One usually associates this word with music, for example, "The timbre of her soprano was rich and lovely," that is, her music has that distinctive tonal quality (thefreedictionary.com).
But Law Minister K. Shanmugam used it thus: "At the end of the day, it comes to the timbre of the man -- is he of presidential timbre?... Is he able to discharge his duties in a way that commentators have set out: skills, wisdom, knowledge?" ("Independence depends on candidate's 'timbre' ", ST, 6 August). The minister was responding to a question about how he would judge whether an Elected Presidency candidate was independent. [Note: the EP polls is on 27 Aug, a Saturday. Yawn. But I'm noting it here for the record.]
Anyway, I wondered about the word's extended usage. Well, the online oxforddictionaries.com says it can be used to describe "the distinctive character or quality of someone". Hence. for instance, "You must demonstrate your moral timbre as a human being." Wah, this minister is also a wordmeister.
Today's ST also carried an interesting exchange between Mr Shanmugam and two academics -- Dr Cherian George and Professor Tommy Koh -- at a forum on the President's Roles, Responsibilities and Power. The item is headlined "Should the president speak up?". I am putting it here without further comment:
Cherian George: Imagine a situation where the Government mishandles rising ethnic tensions. Would it be proper for the elected president to come out before Singapore reaches the brink, and tell people to calm down? To independently bring his wisdom to bear rather than seek the advice of the Government? I think back to the situation in 1992 Thailand, where the Thai King actually called in the politicians and chided them in front of the cameras.
K. Shanmugam: I think your question goes to the nub of the angst that many people feel. It starts with a concern that the Government could go wrong.
In any democratic system, those are among the risks that you take... Governments can make mistakes, they can sometimes seriously mishandle, and that is why you have elections. And the only remedy is to rectify that during elections.
Our model is not the Thai monarchy. Our model is the English monarchy and its conventions, and even more limited than the English monarchy. You have never seen the English queen have the PM and the opposition crawling on their knees in front of her. That is not the model.
The hypothetical that you are talking about, if the president spoke up in that situation, he would have been completely unconstitutional. That is not the role for the president.
Tommy Koh: A few weeks ago, the Agung (King) of Malaysia invited PM Najib (Razak) and the leader of an NGO called Bersih to the palace in order to head off what he saw was likely to be a confrontation that will bring chaos to KL. The agung tried to make peace by suggesting that Bersih not have an outdoor demonstration, but have it in a stadium.
He tried to persuade the PM of Malaysia to agree to give a permit to let Bersih hold its demonstration in the stadium.
If we were to face such a situation in Singapore, is that an inappropriate exercise of the good offices of a president?
Shanmugam: I think that in the first place, when the Agung asked the leader of Bersih to the palace, the press reports we read suggest that it was actually with the consent and at the request of the prime minister. If the PM actually approached the president of Singapore or the agung in Malaysia, the agung will be entirely acting within his rights to then have a conversation with somebody else.
Can he, of his own volition, invite people over and give them advice? My own view would be, if it is kept out of the public view and he talks to them privately, it should be possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment