TR EMERITUS

Whether you are clairvoyant or not it can safely be said that fate has raken a hand in the presidential election. Therefore it cannot be flabbergasting to our voters that the most promising prospective candidate George Goh can be a casualty by default not of his own making at the whim of fate or not the too remote possibility of a hidden hand. What does this mean to the voters? The first question that should be asked can this be another black operation considering that one had just been executed successfully under the nose of ISD agsinst WP MP Leon Perera and senior cadre Nicole Seah? With George Goh out of the way no one can deny that the coast is clear for Tharman Shanmugaratnam to romp home to capture the presidency. George Goh has very high credentials, not academic, and charism that could easily dwaft that of Tharman.You can see that he is a man of the people in his walkabout. Unless you are blind Tharman is typically a dyed- in-the-wool establishment figure however he tried to whitewash himself. It is patently obvious that George Goh is a great stumbling block to Tharman's presidential ambition. Who would benefit the most from George Goh's disqualification? Before this you could hear refrain from the people that their head may go to Tharman but their heart is definitely for George Goh. The prize of the presidency will now be fought by three prospective candidates. Despite his deeply-tainted establishment cachet Tharman will be able to beguile more voters than any of his rival candidates.to vote for him. Ng Kok Song is a gallant challenger but notwithstanding his so-called exalted credentials as Chief Investment Officer of GIC I think he falls quite short compared with Tharman. He does not have the charisma of George Goh nor his down-to-earth personailty which mesmerises the crowd. Ng Kok Song's age may also be a handicap. I must leave out my comment on Tan Kin LIan. It's possible that he may even lose his deposit. Do you thnk that there will be blank votes by voters who are pissed?   Yoong Siew Wah * The author was the Director of Singapore’s Internal Security Department (ISD) from 1971 to 1974. He was Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in the 1960s, and had a distinguished career in the Singapore Special Branch in the 1950s. Mr Yoong has granted TR Emeritus exclusive right to his memoir, to be published on an independent website (work in progress), upon his passing.       Read More →

I am happy to announce that I have received the Certificate of Eligibility to contest the presidential election 2023. The letter from the Presidential Election Committee said: The Committee noted that you were the Chief Executive Officer of NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Limited for a period exceeding 3 years. Based on the information available to the Committee, it is satisfied that you are a man of integrity, good character and reputation. The Committee is also satisfied, having regard to the nature of your office in NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Limited, the size and complexity of NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Limited and your performance in the office, that you have experience and ability that is comparable to the experience and ability of a person who has served as the chief executive of a typical company with at least S$500 million of shareholder’s equity and who satisfies Article 19(4)(a) of the Constitution in relation to such service. The Committee is also satisfied that you have the experience and ability to effectively carry out the functions and duties of the office of President. I thank the Presidential Election Committee for their favorable decision and also, for releasing it a few days earlier. This would enable me to prepare for the campaign earlier and with greater certainty. My volunteers and I will work hard in the campaign to offer to the people of Singapore the choice of electing an president who is independent of the ruling government. If elected, I will use the office of the president to work with the government on ways to improve the lives of the people, in particular to reduce the cost of living, make housing affordable and have secure and well paying jobs. I am personally disappointed that Mr. George Goh was not eligible to contest this election. I like to wish Mr. Goh all the best in his future endeavors.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

The president once elected performs a custodial role of checks and balances of our past reserves (that is, reserves which were not accumulated during the present term of government). Prof Eugene K.B. Tan (“Prof Eugene”) writes it clear, and with considerable detail in the article this morning - “Elected presidency: Going beyond simplistic understanding of independence”. In summary, as a backdrop, we have to operate within our one-party dominat political system. Independence must therefore be a means, and not an end, for propaganda sake. In other words, as Singaporeans, we must discern the meaning of what is required or expected of him when we vote for a president who is deemed independent. The surface understanding of it is that he was not affiliated to, or a member of, a political party, or in any government institution under the leadership of that particular political party. Prof Eugene invites us to delve deeper. He wrote: “Independence is not solely about whether one has past affiliation to a political party, including the ruling party, or the government. A president with no prior political or establishment affiliation is not independent if he chooses to deliberately or unnecessarily thwart the work of the elected government.” “Similarly, where a president chooses to further his private interests, he is clearly not independent and could even be abusing his office.” The president thus checks and balances the past reserves and the integrity of key appointments to public service (eg CJ, judges, AG, Auditor-general, CPIB director, police commissioner, etc) before he green-lights it. That is as far as his power goes. It’s ceremonial, symbolic and largely restricted. He is not there to meddle with how the Govt is run; at least not for show or electoral bravado. His electoral purpose shouldn’t clash with the electoral purpose of the Govt of the day, even if that is what some voters want. He shouldn’t oppose for the sake of opposing, and neither should he give that impression as a populist means to a largely limited or highly circumscribed end. Prof Eugene raises a relevant issue here. Though independence is important, notwithstanding past political offices held, he said that there are two grounds for removing the EP. First is obvious enough; permanently incapable due to mental and physical infirmity. Second is the relevant part; where the president is found guilty of intentional violation of the Constitution, eg, treason, misconduct or corruption involving the abuse of powers of his office, or fraud committed, dishonesty, moral turpitude, and knowingly making misleading or false statements. That warrants removal. To lead with integrity and moral uprightness, you need a good and strong character, with durable courage and resilience during one’s term in office. That is an independence of the mind and heart, and not about any independence from some past political affiliations. Now, I am not saying that one’s friendships and connection cannot lead to corruption. But presidential independence means much more than that. It is what one does in office that he will be judged critically, and not what positions he had held in the past that he should solely be assessed against. One is judged based on presumed prejudices, and the other is based on actual performance and results; which draws a trail from past dedication and commitment. And on a most practical note, we have to admit that, in our current political system, if one’s chances of running is tied to whether one is a member of the ruling party in the past, then you are disqualifying a large segment of potentially capable candidates, which as OTC has shown, is just unworkable, if not absurd (curiously, OTC was a controversial figure then, both as a foundation shaker and an election first, but now, history remembers him warmly). So, what then does one mean when he or she says he/she will discharge the duties “without fear or favour”? I suspect this election, with George and Tan as possible candidates, may just turn on that “favour” bit. Can former PAP ministers or GIC investment heads be trusted to act with integrity, impartiality and prudence should their former colleagues (or boss) come to them to seek approval of a particular budget in times of crisis or appoint a key office holder? Will a wink or grimace at the table of negotiation make that difference, turning projected independence into fear and/or favour? Alas, that will always play in the voters’ mind when they cast the ballot, if there is one to start with. Election is more a game of mass psychology, than strict logic. Most times, the critical first impression is formed through relational presentation, rather than reading through the tedious fine print in the hardly-visible explanatory notes. So, my wish for the PE is that we would finally have someone to vote for, without compromising on standards, of course. That would go a long way to water the drought of past walk-overs. It also up the psychological legitimacy of what is called a president elected by the people. And second, that we vote with clarity of thought, knowing the difference between independence from/of past political affiliations and independence that comes from one’s anchored moral compass, regardless of fear or favour, and if I may add, false pretenses.     Michael Han * The author is a Director at Hoh Law Corporation and blogs on Facebook.      Read More →