<Reader Contribution by Andrew Loh>
35% Tony Tan vs 70% PAP Government
The Elected President scheme was created to give the President the moral authority, by winning in an election with a majority, to check on the govt.
What if you have a case like in 2011, where the winner (Tony Tan) did not garner a majority of the vote (he received only 35%)?
Adjunct Professor of law, Kevin Tan, wrote about this after the constitutional amendments earlier this year to the Elected President Act.
"Instead, it [the govt] opted to narrow the field and hang onto the first-past-the-post system that cannot vest a candidate with an absolute majority in a contest involving more than two candidates, and giving him or her the true mandate to check on the elected government."
If the govt wins 70% of the popular vote, while the president won only 35%, who would have the more legitimate claim to possessing the moral authority to act on citizens' behalf?
Why should a president who only had 35% support possess power to check on a govt elected by 70% of the people?
With the changes, the Elected President scheme has become a bit of a joke, really. It is nothing more than an Ivory Tower club reserved only for selected elites who twist and turn the scheme in such contortions that it has banned everyone else, except the very elite of the elites, from qualifying.
In short, it has no relevance to the average citizen at all.