Following the public exchange of views on the role of the President, Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has upped the ante by making a not-so-veiled threat – claiming that the President can be removed from office if he attempts to go against the government.
The above is quoted from an article by Tanya Wei in the TRE. After reading this and Shanmugam’s example of a British King that lost his throne for challenging the elected govt, I got this very uneasy feeling. I am wondering whether I should laugh or throw out at the thought of electing a President that would be removed from office if he goes against the govt.
What is the key issue concerning the Elected President today? The high salary and the ceremonial role of the EP are just side issues. What is upper most in the people’s mind is the power to go against the govt to protect the reserves. The people want an EP that would go against the govt when the time calls for it.
Now we are told, or warned, or implied, or kind of threatened, that if the EP is to go against the govt, like saying no to spending the reserves, he will be removed.
Put it simply, why have an EP in the first place? Some are calling this election a sham. It is looking more like a LPPL President just for show and will be removed when he is needed at the critical moment. It reminds me of the fate of Ong Teng Cheong.