-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Vote Tony Tan
- Thread starter Forvendet
- Start date
Hey FTrash, you konglanjiaowei lah. There were already threads posted a couple of days ago that he was related to the famiLEE. Don't you dare ask me to dig it out for i will ass you.
Okiez Singaporean. Well the database flaw when using the search function just saved your ass. Try searching for threads / posts using key words and you will get the database error message.
Yeah man, rocked the boat and remained a PAP MP until he retired.
He's unhappy with the Ho Ching and Chip Goodyear saga.
I'm also unhappy with the Ho ching and Chip goodyear saga.. Why don't you vote for me?
Good for you. At least you have decided.
For me, the fact that Tony Tan was DPM and GIC Chairman are irrelevant. What matters is not his qualifications but whether he can function as an independent to the ruling party.
If he is a member of the PAP, then his level of independence is limited. His party leaders may not allow him to cross certain boundaries.
PS: If qualifications are the prime criteria, the former MM and two SMs have even higher qualifications than a DPM and GIC Chairman. But they are not independent of the PAP. Because the President functions as a gatekeeper of sorts to the Reserves - evaluating request(s) of the ruling party to loosen the string - the independence criteria is the most important. Not qualifications.
Hey PAP ballslicker kakowi, next time don't make selective posts. Include this too you shameless dickhead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ong_Teng_Cheong
Presidency
Ong ran for the presidency in 1993 under the PAP's endorsement. He ran against a reluctant Chua Kim Yeow (Chinese: 蔡锦耀), a former accountant general, for the post. A total of 1,756,517 votes were polled. Ong received 952,513 votes while Chua had 670,358 votes, despite the former having a higher public exposure and a much more active campaign than Chua.
However, soon after his election to the presidency in 1993, Ong was tangled in a dispute over the access of information regarding Singapore's financial reserves. The government said it would take 56 man-years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of the immovable assets. Ong discussed this with the accountant general and the auditor general and eventually conceded that the government only had to declare all of its properties, a list which took a few months to produce. Even then, the list was not complete; it took the government a total of three years to produce the information that Ong requested.<sup id="cite_ref-Window_5-0" class="reference">[6]</sup>
In an interview with Asiaweek six months after stepping down from presidency,<sup id="cite_ref-SgWindow_6-0" class="reference">[7]</sup> Ong indicated that he had asked for this audit based on the principle that as an elected president, he was bound to protect the national reserves, and the only way of doing so would be to know what reserves (both liquid cash and assets) the government owned.
In the last year of his presidency (1998) Ong found out through the newspapers that the government aimed to submit a bill to Parliament to sell the Post Office Savings Bank (POSB) to The Development Bank of Singapore. The POSB was, at that time, a government statutory board whose reserves were under the president's protection, this move was procedurally inappropriate and did not regard Ong's significance as the guardian of the reserves; he had to call and inform the government of this oversight. In spite of this, the sale proceeded and the Development Bank Of Singapore owns POSBank and its name to this present day.<sup id="cite_ref-SgWindow_6-1" class="reference">[7]</sup>
Ong received an Honorary Appointment of The Order of St Michael and St George from Queen Elizabeth II in 1998.<sup id="cite_ref-Knight_7-0" class="reference">[8]</sup>
Ong decided not to run for a second term as president in 1999 partially due to health reasons.
Last edited:
"Any old bird in this forum will tell you that qualifications are secondary.
We need a YES man and not someone like OTC or Devan Nair."
Last edited:
hi there
1. pls don't insult those above-average sheep!
2. sheep are always sheep including you.
below 1 leh? ...
You said that I should include the former President Ong Teng Cheong. But in what aspect?
First, OTC was not elected. OTC was also a member of the PAP. So by making your post, are you saying that being a member of the PAP is not important in the exercising of independence?
I am sure that this will be one of the points made in promoting Dr Tony Tan as a presidential candidate. Certain stances of Dr Tan towards debatable policies taken in his time will be used to demonstrate that he will be able to discharge his duties in an independent manner. Indeed Forvendet has said as much in his later posts in this thread.
But the better question is if OTC's behaviour is the norm in Presidents. Look at the Presidents Sheares, Inshak, Wee and Nathan (I am not sure if they were from the PAP - if not, the comparison is not valid) and see if OTC's behaviour is an outlier.
However if OTC's behaviour is an outlier, then my point is still valid - that it is better to have someone independent of the PAP in this post.
Second, are you concerned that the former MM or SMs will suddenly step forth and declare themselves as candidates? If you are, it speaks more of you than of me.
Third, your retort got me thinking - what about MM LKY as President? That is an excellent idea if the Prime Minister is LTK. You may denigrate him but I don't. I admire him for his track record when he was Prime Minister and feel that his qualifications, experience, reputation, capabilities and stature will raise the calibre of Presidents up a significant notch.
So you are a sheep to the old birds? Or you are an old bird and want others to be your sheep?
Well, if you feel that you need a YES man for the President, it is your vote, your choice.
It is not mine.
Your points are relevant. Anyone voted in can possibly be another OTC. The differences between the aspirants are telling for they each has different backgrounds, personalities and known history of their past performance. Therefore like in the other similar thread, I say, judge a man more by his actions than his words. What can be more obvious as to the character of a person than his past deeds?
M
Masamune Date
Guest
No you shameless dickhead. You and all those PAP porlumpars posts should be straight forward, honest like this : We do not want a president that questions the nations reserves and interferes with how the PAP manages them. In short the president's job is only to pass the key on LKY's orders and no questions asked.
There is a price you will have to pay for making me waste my time posting this. Do you wanna know what that is???
My method is to make an educated guess on how he will perform in the area of independence.
Of the 3 candidates, there must be one favoured by the PAP and one least favoured. One method of voting can then be to guess the identity of the one least favoured and vote for him. This immediately creates a check-and-balance situation.
On the other hand, if you vote for the one most favoured, you need to hope that he will discharge his role independently when the time comes. In this situation, past deeds is an indicator of future deeds, as you said.
Similar threads
