Bertha Harian

I have said many times that the media should door-stop President Tharman Shanmugaratnam to ask him about the impending changes to the Constitution making clear that he can sit on international bodies. That time has passed. Parliament has approved the change which is really a matter of form given the two-thirds majority the People’s Action Party holds.  

So now he can continue to hold his positions in the Group of Thirty, the Global Commission on the Economics of Water, the United Nations Human Development Report Advisory Board and World Economic Forum board of trustees.  Many, including me, will say that this is good for the country. We are proud to have a fellow Singaporean who is so highly regarded in international circles.

How this process came to pass is another matter. 

As a citizen, I do not like the idea of being kept in the dark especially on matters that will affect my vote. 

Clearly, Mr Tharman’s double hats were niggling at the Government even as (or before?) he was making his way to the Istana. Yet nothing was said about how his international roles would be consistent with the office of President. Mr Tharman himself must have wondered if he should quit his international roles, since the presidency is a full-time post.

In hindsight, it was remiss of us, the citizens, not to have this question posed to him when he was a presidential candidate. Only the indefatigable (and irascible) Iris Koh did so, but to no avail. My guess is that most people took it for granted that  he would step down, just as others would clear the decks to avoid conflict of interests and to show total dedication to the job that they had been elected for. 

It cannot be that Mr Tharman and the Cabinet did not already figure out that a double hatting President  might pose a problem whether in terms people’s perception of conflict of interest or who he represents. 

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong made much about having the president serve in his “private capacity’’, in the “national interest’’, while “fettered by the Cabinet’. He talked about the difference between “private capacity” and “private interests” which is, of course, not kosher. 

He would do better to give an example of the difference between private and “official’ capacity,  because while the President might not be getting any remuneration for the extra job, he is travelling on the people’s dime. What can Mr Tharman now do in his private capacity that he can’t do in his official capacity in his past participation in the forums? 

It’s a convoluted mess. So we have the President going to an international meeting in his private capacity, which is considered a working trip paid by public funds because he is doing so in the national interest – as the Cabinet views it. 

Interestingly, if the Cabinet decides that the role is detrimental to the national interest, it can suggest (not tell) that he quit. And if he won’t, there are “procedures set out for such removal”, said Mr Wong.

I recall wondering why so much was being made of Mr Tharman’s international work during the campaign, when he is unlikely to be able to stretch himself beyond the constitutional powers of the president. It now appears that we got only half the story.

Was this already planned for before the presidential election? Is the G so arrogant to think that its own man will win – and even more arrogant to think that the amendment after the election will sail through Parliament? 

If another candidate won the election, I doubt this amendment would see the light of day. Cabinet members would have qualms about a President with a foot in the international fora, especially if they do not have a prior relationship with him/her.

DPM Wong said that the president’s international position is not an extra-curricular activity but integral to the president’s role as Singapore’s top diplomat. If you think this through, being able to perform as a top diplomat, preferably with ready credentials, might well be expected of those who want to contest for the presidency. How would our past presidents have fared, I wonder.

Mr Wong also said the Government is being transparent  and upfront by drawing up the parameters – when it could have done nothing. This is where he is wrong. Mr Tharman has too high a profile for him to take off to some place in the world for a meeting without someone noticing – and asking questions.

In my view, being ‘upfront and transparent’ is about letting the people know the G’s intentions before we cast our vote. Unless the Cabinet had a sudden epiphany after Sept 14 and our legal drafters are super fast, my guess would be the amendments have been in the works for some time. 

Did Mr Tharman or the Cabinet consider that he relinquish the posts before running for the presidency – even if the Constitution doesn’t say he needs to?  Could the question of office holders accepting international roles and how to draw up parameters have been discussed later – or much earlier? And is this “abundance of caution’’ to retrospectively date the change to his inauguration merely a matter of efficient governing or a lapse of prudent governance.

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? 

My concern, as usual, is about honesty and transparency.  What I see is a high degree of orchestration to get certain outcomes – and then setting them in stone so that there can be no argument. I am also queasy about the idea of amending the Constitution just because we have someone like Mr Tharman among us. 

On the other hand, Mr Wong was categorical about not allowing the same latitude to former Prime Ministers.  In my view, it makes more sense for a previous PM, especially if he is a free agent,  to advance views in his private capacity than have an elected official do so. (This paragraph is wrong. DPM Wong was referring to sitting Prime Ministers – not former PMs. My apologies for the error.)

The G calculated –  quite rightly – that people won’t make a fuss about the legislation. Most  people have no clue. Or don’t care. Or think that “it’s okay lah’’. Mr Tharman’s supporters will point out that at least we would still have him at the top tables in the world even if we don’t have him as Prime Minister.

I care. 

We went to vote for a President without asking him the questions that were asked yesterday in Parliament, or should have been asked, such as how much time did he spend on international commitments abroad? And whether he thinks it is okay for a President to “double hat’’? Mr Tharman could surely have answered the first. It would be interesting to hear his answer to the second. 

Perhaps, the official thinking against early disclosure was for the G to avoid being accused of paving the way for Mr Tharman to be president.  People will say that the job was being tailor-made for him. 

My own view is that if the G thinks it is doing right, it should tell all and defend its position. And as a presidential candidate, Mr Tharman should sell himself as the right man for the “amended’’ job. He might gain even more votes because his presence at international fora could appeal to segments of voters!  People will then have a full picture of who they are voting for and why – and not be told after the event about what else the President can do. 

If not before the election, then there should have been a decent interval before the amendment is tabled, at least to see more of Mr Tharman’s work on the domestic front. In my reckoning, the amendment puts the Tharman presidency under a cloud. Was he privy to or even complicit in these behind-the-scenes manoeuvres before he stood for election? Worse, how would he respond to talk that this was a ‘deal’ he did with the G to stand for election? Or is this too disrespectful and unworthy a question?

I am not grandstanding nor opposing for the sake of opposing. I have no need to. Neither is my past work with another presidential aspirant influencing my view. I am speaking as a citizen who wants to be accorded a bit more respect by the G. I was already perturbed when the Cabinet let Mr Tan Chuan Jin carry on as Speaker of Parliament for months, when he was already on his way out for his extra-marital affair with an MP.  Did members of the frontbench who were in the know cringe when the Speaker called for order? Did no one try to say that we should be “upfront and transparent’’ with voters at the earliest possible moment?

I was hoping that a Tharman Presidency would put right the missteps made by his former colleagues in recent months. Respect for all is one of his themes. I like that. That respect extends to telling the electorate what they need to know. 

I apologise if I come across as disrespectful. 

But I am truly disappointed.