Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has said that the President can be removed from office if he tries to go against the PAP government
By Tanya Wei
PE2011 Correspondent
Following the public exchange of views on the role of the President, Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has upped the ante by making a not-so-veiled threat – claiming that the President can be removed from office if he attempts to go against the government.
In an interview with The New Paper on August 8, Mr Shanmugam said: “If the Head of State challenges the government, he will be acting unconstitutionally. In the UK, the last time that was done was in 1642 by (King) Charles I. The King lost both his life and his throne for his troubles. Nowadays, of course, we deal with these issues through the courts.”
Mr Shanmugam was responding to remarks made by Presidential hopefuls Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Mr Tan Jee Say and Mr Tan Kin Lian – all of whom have said that, if elected, they will use their office to speak up for the people of Singapore, even if that means taking on the PAP government. Mr Tan Jee Say has even gone as far as to say that the President is obliged to serve as a check and balance against the power of the government.
Last week, Mr Shanmugam claimed that the President could not make any public statement without the approval of the Cabinet – an assertion that was rebutted by Dr Tan Cheng Bock.
The only Presidential candidate who has remained silent on this issue is Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, who is widely seen as the PAP-endorsed candidate heading into the election. Dr Tony Tan was previously a senior PAP leader, rising to become Deputy Prime Minister before his departure from politics in 2006. He is also related by marriage to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, and is thought to be a member of an elite and powerful inner circle with close ties to the Lee family.
It is believed that if elected, Dr Tony Tan will continue with the approach laid down by outgoing President S R Nathan, whose 12-year reign has been conspicuous mainly by his silence. President Nathan has been widely criticised for being a “rubber stamp” President, and his style has been contrasted with that of his predecessor, President Ong Teng Cheong.
Mr Shanmugam’s latest comments seem to be planned to manage public expectations as to what the President can or cannot do. The ruling PAP will no doubt be concerned that some of the Presidential hopefuls seem to be campaigning on the basis of challenging the PAP – and possibly transforming the institution of the Presidency into a separate power centre. Mr Shanmugam as well as his colleagues have been at pains to insist that the President has no role in policy-making; rather, his powers are solely custodial in nature.
However, Mr Shanmugam’s remarks could potentially be a cause for concern. It might mean that the PAP will adopt an antagonistic approach towards any President who is not of its choosing – meaning that it will seek to stonewall and frustrate all of the candidates, if they are elected, with the exception of Dr Tony Tan.
By speaking about using the courts to remove a President from office, Mr Shanmugam is signalling a possible return to the hard-line approach not seen since the days of Goh Chok Tong’s reign – under Lee Hsien Loong’s stewardship, the PAP government has favoured a more conciliatory approach, with some PAP MPs even openly socialising – cordially – with Workers’ Party MPs at major events such as last night’s National Day Parade. This is a major worry because it could undo all of the efforts that the Prime Minister has been making towards unifying Singaporeans at a time when the electorate is becoming more polarised than ever before.
Instead of discussing the possibility of the President being removed from office, PAP leaders should respect the wishes of the voters by seeking to achieve consensus with whoever is elected as President. Mr George Yeo was dignified and graceful after being defeated in the recent General Election, and other PAP MPs have spoken openly about the need for bipartisan cooperation. Mr Shanmugam should watch and learn.
–
The author is a Singaporean currently working abroad. She has previously contributed articles to The Satay Club and will be contributing more articles pertaining to the Presidential Election in the coming weeks.
Shanmugam can remove President… and we, the voters can also remove Shanmugam on next GE!
I think everyone should cool down and understand that we are following the British system of government. The Head of State is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the government. He cannot act independently from the government. We do not have President with executive powers.
True, our constitution has been amended to allow the Elected President to have a small degree of veto powers viz a viz budgetary bills but on the advise of his advisors. Do note that he cannot act outside such advice. There was never any intention to have seperate of powers like in the USA.
Whilst I applaud and advocate a more active and participatory citizenry, a misinformed empowered citizenry is a receipy for disaster. A misinformed empowered citizenry with a sense of entitlement is a far greater threat than an apathetic citizenry. Sites like the Temesek Review which has zero sense of balance and comes across as a rabid anti-pap site does not do service to proper and reasoned discourse. To spread disinformation and stir up emotions will only lead to our country’s eventual demise. Kindly thread carefull all. And no, I am not making any vield threats, merely a plead for reasoned and informed discourse.
Has it occurred to anyone that Shan is just explaining what the constitution specifies for the role of President? The role of president is not for anyone to say what it is but a matter of what the constitution provides for.
?
in other 1st world countries, their ministers don’t talk this way.
I will not vote TT for three key reasons:
1. He is related to the PM through marriage
2. He still has not explained why his son Patrick was given 12 years NS disruption when he was the Defence Minister.
3. His sincerity is flawed based on the way he shakes hand with the ordinary people. When he shakes your hand he does not close his thumb or fingers over your palm. In other words it is a one-sided handshake in which he tries to minimise hand contact with you. He only wants your vote not your handshake!
Thoughts of a Singapore Statistician
singstatistician.blogspot.com
Last Friday at a seminar organized by IPS, Minister Shanmugam tried to intimidate some of the candidates running for President. He made the following speech:
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20110806-293038.html
According to Minister Shanmugam,
The President can only speak and act as advised by the PAP Cabinet
The influence and respect of the President depends on whether he is PAP endorsed or not PAP endorsed. Hence if it is Dr Tony Tan, the President would have great influence and respect from PM Lee. If it is Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Mr Tan Kin Lian or Mr Tan Jee Say, the President would have little or no influence and respect from PM Lee.
These astonishing remarks come from someone who is supposed to be Minister of Law for Singapore !
The remarks naturally provoked a firestorm in cyberspace. So much so that Minister Shanmugan was forced to issue a “clarification”. If you watch local politics, you will know what this really means is that over the weekend, Minister Shanmugan was probably
Hauled up for what he had said;
Scolded by one of three people in Singapore who dare scold him; and
Forced to make an embarrassing u-turn to limit the damage
Minister Shanmugam’s new view is that:
The President may speak his views freely in public
PM Lee will accord whoever is elected by Singaporeans as President the same level of influence and respect.
You can watch the live footage of Minister Shanmugam eating humble pie here. Of note is 0:41 when his voice breaks and he becomes nervous and uncomfortable. In his mind, he was probably reliving the tongue lashing.
Wow,Even befoe the 5 candidates know whether they have a chance to stand for election,our top lawyer has felt it necessary to talk about the removal,what is this?
Pingback: Daily SG: 11 Aug 2011 « The Singapore Daily
I agree that Shanmugam should not have made the comments about removing the President from office.
(There you go, here is a perfect example of me not agreeing with the PAP)
He should not try to pre-empt any situation which has not happened yet. Even if he is right, he should wait until the President does something unconstitutional first before making any comments of this nature.
He may well be correct in terms of his knowledge of the law. But it is not politically correct to say “you will be hanged for murder” to someone who has not committed murder.
Shanmugam’s attitude stinks. He is a snake and an opportunist. Everyone knows that he is someone of questionable ethics judging from his own past record i.e. cheating on his wife and serving as the Lee family’s personal attack dog when he was a lawyer. His political views are also bordering on being a hardliner in the same mould as LKY himself. No wonder they made him a minister.
Shanmugam has made a factual mistake. He should know that the King of England, then also Singapore’s king, went against the express wishes of his government in 1936 and abdicated as a result. Does the Minister not bother with historical fact? Even Wikipedia might help him out.