another neutral observer

ANO to online citizens: A right vote is made only after careful consideration of the pluses and minuses of each candidate. Make the right vote.

The link to the following article was posted as a reply to an announcement on The Temasek Review. It is unsettling to see such content being written - a misleading title, unpersuasive arguments and extreme prejudice against a single candidate. ANO’s reply to the author is in bold.

The Ultimate Reason Why TJS Must NOT be Elected The President of Singapore (PoS)
Posted on August 20, 2011 by singaporeanpatriot1965
Link

TJS joined SDP in Apr 11 to contest in GE 2011. He did not win in the GRC he contested in. He eventually quitted in Jul 11 and announced his candidacy for PE 2011.
Did TJS really quit from SDP, or is he still a dormant unofficial member of SDP, waiting to pounce on the PAP Government (as he so claims in the national broadcast to check on the PAP government), once and if he is elected as the PoS? He quit SDP only last month (Jul 11), and the loss in the GE 2011 should still be fresh and firmly entrenched in his mind. As such, his taste, his dreams, his steps and his breath must surely be more filled with SDP than his three opponents are with PAP.

ANO: As you have said, JS was only with SDP for less than a year, whereas both CB and TT spent decades with the ruling party PAP. Furthermore, JS served 5 years under PM Goh. Surely CB, TT, KL and JS himself have a longer history with PAP than JS has with the SDP. It is baseless to insist that JS has been moulded by SDP. Another point is that all four candidates stand to gain from a role of higher rank if being elected, so it would be unfair to question JS’s motives based on his loss in the previous GE.

A President should be above politics, yet TJS continues to insist that the current government is a PAP Government, and he wants to provide check and balance on the PAP Government (At 2:23 of the video). It is a Singapore Government that consists of both PAP and WP, not a PAP Government. He obviously does not even know the meaning of “government”.

ANO: A netizen (Guest) replied with a reasonable good explanation – “PAP government in this case is not used strictly. Just like how most people would refer to the current British government as “Cameron government” or “Conservative government”, it merely refers to the ruling party at that point in time, which so happens to be the PAP right now. The singapore government is controlled by the PAP, because the PAP has an overwhelming majority in the Parliament. The WP is not the government, it is the Opposition.”

The fact that he said this in his speech goes to show that he still harbours political aspirations and agenda even as he stands for the PE, which now brings me to the next SDP character – CSJ.
CSJ joined SDP in 1992, contested unsuccessfully in the GEs in 1992, 1997, 2001, was found guilty for various offences from 2002 to 2008, and was eventually declared bankrupt in 2006. Bear in mind what his offences were; I am sure this needs no reminding. Today he remains an undischarged bankrupt and is still the leader of the SDP, which means he still wields power and influence in the party. TJS – SDP, CSJ – SDP. See the commonality? Remember the recent elections in Thailand? Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin Shinawatra. Does anyone dare to guarantee that there is totally, absolutely and definitely no connection, contact or shared aspiration and ideology between Yingluck and Thaksin? In the same light, can anyone say and guarantee the same for TJS and CSJ? Doesn’t anyone find that since the hype of the PE began, CSJ has remained unusually silent and kept a low profile? This is not normal, as he has always made use of such platforms and opportunities to put forth his ideologies and allegations of the government’s wrongdoings. We know CSJ to be a dangerous person; this should also apply to people associated to him and his party. Beware, Singaporeans!

ANO: First of all, Yingluck and Thaksin have a sibling relationship. JS and CSJ are not even related by blood. By associating JS with CSJ because of a same party membership, it is equivalent to associate TT with CB. What has CSJ’s past activities got to do with JS anyway?

My next and last point is on the proposed abolishment of the Internal Security Act (ISA) by TJS. His statement and brief bickering with TT showed his strong desire to have it abolished. The ISA certainly has not out-lived its usefulness. While it is used in the past to guard against communism and Marxism, it is now used to guard against terrorism and sedition. The powers accorded to the law enforcers to act against offenders are appropriate, as putting an immediate stop to these offences is critical to prevent its permeation into the society. What exactly is TJS’s motive in trying to get the ISA abolished? Has it ever incurred to him that by doing so, he might be opening the floodgates to the public? On this, again, do you think it is obvious that the abolishment will benefit CSJ? Do you think it is obvious that he will then be able to criticize and taunt the Singapore Government without any fear of being accused of sedition?

ANO: During the debate between JS and TT, JS merely questioned the usefulness and justification of the ISA. His emotional or critical tone is by no means an indication of a strong desire to abolish the act. Anyone whom has watched the debate would probably realise that the key concerns centre on ISA being used inappropriately rather than the potential beneficiaries from removing the act.

The author has been notified of this reply.

The first of two complete videos posted by The Online Citizen. Click link to watch.

Video 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp_kO7XcSZI&feature=player_embedded

Commentary:

The four candidates were each given two minutes to tell his personal view on the candidacy and the role of an elected President. ANO: Under time pressure, their first words perhaps would reveal the foremost idea, belief or proposal within their sub consciousness.

Tan CB believes the President should be above politics, independent from political parties and have no political agenda. ANO: CB’s proposal to reallocate the Prime Minister Office from the Istana, which already housed the President Office, is a good step to champion his belief except it may not be striking enough to attract undecided voters. A calm demeanour is his strong point and, unlike JS’s confrontational stance, may be more agreeable with voters of his generation.

Tan JS clearly stated his belief in a politically-independent President and feels that much more – especially moral objectives - can be achieved if he wins the election. ANO: “To provide checks and balances” on the government should by now become his motto for this campaign. There was an occasion when JS shot invisible arrows at the direction of T and CB for their affiliation and “emotional ties” with the ruling party. Younger and unhappy citizens may take liking to his arousing and critical approach during the forum.

T Tan wasted precious time by making irrelevant comments and not tackling the topic. In a rush, he reiterated his position that the President should focus on the roles stated in the Constitution. In addition, it is up to the parliament to decide if the President should engage in activities outside the Constitution. ANO: It was frustrating to watch. Possibly hard for T to shed the image of a “company man”, i.e. allegiance to his ruling party comes before personal beliefs or loyalty to fellow citizens, when it comes to matters of the nation. Nevertheless he remains the clear choice of staunch supporters who have stuck with the ruling party over the years.

Tan KL prefers the views of the people to be taken into consideration when it comes to defining the role of a President. In his words, the President should address the concerns of his people, be independent from politics and protects the country reserves (including CPF monies). He had time to reiterate the five values of his campaign. ANO: KL had scored reasonably well in this segment given that he stuck to the topic and brought across his populist approach. KL’s personable demeanour would be popular with certain parts of the voting crowd.

Q&A:

Question 1 - Harpreet from the audience requested more clarity to the narrower scope of the President. The two points that he made raised more questions for ANO. First, the late President Ong TC called a press conference to discuss the differences he had with the government before the end of his term. However, the government did not respond to it. ANO: Will the same situation repeat with the next President? Should it happens, how can he react appropriately? Second, Law Minister Shanmugam and PM Goh CT held different views of the President speaking in public about government matters. It is “unconstitutional” according to the former recently and “not unusual” according to the latter in 1999. ANO: In the eyes of the Cabinet, why has the role of the President shrunk while his wages swell over the years?

Question 2 – Alex asked if the candidates would encourage reporting of the use of Singapore’s reserves. Affirmative answers were given by CB, JS and KL. T avoided the question with a suitable comment - accumulated reserves should be left untouched unless in critical situations while new government projects should tap on new reserves.

ANO: Up till this point in the session, CB did reasonable well in answering the two questions related to transparency. Naturally, he displayed knowledge of the chain of command and procedures in the government. He was slightly agitated by other participants beating around the bush and not answering the questions.

Question 3 – Reena wanted to know if the next President would recommend concessions (e.g. transport) for the disabled. ANO: All four candidates made no enemies with their sympathetic replies. Above all, CB and T were able to share more about the procedures and current policies of the government in this aspect. The biggest irony is, despite common agreement over the need to provide more assistance to the disabled, the failure of the government to do more to help these people all these while.

Question 4 – See comments in previous post. Added: CB informed about the ability of the President to veto any imprisonment suggested by the ISD or government.

—- To Be Continued —-

Teaser video of the forum

The Singapore presidential election is scheduled to take place on 27 August 2011. This is the first time in election history that voters have four candidates to choose from. As a result, some voters at this point are still undecided about who is most qualified – attitude and aptitude wise – to become the new President of Singapore.

From now till voting day, eyes will be on the presidential candidates. Taking every chance to scrutinize their speeches and behavior, ANO hopes to achieve several ambitious objectives; a) verify statements and “facts” given by these leaders, b) inform readers on the history and future of local politics, and c) track whether pre-election promises have been fulfilled by the new President. Regardless of who will prevail during vote count, the defeated are likely to serve the nation in other posts and it is prudent for every citizen to be acquainted with their leadership.

In the first part of this series, ANO reviewed the teaser 5-min clip released by The Online Citizen - featuring the presidential candidates in a studio discussion with selected participants on 18 August. In the video, Clara from MARUAH (http://maruah.org/) directed the following question at the candidates.

“The President plays an important role in the detention of persons under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Based on all the evidence today, do you think that the detention of the so-called Marxist conspirators in 1987 was justified? If not, how would you improve the transparency and legitimacy of the detention process if you are the President?”

ANO: Neither T Tan or Tan JS answered Clara’s question except for JS briefly questioning the usefulness and justification of ISA.

T Tan did not elaborate on the 1987-1989 Marxist case due to the sensitivity of the information. In his view, the ISA is a blunt instrument which should only be used in the most extreme circumstances. Thereafter he abruptly switched to talk of terrorism and gave the example of the recent massacre in Norway.

ANO: T was right about the Official Secrets Act which is basically an act which prohibits the disclosure of official documents and information. However, given the broad definition of the act, almost any government information can be considered as confidential. Link

ANO gets the impression that T is resigned to terrorism being part and parcel of modern life.Anyway, the Norwegian killer Anders Breivik was said to be a sociopath whose actions were not typically of a solo terrorist. Link How about a valid example to substantiate your point next time, T?

To quote JS, “ISA has been used on political opponents…the history is such that it has been used for political purposes…” T interrupted to mention that this is a serious charge and he had better be able to back it up.

ANO: JS’s statement is partially wrong. According to Wikipedia, the ISA was used widely against opposition party and labour union leaders, Roman Catholic Church and social activists and spies. The act was not used against any political opponents from the 1980s to 2000s. In 2001, ISA was used against alleged Al Qaeda-inspired terrorists in Singapore.

The ISA was originally created to deal with communist insurgents before Singapore gained in independence in 1965 (Wiki). Since it has not been used against “political opponents” in the previous decades (Wiki), perhaps JS and Clara were right to raise concerns of such an act?

This review concludes with a quote from JS, “I am attacked on my understanding of the English language…”

ANO: JS, good grade for English in your examination results? :)

This series continue when the complete video clips of the above discussion session are released by The Online Citizen on 20 and 21 August.