TR EMERITUS

Let me just say that I’m truly humbled and I will honour the trust that Singaporeans have placed in me and respect all the views that they have expressed, including those who did not vote for me.—President-elect Tharman Shanmugaratnam It was not even what Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam was expecting: a landslide nationwide vote of 70.4 per cent placing him in the office of President. For the first time, the belief that Singapore is not ready for a minority as prime minister has been challenged seriously. The role of PM is quite different from that of the President, but the margin of the victory given to Tharman undermines stereotypical assumptions. The sound victory for Tharman in a campaign that though it brought in active support by some in the opposition for another candidate showed how voters can upturn partisan expectations: for even those who would have voted for the opposition in a general election seemed to have supported the ex-ruling party candidate; someone who held sufficient key posts to understand the dynamics of governing Singapore as well as have a grasp of the vital aspects of its national finances. The election of Tharman also reveals that the majority of the electorate believed that as far as the presidency went, while being non-partisan is important (there was no open support for Tharman by the ruling party and he did not say anything to show that he was biased towards any particular group): the perception that he could be partisan in someway was trumped by an assessment of his capabilities, personality, and past performance. Whatever cynics and well-intentioned critics may say against him, the national perception is that Tharman is alright. His vote into the presidency is historic. It is difficult to see any other person ever getting such a margin in a national vote involving several candidates. However, what this reveals too is that the ruling PAP has lost one of its best assets and arguably strongest politician post-Lee Kuan Yew. The next General Election will be fought closely and will be the most challenging the ruling party will face in quite a while. This time Tharman will stay above the fray and given that it will be difficult to discern how the next GE will turn out, it is imperative that the President is indeed trusted through a strong mandate. While it will not be known what would have been if Tharman had been PM, he may well be the right man in the right place at the right time this time around. For in the coming years and the expected heated battle of the next elections, more than ever before the role of the President as unifier will be crucial.   Sanjay Perera *The writer is the founding editor of Philosophers for Change. The full post is available at: The Solemn Investigator of Useless Things. [Picture: mustsharenews.]      Read More →

I don’t think it comes as a surprise to anyone that I had initially planned to vote for Mr Tan Kin Lian in this Presidential Election. But after hearing Mr Tan’s utterances on some issues over the past week, I found myself (and I suspect like many of you) wavering in my support of his candidacy. I am not enthusiastic, for different reasons, about all three candidates. And yet, come Friday, I have to make a decision. To this end, I am reminded that life seldom packages things neatly into good and bad, right and wrong for us to choose. The reality is that we are often faced with moral dilemmas where we have to choose the best from a bad lot. On this, we must remember a very important life lesson: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. While I consider Mr Tharman to be the most cerebral of the three candidates, what is more important is the fact that for more than two decades, he was part of the ruling clique that systematically stripped Singaporeans of their voice and ability to choose their own leaders. He was in the party that (1) changed the rules of the Elected Presidency so that Halimah Yacob walked into the Istana without challenge, (2) enacted yet more changes to the PE so that previously eligible candidates are now disqualified, (3) introduced the GRC system that has enabled his party’s overwhelming hold on parliamentary power, (4) legislated POFMA which further curtailed free speech in Singapore, (5) allowed ministers to rent enormous state-owned bungalows while herding Singaporeans into tiny flats – the list rolls on. To believe now that he is independent running for president is to believe that water flows upwards. Then, there’s Tan Kin Lian. I know of two young women who are eligible to vote this PE. They are strong-minded and fiercely independent. They are my daughters and I am their biggest admirer. This is the reason I find Mr Tan’s “pretty girl” remark off-colour. Intended or not, his comments trivialise the worth of women and does nothing to advance their empowerment and promote gender equality. I’m glad that he has apologised for them. I also find myself in deep conflict with his view that the voting age be raised to 30. If my son, who is about to serve his National Service, can be called upon to fight in an armed conflict should one break out, and be trusted to make decisions that could mean the difference between dying and living for himself and his platoon mates, then why can’t he be trusted to choose his government? To ask a man to kill or be killed for his country and then deny him of the right to vote seems illogical – indeed, deeply immoral. Three, Mr Tan said that "I don't believe politics solves problems” and that "opposition does not help”. I can only hope that he was misquoted or his words were taken out of context. Many of us spent our lives fighting for a system in which political parties, civil society and non-government organisations actively participate in political debate and public life. To make throwaway lines like this is reprehensible. I’ve heard many people who were initially inclined towards voting for Mr Tan are now, because of his remarks, expressing their desire to cast a spoilt vote or voting for Mr Ng Kok Song. If you are thinking of doing this, I beseech you to re-consider your decision. To spoil your vote is akin to doing nothing; it’s like standing around and watching while a house is on fire. At this crucial juncture of our country’s development, we cannot afford to remain a bystander and do nothing. The last time we got to vote for a president was in 2011. After 12 long years, we finally get that chance again. That vote is too precious to spoil. As to voting for Mr Mg Kok Song, I can do no better than to remind you of what Mdm Ho Ching said: “It is good that Singaporeans can choose between 2 very capable and worthy persons (Tharman and Ng).” I think Mdm Ho very ably expresses my concern about voting for Mr Ng Kok Song – he and Mr Tharman are but two different shades of grey. For all that he has expressed, much of which as I pointed out I vehemently disagree with, Mr Tan Kin Lian is a good man. I share his views on CPF, high salaries of elected officials, and National Service. But that’s not the reason why I find myself advocating for him at this late stage of the election. The real reason is this: All of Mr Tan’s transgressions pale in comparison to the damage that Mr Tharman’s (former) party has done to democracy in Singapore and, more importantly, the harm it will continue to inflict on our nation’s future development. Besides, Mr Tan’s views are not immutable. He can be educated through debate and discussion to see things differently (as with his apology about women). On this occasion, we, as citizens, are called to make a profoundly important decision, a decision that will determine the direction of how our country proceeds. We have in Tan Kin Lian who, for all his foibles, carries with him the hope that, if elected, we can start to pry open, one finger at a time, the PAP’s suffocating grip on our country and start the arduous but exciting process of building democracy for our nation. As imperfect as the choice on Friday is, if it helps to “build a democratic society, based on justice and equality”, then it should be clear who we choose. I choose Singapore.   Dr Chee Soon Juan      Read More →

It seems like the clickbait for the voters this Friday is what is perceived bias. And Tharman is the main target. He is the one to beat this PE. He is the center of attention. This is NKS’ main thrust for his compaign. He knows Tharman stands tall on his past track records, both within the cabinet and as a finance minister. It’s unimpeachable. As finance minister, he argued that Tharman is beholden to the ruling party. NKS said: “You need somebody who knows enough about the subject, but who is not biased. It’s very difficult for someone who set up the system to question the system.” But Tharman is calling for more critical thinking. He asked for the electoral to “avoid simple labels”. Instead, judge the presidential hopeful based strictly on character and track record. Tharman can’t erase his past. It is what it is. He is in fact where he is today because of what it was before. If it were a system set up by WP, for example, as the nation’s ruling party, in an alternate universe, I believe he will still excel. Because what is consistent or timeles is the character of the person. When that prevailing virtue meets a system, where reasonably fair opportunities and autonomy are granted and protected, the majority will still be able to flourish, or make a decent living. Of course, what is “decent” varies over time, especially with rising inequality gaps that play insidiously on our collective envy and individual ego. Anyway, for Tharman, it was a long, arduous journey to prominence, on a system painstakingly set up by the ruling party. A hand that is now often accused of meddling more than is necessary. He was earmarked for the system, groomed by the system, and thereafter, seen as a product of the system. But it is a system based principally on a set of principles, that is, rule of law, meritocracy, regardless of race, and so on. Tharman had abided by those principles to prove himself worthy of its high calling and standards. It was a privileged rise on a principled footing. And you can say the same for NKS and TKL. In many ways, even if denied today for whatever agenda, they all benefited from the system. It is not a perfect system. We all know that. Merit is too narrowly defined, laying the cornerstone for entrenched powers and privileges the ruling class rather not bring attention to for obvious reasons. And the recent scandals and investigation into corruption demonstrate the immutable reality that you can’t ringfence human free will; lest we lose what it means to be human, which is the autonomy that offers us the gift, joy and pain of being alive. A slave to that system does not experience such aliveness, or even come close to it. That said, Tharman’s brush with the law in the early 1990s (fined $1.5k for disclosing state secrets) made his journey even more exceptional, since it is a system that is supposedly whiter than white. Mind you, this was during MM’s time, under his stern watch. Yet, that did nothing to dent Tharman’s rise to high positions and ministeries, residing at the heart of government. The irony to all this is that while NKS, TKL and GG struggled with the uncertainty of whether they would qualify, with one casualty, Tharman is the only presidential hopeful where depending on hope to qualify is redundant. He is in fact overqualified, as some had argued. Well, he is not called the nuclear option for nothing. As such, he would be more productive as the nation’s executive head, regardless of race or colour, rather than a largely ceremonial head of state. And this leaves room for the critical minds to infer whether the hand of government that has shaped the system for more than five decades was also overreaching, to some extent. A case of over-shaping? Alas, the debate can go on and on. The ballot box is just too small to contain all conspiracy theories, whether real or imagined. Ultimately, as a general observation, we are dealing with a human system, where even principles can be a means to one’s end, rather as an end in itself. In any event, we have two more days to elect our president. Most times, the centrality/relevancy of our vote also depends on the options available, and whether the options give the voters the exacting competition they deserve. And even if all that is established, democracy on paper may work like a dignified gentleman, that is, junzi; however, we know that in raw reality, democracy on the street operates like a lover spurned or scorned - hell has no fury as such. It is more an emotional vote than a rational one. Maybe the silent majority is listening? Good luck then, at the ballot boxes!   Michael Han * The author is a Director at Hoh Law Corporation and blogs on Facebook.      Read More →