Laundry list of what I hope to see (and not see) in the next President.  I don’t promise that every item will be high brow; some will sound quite petty.  Not in any order of priority -

1. The President must look good in a batik shirt with orchid prints (or she, when we get to the day that a woman runs for President, must look good in a cheong sum with orchid prints). 

2. The President must speak good English.  He doesn’t need to sound like the Queen of England, but he must sound coherent and must definitely not sound like an ah beng.

3. The President must not look too short vis-a-vis his foreign counterparts (which rules me out as a candidate for President, so please no aspirant whether today or in the future should feel threatened by me).

4. The President should have a keen knowledge of how the civil service operates.

5. The President should have a keen knowledge of foreign affairs and of Singapore’s strategic interests.  While he will certainly be briefed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before meeting foreign officials, he must have sufficient knowledge and experience to speak on issues which may arise unexpectedly during meetings.

6. The President should preferably have contacts from a broad spectrum within the civil service, civil society and the business community, people he can speak to informally to get a sense of how proposed social or economic policies might impact the country.

7. Some Singaporeans expect the President to be a vocal critic (think Tan Kin Lian’s comment about the President not being "dumb") of Government, or otherwise being somewhat confrontational in order to function as a "check" against the PAP Government (quote attributable to Tan Jee Say).  I am not enamoured with the idea of confronational politics, open or otherwise.  I would prefer a President who can play the role of counsellor, to advise the Government against imprudent policies, and who can play the role of mediator, to facilitate the reconciliation of differences between public sentiment and unpopular but necessary policies for long-term national good.  Just as I had reservations about the reappointment of Siew Kum Hong as NMP because he was a divisive figure, I would have reservations if the President is a person who polarises, instead of pulls different views together : see Postscript below.

8. Some Singaporeans expect the President to be the "conscience of the nation" (quote attributable to Tan Jee Say).  I like that idea, provided that the Presidential aspirant is able to tell me what the "conscience of the nation" is, and I agree that that is the conscience of the nation.  Certain policies would be obviously wrong, like if the Government were to pursue a policy of genocide or crimes against humanity (genocide is criminalised under the Penal Code).  In regard to the issue of casinos — the example raised by Tan Jee Say — it is obvious from previous debate that many Singaporeans had reservations about the set up of casinos in Singapore, and he could easily say in speaking up against casinos that he would be speaking as the "conscience of the nation".  But what about other issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, organ donation by unrelated donors, weekend off days for domestic helpers, abuse of foreign workers, abuse of pets, environmental protection, section 377A of the Penal Code, caning for certain offences (an arguably "cruel and unusual punishment" by human rights standards) and the death penalty for offences ranging from drug trafficking to kidnapping to murder ?  What about international treaties which Singapore has yet (I think with reasonable basis) to sign, such as the Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court or the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention ?  Where does the "conscience of the nation" lie on such matters ?  (Finally, even if the President knows what the "conscience of the nation" is at the beginning of his Presidency, would he still be as aware of what it is after a year in the Instana ?)

— Postscript —

One way in which a confrontational President can "check" the Government is to exercise his veto power (or threaten to exercise his veto power) on matters which he may validly exercise this power, unless the Government redesigns the policy in question to his liking.  For example, back in 2009 when Singapore drew on her reserves for the first time in history, the President could have vetoed the budget on the basis that the Jobs Credit Scheme did not go far enough, thereby forcing the Government to either redesign the policy to the President’s satisfaction, or to override the veto by a two-third Parliamentary resolution.  In reality the Government is likely to consult the President and get his in-principle consent before introducing any measures which would draw on the reserves, but there is no assurance that the President and Parliament would not engage in brinkmanship (as did the US Congress recently) in order to score political points.  If the President and the Parliament do not get along, then it would be only natural for the respective parties to try and look good before the electorate at the expense of the other party, in the hope that the other party will be voted out of office at the next elections.