However, by the time the CEO of Jurong Town Corporation, Kuan's employer from 2001-2004, trotted out to make negative comments about Kuan's ability and his job history, most knew how it would end.

A day later, on 13 August 2005, the Presidential Elections Commission (PEC) did the dirty work. It announced that no one other than the incumbent, S R Nathan, was qualified to run for President. Andrew Kuan, the most likely other candidate to qualify, was ruled ineligible.

* * * * *

There are no winners in this affair. Not even S R Nathan.

I heard him speak on TV news tonight (17 Aug 2005). He said, "I want to thank all Singaporeans who came forward to support me." What a poor choice of words, for it reminded everyone how his support has never been tested. If there was any 'support' evident, it was only that engineered by the so-called labour movement that the PAP government captured and neutered long ago.

It was quite pathetic, and I thought to myself, the best thing he can do to redeem his personal honour is to resign.

* * * * *

There was one thing that was remarkable however, and that was that of those Singaporeans who cared (and do not forget that, alas for Singapore, they are still a minority; the majority having been depoliticised) a great number shared the feeling that everything about this affair was wrong. And as the analyses come through in the next few days and weeks, I'm sure there will also be unanimity that the institution of the Presidency has been damaged, perhaps mortally.

Hence, nothing I say here will be entirely new; they have been said by many others.

Both Lydia Lim of the Straits Times [1] and Siew Kum Hong writing for 'Today' [2] have pointed out that with the existing criteria, only a miniscule number of Singaporeans will ever be eligible. This cannot be healthy. This also means that we may never see any serious contest for as long as the system is in place.

I would also add that the criteria suffer from a flaw of subjectivity. Now, it is a well-known fact that if you place discretionary and subjective powers in the hands of ministers and bureaucrats, it is a recipe for corruption. This is as true of awarding the Certificate of Eligibility as it is true of awarding industrial licences, import permits, land sales or admission to colleges. Most of us are accustomed to thinking of corruption as something done in exchange for brown envelopes under the table, but there is a broader meaning of corruption, which is to use the powers of office to serve yourself or your own kind. The way the criteria have been drawn, they are just asking for trouble, if not this time, then surely in future.

This time, the subjectivity was over the question of whether a Chief Financial Officer of a S$11 billion corporation was a equivalent of a CEO of a S$100 million company. But another time it may be whether the CEO of a US$10 billion company is equivalent to a CEO of a S$100 million company.

Why not? you'd ask, and you might think there can't be anything discretionary about it.

But look carefully at the wording of the constitution. To qualify, the company you have run has to be a Singapore-incorporated company. Even if you were the CEO of Boeing, Microsoft or Google, you would not automatically qualify. It would still be a discretionary matter for the PEC. If the PAP thinks you're too independent of mind, the PEC can quite easily rule that your US$10 billion company is not equivalent and their decision is final. The criteria virtually ensure that only people long associated with the PAP establishment, whether as a PAP minister or government bureaucrat, or as head of a government-linked company here, can get through the gate. Independent people need not apply.

And don't forget another subjective criterion – whether the candidate is of integrity and good character.

This body has as much dignity left as a fallen woman. If the eligibility criteria has lost all legitimacy, then so has the Commission.

Maybe it isn't a bad idea to have some prequalifying criteria, but they should be, in the interest of true democracy, objective criteria, e.g. minimum age, no criminal record. Even if we must have higher standards, we can still have objective criteria, e.g (a) at least 3 years on the Board of Directors of a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Singapore, or (b) a member of a recognised professional association (Law Society, for example), or (c) at least 3 years as a Member of Parliament.

Once we have objective criteria, the need for a commission is dispensed with. The elections department can decide, and in case of conflict, leave it to the judicial process. People either meet the criteria or not; you don't have to make judgments of equivalency.

As for good character, why do we need a commission? Isn't that what an electoral campaign is for? The candidates should speak to the people, and answer any charges levied by opponents, but ultimately, let the people as a whole judge character. The more openness we have, the more able the electorate can see for themselves.

Many people, like myself, may not be impressed by Andrew Kuan. But the grievance we all have is that it should be up to us to decide, and not for the PEC to close the matter.

It just strikes everyone as completely wrong that the decision is taken out of our hands.

In any case, the original rationale for an elected president was so that in the event of a dispute between him and the government of the day, the president would have authority and legitimacy from having a direct mandate from the people. Now that the citizenry has seized this idea, the government runs away from it.

Lydia Lim of the Straits Times said,

The crux of the matter lies in who you think the President is meant to check.

For the People's Action Party (PAP) leaders who designed this institution, the Elected President (EP) exists to check a rogue government, and a rogue government alone.

For them, the checking role of the EP should only kick in when there is a freak election - that is, the PAP loses a majority of seats in Parliament.

And that,

... with a PAP government in power, the president's role would be largely ceremonial, as it was before the post became an elected one.

     -- What's behind the election divide?
Straits Times, 15 Aug 2005

She's being very frank, expressing what everybody thinks.

The problem is, many Singaporeans do feel that the PAP government is, in some ways, a bit of a rogue too, and want a check on it.

JTC's press conference was an exercise in political assassination, but they were so careless, they damaged their own reputation too.

The most striking thing the CEO, Chong Lit Cheong, said, as reported in the Straits Times story 'JTC was not satisfied with Kuan's work' (12 Aug 2005) was that "when we were quite sure that we were not satisfied, that's when we told him (to resign), in September 2003."

Kuan asked to stay on nonetheless until he had completed 3 years. The JTC agreed.

In a parallel story in the Straits Times, headlined 'Andrew Kuan was asked to resign or face sack from JTC', also dated 12 Aug 2005,

Between September 2003 and July last year, Mr Kuan asked for and received two extensions, bringing his term to just over three years. When he did not quit, he was issued an ultimatum resign or have his service terminated. He resigned on July 2. His last day was July 31.

This is hardly believable, and the Straits Times correspondent tried to grill Chong and other JTC directors on it. However, they gave evasive answers about the request being an "innocent" request, how the JTC were "employers with a heart," and how they wanted to "give the person some time to see how he can improve." This being, you would note, after the board had plainly decided Kuan was not good enough.

On 2 July 2004, they gave him an ultimatum. And still they left him at his job for one more month!

It's as simple as this: they had told Kuan in September 2003 that he had to leave. Yet they kept him on for 10 more months. This is not some minor employee. This is senior executive with cheque signatory powers, the point man between the corporation and their banks. You tell such a person he has no more future in the company, and then leave him alone for 10 months?

What if Kuan had been unscrupulous and set up a scheme to embezzle and defraud? It's naive to think it can't happen. When a person has no future left, the temptation must surely be there. (That Kuan didn't do so must count for something.)

The whole story floors me. Either the CEO and the board of JTC are incompetent or the story of their dissatisfaction with Kuan presented at the press conference was exaggerated. It's really hard to reconcile the two. Either way, these guys damaged their own credibility.

* * * * *

The basic and unsolvable problem is this The PAP wants electoral legitimacy, but will not subject themselves to the electorate, for fear of " freak results". For every short-sighted step they take to guarantee results the way they want, a bit more of their legitimacy and any hope of a sustainable legacy come crumbling down.

It's a conundrum that is familiar to all observers of history. The people want their say. The longer it is held back, the more blatant the machinations, the more the resistance rises. The more the resistance rises, the more insecure the ruler becomes about submitting to the people's free verdict.

© Yawning Bread