1. What do you think of the principles and guidelines laid out in the statement?
I would have preferred the guidelines to be issued at least six months earlier. Earlier publication would have allowed all citizens to give comments freely, regardless of who might appear as candidates later.
As it is issued now, after the candidates and their platforms are known, it gives rise to concerns about fair play, especially where the rules on campaigning now differ from the recently held general election.
Notwithstanding these, I am prepared to contest under these guidelines
2. Why do you think they are being issued?
These guidelines, which are clearly intended to set the rules of engagement, should be fair and even handed. The Singapore people will ultimately be the judge on whether their new President has been fairly and deservedly elected.
3. Which guidelines strike you the most?
I am puzzled by the reference to ".., it is not the President’s role to support or oppose the Government of the day or to advance his own agenda or policies."
The statement had identified the following two duties of the President:
a) be a custodian of Singapore’s reserves
b) ensure that only people of integrity are appointed to the key public sector jobs.
In exercising these duties, the President may have to act independently of the Government in the interest of the people.
There are also other important duties of the President which are not covered by this statement, in particular on the duties of the President in the maintenance of racial and religious harmony, the Internal Security Act, the Corrupt Practices Investment Bureau and the grant of clemency.
In carrying out these duties, the President may have to take a different position from that taken by the Government – especially in a situation where there could be a suspected abuse of executive power.
4. Specifically, how do you feel about the rules on election rally and the category of people allowed to conduct election activities (unlike the GE campaign)?
It is difficult to reach out to the population of several million voters with just one election rally.
With such limited outreach opportunities, the Singapore mainstream media would have a huge amount of influence on the Presidential Elections. I hope that they will rise to the occasion and dispel previous concerns by being truly even handed and fair in their reporting and coverage.
The change in rules on the category of people who are allowed to conduct election activities at this late hour is also quite unfair to a candidate with limited resources.
5. How do you intend to campaign? Will you be holding rallies or walkabouts?
I feel that election rallies and walkabouts are important. We will plan our activities based on the number of days and the types of activities allowed for the campaign
More time to review
These are my immediate reactions. My team and I will be reviewing our plans and strategies and I may have further comments after that.
Tan Kin Lian
Each candidate will therefore be allowed to hold one rally, should he wish to do so, at designated locations.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to reach out to the population of several million voters with just one election rally. XXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX abuse XX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX. Voters endorsement against this restriction.
Mr. Tan, from your comments, it seemed that you have your own concept of the EP and that is not in line with that is stated in the Constitution. May I remind you that this is not the USA and Singapore "President" is not the same as the president in other countries.
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to seek revenge on PAP for not promoting you further in the system even though you have served 30 years, and they promoted more junior members and sidestepping you?
Your real motives in contesting are unknown; but your comments and ideas are dangerously unconstitutional. You are also misleading the public by making promises that you cannot keep.
You are a wolf in sheep skin, you are someone who smiles but with a dagger underneath. I would be careful who I vote for because you seemed more bent on destructive than constructive action.
@Anonymous July 09, 2011 12:30 PM
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the EP has no real power doesn’t mean he cannot raise the alarm to set citizens thinking and acting positively in the interest of the country at large.
REx comments To ANonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou said that MR Tan's views are "dangerously unconstitutional".
I think this is playing with words. Just like nathan said that we shouldn't bow to "populist" pressure.
The sublimal message in both cases is this:
Unconstitutional = No Good.
Consititutional = Good.
Populist = Bad
Non Populist= great forsight, good.
These presumptions are not necessarily correct. The consitituion does not allow the president to be too much involved in day to day decisions. We know. In fact yesterday PM issued new directives "PResident should not support or oppose the Government of the day".
What kind of consituion is that? Let's say, the president is asked by the PM "We want to use the reserves to solve XXX problem". Heck, the president will say, "heck, if i say yes, it will be seen as supporting the governments position if i say no it will be opposing the goverhment's position, what can i say!!"
MR Tan said very well, he was "puzzled" by the new rule. The straits times instead of being the beacon of intellectual thought, completely ignores discussion on this strange new statement from PMO!!!
As it is the constitution is not necessarily something perfectly right or good, the last statement from PMO is also not gone through Parliament, the PM makes decision and suka suka adds on without cabinet approval. In the past it can be done becaue all PAP. But soon, you can't do that anymore, change the election rules, change the terms of the PResident, issue warnings, etc, without going through entire Cabinet including opposition leader's scrutiny.
We can't really accept the the constituion is perfect. It is like what Mr Tan said, a lot of stuffs is in a process of evolution, we should continually tweak it in mutual respect, for the benefit of all singaporeans. Nothing is right or wrong at the first iteration, therefore, one should be more careful not to accuse Mr Tan of being "unconstitutional" because this word is too emotion laden with far greater sublimal implications.
rex