A Separate, unAccountable and unEqual Singapore Elected Presidency

By MIKOspace

In Reality, the Elected Presidency is Subordinate to Cabinet and Parliament.

The Singapore Elected Presidency (EP) has a 6-year term and has veto powers over the spending of national reserves and monetary policies as well as over the appointments of key positions in the Civil Service, government companies and statutory boards.

A 6-member Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) advises the President in the exercise of his custodial and discretionary powers. The President is obliged to consult the Council in the exercise of his discretionary veto powers in matters such as the Government’s budgets and key appointments.  If the Council agree with the President’s veto, then the veto is final and Parliament must comply. If the Council disagree, the President can still use his veto, but Parliament can override the veto with a two-thirds majority.  In other matters, such consultation is optional.

In many ways, the current Constitutional framework does not give due cognizance to the fact that the President is popularly elected and enjoys such moral weight and electoral authority that is implied from popular election.

This Post highlights the practical reality of the Elected Presidency as a separate, unaccountable and unequal “branch” of the political governance structure of Singapore.

The Constitution expressly and deliberately subordinates the Presidency to Parliament even though its s23(1) has first pronounced that “the executive authority of Singapore shall be vested in the President”.  The Constitution then proceeds to dilute the same “executive authority” by distributing its exercise jointly among the President, the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet. 

The Constitution [s24(2)] further explicitly vests the executive power to run the Government in the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, who “shall have the general direction and control of the Government and shall be collectively responsible to Parliament”.   

Elsewhere, the Constitution also empowers Parliament ie the Cabinet and Members of Parliament (MPs), but not the President, to “enact laws conferring executive functions on other persons”, and the President is mandated to give his assent as long as such laws did not interfere with his discretionary powers [s22H(4)]. 

The Elected President does not have any law-making powers. In other words, the Constitution did not provide the EP with any tool or “tooth” for the execution of his Constitutional “executive authority”, the bulk of which were “separated” and delegated or assigned by the Constitution to the Prime Minister (and his Cabinet).  And in their exercise of such executive powers supposedly vested in the Presidency by the Constitution [s23(1)], the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is accountable to Parliament, not the Presidency.

In further clear and unambiguous language, the Constitution in s21(1) pronounces that the President shall, "in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet".  The President cannot behave or act unilaterally without Cabinet’s approval.

This “distribution” of executive powers by the Constitution among the Elected President, Parliament and the Prime Minister (and his Cabinet) impacts the efficacy of the Presidency by confusing their separation of powers and frustrates the EP’s critical role as the national reserve watchdog vis-a-vis government’s financial prudence and possible indiscretion.  In fact, many of the EP’s powers, and its decisions even on critical discretionary matters are not absolute and can be “overruled” by a two-third majority vote in Parliament acting in accordance with Constitutional provisions.  

The popular election of the President was meant to imbue the Office with moral weight and democratic electoral authority for the exercise of its functions, especially on matters relating to past reserves and the appointment/removal of key office holders.  This is however misconceived and an exaggerated expectation of democratic elections.

The Elected President may be popularly elected, but it is not a “democratic” institution by any measure since nothing in the Constitution requires the EP to be responsible and accountable to the electorate.  There is also no key performance indicator (KPI) to assess the EP performance during his tenure. This further confirms the lack of executive function and authority in the EP.

Unlike MPs, as well as the Prime Minister (and his Cabinet) who must regularly renew their electoral mandate, the Elected President faces no such prospects even though there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the EP from being elected again, as indeed President SR Nathan.

To what extent therefore is the Elected President “accountable” to his electorate?

Answer: The Elected President is NOT accountable to the electorate.

To the extent “approved” by the Prime Minister (and his Cabinet), the EP can publish in the Official Gazette his opinion and the case for his support or veto of the Government’s request to use the national reserves.  No provision exists in the Constitution for the EP to engage in public communication or debates in order to allow questioning and probing by the electorate regarding his opinion to agree or his grounds for veto, whichever the case may be.  It is clearly not the intention of the Constitution for the Elected President to be an alternate political power centre to that of the duly-elected Government.   

The Singapore Elected Presidency, with its Constitutionally-vested “executive powers” tremendously diluted by the very same Constitution, is a separate and unequal branch of the political governance structure.  Constitutionally, it is also not accountable to its own electoral constituency.  

Having “consulted” his CPA, should the Presidential use of veto power be absolute? There is no constitutional provision for the President to obtain a second opinion outside the CPA.  The Constitution creates an anomalous and ironic incongruity by requiring an Elected President to accept the opinion of his unelected members of his CPA; but where they disagreed to his veto, the Elected President could very well face a two-third Parliamentary veto overturn.   

Should a veto by the Elected President in his discretionary decisions be challenged and over-ruled by Parliament?

Or only by a National Referendum? 

A simpler mechanism is to bypass the need for Presidential approval for the spending from national reserves if, and only if, two-thirds of Parliament has already approved the expenditure.   

Separate, unaccountable and unequal, whither the future of Singapore Elected Presidency?

A “big picture” perspective is necessary to remove the anomalies in the Elected Presidency innovation.  The EP remains very much a work-in-progress in Singapore’s political governance landscape.  A custodial Presidential oversight responsibility over sovereign reserves and appointment of senior public officials does not necessarily confer any viable executive authority onto the Elected President.

The current review of the Elected Presidency should examine all the constitutional provisions relating to the EP, Cabinet and Parliament. To avoid ambiguities with regard to who has final and ultimate executive authority would require expressed and explicit statements to the effect. In a democracy, it is the Cabinet, supported by Parliament, who has true electoral mandate and therefore the ultimate executive authority to be responsible and accountable to the electorate. 

Computer trading - When Indians fear...do not tread

Below is a Bloomberg article on the danger of HFT and computer trading and how this new animal is frightening the Indians and their calls for actions to curb the beast. The only shortcoming is that there is this denial to call a crime a crime. But anyone in the business could figure out from the comments of the article how criminal are HFT and computer trading, how they cheated the innocent investors and how they are ruining the stock market from their gambling tactics instead of trading on stock fundamentals. As a result the stock market is in ruins and tatters. It is unbelieveable and criminal for stock market operators to continue with this destructive crime against the investors and the imminent destruction of the stock market industry. Here is the gist of the article with some of the irrelevant being deleted to shorten the piece.

Hottest Emerging Market for Algo Trades Wants to Cool Down (1)
2016-03-28

By Santanu Chakraborty
     (Bloomberg) -- India’s flash boys are discovering that even the biggest emerging market for computerized trades has its limits.

In just five years, high-speed and algorithmic traders have gone from bit players to a dominant force on Indian exchanges, enabled by a technological arms race between the nation’s top exchanges that cut transaction times to tiny fractions of a second. Now, as some of the country’s largest brokerages call for tighter regulation, those same bourses are starting to explore whether speed traders should be reined in.
    
National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. is considering higher fees for traders who flood the market with unfilled orders, while its cross-town rival, the BSE Ltd., has called for “corrective action” to address the harmful side effects of high-speed strategies. Critics of India’s supercharged market structure say it’s raising costs for long-term investors, introducing little-understood risks and distracting exchanges from what should be a priority: getting more of India’s 1.25 billion people to put their savings to work in the country’s capital markets.
    
 “It seems that man is losing out against the machine,” said Jitendra Panda, a governing board member of the Brokers Forum, an association of 800 broker-dealers in India...

Both bourses have introduced co-location services -- allowing traders to put their computers in exchange data centers so they can execute faster -- and offered monetary incentives for derivatives transactions. India’s fragmented markets, where many of the same securities trade on multiple venues, also makes it attractive to high-frequency traders looking to arbitrage price differences. In October, the BSE reduced its average processing time for trades to 6 microseconds from 300 milliseconds, the fastest worldwide, according to Ashishkumar Chauhan, BSE’s chief executive officer.
    
While Chauhan says India has been among the world leaders in setting regulatory standards for high-speed trading, he sees scope for creating a more level playing field.
     
“We are doing a lot of HFT compared to the size of market and we need a clear understanding of the risk,” Chauhan said in an interview. “We need to take corrective action so that the good part of HFT is maintained and the harm that can come can be reduced to the maximum extent possible.”....

Exchange officials are quick to point out that their goal is to accommodate all types of investors and that computerized trading has brought important benefits to Indian markets, including smaller spreads and higher trading volumes.
    
But detractors claim that those measures don’t tell the whole story. They say some high-frequency traders are profiting unfairly at the expense of long-term investors by spotting their orders, then pushing up prices before the slower trader has time to react.
    
“Investors are being forced to pay more to buy or sell stocks due to HFT and algo systems,” said Panda....
    
    
The NSE is “continuously addressing concerns about different HFT models and their potential to distort markets,” Narasimhan said.
    
The Securities and Exchange Board of India, which issued broad guidelines on computerized trading in 2012 and 2013, said in December it’s considering new restrictions, but has so far taken no action....

For Deven Choksey, managing director of Mumbai-based K.R. Choksey Shares & Securities Ltd., India’s stock market would be better served if exchanges focused on attracting more of the nation’s growing pile of household savings instead of luring ever-faster traders and the higher fee income they bring. The base of individual investors has shrunk from about 30 million in 1991 to less than 25 million today, BSE’s Chauhan said.
    
“Exchanges won’t be able to help channelize household savings into the capital markets if their focus is only profit maximization,” Choksey said. “We will invite trouble if there’s no structural solution.”

Green house politicians can learn from Malaysian politics

There are no permanent friends or enemies in politics. The friends and foes in Malaysian politics are regrouping under Mahathir, the man that had charged them and put them in jail, for a common mission, to unseat Najib. Anwar and Lim Kit Siang, the arch enemies of Mahathir are now smoking peace pipes and drinking together and planning what to do to bring down Najib. They are all politician extraordinaire, knowing what is the common goal and to put down differences or personal grudges when there is a common enemy to strike.


In the Singapore context, the opposition camp did not have such bad blood to talk about.   Oops, I stand corrected on this. There were differences and often differences created by third parties to divide them up.  The differences among the opposition parties and leaders are nothing more than I don’t like your look and you don’t like mine. As far as political agenda and differences are concern they are very minor.


Why then is it so difficult for the opposition parties here to put their differences aside and sit down together, like the Malaysian politicians, to chart a common course, a common objective to take on the PAP?  They are not arch enemies, are they? What is the stumbling block that makes the divide so difficult to bridge? Could they see further down the road, to join forces, to work together and bring down a common enemy first, other things can wait?


There have been many calls, friendly gestures, olive branch being extended, to bring the opposition parties together but in vain. They don’t even want to talk to each other or be seen together.


This brand of politics can only happen in this island. The opposition parties know they have very little chance of unseating the ruling party, maybe if luck is good, get a few seats into Parliament, and if not, get completely wiped out from Parliament.  And they are contented with that.  On the other hand, coming together, to present a united front, combining their talents and resources, they would look more real, credible and serious as an alternative to the ruling party and to stand a better chance of being elected, and a better possibility of forming a coalition govt.  Why not?  The answer is our sanitized greenhouse political climate. Better be safe and be on the right side than be sorry.

It is such a bewilderment to see them struggling as splintered groups hoping to win a seat or two in a GE when they could gain a bigger pie.

Be real politicians, not greenhouse politicians, need to be politically correct, cannot be seen with politicians that are deemed no good by the ruling party and thus tarnishes their reputations in the eyes of the ruling govt. Is this the reason, that opposition parties are watching their steps carefully, to be seen as reasonable and good guys by the ruling parties, so stay away from other opposition parties that have been branded as bad boys?

May I suggest they look at the Malaysian politics carefully, study them and pick up some of the good points to help them make a bigger impact in the next GE. There are no permanent friends or permanent enemies in politics. A coalition of convenient is just as good as anything if it can bring results. If PAS can sit together with DAP, If Mahathir can sit together with Kit Siang and Anwar, what else cannot be done?

It is politics, stupid. You don't need the blessing of the ruling party to be acceptable and to win an election.

Budget 2016 – Govt can afford to be more generous

How much is the govt’s handout in this year’s budget? You think it is enough or can the govt afford to be more generous? Don’t panic, no one should be thinking of robbing the reserves. Keep the lid tight on the reserves. Tony Tan will be there to guard against touching the reserves. There will be more tons to weigh down and to look after the reserves if Tan Cheng Bock becomes the next President.

 

The govt has a lot of money from the last CPF Life and Medishield Life Schemes to throw back to the people. Just look at how much the govt is raking in from the people with a stroke of the pen from the Medishield Life Scheme. If each adult is to pay $500 a year for Medishield Life, and if there are 2m adults in the CPF, that is $1b of premium annually, every year going back to the govt. This one no pay back except for those who needed to claim for medical bills less co payments.

 

And don’t forget the $200k plus locked up in the two minimum sum schemes that would delay payback time by another 20 years. This means twenty years of free money to use, like the Americans enjoying free money selling the dollar as an international reserve currency, with no payback time. This $200k per head is like no payback time as another member will join the scheme for anyone leaving the scheme. The 20 year lockup time is the minimum as many would live to 80 or 90 and the money would still be out of their reach, till death do they part.

 

The $200k plus per CPF holder of 2m CPF members works out to be more than $400b free money to use for the next 20 years or more. Can the govt be more generous in throwing back a fraction of the money that rightly belonged to the people for the rightful owners to use?

 

What would a hundred million or a few hundred millions be to the govt when Medishield Life is taking $1b annually and the hundreds of billions locked up in the minimum sum schemes? The handouts thrown back at the people are directly/indirectly  the people’s money?

 

Leong Sze Hian may want to work out this relationship between money kept or paid to the govt by the CPF members and the money used as handouts to be given to the people. Then the people can decide if the govt is generous and if they should say a big thank you to the govt or to themselves.

Donald Trump will be dumped by the American cabal

Donald Trump
Interesting take on Donald Trump and today's political system. Former U.S. Secretary of Education, William J. Bennett's frankly candid and shocking observations of Donald Trump's impact on the behavior of the entrenched Washington D.C. bureaucrats in both parties -- and the risk The Donald faces in so doing.
William J. Bennett, Host of Bill Bennett's Morning in America Show, is one of America's most important, influential, and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues. He has one of the strongest Christian world views of any writer in modern times.
 What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency
by Bill Bennett
They will kill him before they let him be  president. It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates  the shutting up of Trump.
Don't be surprised if Trump has an accident.  Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few.
It's about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the  billions of dollars from this partnership, and it's in all of their  interests to protect one another. It's one for all and all for one.
It's a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We're the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and  frightened.
Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart. It's no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It's because most of the other politicians are part of the good old boys club.  They talk big, but they won't change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations - like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.
These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there's one man who isn't beholden to anyone There's one man who doesn't need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher's union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.
Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn't need anyone's help. That means he doesn't care what the  media says. He doesn't care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters....
Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama's records, the game is over. The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett  could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money. Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about  Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.
Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump  will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That's why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald  Trump.
Yes, it's become open season on Donald Trump. The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses, and, if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can't silence him. And they sure can't intimidate him. The more they try, the more the public will realize that he's the one telling the truth.