Connect with us

Politics

George Goh expresses his gratitude for the support he received from charity sale

George Goh, founder of Harvey Norman Ossia, thanked the public for supporting his team’s charity sale. Unable to run in the Presidential Election, he sold surplus campaign items, donating all proceeds to Secondmeal. Goh expressed disappointment over the PEC’s rejection and challenged the Constitution’s eligibility criteria. The PEC, defending its decision, clarified that multiple smaller organizations don’t equate to a single enterprise.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: George Goh, the founder of Harvey Norman Ossia, took to his Facebook page to thank the public for supporting his team’s charity sale.

Mr Goh, who could not participate in the upcoming Presidential Election slated for 1 September, decided to sell his and his team’s surplus campaign items and donate all profits.

On 23 August afternoon, he announced via Facebook that he and his team would make their Presidential campaign items available at a charity sale on the coming weekend, 26 and 27 August, from 10 am to 4 pm.

Every income generated from the sale will be allocated to Secondmeal, a non-profit organization that is devoted to providing meals to those who lack access to them.

According to his recent Facebook post, which he uploaded on 27 August, Mr Goh and his team managed to raise a total of S$8606.61, which will sponsor 2150 meals for those in need.

“It has been so wonderful meeting each one of you and hearing each of your stories.

You have made a difference with your support today!” Mr Goh said in his post.

He also extended his gratitude to Casper from Secondmeal, who was present on both days of the charity sale.

Mr Goh also shared a link for those who would like to support Secondmeal in his post.

He was also present on both days of the charity sale at around 2-4pm, which took place at 118 Joo Chiat Road, S (427407), #02-03.

George Goh had previously expressed his dissatisfaction regarding PEC’s rejection for presidential candidacy

On 18 August, The Elections Department (ELD) revealed the list of qualified candidates for the upcoming Presidential Election.

Former Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, ex-GIC Chief Investment Officer Ng Kok Song, and former presidential aspirant Tan Kin Lian have successfully secured their positions on the list.

Unfortunately, businessman George Goh did not obtain a Certificate of Eligibility, as he did not meet the requirements during the application process.

In a statement, Goh expressed his disappointment, saying, “I am deeply disheartened by the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC)’s decision to reject my application for a certificate of eligibility.”

“My team and I put forth a compelling case detailing my expertise and achievements in managing five firms that met the equity and profitability benchmarks. Yet, the PEC dismissed our argument, suggesting that my experience did not equate to that of a CEO of a single enterprise.”

Addressing the press regarding the PEC’s decision, Goh commented that it was “a very sad day,” but he harbored no regrets about entering the fray.

He mentioned that he had a cadre of advisors, comprising some of “Singapore’s top professionals”, bolstering his confidence in his qualifications.

“Are you implying they were mistaken? That seems improbable. They all come from within the system,” he argued during a press conference at his residence on Friday afternoon. “I cannot reconcile with their decision. I genuinely believe it lacks fairness.”

George Goh’s claims regarding eligibility rationale refuted by PEC

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

However, certain analysts had previously raised doubts about the legitimacy of combining average shareholder equity from multiple companies to meet the stipulated criterion.

This uncertainty arises from the phrasing in the Singapore Constitution, which refers to “a private sector organisation” rather than multiple such organizations.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr. Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

In an effort to directly address the controversy, the PEC released a media statement on Friday (18 Aug) night.

The statement announced the committee’s intention to publish its letter sent to Mr Goh.

This letter would elucidate the reasoning behind the denial of his certificate of eligibility.

Within the statement, the PEC highlighted that the Constitution tasks the committee with evaluating whether an applicant has gained experience and competence from overseeing a single, prominent private sector entity.

PEC clarified, “The experience and ability that comes from managing multiple smaller private sector organisations is not equivalent to this.”

Based on its assessment, the committee concluded that the five companies Mr Goh presented did not meet the criteria of “a single private sector organisation.”

While the Elections Department had initially indicated on Friday morning that the reasons for rejections would not be publicly disclosed, following the 2016 Constitutional Commission’s guidelines, it did note that unsuccessful candidates like Mr Goh could access the Committee’s reasoning and subsequently choose to have it disclosed.

This practice aims to prevent potential candidates from being discouraged due to a possible “fear of embarrassment.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Comments

Redditors question support for PAP over perceived arrogance and authoritarian attitude

Despite Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s warning that slimmer electoral margins would limit the government’s political space “to do the right things”, many Redditors questioned their support for the ruling PAP, criticising its perceived arrogance. They argued that SM Lee’s remarks show the party has ‘lost its ways’ and acts as if it alone can determine what is right. Others noted that the PAP’s supermajority allows for the passage of unfavourable policies without adequate scrutiny.

Published

on

In a recent speech, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned that “if electoral margins get slimmer, the government will have less political space to do the right things.”

Mr Lee, who served as Prime Minister for 20 years, highlighted the risks associated with increasingly competitive politics.

“It will become harder to disregard short-term considerations in decision-making. The political dynamics will become very different,” he stated during his speech at the Annual Public Service Leadership Ceremony 2024 on 17 September.

“Singaporeans must understand the dangers this creates, and so must the public service,” SM Lee stressed.

SM Lee pointed out that Singapore faces formidable internal and external challenges in the years ahead, with rising expectations and demands from citizens.

As growth becomes harder to achieve and politics becomes more fiercely contested, he warned, “Things can go wrong for Singapore too.”

He urged vigilance in preparing for an uncertain future, noting, “As the world changes, and as the generations change, we must do our best to renew our system – to ensure that it continues to work well for us, even as things change.”

Critique of PAP’s Arrogance and Disconnect from Singaporeans

The People’s Action Party (PAP) experienced a notable decline in its vote share during the 2020 General Election, securing 61.24% of the votes and winning 83 out of 93 seats, a drop from 69.9% in 2015.

A significant loss was in Sengkang GRC, where the PAP team, led by former Minister Ng Chee Meng, was defeated by the Workers’ Party (WP).

In discussions on Reddit, some users questioned why they should support the ruling PAP, criticising the party’s perceived arrogance.

They pointed out that SM Lee’s recent remarks illustrate that the party has strayed from effectively serving Singaporeans and seems to believe it has the sole authority to decide what is right.

Others highlighted that the PAP’s super-majority in Parliament enables the passage of unfavourable policies without sufficient scrutiny.

One comment acknowledged that while many older Singaporeans remain loyal to the PAP due to its past achievements, younger generations feel the party has failed to deliver similar results.

There is significant frustration that essentials like housing and the cost of living have become less affordable compared to previous generations.

The comment emphasised the importance of the 2011 election results, which they believe compelled the PAP to reassess its policies, especially concerning foreign labor and job security.

He suggested that to retain voter support, the PAP must continue to ensure a good material standard of living.

“Then, I ask you, vote PAP for what? They deserve to lose a supermajority. Or else why would they continue to deliver the same promises they delivered to our parents? What else would get a bunch of clueless bureaucrats to recognise their problems?”

Emphasising Government Accountability to the Public

Another Redditor argued that it is the government’s responsibility to be accountable to the people.

He further challenged SM Lee’s assertion about having less political space to do the right things, questioning his authority to define what is “right” for Singapore.

The comment criticised initiatives like the Founder’s Memorial and the NS Square, suggesting they may serve to boost the egos of a few rather than benefit the broader population. The Redditor also questioned the justification for GST hikes amid rising living costs.

“Policies should always be enacted to the benefit of the people, and it should always be the people who decide what is the best course of action for our country. No one should decide that other than us.”

The comment called for an end to narratives that present the PAP as the only party capable of rescuing Singapore from crises, stating that the country has moved past the existential challenges of its founding era and that innovative ideas can come from beyond a single political party.

Another comment echoed this sentiment, noting that by stating this, SM Lee seemingly expects Singaporeans to accept the PAP’s assumption that they—and by extension, the government and public service—will generally do the “right things.”

“What is conveniently overlooked is that the point of having elections is to have us examine for ourselves if we accept that very premise, and vote accordingly.”

A comment further argued that simply losing a supermajority does not equate to a lack of political space for the government to make the right decisions.

The Redditor express frustration with SM Lee’s rhetoric, suggesting that he is manipulating public perception to justify arbitrary changes to the constitution.

Concerns Over PAP’s Supermajority in Parliament

Another comment pointed out that the PAP’s supermajority in Parliament enables the passage of questionable and controversial policies, bypassing robust debate and discussion.

The comment highlighted the contentious constitutional amendments made in late 2016, which reserved the elected presidency for candidates from a specific racial group if no president from that group had served in the previous five terms.

A comment highlighted the contrast: in the past, the PAP enjoyed a wide electoral margin because citizens believed they governed effectively. Now, the PAP claims that without a substantial electoral margin, they cannot govern well.

Continue Reading

Comments

Tan Kiat How: Police called after resident ‘became aggressive’ at meet-the-people session

Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How shared on TikTok that police were called to his meet-the-people session (MPS) in Bedok on Monday (17 Sept) evening after a resident ‘became a little more aggressive’, reportedly over a job issue. While the PAP MP emphasized the efforts made to assist residents, some netizens questioned the volunteers’ handling of the situation and urged more proactive measures from the MP.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Police were called to a meet-the-people session (MPS) in Bedok after a resident became aggressive, causing a disturbance, according to Member of Parliament (MP) for East Coast GRC Tan Kiat How.

Mr Tan, who represents the Kampong Chai Chee ward, addressed the incident in a TikTok video posted on Monday (17 September).

In the video, Mr Tan, who is also Senior Minister of State for National Development, emphasised the need for mutual respect at these sessions, which are intended to be safe spaces for both residents and volunteers.

“It was unfortunate that the police had to be called to MPS today when a resident became a little more aggressive,” Mr Tan said, acknowledging the incident that occurred during the Monday MPS session at Block 408 Bedok North Avenue 2.

Mr Tan expressed empathy for the challenges faced by residents but urged individuals attending MPS to remain respectful towards volunteers.

“Sometimes you see such cases at MPS, where one of the residents get more aggressive and can be a little bit more violent,” he noted.

He added that while efforts are made to assist residents, certain matters are beyond their control.

“For example, we can’t write to a government agency to demand the agency to offer a job to a person … but we can facilitate and make sure that opportunities are available for our residents,” he explained.

@tankiathow

It was unfortunate that the police had to be called to #MPS today when a resident became a little more aggressive. We always do our best to help #KampongChaiChee residents, but some things are beyond our control. Let’s work towards mutual respect and ensure MPS remains a safe space for both residents and volunteers. #caringeastcoast

♬ Future – Official Sound Studio

Netizens Question Volunteers’ Handling of Situation and Call for Greater Action from MP

The incident drew numerous responses on TikTok, with some expressing support for Mr Tan and others sympathising with the unnamed resident.

One comment suggested that the individual may have been “desperate” for a solution to their issue, while another urged patience, noting that not all cases can be resolved immediately.

Separately, Mr Tan responded to one user by confirming that he had previously helped the resident’s parents.

Some questioned whether the issue arose from a lack of tact by certain volunteers in handling the situation, suggesting that they receive proper training to address residents’ concerns effectively.

In response, Mr Tan emphasized that his volunteers always do their best and that empathy is crucial in such situations.

Another user noted that empathy should be mutual, suggesting that while residents are trying their best, they may feel they have no other solutions, urging Mr Tan to show greater understanding.

One comment pointed out that something significant might have affected the resident, possibly leading them to drastic actions, and called for more proactive measures from the MP rather than just expressing empathy.

This is not the first time an MPS has been marked by aggression.

In 2018, Jurong GRC MP Tan Wu Meng was assaulted by a 32-year-old man, leaving him with injuries.

The assailant was arrested after rushing into the MPS area and attacking Dr Tan.

Similarly, in 2009, Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Seng Han Thong was attacked when a resident doused him with paint thinner and set him on fire. Mr Seng survived but required extensive medical treatment.

Continue Reading

Trending