May 14, 2011
Elected presidency next: No walkovers, please
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
GIVEN the different, combative flavour of last Saturday's General Election, will the next battleground for votes be for the elected presidency?
Unlike the two previous presidential elections in 2005 and 1999, which saw walkovers, the next election, which must be held this year, should be as much a watershed contest as this month's GE.
Without taking away credit from President S R Nathan, who has performed well, there shouldn't be a walkover.
While the statutes provide for a sole presidential candidate, legal legitimacy is not the same as political legitimacy.
Since the first elected presidency in 1993, when a reluctant Mr Chua Kim Yeow contested, there has been a paucity of candidates stepping forward to contest. The culprit is perhaps the pre-qualification criterion which insists that a candidate must have been a chairman or chief executive officer of a statutory board or local company for three years with a minimum paid-up capital of $100 million.
The rule is overly stringent. Instead, we can insist that one or more of the Council of Presidential Advisers have such qualifications, especially as the elected president is not expected to work alone and must consult the council.
Even so, and even if only one candidate is on the ballot, there should be a stipulation that he seeks political legitimacy through a 'yes' or 'no' vote directly from the electorate.
A simple 'yes' majority should suffice. If voters reject the candidate, the election process should be repeated.
As holder of the second key to the nation's financial reserves, the elected president must reflect the choice of an electorate directly.
Clinton Lim
Elected presidency next: No walkovers, please
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
GIVEN the different, combative flavour of last Saturday's General Election, will the next battleground for votes be for the elected presidency?
Unlike the two previous presidential elections in 2005 and 1999, which saw walkovers, the next election, which must be held this year, should be as much a watershed contest as this month's GE.
Without taking away credit from President S R Nathan, who has performed well, there shouldn't be a walkover.
While the statutes provide for a sole presidential candidate, legal legitimacy is not the same as political legitimacy.
Since the first elected presidency in 1993, when a reluctant Mr Chua Kim Yeow contested, there has been a paucity of candidates stepping forward to contest. The culprit is perhaps the pre-qualification criterion which insists that a candidate must have been a chairman or chief executive officer of a statutory board or local company for three years with a minimum paid-up capital of $100 million.
The rule is overly stringent. Instead, we can insist that one or more of the Council of Presidential Advisers have such qualifications, especially as the elected president is not expected to work alone and must consult the council.
Even so, and even if only one candidate is on the ballot, there should be a stipulation that he seeks political legitimacy through a 'yes' or 'no' vote directly from the electorate.
A simple 'yes' majority should suffice. If voters reject the candidate, the election process should be repeated.
As holder of the second key to the nation's financial reserves, the elected president must reflect the choice of an electorate directly.
Clinton Lim
