Presidential Election 2011

[laughingcat]

Angelight:

Just to correct, PAP did not endorse TT, only the unions and some clans.

limlim:

If PAP can endorse TT, why NS cannot endorse TJS?

As for speaking up, the PM and a few other have been speaking up for TT on MSM rite.. no?

Silently they will. As a political party, they cannot openly endorse TT coz that would not be right. That will only portray them as politically driven. But in reality, PM already mentioned TT is the best candidate. So what do you think? :evil:

To put it bluntly.....IMO eh.....it is like asking the thief to be my security guard. :rotflmao: Don't flame me.....that is my opinion. :siam:

[concern2]

laughingcat:

Angelight:

Just to correct, PAP did not endorse TT, only the unions and some clans.

[quote=\"limlim\"]If PAP can endorse TT, why NS cannot endorse TJS?

As for speaking up, the PM and a few other have been speaking up for TT on MSM rite.. no?

Silently they will. As a political party, they cannot openly endorse TT coz that would not be right. That will only portray them as politically driven. But in reality, PM already mentioned TT is the best candidate. So what do you think? :evil:

To put it bluntly.....IMO eh.....it is like asking the thief to be my security guard. :rotflmao: Don't flame me.....that is my opinion. :siam:[/quote]同流合污

[Strparent]

Angelight:

Just to correct, PAP did not endorse TT, only the unions and some clans.

limlim:

If PAP can endorse TT, why NS cannot endorse TJS?

As for speaking up, the PM and a few other have been speaking up for TT on MSM rite.. no?

Angelight,

NS endorse TJS on her personal basis.

The PAP may not have declared any endorsement, but PM Lee had endorsed TT, also on his personal basis.

Below excerpt from http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5166133
[quote]While Mr Lee did not want to be drawn into commenting what he thinks of the aspirants, he did repeat his endorsement of Dr Tony Tan.

\"I think Dr Tony Tan is eminently qualified and a very good candidate. But I leave it to Singapore voters to make their judgement and I have every confidence they will make a good judgement,\" he said.[/quote]

[concern2]

daisyt:

A better quality livestream

http://pe.channelnewsasia.com/

Enjoy!!

daisyt, thanks again! You are so resourceful! Yes, this is much better! This is good, helps me know TJS better.

[daisyt]

concern2, you are welcome! Thanks to our so called official media cna lor! Haha!

[Way2GO]

concern2:

concern2:

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


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.

Those who think that just voting in oppositions in GE is sufficient need to rethink. I found a similar analysis here, but it is Mandarin:

\"...在官方说法的假设里，强烈的暗示了非PAP政府是一个流氓政府，非PAP总理是一个无赖总理的价值判断。这正好反映了政府把非PAP政治妖魔化的一贯思维。

这一种解读进一步证实了，民选总统制度的真正目是让PAP选定与认可的总统，在PAP失去政权后，通过总统的权力制衡非PAP政府。如此一来，民选总统的真正工作是阻止非PAP政府的有效运作；当PAP失去政权后，民选总统会成为一个对抗政府的政治平台。\"

extracted from: http://www.sginsight.com/xjp/index.php?id=6864

Tried to translate this, but quite disastrous. Can anyone help to translate?

It basically means that the president's role is a weapon in favour of PAP in times of an opposition dominated parliament.

This works both ways.
An EP's powers are deliberately very limited by design to prevent a separate power centre.
An EP's veto on reserves drawdown and key appointment holders can be override by a 2/3 majority vote in parliament.
If the parliamentary majority shift to an alternative government, it likewise can override the EP's veto in a parliamentary vote if it can garner the 2/3 majority.
The EP can be 'antagonistic', but in reality he is nothing more than a toothless barking dog under the provisions of the current Constitution.
In either case, an EP who sets out on a collision course with the government will always end up with the shorter end of the stick under the current Constitution.

[Way2GO]

Angelight:

Just to correct, PAP did not endorse TT, only the unions and some clans.

So soon after 2011 GE, any openly PAP endorsed Presidential candidate will probably also face the voters' wrath. Thus the subterfuge.
For instance, the unions (with the exception of IPA) all comes under NTUC.
The Sec'y Gen of NTUC is a PAP Cabinet Minister. The NTUC has been mobilised on many occasions to support the PAP. U see the link now?
Hope u see the light, Angelight, n not be taken in by the subterfuge.

[adhdadhd]

can imagine a CEO disagreeing with the Chairman...

happened all the time..

Way2GO:

concern2:

[quote=\"concern2\"]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


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.

Those who think that just voting in oppositions in GE is sufficient need to rethink. I found a similar analysis here, but it is Mandarin:

\"...在官方说法的假设里，强烈的暗示了非PAP政府是一个流氓政府，非PAP总理是一个无赖总理的价值判断。这正好反映了政府把非PAP政治妖魔化的一贯思维。

这一种解读进一步证实了，民选总统制度的真正目是让PAP选定与认可的总统，在PAP失去政权后，通过总统的权力制衡非PAP政府。如此一来，民选总统的真正工作是阻止非PAP政府的有效运作；当PAP失去政权后，民选总统会成为一个对抗政府的政治平台。\"

extracted from: http://www.sginsight.com/xjp/index.php?id=6864

Tried to translate this, but quite disastrous. Can anyone help to translate?

It basically means that the president's role is a weapon in favour of PAP in times of an opposition dominated parliament.

This works both ways.
An EP's powers are deliberately very limited by design to prevent a separate power centre.
An EP's veto on reserves drawdown and key appointment holders can be override by a 2/3 majority vote in parliament.
If the parliamentary majority shift to an alternative government, it likewise can override the EP's veto in a parliamentary vote if it can garner the 2/3 majority.
The EP can be 'antagonistic', but in reality he is nothing more than a toothless barking dog under the provisions of the current Constitution.
In either case, an EP who sets out on a collision course with the government will always end up with the shorter end of the stick under the current Constitution.[/quote]

[Way2GO]

concern2:

Oppsgal:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/president-play-rules-tan-cheng-bock-150131852.html


Play by the rules? What rules?

I also find this statement ambiguous. Make it sound like \"I will follow the books\". Doesn't put him in good light. Maybe he should choose different words.

TCB started off strong but now seems to have taken a more moderate stance.
I believe there is a provision in the Constitution that an EP can be removed by resolution passed by ¾ of MPs
if he is found guilty of ‘intentional violation of the Constitution” which includes overstepping his powers.
PAP has that more than the required number of MPs in the current House.
He knows the rules.

[pixiedust]

okay, after watching the discussion broadcast, I've decided - I will vote for Tommy Koh !