By Joshua Chiang/
I ran into an academic/blogger at Toa Payoh Stadium in the wee hours of Sunday morning. The recounting was ongoing, but by then it was becoming clear that Dr Tony Tan would win the Presidential elections by the narrowest of margins. So we talked about what was the foremost thing in our minds – did Tan Jee Say’s entry into the race cost Dr Tan Cheng Bock the presidency?
“Tony Tan may still win even without Tan Jee Say in the race,” came the unexpected reply. “In fact, Tan Jee Say’s entry may actually have helped bring down Tony Tan’s votes and bring up Tan Cheng Bock’s votes.” How so? I asked. The academic/blogger explained that for many people who might have otherwise voted for Dr Tony Tan out of familiarity, Tan Jee Say’s campaign – which runs on a message almost contrary to the government’s prescribed role for the president – made them question if they truly wanted someone so closely associated with the establishment in role which isn’t nearly as powerless as the government would have them believe. But at the same time, they might have been uncomfortable with Tan Jee Say’s bluntness and picked a more moderate alternative – Dr Tan Cheng Bock.
I also spoke to a Tony Tan supporter who told me that her second choice – interestingly – was Tan Jee Say. His passion and firm convictions impressed her, she said. She wasn’t the first voter I knew to narrow down her choice to one that’s between Dr Tony Tan and Tan Jee Say. I wouldn’t know if the numbers of such voters are statistically significant, but it does point to one thing – it is overly simplistic to presume that all the votes that had gone to Tan Jee Say would have gone to Dr Tan Cheng Bock if the former didn’t run. And more importantly, just like what the General Elections have shown – where some highly unpopular ministers retained their seats - people are more likely to use their votes to put who they want in office rather than kick who they do not want out of the office.
A growing liberal voice?
I wrote an article two weeks ago opining that if anything, this Presidential elections – just like the previous one – will be a referendum on the People’s Action Party, and also would give a clearer picture of how Singaporeans are spread across the political spectrum.
What’s obvious to see is that without the fear of their housing estates turning into slums should they vote in an opposition team, nearly 65% of Singaporeans voted against Dr Tony Tan. If the May General Elections sent a clear signal to the PAP that it cannot be business as usual, this Presidential Elections confirmed it.
But what’s less obvious, is the growing number of people who are willing to give a more liberal voice – in the form of Tan Jee Say – a chance. While it is tempting to assume that only hardcore opposition supporters vote vote Tan Jee Say because he is the least connected to the ruling party (and they would even vote an orang-utan as long as it doesn’t wear white), my observations suggest otherwise. Not all people who voted for Tan Jee Say are comfortable with his ‘confrontational’ image, but his clear stances on certain issues – abolishment of ISA, anti-mandatory death penalty, no discrimination of minorities, including homosexuals to name a few – appealed to them. The fact that Tan Jee Say was with the SDP for short while had very little to do with their decisions.
In contrast, Dr Tan Cheng Bock remained an enigma. Alex Au summed up their discomfort with Dr Tan nicely:
Pealing away his gentle, avuncular demeanour, I find a troubling hole I cannot fathom. I cannot find an answer to a fundamental question: What does the man stand for?
– ‘I endorse Tan Jee Say’, Yawning Bread
Dr Tan Cheng Bock lost this group of voters not because of his past associations with the PAP but because he wasn’t very clear what he stood for on such issues. It isn’t only liberals who think so. As I had described earlier, there are voters for whom the choice is between Dr Tony Tan and Tan Jee Say. Which is strange because I actually believe that there are always more people in the centre of the political spectrum than there are in the left or right, and it wouldn’t be difficult to choose Dr Tan Cheng Bock to represent their voices… unless they weren’t sure IF he was really the guy in the centre.
In other words, it isn’t nearly enough that you are a kind person. People want to know exactly how you plan to translate this kindness into concrete actions and clear stand on issues – which Tan Jee Say has. To add a new twist to a familiar saying, “Better the angel you know than the one you don’t.”
No longer a walk in the (Istana) park
Despite the fact that Dr Tony Tan wasn’t my favored candidate to win the elections, I think it’s overly pessimistic to presume he would ‘pull a Nathan’ on us. For once, he actually fought hard to get into office. (But to be fair to S.R Nathan, no one else stood up when he ran for both terms) And the result – 35% of the total votes – is a sobering reminder that he has his work cut out for him if he wants to remain president for more than one term.
The Tony Tan presidency is likely to be one that is far more accountable and transparent than the one that preceded it. I have a hunch as well that if Dr Tony Tan were to aspire to be the next Ong Teng Cheong, the government is less likely to get in his way than they did the former president, for a very simple reason: It would cost them votes in the next GE. And so would a presidency that is too closely aligned with the interests of the government. Dr Tony Tan HAD to be independent. Any less than that and it would likewise affect what happens in 2016.
But the biggest challenge for Dr Tony Tan is not in the guarding of the reserves. It is whether he can truly play a unifying role. In today’s political climate, it goes beyond lending a face to charities and social causes. It even goes beyond making speeches to sooth nerves when disagreements between different segments of society threaten to tear apart the social fabric. It is in the exercising of his other presidential powers – such as vetoing of key appointment holders and budgets that will only serve partisan interests for example – that will demonstrate if he is indeed committed to unifying the people.
If he can do that, then in all likelihood, he will have a clearer mandate in the next Presidential elections. And maybe it would be an easier walk in the (Istana) park for him if he does get a second term.
Heck, he might even get to stop for a game of golf or two.
–
–
President-elect Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam’s media release HERE.
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
Tony Tan should start with himself, unite himself with TJS & TKL. It would be a good role model. After he ‘won’, he did not even mention them, much less thank them. He should at least do it out of courtesy & grace for without them giving him contest, his ‘elected’ presidency would have even less credential.
Another good position to start is also with himself, he should vow (like PM likes to vow), to look into his son’s NS rumour & get to the bottom of it. He should show his commitment to integrity, its the Govt’s motto, esp he being the ex-Minister of Defence as well.
Smell of hypocrisy all over the place.
Tony Tan comes across to me as very lazy, no passion & can’t be bothered. He is so used to easy money.
I believe there are many voters who did not vote for TJS because of SDP.
It is unfortunate that TJS had joined the SDP and became one of its candidate for GE2011. This imprint in the mind of the voters will last forever until he joined another party, as SDP is unlikely to get majority support from the opposition camps, given that WP had proven that an opposition need not oppose for the sake of opposing, and does not have to resort to confrontational tactics that SDP deployed in trying to shore-up anti-PAP feelings.
However, it is also unlikely that besides NSP, who sucked-up to TJS during this PE, any other opposition party would want TJS now that he had such a confrontational image. This I believe will be major dilemma for TJS going forward with his place in Singapore’s political scene!
Sadly, TJS would not be a major threat to PAP as in the next GE or PE, all the mainstream media need to do is to again play-up the image that he had build for himself in this PE, and the majority conservative and middle-line voters will have hesitation to consider him.
To PAP, he will always remains just an irritant and a clown to jive up any future election.
TT on the other hand, will be just a one-term President, and PAP is definitely smart enough not to nominate him for the next PE.
Question is – who will be the next anointed PAP candidate for President? I’m sure such a person will be groom during the next 5 years by PAP to consolidate his/her popularity.
Let’s open our eyes big big to see who the next anointed candidate form PAP will be?
News that WP and SPP had also started their own grooming of a Presidential candidate is also spreading, which I think will make the next PE equally exciting, if not more exciting that this elections.
Imagine, candidates from SDP and NSP, from SDP & SPP, and from PAP + many aspiring independent candidates.
I would not be surprised to see the next President being elected with less than 30% votes!
35% tt – just vote for another MP not P
35% TCB – just vote another MP not P
25% TJS – really vote for P- what he stands for
5% tkl – dunno wat to say
I think TJS should form another New Party with a forward planning to aim for just 1 grc.
Perhaps he could rally Nichole, Dr Ang, Dr Tambanya and another Prominent Malay Candidate.
He should target the right Ward ( which he could easily refer back from the last GE results on the % of each ward voting pattern )
I am sure he can “Win” with his New GRC team in 2016.
Tan Jee Say is still a respectable and worthy Opponent.
I don’t think Tan KL will be interested in any GE anyway .Surprise me please !
@Dignity…my take:
35% TT – voting in for a PAP puppet, not a People’s President
35% TCB – voting in a truly Singaporean President – based what he had done in deeds and not just empty words and fiery speech
25% TJS – voting in for a SDP puppet that likes to talk cock like sing song – definitely not a People’s President
5% TKL – voting in a puppet for himself – confirmed cannot be a People’s President
@Integrity
PAP bought insurance, they bet in two, either TT or TCB win, they win. You understand? Head I win, tail you lose. After losing so seats in GE2011, PAP rather have a weak President than a one that they do not have support. They never know how voters will vote after GE. Having two heavy weight is their insurance. TCB never spoke against PAP even before GE2011, even in PE2011, he too did not said much against any policies. he always said he will only do something if he voted but never he said what he would have done if is the President (Nathan). He did not question on pass reserve being used under Nathan. Just briefly mentioned.
@ah gong,
agreed… tcb is pappies card all along..
he resigned in may 2011 from pappies only.
also, he did not help to raise objection when transport fare raised 1% which amounts to more than 20-30million more profit at least for transport operators…
the pe exercise by sending out tcb, tt and tkl is to gauge the direction for the next ge how to set the battles for next elections….
got it?
Dear Mr. President Tony Tan:
Will you truly be a President to all Singaporeans? A President By the People and For the People? If so then I hope you can accomplish the following:
1) Remove social injustices in our society beginning with treating opposition ward citizens as people with equal rights. That means ensuring that they are not discriminated against like being left behind in HDB upgrading. Please remember that voters in opposition wards serve NS and also pay taxes.
2) Forged a common destiny in accordance to the will of the people as opposed to following the ambition of the ruling political party to perpetuate its hold on power. Through the last GE and this PE, the people have voiced their desire for greater political plurality and a greater voice in civil society. This is an evolution that we the citizens hope to see emerging overtime. Do not stifle this wish of the people in favor of the ruling party. Instead please use the standing of your office to ensure that no political parties are disadvantaged by the ruling party through the use or abuse of government machineries which are funded by tax payers. What happened with the PA in Aljunied and Hougang for instance must not be allowed to occur. Once a political party becomes the government of the day, its role must be to serve the interest of all the people and not use its time in office to strengthen its grip on power. It is such latter ambitions, done in trickle over long period of time by incumbent government such as those in ME, that prevented the orderly evolution of a country and will eventually lead to societal breakdown when people no longer can tolerate the injustices and powerlessness they feel over long period of time. Therefore the Arab Spring. I hope we will never see that day. That is why appropriate checks and balances are essential ingredients to the evolution of a truly democratic society where the government is elected by the people and for the people.
3) Ensure greater transparency in government decision making process and their implementation so that we are truly a “just and equal society”. In reality whilst some men are born more equal then others, the government of the day must see its role as minimizing such inequality rather then perpetuating it. Power need to be used to serve the people and not self. Government policies – economic or social, must result in benefits to its citizens first and not to meet KPIs so as to gain promotions and recognition.
These, Mr. President, are the simple wishes of this humble citizen for what I would like to see you accomplishing in order to be a President for all people and also the kind of Singapore that my children will inherit. Will you be that voice?
It was actually TKL which cost TJS and TCB votes.
The only SPOILER for allowing Tony Tan to win is TKL.10% of his votes to TCB would deprive Tony Tan of the presidency.
TJS fought a good fight but need to polished his image to go further.
He should stand for GE2016 with “true colors” suggestion of targeting a GRC with Nicole,Dr.Ang,Dr.Thambaya & Siew Kum Hong this would be the “DREAM TEAM” sure win and a GREAT VOICE of the people.
Cannot understand how 10% of our Citizens can be “Conk” by an Insurance Man ?
Maybe these 10% belong to the Insurance Industry ?
But how could it be ? As I understand ,many in the Insurance Industry do not have a Good Opinion about this Man.
If I am not wrong, all these increases in Car Premiums was actually a result of this man’s pushed to ‘tighten certain” claims procedure.
These 10% are really, really Dafts and it cost Singaporeans to be in this delima
35% voted for TCB does not mean they all supported PAP.. They just wanted to prevent tt fr winning but they failed becos the opposition (too many opp parties i.e. Diff. Agenda) is not yet united.
Most People here are talking Cocks when they say Tan Jee Say is too Confrontational.
With such a “Big” Machinery & often “Dirty tactics” that his Opponent (Pappy) is well known for , how could you ever expect to “Win” if TJS is just a “Meek” or “soft spoken” Guy ?
In any Court Cases, which or have you ever come across any Good Lawyers that are “soft spoken” during the Prosecution period in a court session ?
Lets be realistic, a Good Lawyer can be “soft spoken” when not being “attack” , but the same “soft spoken” Good Lawyer can be pretty “vicious” when “attack”
That is what you call a “Good Representation”.
Most “Daft” Singaporeans can only comment but basically have “zero” “will power” to”effect any change”.
It is realy so Sad, when witin ourselves as Commoners, some cannot even have the “will & Guts” to ensure a “Positive Change”, prefering to walk between the lines and hoping for others to do your “dirty job”.
Bloody Weaklings !
I believe that most of the 10% in TKL Camp are somewhat link with the Lehman Issues.
It is fine to be able to “appreciate “someone helping you in times of need.
But ,please be clear that “lehmanissues’ are pertaining to a small group of Investors .
Please also be clear that when you want to play “Investment of such degree like Lehman, it is your own perogative & risk.
When we are talking about PE , it is about the “Whole Nation” ( now we know abt 2/3 people re really frustrated )
Let not your “heart for appreciation of a Man that once help you in a “tiny” crisis be “clouded” over the Whole Nations future .
This Group is really not Voting with their Heads and Hearts ,but is just being plain ‘gullible” once again
Because of one man ,TKL , many now have to walk around for the next 6 years with a “Heavy Breast hanging in front of their chest” or “with heavy Balls” hanging below their legs !
What a Pity !
Mr Tan Jee Say should consider forming, Singaporeans First Party or Singaporeans Love Singapore Party.
Robe in Dr Ang, Michelle Lee, Nicole Seah, Jeaneete A. Chong, Dr Tambanyan, Dr Wong Wee Nam, etc.
Position as mainstream, conservative, very slightly left.
Don’t waste time and resources on SDP, Dr Chee and liberal values. Already branded as one-leg horse. Even if dramatic changeover, hard to win majority votes.
Politicians cannot be effective unless you win. You cannot win unless you meet the needs and hope of the vast majority.
Contest to win.
Detail planning & preparation like that Dr Tan Cheng Bock.
Consult him, maybe he is willing to guide on an informal basis.
Dear Integrity 30 August 2011,
On your rebutt to @Dignity…my take:,
1. Are you a bias mind? Meaning you have preconditions purely from your own perceptions personified?
2. And so/then pass your judgement with your preconceived superficial ideas? Do you?
3. I’m RDB in TRE writing with entirely different forms of tact/tack-lines the in TOC. Do you know why? Please venture a guess. Even a wild guess like you did sbout SDP and TJS?
4. First, have YOU met and chatted with Dr. Chee Soon Juan and other SDP guys before now? And ALSO mingled WITH w/o being intrusive and opinionated. Meaning being neutral so that YOU WON’T POLARIZE THE CHATS! Well, Ihave on many occasions. WP too. NSP not yet and only Dr. Wong Wee Nam who long ago stood as a NSP canditate and got well over 30% then! And he later wrote a letter published in ST then critical of Singaporean mindset like yours now!
5. So @Integrity, for youe own good, DO UPGRADE YOUR very own INTEGRITY first with proper checking to understanding and from experience too before you pass any judgement hor(TRE reminds)!
Remember no ego.
Translate sincerity to hardwork. The winners are laborers not talkers. Work on it everyday. A little everyday, after 5 years the accumulated effects will be tremendous.
To win an election in modern Singapore needs incredible management, passionate supporters, lots of resources, mastery of media, clear leadership, unity in efforts, focus in basic messages, excellent logistics, etc.
I see people like Tan Jee Say, Nicole, Dr Ang, Prof Tambayam as “truely sincere with integrity & Moral Compass” People.
I believe this Group actually have a ‘slightly different ideology” as Dr Chee.
I would not “label” them as “Traitor” if they ever form a New Party b’cos, at the end of the day….one must remember the reason for particpating as an alternative voice is to HELP the People and not the Party .
I would rally my support behind thses few Good men & Young lady. They are have demonstrated with their “Heart”.
@JT – although u r not keen on UK system, you propote DC’s Big Society. A contradiction there that I spot?
10 big questions about the Big Society
—————————————–
1. What’s the ‘Big’ idea?
DC says he wants to make society stronger by getting people working together to run their affairs locally. It aims to put more power & responsibility into the hands of families, groups, networks, neighbourhoods & local communities,& to generate community organisers, neighbourhood groups, volunteers, mutuals, co-operatives, charities, social enterprises and small businesses: the idea is that all of these will take more action at a local level, with more freedom to do things.
2. What’s good about it?
When people are given the chance and treated as if they are capable, they tend to find they know what is best for them, & can work out how to fix any problems they have and realise their dreams. Bringing local knowledge based on everyday experience to bear on planning and decision-making usually leads to better results. Evidence shows that, when people feel they have control over what happens to them and can take action on their own behalf, their physical and mental well-being improves. When individuals and groups get together in their neighbourhoods, get to know each other, work together & help each other, there are usually lasting benefits for everyone involved: networks and groups grow stronger, so that people who belong to them tend to feel less isolated, more secure, more powerful and happier.
3. What are the problems it is supposed to fix?
UK Gov hopes it will help to replace ‘big government’ and help to cut the size of the public deficit. Getting people at local level to take more responsibility and do more to help themselves and their neighbours is seen as an alternative to action taken by state institutions and public services. Poverty, unemployment and inequalities are signs of social breakdown and these, according to DC, are best addressed by shifting power, control and responsibility from the central state to families and communities. Increasing the volume of voluntary action is seen as a way to cut spending. But that’s as far as the ‘Big Society’ vision goes to address the economic causes of poverty & inequality. It pays no attention to forces within modern capitalism that lead to accumulations of wealth and power in the hands of a few at the expense of others. Nor does it recognise that the current structure of the UK economy selectively restricts the ability of citizens to participate.
4. Are Brits all up to the challenge?
Understanding that people have assets, not just problems, is a good start. But not everyone has the same capacity. How much capacity we have depends on a range of factors. These include education and income, family circumstances and environment, knowledge, confidence and a sense of self-efficacy, available time and energy, and access to the places where decisions are taken and things get done. All are distributed unequally among individuals, groups & localities. A combination of social & economic forces, working across & between generations, result in some having much more and others much less. While these inequalities persist, people who have least will benefit least from the transfer of power & responsibility, while those with higher stocks of social and economic resources will be better placed to seize the new opportunities. Many who are poorest and least powerful are at risk of being excluded.
5. Can everyone participate?
Families, networks, groups, neighbourhoods and communities all have boundaries. These are determined, variously, by blood, law, friendship, duty, obligation, tradition, geography, politics, wealth, status and class. Inevitably, they include some & exclude others; indeed some build their strength on exclusivity. Resources are already shared unequally between these organisations. DC says the ‘Big Society’ is ‘about enabling and encouraging people to come together to solve their problems’, but there is nothing in the govt’s plans to encourage the inclusion of outsiders, to break down barriers created by wealth & privilege, to promote community-mindedness rather than competition between local organisations, or to prevent those that are already better off and more dominant from flourishing at the expense of others.
6. Do people have enough time?
Building this ‘Big Society’ depends crucially on people having enough time to engage in local action. Everyone has the same amount of time, but some have a lot more control over their time than others. People with low-paid jobs and big family responsibilities – especially lone parents – tend to be poor in discretionary time as well as in money. Unemployed people who are not caring for children or elderly may have free time, but of course unemployment traps people in poverty, and one of the Government’s main aims is to get them into paid work. Committing time to unpaid local activity would put many at risk of losing benefits that depend on actively seeking employment. Part-time workers may have more time for civic engagement, but seldom earn enough to feed a family. Some people have to work all hours to make ends meet, or have no choice about when they start and finish each day. In short, long hours and low wages undermine a key premise of the ‘Big Society’, which is that social and financial gains will come from replacing paid with unpaid efforts.
7. Can communities mend themselves?
There are examples of troubled communities making marked improvements in their environment, levels of civic participation, opportunities, well-being and quality of life. But these are not commonplace. Over several decades, efforts to breathe new life into poor neighbourhoods have all had the same point of departure: poverty is a problem for poor communities, which are ‘vulnerable’ to social ills and therefore must be helped to build up ‘resilience’ so that they are better able to cope. None of these efforts has had a substantial impact on social inequalities or on cycles of deprivation that afflict successive generations. The lesson is that responsibility for tackling poverty and inequality cannot be left solely to those who are disadvantaged and disempowered. Resilience – the ability to deal with life’s problems – is an important component of individual well-being, but promoting it is not an alternative to removing the systemic barriers that produce those disadvantages. What is more, if change is created at local level only, it will not survive in a system where inequality is endemic. There need to be structural changes to the economy, to prevent the concentration of wealth and power in a few hands, leaving others with little or none. That means sharing responsibility across income groups. Communities will not be ‘mended’ unless we build a broader economy.
8. Will a smaller state make society bigger?
That depends how small the state becomes and what it does. We don’t want an overbearing state that depletes our capacity to help ourselves. But we do need a strategic state that is democratically controlled, and that becomes an effective facilitator, broker, enabler, mediator and protector of our shared interests. Without a properly functioning state, society collapses. Democratic govt is the only effective vehicle for ensuring that resources are fairly distributed, both across the population and between individuals and groups at local levels. It can and must ensure that fundamental rights and capabilities of all citizens are protected from incursions by powerful interest groups. The State must provide practical support, information and access to resources for local organisations, so that people with different levels of capacity can have an equal chance of getting together and acting effectively. And, last but not least, the state must ensure that services are in place to meet people’s essential needs regardless of their means (e.g. for health and autonomy, education, a fair living income, care, housing, and security). Action by businesses or third sector organisations can supplement but cannot replace these functions, not least because they usually serve sectoral or specialised interests, rather than those of the nation as a whole. If the state is pruned so drastically that it is neither big enough nor strong enough to carry them out, the effect will be a more troubled and diminished society, not a bigger one.
9. What’s the biggest problem?
The Big Society idea is strong on empowerment but weak on equality i.e. everyone having an equal chance in life so that they can contribute to society, fulfil their potential and live a satisfying life. This matters for ethical and practical reasons. On ethical grounds, which are hardly controversial, no-one should be held back by circumstances beyond their control, or suffer unfair discrimination. On practical grounds, there is a growing body of evidence that more equal societies are better for everyone, not just the poor, with lower levels of crime and disorder, and better health and well-being. Societies with strong traditions of social solidarity and low levels of inequality are better able to cope with shared risks such as climate change. So equality matters a great deal and the implications for the ‘Big Society’ are profound. It is weak on equality because it is weak on the structural links between economy & society. If the aim is to tackle poverty and inequality, as DC maintains, then success depends on how economic as well as social resources are distributed between groups and communities, enabling them to do what, for whom and how.
10. What could make it work?
This is the biggest question!
Now JT would have BS in Singapore!
Congrats to our millionaire president. A 34.5% champion.
Stupidity deserves a president like TT!
Can’t help but being cynical, a ”psychological hangover” cannot serve and trying to unite people takes more than words. A PAP-dictaphone is a sobriquet is a label that suits the predicament of many who opted not to vote him in.
TT is and always has been pro-PAP. To assume that it is not so is to delude oneself.
PS – TKL knew that he would not win and the honourbale thing was to have allowed TCB or TJS opportunities to win.
Agree that this presidency could be more impact on his legacy than meets the eye.
History will show would he check n report gic investment mistakes , if indeed there is one, even if just 1, in the history of gic transactions and including his involvements.
The pap must thank the pap supporters for their cooperation found no where else in the world.
This may be the only time in human history where wrongs become rights and black become white.
Singaporeans are not called daft for no reason.
Second that, Robert Teh. More brain drain out of sg expected. I am studying hard to pass Life in UK test, my final hurdle to quality for British citizenship, more so urgently now. It currently costs £500 for the British citizenship if quality but people are saying it will keep going up, may be in the tens of £000′s. So I won’t leave it till the gate is totally shut.
Since TOC is considered political,why not register it as a Political Party.
Suggested names:
POC- Party Of Citizens
OCP- Only Citizens Party
any other suggestions??? and rope in Tan Jee Say,Nicole,Dr.Wee,Dr.Ang, Prof.Thambayan, Michelle Lee, Jeanette A. Chong and Siew Kum Hong leading the pack as he has the experience in parliament.
Together,they will easily nap two GRCs come 2016
Eugene was left out as he is now member of CEC in SDP but welcome to join.
Others welcome but kindly no IDIOTS & OPPORTUNISTS please.
@JR
What about:
TBP – True Blue Party.
VOP – Voice of the People.
PPP – People’s Power Party.
@JR
VOP should be VPP – voice of the people party.
Just posted the following in TOC’s
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/08/ministerial-salaries-can-economics-explain/
See what do you think Joshua Chiang? Sometimes simple simply explains better. Of course I’ve assumed that the GE2011 60% are diehards and maintained their support fot PAP. Otherwise how did thier support total 70%? Because those who voted for the Oppo won’t vote for TT or TCB, but some may go for TCB instead! Do you agree? If not why!
“Dear No 30 August 2011,
You said:
“i dont think those who voted TCB were voting PAP!”
Frankly…
1. TCB & TT took 70% of voters.
2. But 60% voter for PAP in GE2011 in May.
3. So there a 10% up for PAP if we take that from TCB’s 35%.
4. But then 40% voted against PAP in GE2011
5. And 5% went for TKL.
6. And so that’s 5% from TT for TKL?
7. And 20% from the 60% for PAP-GE2011 to TCB & TKL?
8. That makes for 25% but still only 20% of this for PAP in TCB?
9. So where does TJS’s 25% voters come from?
10. TJS got 25% from the 40% who voted against PAP in GE2011?
11. Thus, in the remaining 15% of against PAP in GE2011 – 5% went to TKL and 10% migrated to TCB?
12. Sound simple analysis, but my friends say it make a lot of sense!
13. Because the 60% of for PAP voters all stayed with TT & TCB? But since they both garnered a total of 70%, the 10% increase for these 2 PAP chaps must come from the oppo voters right? So, the 15% balance from TJS’s only 25% voters must out of the 40% against PAP! – 5% to TKL and 10% to TCB and most obviously NOT TO TT!!! As they WON’T go for TT for sure right!”
I did not vote for him and never will acknowlege him as my choice. so wastetime
Of the 40% from Last GE:
25% confirmed hve wokenup
10% remains Daft
5% remains really,really,really,Dafts
Really?-
We as ‘keyboard warriors’ can only suggest the onus is upon those who have the ‘guts & balls’ to carry it out.
It may be a long time coming to topple PAP,but with a strong ‘VOICE’ and not noise from WP and the new party of TRUE voice and sincere hearts we may be able to rein in the ARROGANCE of the PAP.
Dear JR 31 August 2011
Really?-
A. You said of WP as “noise”? And they with Low Thia Khiang at the helm got in…
1. Sylvia Lim – seen her in Australian TV adhoc interview? I impressed by her spontaneous replies you know!
2. Chen Shao Mao – heard him and carefully too?
3. Who is the other a guy call what? Vincent or something something? Please tell us!
4. And his humble and honest chap in his own former Hougang SMC who won a much bigger margin than him over PAP’s sore loser of a Desmond Cho!!!
B. And have you notice cowardly father of PAP in his PM son is convening parliament only in Oct?
Why from May to October? And alos nearly2 months after EP too? Because WP has how many elected MPs NMPs in Parliament now? This is why the delay not to affect their reputation for TT & TCB for EP? And why TCB too? Because with split votes any of these w PAP “Tans” will do! One a salted duck egg by year of involvement, And the elected one a century duck egg smelling of horse urine. Sounds unkind, but what do each stand for?
TCB = I will do this and I will do that. TT is “Confidence for the future” or more aptly for the same future but better for them with $4.267 Mils a year EXCLUDING CPF + ONE TIME PENSION CREAMER ON TOP of CPF? So Pension ON TOP OF CPF is ONLY for select group? Pension AT ONE GO is not MAKING A MOCKERY of The English Language IN OXFORD meaning of Pension as “PERODIC Payment made to a person above specified AGE or to retired or widowed or disabled etc person AND also in verb-tense Pension off to DISMISSED person”???!!!
Has lee Kuan Yew and PAP murdered the British Queen’s English Language they are educated in and even IN UK at that???!!!
rockabyebaby-
October sitting in parliament is time PAP need for a post-mortem on GE & EP as they have more idiots than brains in cabinet currently.
WP six MPs will most likely give them hell during this sitting and that is what PARLIAMENT is all about.
To have the PEOPLE’s elected representative VOICING out their grief and not NOISE from the PEOPLE.
dear mr presidente tonytan
would you cared to rebuke the fortune magazine last reports
do you know or really don’t know?
don’t act blurred hor
……………….
credit to fortune magazine below:
Now we learn from the August 15, 2011 issue of Fortune Magazine that Singapore has no sovereign wealth.
Instead it has a sovereign debt of US$254 billion, which is 95% of Singapore’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This puts Singapore at 8th position as one of the world’s most indebted nations. Singapore is near the bottom of the pile; only seven developed countries are more in debt, in terms of GDP.
Apparently, Singapore has borrowed heavily from its own Central Provident Fund (CPF) which holds the retirement funds of Singaporeans. This explains why Singapore is not only raising the retirement age, but making it more difficult for Singaporeans to get their retirement funds even when they reach that age.
……………….
that is YOUR task as the new presidente or or you goin to do anda naaathan dumb act? aand maybe get a payrise of $1.8million/annum on top of the tonight outgoin presidente present salary?
Whether or not all four are linked to the PAP is a matter of definition and timing. Maybe only two can be called truly of the PAP. Nevertheless it shows a dearth of political experience dished out to Singaporeans. It certainly is not a healthy state of affairs as indeed we the citizenry are feeling the heat of two million new bodies brought into our country, choking our jobs, transport , housing, medical , educational services.The PAP has sold our country with us as sitting tenants. All because there is no effective voice in Parliament to oppose such moves and moves to enrich themselves by gross overpayment of remuneration and sucking the juice out of the honey pots of the country. The ISD is a sentinel watching over the population for any challenge against the centre of power and the judges will do everything asked of them to quash any dissenters. To ensure that the PAP is not the sole dish on offer we have to oppose the centre of power’s power and that is the PAP version of the Rule of Law. How to do this? That is the question. There seems to be no answers which are safe and easy.
sure its a tough job being a President championed by unions but have to appear to champion people’s cause. he appears more like a union’s president than that of a country, lol…
must be tough to put out the smile even on the “off” days?
5 – 6 years of noise from the ground for TT, hope he dun complain about it. he went in with eyes open (unless he was mentally asleep?). i hope his ears were opened too when he contested. dun want him to say “caught off guard” about how noisey it can get.
I believe next GE2016 WP will groom better and young candidates into their party,WP is a well like opposition party.
As for TSJ I think a bit difficult for him to make a comeback after loosing 2 elections in a year.Year2016 TSJ will be age 62, by then many young blood will enter politics that has more charisma with fiery speech to attract younger voters.
I think TSJ will follow the footstep of CSJ long forgotten.