Presidential Elections Committee makes public its reasons for rejecting George Goh’s eligibility application

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.