*Presidential Election - Part 2*

One much discussed area around the #PE has been the issue of independence. The candidates who compete on the public sector track are deemed to be pro-establishment and are therefore perceived to lack independence and likely to be a yes-man. There are many examples to show otherwise. Just because you belong to a certain group, agree with their approaches or policies and helped execute them doesn't make you any less independent-minded. You could have shared your views in discussions, and once a consensus is reached, are a good team player and take a united front.

A sportsperson could disagree with a coach's strategies and voice that out in the dressing room, but come game time, put on the same jersey and go out and play their hearts out. Does that make them less independent? Coming back to the presidency, one just has to recall the late Ong Teng Cheong to underscore that point.

Moreover, it will be a folly to think that private sector candidates do not have any links with the government or establishment. If you qualify as a presidential candidate, you would be the leader of a large enough organisation.

Out of the 413 companies that meet this $500 mil criteria in Singapore, only 165 of these companies have CEOs or MDs who are Singaporeans, meaning that they would form the pool to consider running for president.

Many of them are likely to come from #GLCs – unsurprising since the GLCs reportedly account for between 25-30% of the SGX’s market cap. Therefore many, if not most, of the 165 CEOs and MDs who can qualify to run for #president are likely to come from GLCs where they would have some association with the #government – key management or board members are former government leaders, current or ex-political leaders, or are heavily funded by #Temasek.

Temasek doesn’t just invest in local companies. Many MNCs, whose shareholder equity is also more than $500 mil, have Temasek investments too.

Regardless, if you are a leader of a big #enterprise in Singapore, you will have some association – directly or indirectly – with the government. Some CEOs and Chairmen sit on government boards and steering committees, some are involved in community organizations, some receive honorary awards and titles, etc. My point is once you are a leader of an enterprise that big in Singapore, it is rare to say that you have absolutely no connection to the establishment or government.

Take current candidate Mr Tan Kin Lian for example. His illustrious 30 years career as CEO of NTUC Income would have seen him interact closely with many government leaders, not to mention that his organization is owned by NTUC, whose leadership and board has many current and former political leaders. When Mr Tan stepped down from NTUC Income in 2007, the deputy chairman of the organisation was Mr Matthias Yao, who was at that time deputy speaker of parliament and previously senior minister of state. This is not to mention that Mr Tan was already active in politics for 10 years and even served as the Marine Parade branch secretary during that period, under the tutelage of former PM Mr Goh Chok Tong.

Since many would have some degree of connection with the establishment, at what point do we say that a certain degree or time frame is acceptable?

Given the main #constitutional roles of the president, this would come into concern if the president is unable to exercise independence, rationality and objectivity in guarding the #reserves of the nation.

The past few presidents of Singapore have all been associated with the establishment one way or another. During their time, has the government ever misused the reserves? Any known withdrawal of the reserves has only happened in times of crisis – during the #GlobalFinancialCrisis in 2008 and the #COVID19 pandemic – both of which were done with the clear deliberation and approval of the president. And this was done to save Singapore jobs and businesses. If a so-called “independent” (perhaps read anti-establishment) person was in the presidential seat at that time, it is unclear if the person would succumb to partisan political pressures to block any withdrawal for these fiscal injections to thwart the government’s efforts or exercise objectivity with a bigger picture in mind.

I believe that the system is structured such that we have to choose wisely – a “safe” candidate could be deemed to be inconsequential, but a “radical” or “non-cooperative” one could have a large negative impact on Singapore in times of need. If we have another economic crisis in a few years, can you depend on the president to cooperate with the government to use the reserves to rescue Singapore jobs, businesses and households when the need arises? Independence is great, but is it really the most important thing? And who is truly independent?