Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Why I wanted 100,000 signatures

Discussion in www.theonlinecitizen.com
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/11/help-get-100000-signatures-for-tan-kin-lian-to-run/

smallvoice585 on November 25th, 2008 2.31 am

Dear Tan Kin Lian,
With due respect, sir, I believe that you are not ready for politics yet. Though you have been a PAP member for 30 years, you have not been engaged in any grassroots work in the last 20 years. You also have no experience in electioneering. You do not have a dedicated or well-organised support structure around you.

People know you to be a long-time CEO of NTUC Income for 30 years; recently as an on-line protester against insurance bonus cuts; and lately, as a champion of burnt financial product investors. I’m afraid that’s not enough to gain credibility as the next big thing in alternative politics. People need to know your stand, views and ideas on a full spectrum of political issues articulated consistently over a significant period of time. They need to see proof of a wider range of leadership qualities required in political office.

Of course, please do not misconstrue that I’m trying to discourage you.

But the 100,000 signatures that this article is calling for is in my view totally irrelevant. True politicians do not ask for a show of hands before entering the fray - they offer themselves as instruments for their beliefs and willingly submit themselves to the caprice of public opinion. That is, you do not ask for support before you commit, but you should commit first and see if you’re getting any support. If you are not ready for this uncertainty, then it speaks volumes about your dedication to your political cause.

Tan Kin Lian on November 25th, 2008 5.19 am

Hi smallvoice585
You are correct. I am not “ready” for politics …. in the conventional way. There are many examples of more capable people who came into politics during the past 20 years. Most of them did not survive. Only two did, and they have a lot of difficulty in building up their base of support.

You are also correct about the lack of a political machinery. It takes more than this political machinery for an alternative party to succeed- as it has to compete with the incumbent that has more resources beyond its own political machinery..

I wanted to take a different approach - to create awareness, to educate the public. The recent event involving the 10,700 investors of the credit linked notes show how bad things can be - that the government can just ignore the call to do the right thing and enforce the law.

If more people come forward to voice their views, it may wake up the current leaders and create the change that is desriable and good for the country. An important change is to recognise that the elected leaders should represent the people, and that a free contest is for the good of the country.

Many people said that an alternative party needs more than one person. How do you expect other people to come forward? They are not willing to sacrifice their career. They will be subject to discrimination. Maybe 100,000 signatures will change their mind.

Will my approach work? Some people think so. Others are sceptical. I am willing to give it a try. If it does not, I can go back and retire.

53 comments:

Singapore Kopitiam - Voices of Singaporeans said...

Dear Mr. Tan:

I applaud your courage to come forward to serve the people. It has been a long time we have not seen quality people like yourself.

The time to prepare for election is NOW, not waiting till the election is called. You need a working group of helpers and supporters to see you through, especially when this will be your first election.

You have started the first step in the right direction, using your blog to connect to the ground. The TOC also gives you some publicity - so far less than 2,000 people have viewed your petition. You can also use Singapore Kopitiam Forum to connect to your supporters - it offers unconstrained postings without moderation. We have more than a thousand visitors on a daily basis.

Of course, collecting 100,000 signatures for your petition requires much hardwork. I have yet to see any online petition reaching 100,000 signatures from Singapore. But this is not meant to be impossible; it means the organizer must take a more active approach to reach out to more individuals to sign the petition.

I encourage you to use new media to get your messages across, like what Obama did for his presidency. A powerful slogan and a crisp manifesto will win over many undecided voters.

Regards,
Victor Sun
Singapore Kopitiam - Voices of Singaporeans
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam

Monsoon said...

Sir - If your attempt to wake up our fellow Singaporean does not work, nothing else can help us Singaporean and it is then proven we, actually wanted, fully and truly deserved the government we had. I have already signd up with you.

Renjun said...

Dear Sir,

I believe that your response to smallvoice585 is somewhat misleading.

You seem to suggest that the 'capable people who came into politics' refers only to the opposition candidates and the 2 that survived are the 2 opposition MPs in Parliament. I feel that this is an unjustified claim. I am sure some other 'capable people' have joined politics in the government's side and have their own supporters within their constituencies.

Also, I do not believe that your method of action will help in making the government not 'ignore the call'. I like to present an alternative viewpoint to you and your avid readers. Perhaps it is because of your actions, that the government feel 'forced' and thus, not 'do[ing] the right thing'. If the government gives in to you and your demands, you will instantly become a hero. You won't need 100k signatures, you immediately will feel confident enough to enter politics. If that happens, every tom, dick and harry will initiate support out of Hong Lim Park. And politicians will be bornt out of Hong Lim Park. How can any government (not just ours) tolerate this? This is why because of your actions, the people who suffered in the Minibonds issue will never be rightfully treated. Perhaps if you did not conduct your fortnightly meetings, the government will not feel pressured, and the authorities may instead have done 'the right thing'. You have created a no-win situation for the interests you claim to fight for.

Before you pursue your political ambitions. Think about this, if you were to succeed, people will see that this 'petition way' of doing things be can effective. From then on, every little thing that Singaporeans want will be petitioned, will be demonstrated fortnightly at Hong Lim Park, will be made known by hanging white elephants and other similar actions. Is this the kind of politics that you hope to see in Singapore?

Mr Tan, I respect you as I believe you are a decent man. But you cannot initiate such a political precedence. Because you cannot guarantee that the people who follow your footsteps are also good men. People who follow your precedence may be less decent than you are, may be more dangerous than you are and may have ulterior motives. Thus, your populist method cannot succeed and, for the greater good of Singapore, you must not succeed.

Renjun

Tan Kin Lian said...

Dear Renjun

My answer to your comment is already expressed by Mrs Y in her e-mail to me that was sent a few days ago:

http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/11/speak-up-for-our-rights.html

If the MAS had acted on petition #1 and set up the channel to give guidance to the investors (instead of asking them to go the the financial institutions), there is no need for the regular meeting at Speaker's Corner.

This is the only place in Singapore that affected people can meet.

I think that the Government should do what is right for the people, rather than to "play politics" in the manner that you have described. There is no shame to act for what is fair and right.

Anonymous said...

The comment of smallvoice585 that Tankinlian has no experience and not ready to compete in elections is not wrong. But there is always a start somewhere. Going by the argument of smallvoice585 then there will be no new faces forever because in the beginning who has expereince to battle the PAP?

IT's got to start somewhere, and for me i think the start point is getting the ground feeling, not the physcial issues of logistics.etc. The ground feeling is already quite clear, and Tan Kin Lian is trying to re-confirm it through a novel way, to collect 100000 signatures. I personally think it is a good way. IT is special because actually i think TKL is torn between two selves, should he or should he not do it. Unlike other politicians this is the first time i have seen someone actually did a whole lot of good-work before even harbouring the idea of competing PAP. Chew on that, before you read on.

TKL is the true people's action party, pardon the word play. He does action first, practically all his thoughts from the beginning are action-oriented, not useless empty talk repeating historical stuffs or passing the buck favourite pastime of highly paid government ministers.
The issue here is whether ordinary docile singaporeans can be energised to do something for themselves or just play wait and see kiasu mentality. In fact the preferred way is for someone other than TKL to step in to organise the signature collections. It is quite shameful (myself included) that even the mechanics of getting the 100000 signature has to be spoon-fed to us by TKL ... There are just simply no leaders, Singaporeans are all born followers and born kiasu.

REX

Anonymous said...

Renjun,

Are you serious enough to think that by keeping quiet and not do the things that you have mentioned, the government will do the right thing swiftly to address the grievances of the affected investors?

What if the government turned around and say, "Grow up. We can't be mothering you all the times". Possible? Absolutely yes, if you can recall all the speeches by the ministers.

Renjun, you are either naive, ignorant or out of touch. I suggest you stick to your books. There is no place for shallow observer like you here. Let Mr. Tan continue with the good works because all the affected investors know that he is doing it rightly for them.

Jeremy said...

Dear Mr Tan

I mentioned in your first post on this before that i believe your greatest contribution would be the leverage u can bring into the scene. As u mentioned, and I fully agree, that your actions are not so much to see if u win or lose but to act as a call to other like-minded people. There must always be a first, a leader, before others will come forth.

On your part, a loose alliance with the opposition parties would also be good because you can leverage on their existing networks as well as to tap on their electioneering experience while they can leverage on your profile and expertise. like it or not, if u have become our icon for positive change and a return to a more caring government. i do agree with one of the TOC articles which said that the govt strategy to character assasinate u might fail because there will be just too many people who know what u represent already! this kind of positive spin is very important to break the negative impression our loyal opposition has after years of being branded as liars, fools
and mad people.

i may be wrong but please do consider the possibility of leveraging.

I hope u don't mind my suggestions. i sincerely want to see changes and I do recognise that u may be the man that SIngapore needs.

Anonymous said...

Rejun :

If there is a better alternative other than Hong Lim Park, don't you think people will use it ?

So who created this convoluted way of "demostration" ? Who has given us no alternative ?
Who has NOT responded in the very beginning before this has become as it is ?

If there is another viable political voice that DO speak for the people, then perhap you wouldn't need to worry; but the situation obviously scream for better solution.

Anonymous said...

Dear Renjun,

Ha ha, interesting argument! The way you put your argument forward seems like you are a newly converted Singaporean or you have been away from Singapore for long time. You views are outdated and you don't understand Singapore government and Singapore citizens in every aspect.

Zhong

Anonymous said...

I wang to cheer for Victor Sun and cheer for the reply of TKL.

You have my best wishes and support.

VS Lingam said...

Mr Tan KL,

In any endeavour, there will normally be more detractors than supporters. Pls don't be put off by detractors, and go with your conscience. I believe what you are doing is the "right thing".


smallvoice585,

Let me ask you something. When you got married did you ask your spouse whether he/she had any prior experience? Experience is something that you build up from scratch. You have to start somewhere. If you wait till you have sufficient experience, World War III would have ended.

There are ppl who get into things by design (eg PAP handpicking their candidates well in advance and grooming them up). On the other hand, there are ppl who get into things by accident, like TKL. It is an alternate approach to problem-solving. Both ways are effective. Look at how Anwar Ibrahim and Obama got into politics against many odds. Think about it.


Renjun,

There is a saying in the farmlands of Bangladesh:- "If the cow is well fed on its own turf, then there is no need for the cow to wander to the neighbour's pasture to graze grass".

Likewise if the govt has done the right thing for affected investors, there is no need for TKL to go beyond Petition #1.

Anonymous said...

Just to comment on Mr Runjun's message.

A democratic country should allow citizens to express their voices in public including portests and demonstrations in peaceful and orderly manner. The govt and MPs of the country should listen to these public voices and take actions where appropriate.

Mr Runjun's argument that the govt will not act (even it is the right thing to do) merely because people demonstrate or protest does not hold water. In fact, this is the kind of mindset that impede the progress of democracy.

I am sure his argument of demonstrations and protests being no good to the country is the same reason that the colonial power was using to suppress the local people. It is unjust for the colonial power to suppress public voice. It is also all the more unjust for the demoncratic govt to do so to its citizens.

Tan Kin Lian said...

Hi Jeremy said ...

Your suggestion is good. It is one of the options that I will consider - for the reasons that you have outlined.

C H Yak said...

Hi Mr Tan

I support your view and approach to educate the public ... I believe this will lead to a more matured electorate. The following was my letter to Today.

19.11.08 TODAY Voices letter :

DEMOCRACY A QUESTION OF MATURITY?

I REFER to “Adversarial two-party system not for Singapore”, (Nov 17).

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was quoted to have commented on the United States presidential election: “The opposition party campaigns on the message of ‘change’: Change, change, change. Never mind change to what -just change ... The new government comes in on that message and then they start to think change to what.”

I believe political leaders should not assert that an adversarial two-party system will not work for nations big or small.

The very preaching in favour of a one-party system contradicts the basic principles and the real beauty of democracy - that such a decision should be left to a politically-mature electorate to decide.

The same applies to political change.

The more important issue is whether the electorate is politically educated, mature and motivated to decide on whether they would want a two-party system and other political change. If the electorate is not ready to decide on this, it undermines the democratic system the political leader governs.

The electorate should be educated to decide on whether they want a two-party system and other political change, and not to get rid of it for the sake of supporting a modified one-party system, even if the latter is sure to succeed.

In this lies the beauty of the system of democracy. I cannot be sure if our political system and electorate match the maturity of the US adversarial two-party system.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mr Tan,

You need only 99,999 signatures left.

Good luck!

Anonymous said...

Mr Tan,

You are a courageous and loyal Singaporean. I salute you.

Do not listen to those who are "planted" to discourage you. I do not think they represent the majority at all.

I think you are the most suitable candidate to be our EP. Pls conduct inquiries into the way our CPF money is being used.

Anonymous said...

What Jeremy said :'i sincerely want to see changes and I do recognise that u may be the man that SIngapore needs.'
are also the thoughts in my mind.

Anonymous said...

spore must change.i feel so stifled already here.i believe you can make a change.anyway:http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/10/22/sing_0.php you see alot of pressure of people who wants to speak out.say banks are wrong also cannot-although they are so vicious.say MAS not efficient also cannot.If not will be fined til i get bankrupt.i hate spore.they dun understand the maslows hierchary of needs.some cannot even survive yet they waste people to get china pp to vie for jobs and men and education opportunities.no food/money how to get sense of belonging.china pp better than us,so we should migrate lo.leave all china people here to dirty & pollute our mrt.

note:no attack on spore govt intended.pls dun sue me.i am not rich.if u sue me,i sure commit suicide.

Anonymous said...

oh no, don't commit suicide. I am here to support you.
We must continue to speak our mind.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9.51 am

I agree completely with your views regarding renjun.

Renjun appears to be someone very naive in his thinking. A neophyte?

Grow up, renjun.

Anonymous said...

to 2.59pm

let's put it this way. even if the chinese don't compete with you for jobs in singapore, they compete with you on the international stage by having your companies shut your singapore-based plants and move them to china.

the world is flat, my friend. shutting the door to foreigners does not protect you from competitions. granted, we ought and have a right, to make the govt do a better job admitting foreigners into singapore. to demand that foreigners are admitted based on merit, based on their contributions to singapore, while at the same time not incure a social cost too high for singapore.
and, my friend, act. don't just sit down and complain. how much can you be sued? you can get sued when you say somethings which can be construed as libelous by the court. and that goes only to the few who need to speak up publicly. you, by acting to get people to not to be afraid, to speak up, to join hands to change, will already be making a difference.

Sgcynic said...

A most interesting letter by smallvoice585!

Let's count the number of MPs who are ready for politics: been a PArty Political member and engaged in a year of two of grassroots work, experienced in GRC electioneering, have dedicated and well-organised support structure and mentorship. Not lacking in numbers at all. Unfortunately, we don't know their stand, views and ideas on a full spectrum of political issues articulated consistently over a significant period of time. We don't see proof of a wider range of leadership qualities required in political office. Hmm... no wonder it's so difficult to vote during elections.

True politicians do not ask for a guarantee of electoral success before entering the fray - they offer themselves as instruments for their beliefs and willingly submit themselves to the caprice of party opinion. It speaks volumes about their dedication to their political cause.

I'm inspired!

Sgcynic said...

Dear Renjun, I like to present an alternative viewpoint to you. A leader who is unwilling and unable to eat humble pie is not a leader! At least not mine.

Sgcynic said...

We don't reason with people who refuse to engage in dialogue and who talk down to us. To redress the imbalance, we take action. I not only signed the petition but am ready to march.

Sgcynic said...

Not vested in any structured products but seen my wealth eroded (halved?) by GIC and Temasek Holdings.

Choholan said...

Dear Mr Tan

Usually I am quite neutral in my view but after reading many of your postings, I am now inclined to believe that you are not just trying to help the so-called voiceless affected investors but using it as a front to exert pressure on the government for your selfish ambition. Like what Renjun says, you can’t win through this kind of showing.

And to say that you share the views of Mrs Y, you also bear a heavy responsibility to ensure that the country will not get into a situation like what is now happening in Thailand. I am sure this is not what you really want in your pursuit to realize your dream to be our next President.

micky said...

Dear Mr Tan, what it is, I am glad that someone has stepped forward. If you do get your 100,000 signatures, the long journey begins and I will like to help in whatever way I can.

Dear Cholan, perhaps you would like to clarify what do you mean by Mr Tan's selfish ambition. Do you really understand what is the political undercurrents that is happening in Thailand and the difference compared to Singapore?

Sgcynic said...

Dear Choholan,
which dictionary are you using to look up the word selfish? Mr Tan has an agenda, yes. But selfish!? I would certainly love to use words like scheming and selfish on some people then.

We need to 'fix' the system before it fixes us. Or rather before the system becomes unfixable. We all have a stake here. We certainly do not wish our country to get into a situation like what is now happening in Thailand. Nor especially what has happened to Iceland!

Dan said...

Mr Tan,

I am concerned with the frequent message that you are sending....stuff like "I dont need to be elected...I can retire ...dont need to work so hard... I will try, if it does not work, i can go back and retire.. " I am not sure if someone with these thoughts can actually do Singapore well...

Sgcynic said...

Usually I am quite neutral in my view but I can longer bear to see this country being run like some American corporations and manage by CEOs who run the company down and get paid handsomely for their efforts while taking no responsibilty. These people have parachutes. I go down with the plane.

Tan Kin Lian said...

Hi Dan,

I made those remarks to counter the negative people who thinks that I am doing this for personal gain.

People familiar with my character knows that I am ready to help people to the best of my ability. So, don't worry about my commitment.

But I like to see Singaporeans come forward as well to sign the petition. They should not expect other people to fight for them, when they hide behind anonymity.

So far, I have been taking the flak from the cynics and attackers.

But I appreciate the support, encouragement and postive words of many people as well.

smallvice585 said...

Renjun (8.46am),

I am impressed by your flawed reasoning.

To implement change in Singapore, one has to enter politics eventually. The only rules in politics is what works and what doesn't. There is only one way to find out what works. From what you are saying, citizens should not advocate their interest to parliament by joining politics. Then what are MPs for?

Moreover, each politician is responsible for winning his own votes and you are right that Mr Tan Kin Lian is not responsible for other politicians who may follow his footstep. The electorate has to choose their own votes.

If the PAP government refuses to do the right thing regardless of any external pressure, then perhaps your faith in PAP is misplaced. This reminds me of LHL's 2006 speech that if there are 15-20 Opposition MPs in parliament, he will prioritise fixing them than rather focus on nation building. Isn't it obvious that LHL's allegiance is PAP first, Singapore second?



Best regards
Smallvice585

Anonymous said...

Choholan,

What you mean by "voiceless affected investors"? Haven't you read enough in this blog to hear what all affected investors were voicing? Haven't you seen and heard enough in all the rallies in Hong Lim Park to hear what all affected investors were voicing?

Affected investors are not voiceless. The government is not providing avenues for them to voice their grievances. Only Mr Tan is kind and generous enough to allow them to do so with his personal blog. And with it, we see a boneless leech like you parasiting on it.

Cyril

Anonymous said...

"Many people said that an alternative party needs more than one person. How do you expect other people to come forward? They are not willing to sacrifice their career. They will be subject to discrimination."

Mr Tan,

Your above words was true, is true and will still be true for many more years. These in a nutshell explains the present state of our politics and will still continue to be so for the future.

Teong Kim said...

Dear Mr Tan,

I am a Singaporean based in China and have been following your fight against "injustice" in Singapore in the past few months. I would say that any like-minded, ubbiased, righteous human being in this universe will support your fight for transparency,accountability, fairness and true democracy. The propaganda machine is now perpetuating into this forum and the more they discredit you, the more we need to change the status quo. I pray for your success and change that can help your can help bring about.

Wish you ALL THE BEST!
Cheers!

JRT said...

Singaporean are pretty good in complaining esp in kopitiam, but usually lacks action

I think collecting signatures is fair and ingenious. It's only a simple act, but it speaks a lot

Personally, if Mr Tan cannot garner 100,000, it will spell diasaster, and pple of high calibre and repute will be less willing to come forth in future

smallvoice585 said...

83) smallvoice585 on November 26th, 2008 4.13 am
Dear Mr Tan Kin Lian,

Thanks for your reply (#66).

If you allow me to summarise YOUR reasons for the need of the 100,000 signatures:
(1) Because of your lack of readiness and resources to practise politics in the conventional way;
(2) Because it is a good way to create awareness and educate the public about the Govt’s lack of responsiveness to citizen voices;
(3) Because the political noise created by the collection of signatures may force the Govt to re-cast their role as being the true representatives of the people and permit freer elections;
(4) Because when people find that there are so many other non-PAP sympathisers, they are more likely to throw in their lot with you.

I hope the potential 100,000 people who are busy signing up will take note of these reasons.

In my humble opinion, none of these reasons are valid. Reason (1) is a poor excuse for your lack of preparation. Reason (2) is to over-simplify the very challenging task of educating our people politically. Reason (3) is pure wishful thinking. And reason (4) shows a lack of understanding of the underlying reason why most people do not join the opposition but vote for the PAP for the last 43 years.

To cut a long story short, political contests are actually not won at the ballot box! Before the political/election battle, there is an intellectual or ideological battle. PAP’s philosophy is to provide prosperity and security through pragmatic policies. Thus far, the opposition/non-PAP”s subconscious ideology is the negation of isolated instances of perceived injustice that they nitpick out of PAP policies.

That kind of ideology is bound to fail. The big question is - can you formulate a much grander and more inspiring ideology that can capture the imagination of the people? If you can, throw yourself headlong into it, and people will surely follow you.

Renjun said...

To Mr Tan:

I need to clarify. I feel that what you did to help the poor and the less-educated in this minibonds issue is a very admirable act. For this reason alone, I respect and support you.

However, my support ends the moment you intend to use this popularity and creditability you have earned to enter politics. Actually, there is nothing wrong with entering politics. It is the method that you are using that worries me. We do not need populist politics. I sincerely hope you do not enter politics in this way. Our system may, as you obviously believe, be flawed. But lasting and stable change must come from within the system and not from without. Yes, I may sound naive and idealistic. But I believe this is the best and least destabilizing way to improve our system.

To all who criticise me:

Dear Sirs, I have been called many names, I have been asked to do many things and I have been accused of many things. I thank you all. However, dear Sirs, you have not addressed my point at all. What I am saying is that if Mr Tan were to succeed, it will lead to a dangerous precedent. A precedent that MAY be abused by less decent men in the future.

I have been accused of not understanding Singaporean citizens. Dear Sirs, if my point-of-view does not represent the average Singaporeans, can you all here confirm that what you all believe is actually what is desired by the average Singaporean? The last time I checked the online petition, there was only 406 names. So can 406 people represent the voice of the Singaporean society as a whole? Even if there really is 100k names, that is at most 1/40 of all of Singapore. Dear Sirs, I suspect (only suspect, I cannot confirm) that you all are but a small, noisy minority in Singapore. The websites, forums and blogs have become your domain, where the small group of you find mutual justification and 'feed on' one another's ideas. There is a lack of the alternative voice in this domain. Even if there is, it is put down as 'naive', 'shallow observations' immediately and unitedly. Because of this mutual justification, 'feeding on each other' and united condemnation you all start to grow confident, and start to think that your views actually represents the average Singaporean.

Dear Sirs, I plead you to calm down, look around you (not just around you in HongLim Park) and feel whether those really average Singaporeans share your views. If Singapore citizens really share the same ideas, why should you all be worried that the 100k mark cannot be achieved? What is 100k signatures (its just 1/40 of all Singapore!)?! Even 500k should not be a problem!

Finally to Mr Tan again: I hope you step out of the circle of people that has assembled around you and see for yourself what all the other Singaporeans stand for. I do not know exactly what you will see. If you see that people need you, please go ahead to run for whatever position you aspire. But my personal opinion is that average Singaporeans do not want to see such chaotic, demonstration- and petition-based politics in Singapore.

Anonymous said...

Many investors & yourself are frustrated at the response of the Government to the structured products debaucle. I can understand why now you want to set yourself up for political office. Perhaps the greatest mandate & booster for the political office is how well you help to resolve this matter to the good of all Singaporeans & Singapore!!! Good luck!

Donaldson Tan said...

Renjun,

Firstly, you have yet to justify that whatever TKL is doing falls under populist politics.

Change comes at a price, and even you must pay for it. If you don't want to pay any price, then it is clear that you choose to be stepped over and ignored by PAP. I implore everyone including TKL to ignore Renjun too.

Choholan said...

I would like to think of Mr Tan as a nice and decent man. But seeing him changed from a pro-PAP prior to his "maybe unwelcome" retirement to who he is now says something that only Mr Tan himself know.

Maybe understanding the reason behind his retirement could perhaps help to explain why he is a different man today.

Yes, he is still nice man but very vocal and anti-government, not a Mr Tan many knew during his time at NTUC Income.

Anonymous said...

Renjun,

I have no time to go through your ranting but I just want you to focus on what you have said previously.

Quote
This is why because of your actions, the people who suffered in the Minibonds issue will never be rightfully treated. Perhaps if you did not conduct your fortnightly meetings, the government will not feel pressured, and the authorities may instead have done 'the right thing'.
Unquote

I want to repeat here again that if we do not fight for our rights as affected investors, directly or indirectly, through somebody like Mr Tan or by ourselves, nobody is going to fight for us.

Hello? (knock knock on your thick skull) Anybody home? Your government is not your mother.

If you say that Mr. Tan is using us, all affected investors, as a platform to launch his political ambition, then you should also say that we, all affected investors, are using Mr. Tan to further our interests.

We, as affected investors, are very clear as to what we want. We don't need to bubble up our own courage and conviction. We have already "burnt our bridges, sunk our boats". There is no going back on our fight. Mr. Tan just happened to be the flag bearer.

Cyril

Anonymous said...

Renjun

Your logic is also flawed.

"It is the method that you are using that worries me",

Yes, you should worry more if indeed there will arise a more "cunning" and "ruthless" oppositio,
who will use whatever other "means" to achieve their objectives.

How about going undergound, do you know why there are terrorist ?

If there is no other avenue for peaceful demonstration, then you should really need to worry.
There are potentially many more other worst scenario that can happen using other means.

Faircomment said...

Renjun,

Your views are speculative. A good example is below:-

"What I am saying is that if Mr Tan were to succeed, it will lead to a dangerous precedent. A precedent that MAY be abused by less decent men in the future."

Show us evidence that you are good in fortune-telling. Otherwise, your speculations are as good as worthless.

You doubted that even 100k signatures would not "represent the voice of the Singaporean society as a whole," yet your personal opinion alone is deemed sufficient to convince everyone that average Singaporeans do not want to see petition-based politics in Singapore. You really talk like a Minister.

Concerned said...

Everything has a precedent. If TKL did nothing, our Govt may think that all strucutured products investors and Singaporeans are very happy and satisfied with their performance. Renjun, by your reasoning and logic, USA today is still part of Great Britain. Similarly, India is still under British control. And China today is still control by the Ching dynasty.

Anonymous said...

选择


我们要不要选陈钦亮作总统,那是我们的选择。至于陈钦亮要不要出来竞选,那是他自己的选择。

陈钦亮的说明是,作为一个个人的决定,一个帮助他考虑的因素是有10万人邀请他出来竞选。某种程度上,这也是陈的一个承诺,如果真达到了10万人连署他却退缩了,当然作为个人,他的名誉肯定也受到损害。

所以,如果有人觉得陈的过去的政党背景,或者因为阴谋论,或者什么别的目的,不希望看到他出来选,那自然就不必签署请愿书。但如果因为这个原因去叫别人不去签署这个请愿书,那不正是切合了执政党希望只有一个他们自己的候选人出来选的目的?那这样做的话,这些说让陈出来是阴谋的人,是不是自己才真的是执政党的阴谋?

所以这些阴谋论其实都是不足挂齿的无聊猜想。新加坡独立这么多年,发展了这许久的经济,能够达到总统候选人要求的至少好几百人。这么多的退休部长,退休常任秘书,退休的跨国企业领导人,都合资格。

现在的问题只是,我们只看到一个陈钦亮愿意考虑。谁知道到时候会不会有更多人挺身而出?难道有那么多的阴谋?

Anonymous said...

阴谋论


我们以前听说过,徐顺全是执政党的棋子来搞垮民主党。然后现在听说陈钦亮是执政党的棋子来搞假民主。

那提出这些阴谋论的人,有什么对策?

抵制民选总统,抵制集选区?那和当年社阵抵制国会选举,完全退出国会,让执政党从那时起一党独大的做法有什么不同?

那我们现在回头事后诸葛,会不会就像“阴谋论”那样,觉得搞了半天,当年社阵的李诏祖原来才是执政党在社阵的卧底,为的就是要社阵退出国会好让执政党一党独大?

所以这些阴谋论看起来好像很聪明,很有先见之明,其实半点用处没有。

要注意的是 - 支持陈钦亮出来竞选总统,和支持陈钦亮当总统,是两个完全不同的概念。

支持陈出来选,是为了到时候有选择的机会,是为了到时候避免只有一个候选人让选民失去了选择的机会。

真正到了选举的那一天,今天选择支持陈出来选总统的人,未必就会把票投给他。原因很简单,有了选择的机会,选民自己会再作出选择,选出他心目中最合适的人选。也许那个时候有不止是陈和执政党的候选人对垒,而是更多的候选人。而最终得到选民的委托,也许是另外一个人。

Anonymous said...

That was a good point by 2:33 in chinese. It is true, the support of the petition is not necessarily the same as support for tankinlian. For those who want to see or open up an avenue of challenge to the incumbent party, it is clear that signing the petition increase the chances of change in singapore politics. At the time of election, the same person who support the petition need not necessarily vote for tankinlian.. by that time the pap might have made some adjustments for the good of all..due to the fierce competition.. and turned out to be more creditable, or else other new parties might come up, new alternatives spring up. Very philosophical insight in my opinion.
REX

Sgcynic said...

Dear Choholan (Nov 26 8.45 am),

Maybe you can help us understand the reason(s) behind Mr Tan's retirement. You seem to know a lot to judge that Mr Tan "is a different man today".

Character assassination is very unsavory form of flattery.

Anonymous said...

Choholan,

You seemed to palling (to use Sarah Palin's word) with Mr Tan since his NTUC days to notice a change in his attitude and life philosophy.

To authenticate your statement that "Mr. Tan is a different man now", perhaps you should identify yourself by giving us your real name, occupation and tell us how you are acquainted with Mr Tan.

Otherwise, your statement is no more than a smoke screen to distract everyone from the main topic.

Cyril

Anonymous said...

for me, what i see in Mr Tan is a demonstration of this:

1) we need to take more interest in our community. the able must feel a responsibility to help the weak.
2) have the courage to do the right thing.
3) when what you do is right, people will feel it. people will know.
4) when people know, some will come towards you, some will fear you. for reasons only they themselves know.
5) take it in your stride. stay true to your vision.

singapore progressed with such men of courage in the early years. we should welcome those with courage & vision to come forward. we must also have confidence in ourselves as a community to choose the right person to lead us as well as shut out those with self-centred agendas.

Anonymous said...

As each of us is entitled to our own free will, it is understandable that some among us are reluctant to help the investors in lehman minibond to recover their damages. But why are there views against those, in particular Tan Kin Liang, helping these investors? It is evident that a considerable number of investors had been misled into such transactions, amid their signing of those realms of fine prints in the contracts stating that they understand the risks, which they didn't.

if they were to be faulted, it would be on their inclination to trust the words of the banks on the soundness of these structured financial products, via the Relationship managers, with whom they deal. And they can be further faulted for not being sophisticated enough to tape record the conversations with the RMs so as to present the recordng as evidence of misrepresentation.

And according to the government, hence they deserve their outcome because they trusted the banks.

I therefore feel strongly that anyone with any shred of sense of social justice ought to support Tan in his endeavour to help these mis-led investors. Even if one cannot do much to support Tan, one ought not to oppose his effort.

what is the motive behind opposing Tan helping the vicitims? Are we already degenerated into a society where we only want to see the strong get stronger at the expense of the less able ones?

人各有志,有人不支持雷曼苦主我们也不勉强。可是看到人家这么做还去反对,就太没有道理了。

从我的角度,我关注的是一个社会公义的问题。银行不能在坑了无辜的受害者以后,还躲在政治权力和御用律师的后面来逃避责任。

我还是那句话,任何一个有正义感的人都应该支持陈钦亮。就算不能,或者不敢公开支持,也不应该去反对吧?

看到有人为弱者打抱不平还生气和冷餐热讽,这是个什么心态?

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, Mr. Tan if you can gather & unite all the masses of people together to fight & win the class action legal suit, I think people will salute you & elect you to be an MP should you choose to stand for election as an independent or with an opposition party.

Blog Archive