A look at 3 key issues
Now that Singapore's first president elected after changes to the system is in office, what issues have emerged from the process? Insight examines three - the reserved election, the walkover and its effect going forward, and the lead time in making the legislative changes.
By Elgin Toh, Insight Editor, The Sunday Times, 17 Sep 2017
The presidential election in 2011 is remembered as Singapore's most hotly contested. Four candidates stood in a race that went down to the wire, with Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam finally winning by 0.35 per cent of the votes.
In contrast, the election this year saw Madam Halimah Yacob elected unopposed last week - the third no-contest since elections began in 1993. Before, the president was appointed by Parliament.
Yet, this year's presidential election might go down as among the most hotly discussed.
In the lead-up to it, major changes were introduced to the way the elected presidency works, which resulted in, among other things, the election being reserved for candidates from the Malay community as it has not been represented in the office since 1970.
These changes, as well as the eventual walkover, triggered considerable debate online and in physical forums. In her swearing-in speech last Thursday, President Halimah, 63, acknowledged that some Singaporeans did not agree with the Government on the need to reserve elections.
She sought to be a unifying figure, saying: "I respect their views."
Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Chan Chun Sing, too, had earlier this month noted in a forum the unhappiness in some quarters. He said the Government had been prepared to "pay a political price" in the short term when it introduced the changes, because it strongly believed in their long-term benefits.
As President Halimah embarks on her six-year term, some of this debate offers a springboard for learning more about the elected presidency.
The reserved election was a focal point of much debate. What issues did the debate highlight about Singapore's multiracial fabric?
Another discussion trigger was the walkover. Why was there one, and what might walkovers mean for the elected presidency in the long run?
And, was there enough lead time from the mooting of the changes to the eventual election for Singaporeans to digest the changes?
Insight speaks to political observers on what, as a result, has emerged about the elected presidency as an institution.
UPDATING THE PRESIDENCY
Some 20 months before the election, the Government began a process that resulted in major changes to how the elected presidency would work - the most significant since the elected presidency began in 1991.
Now that Singapore's first president elected after changes to the system is in office, what issues have emerged from the process? Insight examines three - the reserved election, the walkover and its effect going forward, and the lead time in making the legislative changes.
By Elgin Toh, Insight Editor, The Sunday Times, 17 Sep 2017
In contrast, the election this year saw Madam Halimah Yacob elected unopposed last week - the third no-contest since elections began in 1993. Before, the president was appointed by Parliament.
Yet, this year's presidential election might go down as among the most hotly discussed.
In the lead-up to it, major changes were introduced to the way the elected presidency works, which resulted in, among other things, the election being reserved for candidates from the Malay community as it has not been represented in the office since 1970.
These changes, as well as the eventual walkover, triggered considerable debate online and in physical forums. In her swearing-in speech last Thursday, President Halimah, 63, acknowledged that some Singaporeans did not agree with the Government on the need to reserve elections.
She sought to be a unifying figure, saying: "I respect their views."
Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Chan Chun Sing, too, had earlier this month noted in a forum the unhappiness in some quarters. He said the Government had been prepared to "pay a political price" in the short term when it introduced the changes, because it strongly believed in their long-term benefits.
As President Halimah embarks on her six-year term, some of this debate offers a springboard for learning more about the elected presidency.
The reserved election was a focal point of much debate. What issues did the debate highlight about Singapore's multiracial fabric?
Another discussion trigger was the walkover. Why was there one, and what might walkovers mean for the elected presidency in the long run?
And, was there enough lead time from the mooting of the changes to the eventual election for Singaporeans to digest the changes?
Insight speaks to political observers on what, as a result, has emerged about the elected presidency as an institution.
UPDATING THE PRESIDENCY
Some 20 months before the election, the Government began a process that resulted in major changes to how the elected presidency would work - the most significant since the elected presidency began in 1991.
Among them were:
First, a system of reserving elections for an ethnic community if five terms have passed without a president from that community. As a result, the Government said the election this year would be reserved for the Malay community.
Second, raising the eligibility threshold for private-sector candidates to have headed companies with an average shareholder equity of $500 million in the three most recent years of reporting. Before, the threshold was $100 million in paid-up capital.
A court challenge was mounted by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the runner-up in the 2011 election, on whether the reserved election should kick in this year or in 2023.
But his suit was eventually dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The reserved election for the Malay community went ahead this year.
DEBATES OVER RESERVED ELECTION
Even as the courts deliberated over the timing of the reserved election, the bigger debate among Singaporeans was over substantive issues relating to reserving elections.
Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, for example, acknowledged some of this ground sentiment when he observed that reserving elections was "quite unpopular with a large proportion of the population".
Singaporeans with concerns about the reserved election asked if it was needed to achieve multiracial representation and if the principle of meritocracy was being loosened.
When members of the Malay community began declaring their intention to stand, questions about how a person's race is determined surfaced in some quarters.
Other than Madam Halimah, two prospective candidates who declared their intention to stand as candidates were marine services company chairman Farid Khan, 61, and listed property firm chief executive Salleh Marican, 67.
All three prospective candidates obtained certificates confirming that they belonged to the Malay community.
What impact did these debates about race and reserved elections have on multiracial Singapore?
Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said at a forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) earlier this month that debates on the reserved election were constructive. "The fact that we were able to talk about it, debate it... in a way it helps strengthen the overall multiracial fabric," he said.
Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad tells Insight: "It was a learning journey for many Singaporeans. We became more aware of the range of views on multiracialism, and we learnt to respect the diversity of opinion."
He adds: "It was healthy for us to talk about issues which we otherwise would not have touched on in ordinary conversations."
But his suit was eventually dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The reserved election for the Malay community went ahead this year.
DEBATES OVER RESERVED ELECTION
Even as the courts deliberated over the timing of the reserved election, the bigger debate among Singaporeans was over substantive issues relating to reserving elections.
Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, for example, acknowledged some of this ground sentiment when he observed that reserving elections was "quite unpopular with a large proportion of the population".
Singaporeans with concerns about the reserved election asked if it was needed to achieve multiracial representation and if the principle of meritocracy was being loosened.
When members of the Malay community began declaring their intention to stand, questions about how a person's race is determined surfaced in some quarters.
Other than Madam Halimah, two prospective candidates who declared their intention to stand as candidates were marine services company chairman Farid Khan, 61, and listed property firm chief executive Salleh Marican, 67.
All three prospective candidates obtained certificates confirming that they belonged to the Malay community.
What impact did these debates about race and reserved elections have on multiracial Singapore?
Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said at a forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) earlier this month that debates on the reserved election were constructive. "The fact that we were able to talk about it, debate it... in a way it helps strengthen the overall multiracial fabric," he said.
Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad tells Insight: "It was a learning journey for many Singaporeans. We became more aware of the range of views on multiracialism, and we learnt to respect the diversity of opinion."
He adds: "It was healthy for us to talk about issues which we otherwise would not have touched on in ordinary conversations."
IPS deputy director Gillian Koh adds that the strengthening of the nation's multiracial fabric could become clearer as President Halimah's term progresses. The "symbolic value of having a Malay-Muslim as president" could, over time, enhance inter-racial appreciation among Singaporeans, she says.
Some observers, however, were sceptical about the benefits of having such debates about race.
Former PAP MP Inderjit Singh says: "While I cannot say we weakened the social fabric of Singapore's multiracial society, I do feel we reopened the debate and highlighted our differences and the attitudes of the different races towards each other."
The debate over the definition of "Malayness" was also singled out as being particularly problematic.
Former Nominated MP Calvin Cheng says "the misunderstanding of what Malayness is, and the accusations that the definitions have been fudged, will be detrimental".
Dr Felix Tan of SIM Global Education adds the debate over racial definition "opened up a can of worms".
Racial definitions for the purpose of elections have been around since 1988, with the introduction of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs). From this year, the same definitions that have been used in general elections are being applied to presidential elections.
Asked why Singaporeans had questions about these longstanding definitions, Dr Tan notes that presidential candidates have a much higher profile than minority candidates in GRCs, which could be why people started paying attention to the racial definitions only this year.
THE WALKOVER: WHAT ISSUES ARISE?
In contrast to the chatter over reserved elections, which persisted at moderate levels over the months leading up to the election, discussions over the fact that it would be a walkover erupted in a very short space of time.
There was genuine public uncertainty over whether there would be a contest, since three prospective candidates expressed a desire to stand. The walkover was finally confirmed last Monday, with the announcement that only one candidate - Madam Halimah - had the necessary certificates to run.
Mr Farid and Mr Salleh met the ethnic requirements - they were certified as Malay - but failed to meet the financial threshold for private-sector candidates.
Madam Halimah automatically qualified under the Constitution as she had held the key public office of Speaker of Parliament since 2013.
Two days after she was declared the only one eligible to run, she was formally elected on Wednesday, which was Nomination Day, and sworn in a day later, on Thursday.
There was considerable disappointment on social media with the walkover, with a group starting the hashtag #notmypresident. This was countered by another online group with the hashtag #halimahismypresident.
THE WALKOVER: WHAT ISSUES ARISE?
In contrast to the chatter over reserved elections, which persisted at moderate levels over the months leading up to the election, discussions over the fact that it would be a walkover erupted in a very short space of time.
There was genuine public uncertainty over whether there would be a contest, since three prospective candidates expressed a desire to stand. The walkover was finally confirmed last Monday, with the announcement that only one candidate - Madam Halimah - had the necessary certificates to run.
Mr Farid and Mr Salleh met the ethnic requirements - they were certified as Malay - but failed to meet the financial threshold for private-sector candidates.
Madam Halimah automatically qualified under the Constitution as she had held the key public office of Speaker of Parliament since 2013.
Two days after she was declared the only one eligible to run, she was formally elected on Wednesday, which was Nomination Day, and sworn in a day later, on Thursday.
There was considerable disappointment on social media with the walkover, with a group starting the hashtag #notmypresident. This was countered by another online group with the hashtag #halimahismypresident.
Observers had different explanations for why more qualified Malay candidates did not come forward to ensure a contest in Singapore's first reserved election.
Many observers felt the Government's tacit endorsement of Madam Halimah strongly discouraged others who might have been considering their candidacies. Observers who take this view include Professor Eugene Tan of the Singapore Management University (SMU), Mr Singh and Professor Tan Ern Ser of the National University of Singapore (NUS).
When Madam Halimah resigned from the PAP to prepare for her presidential bid, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wrote in a letter: "I am confident that if elected you will do your best, as you have always done, and will bring dignity and personal warmth, experience of government and concern for the people, to the highest office in the land."
SMU's Prof Tan says that such endorsements cause hopefuls, particularly those from the public sector, to "abandon any plans to step forward and step up" - because of how difficult it is to defeat an establishment-backed candidate.
Mr Singh adds that some who qualify may be "concerned if the establishment will be unhappy" if they were to run against its candidate. "The sense of fear was a factor," he notes.
Another possible reason for the dearth of qualified candidates in this election was the higher threshold for private-sector candidates.
The Government had accepted the Constitutional Commission's recommendation that the threshold for private-sector companies whose heads would qualify as candidates be increased from $100 million in paid-up capital to $500 million in shareholders' equity.
The commission said there was a need to raise the threshold because, first, inflation had significantly increased the number of companies meeting the old threshold, and, second, because Singapore's reserves had grown by a lot since 1993 - which raises questions about whether heads of $100 million firms still had the requisite experience to oversee the reserves.
The commission recommended a $500 million threshold, arguing that it did not shrink the pool of candidates who qualify, vis-a-vis 1993. The $100 million threshold in 1993 saw 158 companies, or 0.2 per cent of companies in Singapore, qualify. The $500 million threshold last year would have seen the heads of an estimated 691 companies, or 0.23 per cent of companies in Singapore, qualify.
But some observers asked if this was a key factor leading to the walkover.
"The criterion is set too high for those from the private sector. Based on the previous criterion used, Mr Salleh Marican and Mr Farid Khan would have qualified," says Mr Yee Jenn Jong, a former Non-Constituency MP from the Workers' Party.
"We need to seriously question why we are measuring the presidency by such big money, which deprives us of more potential candidates to choose from," he adds.
IPS' Dr Koh agrees that the threshold may have been a factor, but does not agree that the threshold should, therefore, be lowered. "We must give it time - for good people to work towards qualification," she says.
With the latest walkover, Singapore has now seen three out of five presidential elections since 1993 ending in no contest.
Popular elections were introduced to ensure that presidents - whose role is to safeguard the nation's reserves and the integrity of the public service - had sufficient moral authority and mandate to oppose an elected Cabinet, if necessary.
Does the walkover have an impact on President Halimah's perceived mandate? Is there a danger that repeated walkovers would gradually weaken the institution of the presidency?
Former NMP Cheng says: "I would proffer that the whole raison d'etre of the elected presidency is in danger, if there is repeatedly no contest."
Without going through a contest, he adds, "we have no idea of the level of support he or she has and it thus saps the presidency of the source of its authority".
"In that case, we might as well go back to appointing presidents."
Professor Walter Woon of the National University of Singapore adds: "A contested election would have been the only way to still the critics and appease the cynics. If Puan Halimah had won with a clear majority, her mandate would be beyond doubt. As it is, there will always be accusations that the whole process was a farce engineered to parachute her into the job."
Prof Eugene Tan says walkovers might "diminish the institution and compromise its mandate, authority, legitimacy and potential".
Dr Lam Peng Er of the East Asian Institute adds that too many walkovers would "make a mockery" of the institution. He adds: "If you keep getting walkovers, it becomes a contradiction in terms - an elected presidency without an election."
But Dr Norshahril Saat of the ISEAS -Yusof Ishak Institute notes that founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew was often elected in walkovers, and that this did not cast his legitimacy as MP or prime minister in doubt. Mr Lee's Tanjong Pagar constituency was uncontested in 1984 and in another five general elections from 1991 to 2011.
Nonetheless, Dr Norshahril concedes that presidents elected in walkovers may have to work harder over the presidential term to win the hearts and minds of the people.
Other observers say they do not believe the presidency is likely to see repeated walkovers in the future.
Mr Zaqy of Chua Chu Kang GRC notes that walkovers also used to be quite common in general elections, but have decreased over time as politics entered a more mature phase. He expects a similar trajectory for presidential elections.
Similarly, IPS' Dr Koh says: "It is likely that if the role is meaningful, it seems fulfilling and that sense of duty and public service is alive, we will not see a reduction in contestation, but a rise moving forward."
LONGER LEAD TIME?
After the 2015 General Election, Parliament opened in January last year. The President's Address stated that the political system, including the presidency, "must be refreshed from time to time, as our circumstances change".
Similarly, IPS' Dr Koh says: "It is likely that if the role is meaningful, it seems fulfilling and that sense of duty and public service is alive, we will not see a reduction in contestation, but a rise moving forward."
LONGER LEAD TIME?
After the 2015 General Election, Parliament opened in January last year. The President's Address stated that the political system, including the presidency, "must be refreshed from time to time, as our circumstances change".
This was the first strong sign that changes were in the offing.
This address was quickly followed by the setting up of a Constitutional Commission in February last year. The commission was asked to study options in line with terms of reference provided by the Government, and to then recommend amendments to the elected presidency.
The commission's report was published in August last year. Parliament debated and passed amendments to the Constitution last November, paving the way for the presidential election earlier this month.
A total of 20 months had passed from the time the Government announced its intention to make changes to the elected presidency.
Would a longer lead time have helped Singaporeans digest the changes better? Would stretching out the discussion have reduced the overall level of concern?
Some observers believe so.
SIM's Dr Tan says Singaporeans should preferably have been given three years "to understand, grapple with and accept the changes".
Mr Singh agrees more time would have been ideal. "If we were indeed addressing long-term issues on the multiracial nature of our society, then there was no rush to do it for this election," he says.
He adds that applying the changes to the 2023 presidential election would have provided this additional time.
Some observers believe so.
SIM's Dr Tan says Singaporeans should preferably have been given three years "to understand, grapple with and accept the changes".
Mr Singh agrees more time would have been ideal. "If we were indeed addressing long-term issues on the multiracial nature of our society, then there was no rush to do it for this election," he says.
He adds that applying the changes to the 2023 presidential election would have provided this additional time.
Prof Eugene Tan agrees the discussion was hasty, noting: "Singaporeans need time to digest the changes and to be persuaded not just rationally but also affectively. There was the feeling that the changes were patronising and being forced down the throats of Singaporeans."
He adds: "Even if people have basically made up their minds about the slew of changes, the speed with which the Government proceeded with the changes resulted in an element of doubt in people's minds as to whether there was more to it than meets the eye."
But there are also a number of observers who feel that a longer lead time would not have made any difference.
Mr Zaqy believes that it would be hard to conclude if the Government could have aligned everyone on the issues - even if the lead time had been extended, say, to 60 months.
Dr Koh agrees: "If people were tuning in, it was a lot of notice. If they were not, and only do so when there is an opportunity to criticise the Government, then time is a non-issue.
"If people just don't tune in at all because they are consumed by daily life, which is perfectly understandable, or because they are apathetic, then, again, length of notice would not have made a difference. For this final group, only a contest and the need to vote would have caused them to tune in."
This idea that a contest is what many people were really looking for is also proffered by Prof Tan Ern Ser of NUS and Dr Lam.
Says Prof Tan: "I don't think more lead time would matter very much, if at all. What matters for those who are unhappy with the new rules is that PE2017 has not shaped up to be yet another occasion to challenge - directly or indirectly - the ruling party."
Says Prof Tan: "I don't think more lead time would matter very much, if at all. What matters for those who are unhappy with the new rules is that PE2017 has not shaped up to be yet another occasion to challenge - directly or indirectly - the ruling party."
Dr Lam adds: "If we had given the Singapore public another six months, and there was no contest, I think they would feel just as frustrated."
FUTURE OF THE PRESIDENCY
The election is over, and the country settles down under a new president.
FUTURE OF THE PRESIDENCY
The election is over, and the country settles down under a new president.
Some debates from this election will linger, others may fade away.
For example, the issue of the reserved election, while contentious, may not recur for a while, since the earliest date of the next possible reserved election would be 2041 - or five terms after President SR Nathan left office in 2011, assuming no president gets elected from the Indian or other communities category.
Indeed, the most ideal situation is for Singapore to never need another reserved election - which would happen if minorities are routinely elected in open elections.
President Halimah has a six-year term ahead of her to engage Singaporeans as their head of state. How she plays her role will no doubt also have a bearing on how Singaporeans perceive the institution and the issues discussed in this election.
As Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said in congratulating her, the process of this election has been "highly controversial", but Madam Halimah herself is "not a controversial figure".
"The focus so far has been on the process, but we should not let whatever unhappiness weigh down her duties," he said.
KEY DATES AHEAD OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2017
JANUARY 2016
President's Address at the opening of Parliament flags the need to refresh the elected presidency
FEBRUARY 2016
Constitutional Commission appointed to study updating eligibility criteria for presidential candidates, review the powers of the Council of Presidential Advisers, and ensure minority candidates have a chance to be elected from time to time
FEBRUARY TO JULY 2016
Constitutional Commission meets, holds public hearings and deliberates
AUGUST 2016
Constitutional Commission submits its report to the Government, which accepts its main recommendations in principle
SEPTEMBER 2016
Government publishes its response to the report in a White Paper on changes to the elected presidency
OCTOBER 2016
Constitutional amendments tabled in Parliament
NOVEMBER 2016
Constitutional amendments are debated over three days in Parliament and passed
JUNE 2017
Mr Salleh Marican and Mr Farid Khan declare intention to stand for election
JULY 2017
Court dismisses Dr Tan Cheng Bock's first challenge on how reserved elections are counted
AUG 7, 2017
Madam Halimah Yacob announces decision to stand as candidate
AUG 24, 2017
Court dismisses Dr Tan Cheng Bock's appeal
AUG 28, 2017
Writ of Election issued
SEPT 11, 2017
Madam Halimah declared the only qualified applicant
SEPT 13, 2017
Madam Halimah elected President on Nomination Day
SEPT 14, 2017
Madam Halimah is sworn in as Singapore's eighth President
JANUARY 2016
President's Address at the opening of Parliament flags the need to refresh the elected presidency
FEBRUARY 2016
Constitutional Commission appointed to study updating eligibility criteria for presidential candidates, review the powers of the Council of Presidential Advisers, and ensure minority candidates have a chance to be elected from time to time
FEBRUARY TO JULY 2016
Constitutional Commission meets, holds public hearings and deliberates
AUGUST 2016
Constitutional Commission submits its report to the Government, which accepts its main recommendations in principle
SEPTEMBER 2016
Government publishes its response to the report in a White Paper on changes to the elected presidency
OCTOBER 2016
Constitutional amendments tabled in Parliament
NOVEMBER 2016
Constitutional amendments are debated over three days in Parliament and passed
JUNE 2017
Mr Salleh Marican and Mr Farid Khan declare intention to stand for election
JULY 2017
Court dismisses Dr Tan Cheng Bock's first challenge on how reserved elections are counted
AUG 7, 2017
Madam Halimah Yacob announces decision to stand as candidate
AUG 24, 2017
Court dismisses Dr Tan Cheng Bock's appeal
AUG 28, 2017
Writ of Election issued
SEPT 11, 2017
Madam Halimah declared the only qualified applicant
SEPT 13, 2017
Madam Halimah elected President on Nomination Day
SEPT 14, 2017
Madam Halimah is sworn in as Singapore's eighth President
Reaching out: President Halimah Yacob hits the ground running with special attention given to special needs
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Sunday Times, 17 Sep 2017
With quick flicks of her hands, President Halimah Yacob launched the International Week of the Deaf yesterday by signing the words out.
She spent the afternoon at the Singapore Association for the Deaf, mingling with the people who have worked hard to raise awareness of the needs of the deaf community, and learning of efforts from companies like Uber to make sure the hearing-impaired are not left behind.
By Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh, The Sunday Times, 17 Sep 2017
With quick flicks of her hands, President Halimah Yacob launched the International Week of the Deaf yesterday by signing the words out.
She spent the afternoon at the Singapore Association for the Deaf, mingling with the people who have worked hard to raise awareness of the needs of the deaf community, and learning of efforts from companies like Uber to make sure the hearing-impaired are not left behind.
Last Friday, she visited the Association for Persons with Special Needs Centre for Adults. It was her first public event as president and - as she fielded requests for photographs from excited passers-by - she spent more than an hour learning about how people with intellectual disabilities are trained to find employment.
Madam Halimah has signalled her commitment to building an inclusive Singapore by reaching out to people on the margins of society in her first two days in office after her inauguration, said sociologist Tan Ern Ser. "She is hitting the ground running shortly after she was sworn in as president, continuing what she has been doing as a union leader, MP, minister of state and Speaker of Parliament," he noted, adding that she now has the ability to do more.
Madam Halimah, 63, had promised during her campaign to build a community where nobody is left behind, and where everyone is taken care of, regardless of race, gender or background.
"Coming from a very deprived and disadvantaged background, I strongly believe in access to opportunities for everyone," she said at a press conference on Aug 29, a day after the Writ of Election was issued.
The woman who now occupies the highest office in the land started her life on the margins herself - poor and struggling, but determined to make good.
Her watchman father died of a heart attack when she was eight, leaving behind a family who struggled daily to survive.
They would sleep on mats in the living rooms of relatives. Madam Halimah spent the next decade waking at the break of dawn to help her mother prepare and peddle nasi padang.
Her school fees would go unpaid and she skipped classes often, nearly getting booted out.
But she pressed on, eventually obtaining a law degree. She chose to join the National Trades Union Congress as a legal officer after graduation, and spent more than three decades there representing workers and fighting for their rights.
Politics came calling in 2001. When she was made minister of state in 2011, she enhanced support for the disabled by setting up what is now known as SG Enable, and improved childcare services to lend working mothers a hand.
Nominated MP Chia Yong Yong said President Halimah has brought to her new office her dedication to building a caring and inclusive society where the vulnerable and those with special needs and disabilities are "truly integrated into the community".
"We are happy to see her jumping into action so early on in her term as president, visiting the various social service organisations and wasting no time in reaching out to the ground," said Ms Chia, the president of SPD, previously known as the Society for the Physically Disabled. She was also a key member of Madam Halimah's campaign team.
She looks forward to President Halimah championing social issues and inclusion, and placing them higher on the national agenda.
Madam Halimah had highlighted the president's ability to draw attention to issues when she set out her vision for the presidency last month. "The president has a tremendous capacity to do good. The president plays an important role in setting the tone for our society, to influence society," she had said then.
She was prepared for a contest, armed with campaign plans, a team of diverse supporters and a slogan, Do Good Do Together.
But her campaign was brought to a halt on Sept 11 when it emerged that there would be no presidential contest.
That date has brought highs and lows for Madam Halimah.
On the afternoon of Sept 11 in 2015, she buried her mother - the woman who raised her and her four siblings single-handedly. Hours later, she put on a stoic face, a neatly pressed set of white shirt and pants, and set off for Jurong West Stadium.
Jubilation set in there: Madam Halimah and her People's Action Party teammates won Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC in the general election.
But the triumph was tinged with tears. Said Madam Halimah, wearing a wan smile and a pile of garlands around her neck: "I'm, of course, feeling happy but very, very sad as well. I was hoping (my mother) could at least make it until today, but she didn't."
Exactly two years on, she received news about being the only one of three hopefuls declared eligible to stand in the presidential election - meaning she would be elected unopposed.
She was inaugurated last Thursday as Singapore's first woman head of state and its second Malay president after 47 years.
But discontent over her being elected unopposed in an election set aside for members of the Malay community cast a pall over the historic moment.
She told reporters who asked about the brewing disquiet: "I promise to do the best that I can to serve the people of Singapore and that doesn't change whether there is an election or no election. My passion and commitment to serve the people of Singapore remain the same."
Madam Halimah's presidential term will be an exercise in uniting a nation divided over the circumstances of her walkover victory.
Madam Halimah's presidential term will be an exercise in uniting a nation divided over the circumstances of her walkover victory.
Since she was declared President-elect last Wednesday, she has swiftly got down to the business of proving herself up to the task.
In her acceptance speech, she pledged to be a president for all Singaporeans. "Although this is a reserved election, I am not a 'reserved' president," she said. "I am a president for everyone, regardless of race, language, religion or creed."
In her acceptance speech, she pledged to be a president for all Singaporeans. "Although this is a reserved election, I am not a 'reserved' president," she said. "I am a president for everyone, regardless of race, language, religion or creed."
Thursday morning saw Madam Halimah touring the Istana grounds, mulling over plans to make the compound more accessible to the public.
At her inauguration, she noted: "In my previous roles, I have seen how much we can achieve by working together. Now, as President, my duty is to unite the people, to overcome the many challenges ahead of us together."
MP Denise Phua, who is president of the Autism Resource Centre and co-founder of Pathlight School, noted President Halimah's track record of supporting initiatives in the social service sector.
"She had never said 'no' to me when I asked her for help in my advocacy for this sector," she said. "I am certain that under her charge, she will do more than the President's Challenge in raising funds for needed services."
Dr Felix Tan, associate lecturer at SIM Global Education, said President Halimah's long years in public service have shown that "she has the heart and the capabilities in managing and engaging in community development projects".
"Her heart has always been with the people - that is certain," said Dr Tan. "However, given the circumstances involving her rise to the presidential office, she will probably have to work harder now to ensure that all communities are represented and taken care of."
"Her heart has always been with the people - that is certain," said Dr Tan. "However, given the circumstances involving her rise to the presidential office, she will probably have to work harder now to ensure that all communities are represented and taken care of."
Unique chance for Halimah Yacob to be a different president
The heartlander can inspire by refocusing her role as unifying head of state of multiracial Singapore
By Han Fook Kwang, Editor At Large, The Sunday Times, 17 Sep 2017
I am glad Singapore has its first Malay woman President, though it would have been much better if it wasn't done through a reserved election. But that's water under the bridge now.
I look forward to a Halimah Yacob presidency because I believe she has the qualities not only to perform the job but also to do so in a different way from previous heads of state. More important, the change can be good for Singapore.
Why do I say she has an opportunity to shape the presidency differently?
There are two areas where she can make a difference.
First, I think most people will agree she is not the sort of person you would associate with being in charge of a $500 million company, which is one of the new eligibility criteria for candidates. She does not have much financial background nor has she headed any ministry as its minister. If commercial and financial acumen were the most important requisites for the job, she would not be on most people's shortlist.
In raising the bar for people with commercial experience, I felt the Government over-emphasised the corporate nature of the elected president's office.
Indeed, by doing so, it knocked out two potential Malay candidates, Mr Farid Khan and Mr Salleh Marican, who did their community proud with their successful businesses.
Alas, even though their achievements put them among the top Malay businessmen, they did not qualify under the raised bar.
President Halimah has the opportunity to move the presidency in a different direction: by refocusing the role of the president as a unifying head of state, someone whom Singaporeans can identify with and look up to, embodying the values they uphold.
This is best done by a president who not only can relate easily to ordinary Singaporeans, but who also inspires and is respected for who she is and what she has done.
On this front, she will begin her presidency already hitting the right notes.
She has said she will continue living in her Housing Board flat in Yishun, which she did throughout her years as Minister of State and Speaker of Parliament.
It is rare in Singapore to find someone in such a senior position and earning the salary she does and not living in a private property. Many, in fact, own more than one.
But she not only lives in a public housing estate where the majority of Singaporeans reside, but also has lived in the same flat for more than 30 years.
Can a tudung-wearing Muslim woman be such a symbol in multiracial Singapore?
Many people have a problem with this, which leads me to the second area she can make a difference: promoting Singapore's brand of multiracialism.
What is this brand?
It is about each race preserving its own distinctiveness and accepting the other's right to do so, but all sharing a common sense of belonging to the community.
This requires tolerance and understanding of one another's ways and of what the country's common interests are.
The balance isn't easy to achieve because if each race continues to build on its own distinctiveness, it can grow apart from the others.
For the Malay community, an overly strict adherence to eating halal food, for example, can reinforce its exclusiveness.
Similarly, if Chinese Singaporeans speak Mandarin even in the company of Malays or Indians, they weaken everyone's sense of belonging to the same community.
In fact, the very idea of race and its place in Singapore can make for a divisive society. Which is why it needs constant tending and vigilance, and deep understanding and empathy. Now, the multiracial idea is being placed under the brightest possible spotlight in the highest office of the land.
Will it shine even more brightly or suffer under the glare?
Having a tudung-wearing president can be a strong statement about the place of minority races in Singapore, that there is space for them and their beliefs and practices.
But it will require sensitive handling on her part because racial prejudices and stereotyping exist and her distinctiveness can work against her.
It will also be particularly challenging for President Halimah because of the controversy surrounding her election.
There is still much unhappiness on the ground and many remain opposed to the idea of a reserved election and the way it has been introduced.
The cynicism, if not addressed, can damage the office of the presidency and its occupant.
President Halimah will have her work cut out for her.
But when the challenge is great, there is opportunity to make a difference.
It was what motivated Singapore's first popularly elected president, the late Mr Ong Teng Cheong, to do what he did.
He too entered new waters, tasked with making the new office work. I believed the challenge shaped his approach and he was determined to show that he was his own man and that he would do whatever he thought necessary to do the job.
It led to several clashes with the Government but it helped shape the relationship between the two and deepened understanding of how to make it work better.
President Halimah's challenge is different: After three elected presidents, the formal role of safeguarding the country's reserves and overseeing key appointments has more or less been settled.
Less understood is the informal unifying role the president plays in multiracial Singapore.
President Halimah now has a unique opportunity to reinforce the importance of this part of her job under trying circumstances.
I hope she can turn adversity into advantage. If ever a unifying president is needed, now is the time.
The writer is also a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University
The heartlander can inspire by refocusing her role as unifying head of state of multiracial Singapore
By Han Fook Kwang, Editor At Large, The Sunday Times, 17 Sep 2017
I am glad Singapore has its first Malay woman President, though it would have been much better if it wasn't done through a reserved election. But that's water under the bridge now.
I look forward to a Halimah Yacob presidency because I believe she has the qualities not only to perform the job but also to do so in a different way from previous heads of state. More important, the change can be good for Singapore.
Why do I say she has an opportunity to shape the presidency differently?
There are two areas where she can make a difference.
First, I think most people will agree she is not the sort of person you would associate with being in charge of a $500 million company, which is one of the new eligibility criteria for candidates. She does not have much financial background nor has she headed any ministry as its minister. If commercial and financial acumen were the most important requisites for the job, she would not be on most people's shortlist.
In raising the bar for people with commercial experience, I felt the Government over-emphasised the corporate nature of the elected president's office.
Indeed, by doing so, it knocked out two potential Malay candidates, Mr Farid Khan and Mr Salleh Marican, who did their community proud with their successful businesses.
Alas, even though their achievements put them among the top Malay businessmen, they did not qualify under the raised bar.
President Halimah has the opportunity to move the presidency in a different direction: by refocusing the role of the president as a unifying head of state, someone whom Singaporeans can identify with and look up to, embodying the values they uphold.
This is best done by a president who not only can relate easily to ordinary Singaporeans, but who also inspires and is respected for who she is and what she has done.
On this front, she will begin her presidency already hitting the right notes.
She has said she will continue living in her Housing Board flat in Yishun, which she did throughout her years as Minister of State and Speaker of Parliament.
It is rare in Singapore to find someone in such a senior position and earning the salary she does and not living in a private property. Many, in fact, own more than one.
But she not only lives in a public housing estate where the majority of Singaporeans reside, but also has lived in the same flat for more than 30 years.
Can a tudung-wearing Muslim woman be such a symbol in multiracial Singapore?
Many people have a problem with this, which leads me to the second area she can make a difference: promoting Singapore's brand of multiracialism.
What is this brand?
It is about each race preserving its own distinctiveness and accepting the other's right to do so, but all sharing a common sense of belonging to the community.
This requires tolerance and understanding of one another's ways and of what the country's common interests are.
The balance isn't easy to achieve because if each race continues to build on its own distinctiveness, it can grow apart from the others.
For the Malay community, an overly strict adherence to eating halal food, for example, can reinforce its exclusiveness.
Similarly, if Chinese Singaporeans speak Mandarin even in the company of Malays or Indians, they weaken everyone's sense of belonging to the same community.
In fact, the very idea of race and its place in Singapore can make for a divisive society. Which is why it needs constant tending and vigilance, and deep understanding and empathy. Now, the multiracial idea is being placed under the brightest possible spotlight in the highest office of the land.
Will it shine even more brightly or suffer under the glare?
Having a tudung-wearing president can be a strong statement about the place of minority races in Singapore, that there is space for them and their beliefs and practices.
But it will require sensitive handling on her part because racial prejudices and stereotyping exist and her distinctiveness can work against her.
It will also be particularly challenging for President Halimah because of the controversy surrounding her election.
There is still much unhappiness on the ground and many remain opposed to the idea of a reserved election and the way it has been introduced.
The cynicism, if not addressed, can damage the office of the presidency and its occupant.
President Halimah will have her work cut out for her.
But when the challenge is great, there is opportunity to make a difference.
It was what motivated Singapore's first popularly elected president, the late Mr Ong Teng Cheong, to do what he did.
He too entered new waters, tasked with making the new office work. I believed the challenge shaped his approach and he was determined to show that he was his own man and that he would do whatever he thought necessary to do the job.
It led to several clashes with the Government but it helped shape the relationship between the two and deepened understanding of how to make it work better.
President Halimah's challenge is different: After three elected presidents, the formal role of safeguarding the country's reserves and overseeing key appointments has more or less been settled.
Less understood is the informal unifying role the president plays in multiracial Singapore.
President Halimah now has a unique opportunity to reinforce the importance of this part of her job under trying circumstances.
I hope she can turn adversity into advantage. If ever a unifying president is needed, now is the time.
The writer is also a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University
* Parliament: Shanmugam, Sylvia Lim debate reason for Govt's decision on counting of presidential terms
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 3 Oct 2017
Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim on Tuesday (Oct 3) argued that the Government had misled people about its reasons for counting the five presidential terms of office needed to trigger a reserve election the way it did.
The Government should have made clear that this was a policy decision and not a legal one, said Ms Lim (Aljunied GRC).
Instead, the Government gave the impression that its decision was based on advice given by the Attorney-General, she added.
But Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam replied that the Government had always been clear that it is for Parliament to decide how to count the terms of office needed to trigger a reserved presidential election.
It was Ms Lim who wrongly thought the decision was a consequence of the advice it received, he argued.
The Government chose to count from President Wee Kim Wee, who was appointed but became the first President to exercise the powers of the elected president.
As a result, the presidential election last month was reserved for Malay candidates.
SYLVIA LIM: GOVERNMENT WAS MISLEADING
Ms Lim questioned the basis for the decision and how it was communicated to MPs and the public, in a 20-minute speech at the close of the day's Parliament sitting.
She quoted statements made by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and others in previous parliamentary debates which she said gave this misleading impression.
PM Lee had said on Nov 8: "We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee."
Ms Lim said that the "clear impression given was that the Government's decision was based on the AGC's advice".
That must have been why PM Lee sequenced his sentences in that order, she added.
A day later on Nov 9, DPM Teo told her in Parliament: "On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the AGC's advice and if not and you do not think that it's correct, I think it's possible if you wish to challenge judicially."
Ms Lim said that "any reasonable person hearing those words would assume" that the AGC had advised the Government, and that the AGC's advice involved a question of law.
"Why else would I be asked to challenge it judicially?" she asked.
But it later became clear the decision had been made independently of the legal advice, said Ms Lim.
She highlighted the legal arguments made by Deputy-Attorney General Hri Kumar Nair in court after former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock challenged the Government's decision to count the five terms from Dr Wee.
Mr Nair had said during the hearing on June 29: "The PM never said that the Attorney-General advised PM to start the count from President Wee. What PM said is that the Attorney-General advised that what the Government was proposing to do was legitimate."
Ms Lim saw this as a contradiction.
"The ministers kept consistently referring to the AGC's advice as the basis for the legislative changes. Yet the Deputy Attorney-General says in court that the advice is irrelevant," she said.
She said the Government had engaged in "ambiguous language and red herrings".
"We in this House should have been told in no uncertain terms that it was the Government that wanted to count from Dr Wee Kim Wee," she said." The Government should have defended its own decision on why counting from President Wee was appropriate.
"It should not have evaded the debate by using the AGC's advice as a distraction, and then gone to court to say that the AGC's advice was irrelevant," Ms Lim added.
SHANMUGAM: GOVERNMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR
Mr Shanmugam replied that PM Lee said "the next elections will be reserved for a Malay President and we have taken advice from the AGC".
PM Lee had been clear about that, which the Court of Appeal also acknowledged, said Mr Shanmugam.
But Ms Lim wrongly thought that the decision was a consequence of the advice, he argued.
"What Ms Lim is saying is that we are starting to count from here because of AGC's advice. I think that was never suggested."
"We start counting, we are a careful Government. We make a policy decision but we take advice to see whether there are any impediments," he added.
Moreover, the Government as a rule generally does not publish the legal opinions which it gets, he said.
He also recounted how, in a dialogue session, he had said on the record that "the Government can decide... it is a policy decision".
He added: "Why would I go and say it's a policy matter if I thought it was a pure legal issue?"
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 3 Oct 2017
The Government should have made clear that this was a policy decision and not a legal one, said Ms Lim (Aljunied GRC).
Instead, the Government gave the impression that its decision was based on advice given by the Attorney-General, she added.
But Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam replied that the Government had always been clear that it is for Parliament to decide how to count the terms of office needed to trigger a reserved presidential election.
It was Ms Lim who wrongly thought the decision was a consequence of the advice it received, he argued.
The Government chose to count from President Wee Kim Wee, who was appointed but became the first President to exercise the powers of the elected president.
As a result, the presidential election last month was reserved for Malay candidates.
SYLVIA LIM: GOVERNMENT WAS MISLEADING
Ms Lim questioned the basis for the decision and how it was communicated to MPs and the public, in a 20-minute speech at the close of the day's Parliament sitting.
She quoted statements made by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and others in previous parliamentary debates which she said gave this misleading impression.
PM Lee had said on Nov 8: "We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee."
Ms Lim said that the "clear impression given was that the Government's decision was based on the AGC's advice".
That must have been why PM Lee sequenced his sentences in that order, she added.
A day later on Nov 9, DPM Teo told her in Parliament: "On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the AGC's advice and if not and you do not think that it's correct, I think it's possible if you wish to challenge judicially."
Ms Lim said that "any reasonable person hearing those words would assume" that the AGC had advised the Government, and that the AGC's advice involved a question of law.
"Why else would I be asked to challenge it judicially?" she asked.
But it later became clear the decision had been made independently of the legal advice, said Ms Lim.
She highlighted the legal arguments made by Deputy-Attorney General Hri Kumar Nair in court after former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock challenged the Government's decision to count the five terms from Dr Wee.
Mr Nair had said during the hearing on June 29: "The PM never said that the Attorney-General advised PM to start the count from President Wee. What PM said is that the Attorney-General advised that what the Government was proposing to do was legitimate."
Ms Lim saw this as a contradiction.
"The ministers kept consistently referring to the AGC's advice as the basis for the legislative changes. Yet the Deputy Attorney-General says in court that the advice is irrelevant," she said.
She said the Government had engaged in "ambiguous language and red herrings".
"We in this House should have been told in no uncertain terms that it was the Government that wanted to count from Dr Wee Kim Wee," she said." The Government should have defended its own decision on why counting from President Wee was appropriate.
"It should not have evaded the debate by using the AGC's advice as a distraction, and then gone to court to say that the AGC's advice was irrelevant," Ms Lim added.
SHANMUGAM: GOVERNMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR
Mr Shanmugam replied that PM Lee said "the next elections will be reserved for a Malay President and we have taken advice from the AGC".
PM Lee had been clear about that, which the Court of Appeal also acknowledged, said Mr Shanmugam.
But Ms Lim wrongly thought that the decision was a consequence of the advice, he argued.
"What Ms Lim is saying is that we are starting to count from here because of AGC's advice. I think that was never suggested."
"We start counting, we are a careful Government. We make a policy decision but we take advice to see whether there are any impediments," he added.
Moreover, the Government as a rule generally does not publish the legal opinions which it gets, he said.
He also recounted how, in a dialogue session, he had said on the record that "the Government can decide... it is a policy decision".
He added: "Why would I go and say it's a policy matter if I thought it was a pure legal issue?"
Misleading impression on EP decision: Sylvia Lim
Govt should have made clear the counting of terms was policy, not legal, decision: WP MP
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 4 Oct 2017
Workers' Party (WP) MP Sylvia Lim yesterday argued that the Government had misled people about its reasons for counting the five presidential terms of office needed to trigger a reserve election from President Wee Kim Wee.
The Government should have made clear that this was a policy decision and not a legal one, said Ms Lim (Aljunied GRC).
Instead, it gave the impression that the decision was based on advice given by the Attorney-General, she added.
Last month's presidential election was reserved for Malay candidates, as a result of counting the five terms from that of President Wee - who was appointed but became the first president to exercise the powers of the elected presidency (EP).
Ms Lim questioned the basis for the decision and how it was communicated to MPs and the public, in a 20-minute speech at the close of the day's Parliament sitting.
She quoted statements made by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and others in previous parliamentary debates which she said gave this misleading impression.
PM Lee had said on Nov 8 last year: "We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first president who exercised the powers of the elected president, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee."
Ms Lim said the "clear impression given" was that the Government based its decision on the advice of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). That must have been why PM Lee sequenced his sentences in that order, she added.
A day later on Nov 9, Mr Teo told her in Parliament: "On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the AGC's advice and, if not and you do not think that it's correct, I think it's possible if you wish to challenge judicially."
Ms Lim said that "any reasonable person hearing those words would assume" the AGC had advised the Government, and that the AGC's advice involved a question of law.
"Why else would I be asked to challenge it judicially?" she asked.
But it later became clear the decision had been made independently of the legal advice, said Ms Lim.
She highlighted the legal arguments made by Deputy-Attorney General Hri Kumar Nair in court after former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock challenged the Government's decision to count from Dr Wee's term.
Mr Nair said during the hearing on June 29: "The PM never said that the Attorney-General advised PM to start the count from President Wee. What PM said is that the Attorney-General advised that what the Government was proposing to do was legitimate."
Ms Lim saw this as a contradiction. "The ministers kept consistently referring to the AGC's advice as the basis for the legislative changes. Yet the Deputy Attorney-General says in court that the advice is irrelevant," she said.
She added that the Government had engaged in "ambiguous language and red herrings".
"We in this House should have been told in no uncertain terms that it was the Government that wanted to count from Dr Wee Kim Wee," she said.
"The Government should have defended its own decision on why counting from President Wee was appropriate.
"It should not have evaded the debate by using the AGC's advice as a distraction, and then gone to court to say that the AGC's advice was irrelevant," Ms Lim added.
Govt should have made clear the counting of terms was policy, not legal, decision: WP MP
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 4 Oct 2017
Workers' Party (WP) MP Sylvia Lim yesterday argued that the Government had misled people about its reasons for counting the five presidential terms of office needed to trigger a reserve election from President Wee Kim Wee.
The Government should have made clear that this was a policy decision and not a legal one, said Ms Lim (Aljunied GRC).
Instead, it gave the impression that the decision was based on advice given by the Attorney-General, she added.
Last month's presidential election was reserved for Malay candidates, as a result of counting the five terms from that of President Wee - who was appointed but became the first president to exercise the powers of the elected presidency (EP).
Ms Lim questioned the basis for the decision and how it was communicated to MPs and the public, in a 20-minute speech at the close of the day's Parliament sitting.
She quoted statements made by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and others in previous parliamentary debates which she said gave this misleading impression.
PM Lee had said on Nov 8 last year: "We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first president who exercised the powers of the elected president, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee."
Ms Lim said the "clear impression given" was that the Government based its decision on the advice of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). That must have been why PM Lee sequenced his sentences in that order, she added.
A day later on Nov 9, Mr Teo told her in Parliament: "On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the AGC's advice and, if not and you do not think that it's correct, I think it's possible if you wish to challenge judicially."
Ms Lim said that "any reasonable person hearing those words would assume" the AGC had advised the Government, and that the AGC's advice involved a question of law.
"Why else would I be asked to challenge it judicially?" she asked.
But it later became clear the decision had been made independently of the legal advice, said Ms Lim.
She highlighted the legal arguments made by Deputy-Attorney General Hri Kumar Nair in court after former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock challenged the Government's decision to count from Dr Wee's term.
Mr Nair said during the hearing on June 29: "The PM never said that the Attorney-General advised PM to start the count from President Wee. What PM said is that the Attorney-General advised that what the Government was proposing to do was legitimate."
Ms Lim saw this as a contradiction. "The ministers kept consistently referring to the AGC's advice as the basis for the legislative changes. Yet the Deputy Attorney-General says in court that the advice is irrelevant," she said.
She added that the Government had engaged in "ambiguous language and red herrings".
"We in this House should have been told in no uncertain terms that it was the Government that wanted to count from Dr Wee Kim Wee," she said.
"The Government should have defended its own decision on why counting from President Wee was appropriate.
"It should not have evaded the debate by using the AGC's advice as a distraction, and then gone to court to say that the AGC's advice was irrelevant," Ms Lim added.
Clear that it's a policy decision: Shanmugam
Govt was clear it is for Parliament to decide on counting of presidential terms, he says
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 4 Oct 2017
The Government has always been clear that it is for Parliament to decide when to start counting the terms of office to trigger a reserved presidential election, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday.
He was responding to Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim's charge that the Government had given the impression that the decision was a legal one, and not a policy matter.
In a speech in Parliament on the issue, Ms Lim said political leaders suggested that the Government decided to count from President Wee Kim Wee because of advice it received from the Attorney-General.
Mr Shanmugam replied that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said "the next election will be reserved for a Malay president and we have taken advice from the AGC (Attorney-General's Chambers)".
But Ms Lim wrongly thought that the decision was a consequence of the advice, he argued.
"What Ms Lim is saying is that we are starting to count from here because of the AGC's advice. I think that was never suggested," he said.
PM Lee had made it clear that Parliament intended to give itself the discretion to begin the count from President Wee's last term, Mr Shanmugam said.
The Court of Appeal also said PM Lee was very clear in its judgment on the legal challenge mounted by former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock on the timing of the reserved election, he added.
He also recounted how, in a dialogue session, he had said on the record that "the Government can decide... It is a policy decision".
He added: "Why would I go and say it's a policy matter if I thought it was a pure legal issue?"
Mr Shanmugam also explained why the Government asked for legal advice. "We start counting, we are a careful Government. We make a policy decision but we take advice to see whether there are any impediments," he said.
Also, the Government as a rule generally does not publish the legal opinions it gets, he added.
In any case, the legal advice given by the Attorney-General is irrelevant as the question before the court was whether the decision to count from President Wee's term was constitutional, he said.
The Court of Appeal also said the AGC's advice is irrelevant, in ruling that the decision to count from President Wee's term was constitutional as it was a decision that Parliament was free to make.
Mr Shanmugam also took a swipe at Ms Lim, when he said: "There is only one person in this House whom the courts have held to be misleading Parliament. And he is not from the PAP."
He was referring to a 2015 statement she made to Parliament on how the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) had made the necessary transfers to its sinking fund.
Justice Quentin Loh subsequently noted that Ms Lim failed to mention or acknowledge that AHPETC had been making late transfers to its sinking fund.
Concluding his speech, the minister reiterated that the Government had always been clear that the decision was a policy matter, and that it was on the record.
"PM took the same position, he explained in Parliament. We decide but we took AGC's advice."
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean took the same position the next day, as did Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Chan Chun Sing later, he added.
"Did anyone say we are going to decide this way because this is the way that AGC has told us that we have to decide?" Mr Shanmugam said. "That would make no sense because Parliament is sovereign."
Govt was clear it is for Parliament to decide on counting of presidential terms, he says
By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 4 Oct 2017
The Government has always been clear that it is for Parliament to decide when to start counting the terms of office to trigger a reserved presidential election, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday.
He was responding to Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim's charge that the Government had given the impression that the decision was a legal one, and not a policy matter.
In a speech in Parliament on the issue, Ms Lim said political leaders suggested that the Government decided to count from President Wee Kim Wee because of advice it received from the Attorney-General.
Mr Shanmugam replied that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said "the next election will be reserved for a Malay president and we have taken advice from the AGC (Attorney-General's Chambers)".
But Ms Lim wrongly thought that the decision was a consequence of the advice, he argued.
"What Ms Lim is saying is that we are starting to count from here because of the AGC's advice. I think that was never suggested," he said.
PM Lee had made it clear that Parliament intended to give itself the discretion to begin the count from President Wee's last term, Mr Shanmugam said.
The Court of Appeal also said PM Lee was very clear in its judgment on the legal challenge mounted by former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock on the timing of the reserved election, he added.
He also recounted how, in a dialogue session, he had said on the record that "the Government can decide... It is a policy decision".
He added: "Why would I go and say it's a policy matter if I thought it was a pure legal issue?"
Mr Shanmugam also explained why the Government asked for legal advice. "We start counting, we are a careful Government. We make a policy decision but we take advice to see whether there are any impediments," he said.
Also, the Government as a rule generally does not publish the legal opinions it gets, he added.
In any case, the legal advice given by the Attorney-General is irrelevant as the question before the court was whether the decision to count from President Wee's term was constitutional, he said.
The Court of Appeal also said the AGC's advice is irrelevant, in ruling that the decision to count from President Wee's term was constitutional as it was a decision that Parliament was free to make.
Mr Shanmugam also took a swipe at Ms Lim, when he said: "There is only one person in this House whom the courts have held to be misleading Parliament. And he is not from the PAP."
He was referring to a 2015 statement she made to Parliament on how the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) had made the necessary transfers to its sinking fund.
Justice Quentin Loh subsequently noted that Ms Lim failed to mention or acknowledge that AHPETC had been making late transfers to its sinking fund.
Concluding his speech, the minister reiterated that the Government had always been clear that the decision was a policy matter, and that it was on the record.
"PM took the same position, he explained in Parliament. We decide but we took AGC's advice."
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean took the same position the next day, as did Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Chan Chun Sing later, he added.
"Did anyone say we are going to decide this way because this is the way that AGC has told us that we have to decide?" Mr Shanmugam said. "That would make no sense because Parliament is sovereign."
Based on AGC's advice?
Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim arguing that the Government gave the misleading impression that its decision was based on legal advice:
"During that debate on Nov 8, the Prime Minister told the House the following... 'We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first president who exercised the powers of the elected president, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee...'
The clear impression given to members was that the Government's decision to count from President Wee was based on the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice.
That must have been why the PM sequenced sentences as he did, that having taken the AGC's advice, the Government was counting the five terms from President Wee.
The PM did not say that the Government intended to count from President Wee, and that the AGC had merely confirmed that it was acceptable to do so."
Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim arguing that the Government gave the misleading impression that its decision was based on legal advice:
"During that debate on Nov 8, the Prime Minister told the House the following... 'We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first president who exercised the powers of the elected president, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee...'
The clear impression given to members was that the Government's decision to count from President Wee was based on the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice.
That must have been why the PM sequenced sentences as he did, that having taken the AGC's advice, the Government was counting the five terms from President Wee.
The PM did not say that the Government intended to count from President Wee, and that the AGC had merely confirmed that it was acceptable to do so."
Government had been clear all along
Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam countered that the Government had been clear all along:
"The Prime Minister was entirely right to say we will start counting from here. The next election will be reserved for a Malay president and we have taken advice from the AGC.
What Ms Lim is saying is that we are starting to count from here because of AGC's advice. I think that was never suggested."
He added later: "PM took the same position, he explained in Parliament. We decide but we took AGC's advice.
And the next day, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and subsequently, Mr Chan (Chun Sing, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office), took the same position.
Did anyone say we are going to decide this way because this is the way that AGC has told us that we have to decide? That would make no sense because Parliament is sovereign."
Reserved presidential election: Tan Cheng Bock engaging in elaborate charades, says Shanmugam
By Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 9 Oct 2017
Law Minister K. Shanmugam said yesterday that former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock had "spliced" his remarks and "rearranged" them in a way to suggest something he did not say.
At issue is whether the minister had said the Government would make public advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) on legal issues related to the recent reserved presidential election.
Dr Tan said in a Facebook post last Saturday night that the minister had said the Government would do so during a public dialogue last year, but then contradicted himself in Parliament last Tuesday.
Mr Shanmugam had said at the sitting that the Government, as a rule, generally does not publish the legal opinions it gets. He was responding to an adjournment motion on the timing of the reserved election by Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim.
In a Facebook post yesterday, Mr Shanmugam said Dr Tan had "spliced my remarks, rearranged them, and put them together in a way to suggest something which I did not say". He added that it was untrue he had been inconsistent in Parliament.
Providing a link to his remarks from last year, Mr Shanmugam said he was responding to a question about when the "circuit breaker" triggering a reserved presidential election would come into effect.
In his answer, he said it was a policy decision for the Government to make, adding that the Government would make its position clear after it had sought the AGC's advice on some legal questions.
He also said that at the latest, the Government would have a position on the counting of the five terms needed to trigger a reserved election by the time a Bill on the elected presidency made it to Parliament.
In responding, Mr Shanmugam had said: "Once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the Bill gets to Parliament, which is in October, I think we will have a position and we will make it public."
RelatedHome Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam countered that the Government had been clear all along:
"The Prime Minister was entirely right to say we will start counting from here. The next election will be reserved for a Malay president and we have taken advice from the AGC.
What Ms Lim is saying is that we are starting to count from here because of AGC's advice. I think that was never suggested."
He added later: "PM took the same position, he explained in Parliament. We decide but we took AGC's advice.
And the next day, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and subsequently, Mr Chan (Chun Sing, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office), took the same position.
Did anyone say we are going to decide this way because this is the way that AGC has told us that we have to decide? That would make no sense because Parliament is sovereign."
Reserved presidential election: Tan Cheng Bock engaging in elaborate charades, says Shanmugam
By Tham Yuen-C, Assistant Political Editor, The Straits Times, 9 Oct 2017
Law Minister K. Shanmugam said yesterday that former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock had "spliced" his remarks and "rearranged" them in a way to suggest something he did not say.
At issue is whether the minister had said the Government would make public advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) on legal issues related to the recent reserved presidential election.
Dr Tan said in a Facebook post last Saturday night that the minister had said the Government would do so during a public dialogue last year, but then contradicted himself in Parliament last Tuesday.
Mr Shanmugam had said at the sitting that the Government, as a rule, generally does not publish the legal opinions it gets. He was responding to an adjournment motion on the timing of the reserved election by Workers' Party MP Sylvia Lim.
In a Facebook post yesterday, Mr Shanmugam said Dr Tan had "spliced my remarks, rearranged them, and put them together in a way to suggest something which I did not say". He added that it was untrue he had been inconsistent in Parliament.
Providing a link to his remarks from last year, Mr Shanmugam said he was responding to a question about when the "circuit breaker" triggering a reserved presidential election would come into effect.
In his answer, he said it was a policy decision for the Government to make, adding that the Government would make its position clear after it had sought the AGC's advice on some legal questions.
He also said that at the latest, the Government would have a position on the counting of the five terms needed to trigger a reserved election by the time a Bill on the elected presidency made it to Parliament.
In responding, Mr Shanmugam had said: "Once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the Bill gets to Parliament, which is in October, I think we will have a position and we will make it public."
Dr Tan, citing this, said: "Would the Minister explain to Singaporeans his apparent contradiction?"
To this, Mr Shanmugam said: "Clearly, I was referring to making the Government's position (and not the AGC's advice) public."
The minister added that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had later made clear the Government's position on the counting of the terms, when Parliament debated the constitutional amendments.
PM Lee had said the count would start from the second term of President Wee Kim Wee, who was the first head of state to be vested with the powers of the elected president.
Mr Shanmugam said the Court of Appeal - which dismissed a legal challenge by Dr Tan on the timing of the reserved election - had "said explicitly" that PM Lee was clear in stating the Government's position.
Ms Lim had argued in her motion that the Government had misled people by giving the impression that it was acting on the AGC's advice to reserve the recent presidential election for Malay candidates.
Ms Lim had argued in her motion that the Government had misled people by giving the impression that it was acting on the AGC's advice to reserve the recent presidential election for Malay candidates.
Mr Shanmugam, rebutting this, said the Government has "always been clear" that it was a policy matter for Parliament to decide.
In his Facebook post, Dr Tan said PM Lee, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Chan Chun Sing should have been the ones responding to Ms Lim.
"One would have expected the PM, DPM or Minister Chan to speak for themselves and clarify their own words," he said.
To this, Mr Shanmugam said he was responding on behalf of the Government, and Dr Tan, as a former parliamentarian, should be aware of how adjournment motions are answered.
He added: "Dr Tan may be bitter. But that is no excuse for engaging in these elaborate charades."
To this, Mr Shanmugam said he was responding on behalf of the Government, and Dr Tan, as a former parliamentarian, should be aware of how adjournment motions are answered.
He added: "Dr Tan may be bitter. But that is no excuse for engaging in these elaborate charades."
Changes to political system to prepare Singapore for long term: PM Lee Hsien Loong
Public hearings on Elected Presidency
Elected Presidency: Who gives a shit?
Channel NewsAsia - Institute of Policy Studies Survey on Race Relations
Elected Presidency: PM Lee on Race and Politics
Elected Presidency Constitutional Commission Report 2016
Elected Presidency White Paper: Government's Response to the Constitutional Commission’s Report
Workers' Party's proposal on Elected Presidency similar to bullshit
IPS Forum on the Reforms to the Elected Presidency System
Parliamentary debate on changes to the Elected Presidency
Presidential election set for September 2017
Why was the elected presidency changed?
Tan Cheng Bock files High Court application challenging reserved Presidential Election
Halimah Yacob to run for President
Presidential Election 2017: Nomination Day on Sep 13, Polling on Sep 23
IPS Forum on the Reserved Presidential Election
Singapore’s aspiration for race not to count is something that “cannot just be a pledge”, says DPM Tharman
Halimah Yacob is Singapore's First Female President; First Malay Head of State in 47 years
President Halimah Yacob takes oath and makes history
Reserved presidential election was right thing to do: PM Lee Hsien Loong
Public hearings on Elected Presidency
Elected Presidency: Who gives a shit?
Channel NewsAsia - Institute of Policy Studies Survey on Race Relations
Elected Presidency: PM Lee on Race and Politics
Elected Presidency Constitutional Commission Report 2016
Elected Presidency White Paper: Government's Response to the Constitutional Commission’s Report
Workers' Party's proposal on Elected Presidency similar to bullshit
IPS Forum on the Reforms to the Elected Presidency System
Parliamentary debate on changes to the Elected Presidency
Presidential election set for September 2017
Why was the elected presidency changed?
Tan Cheng Bock files High Court application challenging reserved Presidential Election
Halimah Yacob to run for President
Presidential Election 2017: Nomination Day on Sep 13, Polling on Sep 23
IPS Forum on the Reserved Presidential Election
Singapore’s aspiration for race not to count is something that “cannot just be a pledge”, says DPM Tharman
Halimah Yacob is Singapore's First Female President; First Malay Head of State in 47 years
President Halimah Yacob takes oath and makes history
Reserved presidential election was right thing to do: PM Lee Hsien Loong
No comments:
Post a Comment