Whose mandate is stronger on custodial issues: EP or Parliament?

I read with interest the veto issue in the White Paper on the Elected Presidency (“Govt rejects suggestion of reverting to system of appointed President”; Sept 16).

It stated: “Whether the Government makes decisions with the President’s concurrence, the President vetoes the Government’s decision, or Parliament overrides the President’s veto, it is always an elected institution that represents Singaporeans in making important decisions relating to our financial reserves and the integrity of the public service.”

I hope the authorities can address the following issues to the layperson, who is neither a constitutional expert nor legally trained. First, regarding the mandate to do their duties, is Parliament’s mandate stronger than that of the President, since the former can veto the latter despite both having popular mandates?

Second, might not the public misconstrue the President’s agreement on a custodial issue as being against his or her better judgment because they erroneously assume that the President is aware that Parliament would override his or her veto?