Did anyone then notice anything wrong with this scheme? Why suddenly it was like ‘alamak’ this Elected President scheme is so dangerous and must quickly be changed or else in the next GE we will have a rogue as a president. Which rogue is likely to become the next Elected President? Or was it that Kishore had an enlightenment, or was it that he woke up from the wrong side of the bed and knocked his head, then God spoke to him, that the Elected President scheme can end up with a rogue president? Was this Elected President scheme designed to prevent a rogue govt from robbing the reserves, and now the scheme itself is also feared to produce a rogue president? And they want a group of appointed men and women to guard the president? Do they need to guard the group of wise men and women just in case they also become rogues? At this point in time they could not see far into the future. Maybe Kishore would wake up another day and shout, die die, the people guarding the Elected President can also be rogues. Then how, form another committee to guard the wise men and women?
Why was this Elected President a scheme deemed necessary then? I remember that they needed the authority and power of the people to be vested in the President, someone that is elected by the people will have the authority to deal with the elected govt. Is it not funny that they now proposed to have a few appointed men, not elected by the people, dunno where they got their authority from, to control the Elected President, to veto the President? Can a few not elected men or women check on a President elected by the majority of the citizens, the 35% is an exception and a bad example. It could be a President elected by 90% of the people! Got logic or not? This is worse than having non elected MPs acting as MPs to control elected MPs or to vote against elected MPs in Parliament.
By the way, why they never think of minority interest then? Why now, must explain or not? And would this compromise the Elected Presidency? The minority MPs had rightly pointed out that they did not want a minority president that is not worthy, not meritocratic but put there because he is a minority. This is the same reasoning as getting a degree from our university by competing fairly with everyone, not being given a place and a degree because one is a minority. That would compromise the person and his degree if done that way. So, how to deal with this concern and reservation of the minority interest?
I hope after this amendment there will not be more Kishores down the road to cry wolf and said got more problems with the Elected President scheme and more amendments must be made. The rogue idea is really getting everyone very nervous and having nightmares, cannot sleep. Naughty Kishore, better not come up with more bright and scary ideas in the future. He is not known to be the only thinker in this city state for nothing. When he thinks, the unthinking and not thinking will take everything he said as gospel truth. It will happen, in the next PE!
It would be better for Kishore to come up with a complete solution instead of what were being proposed that appeared to have more holes than plasters. The final result will be full of plasters patching over all the holes. And it would also be better for Kishore to do the explanation as well to make it sound scholarly and coherent and from a disinterested party.
PS. Under our stringent criteria, it is believed that rich and high position men will not be rogues. Only poor and less able men will likely to be rogues. George Bush Jr and Obama would not even qualify to stand for election as an Elected President without executive powers here.
Redbean raises a point about "checks and balances" in the proper government of a country.
ReplyDeleteIn Chinese culture, there is of course no such thing as "checks & balances".
The country is the Emperor and the Emperor is the country.
So in Chinese culture, the checks and balances is called "ownself check ownself".
The Emperor will check on himself.
"Ownself check ownself" is of course not very stable ... as any student of Chinese history knows ... witness the violent upheavals in China ... all the way to Deng Xiaoping and the Tiananmen Massacre.
Everything here r rented..--
ReplyDeleteAnd also create job for peple where possible...
Since the Chinese Emperor is the 'Son of Heaven", Chinese culture says that to oppose the "will of the Emperor" is the same as opposing the will of Heaven.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, "checks & balances" in Chinese government is against the will of Heaven.
Thus, Chinese bananas will often have to refer to western philosophy for guidance on the issue of "checks & balances" in government.
Chinese culture offers very few guidance except for the concepts of "The Mandate of Heaven" and "The Right of Rebellion".
.............
The Mandate of Heaven (Chinese: 天命; pinyin: tiānmìng; literally: "heaven decree") is an ancient Chinese belief and philosophical idea that tiān (heaven) granted emperors the right to rule based on their ability to govern well and fairly.
According to this belief, heaven bestows its mandate to a just ruler, the Son of Heaven. The Mandate of Heaven depends on whether an emperor is sufficiently virtuous to rule; if he does not fulfill his obligations as emperor, then he loses the Mandate and thus the right to be emperor.
The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best.
The fact that a ruler was overthrown was taken by itself as an indication that the ruler had lost the Mandate of Heaven.
In addition, it was also common belief that natural disasters such as famine and flood were other signs of heaven’s displeasure with the current ruler, so there would often be revolts following major environmental events as citizens saw these as signs of heaven's displeasure.[
The Mandate of Heaven was a well-accepted and popular idea among the people of China, since it argues for the removal of incompetent or despotic rulers, and provided an incentive for rulers to rule well and justly.
The concept was often invoked by philosophers and scholars in ancient China as a way to curtail the abuse of power by the ruler, in a system that otherwise offered few checks to this power.
Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that the Mandate of Heaven had passed.
In China, the right of rebellion against an unjust ruler has been a part of political philosophy ever since the Zhou dynasty, and a successful rebellion was interpreted by Chinese historians as evidence of that divine approval had passed on to the successive dynasty.
The Right of Rebellion is not coded into any official law, rather rebellion is always outlawed and severely punished, but still is a positive right grounded in the Chinese moral system.
Often, it is used as a justification for actions to overthrow a previous dynasty after a rebellion has been successful and a new dynastic rule has been established.
Since the winner is the one who determines who has obtained the Mandate of Heaven and who has lost it, some Chinese scholars consider it to be a sort of Victor's justice, best characterized in the popular Chinese saying "The winner becomes king, the loser becomes outlaw" (Chinese: ”成者為王，敗者為寇“).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
It's more a case of Rogue Ideas
ReplyDeletearising from Rogue Intended Motive.
Robber shouting robbery and pretending to give chase is a ploy that's frequently use. Dafts fall prey to it most of the time.
..............
For better guidance and discussion of the "checks & balances" on government, Chinese bananas will have to seek guidance from western philosophy.
ReplyDelete"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"? is a Latin phrase literally translated as
- "Who will guard the guards themselves?" or
- "who watches the watchmen"?
- "who guards the guardians"?
The phrase generally refers to the problem of controlling the actions of persons in positions of power, an issue discussed by Plato in the Republic.
This phrase is used to consider the embodiment of the philosophical question as to how power can be held to account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F
..........................
Who are the Guardians of Singapore?
Who watches over the Guardians of Singapore?
Think.
And be slaves no more.
Kings n queens thinking r still alive n well..
ReplyDelete// Or was it that Kishore had an enlightenment, or was it that he woke up from the wrong side of the bed and knocked his head, //
ReplyDeleteMb he dreamt of a lewd tiger?
PAPies talking cock. Back when this EP was first started, Parliament already debated about possibility of rogue president. That's why EP cannot exercise any presidential powers without the approval of the Presidential Council. The EP cannot suka suka pardon a deathrow prisoner or dip into reserved unless the Council says so. The council acts as the check & balance against a rogue president. Even if the Council and the EP agrees that the reserves need to be used, the PM and the Cabinet also all must agree. So in order for the reserves to be totally siphoned out, we need to have rogue President + rogue Council + rogue PM + rogue Cabinet ministers.
ReplyDeleteThe irony is that they are all already semi-rogue, smart enough not to be classified as totally rogue, by declaring LEEgal multi-millions as salaries & bonuses & benefits & perks and siphoning S'pore tax revenues before it becomes classified as reserves and cannot touch.
How much money is in the reserves anyway?
ReplyDeleteIf only got $10 left, let's not waste time over peanuts.
How does an Elected President and his Presidential Council protect the reserves when they don't even know how much reserves is there anyway?
When Marcos and Chen Sui Bian were in power, no one dared said they were rogues.
ReplyDeleteWill a ROGUE REGIME
ReplyDeleteappoints anyone TO CHECK
ON ITSELF?
ANSWER IS YES AND IT'S
CALL
OWNSELF CHECK OWNSELF.
Rogues worrying about rogues.
ReplyDeleteWhat a joke!
The EP scheme was the brainchild of LKY. No one dared to fix it while he was alive.
ReplyDeletePM Lee and his few Good Men in cabinet are the most powerful who can launch into amending the Constitution at will with their herd of MPs. Why are they not subject to qualifying criteria which should be even more stringent than those for the EP?
The hypocrisy of the whole political system. It is better to dismisse the EP scheme and re-look holistically rather than patching up the leakages..
Thieves calling innocent people thieves.
ReplyDelete