Sad to say, this year’s Presidential Elections probably has seen the closest fight between a PAP-endorsed candidate and a non-PAP endorsed candidate ever in a long time. Come next PE, Tan Cheng Bok will be 76 years old, and probably not as physically and mentally fit and fired up as this year.
Even sadder would be the fact that within the foreseeable next six years, there isn’t anyone that comes close to the character of Tan Cheng Bok, who might be able to take on the mighty PAPpy machine.
Cheng Bok was very vocal when he was in Parliament. He reminds me of Dr Toh Chin Chye, one of the pioneers of the PAP and the Party Chairman who was also very vocal within the PAP. Unafraid to speak his mind and for the people, Cheng Bok was always among the highest winner in every General Elections. That shows the confidence the people had in him.
One of the biggest issues Singaporeans have with the PAPpy is the non-transparency of our reserves. If we depend on the next GE, which is 5 years time, the opposition will have to win many seats – something which has been eluding the opposition for more than twenty years since the GRC system came into place.
A good alternative appears to have a President who is willing to speak his mind and keep a constant check on govt spending, as well as being transparent for Singaporeans to see. Tan Cheng Bok could have filled that role.
Pity he lost by a mere 7000+ votes. Bigger pity he would be 77 years old and may not be as fit as today to campaign next GE. But the biggest shame is that there isn’t anyone as close as him in terms of passion, sincerity and ability to garner such high number of votes against PAP-endorsed PE candidate, in the foreseeable next 6 years.
In the meantime, Cheng Bok’s spirit is still strong. Let’s hope that it remains that way the next 6 years. That’s our only hope left to check on the PAPpies’ spending too much of our hard earned money.
After spoiling Tan Cheng Bok’s chances of a historic win against the mammoth PAP machinery, Tan Jee Say now says that if he hadn’t stood for the Presidential Elections, many of the votes he had garnered would have been spoiled. In other words, he is saying that many of the 25% of the voters who voted for him would rather see him or nobody.
What a pompous, egoistic, narcissistic, self-worshiping guy.
Mr Tan Jee Say shrugged off suggestions that his participation in the presidential election contributed to Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s loss in the race.
He said those who voted for him may not necessarily have voted for Dr Tan, if it came down to a two-horse race between Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Dr Tony Tan.
‘A lot of my supporters told me if I had not run, they’d have spoiled their votes so it would have made no difference. In fact, they wanted me to go in and give a real contest,’ said Mr Tan Jee Say in an interview with The Straits Times.
Tan Cheng Bok lost to Tony Tan by only 7269 votes. Jee Say got 529,732 votes. All Cheng Bok needed was another 7270 votes out of this 529,732. For Jee Say to claim it won’t make a difference, he is saying that 522,463 out of the voters who voted for him would have spoiled their votes, such that Cheng Bok would have been short of one vote to be declared a clear winner.
He means to say that there are 522,463 die hard Jee Say supporters who would vote for him or nobody. Isn’t that about 25% of the voters who would spoil their votes in protest, just because a guy with an over-inflated ego did not stand for elections?!
I’ll remember Jee Say for what he is. He talks too fast, too loud, and too much nonsense.
What a narcissist, self-centred guy who thinks the whole of Singapore revolves around him.
You bet I won’t vote for him even if he stood for GE next time round, in five years’ time.
He was supposed to help Tan Kin Lian in the PE campaign. Instead, he decided to stand in for elections himself, to the disappointment of Kin Lian. In doing so, he drew votes away from Tan Cheng Bok, and allowed PAPpy endorsed Tony Tan to walk into the Istana, keeping all PAPpy’s secrets secret, for the next 6 years.
Jee Say’s supporters claim that he is no yes man. That is furthest from the truth. Jee Say was a yes man from the very start. He only became a no man (but not necessarily a thinking man), when he joined SDP.
14:08 min – Jee Say replies. Admits he was in govt during that period. He was PPS to Goh Chok Tong. Says he was not in the picture at all and knew nothing about it. But obviously he has to write certain letters on behalf of the then DPM GCT and signed a document. Keeps insisting he had “no part to play in it”.
What the heck. He knew nothing? What did he write then? “Nothing”? Surely he knew enough to write something!
The point is what did he do to advise GCT about the wrongful detentions?
If anyone dares to say that he was looking after his rice bowl and hence did nothing then, I will say thank you. You have proven he ain’t got no moral courage then.
My question would be, what the heck makes you think he has that moral courage now, which was missing then?
In fact, it is Tan Cheng Bok who has proven that he is no yes-man.
Tan Cheng Bok was the “opposition” within the PAP. Jee Say was complying to everything his boss told him to do. Who has the moral courage and who hasn’t?
Note that while Tony Tan had many pro-PAP organisations supporting him, and many opposition figures supported Jee Say, Cheng Bock had none of that sort. In fact, he even rejected parties who tried to give him support, because he truly wanted to be non-partisan. This shows his principles. In spite of that, he lost to Tony Tan by a mere 7000+ votes.
In other words, while the former two candidates had to depend on political parties for votes one way or another, all of Cheng Bock’s 737,128 votes were truly genuine votes, uninfluenced by political parties, but by people who believed he was genuinely sincere. On the other hand, had any political party not backed up Tony Tan or Jee Say, they would not have registered as many votes as they did.
Cheng Bock’s critics (especially Jee Say’s supporters) don’t seem to give him the respect he’s due. While Cheng Bok has a wide support from a diverse group of different races, religion and ages, Jee Say’s supporters are niche groups with sectarian interests like Human Rights, Animal Rights, No to Death Penalty, LGBTs and other sectarian parties. A highly divisive approach by Jee Say.
Jee Say places blame on his wide margin loss due to the “lack of campaign time”. Hello, all four candidates had equal time, hadn’t they?
He also blames the media for projecting him as confrontational. That is placing blame on others, the way Kin Lian places blame on Jee Say. Wasn’t it TOC’s video recording rather than the mass media that showed Jee Say clashed with Tony Tan? What projection by mass media talking he?
But the irony of the night was that Jee Say commented (to the media) that he would prefer Cheng Bok to Tony Tan (after he knew he had to concede defeat).
Well, if he thinks that way, he should have campaigned for Cheng Bok, instead of trying to push his luck, using sectarian groups for support.
Jee Say was just an opportunist. He isn’t interested in Singapore or Singaporeans. He pulled votes away from Cheng Bok, and he gave false hopes to sectarian groups, promising them what a President couldn’t deliver by restriction of the Constitution.
Cheng Bok would have given us an Annual Report on what the govt does with our reserves. That would be transparency. That’s what the late and respected Ong Teng Cheong tried to give us too, albeit unsuccessfully.
No thanks to opportunist Tan Jee Say, PAPpy’s secrets will be continued to be kept secret the next 6 years.
Ms Jannie Chan, founder and executive vice-chairman of The Hour Glass, decided just two days ago who she would vote for as Singapore’s next president.
The prominent businesswoman, who on Thursday revealed that she too had considered contesting in this presidential election, was speaking to The Straits Times after casting her vote at Raffles Girls’ School on Saturday morning.
Without revealing the names of the two candidates she had been torn between, Ms Chan said she chose the candidate she felt would ‘support the economy during this critical period’.
‘I want stability for our economy so we can continue to do well, have our salaries, have our bonuses; and then spend with the retailers,’ said Ms Chan, who is also the president of the Singapore Retailers Association.
So which of the four PE candidates have been campaigning on the idea ‘support the economy during this critical period’? Hint – doesn’t it sound so familiarly like PAPpy?
Isn’t this article’s message trying to subtly push a particular candidate?
What an underhand move to sneak past the Cooling Day off rule.
We’ve had the Socialist Left pressing the four PE candidates for their views on the ISA and the arrest of the 1987 Marxist conspirators during TOC’s Face to Face 2 dialogue. We’ve had a gay activist, Alex Au, asking about their opinion on S377A. Another member from the floor asked about Women’s issues.
Now we have Animal Rights Group trying to hear from the 4 PE candidates their views on animal rights. Heck, what do you people think the President is? A Santa Claus dishing out goodies or what?
Animal rights group Acres has pressed the four presidential candidates on their views on animal rights and the issue of keeping dolphins in captivity.
Its executive director, Mr Louis Ng, and campaigns officer, Ms Christine Lee, showed up at Ang Mo Kio MRT station on Thursday lunchtime to query Mr Tan Jee Say at his walkabout.
Acres is currently conducting a campaign to free more than 20 dolphins currently kept in the Philippines, which are destined for an attraction at Resorts World Sentosa.
Acres had sent emails to the candidates on Aug 15 asking for their views and got answers from Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Tan Kin Lian. They asked Dr Tony Tan at a talk last Saturday.
On Thursday Mr Tan Jee Say said: ‘Moral issues don’t just extend to humans but also to animals… I think it’s part of my values for conscience, empathy. I think (dolphins) are lovely creatures, they give us a lot of joy. We should help, promote and protect them.’
He added that he hoped young people would do more volunteer work and take up social causes such as dolphin protection.
Mr Ng said that Dr Tan Cheng Bock has given a supportive answer, while Mr Tan Kin Lian and Dr Tony Tan gave more neutral responses.
All these groups are only interested in their partisan, localised areas of interest.
What would happen if a Christian group, Muslim group or any other religious group starts asking questions that centre on their interests? Wouldn’t that polarize Singaporeans?
Interest groups should know where they stand. The President ain’t no Santa Claus and its wrong to expect him to lobby for your narrow cause that does not benefit Singaporeans in general.
In any case, by Constitution, the President’s powers are highly restricted.
I have to admit that the more I think about Tan Jee Say’s denial that he knows nothing about the 1987 Marxist ISA Arrests, the more it looks weird. He admits that he had to write a letter for the the DPM Goh Chok Tong as PPS at that time. Yet he claims he’s not into it and knew nothing about the case?
Hellooo? You mean to say that in spite he knew nothing, he wrote something? What? Yeah, where did he get the contents to write (and sign the document) in the first place? You mean to say his signed document was something like this?
Date: xxxxx
Re: Marxist Detainees
I know nothing.
Thank you.
Regards
xxxxx
PPS for xxxxxx
Huh?
Obviously he had to know something. And obviously if he has the moral courage as what he claims today, why didn’t he have the moral courage to have a private word with his boss then?
14:08 min – Jee Say replies. Admits he was in govt during that period. He was PPS to Goh Chok Tong. Says he was not in the picture at all and knew nothing about it. But obviously he has to write certain letters on behalf of the then DPM GCT and signed a document. Keeps insisting he had “no part to play in it”.
What the heck. He knew nothing? What did he write then? “Nothing”? Surely he knew enough to write something!
The point is what did he do to advise GCT about the wrongful detentions?
If anyone dares to say that he was looking after his rice bowl and hence did nothing then, I will say thank you. You have proven he ain’t got no moral courage then.
My question would be, what the heck makes you think he has that moral courage now, which was missing then?
At least Tony Tan was straight and direct. He admitted he was part of it and justified why they were detained without trial. Never mind it was inhumane to detain people without giving them a fair chance to defend themselves.
The point is Tony Tan doesn’t lie, but Jee Say lies through his teeth, about their knowledge and respective parts they play in the detentions.
Tan Jee Say’s involvement in the 1987 Arrests of Marxist Conspirators deserves another look. I made a short mention in this post – Is Tan Jee Say being used by the Left?
14:10 min – Tan Jee Say responds. For Q1, he says that the 1987 case took place when he was PPS to Goh Chok Tong. But immediately went on the defensive and said he had nothing to do with it, although he signed a document.
(My comments – Say…. now why are Jee Say’s supporters so forgiving and willing to buy his words, but crucify TCB like hell on this one. Let’s face the hard truth. TT, TCB and TJS had one way or another some involvement in it. Let’s be consistent. The only diff is the degree, of which, TT is most culpable. TKL of course has nothing to do with it. Also note that Jee Say’s claim he has no part in it although he signed a letter. Ah, so he is saying that top civil servants are dummies and rubber stamps? Hey, isn’t that what the President is by consti as far as the ISA is concerned too? And he now wants to rectify it as President [hands tied too, no?] when he admits his hands were tied as PPS? Huh? In fact, between the two – TJS and TCB – TJS was more directly involved in it! He signed those darn papers! Yet TJS’s supporters crucify TCB and let TJS off the hook?)
Here is the video again. The question was posed at 12:35 min to all four PE candidates. They were asked what is their opinion on the 1987 Marxist ISA Arrest case. Jee Say responds at the 14:10 min mark.
There appears to be a flip flop type answer from Tan Jee Say. He says that being the PPS of the PM then, he was “not in the picture”. This is in spite he signed a document pertaining to the case.
Today, he appears to be fighting for the Marxists and even got entangled with Tony Tan, when he said the ISA detainees were arrested because they were political opponents.
I don’t buy this crap. His denial that he knew nothing, that is.
Tan Jee Say was PPS to then DPM Goh Chok Tong at that point of time. If he really has the moral courage to do things right as what he claims now, why didn’t he at that point of time, discuss with his boss (ie Goh CT) that the arrest was morally wrong?
It didn’t matter that he was a civil servant then. He could have a private word with GCT without anyone around. So why didn’t he do it?
Today, after 24 years, Jee Say claims that he wants to get things right, speaks loudly about the arrest of the detainees and even campaigns on that Leftist platform where the 1987 Arrests is now being politicised.
Sounds a little hypocritical, doesn’t it? Here are some points to consider.
Who was the one who prepared the documents that Jee Say had to sign in 1987? I don’t believe that it was Goh CT himself, because why should the boss prepare a letter on a National Issue for his subordinate to sign? Shouldn’t it be the other way?
If that’s not the case, was it prepared by his subordinate? If it was, Jee Say was fully in the know and fully involved in the 1987 Arrests.
If it is from another department, why didn’t Jee Say object, since he was the PPS for the DPM, and his job was to look after the DPM’s interest, and not sucking up to other departments?
So what is the truth, Jee Say?
Now if one were to argue that he could not do anything as PPS, even to the point that he could not have a private word with DPM, doesn’t that show he really had no moral courage at that point of time? The reason why he did not bring it up at that time could be any of the reasons below.
1. At that point of time, he really was in agreement and was convinced that the arrest of the detainees were justified.
2. He was against the arrest but didn’t have the moral courage to speak up, fearing his career may be jeopardized. This about undoes all the rhetoric by his supporters that among the four PE candidates, he has the moral courage to do things right.
3. He really just didn’t care at that time, because it had no political leverage that was beneficial to him then. But today, because it has a political leverage for him to benefit, he makes the 1987 Arrests his cause.
There are too many inconsistencies to believe that Jee Say has the moral courage, or for that matter the moral conscience to right the wrongs of the 1987 ISA detentions. He is simply an opportunistic guy grabbing an opportunity that comes by.
Little does he realise that the opportunity he tries to grab, bears his very fingerprints of guilt and complicity. He signed the very document pertaining to the case without any sign of protest.
What moral courage (that doesn’t exist in him), that his supporters are flaunting about?
It looks like some are rooting for Tan Jee Say as President just because he appears to be the most vocal and direct hitting against the PAP. However, I don’t think he would make a good President. A President should look after the country’s reserves and ensure racial and religious harmony. The last thing we need is to have a President who appears bent on going head on against the govt on a partisan issue, just to “play to the gallery”.
Over-emphasis on the ISA Arrests in 1987 -
Again, let me clarify that I am against the ISA. It should be abolished. All detainees under the ISA should be given a fair and open trial to defend themselves. If they are guilty, sentence them. If they are not, set them free. What’s wrong with that?
The over-emphasis on the ISA – and especially the case in 1987 where the Marxist Conspirators were detained – has been played up over and over by supporters of Tan Jee Say. As if that is the sole important issue of the President.
I was willing to support their agenda to have a relook at the 1987 case initially. However, it does appear to me that as the weeks go by, the agenda is not about Human Rights per se, but an actual re-ignition, revitalisation of the Socialist Left. Why must this be so?
Here is a question posed to all four PE candidates on the topic of the ISA, in particular, the 1987 Arrests. Listen to each answer carefully.
44:00 min – Tan Kin Lian responds. Says President has to ensure the use of ISA is for legitimate purposes. Note that he says that if “these people were accused of being Marxists but were not”, then President has the power to release the people who were wrongly detained.
45:20 – Tony Tan responds. Rants and lectures. Supports ISA direct and even justifies it. Brings up a lot of irrelevant points, including Norway from nowhere. Makes a lot of innuendo statements, implicating past detainees (and perhaps current ones) are/were terrorists – never mind they were not given open trials for the world to see the evidence of those unsupported terrorist charges.
47:35 min – Jee Say responds. Says the question is, is there any other law to counter terrorism. (Yes there is, try them in an open court). Says the ISA has been used for political purposes. Tony Tan cuts in and the discussion stalls …….
49:10 min – Order restored. Tan Cheng Bok responds. Says if Director of ISD wants to release a detainee, but the PM does not agree, the President can veto.
12:35 min – ISA and Marxist Conspiracy 1987 Case brought up again. Two Qs to all four PE candidates. Q1 – what is your opinion on the 1987 case? Q2 – Next year, when we have the 25th Anniversary of the Marxist arrest, would you seek to influence the govt to seek redress for these detainees in the light of the evidence available now?
(My comments – what the heck do you need to wait for 25th Anniversary if you feel there is injustice? Can’t it be done IMMEDIATELY? Is not this a showcase, using the Marxist Conspiracy issue to politicize the situation? Yeah, 25th Anniversary on the Wrongs by the PAPpy govt against the Socialist Left. Let’s put it in history. Isn’t this propaganda stuff akin to PAPpy’s ways the Left are accusing PAPpy of?)
13:20 min – Tan Cheng Bok. Asks what evidence available now. (True. How can you talk about today’s available evidence to judge what has happened in 1987, which was not available then. TCB is smart!) For Q1, he says he was part of Feedback Team and that he was convinced with the info available at that time. However, in one year’s time, he could relook into the case in the light of whatever new evidence available.
14:10 min – Tan Jee Say responds. For Q1, he says that the 1987 case took place when he was PPS to Goh Chok Tong. But immediately went on the defensive and said he had nothing to do with it, although he signed a document.
(My comments – Say…. now why are Jee Say’s supporters so forgiving and willing to buy his words, but crucify TCB like hell on this one. Let’s face the hard truth. TT, TCB and TJS had one way or another some involvement in it. Let’s be consistent. The only diff is the degree, of which, TT is most culpable. TKL of course has nothing to do with it. Also note that Jee Say’s claim he has no part in it although he signed a letter. Ah, so he is saying that top civil servants are dummies and rubber stamps? Hey, isn’t that what the President is by consti as far as the ISA is concerned too? And he now wants to rectify it as President [hands tied too, no?] when he admits his hands were tied as PPS? Huh? In fact, between the two – TJS and TCB – TJS was more directly involved in it! He signed those darn papers! Yet TJS’s supporters crucify TCB and let TJS off the hook?)
For Q2, TJS says he would like to seek a closure.
15:14 min – Tony Tan responds. Q1, he was convinced with info available at that time. Q2, says he will consider whatever new evidence available.
15:55 min – Tan Kin Lian. Q1. Says he was not in the know at all. In view of what he heard from the detainees so far, he would also like to seek the views of the govt’s side. Q2, he hopes to have an Inquiry to seek redress if they have been wronged.
My Comments -
It looks like there are some Leftist supporters who are trying to promote their own agenda, by using the Marxist 1987 issue. And they are rooting for Tan Jee Say and are using him. It also looks like Jee Say is obliging them.
Firstly, why is the explanation that Jee Say had “nothing to do with it” acceptable to these Leftists, even when he signed a document pertaining to the incident?
Secondly, if it is felt that there was wrong done against the detainees of 1987, why is the Presidential Platform being used, when it is clearly stated what his powers are and are not? The President simply can’t abolish the ISA.
Using the Presidential Platform to campaign for the Marxist 1987 issue is partisan politics. It only serves a small community of the people – the Leftists. No different from a small minority race/religious/gay group who tries to dominate politics, overshadowing other more important issues.
Thirdly, if Human Rights is the concern of the Leftists, why are they so silent about CURRENT detaines who have also been detained without a fair trial?
Lastly, note that the question posed in the second video. The PE candidates were asked what they would do to “rectify” the Marxist Issue of 1987 next year, which is the 25th Anniversary. My issue with that politically loaded question is:
1. Why wait for 25th Anniversary, if Human Rights is so important to you? Shouldn’t you do it now? Or at least immediately after the coming President is put in office? Isn’t the 25th Anniversary a chance for you to showcase a political statement that Leftists have been detained?
2. The questioner who asked already assumed that there is “new evidence” that is available, or will be available in one year’s time that would show that the detainees were wrongly detained. But going by that argument, they are saying that there is nothing wrong with the ISA itself, but the detainees were wrongly accused of being Marxists. So what’s the stand now? Are they saying that the ISA itself has to go, or that these Leftists have been wrongly accused?
Point Number 2 above is very important to me. If they are saying that the detainees have been wrongly accused, then that is a signal to me that they are not interested in the repressive ISA itself, but seeking to make a statement that these detainees were right in their ideals (that is Leftist ideals), but wrongly detained.
Coupled with the fact that these Leftists have yet to breathe a word about the CURRENT detainees, that only reinforces the belief that they are not interested in Human Rights per se.
So what’s all the hypocrisy about Human Rights, when it is now quite clear that they are just using this Marxist Issue in 1987 to politicise an agenda, ie a political uprising to promote Leftist Socialism?
And is it now not clear that they are using the Presidential Platform to achieve that? And that too, they chose the most Left Friendly candidate – Tan Jee Say?
Question from the floor – What is your opinion (directed to the four Presidential Candidates) about the use of the ISA on the Marxist Conspirators in the 1980s?
Tony Tan gives a long lecture, yes that’s right, lecture and not reply. He maintains that this is a last resort to contain terrorism. Says this was discussed at the highest level in Cabinet (that means Tan Cheng Bok was not involved) and he would be breaking the Official Secrets Act if he said what went on in that discussion. Next he rants and even brings in Norway from nowhere into the scene. Plays up a lot of bogeyman scare except explain why we need this outdated ISA.
Can’t we just have an open trial to prosecute terrorists and jail them? Don’t trust out that our courts are able to deliver?
Jee Say says that the ISA has been notably used to detain political opponents. That’s when Tony blows his top because he’s been directly implicated. Discussion stalls….
I am not comfortable with Jee Say being our President, but if I see that what he says is right, I will say what he says is right. Well, he’s right.
That said, it still isn’t enough for me to vote him because I feel TCB is more qualified.
As for Tony, it is good to see his conscience pricking him real bad. Never knew he had one in the first place…..
