Ritplays t1_ixuf304 wrote
but keep in mind the president here is more a head of state rather than the political decision maker like the US’s
ltdanhasnolegs OP t1_ixufx74 wrote
And also officially nonpartisan, so very different roles.
Gemmabeta t1_ixuimkd wrote
"Ceremonial" is probably a more accurate assessment of his actual role.
SuicidalGuidedog t1_ixxt8j5 wrote
*their actual role.
Not being purely facetious. The current president is Madam President Halimah Yacob.
TemporaryReality5447 t1_ixv3q5r wrote
Officially "nonpartisan" we all know what they are. Current one wasn't even elected by us
LPercepts t1_ixvqu5e wrote
Didn't she win the position by default because there were no other viable candidates?
[deleted] t1_ixw0pja wrote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Elections_Committee
They have a committee that decides if a person is suitable enough to run for elections, based on very non-transparent rules. The current President was deemed the only one "fit enough" to run for Presidency and so she got elected without any opposition. Her selection also came with some race related controversy, because SG tries to do race balancing and so this cycle was unofficially reserved for a Malay. Halimah is only half Malay it seems (Indian father, Malay mother, officially registered as Indian) but identifies more with her Malay heritage than her Indian heritage.
TemporaryReality5447 t1_ixx0088 wrote
Because the ruling party changed to rules so hard that they made her the only suitable candidate that round. And the non partisan thing is just a straight up farce, they usually get someone to resign from the party and then run for president
GothProletariat t1_ixvazhg wrote
You think a wealthy CEO wouldn't be partisan?
laconicflow t1_ixwtnli wrote
I think every person is partisan in one or another way. Everybody's going to have some pet interests by the way they were raised, what their job was, I bet you you'll be a pro paper President if, before you were President you worked in that industry. Partisanship in political office is unavoidable.
rab777hp t1_ixx1guf wrote
well it's a one-party state so hardly relevant
rab777hp t1_ixx1fzw wrote
and it's also not a democracy
Pay08 t1_ixxi1sz wrote
It is. It's just had one party rule for like 80 years.
rab777hp t1_ixxl7xb wrote
that's not a democracy
SG_wormsblink t1_ixy2d5d wrote
Since the majority of people voted freely for the ruling party to continue its rule, that’s a democracy.
Giving the position to the opposition party because they haven’t had their turn would go against the will of the people, that’s not democracy.
SuicidalGuidedog t1_ixxtr3m wrote
A democracy isn't defined by changing government. It's defined by a system of government by the will of the people. Generally most people agree that 'democracy' is shorthand for 'representative democracy' whereby most people can vote freely and fairly (I say mostly because even the most democratic country doesn't let children vote). There are opposition parties and regular elections in Singapore so by that standard it's a democracy.
That being said, I don't think it counts as a logical democracy. Just not for the same reason you quoted above. A single party being repeatedly elected doesn't, on its own, prove a place to be undemocratic.
TaskForceCausality t1_ixvqq5b wrote
The US Constitution doesn’t require the President to be a CEO first, but fundraising realities mean this is a de-facto rule. To raise the $300 million + needed to campaign for US office, one has to either be very wealthy (aka a CEO) or a lifelong political operator with decades of experience in Washington DC. Usually these career politicians sit on boards of nonprofits and for-profit companies , so they still serve as executives.
Karatekan t1_ixwdmuf wrote
Lol what? Obama, Clinton and Carter, to name a few in the modern era, were neither lifelong political operators or particularly rich before becoming president.
Eric1491625 t1_ixypib5 wrote
The Singapore government argued that its rules ensures a proper and dignified person takes the presidency.
Local critics pointed out that under the criteria, Obama would not be eligible for the presidency - but Donald Trump would be (so would Elon Musk).
Rich CEO =/= presidential demeanour.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments