As Singapore’s Presidential candidates wrap up their election campaign, Ng Kaijie argues that information is the lifeblood of the election process and without it, we only vote at our own expense.

Democracy never monopolized the affection of the Western world. Indeed, some statesmen even treated the system with disdain. Winston Churchill once astutely remarked, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

It seems that 50 years later, in an ex-colony faced with an impending Presidential Elections, we have not grown any wiser.

The stage has been set. This election would probably be decided by how voters construe the President’s role under the Constitution. However, with only one Presidential Election under the electorate’s belt, can we be trusted to understand the President’s complex undertakings? The gloves are already off in this interpretation free-for-all. Mainstream media has carried editorials warning against liberal readings of the role. Forums (both online and off) have also attempted to define the limits of the President according to arguably biased perspectives.

Even the presidential candidates themselves acknowledge that this crucial issue would be a tipping point. Dr. Tony Tan (above), in a thinly veiled poke at his election rivals, commented that “the candidates should be running for the Office that exists, and not the Office the one they wish to have.” Dr. Tan Cheng Bock have also tried to distance himself from what he perceived to be “day-to-day politics.”

Yet, the other two candidates who propose a relatively activist role remain wholly unrepentant. They bank on the principle of a moral authority from the people, which, they argue, affords a certain flexibility in the President’s role. This would compel him to take the necessary action, even if it crosses the (as of yet) undefined line between legal and unlawful exercise of the President’s powers.

The conflict over the Constitution’s interpretation has also drawn political observers into the fray. Professor Eugene Tan, in his frequent guest appearances on Channel Newsasia’s election specials and on The Online Citizen Face-to-Face 2 Presidential Election special, harped on the danger of “overpromising”. He said that the law does not allow for such a liberal exercise of the President’s authority. Such caution is well-advised. When one rides into power with promises that he can’t cash, the disconnect between expectations and reality must necessitate a backlash and a disillusionment with the institution.

Yet, despite such widespread bemoaning regarding the faulty understanding of the President’s role, no one has set the record straight, except the Law Minister K. Shanmugam. His interpretation of the Constitution drew criticism for being overly narrow (see here and here). Perceptions of him being an interested party was also a baggage that was difficult to shed. Moreover, the judiciary rules on these vagaries in the Constitution, so his interpretation is of little practical consequence. While Mr. Shanmugam clarified his remarks later, a chilling effect seems to have descended on the issue. No one is keen to stand out and offer an authoritative view of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the whole “you-think-I-think” saga acts out on parallel spectrums. Naysayers are all too willing to frame any whiff of activism as inclinations to exercise explicit power, even when such inclinations could be behind-the-scenes exertion of influence. No one is willing to address such hypothetical circumstances, when in fact one believes that the President would engage in private acts of influence very frequently. Even President Nathan has indicated his many interactions with the establishment despite his constraints from the oath of confidentiality.

There is nothing wrong with political posturing from the candidates when they accuse each other of irresponsibility – after all, it’s just politics. But when neutral experts or institutions get caught up in the “me-too!” fray and merely react to such bluster instead of correcting perceptions, how can one expect voters to vote “right”?

All this campaigning has obscured the crux of the issue; that Singapore lacks an independent institution who will willingly step up when the traditional ones are found wanting. While news media lament the cavalier attitudes of certain candidates, they shy away from enlightening their readers or even directing them to Singapore’s statues freely available online to address the possible influence the President can possess. Given their enormous powers at setting the public agenda, it seems puzzling when they would rather sow the seeds of the social panic that they report. This is especially since they are adequately equipped with the expertise and reach to rectify such a problem.

Singapore’s nascent civil society also fails in this regard. It is not surprising given the clear demarcation between the political and civil locally. Yet, civil society is the one best served if it can push towards a clarification of the President’s powers. Given the President’s role for the community, civil society needs to understand the extent of his influence and thus the limits of their organizations in lobbying for certain initiatives.

Even the judiciary is strangely silent on the issue when their views are probably the most authoritative. Perhaps they do not comment on speculation. Without the real transgression taking place, such a thought experiment is merely a meaningless exercise. Moreover, the merits of the case would be to take into account the context of the individual situations. But as a result of this, we only have disorganized experts offering idiosyncratic takes on the provisions for the President. These are like reading tea leaves; interesting to the interested individual, but of no value to larger society.

One can understand why experts are loathe to offer an explicit interpretation of the law and the many possibilities of how the President would or would not contravene it; no one wants to end up with intellectual cream pie on their face. The interpretation of the law is still human and allows for some flexibility.

However, leaving the account wide open serves no favours either. An irresponsible President can drum up unrealistic expectations. On the other hand, the lack of a clear idea about the Presidency forces the electorate to be unnecessarily cautious and to seek out the most conservative figurehead available. What if the President is actually capable of so much more? Without the dimensions of a room, we would probably equip it with the stingiest furniture available, however ill-fitting it might be.

Perhaps not many voters would recognize the political theory behind the mandate. However, they do implicitly acknowledge the weight of their own vote. A vote is sacred. It is a responsibility and above all, it is empowering. The government recognizes this when it asks the electorate to vote rationally and objectively. Populism, to them, is the anti-thesis of rationality. Yet, without complete information, a voter is disenfranchised. He cannot be expected to vote rationally his preferred candidate that fits the terms of the office.

That would in fact destroy the sanctity of the voting process when voters instead rely on heuristics, plumping for any likeable candidate regardless of other conditions. The very real fear is that the by-election effect would follow, turning this into a General Election Part 2. Starving voters of neutral information would ironically herald the rise of the irresponsible voter, the very same kind the elected presidency was supposed to check.

• Share

If you like this story, please consider making a donation to help further the Enquirer's cause.

Disclaimer: Comments left on articles in The Enquirer are contributions from readers and do not reflect the views of the editorial team. The Enquirer is not responsible for the comments and reserves the right to remove any comments deemed inflammatory or in bad taste.