I am sure the architects of the office of elected president by now must have realised that they have painted it a corner. Firstly the qualification requirements have reduced the pool of candidates to a very small pond. Imagine a respected member of parliament having served 30 years just does not qualify readily. He is not the only one, a distinguished surgeon, a small time but highly respected publisher or even an ambassador with sterling service also have questions on their eligibility. Would someone with such a background punt on a committee to do the right thing. Interestingly, someone who runs a $100m company immediately meets the qualification and we are talking about alot of people known for their poor conduct, philandering ways, and even known publicly for unethical behaviour.
As to Nathan. If he does not realise by now, go dhelp him. He must have been the most unsuitable candidate for the office. He however does have a point - it cannot be measured by tangible measures. He however is wrong in that the intangibles paint a perception. Yusof Ishak, Sheares and Wee Kim Wee were relatively unknown but they and interestingly their spouses eventually created an air of respectability and grace to the Office of President and to themselves. Nathan who walked in, despite 12 years sitting in the office unfortunately did no such thing. In fact it appears he made the office a laughing stock. Not all is his fault, the fact that they had to raise the salary 3 times over 12 years not by a small % but huge increase to $4.2M added to his woes.
Nathan by nature is quiet as he spent most his career in the Intelligence Service, but his blind loyalty came out even more strongly as he was appointed the Exec Chairman of SPH - a PAP watchdog, and naturally tainted for life. In the years that he was in MFA as Perm Sec did not help either as he looked truly colourless compared to Tommy Koh, Kishore and other luminaries including Bilhari, Chan Heng Chee , Marshall and Walter Woon. I am sure we all agree all these folks no matter their bent politically would have been colourful in office and adding a much sense of respectability. And they all come from MFA. Imagine how many good out there who would not have qualified by people with short sightedness writing policies.
Nathan served as Ambassador to Malaysia and shortly after ignited a diplomatic crisis and was asked by the Malaysians to be removed. He was posted to Washington and ended facing the Michael Fay affair and did not distinguish himself either by stonewalling interviews as he could articulate to save himself.
After the OTC affair, most people knew that it was a poisoned chalice. Not Nathan and it never occurred to him why people were not keen for the office and why he surely must not have been the first, the second or even the third choice. The Govt had in fact cast its net wide and with no luck.
He is now writing a book and hopefully does not disgrace himself again. I am sure he would have realised that releasing the reserves during the financial crisis is something even a16 yr old school boy would have concurred with. It is not an act of bravery neither is it an event that he had to wrestle his conscious overtime.
Sadly his time in Office will probably taken as one elderly couple growing prosperous in more ways than one, clueless about their contributions to the office and the lack of sheen that they cast.
As to Nathan. If he does not realise by now, go dhelp him. He must have been the most unsuitable candidate for the office. He however does have a point - it cannot be measured by tangible measures. He however is wrong in that the intangibles paint a perception. Yusof Ishak, Sheares and Wee Kim Wee were relatively unknown but they and interestingly their spouses eventually created an air of respectability and grace to the Office of President and to themselves. Nathan who walked in, despite 12 years sitting in the office unfortunately did no such thing. In fact it appears he made the office a laughing stock. Not all is his fault, the fact that they had to raise the salary 3 times over 12 years not by a small % but huge increase to $4.2M added to his woes.
Nathan by nature is quiet as he spent most his career in the Intelligence Service, but his blind loyalty came out even more strongly as he was appointed the Exec Chairman of SPH - a PAP watchdog, and naturally tainted for life. In the years that he was in MFA as Perm Sec did not help either as he looked truly colourless compared to Tommy Koh, Kishore and other luminaries including Bilhari, Chan Heng Chee , Marshall and Walter Woon. I am sure we all agree all these folks no matter their bent politically would have been colourful in office and adding a much sense of respectability. And they all come from MFA. Imagine how many good out there who would not have qualified by people with short sightedness writing policies.
Nathan served as Ambassador to Malaysia and shortly after ignited a diplomatic crisis and was asked by the Malaysians to be removed. He was posted to Washington and ended facing the Michael Fay affair and did not distinguish himself either by stonewalling interviews as he could articulate to save himself.
After the OTC affair, most people knew that it was a poisoned chalice. Not Nathan and it never occurred to him why people were not keen for the office and why he surely must not have been the first, the second or even the third choice. The Govt had in fact cast its net wide and with no luck.
He is now writing a book and hopefully does not disgrace himself again. I am sure he would have realised that releasing the reserves during the financial crisis is something even a16 yr old school boy would have concurred with. It is not an act of bravery neither is it an event that he had to wrestle his conscious overtime.
Sadly his time in Office will probably taken as one elderly couple growing prosperous in more ways than one, clueless about their contributions to the office and the lack of sheen that they cast.
Last edited:
