Presidential Elections 2017
-
Zeit:
You've just listed another reason why I'm against the reserved PE idea!
As for why I'm ok with a reserved PE, it's cos I think it's hard enticing and nudging qualified compatriots from the Malay community to run for PE. I've a few Malay PMET friends; most are peace-loving, moderate, private and highly content with their lives. Secondly, the bar is set so ridiculously high. How many Malays in the age group of 46-75 are in senior executive positions that qualify them for the PE? If they're not self-employed or post retirement, they won't take the risk. Who wants to be jobless in their 50s?
As such there's a need to give them this extra 'push' and reserved platform. It's the counting system I'm not pleased with...
See the irony? I find them insincere. On the one hand, they claim they want minority representation, on the other hand, they set the bar so high that it's hard even for majority to qualify, not to mention the minority.
Yet, such requirement is not applicable if he/she happens to be ex-minister, ex-speaker.. :skeptical:
(Btw It would be a \"waste\" for Tharman to be President lah. I'd rather he be our PM instead.
)
-
I look at this hiatus-triggered model in a positive light. As you know, it’s ‘triggered’ only when a particular race isn’t elected for 5 consecutive terms. Which means it doesn’t stop the minorities from contesting in the next open PE 2023.
Once the Malay aspirants and the electorate move out of their comfort zones after this PE, i.e. have a term headed by someone Malay, someone else from their race would be encouraged to contest against the other races in the next open election in 2023. Historically they’re rather passive and apathetic in this area, thanks to the high quality of life in Singapore! -
mum_sugoku:
i totally agree with you on this...tharman should not be president...it's really wasted. he should be our PM...he has the brains and experience (from IMF)...plus he looks really pleasant.
(Btw It would be a \"waste\" for Tharman to be President lah. I'd rather he be our PM instead.) -
janet88:
Yes, Tharman should be our next PM, not President. The non-key ones (mostly from the unions like I said) usually kenna released for PE, as though it's a post-retirement reward for taming the pesky trade unions for the govt.
i totally agree with you on this...tharman should not be president...it's really wasted. he should be our PM...he has the brains and experience (from IMF)...plus he looks really pleasant.mum_sugoku:
(Btw It would be a \"waste\" for Tharman to be President lah. I'd rather he be our PM instead.)
OT: The entire PAP succession planning is totally scr*wed up. By right, DPMs should become PMs, but lo & behold, our 2 DPMs are LHL's peers and aren't going to succeed LHL.
The guy slated to become PM Heng Swee Keat came in late. Only helmed 1 key ministry MOE so far, before suffering from stroke in the midst of his term at MOF.
The other so called 4G leaders either came in late, or are helming less key ministries:
1. Ong Ye Kung (my favourite for the post of PM) - only half a term's exposure
2. Chan Chun Sing - lame experience in MCYS, and stuck in NTUC and PA possibly for 10 years like Lim Swee Say! He should be released soon to allow him to gain exposure in key ministries like MTI, MOF or MOE.
3. Lawrence Wong - came in early but too young to helm key ministries - lame exposure in MCCY and nothing great as MND minister now. Nothing memorable as 2nd Minister for Finance either.
4. Tan Chuan Jin - had a high profile as MOM minister after 2011, but now given a lame ministry MSF
5. Heng Swee Keat - Suffered stroke and may not be suitable. -
Tharman is a class above the so-called 4-G leaders. I see no reason why Tharman should not be the next PM, even if it is only for one term. No reason other than internal PAP politics, that is. :razz: And to blame it on the ethnic Chinese voters is really lame. :mad: Even my Chinese educated pioneer generation mother thinks Tharman is by far the best choice.
-
pirate:
Tharman is a class above the so-called 4-G leaders. I see no reason why Tharman should not be the next PM, even if it is only for one term. No reason other than internal PAP politics, that is. :razz: And to blame it on the ethnic Chinese voters is really lame. :mad: Even my Chinese educated pioneer generation mother thinks Tharman is by far the best choice.
I totally concur with you. Just 1 term. Surely he can help to 'dong' 1 term first until the 4G are ready?
Everyone loves Tharman. He did very well in China recently. Li Keqiang gave him face by accepting his invitation to visit Singapore. Another guy I notice the Chinese inner circle likes very much is DPM Teo Chee Hean, but he is definitely not in the queue due to his age.
My elderly aunty thinks they pick a female minority this time cos \"女的比较容易控制”. You know, if you're the boss, you wanna pick someone you feel 'song' to bow to at the Istana. If the President is more popular or charismatic than you, bet u'd be 'buay song'! -
Zeit:
He's my least favourite. But he should be our PM's favourite as well though: he sings the same tune.. er, I mean, shares the same view as his boss..
1. Ong Ye Kung (my favourite for the post of PM) - only half a term's exposure
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/multi-party-political-system-could-ruin-spore-ong-ye-kung [quote]SINGAPORE — Should the political landscape here evolve into one with more than one dominant political party, it could mean a lot more “jostling on the ground” as unions and various associations and even the media become split as parties seek support, said Education Minister Ong Ye Kung (Higher Education and Skills).
And should political parties align themselves along “sinister” lines, such as by race, language or religion, this “toxic mix” could leave the country broken, said Mr Ong, noting that even as political parties represent diverse views, that very same essence can “take a nasty twist, sowing discord and dividing societies”.
Mr Ong set out these scenarios yesterday at the Institute of Policy Studies’ (IPS) Singapore Perspectives conference, where he spoke at a session on a multi-party system in Singapore.
The Republic’s formula for success, noted Mr Ong, who is among those touted to be Singapore’s fourth-generation of leaders, could well be a one-party system.
One major long-term risk, he noted, is that a multi-party system could slow down decision-making and nimbleness while navigating an “ever-changing world and environment”.
“Imagine, if we have a multi-party system back in 1965, will we have come so far so quickly?” said Mr Ong in a speech opening the session.
But a single-party system in the case of Singapore is not a prescription but an outcome of choice resulting from elections, he pointed out. For example, the state of Massachusetts in the United States has been dominated by the Democrats for a long period, he said, adding: “Smallness and concentration often do go together.”
If the people of a country wish for a multi-party system, it will be so. “The job of the opposition parties is to point out the risks of a single-party rule. That is their job. But the job of the PAP (People’s Action Party) is to make sure that Singapore continues to flourish. We will also point out the risks of a multi-party system and, most importantly, we must always keep out the ills of complacency, elitism and corruption,” he said.
Mr Ong’s remarks are the latest on the issue of multi-party systems, which was also touched on by Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen during a dialogue with Yale-NUS students on Jan 13. Dr Ng had said that the extent of progress in a country should not be measured by its number of political parties.
In 2015, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam had said that one-party states with no political competition face a disadvantage, but having a dominant player in politics is an edge.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also weighed in on this topic in 2011 at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum, saying that a two-party system is not workable in Singapore as there is not enough talent to form two “A teams”, and it could also bring about a division in society based on class or racial lines.[/quote] -
starlight1968sg:
As Saturday is not official \"non-working day\", unlike Sunday, there will be no gov declared \"PH-in-lieu\" on Monday.
Can't recall if Mon will be off in lieujanet88:
if PE voting is held on a saturday, does that mean Monday will be a off in lieu public holiday?
i need the time to revise with daughter for her year end exam. 6 subjects
However, if Saturday is a non-working day for the company, then it's up to the company to offer off-in-lieu. -
Zeit:
:siam:pirate:
Tharman is a class above the so-called 4-G leaders. I see no reason why Tharman should not be the next PM, even if it is only for one term. No reason other than internal PAP politics, that is. :razz: And to blame it on the ethnic Chinese voters is really lame. :mad: Even my Chinese educated pioneer generation mother thinks Tharman is by far the best choice.
I totally concur with you. Just 1 term. Surely he can help to 'dong' 1 term first until the 4G are ready?
Everyone loves Tharman. He did very well in China recently. Li Keqiang gave him face by accepting his invitation to visit Singapore. Another guy I notice the Chinese inner circle likes very much is DPM Teo Chee Hean, but he is definitely not in the queue due to his age.
My elderly aunty thinks they pick a female minority this time cos \"女的比较容易控制”. You know, if you're the boss, you wanna pick someone you feel 'song' to bow to at the Istana. If the President is more popular or charismatic than you, bet u'd be 'buay song'! -
As the EP is already a minority representation, it is unlikely PM will be of minority representation. I think depends on how SG wants to position itself with China. Even tho he was well-received, he may be regarded by the Chinese leaders as \"more distant\" as there are no common roots, as Chinese tend to value relationships in order of 情，理， 法。
Also, if EP is female, then also unlikely PM will be of female gender. Just a feel.Zeit:
I totally concur with you. Just 1 term. Surely he can help to 'dong' 1 term first until the 4G are ready?pirate:
Tharman is a class above the so-called 4-G leaders. I see no reason why Tharman should not be the next PM, even if it is only for one term. No reason other than internal PAP politics, that is. :razz: And to blame it on the ethnic Chinese voters is really lame. :mad: Even my Chinese educated pioneer generation mother thinks Tharman is by far the best choice.
Everyone loves Tharman. He did very well in China recently. Li Keqiang gave him face by accepting his invitation to visit Singapore. Another guy I notice the Chinese inner circle likes very much is DPM Teo Chee Hean, but he is definitely not in the queue due to his age.
My elderly aunty thinks they pick a female minority this time cos \"女的比较容易控制”. You know, if you're the boss, you wanna pick someone you feel 'song' to bow to at the Istana. If the President is more popular or charismatic than you, bet u'd be 'buay song'!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login