Howard Lee /
It unfolded almost melodramatically. After a period of aspiring candidates indicating their interest to run for the Elected Presidency, the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) decided to give what amounted to a provisional endorsement of Tony Tan, the candidate of choice of the ruling People’s Action Party and the out-going President SR Nathan.
The next day, almost as if on cue, the Prime Minister issued the Writ of Election, starting the official process by which the next President will come into office.
One can almost imagine the excruciating angst that NTUC president John De Payva had to go through in coming to that position. NTUC’s support for former President, the late Ong Teng Cheong, was almost by default, given the man’s long contribution to the labour movement. But this Presidential election was different. The choice unionist candidate, Tan Kin Lian, was not the candidate of choice of the ruling PAP. Tony Tan was, but he has contributed little, if any, to the labour movement.
You might see it this way – NTUC had to choose between its core tradition and what it is supposed to stand for (the labour movement), and its realistic position and what it really stands for (alliance with the political elite).
But this move by NTUC is essential in order for the ruling PAP’s well-manicured chess-game to move forward. NTUC represents the “working class”, and by all counts, this traditional group accounts for the vast majority of the electorate. NTUC’s endorsement, even provisional, is supposed to be a signal to the “working class” on which candidate serves their interest best, and by logical deduction, which candidate they are encouraged to vote for.
NTUC’s position has always been easily aligned to the tripartite relationship encouraged by the ruling PAP’s representative in the labour movement. Not any more, not this election, it would seem.
This one fracas reminds us precisely how politicised the Presidential elections really is – not of candidates raising themselves up for the populist vote, but of the partisan politics that surround them. For all the calls to make this Presidential election a tussle befitting the stature of the office, this round is starting to sound like it could be another general election slug-fest.
Such endorsements smell familiarly of the US Presidential elections, with one key difference: the US President holds an executive appointment, not a ceremonial one.
So we have political parties and the trade union giving nods and nays, thus far. Who will we have next joining the endorsement bandwagon? Captains of industry? NGOs? Church leaders? Celebrities?
Snide aside and in reality, if such power play is not just of my imagination, the endorsement by NTUC is unnecessary, for two reasons.
The first is the psyche of the “working class” and their willingness to buy into such endorsements by NTUC. In the times of Ong Teng Cheong, the labour movement drew heartstrings with him. My father can still recount the famous incident in our history when Ong sanctioned a strike, even when he was a Cabinet Minister. Ong spoke of an interest for the common man, and the people would have gladly rallied behind him.
Ong represented an NTUC of a nearly forgotten era of worker rights that people aligned with and remembered him for. An era where the tripartite relationship was not the support structure for efforts to make us “cheaper, better, faster”; for improving the productivity of locals to exploitative extremes; for slashing employer CPF contributions during bad times that were never restored; for wage increases during good times that come across as “encouragements”…
Since Ong, the workforce has evolved, the NTUC is now better known for its business franchises and social club status, and the power of influence once accorded the labour movement, even if it only applied to the traditionalist, has waned. To begin with, many eligible voters who just entered the workforce might even have doubts about what NTUC can do for them in the short or long term, apart from offering competitive insurance plans.
The second reason is that attempts to steer public opinion in favour of one candidate is not going to work. If the professed independence of all the candidates themselves is anything to go by, there is reason to suspect a clear ground sentiment that the people have grown weary of the official position.
In other words, NTUC’s endorsement of Tony Tan could very well backfire on him, since its affiliations with the ruling party is now taken as a matter of fact. Not least to note, a number of new PAP candidates fielded in the latest general elections proudly professed former ties with the trade union body.
There seems to some factions in our political landscape who think that this particular election, like the general election, can be sculpted and controlled to reflect the preferences of the status quo. Whether the outcome on polling day re-establishes the status quo or not is of little consequence. What is key to note is that, instead of learning from the general elections and starting to listen to the ground, the political elite has chosen, once again, to influence the election environment by trying to (re)define the boundaries of play.
What could have made the Presidential elections a “clean and fair fight”, without encouraging the intentional blurring of executive and ceremonial functions of government, would be if the executive functions have been clearly resolved before the Presidential elections. The general elections have given a clear indication on the key areas of policy that need to be addressed, but almost three months after, Parliament has not convened and no major policy changes have taken place. And if the political elite believe the last trump card is the eligibility certificate, think again – playing blind to the problem does not remove it.
Failure to recognise this is failure on the part of the political elite. There is no one else to blame if the Presidential elections turns out to be a brawler house of executive evangelism vs creaky ceremonialism. And attempts to manage public expectations will only have as much effect as attempts to manage public preference.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
iVOTEahMENG is the only who can pry open the eyes of that PAP-toady Steven Kho to Phony Tony’s chicanery
Well done, Ah Meng!
We have all read about Phony Tony’s covering up for his son’s NS evasion.
Unfortunately, it is all in the English language media.
The Chinese folks, like my parents, who cannot read English, said they have not seen anything about Phony Tony, nor about his son in Chinese print that is negative to date. By contrast, they have read a lot of super positive comments of Phony Tony in the MSM Chinese media. Why d’ont TOC put out a similar article in Chinese.
TRE has a small Chinese section, but not a single article is on Phony Tony’s abetting junior’s evasion of NS for 12 years.
To win over some of that 60% who voted PAP, the truth about Tony’s phoniness must be disseminated in Chinese.
i cant stand TT’s fear mongering right now – only i know how to steer us through the coming dark clouds etc etc…
good grief…
first of all, if he really wants to steer, he should stay at GIC and help risk manage the portfolio. the EP DOES NOT DIRECT INVESTMENT STRATEGY.
can people please get this straight and stop talking so much about how the EP needs to be some finance wizard? THE EP DOES NOT DIRECT INVESTMENT STRAGEY.
Tony, please stay at GIC if you’re so concerned over global financial meltdown!
and all this talk about how the cabinet will tap on his views in a crisis. does Tony think he can help Tharman during a financial crisis?
Tharman is THE BRAIN man…
and did TT prevent GIC’s drawdown during the 2008/09 crisis? Hell no! Despite the gains over last two years, GIC has not surpassed previous watermark! its just been market perform these last 4 years!
i just dont know what to say anymore…
The speech given yesterday by the Minister for Law shows how circumscribed the President will be. His speech also shows that in the hierarchy of power, the Presdient has no effective standing. The President will be a useless and costly appendage to governance.But not for the PAP for although he will serve no function of governance which cannot be done by Parliament, he will propel the PAP propaganda machine to suffocating heights. Why should the citzenry bear the burden (in terms of millions of dollars per annum to pay the President) of party political cost of the PAP? There should first be a referendum whether a Presidnet is wanted by Singaporeans. It is still not too late to run a referendum on this question before an election for a President is conducted.The PAP should bear the cost of its own propaganda machine and not foist the cost on the citizenry. And the President, whoever he will turn out to be,is promised to be paid the highest of them all!
2nd Gen Singaporean,
even a no brainer answer is an answer non-the-less. nice to know i got it.
among the candidates, its quite a fact that they will very often be the people who are aligned to PAP’s interest. the criteria of eligibility made the window for the bolt out of the blue quite impossible.
i find it odd that the highest office on this land actually have such limited powers, & that the powers are written by people who are supposed to be much less powerful.
strange also how the powers of the President are spelt out but not the limits of powers of a ruling party to prevent it from being seen as the govt itself.
democracy that is uniquely S’pore?
In the first place, if we need a president to justify for ruling party’s policies of profiteering on its land sales and privatizing anti-people taxing and charging all services policies, along political line, there is no justification to have an elected president as such a president will be only a rubber stamp to justify wrong doings and profiteering scams of the current autocratic money-worshipping government.
The hundreds of millions being spent on such a president should be better spent on maximizing our human resources and putting to use all our available empty lands to start substitution industries, like sea fishery farming, hydropondric and organic agro industries to create jobs, for citizens, and for reducing the high costs of living of the citizens.
People should treat this EP election as a referendum to decide whether we still need such a paper-tiger EP by casting against the clearly pro-PAP TT and other pro-PAP candidates.
Such a signal will reinforce the GE2011 overall percentage drop and let the arrogant ruling party trul feel they should respect the people’s power not to vote for a rubber-stamping EP to justify its continuing suppressive anti-people autocratic rule.
Dear Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say,
I wish to feedback that even a active political observer like me was not very much aware of your good videos on youtube until today.
I feel that whether you win or not will depend on how many have taken time to view your videos.
We must help spread the message during the next few days when people have some free time.
Although I cannot find any reason to make myself vote for TT , believe you me, there are plenty out there who still may, for reason I cannot find.
The constitution should be decided by the people through voting and not by any single or a small elite group of people.
We must understand the side effects of Group think and Complacency and lack of transparency.
This is only for our own good.
We must not be passive anymore.
We owe it to our children and our dignity.
I used to wonder how things in countries like North Korea came to be. How did the people allow a cruel and selfish tyrant to stay in power & “live the life” while they struggled to eke out a decent living. How such a leader could then pass on power to his son and this son could then pass on to his son.
Then I realised that instead at looking at such countries, I only had to look at my own country Singapore where the exact thing was happening. I should in fact be asking myself those very questions? How did I allow such things to happen in my country?
It is time for us Singaporeans to realise that THIS IS OUR COUNTRY AND IT IS US WHO MADE IT WHAT IT IS TODAY! Yes, LKY did a lot to help us get to where we are but he did it with an able team, not singlehandedly as many Singaporeans continue to mistakenly believe.
And yet, he has successfully managed to take centre stage by himself and put his able team members in the shade. So successfully, in fact, that most young Singaporeans do not, or did not until recently, know who Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, Toh Chin Chye were. His fellow founding fathers have fallen out with him after disagreeing with his methods but have chosen to stay silent to not incur his wrath and backlash – this just shows what an evil and mean man he is.
And what have we got in return for helping making the country what it is today? His contempt for us – despite his screw-ups like the social engineering (graduate parents) programme, his mass sterilisation of Singaporean women and “Stop at 2″ campaign (which we are still paying for), he continues to blame us for anything that goes wrong in Singapore. We get our things taken away from us like pensions and given to them and we get increasing charges with stagnant salaries.
What’s more, he has the nerve, after bringing in so many foreigners (to make up for votes they’ve been losing) and even foreign students with all expenses paid, aside from scholarships. He then goes on to say that if we Singaporeans cannot keep up with these foreigners, that just too bad! And many of us still revere him and name universities and colleges and libraries after him and his equally mean and selfish wife.
Imagine building your house with your hard-earned money only to find strangers coming in and moving into your rooms and leaving you with the kitchen floor to sleep on. Wouldn’t you feel mad? You should!
We’re just beginning to see what we can achieve by monitoring and probing those WE put in power – an apology from LHL, heir mistakes for the 1st time, HDB & DBSS, TT’s son’s special treatment etc. It’s way overdue for us to show our “servants” through the ballot box what we think of the way we’re being treated.
TT,
as a chairman of National Reserves foundation , what were you involved in with respect to the Reserves?
Would i vote for you to help protect the reserves?
We need a president to tell the people if there is any wrong with the Reserves.
With TT as president, can we rest assured he will be impartial to reveal if something was wrong with the reserves handling?
With his 27 years as PAP loyalist, and many other chairmanships, we certainly can rest assured his complete Independence from PAP?
As I say, its all in the hands of so-called highly educated but apathetic people.
Should we reform the education system ?
why not?
I stand corrected . He was the National RESEARCH foundation chairman, not national reserves.
He is or was the GIC dy Chairman.
If he knows something wrong with GIC, certainly he would let the people know?
Maybe?
maybe not?
I need to fart now.
escue me.
To Bess,
Ah,notice the spin on Tony Tan’s public profile? He is always flanked by an entourage of senior citizens. He is appealing to this group who are too old to surf and too conditioned to be risk averse.
LKY Quote: “I will not apologise to say that the PAP is the government and the Government Is the PAP.” New YR2011addition: ” And The President Is Also The PAP Only”
So SIngaporeans decide if you want this?
PS: Missed out the figurative line probably:” Singaporeans will have 5 years to REPENT if they vote for anyone else then our PAP Tony Tan”
@mansi 8 August 2011
>>LKY Quote:Singaporeans will have 5 years to REPENT if they vote for anyone else then our PAP Tony Tan”<<
If they adopt a really strict interpretation, they can disqualify all except Phony Tony.
Mr. Bean, only the best will be our President, however, we have the best and the brightest in Tony Tan.
fatah8 August 2011
we have the best and the brightest in Tony Tan.
………….
if you start usin tancho haircream you also brightest what…
that you didn’t know do you?
ps.. your misspelt
BEAST is the right word to be used on tony tan
anyone can explain what “tancho” mean?
Mr Shanmugam said: “If there are disagreements, as previously it has happened before, we can always get it resolved through the courts. When you have check and balance, you must expect that sometimes there might be differences in views. ” After hearing how a number of judges make judgments where the stakes of the concentration of power are at issue, the citizenry have learnt to have no trust in the integrity of the Courts. If the President were to go to Court against the Prime Minister or his representatives, everyone can predict the outcome.
Shanmugam goes on to say,”And if there are differences in views, we have a structure and system in place to deal with those differences.” Yes we have the Rule of Law which only works one way.Which way is as predictable as the ticking of a clock as it ticks towards the predetermined hour.
The president will be an extension of the PAP. If he happens to be not a perfect extension he will be dealt with by the Rule of Law with predictable consequences.
Singaporeans are only electing a load of trouble for themselves in the form of an echo chamber for the PAP. This load of trouble will lounge about in the Istana doing annual charity shows and will swing into action only at the command of his master who is the One enthroned at the concentration of Power.Rather like the relationship between Putin and Medvedev.
The Law Minister said: “If there are disagreements, as previously it has happened before, we can always get it resolved through the courts. When you have check and balance, you must expect that sometimes there might be differences in views. ” After hearing how a number of judges make judgments where the stakes of the concentration of power are at issue, the citizenry have learnt to have no trust in the integrity of the Courts. If the President were to go to Court against the Prime Minister or his representatives, everyone can predict the outcome.
He goes on to say,”And if there are differences in views, we have a structure and system in place to deal with those differences.” Yes we have the Rule of Law which only works one way.Which way is as predictable as the ticking of a clock as it ticks towards the predetermined hour.
The president will be an extension of the PAP. If he happens to be not a perfect extension he will be dealt with by the Rule of Law with predictable consequences.
Singaporeans are only electing a load of trouble for themselves in the form of an echo chamber for the PAP. This load of trouble will lounge about in the Istana doing annual charity shows and will swing into action only at the command of his master who is the One enthroned at the concentration of Power.Rather like the relationship between Putin and Medvedev.
When President Putin could not continue as President because Russian Law says that there shall be no three consecutive terms for a President, Putin stepped down in 2008 and created the post of Prime Minister for himself and installed Medvedev as President with the tacit agreement that he, Putin, would take back the Presidency, the next time around. But now Medvedev has made known that he will not renounce the presidency for Putin as he promised. We are here not about to discuss Russian politics but just to show you how creative politicians can get to stay in power. In Singapore we have been even more creative as we have MM and SM posts created to receive the two previous prime ministers. What is there to prevent the PM to arrange with the elected President that he be a good boy and do as told. When Ong Teng Cheong became an upstart he bore the brunt of governmental disapproval. Nathan is a tame follower and he lived a tranquil life as President. So what point is a President to the people of Singapore? The President will only serve to extend the aims of the Ruling Party and suppress the citzenry more effectively. For example when the Government wants to bring in more foreigners, it can set the President talking about it to the public as a sort of echo chamber. I leave it to your imagination how the President can be the prime spokesperson for the Government.
It is ironic that the trade unions would support Tony Tan.
Tony is a well-known ‘banana’ : yellow outside, white inside.
He has sold out our universities to the foreigners. Amazing how little control and influence Singaporeans have over our own univerisities. All these can be traced to Tony’s years of messing with Singapore’s tertiary education system. It is a scandal of how poorly our own local researchers and teachers are treated in our universities.
I urge the trade unions to review Tony’s record before following the party line.
Dr. Tony Tan, you are contradicting yourself and Singaporeans. You have to ask yourself about your policy to import massive foreigners who take away plenty of good positions and works from Singaporeans here, especially last few years. You may be planting the seed of confusion, imbalances and riot in Singapore.
You have to address why you spent only 7 hours to invest billions of Singapore public foreign reserve in troubled and downgraded banks in 2008 but the US President took more than 7 months to decide. What is the status of your investment now? What is your investment evaluation and due deligence processes? Will you spend less than 7 hours to invest if it is your own money? How can we put our trust on you? You may take less than 7 hour to invest if you were elected president. How can we sleep well if you were elected president? What will happen to our CPF withrawal age?
You chose to invest billions of Singapore foreign reserve in high risk, troubled and downgraded assets and banks. However, another elected president hopeful, Tan Jee Say, chooses to invest billions of dollar in Singaporeans. Our Choice is obvious!
P.S.
Dr Tony Tan, just borrow what you had said “I hope that as president, if I am given the opportunity, I will be able to make that contribution because I have the background, I have the knowledge, I think I have the temperament not to panic because you need a steady hand in these difficult times,” and
citing this week’s riots in England, you said, “If you look at what is happening today, youths who have been unemployed for many months, years, and worse still, who see no prospects of being employed at all — out of frustration, they launched a wave of riots, looting. You cannot believe it, this is happening in England. As somebody said, it’s like a war zone.”