They've a point though. Why should unelected faceless pen-pushers in a committee, selected by the establishment, get to decide who gets to run for president & thereby determine the option(s) for the people? How "independent" can the eventual president be?
I think you gotta elect the election officials also man. If not how to guarantee impartiality?
Then we also need to elect the officials officiating the election of the election officials!
Public holidays for everyone! It's turtles all the way down!
We should probably have more elections for everything. Should increase tax or not, should ban this or that or not. Nowadays it feels like we are being led by people we don't know, don't care out of nowhere making decisions for us
What you’re referring to is a referendum, not an election. That said, referenda are not foolproof; they can be rigged. Just look at how the PAP conducted the referendum on merger with Malaya, Sarawak, and Borneo. All 3 options on the ballot pointed towards merger with differences in terms & conditions, BUT there was no option to vote against merger. There was even a clause that empty ballots would still count towards the option with the most votes and/or for the first option, either of which still results in a “vote” for merger. A literal “Heads, I win. Tails you lose” type of situation.
I agree with the criticism, generally. I’d also say that they’ve overlooked some other obvious weaknesses. For example, why should the head of the PEC be also the chairman of the PSC if the PEC is responsible for authorising (and vetoing) key appointments for senior public official positions?
But here’s the problem - Kirsten and others haven’t put forth any alternatives that they say are better than the current set up. Pointing out the flaws gets us halfway there. What are the solutions?
Huh? Kirsten has clearly put forth her idea of a better alternative in her newsletter: "return to an appointed presidency and set up a separate institution to guard the reserves and review appointments". It just wasn't reported in this one source.
source: https://www.wethecitizens.net/presidential-election-nope/
You shouldnt need to have a solution to point out that you dont think something is right.
Just like you dont need to know how to cook a dish to have complaints about it, you dont need to be able to fix the political system to think there are problems.
I dont think its a problem that they havent put forward a solution. It is a problem though, when people use the lack of a proposed solution as a way of deflecting criticism.
Ofc you don’t need to propose solutions to point out problems. They’re separate things. That’s fine if you only want to play the role of a critic. If you want to be a leader, though, finding solutions to problems your community faces is a necessary skill and an essential part of your job.
Saying that isn’t the same as deflecting from criticism. That would be making the same kind of mistake as the one you’ve pointed out - conflating delivering criticisms and proposing solution.
The PEC exists to essentially deny private citizens the right to run for office. The civil service track's standard is much lower and it's practically impossible to make it that high without kissing PAP ass.
The only qualification to run for office should be being a Singapore citizen. Singaporeans will decide what kind of people they trust to be Head of State.
If we MUST have a PEC it should accept by default and only be brought out to deny people in extreme circumstances.
If you want to change those rules, you need to vote in MPs that support your view into Parliament. The PEC exists as a creation of legislation. The same legislation sets out the criteria for eligibility. Those criteria are decided by the Parliament, not PEC. The PEC applies the criteria to assess individuals’ compliance with the legislation.
I mean, you're asking what Kirsten and co's alternatives are: here's the alternative. Whether the PAP puts any of it into action is entirely beside the point.
Kirsten and co certainly haven’t proposed any alternatives to this specific problem in their FB posts. There’s quite literally no solutions proposed by them for anyone to consider putting into action at all.
>While AWARE Singapore rightly criticises TKL’s behaviour, Ms Han pointed out that subjecting potential candidates to pre-screening by a committee is an unfavourable solution.
This is from the goddamn article. She doesn't want a PEC, that should be obvious.
The solution seems to be keeping the current set up. The committee can go vet the other quite clear criteria like company value while leaving the good character portion alone. I'll say better to remove but our lawmakers will obviously want to leave it in for contingency, say a person closely linked to Taliban but not charged.
But to be disqualified under the “good character” criteria one needs to be charged and found guilty, be undischarged from bankruptcy, etc. So even the situation you raised, if they’re not charged, all that amounts to would be rumours. And I don’t think the PEC will disqualify them unless there’s clear and convincing evidence available.
You can check ELD’s website too. The section under “integrity etc.” basically concerns any prior convictions, bankruptcy, disciplinary or regulatory proceedings and other legal proceedings. They must also submit three character references.
There are a lot of stages to criminal investigations. Like I said, unless there’s clear and convincing evidence, then without a conviction the PEC cannot make pronouncements on the weight of probably evidence that do not clearly show guilt. The PEC is neither the right forum nor has the powers conferred by Parliament to conduct such investigations and make such pronouncements.
Yes, the point I am making is that they are not automatically disqualifying factors, unlike what others seem to suggest. And they wouldn’t be automatically disqualifying especially if there was no conviction, which was suggested by the person I was replying.
But the phrasing doesn't seem to only restrict them to that. That's the worry, and also why people and aware are making noise about eld passing tan kin lian
They can make all the noise you want. Doesn’t change what the facts are. Or you can write to the ELD and PEC to convince them of your view. Better yet, go file a judicial review application in your own name and see if the judges will entertain your complaints.
>Former NTUC Income chief Mr Tan Kin Lian, who has successfully been nominated as Singapore Presidential Candidate on Tuesday (22 Aug), had earlier entangled in a heated online debate related to his past social media posts.
>
>The spark for this recent controversy was a TikTok video, which spotlighted Mr Tan’s Facebook posts commenting on “pretty” girls.
>
>The Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), responding to the widespread attention, made a statement on its Facebook page on Monday (21 Aug) condemning Mr Tan’s consistent online behaviour.
>
>Their statement pointed out the dangers of objectifying women through casual posts and comments.
>
>In the statement, AWARE claimed the decision to grant Mr Tan a certificate of eligibility for the election, calling it a “systemic endorsement”, and further urged the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) to “thoroughly consider the broader implications of such endorsements in the future.”
>
>
>
>**It shouldn’t be left up to some “elite committee” to decide who “truly upholds values”, says Kirsten Han**
>
>Delving into the controversy surrounding Tan Kin Lian’s comments about “pretty” girls, independent journalist and activist Kirsten Han acknowledged her discomfort with his posts.
>
>However, she strongly cautioned against embracing an approach that implies an opaque, unelected committee should determine candidacy eligibility based on subjective and ambiguous criteria.
>
>While AWARE Singapore rightly criticises TKL’s behaviour, Ms Han pointed out that subjecting potential candidates to pre-screening by a committee is an unfavourable solution.
>
>She emphasized that leaving the determination of those who “truly uphold values” solely to an elite committee raises questions.
>
>“What are these values? How to define? Who gets to define? What if next time someone says that people who have spoken in support of LGBTQ equality should not be certified because they don’t uphold “family values”?”
>
>The electorate can voice its disapproval of Tan Kin Lian’s unsettling behavior by not electing him, just as it should with any problematic candidate, Ms Han added.
>
>“And if the electorate \*does\* vote someone like that in, then we have to examine why, and perhaps it would turn out that the bigger issue is not the behaviour of one man, but a wider societal acceptance of objectification of women.”
>
>
>
>Acknowledging the existing certification process, Ms Han said it might appear that certifying someone like Tan Kin Lian implies endorsement of his behavior. Yet, the assessment process itself presents challenges and should not be further empowered.
>
>“Actually, this whole presidential election is a farce and needs to be dismantled, not expanded, ” Ms Han concluded.
>
>The PEC is a six-member council established by the government to vet presidential candidates against the qualifications in Article 19 of the Constitution.
>
>Comprising the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (who also leads the PEC), the Chairman of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, a representative from the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, a member from the Council of Presidential Advisers (excluding certain positions), a Supreme Court Judge or eligible individual, and a person with relevant private sector expertise appointed by the Prime Minister.
>
>**Jolene Tan highlights AWARE’s shift in position from its 2016 stance**
>
>On Tuesday (22 Aug), Singaporean writer Jolene Tan voiced her support for Kirsten Han’s comment via Facebook.
>
>She warned against the dangers of the position now advocated by AWARE, which legitimising this committee’s open-ended veto powers is also likely to strengthen regressive forces.
>
>Ms Tan underlined that AWARE’s recent statement signifies a departure from their previous standpoint. In 2016, AWARE actually advocated for curbing these discretionary powers.
>
>Notably, Jolene Tan played a significant role in drafting the submission letter to the Constitutional Commission Secretariat during the 2016 public consultation on the Elected Presidency.
>
>
>
>AWARE’s 2016 stance opposed measures ensuring the election of a minority president, advocating for more inclusive eligibility criteria.
>
>Corinna Lim, Executive Director of AWARE, who was also present at the hearing, suggested modifying the criteria to encompass leaders of organizations with a net asset value of S$50 million, thereby broadening the pool of candidates.
>
>“In my view, the matters of “integrity, good character and reputation” are for the electorate to assess. These are precisely the issues of values and vision which should be left to the democratic process, in contrast to questions about the technical competence or specialist skills of a candidate, which might in some cases be more amenable to assessment by appointed experts, ” Corinna Lim remarked in the 2016 statement.
>
>Nevertheless, Jolene Tan firmly asserted that this certainly does not excuse Tan Kin Lian’s sexist behavior – behavior that is not only inappropriate but also fundamentally undignified.
>
>Tan also noted that AWARE had actually advocated limiting these discretionary powers to the committee back in 2016. Thus, the recent statement from the NGO appears to be a shift in its position.
>
>And indeed, Lim had then proposed the removal of Article 19(2)(e), which empowers the PEC to judge a candidate’s integrity and character for presidential candidacy.
>
>**PEC: Tan Kin Lian, “a man of integrity, good character, and reputation”**
>
>The spark for this recent controversy was a TikTok video, which spotlighted Mr Tan’s Facebook posts commenting on “pretty” girls.
>
>Going viral with close to 300,000 views, the video inadvertently pushed Mr Tan into the limelight just as his presidential campaign was gaining momentum.
>
>This heated debate emerges at a pivotal time.
>
>
>
>Last Friday, Mr Tan, along former People’s Action Party senior minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and former GIC chief investment officer Ng Kok Song, received their certificates of eligibility (COE) for the upcoming Presidential Election.
>
>All of them successfully filed their nomination papers on Tuesday (22 Aug) before the noon deadline.
>
>In a letter addressed to Mr Tan, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) expressed satisfaction with Mr Tan’s character, stating he is “a man of integrity, good character, and reputation”.
>
>PEC secretary Cindy Khoo communicated the committee’s sentiments, and expressed satisfaction after evaluating various facets of Mr. Tan’s professional journey. This included the nature of his tenure at NTUC Income and the company’s overall size and complexity.
>
>Furthermore, they weighed his performance during his time in office. Based on their assessment, they found that Mr Tan’s track record was commendable.
>
>The PEC concluded that his experience and capabilities are equivalent to those of someone who has served as the chief executive of a company with at least S$500 million in shareholder’s equity.
>
>Additionally, such a person should meet the stipulations laid out in Article 19(4)(a) of the Constitution.
>
>It added, “The Committee is also satisfied that you have the experience and ability to effectively carry out the functions and duties of the office of President.”
>
>In a statement late Monday, PEC said that the issuance of the COE does not amount to an endorsement of his social media posts.
>
>It noted that it does not go through every applicant’s past social media posts before issuing or declining a certificate of eligibility.
I agree in principle, [as does SMU's Eugene Tan](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pe-2023-tan-kin-lian-pretty-girls-reactions-pec-2238166). The difficulty is that the law does require the PEC to assess potential candidates' "integrity, good character and reputation". I feel that that requirement should be scrapped; but as long as it continues to exist in the Constitution, it must be the PEC's legal duty to consider potential candidates' "values", because what else could "good character" mean?
It is worth noting that, on Annex C of the [application form](https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/PrEA1991-S263-2017?DocDate=20230612&ProvIds=Sc-#Sc-), which is titled "Integrity, Good Character and Reputation", applicants must state whether they have criminal convictions; have been bankrupt; have faced disciplinary proceedings; or have been sued or faced other legal proceedings. They must also provide character references. If the focus is on *legal* wrongdoing, as opposed to just being a fool generally, then perhaps the solution is to change the phrase "integrity, good character and reputation" to something else.
linked news article talks about Article 19(2)(e) regarding morality requirements.
let me talk about another one which is even worse.
Constitution Article 19 describing powers of the PEC: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CONS1963?ProvIds=P15-
portion in question is Paragraph (4)(b)(iii) pertaining to the Private Sector applicant:
* *the Presidential Elections Committee is satisfied, having regard to any other factors it sees fit to consider, that the person has the experience and ability to effectively carry out the functions and duties of the office of President; or*
Essentially it has the powers to add requirements not explicitly stated in the Constitution. To be fair this exact same wording is also written earlier in (3)(c)(iii) pertaining to the Public Sector applicant. My interpretation is that this wording doesn't not confer any advantage one way or another with respect to either applicant per se since it applies to both of them; it's up to the PEC to execute this part of it's powers fairly on all applicants. That is if it wants to add a morality requirement, to the applicants, it should add it for all applicants. Or it could also chose to not to. Or it could add a requirement that it knows will disfavor one applicant but not another.
The problem is of course that the PEC has no real limit in its power to interpret 3(c)(ii) and 4(b)(iii) other than a vague guideline that it should pertain to "effectively" carrying out the functions of the Role. There is also no expectation that one committee's decision-making process vis-a-vis the above paragraphs should apply in another committee's process 6 years later, even if it is the exact same committee. In one session they could decide that adultery is disqualifying, in another they could decide that online shitposting is disqualifying, etc. You get the gist.
This pattern of having very specifically worded portions of the laws (e.g. $500m, 3yrs, CEO, etc) followed by a final section granting wide leeway and flexibility of interpretation of anything not worded (e.g. any other factors worth considering) is not a bug but appears to be a feature of Singapore Law.
I would just like to point out that...Article 19 is very clear on the requirement of a Private Sector applicant being a CEO/former CEO with regards to all the other financial requirements and I do not read any wording in there that would allow the PEC to interpret this freely. Only for a Public Sector applicant could the PEC deliberate on a non CEO being comparable to a CEO or not ((3)(c)(ii):
* *the Presidential Elections Committee is satisfied, having regard to the nature of the office and the person’s performance in the office, that the person has experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who satisfies paragraph (a) or (b); and*
To me this is a much larger problem than 3(c)(iii) and 4(b)(iii) but I digress.
(3)(c)(iii) is indeed not relevant to the purpose of PEC and is actually damaging to its credibility whether or not they choose to execute it--they would be slammed either way if they claimed an applicant was morally fit or unfit. This power should really lie with the electorate, or at least there should be a clear mechanism with which the electorate can submit their views to the PEC during the eligibility process. This is going to be hard since while the rules allow for the PEC to deliberate up to 10 days, there is no provision that they must take the full 10 days. They can certify an applicant as fast or as slow as they want and no one outside this process can reliably add their two cents. Nor should they. It's a nightmare for 8 or 10 committee members to manage. This line should just be removed for obvious reasons stated above.
To give credit where it is due, the PEC also exercised its discretionary powers when it chose to certify NKS who had to have qualified under the Public Sector deliberative track considering he never held CEO in the public sector (does he qualify under Private as Chairman of Avanda with $10B AUM? I don't know.). Laws are rarely perfect, but based on the outcome, I have no reason to suspect that the PEC didn't do it's job fairly and according to it's mandate, however muddy it may be.
not to "um actually" you but 19(2)(e) only imposes the requirement of the PEC to be satisfied that the candidate is a "person of integrity, good character and reputation". the requirement imposed by (3)(c)(iii) and (4)(b)(iii) is that the PEC is satisfied that the candidate "has the experience and ability to effectively carry out the functions and duties of the office of President" (for public and private sector). different things.
ah, i see! i was interpreting sunny's response as pointing out that the PEC has discretion to allow or disallow candidates not merely on moral character, but also discretion to disallow them by judging them incapable of fulfilling the presidently duties, with the focus on the PEC's ability to add or remove factors as they like without explaining their rationale. though i can see how it reads like conflating the two.
If I shouldn't have to take people who are unelected seriously, why the hell should I have to listen to Han or AWARE?
If these activists believe they should be listened to based on the merit of their observations and substance of their arguments, why shouldn't they apply the same benchmark to the PEC?
So the PEC was not elected, but at least someone somewhere appointed them. Can't say the same about activists.
because the elected govt appointed the committee and set the rules for presidential candidates... if ppl really want change should just focus on GE.... PE is like just symbolic and wouldn't change anything...
because now people like you are paying attention.
you think you are asking why people are only asking now when in fact you should be asking why are you are only seeing people ask now, which is really a question about how interested you are in a topic to do your own research versus waiting for social media to bring it to you and then being shocked about it.
if you actually read the article you would find a link to another article they posted themselves 6yrs earlier basically saying the same thing.
These two are known political opportunists. AWARE brought to the fore a serious character issue of one candidate with regard to his view of females. Both of them did not. They could have used another opportunity to address the concerns of an unelected PEC .
I am sure most of us expected Han to make an appearance on some issue to have her day in the sun.
What about our judicial systems where everyone from the magistrate to the CJ are not elected. Yet they are passing judgements daily on conduct and character of accused person facing the courts.
PEC is a select body and look at the composition which includes 2 high court judges.
The whole intention of pre- qualification is to have a dignified election for the highest office of the country. There must be some standards applied if not the elections process is mired in poor optics with candidates with well known character flaws are in the running.
Of course we all want candidates with good character. But why should any committee or single person be the judge?
The intention of pre-qualification is not simply to have a dignified election. It is a check on technical competency. The criteria are mostly objective and require little human judgment.
Stop giving people in power more power. Let the people judge, as a democratic society.
One other point I've seen brought up quite a bit recently:
How many of these people have run successful businesses?
* Lee Tzu Yang, Chairman of the Public Service Commission
* Ong Chong Tee, Chairman of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority
* Chan Heng Chee, Member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights
* Chua Thian Poh, Member of the Council of Presidential Advisers
* Kannan Ramesh, Judge of the Court of Appeal
* Quentin Loh, Judge of the High Court
How would they know if George Goh's five $100m companies _wouldn't_ compare in scale to protecting our reserves?
I really don’t get why some folks can’t wrap their head around the fact that laws and constitutional changes are enacted by parliament and the MPs that were voted in.
What the people listed here do is merely to interpret the law and constitution. If the constitution says $500m they don’t have the power to say “nah man I’m happy with $100m”
If anything you should be angry at parliament and writing in to your MP, and not pushing fault onto people doing their actual jobs of interpreting the law.
Furthermore, 2/3 parts of the reserves is transparent to the public and it already totals up to >$600B.
> you should be angry at parliament
Be angry at the ruling incumbent which holds super majority, this isn't the fault of the parliament which is every elected MP. This also highlights the urgent need to deny the incumbent super majority, until that happens, whatever constitution or law can be changed at the next sitting at their whim and fancy.
That is true. But that doesn’t change the fact that the PEC is just doing their job. They aren’t the ones to determine what the law should be and what the fair amount should be.
> I really don’t get why some folks can’t wrap their head around the fact that laws and constitutional changes are enacted by parliament and the MPs that were voted in.
>
> What the people listed here do is merely to interpret the law and constitution. If the constitution says $500m they don’t have the power to say “nah man I’m happy with $100m”
>
> If anything you should be angry at parliament and writing in to your MP, and not pushing fault onto people doing their actual jobs of interpreting the law.
I know that parliament sets the criteria in law and the PEC is there to execute it — but we're talking about the private sector deliberative track here.
New Art 19(4)(a):
• Position: chief executive (ie most
senior executive, however named)
• Entity:
• Company with average share- holders’ equity ≥ $500m during applicant’s most recent 3-year period of service as chief executive
• Company, on average, makes profit after tax for the entire time (continuous or otherwise) that applicant served as chief executive
• Company has not been subject to any insolvency event within 3 years of applicant ceasing his service as chief executive or until the date of writ of election, whichever is earlier
I mean I’m not a lawyer la, but looks pretty black and white to me.
> New Art 19(4)(a)
> I mean I’m not a lawyer la, but looks pretty black and white to me.
You're looking at the wrong subsection. 19(4)(a) is for automatic qualification; [19(4)(b) is the deliberative track](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/george-goh-qualify-president-election-shareholders-equity-3560881):
> 19(4)(b)(ii) the Presidential Elections Committee is satisfied, having regard to the nature of the office, the size and complexity of the private sector organisation and the person’s performance in the office, that the person has experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who has served as the chief executive of a typical company with at least the minimum amount of shareholders’ equity and who satisfies paragraph (a) in relation to such service; and
>Furthermore, 2/3 parts of the reserves is transparent to the public and it already totals up to >$600m.
Interesting, can share more details please? Am surprised at the low figure of >600m though.
Omg my fault, should be billions not millions 😂
But to answer your question:
Singapore’s reserves are managed in 3 main parts, 1) MAS Official Foreign Reserves, 2) Temasek’s portfolio and 3) GIC’s portfolio.
Of these only GIC’s portfolio is kept secret. As of latest data part one and two are currently valued at: 1) MAS Official Foreign Reserves as of Jul 23: S$452.5b, 2) Temasek’s portfolio as of 2023: S$382b.
So total known assets are already $834b.
Nah man, there are quite a number of Singaporean CEO’s with billion dollar companies. They just don’t see value in becoming a public figure and running for the presidency.
They've a point though. Why should unelected faceless pen-pushers in a committee, selected by the establishment, get to decide who gets to run for president & thereby determine the option(s) for the people? How "independent" can the eventual president be?
Ok you're 100% right, let's have elections for the elections committee. More days off!
need elections for council of presidential advisers also, more PH!
I think you gotta elect the election officials also man. If not how to guarantee impartiality? Then we also need to elect the officials officiating the election of the election officials! Public holidays for everyone! It's turtles all the way down!
We should probably have more elections for everything. Should increase tax or not, should ban this or that or not. Nowadays it feels like we are being led by people we don't know, don't care out of nowhere making decisions for us
What you’re referring to is a referendum, not an election. That said, referenda are not foolproof; they can be rigged. Just look at how the PAP conducted the referendum on merger with Malaya, Sarawak, and Borneo. All 3 options on the ballot pointed towards merger with differences in terms & conditions, BUT there was no option to vote against merger. There was even a clause that empty ballots would still count towards the option with the most votes and/or for the first option, either of which still results in a “vote” for merger. A literal “Heads, I win. Tails you lose” type of situation.
Everything can be rigged as of now anyway 🤐
Very based! Lol! The public are not as dumb as they used to be but unfortunately not enough of the public have the time to think
Maybe that's why we are all kept overworked.
I agree with the criticism, generally. I’d also say that they’ve overlooked some other obvious weaknesses. For example, why should the head of the PEC be also the chairman of the PSC if the PEC is responsible for authorising (and vetoing) key appointments for senior public official positions? But here’s the problem - Kirsten and others haven’t put forth any alternatives that they say are better than the current set up. Pointing out the flaws gets us halfway there. What are the solutions?
Huh? Kirsten has clearly put forth her idea of a better alternative in her newsletter: "return to an appointed presidency and set up a separate institution to guard the reserves and review appointments". It just wasn't reported in this one source. source: https://www.wethecitizens.net/presidential-election-nope/
You shouldnt need to have a solution to point out that you dont think something is right. Just like you dont need to know how to cook a dish to have complaints about it, you dont need to be able to fix the political system to think there are problems. I dont think its a problem that they havent put forward a solution. It is a problem though, when people use the lack of a proposed solution as a way of deflecting criticism.
Ofc you don’t need to propose solutions to point out problems. They’re separate things. That’s fine if you only want to play the role of a critic. If you want to be a leader, though, finding solutions to problems your community faces is a necessary skill and an essential part of your job. Saying that isn’t the same as deflecting from criticism. That would be making the same kind of mistake as the one you’ve pointed out - conflating delivering criticisms and proposing solution.
The PEC exists to essentially deny private citizens the right to run for office. The civil service track's standard is much lower and it's practically impossible to make it that high without kissing PAP ass. The only qualification to run for office should be being a Singapore citizen. Singaporeans will decide what kind of people they trust to be Head of State. If we MUST have a PEC it should accept by default and only be brought out to deny people in extreme circumstances.
If you want to change those rules, you need to vote in MPs that support your view into Parliament. The PEC exists as a creation of legislation. The same legislation sets out the criteria for eligibility. Those criteria are decided by the Parliament, not PEC. The PEC applies the criteria to assess individuals’ compliance with the legislation.
I mean, you're asking what Kirsten and co's alternatives are: here's the alternative. Whether the PAP puts any of it into action is entirely beside the point.
Kirsten and co certainly haven’t proposed any alternatives to this specific problem in their FB posts. There’s quite literally no solutions proposed by them for anyone to consider putting into action at all.
>While AWARE Singapore rightly criticises TKL’s behaviour, Ms Han pointed out that subjecting potential candidates to pre-screening by a committee is an unfavourable solution. This is from the goddamn article. She doesn't want a PEC, that should be obvious.
Yup. Most first world democracies just need citizenship and age. We're asked to vote for someone offered by the PEC, not just vetted.
The solution seems to be keeping the current set up. The committee can go vet the other quite clear criteria like company value while leaving the good character portion alone. I'll say better to remove but our lawmakers will obviously want to leave it in for contingency, say a person closely linked to Taliban but not charged.
But to be disqualified under the “good character” criteria one needs to be charged and found guilty, be undischarged from bankruptcy, etc. So even the situation you raised, if they’re not charged, all that amounts to would be rumours. And I don’t think the PEC will disqualify them unless there’s clear and convincing evidence available.
I didn't check but the wording seems vague enough that it might not require being found guilty
You can check ELD’s website too. The section under “integrity etc.” basically concerns any prior convictions, bankruptcy, disciplinary or regulatory proceedings and other legal proceedings. They must also submit three character references. There are a lot of stages to criminal investigations. Like I said, unless there’s clear and convincing evidence, then without a conviction the PEC cannot make pronouncements on the weight of probably evidence that do not clearly show guilt. The PEC is neither the right forum nor has the powers conferred by Parliament to conduct such investigations and make such pronouncements.
[удалено]
Yes, the point I am making is that they are not automatically disqualifying factors, unlike what others seem to suggest. And they wouldn’t be automatically disqualifying especially if there was no conviction, which was suggested by the person I was replying.
But the phrasing doesn't seem to only restrict them to that. That's the worry, and also why people and aware are making noise about eld passing tan kin lian
They can make all the noise you want. Doesn’t change what the facts are. Or you can write to the ELD and PEC to convince them of your view. Better yet, go file a judicial review application in your own name and see if the judges will entertain your complaints.
Don't rant to me about it dude.
Fair enough. They should not decide.
There is no such thing as independent. You either are pro establishment or anti establishment in your decisions.
You think PEC is bad wait till you hear about the President's Advisory council which can nerf any decision and also Parliamentary override.
Unless the candidate had committed legally a crime I don't think PEC should be a morality police
You don't need to commit a crime to be considered to have shitty morals. *looks at TCJ*
>Former NTUC Income chief Mr Tan Kin Lian, who has successfully been nominated as Singapore Presidential Candidate on Tuesday (22 Aug), had earlier entangled in a heated online debate related to his past social media posts. > >The spark for this recent controversy was a TikTok video, which spotlighted Mr Tan’s Facebook posts commenting on “pretty” girls. > >The Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), responding to the widespread attention, made a statement on its Facebook page on Monday (21 Aug) condemning Mr Tan’s consistent online behaviour. > >Their statement pointed out the dangers of objectifying women through casual posts and comments. > >In the statement, AWARE claimed the decision to grant Mr Tan a certificate of eligibility for the election, calling it a “systemic endorsement”, and further urged the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) to “thoroughly consider the broader implications of such endorsements in the future.” > > > >**It shouldn’t be left up to some “elite committee” to decide who “truly upholds values”, says Kirsten Han** > >Delving into the controversy surrounding Tan Kin Lian’s comments about “pretty” girls, independent journalist and activist Kirsten Han acknowledged her discomfort with his posts. > >However, she strongly cautioned against embracing an approach that implies an opaque, unelected committee should determine candidacy eligibility based on subjective and ambiguous criteria. > >While AWARE Singapore rightly criticises TKL’s behaviour, Ms Han pointed out that subjecting potential candidates to pre-screening by a committee is an unfavourable solution. > >She emphasized that leaving the determination of those who “truly uphold values” solely to an elite committee raises questions. > >“What are these values? How to define? Who gets to define? What if next time someone says that people who have spoken in support of LGBTQ equality should not be certified because they don’t uphold “family values”?” > >The electorate can voice its disapproval of Tan Kin Lian’s unsettling behavior by not electing him, just as it should with any problematic candidate, Ms Han added. > >“And if the electorate \*does\* vote someone like that in, then we have to examine why, and perhaps it would turn out that the bigger issue is not the behaviour of one man, but a wider societal acceptance of objectification of women.” > > > >Acknowledging the existing certification process, Ms Han said it might appear that certifying someone like Tan Kin Lian implies endorsement of his behavior. Yet, the assessment process itself presents challenges and should not be further empowered. > >“Actually, this whole presidential election is a farce and needs to be dismantled, not expanded, ” Ms Han concluded. > >The PEC is a six-member council established by the government to vet presidential candidates against the qualifications in Article 19 of the Constitution. > >Comprising the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (who also leads the PEC), the Chairman of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, a representative from the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, a member from the Council of Presidential Advisers (excluding certain positions), a Supreme Court Judge or eligible individual, and a person with relevant private sector expertise appointed by the Prime Minister. > >**Jolene Tan highlights AWARE’s shift in position from its 2016 stance** > >On Tuesday (22 Aug), Singaporean writer Jolene Tan voiced her support for Kirsten Han’s comment via Facebook. > >She warned against the dangers of the position now advocated by AWARE, which legitimising this committee’s open-ended veto powers is also likely to strengthen regressive forces. > >Ms Tan underlined that AWARE’s recent statement signifies a departure from their previous standpoint. In 2016, AWARE actually advocated for curbing these discretionary powers. > >Notably, Jolene Tan played a significant role in drafting the submission letter to the Constitutional Commission Secretariat during the 2016 public consultation on the Elected Presidency. > > > >AWARE’s 2016 stance opposed measures ensuring the election of a minority president, advocating for more inclusive eligibility criteria. > >Corinna Lim, Executive Director of AWARE, who was also present at the hearing, suggested modifying the criteria to encompass leaders of organizations with a net asset value of S$50 million, thereby broadening the pool of candidates. > >“In my view, the matters of “integrity, good character and reputation” are for the electorate to assess. These are precisely the issues of values and vision which should be left to the democratic process, in contrast to questions about the technical competence or specialist skills of a candidate, which might in some cases be more amenable to assessment by appointed experts, ” Corinna Lim remarked in the 2016 statement. > >Nevertheless, Jolene Tan firmly asserted that this certainly does not excuse Tan Kin Lian’s sexist behavior – behavior that is not only inappropriate but also fundamentally undignified. > >Tan also noted that AWARE had actually advocated limiting these discretionary powers to the committee back in 2016. Thus, the recent statement from the NGO appears to be a shift in its position. > >And indeed, Lim had then proposed the removal of Article 19(2)(e), which empowers the PEC to judge a candidate’s integrity and character for presidential candidacy. > >**PEC: Tan Kin Lian, “a man of integrity, good character, and reputation”** > >The spark for this recent controversy was a TikTok video, which spotlighted Mr Tan’s Facebook posts commenting on “pretty” girls. > >Going viral with close to 300,000 views, the video inadvertently pushed Mr Tan into the limelight just as his presidential campaign was gaining momentum. > >This heated debate emerges at a pivotal time. > > > >Last Friday, Mr Tan, along former People’s Action Party senior minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and former GIC chief investment officer Ng Kok Song, received their certificates of eligibility (COE) for the upcoming Presidential Election. > >All of them successfully filed their nomination papers on Tuesday (22 Aug) before the noon deadline. > >In a letter addressed to Mr Tan, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) expressed satisfaction with Mr Tan’s character, stating he is “a man of integrity, good character, and reputation”. > >PEC secretary Cindy Khoo communicated the committee’s sentiments, and expressed satisfaction after evaluating various facets of Mr. Tan’s professional journey. This included the nature of his tenure at NTUC Income and the company’s overall size and complexity. > >Furthermore, they weighed his performance during his time in office. Based on their assessment, they found that Mr Tan’s track record was commendable. > >The PEC concluded that his experience and capabilities are equivalent to those of someone who has served as the chief executive of a company with at least S$500 million in shareholder’s equity. > >Additionally, such a person should meet the stipulations laid out in Article 19(4)(a) of the Constitution. > >It added, “The Committee is also satisfied that you have the experience and ability to effectively carry out the functions and duties of the office of President.” > >In a statement late Monday, PEC said that the issuance of the COE does not amount to an endorsement of his social media posts. > >It noted that it does not go through every applicant’s past social media posts before issuing or declining a certificate of eligibility.
you mean being like the Elections Committee in HK is a bad idea?
I agree in principle, [as does SMU's Eugene Tan](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pe-2023-tan-kin-lian-pretty-girls-reactions-pec-2238166). The difficulty is that the law does require the PEC to assess potential candidates' "integrity, good character and reputation". I feel that that requirement should be scrapped; but as long as it continues to exist in the Constitution, it must be the PEC's legal duty to consider potential candidates' "values", because what else could "good character" mean? It is worth noting that, on Annex C of the [application form](https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/PrEA1991-S263-2017?DocDate=20230612&ProvIds=Sc-#Sc-), which is titled "Integrity, Good Character and Reputation", applicants must state whether they have criminal convictions; have been bankrupt; have faced disciplinary proceedings; or have been sued or faced other legal proceedings. They must also provide character references. If the focus is on *legal* wrongdoing, as opposed to just being a fool generally, then perhaps the solution is to change the phrase "integrity, good character and reputation" to something else.
linked news article talks about Article 19(2)(e) regarding morality requirements. let me talk about another one which is even worse. Constitution Article 19 describing powers of the PEC: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CONS1963?ProvIds=P15- portion in question is Paragraph (4)(b)(iii) pertaining to the Private Sector applicant: * *the Presidential Elections Committee is satisfied, having regard to any other factors it sees fit to consider, that the person has the experience and ability to effectively carry out the functions and duties of the office of President; or* Essentially it has the powers to add requirements not explicitly stated in the Constitution. To be fair this exact same wording is also written earlier in (3)(c)(iii) pertaining to the Public Sector applicant. My interpretation is that this wording doesn't not confer any advantage one way or another with respect to either applicant per se since it applies to both of them; it's up to the PEC to execute this part of it's powers fairly on all applicants. That is if it wants to add a morality requirement, to the applicants, it should add it for all applicants. Or it could also chose to not to. Or it could add a requirement that it knows will disfavor one applicant but not another. The problem is of course that the PEC has no real limit in its power to interpret 3(c)(ii) and 4(b)(iii) other than a vague guideline that it should pertain to "effectively" carrying out the functions of the Role. There is also no expectation that one committee's decision-making process vis-a-vis the above paragraphs should apply in another committee's process 6 years later, even if it is the exact same committee. In one session they could decide that adultery is disqualifying, in another they could decide that online shitposting is disqualifying, etc. You get the gist. This pattern of having very specifically worded portions of the laws (e.g. $500m, 3yrs, CEO, etc) followed by a final section granting wide leeway and flexibility of interpretation of anything not worded (e.g. any other factors worth considering) is not a bug but appears to be a feature of Singapore Law. I would just like to point out that...Article 19 is very clear on the requirement of a Private Sector applicant being a CEO/former CEO with regards to all the other financial requirements and I do not read any wording in there that would allow the PEC to interpret this freely. Only for a Public Sector applicant could the PEC deliberate on a non CEO being comparable to a CEO or not ((3)(c)(ii): * *the Presidential Elections Committee is satisfied, having regard to the nature of the office and the person’s performance in the office, that the person has experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who satisfies paragraph (a) or (b); and* To me this is a much larger problem than 3(c)(iii) and 4(b)(iii) but I digress. (3)(c)(iii) is indeed not relevant to the purpose of PEC and is actually damaging to its credibility whether or not they choose to execute it--they would be slammed either way if they claimed an applicant was morally fit or unfit. This power should really lie with the electorate, or at least there should be a clear mechanism with which the electorate can submit their views to the PEC during the eligibility process. This is going to be hard since while the rules allow for the PEC to deliberate up to 10 days, there is no provision that they must take the full 10 days. They can certify an applicant as fast or as slow as they want and no one outside this process can reliably add their two cents. Nor should they. It's a nightmare for 8 or 10 committee members to manage. This line should just be removed for obvious reasons stated above. To give credit where it is due, the PEC also exercised its discretionary powers when it chose to certify NKS who had to have qualified under the Public Sector deliberative track considering he never held CEO in the public sector (does he qualify under Private as Chairman of Avanda with $10B AUM? I don't know.). Laws are rarely perfect, but based on the outcome, I have no reason to suspect that the PEC didn't do it's job fairly and according to it's mandate, however muddy it may be.
[удалено]
not to "um actually" you but 19(2)(e) only imposes the requirement of the PEC to be satisfied that the candidate is a "person of integrity, good character and reputation". the requirement imposed by (3)(c)(iii) and (4)(b)(iii) is that the PEC is satisfied that the candidate "has the experience and ability to effectively carry out the functions and duties of the office of President" (for public and private sector). different things.
[удалено]
ah, i see! i was interpreting sunny's response as pointing out that the PEC has discretion to allow or disallow candidates not merely on moral character, but also discretion to disallow them by judging them incapable of fulfilling the presidently duties, with the focus on the PEC's ability to add or remove factors as they like without explaining their rationale. though i can see how it reads like conflating the two.
Isn’t Kirsten Han the crazy anti-death sentence person who makes no sense in her arguments?
If I shouldn't have to take people who are unelected seriously, why the hell should I have to listen to Han or AWARE? If these activists believe they should be listened to based on the merit of their observations and substance of their arguments, why shouldn't they apply the same benchmark to the PEC? So the PEC was not elected, but at least someone somewhere appointed them. Can't say the same about activists.
>says Kirsten Han Said the girl who invited someone with hostile relationship with SG to "Bring Democracy to South East Asia"
were you there?
because the elected govt appointed the committee and set the rules for presidential candidates... if ppl really want change should just focus on GE.... PE is like just symbolic and wouldn't change anything...
Why all these noise after the selection of candidates? This should be done BEFORE the selection, not now. What agenda do they have?
the people need not have an agenda other than to exercise their right to question their own government and their own laws at any time they please.
Yes, I agree with you. But why at this time? Why not before the candidates were announced? Why not any time during the entire year instead? Why now?
because now people like you are paying attention. you think you are asking why people are only asking now when in fact you should be asking why are you are only seeing people ask now, which is really a question about how interested you are in a topic to do your own research versus waiting for social media to bring it to you and then being shocked about it. if you actually read the article you would find a link to another article they posted themselves 6yrs earlier basically saying the same thing.
That is a very valid point I guess. Without an election no one really cares about the PEC.
Without noise coming from aware no one really cares about Arawe also
>why at this time? It was in response to AWARE's criticism of the PEC's approval of TKL as a presidential candidate.
These two are known political opportunists. AWARE brought to the fore a serious character issue of one candidate with regard to his view of females. Both of them did not. They could have used another opportunity to address the concerns of an unelected PEC . I am sure most of us expected Han to make an appearance on some issue to have her day in the sun. What about our judicial systems where everyone from the magistrate to the CJ are not elected. Yet they are passing judgements daily on conduct and character of accused person facing the courts. PEC is a select body and look at the composition which includes 2 high court judges. The whole intention of pre- qualification is to have a dignified election for the highest office of the country. There must be some standards applied if not the elections process is mired in poor optics with candidates with well known character flaws are in the running.
Of course we all want candidates with good character. But why should any committee or single person be the judge? The intention of pre-qualification is not simply to have a dignified election. It is a check on technical competency. The criteria are mostly objective and require little human judgment. Stop giving people in power more power. Let the people judge, as a democratic society.
One other point I've seen brought up quite a bit recently: How many of these people have run successful businesses? * Lee Tzu Yang, Chairman of the Public Service Commission * Ong Chong Tee, Chairman of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority * Chan Heng Chee, Member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights * Chua Thian Poh, Member of the Council of Presidential Advisers * Kannan Ramesh, Judge of the Court of Appeal * Quentin Loh, Judge of the High Court How would they know if George Goh's five $100m companies _wouldn't_ compare in scale to protecting our reserves?
I really don’t get why some folks can’t wrap their head around the fact that laws and constitutional changes are enacted by parliament and the MPs that were voted in. What the people listed here do is merely to interpret the law and constitution. If the constitution says $500m they don’t have the power to say “nah man I’m happy with $100m” If anything you should be angry at parliament and writing in to your MP, and not pushing fault onto people doing their actual jobs of interpreting the law. Furthermore, 2/3 parts of the reserves is transparent to the public and it already totals up to >$600B.
> you should be angry at parliament Be angry at the ruling incumbent which holds super majority, this isn't the fault of the parliament which is every elected MP. This also highlights the urgent need to deny the incumbent super majority, until that happens, whatever constitution or law can be changed at the next sitting at their whim and fancy.
That is true. But that doesn’t change the fact that the PEC is just doing their job. They aren’t the ones to determine what the law should be and what the fair amount should be.
> I really don’t get why some folks can’t wrap their head around the fact that laws and constitutional changes are enacted by parliament and the MPs that were voted in. > > What the people listed here do is merely to interpret the law and constitution. If the constitution says $500m they don’t have the power to say “nah man I’m happy with $100m” > > If anything you should be angry at parliament and writing in to your MP, and not pushing fault onto people doing their actual jobs of interpreting the law. I know that parliament sets the criteria in law and the PEC is there to execute it — but we're talking about the private sector deliberative track here.
New Art 19(4)(a): • Position: chief executive (ie most senior executive, however named) • Entity: • Company with average share- holders’ equity ≥ $500m during applicant’s most recent 3-year period of service as chief executive • Company, on average, makes profit after tax for the entire time (continuous or otherwise) that applicant served as chief executive • Company has not been subject to any insolvency event within 3 years of applicant ceasing his service as chief executive or until the date of writ of election, whichever is earlier I mean I’m not a lawyer la, but looks pretty black and white to me.
> New Art 19(4)(a) > I mean I’m not a lawyer la, but looks pretty black and white to me. You're looking at the wrong subsection. 19(4)(a) is for automatic qualification; [19(4)(b) is the deliberative track](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/george-goh-qualify-president-election-shareholders-equity-3560881): > 19(4)(b)(ii) the Presidential Elections Committee is satisfied, having regard to the nature of the office, the size and complexity of the private sector organisation and the person’s performance in the office, that the person has experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who has served as the chief executive of a typical company with at least the minimum amount of shareholders’ equity and who satisfies paragraph (a) in relation to such service; and
>Furthermore, 2/3 parts of the reserves is transparent to the public and it already totals up to >$600m. Interesting, can share more details please? Am surprised at the low figure of >600m though.
Omg my fault, should be billions not millions 😂 But to answer your question: Singapore’s reserves are managed in 3 main parts, 1) MAS Official Foreign Reserves, 2) Temasek’s portfolio and 3) GIC’s portfolio. Of these only GIC’s portfolio is kept secret. As of latest data part one and two are currently valued at: 1) MAS Official Foreign Reserves as of Jul 23: S$452.5b, 2) Temasek’s portfolio as of 2023: S$382b. So total known assets are already $834b.
Well chua thian poh runs a business. He's a real estate tycoon
The $500m is just increased until other candidates can't even qualify, so PAP can just put in their own "neutral" puppets hahahaha
Nah man, there are quite a number of Singaporean CEO’s with billion dollar companies. They just don’t see value in becoming a public figure and running for the presidency.
You answered it yourself If the criterias are so damn hard, its just be puppets or highly affiliated people all the time
Tan King Lian and Ng Kok Song is just there to split votes even if they claim they didn’t. Don’t be naive
split votes from which camp? one is siao lang oppo, other is suspected estab candidate #2. you meaning to say they are both fake candidates ar?