SINGAPORE: The Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) on Friday (Aug 18) rejected businessman George Goh's claims that it failed to explain the rationale behind its decision not to issue him with a certificate of eligibility to run in the upcoming election.
Among the four people who had made public their bid to run for the Singapore presidency, Mr Goh, the founder of Harvey Norman Ossia, was the only one who was unsuccessful in his application for a certificate of eligibility.
Mr Goh's team issued a statement on Friday afternoon saying that the committee "took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision".
The statement said the PEC rejected a "very strong case" detailing Mr Goh's experience in managing five companies which the team said met the shareholders’ equity and profitability criteria.
Mr Goh had sought eligibility under the private sector "deliberative track", and analysts previously said it is unclear if a candidate can combine the average shareholder equity of several companies to meet the criterion.
In response to the allegations made against the PEC, the committee said in a media release on Friday night that it has decided to make public its letter to the businessman which explains its rationale for being unable to grant him a certificate of eligibility.
The committee pointed out that the Constitution requires it to consider whether an applicant has the experience and ability that comes from managing one very large private sector organisation.
"The experience and ability that comes from managing multiple smaller private sector organisations is not equivalent to this," the PEC said in its media release.
"Mr Goh’s application acknowledged that the five companies he relied on are not a unitary company and are not owned by a common holding company, but Mr Goh submitted that the five companies should be regarded as a single private sector organisation."
The committee said it carefully considered Mr Goh's submission.
"However, after taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances (including how the companies were owned, managed and operated), the committee was not satisfied that the five companies constituted a single private sector organisation," the PEC said.
In announcing the list of eligible candidates on Friday morning, the Elections Department did not publish the reasons for the PEC's decision given to unsuccessful applicants.
This is due to concerns that potential applicants may be dissuaded from stepping forward to contest the elections for "fear of embarrassment".
However, unsuccessful applicants were told of the reasons for the PEC's decision.
The six-member PEC is headed by Public Service Commission chairman Lee Tzu Yang and includes two Supreme Court judges.
The three candidates who qualified to run for the presidency are former GIC chief investment officer Ng Kok Song, former NTUC Income chief executive Tan Kin Lian and former Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
George Goh speaks to members of the media on Aug 18, 2023. (Photo: CNA/Try Sutrisno Foo)
When asked earlier about his response to the PEC's decision, Mr Goh told reporters that “it is a very sad day” but that he has no regrets about having thrown his hat into the ring.
He added that he had "a group of advisers" comprising "top people in Singapore" which gave him confidence that he would qualify.
"Are you saying they're all wrong? Cannot be. They're all from the system," he said during a press conference held at his house on Friday afternoon. "I cannot accept the decision given by them. I personally think it's not a fair decision."
The PEC's letter to Mr Goh is reproduced below:
I refer to your application for a Certificate of Eligibility dated 4 August 2023.
In assessing your application, the Presidential Elections Committee considered the information given in your application and the further information you provided on 15 August 2023 at the Committee's request.
I regret to inform you that your application is unsuccessful, for the reasons set out below.
Your application relied on Article 19(4(b) of the Constitution and your service as the:
(a) Group Executive Chairman of Ossia International Limited,
(b) Executive Deputy Chairman of Pertama Holdings Pte Ltd,
(c) Group Executive Chairman of IT International Pte Ltd,
(d) Chief Executive Officer of Crown Essentials Limited, and
(e) Chief Executive Officer of Vernal Ventures Pte Ltd.
Article 19(4)(b)(ii) of the Constitution requires that an applicant must have "served for a period of 3 or more years in an office in a private sector organisation". This refers to one office in one private sector organisation, and not various offices in multiple private sector organisations.
Under Article 19(4)(b)(ii) of the Constitution, the Committee must be satisfied, having regard to the nature of the office, the size and complexity of the private sector organisation relied on by the applicant and the applicant's performance in the office, that the applicant has experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who has served as the chief executive of a typical company with at least $500 million in shareholders' equity and who satisfies Article 19(4)(a) of the Constitution in relation to such service.
Thus, Article 19(4)b)(i) requires the Committee to consider whether the applicant has the experience and ability that comes from managing a very large private sector organisation - the experience and ability that comes from managing multiple smaller private sector organisations is not equivalent to this.
The Committee accordingly proceeded on the basis that it could only consider a single office in a single private sector organisation for the purpose of assessing whether the applicant has the experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who has served as the chief executive of a typical company with at least $500 million in shareholders equity and who satisfies Article 19(4)(a) of the Constitution in relation to such service.
The Committee considered your submission that the five companies you relied on in your application (listed in paragraph 4 above) should be regarded as a single private sector organisation rather than separate entities. On this basis, you submitted that the shareholders' equity of these five companies should be considered collectively for the purposes of your application under Article 19(4)(b).
However, after considering the relevant facts and circumstances (including how the companies were owned, managed and operated). the Committee was not satisfied that the five companies you relied on constituted a single private sector organisation under Article 19(4)(b). The Committee therefore did not aggregate the shareholders' equity of the five companies for the purposes of your application.
The Committee further considered whether any one of your offices in each of the five companies (listed in paragraph 4 above) would individually satisfy Article 19(4)(b). However, the shareholders' equity of each of these five companies was significantly below $500 million. Thus, the Committee was not satisfied, having regard to the nature of your office in each of the companies and your performance in the office, and the size and complexity of each of the companies, that you have experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who has served as the chief executive of a typical company with at least $500 million in shareholders' equity and who satisfies Article 19(4)(a) of the Constitution in relation to such service.
The Committee was therefore unable to grant you a Certificate of Eligibility.
Continue reading...
Among the four people who had made public their bid to run for the Singapore presidency, Mr Goh, the founder of Harvey Norman Ossia, was the only one who was unsuccessful in his application for a certificate of eligibility.
Mr Goh's team issued a statement on Friday afternoon saying that the committee "took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision".
The statement said the PEC rejected a "very strong case" detailing Mr Goh's experience in managing five companies which the team said met the shareholders’ equity and profitability criteria.
Mr Goh had sought eligibility under the private sector "deliberative track", and analysts previously said it is unclear if a candidate can combine the average shareholder equity of several companies to meet the criterion.
In response to the allegations made against the PEC, the committee said in a media release on Friday night that it has decided to make public its letter to the businessman which explains its rationale for being unable to grant him a certificate of eligibility.
The committee pointed out that the Constitution requires it to consider whether an applicant has the experience and ability that comes from managing one very large private sector organisation.
"The experience and ability that comes from managing multiple smaller private sector organisations is not equivalent to this," the PEC said in its media release.
"Mr Goh’s application acknowledged that the five companies he relied on are not a unitary company and are not owned by a common holding company, but Mr Goh submitted that the five companies should be regarded as a single private sector organisation."
The committee said it carefully considered Mr Goh's submission.
"However, after taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances (including how the companies were owned, managed and operated), the committee was not satisfied that the five companies constituted a single private sector organisation," the PEC said.
In announcing the list of eligible candidates on Friday morning, the Elections Department did not publish the reasons for the PEC's decision given to unsuccessful applicants.
This is due to concerns that potential applicants may be dissuaded from stepping forward to contest the elections for "fear of embarrassment".
However, unsuccessful applicants were told of the reasons for the PEC's decision.
The six-member PEC is headed by Public Service Commission chairman Lee Tzu Yang and includes two Supreme Court judges.
The three candidates who qualified to run for the presidency are former GIC chief investment officer Ng Kok Song, former NTUC Income chief executive Tan Kin Lian and former Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
George Goh speaks to members of the media on Aug 18, 2023. (Photo: CNA/Try Sutrisno Foo)
When asked earlier about his response to the PEC's decision, Mr Goh told reporters that “it is a very sad day” but that he has no regrets about having thrown his hat into the ring.
He added that he had "a group of advisers" comprising "top people in Singapore" which gave him confidence that he would qualify.
"Are you saying they're all wrong? Cannot be. They're all from the system," he said during a press conference held at his house on Friday afternoon. "I cannot accept the decision given by them. I personally think it's not a fair decision."
The PEC's letter to Mr Goh is reproduced below:
I refer to your application for a Certificate of Eligibility dated 4 August 2023.
In assessing your application, the Presidential Elections Committee considered the information given in your application and the further information you provided on 15 August 2023 at the Committee's request.
I regret to inform you that your application is unsuccessful, for the reasons set out below.
Your application relied on Article 19(4(b) of the Constitution and your service as the:
(a) Group Executive Chairman of Ossia International Limited,
(b) Executive Deputy Chairman of Pertama Holdings Pte Ltd,
(c) Group Executive Chairman of IT International Pte Ltd,
(d) Chief Executive Officer of Crown Essentials Limited, and
(e) Chief Executive Officer of Vernal Ventures Pte Ltd.
Article 19(4)(b)(ii) of the Constitution requires that an applicant must have "served for a period of 3 or more years in an office in a private sector organisation". This refers to one office in one private sector organisation, and not various offices in multiple private sector organisations.
Under Article 19(4)(b)(ii) of the Constitution, the Committee must be satisfied, having regard to the nature of the office, the size and complexity of the private sector organisation relied on by the applicant and the applicant's performance in the office, that the applicant has experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who has served as the chief executive of a typical company with at least $500 million in shareholders' equity and who satisfies Article 19(4)(a) of the Constitution in relation to such service.
Thus, Article 19(4)b)(i) requires the Committee to consider whether the applicant has the experience and ability that comes from managing a very large private sector organisation - the experience and ability that comes from managing multiple smaller private sector organisations is not equivalent to this.
The Committee accordingly proceeded on the basis that it could only consider a single office in a single private sector organisation for the purpose of assessing whether the applicant has the experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who has served as the chief executive of a typical company with at least $500 million in shareholders equity and who satisfies Article 19(4)(a) of the Constitution in relation to such service.
The Committee considered your submission that the five companies you relied on in your application (listed in paragraph 4 above) should be regarded as a single private sector organisation rather than separate entities. On this basis, you submitted that the shareholders' equity of these five companies should be considered collectively for the purposes of your application under Article 19(4)(b).
However, after considering the relevant facts and circumstances (including how the companies were owned, managed and operated). the Committee was not satisfied that the five companies you relied on constituted a single private sector organisation under Article 19(4)(b). The Committee therefore did not aggregate the shareholders' equity of the five companies for the purposes of your application.
The Committee further considered whether any one of your offices in each of the five companies (listed in paragraph 4 above) would individually satisfy Article 19(4)(b). However, the shareholders' equity of each of these five companies was significantly below $500 million. Thus, the Committee was not satisfied, having regard to the nature of your office in each of the companies and your performance in the office, and the size and complexity of each of the companies, that you have experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who has served as the chief executive of a typical company with at least $500 million in shareholders' equity and who satisfies Article 19(4)(a) of the Constitution in relation to such service.
The Committee was therefore unable to grant you a Certificate of Eligibility.
Related:
Continue reading...