Dear Sir:
I will vote for you in the upcoming presidential election. I will vote for you not because I agree with the stances you espouse – I do not. I will vote for you not because I identify with your background and political affiliations – I do not. I will vote for you not because my mother worked under you while you were with the civil service – I couldn’t care less.
I will vote for you because I believe that we do not need the office of president in Singapore. Over the past years, the presidential office has been of such low profile that no one has paid particular attention to it. Over the past months, the question has been raised of why a low-profile office draws such a high salary. Over the past weeks, the debate over the role of the president has exposed the contradictions inherent in the presence, the purpose and the relevance of the office.
I respect that the presidential office-holders past and present have been worthy people of calibre, who have performed their duties as they felt befitted their constitutional authority. But this is no longer 1960 or 1980 or even 2000. We, the citizens of Singapore, want to see what we are paying for. The president, the elected president, is a holder of public office. He must be accountable in the performance of his duties. And the government that upholds the constitution that dictates those duties must be accountable for the scope and nature of those duties.
In the debate over the role of the president, two sharply opposing sides have appeared. Either the president has the power to take a stance independently of the government and on matters of substance, or he does not. If the president has this power, then what are our Members of Parliament – our elected Members of Parliament – doing? If they are doing their job in the interest of the public, why do we need a president?
If the president does not have this power – if he is dumb, as Mr Tan Kin Lian so concisely put it – then what is the purpose of having a president? Is the office merely a ceremonial rubber stamp? Certainly, other democracies have a ceremonial head of state. It is known as the incumbent monarch. Where there is no monarch, the elected prime minister – or the executive president – assumes the role of head of state. Why must the head of state be separated out from the executive function, especially in a politically and economically stable environment?
No matter what side of the debate one chooses to stand on, the role of president emerges as redundant. Therefore, I will not vote for Dr Tony Tan, because he represents the status quo and the retention of a redundant role. I will not vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bock, because he, too, is close to the status quo. I will not vote for Mr Tan Kin Lian, because – my apologies, but I think this is true – he will not be able to capture enough of the popular vote.
Therefore, Mr Tan Jee Say: I will vote for you because in my eyes, your entry into the presidential office is the most likely to lead to its eventual abolishment. Not just because you may or may not move to have it abolished, but because your presence has a high likelihood of goading the PAP into a serious relook of the office’s purpose and the necessity of having it. We have all seen that lobbying the PAP for change usually has no more than minimal and cosmetic effect. Put it this way: a fire lit under the seat of someone’s chair is more likely to make them stand up than a roomful of people cajoling them.
I’ll vote for you. Now go light that fire.
