From that moment on,  Singaporeans have been treated to an unaccustomed spectacle -– the PAP coming out with all guns blazing, almost as if they're in panic.

Daily since Andrew Kuan's surfacing, PAP politicians and the media have been badmouthing him. He has been described as arrogant, too full of himself, and now dirt is being dug up by the New Paper about something that might or might not have happened when he was chairman of a condominium management committee.

Lately, the Straits Times focussed on Kuan's career history, suggesting that Kuan only took the CFO job at JTC to obtain the bare minimum 3 years' eligibility. On 8 August, the headline was "Kuan joined JTC to boost chances".

It escapes no one that all this is adding up to a concerted attempt at character assassination, in order to show the public that he is not a person of good character and integrity, thus undeserving of a certificate of eligibility.

That the character issue would be key became obvious when Minister Lim Swee Say was quoted by the Sunday Times (7 August) as saying that Singaporeans should not hope for a contest in the presidential election just for the sake of it.

What matters more is whether those who want to run for president have the qualities to perform the duties of the highest post in the land, the Sunday Times reported him to have said.

Was Lim preparing the public for a disqualification?

Of course, the rejoinder is, who is going to decide whether someone has the "qualities to perform the duties of the highest post in the land"? Shouldn't it be the electorate? Isn't that what elections are for?

* * * * *

The Presidential Elections Committee has to decide firstly, whether Kuan's job (2001-2004) as the Group Chief Financial Officer of Jurong Town Corporation, which Kuan says has $11 billion in assets, is equivalent to management experience leading a company with at least $100 million in paid-up capital – one of the statutory requirements for eligibility, as mentioned above.

Secondly, whether he is a person of "good character and standing" – the other statutory condition.

It is possibly difficult to persuade the public that a CFO of JTC is not sufficiently experienced, and thus to disqualify him on this ground would create a credibility nightmare for the PAP and for future presidential elections. Having said that, we should remember that the PAP has often enough undermined electoral systems and state institutions whenever their party fortunes were at risk, so if they're not confident that Nathan can win reelection, I won't be at all surprised if Kuan's CFO experience is ruled as insufficient, never mind what people in the street think, never mind the damage it does to already low public respect for the electoral system.

The less nightmarish course would be to disqualify Kuan on the ground that he is not of good character. Hence, the determined effort you see now to dig up dirt on him.

Even if he passes the eligibility test, any dirt unearthed (or any simple issue spun as dirt) will prove useful in the campaign itself.

Of course, the whole affair begs the question of why we need such stringent eligibility standards anyway. I think our system is wrong and undemocratic, but I shan't get into this here.

* * * * *

It is a little ironic that Kuan is being described adversely as stubborn, sure of himself and so on. When the elected presidency was first mooted in the early 1990s, the PAP government argued that it was necessary to have a person with enough toughness of character and the mandate from the people to stand up to whichever government of the day it was that wanted to spend the reserves. "Sure of himself", stubborn even, were what the PAP would have described as necessary qualities in the elected president.

Of course, that was then -- when the PAP feared a steady erosion of voter support that would one day lead to a non-PAP government. As everybody knew, the elected presidency proposal was meant to be a second line of defence to stymie the plans of whichever opposition party might form a government.

As things turned out, the PAP had enough trouble with one of their own - Ong Teng Cheong, the first elected President, who was to prove to be too independent of mind. See The mess that is our presidency.

Now the prospect of Andrew Kuan, someone not endorsed by the PAP, becoming president over the PAP government must be as comfortable as eating cacti.

From the panic we see, the prospect is real.

* * * * *

Singapore has only seen one presidential contest before, in 1993 -- if you can even call it a contest.

That year, the government gently persuaded Chua Kim Yeow, a former auditor-general (a civil servant) to contest the election against Ong Teng Cheong. Chua was a total unknown. In his few speeches on television, he lived up to the image we all have of civil servants – dowdy, overcautious, scripted, completely uninspiring.

In contrast, Ong was well-known, having been in the public eye for more than a decade, first as head of the National Trades Union Congress, then cabinet minister and subsequently Deputy Prime Minister.

Yet, Chua polled 41% of the vote. Just about everyone (and more) who had a gripe against the PAP took the opportunity to register his displeasure.

Now, if we have a Kuan vs Nathan contest, the odds must be too difficult to call. Despite having been president for 6 years already, Nathan has not demonstrated the common touch nor had much opportunity to exude a natural warmth with people. He says little and is generally unspontaneous. At 80, age may count against him (Kuan is 51). But most worrying of all, Nathan is not Chinese while Kuan is. Of course, it isn't good for Singapore's future that some people still vote along racial lines, though it is to some extent a reality we can't dismiss. 

A straw poll among my friends indicated to me that most believed there will not be a contest. The PAP will not want the risk of Nathan losing to this upstart, my friends said.

But where will that leave the institution of an elected presidency? Where is the "people's mandate" that is supposed to be so crucial to giving the president the legitimacy to stand firm against reckless governments -- the original argument for amending the constitution to provide for presidential elections?

This whole institution is now nearly in ruins.

The damage was set in train when the PAP changed the system to ensure an outcome favourable to itself whatever the circumstances, yet giving itself the figleaf of democrcay.

Now human nature in the form of ambition in Andrew Kuan, has defied the PAP's attempts at political engineering. The PAP is now faced with a critical choice: either be democratic and allow a contest but without being able to guarantee the outcome they want, or ensure the desired outcome through a disqualification, but lose the figleaf of democracy.

What sweet ruins!

© Yawning Bread 

Addenda

None