LKY on the role of EP in 1999

[Alim]

Transcript of Lee Kuan Yew's interview with the Straits Times

 

Straits Times August 12, 1999

In an interview with the Straits Times, Lee Kuan Yew gives a blunt retort to popular views about the role of an elected president and clarifies the limits of his powers. Lee, the chief architect of the scheme, also speaks on the importance of rotating the presidency among the races and his assessment of Mr S.R. Nathan, the only candidate to obtain an eligibility certificate, who was named president August 17.

 

ST:

 

Do you think the current excitement over the post of the

EP is some sort of reflection for a greater check on

government, or is it just a lack of understanding?

 

SM Lee:

 

First, people think there should be more consultations

and their views should be heard. If they can't have their

views heard, then get an Elected President to get their

views through.

 

Well, then you're going to have two centres of

governments and you're going to have trouble.

 

Supposing the President goes out and makes speeches

contrary to the government's policies, there's going to be

a clash. He is acting outside his province. That is not on.

 

There are only two ways in which you can change the

government's view. One, stand for elections, contest.

The other way is to get your views over time accepted

by the majority, including the Government.

 

The PAP has survived not because it stuck by its guns

all the time. If it were ideological and dogmatic, it would

have become irrelevant. With every change in

circumstance, I said, let's look at the options, what are

the solutions?

 

It doesn't matter who produces the solution; if it's going

to work, adopt it and if he's got many solutions to offer,

co-opt him. I see no disadvantage in that.

 

ST:

 

You brought up a fundamental point when you

mentioned how Singapore cannot move away from the

Westminster model of parliamentary democracy.

 

SM Lee:

 

No, I'm not saying we cannot move. I say it has

worked, so do we want to alter the system? Are you

sure that altering it will make it work better? We have

evolved, we have changed bits here and there.

 

Once we had a parliamentary draughtsman from

England who wrote up a brand new Constitution. I said

this looks neat, but should we go and change our habits

of working just to fit the Constitution?

 

The Constitution has got to accommodate the political,

social and cultural habits of the people. It has worked.

People know how it works. Better leave it largely as it

is. Continue to make it work.

 

ST:

 

There's some confusion on the ground on the role of the

EP, but that's also due to the fact that the Government

has put out expectations that the EP office is to clip its

wings.

 

SM Lee:

 

No, if you've to clip the wings, then you are in for

trouble, you cannot govern. It is to prevent the

Government from doing manifestly wrong things.

 

ST:

 

But that quote came specifically from Mr Goh Chok

Tong in Parliament.

 

SM Lee:

 

Well, I cannot remember it but I would not have used

that phrase because the executive powers of the

Government should not be clipped. It is when it exceeds

what is proper that it should be blocked or vetoed.

 

ST:

 

But considering that it's a new office, wouldn't you

expect that there should be disagreement between

Government and the EP?

 

SM Lee:

 

Yes. There must be these disagreements.

 

ST:

 

What is the reason?

 

SM Lee:

 

Because the system is new and the President does not

know the exact limits of his powers.

 

ST:

 

Are these over fundamentals?

 

SM Lee:

 

No, disagreements are over the finer points, at the

margins. The broad outline of his powers is already

clear.

 

ST:

 

What would you count as interference by a president?

 

SM Lee:

 

The government should not be stopped from doing what

it has always been doing.

 

ST:

 

You've also said that the president should not be an

activist?

 

SM Lee:

 

No, he cannot initiate. He's not an executive president.

It's not for the president to say, look, I want to use the

second key, come on, let's use the reserves.

 

His job is to protect the reserves, not to use them.

 

ST:

 

But if you look at the small pool of people qualified to

be presidents, most of them would be former Cabinet

ministers and they are by nature activist.

 

SM Lee:

 

Yes, therefore when you move into this job, you must

change your mindset.

 

ST:

 

One view is that the elected president's job is a very big

responsibility and is a complex task, in terms of looking

at the numbers, for example. No, you don't need to be

an accountant. This is not a job for an accountant.

 

What comes up to him or what should come up to him is

the final summary of the position: this is what has been

going on; this is what the Government is going to do;

does it infringe on the constitutional rights of the

president? That's all. If it does, he has to stop it.

 

ST:

 

Another issue that has surfaced is that people think there

has been a lack of transparency in the relationship

between the Presidency and Government.

 

SM Lee:

 

What is there to be opaque about? There's nothing that

requires the Prime Minister to be secretive.

 

He does not require anything of the President other than

official signatures. When they are sent to the President,

he signs or he doesn't and he queries, if it is his right to

block it.

 

ST:

 

One comment, including by Mr Lim Kim San, is that the

presidency can be manipulated by a rogue government.I

have had this argument with him many times.

 

SM Lee:

 

He has seen politics in the raw and he knows that if the

PM is a good populist mobiliser, he can work up

feelings, then arrange a referendum to support his

expenditures or appointments and eventually overturn

the Constitution.

 

Either the president gives way or the PM may get his

amendments through a referendum. I accept that is

possible.

 

Therefore I say we must have a president with six

people who in such a crisis will sit down and quietly plan

what to do to block this move and not to allow this

populist to gather more support.

 

He would have to explain coolly and quietly to the

people with the support of his CPA why if you do this

you're putting in jeopardy your life savings and your

future.

 

No, I agree with Kim San it is not foolproof because if

you want to make it foolproof, you have to block

yourself permanently into a corner, which you don't want

to do.

 

You may actually have to use those reserves from time

to time.

 

ST:

 

Do you think the system could be improved further?

 

SM Lee:

 

I think it has to be worked out by convention, by

interaction over time.

 

The present government has to be careful that it does

not take too constricted a view that a future government

may not be able to operate without going to see the

President almost every other time, which will be

unworkable in practice. Also, you cannot work on the

basis that every government is a rogue government. So,

therefore, you must give a rogue government rope for

two to three years before you reign its excesses in. If

you start off on the basis that the next government is

going to be a rogue government, then you lock up

everything.

 

ST:

 

There is also some general unhappiness about the fact

that the powers of the President are not operationalised

like the Article 5(2A).

 

SM Lee:

 

Once you operationalise it, you've got to go through a

referendum to change it. Do you want to do that?

 

ST:

 

Your argument also seems to be that with the PAP in

power - and the PAP is definitely not a rogue

government - the role of the EP would be mostly 99 per

cent ceremonial as before.

 

SM Lee:

 

Well, provided the Government is doing right, I think

that should be the position. If he's interfering then he is

becoming an Executive President. You can't have a

division of executive powers.

 

ST:

 

So as long as this is the case, the next elected President

will be like the previous ceremonial presidents like Wee

Kim Wee, Benjamin Sheares and Yusof Ishak, playing

basically the same role.

 

SM Lee:

 

Yes, it has to be that or the Government is unduly

restricted. It cannot be otherwise.

 

Supposing you have another source of authority and the

Government says, "No, we will not do this," and the

President says, 'Yes, we will do this" then we say, 'All

right, let's take a vote." And what will happen? Then he

should resign from there and get into Parliament for a

proper contest.

 

ST:

 

So you would need somebody who can just carry out

the symbolic functions of the office?

 

SM Lee:

 

With the proviso that he is at the same time looking at all

the reports submitted in to make sure it is in fact on the

right track. You cannot assume things will not change.

 

You might get a PAP Government but a new generation,

beyond this present one, that becomes spendthrift and

has less skills, and begins to bribe the voters.

 

Then next to no time, the reserves are run down.

 

ST:

 

One popular catch-phrase in the recent debate is "We

want an independent President". Mr S.R Nathan

countered by saying "Independent of what?" In your

view, he would be independent only insofar as the need

to check a rogue government but beyond that, no?

 

SM Lee:

 

No. Under the Constitution he has to act on the advice

of the Government. There's no difference between him

and any other other previous presidents. It is in the

Constitution, he has to act on the advice of the

Government.

 

He can't make speeches against the Government. His

address to Parliament is written up for him.

 

He cannot act independently of the Government. He

cannot act against the wishes of the Government,

full-stop, except when the Government wants to do

things which he's entitled to block or veto.

 

ST:

 

Maybe if we could turn to Mr Nathan and you could

share some insights on what sort of person he is.

 

SM Lee:

 

Well, I've known Nathan since the 1960s. I think he first

came to my notice when I was looking for people to

boost up the NTUC because the NTUC lost many of its

capable workers when they split with the communists,

so among those we sent there, we seconded to the

NTUC research unit was Nathan and Hsu Tse Kwang,

and I remember seeing them personally and telling them

that this is a secondment, help them build the unions up.

Then from there, the relationship went on.

 

I found him very stable, steady, can get things done his

quiet way. He was sent to university later in life, but he

had his other qualities that enabled him to rise above his

disadvantaged youth.

 

So he ended up I think Perm Sec (Foreign Affairs),

Director SID and he was in Mindef for quite a long

while, associated with intelligence, and because I used to

meet the intelligence people regularly to gather updates

and not just read reports, so I got to know him.

 

So after he retired he joined the Straits Times Press

Group but then we needed somebody in Kuala Lumpur

at a difficult time, so I asked him to take on that job.

And after that he went on to Washington. He came

back, he was still active, he's got energy, ideas, so he

started IDSS which he launched and it's got on its way. I

would consider him a person who can accomplish

things, in his own way.

 

ST:

 

Was race a consideration when you drew up your

shortlist of three candidates to Cabinet?

 

SM Lee:

 

Yes, in this regard, it's very difficult to find suitable

minority candidates. Because the population is so small,

when you reach the apex, the number of minority

candidates who can fill the job becomes even smaller.

 

So when you have a good man from the minority race, I

think it helps to remind Singaporeans that we are a

multiracial society. Although this is elected presidency,

had there been a contest against a populist Chinese, we

would have gone all out to make sure that he's elected.

 

It'd be a very sad day if a populist Chinese candidate

were to turn up and Nathan were defeated.

 

I would have gone all out for him. The Prime Minister

and the ministers knew that, if there was a contest with a

populist Chinese candidate, we have to throw in all our

resources to help him get elected.

 

ST:

 

Right. But the fact that he was Indian, do you think there

was a feeling that it's time for a minority to be president?

 

SM Lee:

 

Yes, I think so because we've had two terms of Wee

Kim Wee, one term of Ong Teng Cheong. I think it's

time to remind Singaporeans that we are a multiracial

community. And it's also good. It's a symbolic

expression of our national identity.

 

ST:

 

So this idea of rotating the presidency among the races

is on?

 

SM Lee:

 

I think it will continue. I would be very sad if expediency

made future governments just support Chinese

candidates. I think that would be a very bad thing.

 

But if they put up a minority candidate, they must be

prepared to back him to the hilt because if he comes up

against a populist, Chinese chauvinist type, you have a

problem.

 

There's no doubt that this is a problem because it would

take several generations before we get out of this.

 

ST:

 

Before Singaporeans stopped voting along racial lines?

 

SM Lee:

 

Yes. It took several generations for the Americans to

vote for a Catholic candidate as President. These are gut

feelings, emotional prejudices which are very difficult to

wear down.

 

ST:

 

Was it difficult to persuade Mr Nathan to stand?

 

SM Lee:

 

Well, he did not jump at it. He knew it would mean a

change of life for him and for his wife and family. So he

asked for time to discuss it with his wife. The wife of a

President can be of great help because, for many of the

social functions, you will need a hostess and a good

hostess helps in keeping more people happy.

 

ST:

 

You mentioned that it's difficult to find candidates for the

position, why do you think this is so?

 

SM Lee:

 

Well, why should they give up their privacy. If you are

not a megalomaniac, why do you want this job for?

Everywhere you go, the spotlights are on you. People

salute you, you are on parade.

 

You can't go sauntering around to a hawker centre or go

to Daimaru, and do whatever you like. And if you go for

a walk in the Botanic Gardens, some crazy guy may

approach you and say, "Look, here's my petition" or

whatever. You have lost your right to be yourself; you

are on parade.

 

ST:

 

The Straits Times ran two surveys to find out whether

people wanted an election and the majority, 80 per cent,

wanted to see an election because they wanted to take

part in the process of choosing their President. But it

would seem there would not be an election after all.

 

SM Lee:

 

You want us to go out and look for another candidate?

(Laughs)

 

ST:

 

No, my question is: If there were no election, would you

consider it a good thing or an unhealthy development?

 

SM Lee:

 

No, I'm completely agnostic on that. In many of the last

10 general elections I've been uncontested. Now, why

did they not contest? Because their chances of winning

were pretty small, so they looked around for where they

thought their chances were better, that's it. I was ready

to contest and I made sure that my party branch,

although I don't go down as regularly as other MPs, is

functioning. I've got another MP to nurse it. I go down

from time to time and I know come election time I can

meet anybody in the contest. I don't know, should we

have arranged for a second candidate?

 

ST:

 

To put it another way, maybe even if it was a contrived

contest, at least the candidate will be able to say, 'I have

X per cent of the people" behind me. Would that help

the moral standing of the President?

 

SM Lee:

 

I don't know. They have not contested because they

don't believe they stand a chance. Nathan's name was

out in the newspapers for several weeks, right?

Singapore is a small place, you can calculate who are

the possibles. You can eliminate the unlikely ones and

come down to about half to a dozen people. If people

thought they stood a chance they would have come out,

that's what my experience tells me. The last time we had

to go out of our way to nudge Chua Kim Yeow to come

out.

 

ST:

 

Why did the Government not feel the need to do so this

time around?

 

SM Lee:

 

Well, the last time was the first time ever so it was

necessary to run the system in. This is the second time

so we didn't feel strongly about it.

 

ST:

 

But don't you think it's actually not a good precedent in

the sense that, of course, the Government would put up

its own candidate, one with qualities required for the EP.

Then every time a term ends, there might not be an

election.

 

SM Lee:

 

I would not be prepared to say that. That depends upon

the mood at that time and the standing of the person and

the standing of the Government.

 

If the Government is wildly unpopular, I think its

candidate would not enjoy the same acceptance.

 

But I wouldn't like to project what would happen in the

next election; it's six years down the road and many

things can happen in six years.

 

ST:

 

But do you think the public should seriously consider

taking it upon themselves to put up their own candidates

rather than keep waiting for the Government?

 

SM Lee:

 

Go ahead. First he must be qualified; secondly, he must

have some weight to be credible or he will lose

$30,000.

 

ST:

 

But this will be the sixth President that you would have

recommended. Do you think there will ever be a time

where the President can actually emerge out of natural

selection, where people actually come forward to offer

themselves?

 

SM Lee:

 

It depends upon the evolution of the relationship

between the political parties and the people.

 

If there is a credible opposition that credible opposition

will put up a candidate. But the opposition cannot put up

a candidate because it's not credible. If you just stand

for election you must have the organisation to canvass

for votes. You can't just say, 'I'm Jimmy Carter, I'm a

peanut farmer, vote for me." He had to run around like

mad using the Democratic Party machine. It's easy to

say I'll run but is it so easy to do, if you haven't got the

organisation?

 

When you talk about an alternative, either the alternative

has to be a PAP alternative or it has got to be an

opposition alternative.

 

ST:

 

But it can be an independent alternative as well.

 

SM Lee:

 

Ah yes, but who's going to run around for you?

 

ST:

 

Civil society groups perhaps?

 

SM Lee:

 

(Laughs) You know, civil society groups are okay for

committee meetings, issuing statements and press

conferences. Go on the hustings? Do you know how

tiring it is to go up 20 floors, and walk down to shake

hands?

 

ST:

 

Perhaps the Presidential election is less taxing than the

General Election.

 

SM Lee:

 

Right, okay, if you believe that. You put up a candidate

next time with your NGOs.

 

[Best_ctzn]

After going through the srticle, this stood out:

 

SM Lee:

 

No. Under the Constitution he has to act on the advice

of the Government. There's no difference between him

and any other other previous presidents. It is in the

Constitution, he has to act on the advice of the

Government.

 

He can't make speeches against the Government. His

address to Parliament is written up for him.

 

He cannot act independently of the Government. He

cannot act against the wishes of the Government,

full-stop, except when the Government wants to do

things which he's entitled to block or veto.

 

The above is from horse' mouth literally as LKY is the author of the Constitution. So, are we still not clear about the role of an EP? So be careful of the promises that all candidates dished out, whether they can be fulfilled or not.

 

 

[Alim]

Looking at your signature, can a EP be sacked if he act unconstitutionally?

 

Anyone knows?

[Silver_blade]

I believe if he EP acted unconstitutionally and it is a serious one, he can be removed. I doubt the constitution will be drafted without an escape for the gov to remove an EP who made grave mistakes or break the constitution repeatedly.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Silver_blade

[Bystander50]

Gov say want to draw reserves, can the president say no?

Saying no = going against the government.

 

Like that how to safeguard the reserves?

 

 

[Best_ctzn]

Looking at your signature, can a EP be sacked if he act unconstitutionally?

 

Anyone knows?

Sorry I small-time computer hero only, no answer for you. What I can recall is that Shanmugam refused to go into specific when probed on this recently. Any law expert?

[Best_ctzn]

Gov say want to draw reserves, can the president say no?

Saying no = going against the government.

 

Like that how to safeguard the reserves?

 

You cannot understand what LKY said?

He cannot act independently of the Government. He

cannot act against the wishes of the Government,

full-stop, except when the Government wants to do

things which he's entitled to block or veto.

[Silver_blade]

Gov say want to draw reserves, can the president say no?

Saying no = going against the government.

 

Like that how to safeguard the reserves?

Drawing past reserve is ok...cos that is within that 5 areas the EP can veto. Reserve accumulated by the present gov don't need EP's approval.

[Alim]

So the EP is nothing but a farce?

[Bystander50]

Drawing past reserve is ok...cos that is within that 5 areas the EP can veto. Reserve accumulated by the present gov don't need EP's approval.

 

Point noted. Thanks.

 

[Cerano]

I believe if he EP acted unconstitutionally and it is a serious one, he can be removed. I doubt the constitution will be drafted without an escape for the gov to remove an EP who made grave mistakes or break the constitution repeatedly.

 

issue of vote of no confidence?

[Darthrevan]

got it from hwz forum

 

 

Vacation of and removal from office of President

22L.

[Damienic]

I find it somehow unusual that the author of the constitution has not voice out anything during the entire campaign period...hmmm

[Joseph22]

I find it somehow unusual that the author of the constitution has not voice out anything during the entire campaign period...hmmm

likely silence by his son

[Khyber]

The best thread on EP so far. Very insightful. Thanks TS.

[Gearoil]

got it from hwz forum

 

 

Vacation of and removal from office of President

22L.

[ORDinaryman]

You cannot understand what LKY said?

He cannot act independently of the Government. He

cannot act against the wishes of the Government,

full-stop, except when the Government wants to do

things which he's entitled to block or veto.

 

so what can a president block or veto?

[Pokyman]

So ah loong only needs the siggy of 20 plus balls carriers to have the Prez removed...for whatever flimsy excuse they can....

 

No wonder the Prata man listens to them like a dog on a leash...

 

Was Devan Nair removed like that because of alcholism?