Talk:President of Singapore

Candidates

This article needs to explain much more about what the criteria for being president is and why the other candidates were disqualified. What did the election committee say was the reason? We just seem to be saying that it's rigged - we must be able to do better than that. Secretlondon 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The other candidates were disqualified for not having satisfied the criteria set out in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Reprint) for standing as candidates in the Presidential elections. I don't know, though, whether the Presidential Elections Committee issued a report setting out the reasons why they were disqualified. Will have to do a bit of hunting around for the information when I have time. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to pull out of the constitution what the criteria are. Secretlondon 09:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The criteria are already stated in the article in the section "Qualifications". What is not known at the moment is which criteria the would-be Presidential nominees failed to satisfy. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance and placement of informal 2008 poll

I found the following quote stashed at the bottom of the article, under the List of presidents of the Republic of Singapore section:

All the Presidents of Singapore to date have been men. Nonetheless, in a 2008 poll of 1,256 Singaporeans conducted by MyMailMoment.com, a lifestyle research portal run by SingTel, 63% of women respondents and 58% of male respondents said they would vote for a female president. Those aged 50 and older were the most receptive to the idea.

This is the diff for it.

1. This piece of information is most definitely in the wrong section. Is there anywhere more suitable to place it?
2. The survey was conducted almost nine years ago, has no published methodology, and a very small sample size. Is the data good enough to be used here?

--YewGotUp (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute regarding lead

Looking at the edit history, it seems like there's been a bit of a dispute with regard to what the lead paragraph should contain. The edit summary is not for extended discussion Wikipedia:SUMMARYNO. It would be better to discuss the various viewpoints here.

@Bcmh Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sgweirdo @Brownbooteesrevee @Hnseryification @Bigbrownpooskinparia Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The current lead paragraph says "executive authority vested in the Cabinet" whereas the Constitution says "executive authority of Singapore shall be vested in the President and exercisable subject to the provisions of this Constitution by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet." Source: article 23(1), Constitution of the Republic of Singapore

The Constitution also states that "the Cabinet shall have the general direction and control of the Government". Source: article 24(2), Constitution of the Republic of Singapore

Hope this clarifies. Bcmh (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, characterising the role of the president as being "largely ceremonial" seems to be a subjective opinion based on the fact that the powers of the president have not been often and visibly exercised in the past, but this alone does not mean that the president is not capable of standing up to and preventing a rogue Government from drawing away the past reserves and appointing cronies to key public offices. Doesn't sound like a "largely ceremonial" office to me.

Imo, "largely ceremonial" understates the weight of the office and could reduce the interest any potential voter may have in learning more about the powers of the president. Any thoughts? Bcmh (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bcmh I believe the government has come out as saying that the role of the president is intended to be ceremonial sometime about the 2011 elections. There are certainly many sources out there that affirm the president's ceremonial role. The role of the president offers a number of official powers but the president's role as a head of state is ultimately akin to that of the Monarch. It would be perhaps misleading to emphasise the way in which the constitution has afforded powers to the president, as the correct interpretation of the constitution does not actually correspond to the kinds of powers she can or has exercised. What I propose is a compromise, maintaining the ceremonial characterisation of the president whilst emphasising her official powers. I do think that the lead could use more information, and I think Sgweirdo is perhaps too deletionistic with regard to your edits. To clarify, I'm fully in support with your edits but want to also put in the 'ceremonial' phrasing. Sgweirdo's lead does not fully reflect the nuances that the role entails. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, when the constitution was amended to provide for the office of an elected president, the government specifically said that the purpose of the president was to prevent a profligate and rogue government from depleting the past reserves and appointing cronies to important public offices. Hence, imo, the ceremonial duties, is a "by-the-way" or incidental set of duties that originated from its previous role and was carried over into its present day version, in addition to the newer, more substantive and functional powers that have not been used so far to obstruct a profligate and rogue government but are indeed absolutely and constitutionally available.

To clarify, my sole objection is regarding the usage of the word "largely", yes the president has ceremonial duties which are akin to a monarch and deserve a place in the article, but "largely" is a mischaracterisation and my suggestion is to delete that word in favour of more inclusive phrasing, for example: "in addition to their publicly visible ceremonial duties, the president has constitutional powers designed to prevent a rogue government from unjustifiably drawing the past reserves and appointing cronies to important public offices like the attorney-general and the commissioner of police."

To be clear, it is my opinion that, although similar to a constitutional monarch like in the uk, the president of singapore is actually more powerful with a democratic mandate (which the uk monarch lacks) and constitutionally defined powers. Hence, my objection to the usage of "largely".

Thank you for your thoughts and support btw. Happy to hear any further comments. Bcmh (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bcmh On a day to day basis, the role of the president is that of a ceremonial head of state. It is ostensibly not about the constitutional powers that are afforded to her, which are not exercised regularly. Nonetheless, the historical and legal backdrop in which the role developed had afforded her some powers and responsibilities. So I think a good mix of both, centring upon her current function, would be appropriate. I think the flip side should also be mentioned, considering that there's a real possibility that the president may use her powers, and that there has been real debate on the powers that may be exercised. Here are some sources that describe her ceremonial function : [ https://www.gov.sg/article/the-powers-of-the-president], [1]. Here are some sources which distinguished the current elected presidency scheme from the previous "largely ceremonial" role: [2], [3]. If we don't describe her as "largely ceremonial", I still think the ceremonial aspect should be somewhat emphasised. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned in my previous reply, it is absolutely correct to say that the president has ceremonial duties and i have no dispute with that, but using the word "largely" is, to me, injecting a personal, subjective and circumstantial opinion on the scope and frequency of usage of the president's powers, and that does not sound neutral to me.

Yes the sources are credible especially those from the Government, but this "largely" ceremonial characterisation could further add fuel to the misimpression that the president "does not do much" and could affect the way voters choose during an election.

Whether or not "on a day to day basis the role of the president is that of a ceremonial head of state. It is ostensibly not about the constitutional powers that are afforded to her, which are not exercised regularly", is something that should be left to the reader or voter to decide.

To me, i don't understand why the president's ceremonial duties should be emphasised over the constitutional duties on the basis of frequency of usage especially when it's the constitutional powers that have the highest potential and practical effect on the country. Hence, my suggestion to delete the word "largely" or otherwise refrain from emphasising the ceremonial aspect of the elected presidency in an effort to sound neutral and objective. Bcmh (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Will reply in a few weeks. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting lead

In regard to the previous discussion, I think the best option would be to progressively and collaboratively write a new lead to the article in the talk page, achieving consensus before pushing it onto the main page. The current lead is exceedingly short and does not capture the role of the presidency in sufficient detail.

With reference to the President of the United States article and preceding edits made, I propose that the new lead begin with a short description of the role of the President, something like "The president of Singapore/Republic of Singapore is the head of state of Singapore". We would have to decide whether SG or RoS is used. Then, I think some reference should be drawn to the actual powers of the president, in particular its ceremonial role and constitutional powers.

Next, I think there should be further detail of the historical origins of the presidency, beginning in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, evolving into the appointed president, and becoming the current elected president with the modern roles and responsibilities.

Then I think the roles and responsibilities can be expounded upon, with reference to the constitution as well as the election of the president. @Bcmh Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as mentioned previously, my only objection is to the mischaracterisation of the President's degree of power and role as largely ceremonial, which sounds like injecting a personal, subjective and circumstantial opinion on the scope and frequency of usage of the president's powers, and that does not sound neutral to me.

It would be wrong to emphasise the president's ceremonial duties over their constitutional duties on the basis of frequency of usage especially when it's the constitutional powers that have the highest potential and practical effect on the country. Hence, my suggestion to delete the word largely or otherwise refrain from emphasising the ceremonial aspect of the elected presidency in an effort to sound neutral and objective.

If anything, the role of the president was largely ceremonial before the constitutional amendments to provide for the elected presidency came into effect during Mr. Wee Kim Wee's tenure. Bcmh (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we posted at the same time haha, anyway just to be clear, I am not in favour of changing the current lead to the draft version proposed, because the president is not the only person or politician that represents Singapore in "local and international affairs" which in itself is yet another vague phrase that will give rise to more confusion. I am all for the current or the past few lead paragraphs except for the mischaracterisation of the president's role as being largely ceremonial. It is the word largely that I have an objection to. Bcmh (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is a rough draft of what I think the lead can be:

The president of Singapore, officially the president of the Republic of Singapore, is the head of state of Singapore. In addition to the president's role as a figurehead of Singapore, the office possesses some veto powers over the government of Singapore.

After Singapore achieved self-governance from British rule, the ceremonial office of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara ("Lord of the State") was created. The office was later transformed into that of the president after Singapore's independence. The initial role of the president was largely ceremonial and carried with it no executive power, but the role was vested with the power to veto certain bills and public service appointments over time, among other powers listed in the constitution. Unlike counterparts in nations like France and the United States, the president of Singapore is not the head of government and does not have control over the executive or military, which are led by the cabinet of Singapore.

Under the constitution, the president must be non-partisan and elected by popular vote. The current president is Halimah Yacob, who took office on 14 September 2017 after running unopposed. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bcmh Edited the lead draft per your comments. I have changed the wording of the first sentence. The current draft does not frame the president's role as largely ceremonial and I think provides a good compromise between you and sgweirdo's stances. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually I'm fine with the current lead paragraph except for the word "largely". Also, the president's role is not as a figurehead of Singapore, to my knowledge there is no such role in existence, the president is simply the head of state of Singapore. I'm also not sure about whether the previous role had "no executive power", not sure if that's an accurate statement to make because assenting to parliamentary Bills does sound like an executive power which I'm pretty sure the non-elected president has exercised in the past. Bcmh (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

New lead

As not much discussion has arisen from my proposal of writing a new lead, I have WP:Boldly replaced the old lead with a new one. @Bcmh has disputed these edits in the edit history. I have started this section to discuss the changes in order to reach a consensus. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I have also boldly replaced the old lead with a new one that was subsequently disputed and reverted, these are my responses to @Dawkin Verbier's version of the lead section:

[1] "The president represents Singapore in official diplomatic functions" - the PM, Ministers, MPs, Ambassadors and public servants also represent the country in official diplomatic functions so it's kind of trite to say and is wasting valuable and finite reader attention on something so axiomatic and not even mentioned in constitutional or legislative text;

[2] "possesses some executive powers over the government of Singapore" - problematic phrasing because what does "over" mean exactly? And according to the Singaporean constitution, the president is a component of the government of Singapore, I hardly find it possible for the president to possess powers over herself (please read Part 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore);

[3] "A constitutional amendment that year made the president directly elected by a popular vote" - the current president did not receive a single ballot or vote cast in her favour, but was instead elected by declaration of the returning officer due to being the sole candidate nominated for election on nomination day, does not sound like she was "directly elected by a popular vote" to me;

[4] "does not have full control over the executive or military" - what does "full control" mean exactly? because neither does the Cabinet or the Prime Minister, (please read Section 7 of the Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972) and furthermore, the Singapore Armed Forces Pledge that servicemen recite on their enlistment day contain the words "we will always bear true faith and allegiance to the President and the Republic of Singapore";

[5] "Under the constitution, the president must be non-partisan and elected by popular vote" - please refer to [3]

For emphasis, the lead section should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies - MOS:LEAD, furthermore, there is already an entire section specifically about the history of the Presidency, therefore I find that any history of the office should not be in the lead section. Bcmh (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bcmh First of all, I'd like to note that there are a number of IP reverts on your edits, with one IP editor even saying that it would constitute consensus that these multiple IP accounts are making reverts. I don't think that this is the case, and I find it strange that all of these IPs are new to editing on Wikipedia and made their first edits on this very page regarding the latest lead edits. I suspect that they are being used by a single individual to drive in a point, and I don't agree with this method of editing, although I can be wrong about this. Nonetheless, I hope that you don't continue to revert edits, as that would constitute edit-warring and may get you suspended from Wikipedia, which I would not like to see. I hope we can resolve this dispute in the talk page.

That being said, I would like to address your concerns:

[1] You frequently rely on the Singapore constitution to frame your version of the lead. This is inappropriate, as even the constitution must be regarded as a law that arises from the circumstances in which it is created. It is widely known as a matter of practice that the issue of the president being a head of state as defined in the constitution refers to the role being one where the president embodies Singapore in diplomatic and internal functions. This is also the very definition of "head of state". On your point, it is essential in the nature of the role that the president is a representative of Singapore, but it is not "trite" or obvious. A teacher is a public servant but does not represent the country or embody it. I concede that the language may be vague in a way that does not fully reflect the president's role as a head of state, but I don't see how removing all reference to its representative function makes for a better lead.

[2] I concede that the phrasing there may be vague and somewhat inaccurate. (I specifically refer to the president's powers over the cabinet and judiciary.) Nonetheless, I don't think it's a better solution to outline the full extent of the president's powers, as you have done in the new lead.

[3] The presidency is supposed to be elected. If no one is eligible to run, it is still an elected presidency.

[4] Again, I concede that the wording may be vague. I made that point as the president of, say, the United States is the commander-in-chief of their armed forces and the de jure head of the federal government. I think it is important to outline clearly what the president's role is not inasmuch as what the role is.

On your final point, it is important that a brief history of the role of the presidency be outlined as that is significant in identifying context of the role. You have a number of good points that I agree with, but I think it would be better to resolve this through working together rather than an edit war. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dawkin Verbier I sincerely hope that the unregistered user edits are not you engaging in sock puppetry, meat puppetry, piggy backing or a combination thereof, while "noting" it here to masquerade as an innocent bystander. Maybe this page requires an upgrade in protection. Will respond to your replies at a later time. Bcmh (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, edit warring is not allowed on Wikipedia; see the WP:3RR, even if you are "right". I suppose that the IP editors will continue reverting, and I hope that you don't as well. I wouldn't report you personally, but I know that others have for the same behaviour. So in the page's best interests, I hope that you don't keep making reverts. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Justanothersgwikieditor and @Robertsky for your thoughts on the issue. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)