has to examine independent facts and analysis for the rationale of government spending from objective sources, or at least there has got be to the appearance that there is some objectivity about it. President Ong had highlighted that the EP has to rely on the civil service as the current Istana staff is woefully inadequate to crunch the numbers - perhaps akin to a HDB provision shop owner in an inventory stocktaking contest against WalMart. While the current liveried Istana staff may be equipped to throw a fine ceremonial dinner, I guess that in examining the merits of vetoing the government's investment decisions, requires something more than fine bone china and silver.

The decision-making of the EP was also touched upon by Lee as what comes to the EP is "the final summary of the position: this is what has been going on, this is what the Government is going to do; does it infringe the rights of the EP?" So apparently, the EP has to totally rely on the Civil Service to provide this information.

If the Civil Service is also supposed to serve the Government in power and if the civil service-prepared facts and figures are those that the government uses to make a decision is also provided to the EP, almost invariably, the EP should reach the same decision as the government. A "summary" can hardly provide the objectivity and candor that an EP needs when making a decision to allow the government to dip into the reserves.

In any event, I suspect that the undeclared reason why the PAP did not "nudge" out another EP candidate for competition this time is that it probably wanted to avoid a repeat of Chua Kim Yeow's 1993 non-PAP supported, non-campaign for EP. A repeat or an improvement of Chua's harvest of 41.3% of the popular vote - notwithstanding Chua's praise that DPM Ong was the better candidate during the hustings - could, in these troubling economic times, be viewed as a failing grade on the PAP's current performance in the current recession.

In view of the persistent worries about our economy, Singaporeans are justifiably nervy about Singapore's reserves and its protection. Or more importantly, it is the PAP that is nervy about Singaporeans' view of the economy and the reserves. It is likely that the people would have voted the non-PAP backed EP candidate merely on the basis that the EP candidate was not PAP-backed, thereby sending a warning to the PAP that the electorate should not be taken for granted. The electorate would probably want to hold the PAP to its word to steer the economy back on the track of prosperity or else its payback time at the next parliamentary general elections. A defeat for the PAP-backed candidate in a contested EP is the hors d'oeuvre.

Just as the voters could be cajoled and induced into voting for the PAP in return for HDB upgrading, Singaporeans would probably not hesitate in turning against the PAP at a EP election as a warning shot that the economy had better improve the next election or else. This is the price to pay as the PAP resorted to only seduce the pocket-books of voters with HDB upgrading, rather than trying to win the hearts and minds of Singapore voters in the 1997 General Elections.

Therefore, by avoiding a full-blown non-contest of a contest (if the 1993 EP is any gauge) in the upcoming August 28, 1999 EP poll, the PAP has averted the chance of letting the EP election be a shadow referendum on the PAP's handling of the current economic crisis. Recent discouraging economic news like the government's Suzhou investments may not have necessarily developed to Singapore's advantage, CPF cuts, depressed property prices are all the prime ingredients for a voter backlash.

What could conceivably be the issues if there was an EP poll? It's the economy, stupid! The raison d'être of the EP is money or rather protecting our money. It would not be surprising that the economy would be front and center of any election right now, be it an EP poll or a by-election for Jalan Besar GRC. Since it is a given that the EP is not an executive President, then the question may be whether the EP would do if a government were to use the reserves in trying to eke an economic recovery? It could also be probable that voters will want to discuss whether the EP would permit the reserves to bail out any government losses from fouled-up investments by various statutory boards and GLCs. There is also bound to be debates of the exact scope of the President's powers and interaction with the Cabinet.

An open and free EP election with a PAP-backed candidate and a non-PAP backed candidate "nudged" out the closet by the PAP, would have seen the PAP setting up a possibly unpredictable election, the process and issues raised in the election and not the result. Politically sensitive and threatening issues like the PAP's performance in the economy could be brought out into the open and left out to boil and fester in the open. A result of the PAP-backed candidate losing or winning by a very narrow victory for the PAP-backed candidate would have been ammunition for the opposition to declare the electorate is not satisfied with the PAP's current stewardship of the economy. Creating the momentum for some real opposition gains in the next general elections for parliament.

In short, having an EP election now would unnecessarily distract Singapore from focusing on how to dig itself out of the recession and not allow Singaporeans to dig an electoral hole for the PAP.

John Tessensohn in Osaka, Japan