Change Constitution To Allow President Be PA Chairman

[Vulcann]

Since there has been a lot of controversy about the People's Association (PA) being pro-ruling party and that the PA Chairman is the sitting Prime Minister, can Parliament pass a bill to change the Constitution to allow the Elected President (EP) be the PA Chairman instead?

 

In the first place, PA is supposed to be apolitical & is set up to promote harmonious relations amongst the people and so many are comfortable about the ruling party's PM to be it's Chairman.

 

The latest uproar about a opposition MP having his 7th lunar month celebration invitations retracted because the PA-sanctioned activity did not allow political figures attending these celebrations is a very good example which one may draw conclusions that partisan politics is at play.

 

The purists may come out and argue that no the system is fine and if it ain't broke don't fix it. Besides the EP has already got his hands full dealing with his duties.

 

I beg to differ because our EP as the head of state is supposed to be above politics and is the best person to lead PA such that no one can accuse it being used a political instrument to influence folks on the ground.

 

 

[Twnll]

Also change elections department to be headed by EP, of course then we need another department to take care of EP elections.

[Vulcann]

Paiseh typo mistake: "comfortable" in the second paragraph should "uncomfortable".

 

Since there has been a lot of controversy about the People's Association (PA) being pro-ruling party and that the PA Chairman is the sitting Prime Minister, can Parliament pass a bill to change the Constitution to allow the Elected President (EP) be the PA Chairman instead?

 

In the first place, PA is supposed to be apolitical & is set up to promote harmonious relations amongst the people and so many are uncomfortable about the ruling party's PM to be it's Chairman.

 

The latest uproar about a opposition MP having his 7th lunar month celebration invitations retracted because the PA-sanctioned activity did not allow political figures attending these celebrations is a very good example which one may draw conclusions that partisan politics is at play.

 

The purists may come out and argue that no the system is fine and if it ain't broke don't fix it. Besides the EP has already got his hands full dealing with his duties.

 

I beg to differ because our EP as the head of state is supposed to be above politics and is the best person to lead PA such that no one can accuse it being used a political instrument to influence folks on the ground.

 

[Vulcann]

Also change elections department to be headed by EP, of course then we need another department to take care of EP elections.

 

Seriously all these suggestions about political neutrality has been discussed and proposed but some how it is not gaining any traction IMHO

 

To be fair there are some signs that they are trying but the political climate still can be improved further and making it better.

 

Guess they still have a pretty loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way to go to convince the whole lot of us that they are really more susceptible to listening to the ground after May 7...

 

Still we have to and continue to try.

 

Hey maybe one day we will have an oppostion parliamentary speaker?

Edited August 24, 2011 by Vulcann

[Fondue]

I don't see how PA is can be apolitical if its chaired by the PM who is appointed by the PARTY !

At the very least, the Chair of PA need to reign from his/her party before taking on the job.

[Vulcann]

I don't see how PA is can be apolitical if its chaired by the PM who is appointed by the PARTY !

At the very least, the Chair of PA need to reign from his/her party before taking on the job.

 

This is the contention all this while but is strenuously denied by them to date on the neutrality doubt.

 

The latest sage on the accusations by PA and subsequently strong rebuttals by then HG MP LTK in this thread: http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2668160 is something which can be avoided if PA was headed by someone else totally separated from the executive branch of the state.

 

Today not only the PM heads the statutory board, quite a few board members are actually cabinet ministers. Even the former 老主席 is a "Special Adviser to the PA Board Chairman".

 

If it is any other statutory board and not involve in "promoting racial harmony and social cohesion, nurturing leadership, providing community services and outward bound training and facilitating communications between the Government and the people. The mission is to promote active citizenship and multiracial harmony, connect the citizens for community bonding and volunteer work, provide affordable access to lifeskill and lifestyle activities, and to bring people closer to one another and to the government." i.e. grassroots movement in general, then it may be ok for cabinet ministers to be in the board.

 

But in local context where the dominant political party IS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY, then Mr LTK may have a point that partisan politics might be at play in his latest rebuttals to PA's points.

 

Now even HDB also got dragged into the fray and things are somewhat complicated...

 

We all agree things can be done better and the political climate can be of a more level field, all for the benefit of Singaporeans.

 

Let's just start of by requesting the Parliament to propose and hopefully pass a bill of changing the Constitution to allow the EP to take up the post of PA Chairman?

Edited August 25, 2011 by Vulcann

[Lkp848]

Sorry huh... just wondering... will it make any difference if the EP is ex-PAP?

[Sk65]

please play the game by the rules la.

change constitution so easy one meh....

 

 

and its suka suka say change then can change...

then its really no government already.

 

have you seen people in Japan or US,

lobby like siao, private meeting, tea session,

just to get enough votes to admend constitution, pass a bill.

 

 

 

 

 

[Evillusion]

please play the game by the rules la.

change constitution so easy one meh....

 

 

and its suka suka say change then can change...

then its really no government already.

 

have you seen people in Japan or US,

lobby like siao, private meeting, tea session,

just to get enough votes to admend constitution, pass a bill.

bro the constitution has been changed many times liao! and the changes are mostly pro the ruling party!

[Sk65]

i did not say cannot change .

 

but ask the majority seat party to change something that will disadvantage them, (i assume they don't like the idea)

how is that going to happen?

 

[Sk65]

actually as much as the hype around this EP thingy now, (27th Aug)

 

Japan is having its 6th PM in 5 yrs, (29th Aug)

thats more interesting to note actually.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Sk65

[Jasonjst]

Whats the point EP=PAP not ?

Edited August 25, 2011 by Jasonjst

[New_Atlantis]

please play the game by the rules la.

change constitution so easy one meh....

 

 

and its suka suka say change then can change...

then its really no government already.

 

have you seen people in Japan or US,

lobby like siao, private meeting, tea session,

just to get enough votes to admend constitution, pass a bill.

 

 

They can change the constitution any time they wish. mandate given.

 

If they want they can make up any law they wish... any.

 

For example: all with surname tan don't have to vote in this EP. so as to promote clan unity.. or some other BS they can think off

 

Bottom line: ....... SUCK THUMB .........

 

 

 

 

[Passat57]

I think the rules will change, that PA will not be headed by the PM, PAP loses majority votes in the GE. Eg if LKT becomes PM, PA will then to remain headed by PAP chief.

[Vulcann]

Sorry huh... just wondering... will it make any difference if the EP is ex-PAP?

 

On paper, no.

 

In reality, well, it remains to be seen...

 

Nobody would have thought the late honorable President OTC would have performed beyond expectations (and initial skeptisms) as a true people's president despite being a hardcore ruling party cadre & an ex-DPM.

 

That said, it does not mean any future EP formerly from a political party can be of same calibre as this truly remarkable man who still commands the respect from so many if us till this day.

 

[Vulcann]

Have the urge to ask Mod to lock-up this thread due to unforeseen circumstances happening....

[Playtime]

Sorry huh... just wondering... will it make any difference if the EP is ex-PAP?

 

facts:

1) EP can veto parliaments decisions, and parliament needs 2/3 to over rule.

2) This veto power can cause great disruption, it can be used for political purposes if the EP is not neutral. (Think the Thai King behind the scenes pulling down Thaksin, a legitimately elected PM)

3) The vetting will ensure that some former PAP will be in.

 

Currently the PAP have more than 2/3 in parliament, doesnt matter who the EP is at all. They can just over ride the EP.

 

One day the PAP have more than 1/2 but less than 2/3, the EP can over ride the PAP, but an ex-PAP EP would never do that would he?

 

If the PAP loses an election and have more than 1/3 but less than 1/2. Ah... than a PAP EP will really come into play, he can then veto parliament and cripple it. The oposition/minority PAP can then control the elected non-PAP govt of the day. Good or bad? To who?

 

This is the real scenerio that has not been discussed at all in the MSM, but you bet that its in the very center of the PAP thought when they came up with the EP and why I suspect WP is against it.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Playtime

[Vulcann]

facts:

1) EP can veto parliaments decisions, and parliament needs 2/3 to over rule.

2) This veto power can cause great disruption, it can be used for political purposes if the EP is not neutral. (Think the Thai King behind the scenes pulling down Thaksin, a legitimately elected PM)

3) The vetting will ensure that some former PAP will be in.

 

Currently the PAP have more than 2/3 in parliament, doesnt matter who the EP is at all. They can just over ride the EP.

 

One day the PAP have more than 1/2 but less than 2/3, the EP can over ride the PAP, but an ex-PAP EP would never do that would he?

 

If the PAP loses an election and have more than 1/3 but less than 1/2. Ah... than a PAP EP will really come into play, he can then veto parliament and cripple it. The oposition/minority PAP can then control the elected non-PAP govt of the day. Good or bad? To who?

 

This is the real scenerio that has not been discussed at all in the MSM, but you bet that its in the very center of the PAP thought when they came up with the EP and why I suspect WP is against it.

 

The EP's 5 key duties under the Constitution are pretty much a passive role. The rest of what he is supposed to do must be with the concurrence of the Cabinet in general.

 

So the so-called checks & balances as proposed by some EP candidates are really very very limited in influence over the government which can brush them aside. A passive behind the scene advise to the PM & his Cabinet colleagues is pretty much he can do occasionally.

 

What we have here is basically a highly-paid national finance custodian with very restricted powers.

 

As such, it will be good if he or she can really take on the additional role of a unifying figure such as the head of PA, as proposed here in my thread.