- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
What are the main concerns in our nation today?[/COLOR]
General Elections and Presidential Elections rarely occur in the same year, let alone within 3 months of each other. This is because GEs are held once every four to five years and PEs every six.
This year, therefore, there may be a temptation for our citizens to cast their PE vote as a referendum of the PAP government or as a counter-vote to its 60% in the GE. Political analysts sometimes refer to this as the ‘by-election’ effect, whereby a voter may feel more reckless with his or her vote since it will not change the government of the day (an outcome perceived as leading to instability) but will send a message to the government of his or her view on the government’s performance.
But the election of our President is a citizen responsibility far more important than a protest vote to the government.
Voters may consider that a vote for one of the two Doctors Tan is a vote in support of the government. And they would be right to do so since both Tans have been closely associated with the PAP until very recently and, in the case of Tony Tan, organisations of various kinds, as well as members of the Cabinet, have come out very clearly to endorse him.
Voters may consider a vote for Tan Jee Say or Tan Kin Lian as a protest vote against the government. Jee Say’s association with a political party and Kin Lian’s work in relation to the Lehman Brothers debacle may be viewed as evidence of their anti-government credentials.
But in fact, the election of our President is, and should, transcend the immediate day-to-day concerns of governance. The office of President is a very different constitutional animal and in selecting him, we should be applying a different set of criteria.
What are the issues that confront the nation today? What are the key concerns that Singaporeans at all socio-economic strata are clearly concerned about. I would suggest three:
(a) Transparency and accountability in government
(b) Declining real wages and rising prices
(c) Immigration policy
Each of these areas, while a direct outcome of PAP policy over the last several administrations, has a distinct impact upon, and meaning for, the duties of the President.
The EP was ostensibly created to provide a check on government, particularly in relation to the spending of reserves. We now know that, along with a range of other constitutional amendments, it represented a fear of losing influence and vote share on the part of the PAP. But in any case, the office of President now affords citizens a substantial capacity to safeguard our hard earned savings.
Many Singaporeans would find it hard to envisage a scenario whereby whatever powers to scrutinise government action such as are vested in the office of President would ever need to be mobilised. But recall what occurred in the Philippines in 1986 and in Indonesia in 1997 when the people threw out their leaders for sustained and systematic looting of the nation’s coffers over many years, crimes that would have been more difficult to commit if there had been systems of independent scrutiny in place.
Power and information occupy a similar place at the negotiating table. They are both never willingly conceded without a struggle. Recall the reluctance of the relevant government bodies – no doubt at the behest of their political masters – to provide President Ong with the data he needed to carry out his duties.
While I am not suggesting in this article that the reluctance to disclose information then was a symptom of widespread corruption, I feel safer in the knowledge that our Constitution provides for an independent office, that I vote for myself, which can inquire into and scrutinise government savings and spending action.
And together with the other four powers available in the office, I feel more secure since the power of a government to abuse its authority is subject to a directly-elected public official with no less of a status than the very Head of State himself.
History has shown that the abuse of power tends to arise when there are large variations in the sharing of wealth, wide divergences of policy options, rising prices, and a lack of a unifying leader or national discourse.
All of these factors are now present in Singapore. Our wealth disparity is higher than it has ever been, with PAP ministers leading the way with their own salaries. There is an increase of anger and unhappiness at our social framework and very real struggles to cope with declining wages and rising prices.
And furthermore, we have never had a clearer instance of the PAP bereft of both a strong leader or a strong belief system. The PM’s recent mealy-mouthed National Day Rally Speech – not to mention widespread plagiarism of opposition party policies by the PAP – is a sign and symptom of a government struggling to come to terms with the realities of the moment. Or, indeed, to respond.
Therefore, I am saying that the portends of abuse of power are emerging over a once tranquil horizon.
And so, in our constricted democratic space, we need a President who will have the courage of an Ong Teng Cheong with the dignity of a Wee Kim Wee.
Among the candidates for the Presidency, we have the two Doctors Tan who for many decades threw in their lot with the government. They are not likely to have the intellectual ability to depart from government policy they espoused for longer than many Singaporeans have been alive.
They are not likely to have the moral strength to depart from government policymakers who have been their friends for many decades.
They are not likely to be able to perceive the climate change in Singaporeans’ aspirations.
They are not likely, and indeed have never been known, to depart substantially from the government’s central policy underpinnings, which they clearly share. Witness their then support for Operation Spectrum and refusal to avow what everybody now knows to be true: that Operation Spectrum was based on a huge fabrication designed to eradicate the instability that the then leadership (of which Tony Tan was a key member) thought would result when people tried to help those who suffered worst from government policy and to make their plight known.
Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock where silent then and they don’t seem to have anything further to say now. It is no use taking about defending the people and safeguarding their interests today when, for the last three decades, you found it so impossible to speak up for us.My question to voters is simple: Do you want an incumbent in the Istana who, despite his Constitutional powers, is likely to acquiesce in government policy, even if that policy imprisons and tortures innocent men and women.
Because, by voting for either of the Doctor Tans, we run the risk of yet another six years – following the last twelve – of a political appointee in the Istana who will do what he is instructed to do so as to preserve the status quo.
And then, what have we done with the Constitutional powers available to us through a directly-elected President? We would have thrown them away for yet another six years.
And who can say what that will mean in those six years to come?
General Elections and Presidential Elections rarely occur in the same year, let alone within 3 months of each other. This is because GEs are held once every four to five years and PEs every six.
This year, therefore, there may be a temptation for our citizens to cast their PE vote as a referendum of the PAP government or as a counter-vote to its 60% in the GE. Political analysts sometimes refer to this as the ‘by-election’ effect, whereby a voter may feel more reckless with his or her vote since it will not change the government of the day (an outcome perceived as leading to instability) but will send a message to the government of his or her view on the government’s performance.
But the election of our President is a citizen responsibility far more important than a protest vote to the government.
Voters may consider that a vote for one of the two Doctors Tan is a vote in support of the government. And they would be right to do so since both Tans have been closely associated with the PAP until very recently and, in the case of Tony Tan, organisations of various kinds, as well as members of the Cabinet, have come out very clearly to endorse him.
Voters may consider a vote for Tan Jee Say or Tan Kin Lian as a protest vote against the government. Jee Say’s association with a political party and Kin Lian’s work in relation to the Lehman Brothers debacle may be viewed as evidence of their anti-government credentials.
But in fact, the election of our President is, and should, transcend the immediate day-to-day concerns of governance. The office of President is a very different constitutional animal and in selecting him, we should be applying a different set of criteria.
What are the issues that confront the nation today? What are the key concerns that Singaporeans at all socio-economic strata are clearly concerned about. I would suggest three:
(a) Transparency and accountability in government
(b) Declining real wages and rising prices
(c) Immigration policy
Each of these areas, while a direct outcome of PAP policy over the last several administrations, has a distinct impact upon, and meaning for, the duties of the President.
The EP was ostensibly created to provide a check on government, particularly in relation to the spending of reserves. We now know that, along with a range of other constitutional amendments, it represented a fear of losing influence and vote share on the part of the PAP. But in any case, the office of President now affords citizens a substantial capacity to safeguard our hard earned savings.
Many Singaporeans would find it hard to envisage a scenario whereby whatever powers to scrutinise government action such as are vested in the office of President would ever need to be mobilised. But recall what occurred in the Philippines in 1986 and in Indonesia in 1997 when the people threw out their leaders for sustained and systematic looting of the nation’s coffers over many years, crimes that would have been more difficult to commit if there had been systems of independent scrutiny in place.
Power and information occupy a similar place at the negotiating table. They are both never willingly conceded without a struggle. Recall the reluctance of the relevant government bodies – no doubt at the behest of their political masters – to provide President Ong with the data he needed to carry out his duties.
While I am not suggesting in this article that the reluctance to disclose information then was a symptom of widespread corruption, I feel safer in the knowledge that our Constitution provides for an independent office, that I vote for myself, which can inquire into and scrutinise government savings and spending action.
And together with the other four powers available in the office, I feel more secure since the power of a government to abuse its authority is subject to a directly-elected public official with no less of a status than the very Head of State himself.
History has shown that the abuse of power tends to arise when there are large variations in the sharing of wealth, wide divergences of policy options, rising prices, and a lack of a unifying leader or national discourse.
All of these factors are now present in Singapore. Our wealth disparity is higher than it has ever been, with PAP ministers leading the way with their own salaries. There is an increase of anger and unhappiness at our social framework and very real struggles to cope with declining wages and rising prices.
And furthermore, we have never had a clearer instance of the PAP bereft of both a strong leader or a strong belief system. The PM’s recent mealy-mouthed National Day Rally Speech – not to mention widespread plagiarism of opposition party policies by the PAP – is a sign and symptom of a government struggling to come to terms with the realities of the moment. Or, indeed, to respond.
Therefore, I am saying that the portends of abuse of power are emerging over a once tranquil horizon.
And so, in our constricted democratic space, we need a President who will have the courage of an Ong Teng Cheong with the dignity of a Wee Kim Wee.
Among the candidates for the Presidency, we have the two Doctors Tan who for many decades threw in their lot with the government. They are not likely to have the intellectual ability to depart from government policy they espoused for longer than many Singaporeans have been alive.
They are not likely to have the moral strength to depart from government policymakers who have been their friends for many decades.
They are not likely to be able to perceive the climate change in Singaporeans’ aspirations.
They are not likely, and indeed have never been known, to depart substantially from the government’s central policy underpinnings, which they clearly share. Witness their then support for Operation Spectrum and refusal to avow what everybody now knows to be true: that Operation Spectrum was based on a huge fabrication designed to eradicate the instability that the then leadership (of which Tony Tan was a key member) thought would result when people tried to help those who suffered worst from government policy and to make their plight known.
Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock where silent then and they don’t seem to have anything further to say now. It is no use taking about defending the people and safeguarding their interests today when, for the last three decades, you found it so impossible to speak up for us.My question to voters is simple: Do you want an incumbent in the Istana who, despite his Constitutional powers, is likely to acquiesce in government policy, even if that policy imprisons and tortures innocent men and women.
Because, by voting for either of the Doctor Tans, we run the risk of yet another six years – following the last twelve – of a political appointee in the Istana who will do what he is instructed to do so as to preserve the status quo.
And then, what have we done with the Constitutional powers available to us through a directly-elected President? We would have thrown them away for yet another six years.
And who can say what that will mean in those six years to come?
