If you flip thru
it, you might miss it.
Today's
papers reveal something not quite right. And as a citizen, a morning reader of
the Straits Times, I am confused.
Why? Here's the background.
First, we have the exchange
between TCB and Shanmugam. The latter said: "(Dr Tan) spliced my remarks,
rearranged them, and put them together in a way to suggest something which I
did not say."
He was referring to what he said
last year about some "circuit breaker" which would trigger a reserved
presidential election.
It reports: "In
(Shanmugam's) 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."
In short, what our law minister
said was this:-
"Once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the
Bill gets to Parliament, which is in October (1996), I think we will have a
position and we will make it public."
But the issue is "what is to
be made public - the AGC's advice or the Govt decision (on the hiatus
provision)?"
TCB said: "Would the
Minister explain to Singaporeans his apparent contradiction?" TCB was
referring to the statement "Once we get the advice, we will send it
out."
But the law minister replied:
"Clearly, I was referring to making the Government's position (and not the
AGC's advice) public."
Actually, the law minister has a
point. The AGC's legal advice is generally privileged and it was sought on the
legality of the reserved presidential election (on its trigger).
I would not think that it is to
be disclosed as it usually contains sensitive information to allow for
confidential, candid, and free discussion. But there is no doubt that our law
minister should have been clearer, because at such time, the last thing you
want to do is to play with words.
And our law minister being our
law minister added this remark: "Dr Tan may be bitter. But that is no
excuse for engaging in these elaborate charades."
Mm...I underscore the phrase
"these elaborate charades" when I read in another section where House
Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin was asked in an event organised by Roses of Peace about
"how the elected presidency can continue to be representative as racial
groups become less distinct?"
He said that he expected the
reserved election system to be tweaked over the years when it evolves. This was
actually anticipated by Parliament last year.
He added that the CIMO (Chinese,
Indian, Malay and Others) construct "remains valid certainly for the near
term. But over time, indeed as more and more mixed marriages take place, and we
begin to see the shift in a more significant way, then you need to
evolve."
This is what the House Speaker
meant by evolving when he said:-
"One option to ensuring the
system remains representative is the old way of appointing presidents...This
was mooted by a Constitutional Commission reviewing the elected presidency last
year. It had said the Government could, at some stage, consider separating the
custodial and ceremonial roles of the President and return to having Parliament
appoint the President."
Did I hear it right, "return
to having Parliament appoint the President"?
He added: "Under this
system, that was in place until 1991, there was an unspoken rule that saw the
role being rotated among the major racial groups."
Mm...that's the confusing part
for me this morning.
Are we evolving (or tweaking) by
"devolving" into the system before the EP was even started (the old
way), that is, reaffirming parliamentary sovereignty by allowing parliament to
(s)elect again when races get more "mixed up" and the racial lines
are more blurred?
Well, I can't say that the recent
Presidential walkover was not somehow deja vu for me of the old ways of
parliamentary appointment.
Lesson? Just one, and it kind of
puts the TCB-Shanmugam debate on the back burner.
Talk about "elaborate
charades"...
If a singlish phrase is apt here,
it will go like this: "elect or select, you say one; race or non-race, you
say one; 100m or 500m, you say one; trigger or not-trigger, you say one; and
new way forward or old way back, you oso say one."
In the end, are we back to square
one? Or worse, are we back to square one as and when parliament decides to go
back to square one?
I guess the ruling party
rightfully rules and we have collectively signed this social compact like a
marital vows for good and bad, in sickness and in health, in open, frank
discussion and in elaborate charades.
Maybe this is a suitable case of
"If it ain't broken, why tweak it?"
Our past selected presidents like
Ishak, Sheares, Nair and Wee have been exemplary and shouldn't we just let dead
dogs lie - if ultimately we may be going back to the old way?
And even if we wanted to evolve
to be more democratic, cosmopolitan and all-encompassing, there is no doubt
that the elected presidency was a refreshing touch to the whole EP system.
Singaporeans went to the poll for
OTC and the four Tans, and we were finally voting for a truly elected President
to represent us as the ceremonial head and nation-unity symbol.
All was fair and square in the
election front, and the dogs were still sound asleep, dreamy even.
Then came parliamentary slam dunk
this year with the trigger of the hiatus provision and the awkward presidential
counting, and it hit us like hurricane all-whitey - the dogs are awaken and
barking now...
While our ears were still ringing
with the bombshell of Parliamentary sovereignty, trying to compose ourselves,
the next thing that hit us was the presidential walkover.
Before that, there was a
parliamentary siren-warning sounded when Chun Seng twice addressed the then
House Speaker, "Madam President". But none of us took him seriously
then.
And lastly, the new House Speaker
now says that we may go back to the old way of selecting the president when
races get too mixed and beyond clear definitional lines.
Well,
you can't really blame me for having this feeling that I have been taken for a
democratic joyride, or on a democratic treadmill where I have this sense of
moving forward just to discover that I am actually not going anywhere. Cheerz.
No comments:
Post a Comment