In outcome, the second key this time moves in tandem with the first. To observers, it appears things are presented as a fait accompli.

[snip]

This being such a sticky issue - and one with important impact on the President's ability to discharge his duties fully - it is imperative that more, rather than less, information be put on public record as to how the procedure worked this time, as it sets a benchmark for the future.

The elected presidency is still evolving. Setting the tone right from the start, by having more transparency in the decision-making process, would help strengthen this august institution.

-- Straits Times, 6 Feb 2009, Getting the
hang of the two-key system

Members of Parliament had spoken up asking for more light on the events.

Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang (Workers' Party) voiced the widespread impression that the two keys operated "simultaneously", and that the President's "second key" was not autonomous, as previously touted. "When the government key says unlock, the other key unlocks automatically," he said.

Irene Ng (People's Action Party) made the same observation: "Can I ask whether the process can be refined and improved further so that in future, we can make sure the process is more transparent, that the public knows that the institution of the President is one that is strong and can exercise independent turn of the key?"

Inderjit Singh (People's Action Party) also queried the minister, albeit very delicately. He said, "If we could get a sense of what they discussed and what process they went through, then that may clear many of these questions." By "they", he meant the President and his Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA).

Finance minister Tharman had given a step-by-step breakdown of what information the government had provided to the President, and when, in support of its request to use reserves accumulated during previous terms of the government. In Singapore, these reserves cannot be spent unless the President also gives the go-ahead.

What was notably hazy was how the President and the CPA came to agree with the government. As Inderjit remarked, "What's missing is the process that the President took after he got briefed by the government."

To these calls for more transparency,

Mr Tharman replied that he was not sure the details of the President's process were relevant.

'This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge,' he said. 'Do you trust them? Have they made decisions wisely? Has the Government been acting responsibly? That is ultimately what has been and will be the strength of the system.'

He added that other systems 'based on transparency of figures and procedures', as distinct from trust in the individuals, have been shown to shift towards 'wanting to spend more reserves for less and less meritorious purposes over time'.

'That is what we want to resist,' said Mr Tharman.

-- Straits Times, 6 Feb 2009, Govt details
steps leading to President's OK

It's plain that it was a non-reply.

* * * * *

 
A conspiracy theory is hard to shake off. The government does not want this part of the process institutionalised. It much prefers it to be ad hoc.

One has to remember what this whole idea of an elected President, with powers locking away the reserves, is intended for: to block any future non-PAP government from spending the PAP's money (oops, I mean money accumulated by previous PAP administrations).

When the PAP wants to spend its "own" money, of course the process has to be quick and easy. When a future non-PAP government asks to do so, it must prove extremely difficult (assuming that the President had been installed by a PAP government).

To institutionalise the process by which the President and the CPA should evaluate and decide, through the example of the current request, would be to lay down a procedure that makes things much too easy for future non-PAP governments. Better to keep it opaque.

That is why Tharman had to be uncharacteristically uninformative in his reply, calling such insight irrelevant.

But if the cabinet won't divulge how the President and the CPA decided on their request, why not the Office of the President? After all, the President is not supposed to be partisan, and is not supposed to be a party to the "devious conspiracy".

President S R Nathan, given his age, is unlikely to be serving any more terms as head of state. He should look to his historical legacy and his responsibility to the people and the Constitution, rather than pleasing the government. The best thing he can do is to issue a statement detailing:

• What information and when he and the CPA received from the government; 
• How they evaluated this information; what they considered important/unimportant among them; 
• What questions they asked; what answers received; 
• What broad, overarching principles they used to guide their decision; 
• What reply exactly they gave the government and when.

But I won't hold my breath.

© Yawning Bread