Presidential Election 2011
-
insider:
Insider,
When one is near/among the herd, he has a choice to keep following the herd regardless of where the herd is heading; whether right or wrong he just follows since following the herd usually gives one a sense of security and probably a great sense of 'power' too.
If he feels that the herd direction maybe wrong and may stain his hands with blood and yet he knows he cannot change the herd's direction, then the next logical thing to do is to quit. I respect such courage not to follow herd instinct and be guided by own conscience.
Nothing coward to quit if a situation calls for such. Quitting may require more wisdom and courage than those who choose to stay...
point very well explained. Well noted :celebrate:
my personal choice would be first to continue objecting strenueously until all avenues exhausted. -
Strparent:
:goodpost: hope that our children will have this never-say-quit attitude when it comes to problem solving!
Insider,insider:
When one is near/among the herd, he has a choice to keep following the herd regardless of where the herd is heading; whether right or wrong he just follows since following the herd usually gives one a sense of security and probably a great sense of 'power' too.
If he feels that the herd direction maybe wrong and may stain his hands with blood and yet he knows he cannot change the herd's direction, then the next logical thing to do is to quit. I respect such courage not to follow herd instinct and be guided by own conscience.
Nothing coward to quit if a situation calls for such. Quitting may require more wisdom and courage than those who choose to stay...
point very well explained. Well noted :celebrate:
my personal choice would be first to continue objecting strenueously until all avenues exhausted.
-
hquek:
I thought this was covered some time back? So it means Obama etc cannot talk to Wall Street? or even anyone in Main Street? Or what, when our Ministers talk to Obama, they can be louder becos they earn more?raysusan:
[quote]Dr Lim Wee Kiat ‘lectures’ candidates on role of Elected President
August 23rd, 2011
Mr Tan Jee Say’s pledge to take only a $500,000 salary only and donate the rest to charity must have shocked Dr Lim who told the state media on 23 May 2011:
“If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister’s ideas and proposals, hence a reasonable payout will help to maintain abit of dignity.”
[Source: Zaobao.com]
I don't know when dignity is measured by payout...Mathama Gandhi or Mother Teresa how? just to name a few pp who (as far as I know) didn't get multimillion dollar salaries.
:stupid: :stupid: :stupid:[/quote]This was a blunder he made during the GE. Given that, he should really have kept his mouth shut on this issue. :roll: -
Busymom:
This was a blunder he made during the GE. Given that, he should really have kept his mouth shut on this issue. :roll:
maybe becos nobody with salary higher than him told him it's a blunder? -
Hard to decide. I think I would choose the one with the logo I like. :rotflmao:
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20110818-295034.html -
Talking about logos. I see a link between TT and his choice of logo which is the spectacle frame. Its something that its easily relate to him. The rest are not so obvious although I see TKL doing his "hi 5" everywhere.
-
I think there was a write up on the meanings behind the logo. For TT, besides his trademark specs, it's also indication of having long term view. I could tell TCB's meaning before reading the article (and no, it has nothing to do with a luxurious spa hotel).
http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore-presidential-election-2011/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5170240 -
matrix0405:
I wished everyone get a chance to read this and understand its implications or possible reasons.http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/08/how-much-of-the-reserves-has-been-really-used/
by: Leong Sze Hian/
I refer to the article “Past reserves tapped on to fund land reclamation and Sers” (ST, Aug 7).
It states that “President S R Nathan’s office has been approving the use of past reserves to fund land reclamation projects since 2001 and land acquisition for the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (Sers) since 2002”.
To the best of my knowledge, I do not think anyone in Singapore knew about the use of the Reserves in the past.
Was this ever disclosed in Parliament or reported in the media?
As to “Mr Nathan and his advisers have judged that these projects do not deplete the reserves because the resulting increases in land value ultimately add to the reserves”, I would like to point out that the revenue derived from the use of reclaimed land and Sers, may have gone to the Government which may ultimately end up in the books of Temasek and the Government Investment Corporation (GIC).
For example, the land on which Changi Airport sits, if some of which is reclaimed land, has been privatized to Temasek for a paltry $3.3 billion.
Surely, the unfetted utilization of the 1,300 hectares of Changi Airport land, is akin to a ‘raiding’ of the Reserves.
Privatisation = moving Reserves?
Since “According to the Constitution, all state land and buildings are considered part of past reserves”, any privatization of state assets that contain land and buildings, may in a way, also be a ‘raiding’ of the Reserves.
With regard to “Before 1999, such projects were funded out of current reserves, even though the government of the day would usually not benefit from them. Mr Nathan noted that infrastructure projects often span across terms of government, which may disincentivise the government of the day to undertake them using current reserves, even though they benefited Singapore in the long term”, was this significant change debated in Parliament and reported in the media?
Booking current surpluses?
In my view, another side to the revelation now of the justification for the use of the past Reserves, may be that the Government may be incentivised to report surpluses every year, when in reality there may have been a deficit, since in a way, by a mere slight of the hand it has used past Reserves to spend instead of current Reserves.
In the corporate world some may liken this to a “cooking of the books”, as it is somewhat like reporting more profits, simply by booking current revenue and spending retained earnings or accumulated capital as expenses instead.
I would like to suggest that the “set of guidelines for processing all such cases of land development”, “agreed upon”, by “the president’s office and the relevant government department” be made public.
In respect of “Such projects include Sers and land reclamation”, does it mean that there may be other projects whereby the Reserves were also used?
How much used?
Finally, I am rather surprised that with this explosive disclosure now, no one has asked or answered the obvious question – how much of the Reserves has been used?
and THAT IS PRECISELY why we CANNOT vote for the same yes-man rollover type again.
We need a strongwill man as EP willing to stand up to Goliath, not one who back off or keep silent. And someone who understands all the figures and implications would be an advantage.
I wont choose those specs that reflects........ -
Anyone game for a poll on who will win - and the percentage of win?
-
Interesting article, and some insights too:
http://sparkii.blogspot.com/2011/08/presidential-candidate-qualification.html
Presidential Candidate Qualification and the Grand Scheme of Things
“...getting a Certificate of Eligibility to contest the Presidential Election does not necessarily mean that candidates are all \"equally qualified to be President\".” - Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
By far Presidential Candidate (PC) Tony Tan is undeniable the most qualified of the 4 candidates to be the President Elect (PE) for Singapore. His worldly experience and years at the helm of Singapore Press Holdings and Government Investment Corporation as well his statesman demeanour and relatively good looks sets him aside from the others. An honest face that would allow him to pull ahead of the competition should the climate be different.
While PC Tony Tan possesses all the technical qualifications, the political climate has changed against his favour and is now seen as just another contender in the Presidential race. A climate where there was contest for 18 years and where the government has an overwhelming majority in parliament and had made policies in abstraction, habit of provoking the masses and taking token notice to the concerns of the people.
The President Elect (PE) while is a custodian and Head of State does not comment on policies without seeking the consul of the Cabinet. These nuances give rise to the belief that government is seeking a PE who is reserved to rubber stamp recommendation in areas of: spending of past reserves; key public sector appointments; detentions without trial in internal security cases; corruption investigations; and restraining orders to maintain religious harmony, namely the 5 areas as explicitly provided by the Constitution but outspoken and antagonistic when parliament is dominated by the opposition.
The Straits Times commentator supports the notion that partisan politics to be left to parliamentarians and prophesise a view that the PE do not venture beyond the existing known areas.
To different extents, PEs has declared their desire to champion the cause of common people in the form of uniting the people or representing forgotten voices or as an auditor on the government. A voice at the highest level to act as the conscience for the cabinet on policy matters. To speak on behalf of common people when an impasse occurs or when policies have gone awry.
In general, an independent and maverick PE would encourage close scrutiny and debate on bills and expenditure. Institutions that enjoyed a great deal of autonomy in determining acceptable returns and losses and the manner in the usage of funds like Government Investment Corporation and Temasek Holdings would now be more transparent and accountable.
For a PC that shares similar thoughts with the ruling party, it would allow for familiarity and some complacency and thereby becomes a “wild card” in terms of voter determination of independence. For the undecided or opposition leaning voter, the PC needs to convince that he can function independently on matters that are considered secret.
In a context where the ruling party have an overwhelming number of parliamentarians, these members are inclined to avoid probing questions to toe the party line and to use its machinery to suppress opposing view. A compliant PE would therefore accentuate the problem by endorsing on policies and making constitutional changes when required by the Government. The consequent is then the changing the powers to suit the government of the day. Questions on GIC, Temasek Holdings would be muted and these institutions would continue with a free hand in determining its affairs. Probing questions on whether the interest rates for CPF accounts are fair may not be raised from the lack of incentives to do so.
On being the voice of the common people, this concept however noble is problematic since it requires municipal issues to be discussed and this role would be better suitable for parliamentarians to address. Secondly, if the PE behaves like an opposing force with veto powers then the institution responsible for ensuring for the check and balance needs checks and balance itself.
A PE indulgence in partisan politics is seen to appeal to populist demands of embarrassing and antagonising the Government may appear as pet projects rather than that of national interest. However PCs that come up with thought provoking questions and not reliant of rhetoric may be the suitable choice for PE. For PCs with an image problem should consider emphasising his ability to convince he is independent and impartial and dispel notions that no cow is that sacred to slay to really find favour with the public and he is no light weight on meaty issues.
Based on voter structure, it has been commented that in this 4 PCs race, the odds are already in the government favour should the hardcore government group number 40% of the voters. The undecided and opposition groups would number 30% each respectively. By dividing percentages equally on the 3 candidates each will receive only 20%.
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