Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Times)

[sense]

[video=youtube;WTHuUNiRMgo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTHuUNiRMgo&list=PL9A8DAABEE77FD44B[/video]

Interesting roundtable discussion organised by the Straits Times.

Watch the dynamics between the 4 presidential candidates.

Notice how each answer the question or avoid answering them.

Comments from SBF forummers?

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

I believe Dr Tony Tan knew the questions that Han Fook Kwang would be asking.

 

[Subok]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

I believe Dr Tony Tan knew the questions that Han Fook Kwang would be asking.

The questions were already posted online for polls to be done on which one readers want the question to be asked... facepalm

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

In that case, Patrick Tan unusual 12-year deferment should have been voted 1st.

 

[Hahahaman]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

[video=youtube;WTHuUNiRMgo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTHuUNiRMgo&list=PL9A8DAABEE77FD44B[/video]

Interesting roundtable discussion organised by the Straits Times.

Watch the dynamics between the 4 presidential candidates.

Notice how each answer the question or avoid answering them.

Comments from SBF forummers?

@ 5.41min Tan Kin Lian's body language somehow shows he is not a leader.

T.T somehow caught the TKK's "many people" virus but his strain is different. His strain is "people tell me" till Han Fook Kwang had to ask him who were the people?

TCB seems stressed till he gets P.E and G.E mixed up.:o

How is TJS's speech? Firm or not? You judge yourselves.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

I'm disturbed by Tony Tan's self-promotion that he has deep knowledge of the world financial markets, and his 30 years of experience dealing with the financial sector, which he emphasized is necessary for the role of President.

Is Tony insinuating that the incumbent, SR Nathan is not qualified to be the President ? As far as I know, Nathan has no international financial experience, nor any experience managing the economy.

 

[sense]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

The second segment of Tuesday afternoon's Presidential Roundtable involved Straits Times social media editor Ng Tze Yong posing five questions to the presidential hopefuls. The questions were deemed the Top 5 among 500 questions submitted by the public over three days last week, in response to a call by The Straits Times. Each candidate was given one minute to answer each of the five questions.

Ng Tze Yong: Good afternoon. My name is Tze Yong and I'm the social media editor at The Straits Times.
Last Thursday, after the certificates of eligibility were issued, we announced to our readers that we will be holding this roundtable. We also invited the Singaporean public to submit questions, to tell us what were the questions they would like us to ask you today. Over the next 3 days, we received about 500 questions. And we took a look at all these 500 questions and came up with a shortlist of the best 15.

Then we took this shortlist, put it back out to the public and said, vote for your favourite. Yesterday (Monday), about 2,500 people voted and ranked the 15 questions from first to last. My job today is to ask you the Top 5 questions on behalf of them.

How it's going to work is that you're going to have 1 minute to answer each question. When you have 10 seconds left on the clock, I will just put up my hand like this to give you an indication that it's time to wrap up your argument, and then we'll hand the floor over to the next candidate. We'll rotate who gets to answer first. For the fifth question, anybody who wants to go first can do so. If there are no questions, I'll begin.

 

[sense]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

Q1: 'What do you think will be a fair salary for the president?'

In brief:
TKL: $2 million.
TCB: $4 million.
TT: $4 million.
TJS: $0.48 million.

FULL ANSWER:

Tan Kin Lian: My position is very clear. If it is $4 million, the president's salary is less than half. And if it is reduced by the salary review, probably about half. Now, I've read the views of many people and they say, why are you paying such a big salary when you don't have much to do. I want to assure the people of Singapore that if I am the president, there will be a lot of things to do. And even so, I want to donate at least half.

Tan Cheng Bock: I think it's a question that's quite difficult to answer and you cannot just pluck a figure from the air and say, OK, this is the amount. There must be some basis when you make this type of decisions. And I would say we have to really study the roles and responsibilities of the president. Many people think that the president is just going around waving hands and so on. But I read the report, from Nathan's report, I think he's done a lot of things, apart from the ceremonial role, the custodial role and so on. I think it's a lot of work that is being done. Therefore I think before we just say that, ok, we do this cut here, cut there, let's study the subject properly. There's a committee review. I will go by what the committee has decided. That's all.

Tony Tan: The government has set up a salaries committee under the chairmanship of Mr Gerard Ee comprising of people from a wide sector of society in Singapore. I am sure they're studying this issue very seriously, what the compensation the president should get, the ministers should get, other public service holders. We should wait until we get the decision and whoever is president will, I'm sure, abide by the recommendation and decision of the committee as determined by the government.

Tan Jee Say: Well, I agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock we can't really pluck a figure from the air, but there are certain benchmarks. And I would disagree with the approach taken by the government, at least the prime minister, in his terms of reference for the Gerard Ee committee, that you take a discount, to benchmark the salaries against the salaries of CEOs and then you take a discount. I think that is the wrong approach. The minister is not a CEO. He is a public officer looking after the public interest and his salary should be benchmarked to somebody in public sector. Well you have, whereas in Japan, UK, they benchmark the salary to the lowest paid civil servant. And I think we should as public figures, you should not take the CEO salary as a starting point. I would prefer a certain multiple of minimum salary. Maybe we don't want a minimum salary in Singapore but obviously I would advocate a minimum salary. But let's take the lowest salary of the civil servant, the lowest grade. If it's $1,000, then take a multiple of it, whether it's 20, 30 or 40. In Japan it's 40 times because, well, I heard, I read a report somewhere it's 40 times, because salaries are low. In UK it's lower than that because the UK salaries are higher. So I would benchmark against public officer, if not a minimum salary.

Quick analysis:
Both TKL and TJS are aware that if the President salary is substiantially reduced, then it would automatically imply that all other Ministers salaries will take a nose-dived.
Both TT and TCB are also aware of this impact and thus avoiding answering this question, ie. they prefer to not rock the boat and cause a $ tsunami.

Your analysis?

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

TCB's answer shows he is ball-less. He uses a lot of words, but he answers nothing. He makes things sound complicated, but he offers no details of the complexity.

He says he will abide by the recommendation of the Committee. What kind of answer is that when his opinion on 'what is fair salary' for President is sought ? Is he saying that he has no independent opinion on what 'fairness' means ?

Of course he has to abide by the recommendation of the Committee, as long as Parliament implements the recommendation, it's not as if he can overturn the decision.

So if Committee says a fair figure for the salary of President is $20 million, TCB will also 'abide' by the recommendation ? For people like TCB, the media should have asked him if he would have entered the race for Presidency if the salary was $300K per annum.

 

[elephanto]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

TCB's answer shows he is ball-less. He uses a lot of words, but he answers nothing. He makes things sound complicated, but he offers no details of the complexity.

He says he will abide by the recommendation of the Committee. What kind of answer is that when his opinion on 'what is fair salary' for President is sought ? Is he saying that he has no independent opinion on what 'fairness' means ?

Of course he has to abide by the recommendation of the Committee, as long as Parliament implements the recommendation, it's not as if he can overturn the decision.

So if Committee says a fair figure for the salary of President is $20 million, TCB will also 'abide' by the recommendation ? For people like TCB, the media should have asked him if he would have entered the race for Presidency if the salary was $300K per annum.

agree, this is a politically correct but yes, ball-less answer. sigh

 

[sense]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

TCB's answer shows he is ball-less. He uses a lot of words, but he answers nothing. He makes things sound complicated, but he offers no details of the complexity.

One general observation that I have noticed in TCB and TT is that both of them tend to avoid straight answers, esp. to questions that they felt uncomfortable. Wonder if it's part of some special PR/media training that both of that got during their PAP stint, ie. when asked difficult questions by the media, go beat around the bush, if pressed for an answer, beat around the bush again until the time is up. Let's see if this observation holds true for their debate moderated by Tommy Koh this evening..

A stark contrast in how TJS and TKL respond to questions, even if it's the difficult ones.

 

[KuanTi01]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

I'm disturbed by Tony Tan's self-promotion that he has deep knowledge of the world financial markets, and his 30 years of experience dealing with the financial sector, which he emphasized is necessary for the role of President.

Is Tony insinuating that the incumbent, SR Nathan is not qualified to be the President ? As far as I know, Nathan has no international financial experience, nor any experience managing the economy.

Horrors of horrors! To think that Prataman was paid so many millions when he is not really financially trained or qualified for the job! The conclusion must be that deep knowledge of the world financial markets is not even necessary. What a myth!

 

[sense]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

The conclusion must be that deep knowledge of the world financial markets is not even necessary. What a myth!

Excellent point.

It's a nice to have rather than a must have attribute!

 

[sense]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

Q2: What have you personally done for poor Singaporeans?

In brief:
TCB: Credit counseling
TT: Straits Times Pocket Money Fund & Swami Home
TJS: Paper on economic ideas
TKL: Lehman Brothers' crisis


FULL ANSWER:

Tan Cheng Bock: I think I would attribute it to my contribution on this credit counselling because I know there are many people, credit defaulters, they lost a lot of money through credit card usage.
And I remember the sub courts came to ask me whether I could play a role to help these people who are in trouble. So I managed to organise and plan and got an organisation going to help these people, especially in the lower middle income on how to manage their finances and so on.

Tony Tan: Personally, what I have championed for many many years are what I would call charitable causes for people who do not normally come under the spotlight. It may be small. I think one of the best charities I've ever been involved with is the Straits Times Pocket Money Fund to raise money to give children two, three dollars a day so that they can buy a meal at recess time. I think this is wonderful because it's not a glamorous charity but it's extremely useful. I've also been very involved with old folks' home in Sembawang - the Swami Home, the Sree Narayana Home for the Aged Sick. Again these are not glamorous charities but they serve a personal need. And finally of course I just agreed to be patron of Dover Park Hospice, help people in the terminal stages of life. I think these are very worthwhile causes.

Tan Jee Say: Well, I think the most significant thing outside public service is when I started drafting up a paper on economic ideas, ideas of economic changes in Singapore. And I was perturbed by what I read from Tharman's report, Economic Strategies Committee, because it asked the wrong questions and gave the wrong answers. So that's where because I find that they have discovered that four-fifths, in the last 10 years four-fifths of economic growth came from just increase in workers, and there was no real answer to that. And even then they continued to do that. And that has depressed the earnings of our people.
So I became more conscious of it. Then there is this waitress who came about: "You know, Mr Tan, five years ago as a waitress I earned $1,500. And now I'm earning only $800. What happened? It's all these young Chinese girls who came here..." That's what I did - wrote a paper and articulate the views that the new economic direction to benefit the lower middle and the lower paid workers.

Tan Kin Lian: After leaving NTUC Income, I spent a lot of time on my blog to educate people about financial planning, insurance and investment. I also set up a consumer association, financial services consumer association. I interact with many people. And I want to give them tips on how they should manage their money. So this is also part of what I got involved in the Lehman Brothers' crisis. It's all part of that. And I think education, educating people is quite important.

 

[sense]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

Q3: How will you be a unifying figure when Singaporeans are divided over political issues?'

In brief:
TT: By being rational & non-confrontational
TJS: We must have a consensus that people want to work
TKL: To address what's most important to Singaporeans
TCB: Multiracialism

FULL ANSWER:

Tony Tan: As I said at a seminar I think some time ago, I regard the last election as a win-win-win election outcome - a win for the government because of the mandate; win for the opposition, particularly the Workers' Party, they have a platform in Parliament now; and a win for Singapore because it is a progress in our political maturity. Yes, there are divisions, we have to recognise that. I think here the president through his influence can help to bind all of these divisions together, recognise the differences between our various groups in Singapore and decide how we can resolve these differences in a rational, non-confrontational way. And I think the president can do a great deal in that respect.

Tan Jee Say: Well, the social division along political lines comes about because of extreme positions. And as president obviously to unify the people, you have to bring both parties together. Both of them have to be less extreme, less extreme on economic issues like total reliance on foreign workers. You must find a different consensus, and a different consensus that will bring people together. You must not say that you are poor, you can't get a job because you are lazy. That's an extreme position. That's a wrong position to take. I know a lot of people without jobs who want to work, and they are not lazy. So the kind of philosophy, we must have a consensus that people want to work. There will be the odd man out who wants to take advantage, to abuse the system, but I think that's the reality.

Tan Kin Lian: Now, the most important issue to rally the people is that you address what's most important to them. And they say life is difficult, I can't get married, I can't have children. I want to address these bread and butter issues. I want to work with the govt to change some of the policies that can give people a better life and hope, the young people and the older people. I think this will be the best unifier, and then I remember a time when many people were proud to be Singaporeans because they know the country, the leaders looked after them. I believe the salary gap between the top and the bottom income should narrow. I want to set an example to bring that about and then people will say my leaders are concerned about me, I'm proud to be a Singaporean.

Tan Cheng Bock: Actually I answered this question earlier on but let me add a little bit. I think one of the important areas that we should look into actually is multiracialism. We all take it for granted. But I want to make sure that if I become president, I'm going to promote events that will really ensure that we have this multiracialism activity and a very strong spirit. And that will include football. As I said I love football. I think it's the best game for us all together together. Nelson Mandela did it with rugby. Let us do it with football.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

Q2: What have you personally done for poor Singaporeans?

In brief:
TCB: Credit counseling
TT: Straits Times Pocket Money Fund & Swami Home
TJS: Paper on economic ideas
TKL: Lehman Brothers' crisis


FULL ANSWER:

Tan Cheng Bock: I think I would attribute it to my contribution on this credit counselling because I know there are many people, credit defaulters, they lost a lot of money through credit card usage.
And I remember the sub courts came to ask me whether I could play a role to help these people who are in trouble. So I managed to organise and plan and got an organisation going to help these people, especially in the lower middle income on how to manage their finances and so on.

This is not helping "the poor". These are credit defaulters, people who over spent on their credit cards. If they're poor, they will not even have with them credit cards.

Again, where are the details, Mr Chinese Nathan ? You organized a plan. What kind of plan is that ? Or did you delegate the job to some credit agencies ?

 

[sense]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

Q4: How will you change the image of the President as a powerless figure with a huge paycheck?

In brief:
TJS: (1) President that has got real power in five areas specified by the constitution (2) $480,000
TKL: (1) President is the voice of the people (2) Ignore the huge paycheck issue.
TCB: (1) Veto powers & inherent powers (2) Ignore the huge paycheck issue.
TT: (1) certain specific powers spelled out in the constitution (2) Ignore the huge paycheck issue.


FULL ANSWER:

Tan Jee Say: Well, I think the first approach is really to remove the misconception that it is powerless. It is a president that has got real power in five areas specified by the constitution. So he is an independent auditor. He is an advocate for certain moral issues, moral power, centre of moral power. And he is also a gatekeeper that will protect your reserves. So these are important roles. You don't expect him to jump up and down or go to the football field to do all these things but it's an important role. He may be sitting in the office but it's an important role - 3 roles: independent auditor, advocate and gatekeeper. And the government, whichever minister, whether it's law or whatever, is not doing the institution a favour when it says that the position of presidency is powerless. The next part of it, the huge paycheck, I have answered that. It should be pegged not to the CEO's pay but to the pay of the lowest civil servant.

Tan Kin Lian: Well, I look at the president's office as being able to make an important contribution to the people of Singapore. And that role is through being the voice of the people, hearing what are their main concerns, evaluating, summarising them with the help of other concerned citizens and bringing them to the government and working constructively with the government to find better solutions. If the people see that the president can do this, then they will certainly think the president is very useful and very influential. And I want to achieve that.

Tan Cheng Bock: I think the veto powers of the president speaks for itself, that he is quite powerful, because he's going to look after two important aspects which I'm sure you all are aware of. But there are some I will call inherent powers of the president which I mentioned earlier on in the debate - for example, he must be consulted, he can report wrongdoings, he can encourage all these social activities, all these and warning, these are all not entrenched in the constitution, but I think these are also very very important inherent powers to a head of state.

Tony Tan: The president is not a powerless figure. The president is a head of state of our nation. He represents our country both domestically and internationally. Constitutionally, the president is able to exercise certain specific powers spelled out in the constitution - for example, with regards to our reserves. On top of that, the president has influence and moral authority if he does his job and conducts himself well. And I think in that case the president can do a great deal. He's certainly not a powerless figure.

 

[sense]

Re: Analysis: Roundtable Discussion/"Debate" from Presidential Candidates (Straits Ti

Final Question, Q5: What would you do if you disagree strongly with a policy that the Cabinet has endorsed?'

In brief:
TKL: Depends on “large numbers of people”; Private talk with PM first, and perhaps public
TCB: Only give private warning to the cabinet
TT: Same answer as TCB.
TJS: Private talk with PM first, then go public


FULL ANSWER:

Tan Kin Lian: I will take up your offer. Now, the issue has to be, one, how important it is, and what is the level of disagreement. It should not be just my personal views but it should be the views of large numbers of people. If large numbers of people express a view and I see that the government policy is not in line, I will want to express this. And I will express this strongly to the government privately of course and if necessary in public. But it has to be an issue that is shared... Now it also has to be within the purview of the president. Now, what is the purview? Those are the specific constitutional duties. But I include that the general welfare of the people, upholding of justice and the law.

Tan Cheng Bock: Actually I answered that question earlier on also but just to summarise it. I can only give a warning as a president because it's not within my powers, I don't have veto powers. I think with that warning, it is still within the constitution to actually tell the Cabinet, look, this I don't agree with you. If you do it, at the end of the day you have to answer to the electorate.

Tony Tan: Let me just say that the president has access to the Cabinet and to the prime minister. I'm sure that a wise president will be able to use his channels of communication and access to communicate his views. And if he has serious reservations about a certain policy, he will warn the prime minister, he will give his views. Of course the prime minister and the Cabinet will make the final decision. That is their responsibility and their prerogative under the constitution. But the president can state when he disagrees, why he thinks it is wrong, how it could be made better. And if the prime minister is wise, sensible, if he respects the president, I'm sure that his views will be taken into account.

Tan Jee Say: Well, my first approach is always to talk it over with the prime minister. He's a reasonable man. He has also got a following. Obviously he is much respected by his Cabinet members, by his MPs just as much as the president elected directly by the people has the respect of the people. Starting point, always to talk and to argue. And disagreement shall never be seen as confrontation. I may disagree passionately over issues but I will not confront. We talk. And it will not be a surprise if I come out in public. If at the end of the debate or a discourse, I'm used to all these discourses after coffee as a student, after coffee, after dinner, always we talk endlessly. But we always come to a solution. So I'm sure wise counsel will prevail and at the end of the day we are all having the interest of Singaporeans at heart and we will agree even if you go away not agreeing with the decision that has been taken.