Changes to Presidential Elections ‘not for political gain’: Chan Chun Sing
SINGAPORE — The Government went ahead with changes to the Elected Presidency scheme despite knowing the political price it may have to pay, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing on Friday (Sep 8).
SINGAPORE — The Government went ahead with changes to the Elected Presidency scheme despite knowing the political price it may have to pay, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing on Friday (Sep 8).
This was to preempt future problems if minority ethnic groups are not represented, he said.
Wrapping up the second ministerial dialogue at the Institute of Policy Studies forum on the reserved Presidential Election, Mr Chan said no good politician would sacrifice his or her political capital for a problem that may only arise in future generations.
For every “conspiracy theory” that Singaporeans may have heard, his response is this: “If it’s for political gain, then surely we are not achieving it, as you have rightly pointed out.”
At the forum, he asked the 290-strong audience if they felt the Government of the day “has paid and will pay a political price” for changes to the Presidential elections.
The vast majority raised their hand in agreement.
Mr Chan said the Government had asked Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong if the changes had to be made at the present time. “We had anticipated that it will be a hard journey to convince people and we will pay the political price, at least in the short term,” he added.
According to Mr Chan, Mr Lee acknowledged the point, but questioned if future generations would have the liberty and luxury of time to put a new system in place.
“We are prepared to pay the political price because we think the future of our country is much more important than any political capital that we may have for this generation ... We owe it to ourselves, to our future generations to put in place systems, to preempt issues,” he said.
“If the issues don’t arise in the future ... we are very happy, very proud. Maybe we have done our little bit for the future of Singapore to be better. But we will not be able to face the future generations if we have not done what we can, within our means, to establish the foundations for them to be even more successful than us.”
Mr Chan and Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education Janil Puthucheary also took questions during the 75-minute session.
Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed, Singapore’s non-resident Ambassador to Kuwait, said the debate on the elected presidency scheme has opened a can of worms and has divided some people. The former Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs wondered if the presence or absence of a contest would help avoid this issue.
In response, Dr Puthucheary said every electoral process is potentially divisive, but candidates would need to show that they are serving the entire country.
Can the authorities address people’s aspirations to vote while ensuring that candidates meet the eligibility criteria, asked Lianhe Zaobao Associate news editor Ho Sheo Be.
Dr Puthucheary replied that people should not ask to lower or change standards in a reserved election.
“That goes against the principle of going for the minimum possible intervention and ... about balancing meritocracy and multi-culturalism. You will be swaying the balance in the different direction if we change the criteria,” he said.
Added Mr Chan: “I don’t think Singaporeans would like to see us having different rules for different races because that would have shifted the balance too much (towards) multiracialism, without balancing the considerations for meritocracy.”
IPS deputy director (research) Gillian Koh, who chaired the dialogue, asked if the reserved election would impact Singapore’s image overseas, and Mr Chan replied that countries first consider if Singapore is relevant before deciding how to engage the country.
Bigger countries and civilisations with a longer history may “cast Singapore in their image, for their purpose”, he said.
“It’s not something that is unique in this generation ... People use points to their advantage to further their own national agenda.”