Sammyboy RSS Feed
09-09-2016, 08:00 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
This is a good example of writing a grammatically correct paper but have no idea what the material and important issues are.
http://themiddleground.sg/2016/09/08...eritocratic/EP (http://themiddleground.sg/2016/09/08/presidential-elections-meritocratic/EP) changes: Are Presidential elections ‘meritocratic’ in the first place?
Sep 08, 2016 04.00PM | The Middle Ground linkedin
by Kirk D’Souza
AFTER several months of deliberation, the Constitutional Commission tasked with reviewing the Elected Presidency has finally released its report to the public. In the coming weeks, we can expect plenty of discussion on the Commission’s recommendations, especially its proposal to institute a “hiatus-triggered model” as a safeguard for minority representation. According to this model, a Presidential election will be reserved for candidates of a minority racial group if no member from that group has occupied the President’s office for five consecutive terms.
Ever since the National Day Rally when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong argued for the need for safeguards to ensure that minority races are periodically elected to the Istana, many Singaporeans have spoken against the idea, claiming that such safeguards contradict the spirit of our cherished meritocracy. Any discrimination, whether negative or positive, is not welcome. Thus, detractors have called on the Government and society to place less emphasis on the race of Presidential candidates and focus instead on “finding the best candidate”.
However, the underlying assumption of this criticism is that Presidential elections are meritocratic in the first place. I argue that the only significant element of meritocracy in the election process for Singapore’s President is the qualifying threshold to run for President. Beyond that, voters cannot possibly choose between candidates solely on the basis of merit.
Who exactly is the “best candidate” for President? It should be the person who is most qualified to assume the constitutional powers and responsibilities of the President. These include veto powers over decisions to withdraw from the nation’s reserves, key public service appointments, Internal Security Act detentions, restraining orders issued under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
To ensure a high quality of candidates in each election, certain eligibility criteria have been laid out. According to the current criteria, candidates from the private sector need at least three years of experience as the Chairman or CEO of a company with a paid-up capital of at least S$100 million. Those from the public sector need to have held one of several senior positions in the Government or public service for at least three years.
Hence, the qualifying round is meritocratic in the sense that only people with “sufficient merit” are let through. In fact, the Constitutional Commission has argued that its proposed safeguard for minority representation is still meritocratic precisely because the eligibility criteria will not be lowered for any candidate of any race. On the contrary, the Commission has proposed raising the bar for private sector candidates – according to the proposed criteria, eligible candidates from the private sector need to have been the “most senior executive” of a company with at least S$500 million in shareholders’ equity for at least six years. To paraphrase the Commission, the modified electoral system is as meritocratic as the current electoral system because of the qualifying threshold that Presidential candidates must cross. One can argue that these standards of merit are arbitrary, narrow and imperfect, but their underlying principle is still to search for the most competent and trustworthy individuals.
All the candidates who pass the qualifying threshold should theoretically be ready to fulfil the duties of the President. How then is one supposed to choose between the candidates based on merit?
But after this stage, the electorate is faced with a choice between highly qualified and educated individuals who have all reached advanced stages in their careers and have successfully shouldered the concomitant responsibilities. All the candidates who pass the qualifying threshold should theoretically be ready to fulfil the duties of the President. How then is one supposed to choose between the candidates based on merit? What evidence can the candidates present to convince the electorate that they are the most qualified to evaluate Government decisions in order to guard our national reserves, the integrity of the public service, and Singapore’s social harmony?
Candidates cannot present any “policy proposals” that will convince voters of their ability to exercise the powers of the President because policies are irrelevant to these veto powers. Moreover, the President is not allowed to initiate new policies or venture beyond the role that has been clearly set out in the Constitution. Hence, voters cannot base their decision on the strength of a candidate’s policies because candidates have no policies to submit to the electorate. A Presidential contest is different in this respect from a battle in a Single-Member Constituency (SMC) during a General Election, where the vying candidates in SMCs are representatives of their parties and their policies.
Can voters base their decision on the character of the candidates? This is definitely a relevant factor since oversight of the national reserves and senior public service positions requires the utmost moral discernment and integrity. But how can the electorate possibly decide who the most honest and incorruptible person is based on their short campaigns? To put it more frankly, how can voters assess the integrity of the candidates based on what they allow us to see of themselves? In any case, we would hope that everyone who qualifies to run for President is of good moral stature since one of the qualifying criteria for candidates is that they are of “integrity, good character and reputation”.
To put it more frankly, how can voters assess the integrity of the candidates based on what they allow us to see of themselves?
Perhaps another criterion could be the way the candidates carry themselves during the campaign period. This could be a good indicator of the candidates’ diplomatic savoir-faire, which is relevant to the President’s role as the Head of State. While I concede that this is one area in which the electorate can evaluate the merit of the candidates, the diplomatic competence of the candidates is irrelevant to the custodial roles of the President. Furthermore, the diplomatic role of the President is secondary to his other roles since the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister are also principal representatives of the state to the international community.
Ultimately, I suspect that the electorate has to consider factors that are irrelevant to the merit of the candidates. These include their previous political party affiliation (or lack thereof) and aspects of their social identities – age, gender, religion and, of course, race. The recent CNA-IPS survey on race relations demonstrated that Singaporeans are not colour-blind when it comes to choosing the President.
Fortunately, the social identities of candidates were not salient factors in the previous Presidential election. Age, gender and race were irrelevant because all candidates were Chinese men above the age of 60. To the best of my knowledge, the religion of the candidates was not important to voters either. However, the previous political affiliation of each candidate was definitely a crucial factor for many voters, especially since the Presidential election was held several months after the “watershed” 2011 General Election. In the eyes of many voters, Dr Tony Tan was the PAP-backed candidate, Dr Tan Cheng Bock was the ex-PAP dissident, Mr Tan Jee Say was the Opposition candidate, and Mr Tan Kin Lian was the independent candidate. Hence, the Presidential election became an extension of the previous General Election and was seen as a barometer to measure public sentiment towards the ruling party.
If the personal characteristics and previous party affiliations of candidates are so salient to voters’ choices, perhaps the Presidential electoral system is not so meritocratic after all.
If the personal characteristics and previous party affiliations of candidates are so salient to voters’ choices, perhaps the Presidential electoral system is not so meritocratic after all. Under both the current system and the proposed system, meritocracy is only present in the eligibility criteria. During the hustings, I believe voters are simply not able to differentiate between candidates based on merit.
But if elections are not fully meritocratic, could the appointment of the President be a better alternative? The idea of reverting to an appointment system has been proposed by the Workers’ Party (WP). Interestingly, the Constitutional Commission also included this suggestion in its report, but PM Lee has already indicated that the Government will not consider this option since it falls outside the Commission’s Terms of Reference. This is a controversial proposition which may be seen as disenfranchisement of the electorate and recentralisation of power around the ruling party, since an appointment system will require the removal of the President’s veto powers. Furthermore, during his one-hour interview with Channel NewsAsia on September 4, PM Lee implied that the opposition’s ulterior motive for proposing a return to the appointment system is to do away with the President’s “second key” over the reserves, which is an obstacle to popular but unsustainable public spending plans. It will be interesting to see how the WP defends their proposal in Parliament.
Kirk D’Souza is a postgraduate student in Israel studying for an MA in Government.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?235381-How-to-lose-the-plot-with-a-long-essay-on-EP&goto=newpost).
This is a good example of writing a grammatically correct paper but have no idea what the material and important issues are.
http://themiddleground.sg/2016/09/08...eritocratic/EP (http://themiddleground.sg/2016/09/08/presidential-elections-meritocratic/EP) changes: Are Presidential elections ‘meritocratic’ in the first place?
Sep 08, 2016 04.00PM | The Middle Ground linkedin
by Kirk D’Souza
AFTER several months of deliberation, the Constitutional Commission tasked with reviewing the Elected Presidency has finally released its report to the public. In the coming weeks, we can expect plenty of discussion on the Commission’s recommendations, especially its proposal to institute a “hiatus-triggered model” as a safeguard for minority representation. According to this model, a Presidential election will be reserved for candidates of a minority racial group if no member from that group has occupied the President’s office for five consecutive terms.
Ever since the National Day Rally when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong argued for the need for safeguards to ensure that minority races are periodically elected to the Istana, many Singaporeans have spoken against the idea, claiming that such safeguards contradict the spirit of our cherished meritocracy. Any discrimination, whether negative or positive, is not welcome. Thus, detractors have called on the Government and society to place less emphasis on the race of Presidential candidates and focus instead on “finding the best candidate”.
However, the underlying assumption of this criticism is that Presidential elections are meritocratic in the first place. I argue that the only significant element of meritocracy in the election process for Singapore’s President is the qualifying threshold to run for President. Beyond that, voters cannot possibly choose between candidates solely on the basis of merit.
Who exactly is the “best candidate” for President? It should be the person who is most qualified to assume the constitutional powers and responsibilities of the President. These include veto powers over decisions to withdraw from the nation’s reserves, key public service appointments, Internal Security Act detentions, restraining orders issued under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
To ensure a high quality of candidates in each election, certain eligibility criteria have been laid out. According to the current criteria, candidates from the private sector need at least three years of experience as the Chairman or CEO of a company with a paid-up capital of at least S$100 million. Those from the public sector need to have held one of several senior positions in the Government or public service for at least three years.
Hence, the qualifying round is meritocratic in the sense that only people with “sufficient merit” are let through. In fact, the Constitutional Commission has argued that its proposed safeguard for minority representation is still meritocratic precisely because the eligibility criteria will not be lowered for any candidate of any race. On the contrary, the Commission has proposed raising the bar for private sector candidates – according to the proposed criteria, eligible candidates from the private sector need to have been the “most senior executive” of a company with at least S$500 million in shareholders’ equity for at least six years. To paraphrase the Commission, the modified electoral system is as meritocratic as the current electoral system because of the qualifying threshold that Presidential candidates must cross. One can argue that these standards of merit are arbitrary, narrow and imperfect, but their underlying principle is still to search for the most competent and trustworthy individuals.
All the candidates who pass the qualifying threshold should theoretically be ready to fulfil the duties of the President. How then is one supposed to choose between the candidates based on merit?
But after this stage, the electorate is faced with a choice between highly qualified and educated individuals who have all reached advanced stages in their careers and have successfully shouldered the concomitant responsibilities. All the candidates who pass the qualifying threshold should theoretically be ready to fulfil the duties of the President. How then is one supposed to choose between the candidates based on merit? What evidence can the candidates present to convince the electorate that they are the most qualified to evaluate Government decisions in order to guard our national reserves, the integrity of the public service, and Singapore’s social harmony?
Candidates cannot present any “policy proposals” that will convince voters of their ability to exercise the powers of the President because policies are irrelevant to these veto powers. Moreover, the President is not allowed to initiate new policies or venture beyond the role that has been clearly set out in the Constitution. Hence, voters cannot base their decision on the strength of a candidate’s policies because candidates have no policies to submit to the electorate. A Presidential contest is different in this respect from a battle in a Single-Member Constituency (SMC) during a General Election, where the vying candidates in SMCs are representatives of their parties and their policies.
Can voters base their decision on the character of the candidates? This is definitely a relevant factor since oversight of the national reserves and senior public service positions requires the utmost moral discernment and integrity. But how can the electorate possibly decide who the most honest and incorruptible person is based on their short campaigns? To put it more frankly, how can voters assess the integrity of the candidates based on what they allow us to see of themselves? In any case, we would hope that everyone who qualifies to run for President is of good moral stature since one of the qualifying criteria for candidates is that they are of “integrity, good character and reputation”.
To put it more frankly, how can voters assess the integrity of the candidates based on what they allow us to see of themselves?
Perhaps another criterion could be the way the candidates carry themselves during the campaign period. This could be a good indicator of the candidates’ diplomatic savoir-faire, which is relevant to the President’s role as the Head of State. While I concede that this is one area in which the electorate can evaluate the merit of the candidates, the diplomatic competence of the candidates is irrelevant to the custodial roles of the President. Furthermore, the diplomatic role of the President is secondary to his other roles since the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister are also principal representatives of the state to the international community.
Ultimately, I suspect that the electorate has to consider factors that are irrelevant to the merit of the candidates. These include their previous political party affiliation (or lack thereof) and aspects of their social identities – age, gender, religion and, of course, race. The recent CNA-IPS survey on race relations demonstrated that Singaporeans are not colour-blind when it comes to choosing the President.
Fortunately, the social identities of candidates were not salient factors in the previous Presidential election. Age, gender and race were irrelevant because all candidates were Chinese men above the age of 60. To the best of my knowledge, the religion of the candidates was not important to voters either. However, the previous political affiliation of each candidate was definitely a crucial factor for many voters, especially since the Presidential election was held several months after the “watershed” 2011 General Election. In the eyes of many voters, Dr Tony Tan was the PAP-backed candidate, Dr Tan Cheng Bock was the ex-PAP dissident, Mr Tan Jee Say was the Opposition candidate, and Mr Tan Kin Lian was the independent candidate. Hence, the Presidential election became an extension of the previous General Election and was seen as a barometer to measure public sentiment towards the ruling party.
If the personal characteristics and previous party affiliations of candidates are so salient to voters’ choices, perhaps the Presidential electoral system is not so meritocratic after all.
If the personal characteristics and previous party affiliations of candidates are so salient to voters’ choices, perhaps the Presidential electoral system is not so meritocratic after all. Under both the current system and the proposed system, meritocracy is only present in the eligibility criteria. During the hustings, I believe voters are simply not able to differentiate between candidates based on merit.
But if elections are not fully meritocratic, could the appointment of the President be a better alternative? The idea of reverting to an appointment system has been proposed by the Workers’ Party (WP). Interestingly, the Constitutional Commission also included this suggestion in its report, but PM Lee has already indicated that the Government will not consider this option since it falls outside the Commission’s Terms of Reference. This is a controversial proposition which may be seen as disenfranchisement of the electorate and recentralisation of power around the ruling party, since an appointment system will require the removal of the President’s veto powers. Furthermore, during his one-hour interview with Channel NewsAsia on September 4, PM Lee implied that the opposition’s ulterior motive for proposing a return to the appointment system is to do away with the President’s “second key” over the reserves, which is an obstacle to popular but unsustainable public spending plans. It will be interesting to see how the WP defends their proposal in Parliament.
Kirk D’Souza is a postgraduate student in Israel studying for an MA in Government.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?235381-How-to-lose-the-plot-with-a-long-essay-on-EP&goto=newpost).