Koh Ching Feng in the ST Forum on 21 Aug 2011
"I AM concerned that a couple of presidential candidates have advocated different perspectives on the constitutional roles of the president in their speeches. If these candidates are confused about the roles of the preseident, shouldn't they be disqualified. It is important that candidates do not defraud the electorade with empty promises in order to win votes."
Which different perspectives is the writer Koh espounding that is not within the constitution? Is the writer an expert in the constitution? Which candidates are confused about their roles. Disqualify them? this is a serious request? Another PAP type reasoning? Is the writer talking about TT, who seems to be confused about what he needs to do - (i) to be independant - which he has shown he is clearly not, by the immediate reaction to the statement made by TJS on the ISA question, and then declining to explain the english definition of his "threat" (where he said this is a serious charge, what do you have to back up what you say) to TJS after RUDELY interrupting his speech.
What empty promises have the candidates made to defraud the electorate? This is a serious charge! The writer should elaborate. Is he referring to TT who has LOST billions when he was in charge of the GIC, who now claims with this experience he can protect the reserves of Singapore? How does TT intend to protect the reserves, by losing more billions?
"We have a parliamentary system of government whereby issues are debated in Parliament through our elected MPs, and relevant laws enacted. There should not be any advocacy of new political roles for the presidency, resulting in deviation from the constitution. Opposing views on the policies have to be debated and challenged in parliament. Instead of of electing a politically active president, we need a president who can get along, and is amiable, with the Government. Independence must not be confused with opposition."
The current Government in ruling is the PAP, and they appear to continue to place daunting obstacles to oppositions parties who are elected to form part of this governement, as can be seen, as an eg. in the workings of the PA, who is also supposed to be apolitical but who are they kidding. An elected MP of the people is even barred from attending a simple dinner with residents under the guide of being non political. No advocacy of new political roles for the president - who is the writer to expound this? trying to be another old fart? Hasn't the roles of the presidency been changed, and also the constitution. All because the PAP is the majority in power and is able to make these changes, changes to the roles of the Presidency, amend various laws in the parliament to curtail the opposition, without any proper debate, referendum.
I believe most people do not view the candidates as, opposing the government for opposing sake but that they have differing views with a moral compass in to mind to be the check and balance of the current dominant and strong Governement ruled by the PAP, and independence of the PAP so that this check and balance can be executed neutrally, except for one candidate who is showing OBVIOUSLY the opposite and still behaving as if he is part of the cabinet formed by the PAP, and defending it with his life.
If Singaporeans, like the writer prefers, to elect a President who is totally inactive like the prataman who have collected millions over his 12 year tenure, then why are we paying so much for this practically ceremonial head of state, who is, in the case of the prataman is deferring 100% to the PAP goverment, doing practically nothing besides of kissing babies, shaking hands. Probably so that he will still have somewhere to go after he retires? See how quickly he is requested to sit on board an organisation? Why the change in the roles of the presidency then? The ruling party should explain why then, if is is not to have check and balances, and to protect the reserves.
"Peacemaker not warrior"
Who is the warrior? what is the writer's definition of a warrior? Singaporeans like to have a President with a HEART and the moral compass to look after their interests, and remind the Cabinet as such whenever there is a need to, NOT just defer to them, and NOT provide EVASIVE answers to the people whom they are supposed to serve, which is practically testing the intelligence of the people.
The debate hosted by TOC, carried out by the 4 Presidential Candidates is an eye opener, and is quite clearly showing who is committed to Singaporeans, can speak from the heart, is assertive, and corrects incorrect assumptions and "threats" withour fear, unlike some of the candidates who need to read from a script in order to make his speech, interrupts RUDELY, unable to provide clear, concise answers to SIMPLES questions posed, and only able to provide typical round the bush bu..sh.t, so typical of the PAP style, even with their new cadres like the Lanfang Kee Chiu ex-BG
0 comments:
Post a Comment