The Island Editorial

Picking a good president

19 September 2016

Sri Lanka and Singapore are as different as chalk and cheese, and what is good and feasible anent the latter may not be so in respect of the former in many respects. But, there are certain areas where the former can emulate the latter. Much has been said about the need for Sri Lanka to adopt the Singaporean economic model, and the purpose of this comment is not to try to add to the ever burgeoning corpus of the how-to-be-another-Singapore treatises or disquisitions. Instead, we venture to argue that Sri Lanka has a lot to learn from the city state as regards how to cleanse politics.

We reproduce today an article from our Asia News Network (ANN) partner, The Straits Times, on a report issued by Singapore’s Constitutional Commission (CC), proposing how to tighten the eligibility criteria, ensure minority candidates are elected from time to time, and refine the role of the Council of Presidential Advisers.

The aforesaid article reveals an interesting observation the CC has made: "… Candidates for presidential elections have no policy agenda to advance. There is little, if any, need for the vigorous contest of ideas that takes place during a parliamentary election. The CC is reported to have proposed rules to "restrict or exclude acts that might inflame emotions, cause divisiveness or encourage invective" so that campaigning is conducted "with rectitude and dignity as befits the office and comports with the unifying role and purpose of the presidency".

The very opposite of this is true of Sri Lanka’s presidential elections which reek of unspeakable acts that inflame emotions, cause divisiveness or encourage invective and are never conducted with rectitude and dignity. The last two presidential election campaigns were characterised by hate speech with the main candidates vowing to incarcerate each other as first thing upon being elected. Following the 2010 presidential polls, the winner had his contender who threatened to jail him, thrown behind bars, sacked the then Chief Justice, did his damnedest to neutralise the democratic opposition, abused his parliamentary majority to make bad laws and launched a political witch hunt against his opponents.

The winner of the last presidential race, unceremoniously sacked the then UPFA government with a two-thirds majority in Parliament and appointed the UNP leader who had only 46 seats Prime Minister! He claimed he had asked for a popular mandate for that. If the president can act in such a manner upon being elected, there is no need for parliamentary polls, as we have argued in this space previously. He went on to ‘vapourise’ the Chief Justice and, after the last general election, manipulated Parliament to enable his allies to secure the key posts in the Opposition as well. His raison d’etre seems to be having all his bêtes noires jailed.

All elected Sri Lankan presidents have resorted to what may be described as ‘executive terrorism’ to keep the other branches of government under his or her thumb and frighten his or her political opponents into submission. Power hungry and consumed with hatred, all of them missed the opportunity to rise above petty partisan politics and become statespersons.

It is hoped that the politicians who often rush to Singapore for medical care, sharing spoils on the sly, holidaying, shopping and, most of all, hatching plots to effect regime changes will care to learn from that country how to serve the people.

A fish is said to rot from the head down. The same is true of governments. Hence, the pressing need for any nation desirous of arresting the deterioration of national politics to find ways and means of ensuring that its people make a wise choice in choosing the right person to helm the ship of state! The Singaporean example is worthy of emulation.