TR EMERITUS

I don’t think it comes as a surprise to anyone that I had initially planned to vote for Mr Tan Kin Lian in this Presidential Election. But after hearing Mr Tan’s utterances on some issues over the past week, I found myself (and I suspect like many of you) wavering in my support of his candidacy. I am not enthusiastic, for different reasons, about all three candidates. And yet, come Friday, I have to make a decision. To this end, I am reminded that life seldom packages things neatly into good and bad, right and wrong for us to choose. The reality is that we are often faced with moral dilemmas where we have to choose the best from a bad lot. On this, we must remember a very important life lesson: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. While I consider Mr Tharman to be the most cerebral of the three candidates, what is more important is the fact that for more than two decades, he was part of the ruling clique that systematically stripped Singaporeans of their voice and ability to choose their own leaders. He was in the party that (1) changed the rules of the Elected Presidency so that Halimah Yacob walked into the Istana without challenge, (2) enacted yet more changes to the PE so that previously eligible candidates are now disqualified, (3) introduced the GRC system that has enabled his party’s overwhelming hold on parliamentary power, (4) legislated POFMA which further curtailed free speech in Singapore, (5) allowed ministers to rent enormous state-owned bungalows while herding Singaporeans into tiny flats – the list rolls on. To believe now that he is independent running for president is to believe that water flows upwards. Then, there’s Tan Kin Lian. I know of two young women who are eligible to vote this PE. They are strong-minded and fiercely independent. They are my daughters and I am their biggest admirer. This is the reason I find Mr Tan’s “pretty girl” remark off-colour. Intended or not, his comments trivialise the worth of women and does nothing to advance their empowerment and promote gender equality. I’m glad that he has apologised for them. I also find myself in deep conflict with his view that the voting age be raised to 30. If my son, who is about to serve his National Service, can be called upon to fight in an armed conflict should one break out, and be trusted to make decisions that could mean the difference between dying and living for himself and his platoon mates, then why can’t he be trusted to choose his government? To ask a man to kill or be killed for his country and then deny him of the right to vote seems illogical – indeed, deeply immoral. Three, Mr Tan said that "I don't believe politics solves problems” and that "opposition does not help”. I can only hope that he was misquoted or his words were taken out of context. Many of us spent our lives fighting for a system in which political parties, civil society and non-government organisations actively participate in political debate and public life. To make throwaway lines like this is reprehensible. I’ve heard many people who were initially inclined towards voting for Mr Tan are now, because of his remarks, expressing their desire to cast a spoilt vote or voting for Mr Ng Kok Song. If you are thinking of doing this, I beseech you to re-consider your decision. To spoil your vote is akin to doing nothing; it’s like standing around and watching while a house is on fire. At this crucial juncture of our country’s development, we cannot afford to remain a bystander and do nothing. The last time we got to vote for a president was in 2011. After 12 long years, we finally get that chance again. That vote is too precious to spoil. As to voting for Mr Mg Kok Song, I can do no better than to remind you of what Mdm Ho Ching said: “It is good that Singaporeans can choose between 2 very capable and worthy persons (Tharman and Ng).” I think Mdm Ho very ably expresses my concern about voting for Mr Ng Kok Song – he and Mr Tharman are but two different shades of grey. For all that he has expressed, much of which as I pointed out I vehemently disagree with, Mr Tan Kin Lian is a good man. I share his views on CPF, high salaries of elected officials, and National Service. But that’s not the reason why I find myself advocating for him at this late stage of the election. The real reason is this: All of Mr Tan’s transgressions pale in comparison to the damage that Mr Tharman’s (former) party has done to democracy in Singapore and, more importantly, the harm it will continue to inflict on our nation’s future development. Besides, Mr Tan’s views are not immutable. He can be educated through debate and discussion to see things differently (as with his apology about women). On this occasion, we, as citizens, are called to make a profoundly important decision, a decision that will determine the direction of how our country proceeds. We have in Tan Kin Lian who, for all his foibles, carries with him the hope that, if elected, we can start to pry open, one finger at a time, the PAP’s suffocating grip on our country and start the arduous but exciting process of building democracy for our nation. As imperfect as the choice on Friday is, if it helps to “build a democratic society, based on justice and equality”, then it should be clear who we choose. I choose Singapore.   Dr Chee Soon Juan      Read More →

It seems like the clickbait for the voters this Friday is what is perceived bias. And Tharman is the main target. He is the one to beat this PE. He is the center of attention. This is NKS’ main thrust for his compaign. He knows Tharman stands tall on his past track records, both within the cabinet and as a finance minister. It’s unimpeachable. As finance minister, he argued that Tharman is beholden to the ruling party. NKS said: “You need somebody who knows enough about the subject, but who is not biased. It’s very difficult for someone who set up the system to question the system.” But Tharman is calling for more critical thinking. He asked for the electoral to “avoid simple labels”. Instead, judge the presidential hopeful based strictly on character and track record. Tharman can’t erase his past. It is what it is. He is in fact where he is today because of what it was before. If it were a system set up by WP, for example, as the nation’s ruling party, in an alternate universe, I believe he will still excel. Because what is consistent or timeles is the character of the person. When that prevailing virtue meets a system, where reasonably fair opportunities and autonomy are granted and protected, the majority will still be able to flourish, or make a decent living. Of course, what is “decent” varies over time, especially with rising inequality gaps that play insidiously on our collective envy and individual ego. Anyway, for Tharman, it was a long, arduous journey to prominence, on a system painstakingly set up by the ruling party. A hand that is now often accused of meddling more than is necessary. He was earmarked for the system, groomed by the system, and thereafter, seen as a product of the system. But it is a system based principally on a set of principles, that is, rule of law, meritocracy, regardless of race, and so on. Tharman had abided by those principles to prove himself worthy of its high calling and standards. It was a privileged rise on a principled footing. And you can say the same for NKS and TKL. In many ways, even if denied today for whatever agenda, they all benefited from the system. It is not a perfect system. We all know that. Merit is too narrowly defined, laying the cornerstone for entrenched powers and privileges the ruling class rather not bring attention to for obvious reasons. And the recent scandals and investigation into corruption demonstrate the immutable reality that you can’t ringfence human free will; lest we lose what it means to be human, which is the autonomy that offers us the gift, joy and pain of being alive. A slave to that system does not experience such aliveness, or even come close to it. That said, Tharman’s brush with the law in the early 1990s (fined $1.5k for disclosing state secrets) made his journey even more exceptional, since it is a system that is supposedly whiter than white. Mind you, this was during MM’s time, under his stern watch. Yet, that did nothing to dent Tharman’s rise to high positions and ministeries, residing at the heart of government. The irony to all this is that while NKS, TKL and GG struggled with the uncertainty of whether they would qualify, with one casualty, Tharman is the only presidential hopeful where depending on hope to qualify is redundant. He is in fact overqualified, as some had argued. Well, he is not called the nuclear option for nothing. As such, he would be more productive as the nation’s executive head, regardless of race or colour, rather than a largely ceremonial head of state. And this leaves room for the critical minds to infer whether the hand of government that has shaped the system for more than five decades was also overreaching, to some extent. A case of over-shaping? Alas, the debate can go on and on. The ballot box is just too small to contain all conspiracy theories, whether real or imagined. Ultimately, as a general observation, we are dealing with a human system, where even principles can be a means to one’s end, rather as an end in itself. In any event, we have two more days to elect our president. Most times, the centrality/relevancy of our vote also depends on the options available, and whether the options give the voters the exacting competition they deserve. And even if all that is established, democracy on paper may work like a dignified gentleman, that is, junzi; however, we know that in raw reality, democracy on the street operates like a lover spurned or scorned - hell has no fury as such. It is more an emotional vote than a rational one. Maybe the silent majority is listening? Good luck then, at the ballot boxes!   Michael Han * The author is a Director at Hoh Law Corporation and blogs on Facebook.      Read More →

I think this Presidential Election will be the watershed election in the history of Singapore. Depending on how we vote, this elected presidency may be the last! I have never seen so much discussions and activities about any presidential election in the past. Despite the fact that there are no public rallies, this election is very much alive. People have taken time to be at the nomination centre, make tiktok videos every day, write, publish and share all kinds of articles and jokes online. Many have responded to the call by civil society to observe the election as polling and counting agents so as to ensure a free and fair election. See [LINK] We have heard all the candidates speak at the CNA forum, independent channels and various interviews they gave during their walkabouts. Who shall we vote for? For me, the only question I ask myself as to who I will vote for is this: DO WE NEED A PROBLEM SOLVER OR A SUPER GLORIFIED PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER able to charm world leaders and cover up all the flaws of the PAP government? The world is in turmoil today. There are wars and civil unrests in many countries. There are many hotspots where trigger happy leaders can easily start a war. Climate change has gravely affected us and progress to improve this situation is going at a snail pace. On the home front, the poor are becoming poorer. Prices of HDB flats have gone beyond the reach of the ordinary hardworking citizens. Food prices have doubled and tripled. Water and electricity bills have gone up. COE has gone beyond $100,000. And GST is surely going up in the next few months. In other words, the rich are becoming richer and the poor very much poorer. But these are not the only problems. The scandals exposed in recent times – money laundering activities, corruption charges faced by Minister Iswaran, the Ridout Road saga involving two ministers and the resignation of the Speaker. All these have certainly opened our eyes to the weakness of the PAP government. It has shattered the myth that million dollar salaries will guarantee honesty. So who then can best attempt to solve the problems we face today? Of the three candidates, two are from the establishment. Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam was until recently, a senior minister in the PAP government. He therefore had a hand in all the problems we face today. Can he solve the problems he created? Is he willing to criticise himself? Mr Ng Kok Song manages his investment company Avanda Investment Management which he formed soon after he retired from GIC. Temasek Holdings invested S$4 billion in his company. Is he therefore beholden to the government? Coming to Mr Tan Kin Lian, he was a PAP cadre member in his younger days and helped Mr Goh Chok Tong in Marine Parade. But unlike Mr Tharman who left the PAP two months ago, he left the PAP more than 15 years ago. Since then he has been involved in civil society work, helping minibond holders to recover their lost investments, giving speeches about complicating insurance policies and speaking up on current issues at Hong Lim Park. It is noted that neither Mr Tharman nor Mr Ng has ever made an appearance at Hong Lim Park. Of the three candidates, only Mr Tan uses the public transport. He eats at hawkers’ centres. I don’t see Mr Tharman eating at hawkers’ centres with his bodyguards. For sure, he does not use the public transport. So what do the other two candidates know about the problems face by the ordinary people? They may perform well on world stage with audience in suits. They may speak high flown English. Mr Tan Kin Lian speaks with the typical Singaporean accent and uses simple words to convey his thoughts. The world and Singapore urgently need a problem solver, one who can think out of the box and not a glorified public relations officer who can turn black into white. We need a president who will call a spade a spade. We don’t need a magician who can charm the world and bring fame to the PAP government. We need a president who when he travels abroad, will not join an old boys’ networks in creating more problems for the world than solving the existing ones. Some experts tell us that the president is powerless as he has always to be guided by the cabinet and his presidential advisers. If he is so powerless, then he would be twiddling his thumbs and we might as well save the monthly salary of $1.5 million and the salaries of his eight advisers which is also more than $1 million. Only a lazy and uncreative president will enjoy six years of doing nothing. I am confident that Mr Tan Kin Lian with his actuary training will not be twiddling his thumbs but will be active in solving the serious problems facing Singapore and the world today. His weekly meetings with the prime minister will not be the business as usual kind. He will discuss serious problems that will ensure that our government is accountable to us, the people. We are his customers like when he was CEO at NTUC. This presidential election is crucial. I echo the call by Mr Ng Kok Song and Mr Tharman that voting is important. Invalid and blank votes do not help decide our future. I will vote for Mr Tan Kin Lian. If he is elected, life as a president will not be easy. But he says he is a problem solver and I hope he will enjoy the challenges. Good luck Mr Tan!   Teo Soh Lung      Read More →