CONSTITUTION CANNOT CONFER POLITICAL LEGITIMACY NOR MORAL AUTHORITY

22 Aug 1993

        This is a response to part of Raymond Lim's article Contest 
for Elected Presidency not really needed (ST, 21/8/93). 
        Mr Lim based his argument on the premise that the principal 
source of political legitimacy rests with the Constitution. I respectfully 
disagree. I also disagree with Mr Lim's assertion that "moral authority 
stems from political legitimacy."  The Constitution may stipulate the 
procedures but it can never confer political legitimacy. A successful 
candidate may follow all of the rules and still not be legitimate or 
morally authoritative in the eyes of the people. Otherwise, one would 
have to accept that tyrants or juntas who are "elected" according to 
constitutions written to guarantee their rule are endowed with both 
political legitimacy and moral authority.
        To be fair, Mr Lim added the caveat "as long as Singaporeans 
believe that the Constitution is the principal source of political 
legitimacy." Yet, by doing so, he has implicitly acknowledged that the 
ultimate repository of political legitimacy is the People. 
        A constitution is merely a piece of paper that may or may not 
express the collective political principles of the citizenry. In the case of 
the Singapore Constitution, it is a primarily a document laying out the 
system of government - Executive, Legislature, Judiciary, Public 
Service etc. It is also amendable without having to resort to a 
referendum and it is therefore possible that it does not reflect the 
collective political belief. This is true of any constitution.  It is thus 
unwise to consider an amendable document the ultimate source of 
political and moral legitimacy.
        Is this a storm in a teacup? No, for the idea that Mr Lim 
espouses is a dangerous one. It erodes the democratic principle that the 
ultimate source of political legitimacy is the People who confer that 
legitimacy through their choice in periodic elections.  Our distaste for an 
election that another reader has termed a "staged show" should not lead 
us to avoid the issue by the simple but politically unacceptable 
expedient of adopting Mr Lim's argument.