I think it is a good thing that all the presidential candidates have tried to express their independence, whether they are closely linked to the PAP or otherwise. What is the use of the president, if he is not independent and just a mouthpiece of the government, i.e. the PAP one. The problem then, is who is the one who is really independent?
It is good that they are emphasizing independence because they know that however supportive of the PAP the Singaporean electorate may be, they do not want a puppet who only listens to and rallies for the PAP. What this means is that even if Dr Tony Tan were to be elected as president, he would have to do some “independent” things, or at least do something to show his worth instead of nothing at all, like what Nathan portrayed.
What we should be asking, is do we want mere “shows”?
Maybe, just maybe, Singaporeans want a “quiet” president after all, in addition to one that has a “track record.” Shall that be the case, TT would get the support he intends to have as he qualifies fully on both counts.
Shall that not be the case and Singaporeans actually want a more “robust” president who can speak up for and truly serve the people, never mind if, and perhaps it would even be better if he had not so much of “PAP record,” then TT might lose to Tan Jee Say (or Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Kin Lian).
But of course the Singaporean electorate is made up of both types of people, and he wants votes from both sides. Knowing that his main appeal would be those who are more “conservative,” Dr Tony Tan would always try to keep his stable, conservative image even while churning up “shows” of independence. Perhaps that is his style, but I do not think anyone would disagree that the whole decision of him coming out is itself a strategic one.
Take his most recent snipe on the adoption of a “Singaporeans first” approach. While he made headlines (MSM ones) with his take on the approach, which is Yes, he wants to put Singaporeans first, he quickly moderated by saying it does not mean “Singaporeans only.” Such conservatism, while probably annoying to the online community, may strengthen his image as the “most appropriate leader” in the eyes of the “more conservative voters.”
Have we ever asked for a “Singaporeans only” policy? We know and understand the merits of attracting foreign talent (real ones). What we have been championing is “Singaporeans first,” and even if TT agrees with that, it is no big deal because even the PAP itself gives that assurance all the time although it cannot be seen done in practice.
It is good that they are emphasizing independence because they know that however supportive of the PAP the Singaporean electorate may be, they do not want a puppet who only listens to and rallies for the PAP. What this means is that even if Dr Tony Tan were to be elected as president, he would have to do some “independent” things, or at least do something to show his worth instead of nothing at all, like what Nathan portrayed.
What we should be asking, is do we want mere “shows”?
Maybe, just maybe, Singaporeans want a “quiet” president after all, in addition to one that has a “track record.” Shall that be the case, TT would get the support he intends to have as he qualifies fully on both counts.
Shall that not be the case and Singaporeans actually want a more “robust” president who can speak up for and truly serve the people, never mind if, and perhaps it would even be better if he had not so much of “PAP record,” then TT might lose to Tan Jee Say (or Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Kin Lian).
But of course the Singaporean electorate is made up of both types of people, and he wants votes from both sides. Knowing that his main appeal would be those who are more “conservative,” Dr Tony Tan would always try to keep his stable, conservative image even while churning up “shows” of independence. Perhaps that is his style, but I do not think anyone would disagree that the whole decision of him coming out is itself a strategic one.
Take his most recent snipe on the adoption of a “Singaporeans first” approach. While he made headlines (MSM ones) with his take on the approach, which is Yes, he wants to put Singaporeans first, he quickly moderated by saying it does not mean “Singaporeans only.” Such conservatism, while probably annoying to the online community, may strengthen his image as the “most appropriate leader” in the eyes of the “more conservative voters.”
Have we ever asked for a “Singaporeans only” policy? We know and understand the merits of attracting foreign talent (real ones). What we have been championing is “Singaporeans first,” and even if TT agrees with that, it is no big deal because even the PAP itself gives that assurance all the time although it cannot be seen done in practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment