Stop Our Government’s Oversized Executive Control Now!

The will of the people, freedom of speech, independent judiciary and property rights are the cornerstones of democracy. George Washington took great care to ensure that these principles of democracy were never compromised as the first president of the United States of America. He retired soon after winning the war against the British Empire and took up the presidency at the invitation of the people. When he retired from his presidency he led a private life. He did that to ensure that imperialism was not replaced by despotism. Washington often referred to himself as the Chief Magistrate and not the head of state or the commander in chief, a title which gained currency with the later presidencies.

The 1^st United States Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year—a large sum in 1789. Washington, already wealthy, declined the salary, since he valued his image as a selfless public servant. At the urging of Congress, however, he ultimately accepted the payment, to avoid setting a precedent whereby the presidency would be perceived as limited only to independently wealthy individuals who could serve without any salary. The president aware that everything he did set a precedent, attended carefully to the pomp and ceremony of office, making sure that the titles and trappings were suitably republican and never emulated European royal courts. To that end, he preferred the title "Mr. President" to the more majestic names suggested. Nor did Washington believe that it was the chief magistrate's role to serve as "Tribune of the People," promising great works, and demanding the power to carry them out.

There are lessons to be learnt from Washington as we contemplate on our choices for president. Our political situation is markedly different from the US and the institution of elected presidency in Singapore is still in its nascent stages. This is the second time an election is held for the office of presidency. 

We worry, and rightly so, about the concentration of executive powers in the ruling party. With over two-thirds majority, the PAP has the power to legislate and amend the constitution at their will. There is little or no freedom of press and there is little information publicly available about the state of our national reserves. Just like the parliament, the office of the elected presidency represents the will of the people. However, the current constitution is written in such a way that the president only acts as the guardian of our reserves apart from the numerous ceremonial functions. As this institution matures, one hopes that the elected presidency evolves as some expect, to represent the moral conscience of the people and keep the executive branch in check.

Electing someone from the executive branch or someone who has recently retired from office, like Dr. Tony Tan, as the president does not provide the adequate checks that are required – pertinent information about our past reserves can still be withheld from the public and it is still kept within the closed network of PAP elites. Keeping such information secret and kept close to their chests only brings more distrust about the ruling party. The build-up of distrust and misgivings will only lead to further pent-up ill feelings about the PAP, which will lead to their ultimate downfall.

We have been witnessing such breakdowns all around us; Bersih in Malaysia, rioting in the Middle East, and clashes between various factions in Thailand. These civil unrests could have been avoided if the press in those countries had played their part in reporting fairly or even in helping broker power between polarized factions. But, sadly, they chose sides or remained silent which have proven to be disastrous for some regimes. PAP’s outsized conception of executive responsibility has driven their need to have an exclusive grip on power. Only by reducing those demands and through the office of an elected presidency can we restore the executive branch to its proper constitutional place: a modest office with modest powers.


Vote for Tan Jee Say.

Are we growing with our economy or not?

From 1980 to now, Singapore's economy has been steaming ahead at an average growth rate of 7% per year. Last year, in 2010, the economy grew by a whopping 14.7%, making Singapore the fastest growing economy in Asia and the second fastest in the world. By all accounts we have done well. To add to our feat, Temasek Holdings ("Temasek") has been returning 17% annually  since it was established. It is estimated that Temasek together with GIC, MAS, HDB and other GLCs and Statuary Boards manage about a S$1 Trillion in funds. Our reserves are about five times the size of our GDP. So, what's there to complain?

Our public debt, on the other hand, which is mostly domestic debt is financed primarily by CPF and the local banks in Singapore. The public debt stands at about S$200B. While our public debt is considered very high in terms of public debt to GDP, it is only 20% of the national reserves and therefore, a default risk is minimal. The thing that caught my eye was that a large proportion of our public debt is financed by CPF, meaning to say, our national savings are used to power our economy. So what does that mean to CPF holders?

Fund managers do hold government bonds and securities at prudent levels because it is considered a low risk investment with very modest returns. Currently, the CPF Board gives out about 2.5% interests per year on our CPF balances. While this may be higher than the bank rates, it is much lower than the rate of economic growth and much lower than the 17% returns that Temasek is making each year. This has prompted me to compute the opportunity cost of keeping your monies in the CPF. 

Suppose if you had invested S$20,000 with Temasek in 1980, you would have made a whopping S$2.2M by now. Conversely, at the current rates of 2.5% per year, your CFP savings would have only grown to a paltry $42,000. That is a HUGE difference, I must say... be wise with your monies.