by: Choo Zheng Xi/
I’ve lost count of the number of times my friends have asked me how I’m voting on Saturday and why, so I thought I’d set out my thought processes here to spark debate and discussion. The short answer is I am leaning in a certain direction, but haven’t made up my mind yet. Here’s what I think of the candidates so far.
Tan Jee Say
Many people I’ve spoken to are surprised that I still haven’t made up my mind who to vote for on Saturday. Most who know me automatically assume I’m rooting for Tan Jee Say because of my liberal political inclinations.
I can’t deny that of all the candidates running I feel Jee Say’s values most resonate with mine. I managed to interview him for TOC on the evening he announced his candidacy for the general elections. I conducted the interview with Andrew Loh at a Hainanese restaurant in Golden Landmark Hotel. The overriding impression I came away with was that Jee Say is a man of conviction, who was entering politics with nothing to prove, and who was concerned primarily for the wellbeing of the country.
This has come through extremely clearly in Jee Say’s public speeches and televised debates, particularly in the TOC forum in his answers relating to detention without trial and his principled position against all forms of discrimination.
However, I’m not too convinced that Jee Say’s understanding of the constitutional position on what the President can do is accurate. For example, I do not think the President is constitutionally empowered to make sure the reserves are well spent on schools and hospitals, as he suggested in his Toa Payoh rally. I’ll elaborate on this more in later sections of my note.
Further, I do not believe that the solution to an unsatisfactory result in a parliamentary election is to turn the Presidential election into a second bite of the cherry for those who would like to see a check on the government: the nature of the Presidential check is qualitatively different one from that of Parliament.
Finally, I’m also not particularly happy with the free pass many liberal minded friends of mine are willing to give Jee Say on his political affiliations, while criticizing the other candidates for their links to the PAP. In all fairness, I believe the political independence of the Elected Presidency entails a qualitative independence from partisan politics, whether government or opposition.
Tony Tan
Conversely, in recent days I’ve given some serious thought about the basis for the strong opposition to Tony Tan’s candidacy.
Online campaigns have compared Tony Tan’s record in Cabinet unfavourably with Ong Teng Cheong, but I can’t help feeling this is rather disingenuous because those lionizing Ong Teng Cheong now do it with perfect hindsight. As a little thought experiment, if Ong Teng Cheong was running in this election on the strength of his record in Cabinet and with the full backing of the unions and the government, would those who oppose Tony Tan now be giving him a free pass? Unlikely.
My point is I don’t think party affiliation alone makes the President.
The question I need to be satisfied of is whether the person I’m voting for has both the standing and understanding to perform his constitutional role independently of his previous political affiliations.
An interesting perspective by someone in the PAP and supportive of Tony Tan’s candidacy was this: Tony Tan is not going to be a pushover President and has the experience and insight into government to robustly exercise his constitutional duties. He will be able to make informed decisions about public service appointments because he has had personal experience working with them and would have a strong sense of their suitability.
I can’t say I’m convinced by this line of thought, but I’m trying to keep an open mind.
As someone who is legally trained and who has an interest in constitutional law, I also have some sympathy to Tony Tan’s call to “run for the office that exists”. The Presidency was never intended to be an alternative centre of power, and this was made clear in the three published White Papers on the powers of the President.
In fact, in the 1988 televised debate on the Elected Presidency then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong explained the intention of the government quite clearly:
“The Elected President must consent if the government wants to spend reserves which it itself has not accumulated, to make certain key appointments, for example, appointments to members of the Public Service Commission or judges of the Supreme Court. The Elected President will have the custodial powers, custodial powers to say no in these two key areas, and the moral authority to block the elected government again in these two areas. He will not have the right to initiate policies himself even in these two areas, be given any powers in other unrelated areas, or be an executive President, like the US or French President”.
One of the reasons Mr Goh probably felt the need to spell out with such clarity the circumscribed role of the Elected President in 1988 was not because the government took a perverse joy in creating a separate institution without any real teeth.
It was actually because the main concern from the opposition of the day was that the role of the Elected President would undermine parliamentary democracy.
In the same televised debate, Mr J B Jeyaretnam set out the Worker’s Party position, which subsists until today:
“But the Party believes that already we have adequate safeguards in our institution of parliamentary government”.
So despite my dissatisfaction with the current constitutional arrangement, with the mildly absurd result that a President elected by all Singaporeans could arguably have less freedom of speech than an ordinary citizen, Tony Tan’s position on what the President’s powers are is quite plausible.
My main discomfort with Tony Tan is his unwillingness to publicly state his personal opinion on the campaign trail, which makes it difficult for me to discern whether or not he shares my values. I dislike his invocation of the Official Secrets Act to not discuss his personal opinion on the “Marxist” detentions of 1987, while in the next breath touting his opposition to the graduate mother’s scheme.
Tan Kin Lian
The only candidate I’ve clearly ruled out voting for is Tan Kin Lian.
I know Kin Lian from his time contributing to TOC, and have the deepest respect for his courage in taking a very public stand on behalf of investors who lost their money in structured products. I’ve always found Kin Lian personable and self-effacing, and till this day I appreciate how he contributed his thought provoking articles to TOC. If Kin Lian were running for Parliament I would strongly consider voting for him.
Unfortunately, I can’t help feeling that the office of the President is a bit out of Kin Lian’s depth.
I dislike his flip-flopping over whether or not to seek elective office, and believe this raises serious questions about his sense of judgment. Early on in the structured products saga, I was discomfited by Kin Lian’s statement that he would run for President if he gathered 100,000 signatures. I understand he managed to gather less than a fraction of that, but decided to run anyway.
Later on, after he had announced his decision to run for President, he qualified it a few days later by saying he would conclusively make up his mind if he was granted the certificate of eligibility by the PEC. Even when he got the certificate of eligibility, he made it public knowledge that withdrawing from the race before nomination day was a possibility if the other candidates approached him to do so.
The final straw came when, at the forum organized by TOC for the Presidential candidates, he needed Mr Alex Au to explain what section 377a of the Penal Code was. While the Elected President’s job scope does not entail a grasp of legislative minutiae, to be unable to recall the provision that was at the centre of a headline grabbing national debate is appalling. That, coupled with his appearance at former ISA detainee Tan Jing Quee’s memorial while acknowledging he had never heard of the man, gives me the impression of a Presidential candidate whose campaign has come grievously unstuck.
Tan Cheng Bock
Many people I’ve spoken to have described Tan Cheng Bock as their compromise candidate. My PAP friends who are loyalists say that Dr Tan might not be the government’s top choice, but he is a choice that the government can work with. Several of my friends who are opposition supporters likewise would like Jee Say to win, but are willing to vote for Dr Tan to keep Tony Tan out.
For all the 4 candidate’s talk of unifying the country, I think Dr Tan comes the closest to genuinely being able to do so. Several former PAP parliamentarians are supporting his campaign, and I was pretty surprised to bump into the NSP’s Christopher Neo canvassing for Dr Tan in Hougang. That same evening, a WP old-timer Melvin Tan tagged me in a note plugging Dr Tan’s candidacy.
At a TOC organized appreciation dinner for Mr Chiam See Tong, I was pleasantly surprised to see Dr Tan in attendance to pay tribute to his parliamentary colleague.
More substantively, I have been suitably impressed by Cheng Bock’s independent streak and track record of standing up for what he believes in. In particular, his opposition to streaming, his vote in Parliament against the NMP scheme, and his 1984 warning to the government that they had to be more responsive to popular dissatisfaction.
However, our values aren’t exactly in perfect alignment. He did not give a straight answer when asked at the TOC forum whether or not he now believes the Marxist conspirators of 1987 were really conspiring to overthrow the government.
Addendum
This note is probably going to make everyone unhappy, particularly those who disagree with my understanding of the constitutional limitations on the elected President.
Alex Au has pointed out to me in that there are areas of constitutional ambiguity over how the President can exercise his custodial duties, and that several of Jee Say’s pronouncements can be interpreted as values statements about how he would exercise his custodial functions.
I agree that one can plausibly read ambiguity into the Constitutional provisions, but the weight of history, parliamentary intent and the plain language of the Constitutional provisions suggest that one needs to err on the side of a more circumscribed role for the elected President.
Again, my final caveat is that this position is far from satisfactory, but for now that is my view of how things stand.
I’m indebted to Nathaniel Koh who has taken the painstaking effort of transcribing the 1988 debates here: http://nathanielkoh.blogspot.com/2009/04/transcript-of-1988-tv-debate-on
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
type in the chinese names here and you will know who would be the best choice for the next P. Only one obvious choice.
http://www.name321.com/zzcm.htm
sgmy，the website accuracy not there…
SERS is a HDB scheme to rehouse sitting lessees for the taking and redevelopment of their flats in existing HDB block(s]. The HDB would only redevelop when it sees an opportunity to gain development profits from the SERS site to be redeveloped or if profits is not the objective, the maximization of land use. For the opportunity to make redevelopment profits or maximization of land use, HDB would be obliged to sell to its previous lessees ousted from the site, new HDB flats at subsidized or discounted prices, presumably in order to compensate the lessees for their trouble in being moved from their original flats. Therefore there should be no loss by the HDB or the Land Office. The subsidies to buy flats are only for the relevant lessees who were moved and rehoused. From this brief description of the rationale and the mechanism of SERS one can see that the beneficiaries are very specific to a select group of citizens involved in the SERS scheme.
Because it does not involve a loss to the State but only gains to a specific group of rehoused lessees, SERS could never be a candidate for using money from the reserves.
Moreover whether to do a SERS is not an urgent matter affecting the lives of the citizenry in any significant way that requires taking money from the State Reserves. It smacks of frivolity to use money from the Reserves to do SERS. Present Nathan should be questioned why he released money from the reserves for SERS projects.
On giving his answers, we will know what kind of President was he. More importantly his answers would typify the kind of President we shall vote into office this month of August 2011.
Any President that does not do more for the people will be viewed negatively as weak and incompetent. People will clamor for him to be removed. The President must be seen as a thinker and not just a ceremonial and custodial function. The President must articulate the citizens concern to galvanize the society and speak up against the government and be governed by higher laws of humanity/morality/spirituality.
Hi Remy,
Great piece. You should really write more often. Such pieces are the reasons why I read TOC but not the other trash site.
You have help me firmed up my choice, not a easy one and I believe he is the best for the post.
an article that should have been titled “much ado about nothing”. if you are going to give a view on things, for goodness sake make a statement… if your point of view is to sit on the fence, then why even bother?
Between Dr. Tony Tan and Dr. Tan CB, I believe at this moment Dr. Tan CB will be more suited to assume the role of Presdient as he will be a less divisive figure amongst the four candidates.
In my opinion, it is unfortunate that this election for the nation’s President has turned into a GE 2.0 where candidates are seen as pro or against PAP. Likely, the votes will probably go like 60%-70% for Tony Tan (PAP) and 40% shared between the other 3 Tans.
I say it is unfortunate because the President is supposed to be an ‘apolitical’ unifying force where all Singaporeans of all walks of life are supposed to be able to identify with. In his traditional role of a ceremony head of state, he is supposed to be the voice of compassion for the average man on the street and one whom the average man on the street can perhaps turn to to champion social injustices or to pursue social causes that the incumbent government may have overlooked or where the influence of the office of the Presidency will bring greater effect then a politically charged government machinery.
Regrettably however, by introducing the Elected Presidency scheme, whose good intention is to protect the nation’s hard earn savings in case an irresponsible or less then wise government comes into power through the electoral process, the traditional role of the presidency has been compromised and this election made more complicated to the average citizen. This latter is caused, in my view, by the following:
1) the custodian role of the institution of the EP will come into force when an unwise government is elected into office. His role as custodian of the national reserves will be key to protecting the hard earned wealth of the nation from being squandered. However, when a responsible government like those presently in power is functioning, this role is not called into play, especially from the perspective of the incumbent government. In this situation, the government in power, as is the case now, will prefer someone whose thinking is more attuned to its policy and therefore able to work alongside rather then second guess the intentions of the incumbent government. The fact that the PAP endorses its own candidate like Tony Tan is therefore nothing neither unusual nor surprising. This is natural and happens also in boards of public listed companies where Independent Directors, for instance, are known to and specially chosen by majority shareholders. For the most part, what benefits the country should benefit, to a greater of lesser extent, Singaporeans as well. As such the EP, as a counterbalancing force or check on the government’s use of reserves, is seldom required. From this perspective, Dr. Tony Tan is indeed an ideal choice to fit this particular custodian role of the EP given his international stature and financial competence and also as DPM before, the PM and other ministers will be able to respect and defer to his judgment when such judgment is called upon.
2) Unfortunately, coming at a time when Singaporeans are feeling alienated from the government and when Singaporeans feel that economic growth has been achieved at the expense of their economic well being and where their sacrifices and citizenship seem to mean less, Singaporeans are perhaps looking, rightly or wrongly, to their Elected President to champion their cause and be a voice for them at a time when they feel powerless and without a representative voice before a “all knowing” and “wise” government. For a segment of the population (40% using the last GE results) who felt disengaged from the incumbent government, the role of the EP as their alternative voice become more important then the EP’s custodian role. In reality however, whether in the past or present, constitutionally, the President’s role as an alternative voice for the people who are against the government’s view is highly limited whether he is elected or appointed. Singaporeans hoping for the Elected President to play this alternative voice role will be disappointed. Both Dr. Tony Tan and Dr Tan CB are honest enough so far not to create this sense of false hope for the electorate and I salute them for it. However, as I mentioned earlier, an apolitical President, whether elected or appointed, can be a unifying force especially at a time like this where a large segment of the population is skeptical toward the incumbent government. From this perspective, the election of Dr. Tony Tan who is supported and closely aligned to the PAP will further reinforce the negative view of the incumbent government by a large segment of the electorate and exacts a heavy future political price. In my view, Dr. Tan CB will relatively speaking be a better choice for the unifying role of the EP as I believe he will be better perceived as a less politically aligned individual and also better able to empathize with the average Singaporean. Unfortunately, his financial acumen and experience will not match those of Dr. Tony Tan. Also, as he is not the supported choice of the incumbent government, his voice and influence may be limited which is unfortunate. This therefore presents a dilemma for voters as I believe both these candidates have their merits depending on which role is more important.
Personally for me, I like to see a less divided country and therefore will go for Dr. Tan CB.
Regardless of who takes on the role of the EP, it is unfortunate that this Presidential Election has turned into another GE2 and therefore potentially divisive. The PAP strong and overt suport for Dr. Tony Tan, who is no doubt an eminently qualified individual, is regrettably in my opinion a poor political judgement.
Trust the instinct tjs is not dividing, he is only checking pappies for us.
Even if divide, better divide abit now for clarity rather than further bankrupt of cpf and reserves which would be extremely rude shock
What is tcb unifying worth without clarity of accounts and without power, we will just be spineless citizens or rather famously rafts to be used mercilessly and dafts to Be bullied by foreigners. Cost of living is one of them.
Tt wants to be super star ep, but what is shameful is that he did lost so much money when deputy chairman was him. And he bullied via using our money for foreign students
education, the world and the foreign students eventually are laughing all the way on sg local citizens
@Sa,
As an ordinary citizen myself, I can well appreciate and empathise with this sense of powerlessness and lack of avenue to express them and influence policies that affect us daily – cost of living pressures, falling real incomes, crowdedness, employment opportunities etc. The opposition voice in parliament is at the moment too small to be of help either although we can see some light at the end of the tunnel from the last GE. Latter should make the incumbent government sit up and reflect and only time will tell whether this will translate into to more Singaporean oriented policies.
We need to be aware however that the President’s real power is constitutionally limited, so I would not want to put too much hope in seeing it as an opposition party to the government as that will be problematic. I think we need to be careful at the promises of change made by TSJ & TKL as to their potential role and ability to influence becuase I think they will not be able to deliver on them. Then the electorate will feel even more let down and disappointed. So do vote wisely my friend.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020210gl.htm
we need a guy to dig out the truth we dont need another 4M per year cover up yes man.
@divided people
It is better to check now than to be truly further bankrupt of our cpf and reserves later on.
Clarity will provide direction clearly what to do next.
Reproduced from tre below :
Compelling reasons to vote Tan Jee Say over Tan Cheng Bock
There are compelling reasons why to vote TJS over TCB.
Firstly, as stated by our government, the duty of the EP is to protect the reserves from an unscrupulous government which might seek to embezzle the reserves for its own gain.
This itself, requires the EP to have the strength of character to go against an elected government.
In short, it means that an EP must have the GUTS to put his neck on the line, and go against the rulings of the incumbent parliament.
As a responsible voter, if we are to choose a the best person for the job, we must thus evaluate the character of the candidates.
So, who has more guts?
TJS who gave up his high official position and put it all on the line rather than sitting back and nua-ing for the rest of his life in the civil service, and wait to be granted a MP position for free by tom-panging into parliament with incumbent MPs.
Not only that, he dared to join the general elections, and put his career and personal ties with the ruling party in jeopardy once and for all.
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is called GUTS and independence of mind.
TCB? Well, it’s true that he is displaying a huge amount of independence by making promises and rebutting PAP ministers now. But he is doing this from a position of SAFETY.
He has nothing to lose in this case, because if he loses, he still holds the potential of being be co-opted into PAP again, and champion a george yeo-esque PAP image of “ministers which are out to seek change within the PAP”.
In short, TCB has thus far risked nothing of his own, and if he had the GUTS, he would have fought on the opposition side during the GE, and not waited till now to make a move.
In short, he had bided his time, and waited for a time of his choosing to participate.
Biding for time itself is an action that requires a certain level of suspicion. If a person is out to make a change, should he wait for the right moment? Or should he jump in as soon as he possibly can? Why must one wait until the elections for an EP to begin to make a change?
For good or ill, his lack of participation in GE, and the fact that now he is claiming to be a ‘maverick’ to fight against the PAP, simply shows contradictions of character in this man TCB.
Even if this contradiction of character were not true, TJS still fulfilled the criteria of character – GUTSY-NESS – by risking it all, and TCB did not.
Thus in a technical sense of voting an EP which needs guts to checkmate an unscrupulous government, TJS should take it.
Well, if Singaporeans have any logic that is.
We lost to state media again
Online media pls buck up
Phony Tony’s victory marks a day of ignominy for Singapore’s democracy.
The PAP’s ploy worked. By granting the COE to Tan Jee Say when he clearly does not qualify enabled the PAP to use TJS to split the Opposition camp’s votes. Tragic.