Singaporeans are none the wiser after PM Lee’s “explanation” of why PAP candidate for Tampines was dropped at the last minute this morning.

Implying that Steve Tan’s withdrawal had to do with a “weakness” that had slipped through the PAP selection system without specifying what exactly it was, PM Lee said:

‘We’re looking for many attributes, strengths and capabilities, and also testing for weaknesses, and there’s no process which is 100 per cent accurate’.

Further indicating that there was a significant problem with Steve Tan’s candidacy but continuing to sound vague, PM Lee continued: ‘the party and Mr Tan could have ‘pretended there was no problem and just carried on’. The obvious implication was that there was a “problem” with Steve Tan.

Bad as the Steve Tan debacle looks now, unless PM Lee acts swiftly to openly and thoroughly explain why Steve Tan was withdrawn, the backlash to the PAP will go far deeper.

A “rigorous selection system”?

After spending a significant amount of media oxygen querying whether Worker’s Party (WP) leader Low Thia Kiang had done his “due diligence” on star candidate Chen Show Mao, this is the most embarrassing and emphatic last minute candidate withdrawal in recent election memory.

The debacle was so comprehensive that when Mr Baey Yam Keng was switched to take Steve Tan’s place at the last minute, Mr Baey’s grassroots leaders were reported in the mainstream press to be left in a state of shock, many in tears. The election posters in Tanjong Pagar could not be deployed as a result, as they had Mr Baey’s face on them.

The natural conclusion Singaporeans will come to is that for such a ground-breaking decision to have been made, the Steve Tan’s “problem” must have been a significant one.

Singaporeans will ask the natural question: if Mr Steve Tan came within minutes of getting on a PAP slate and entering Parliament on the coattails of senior GRC Minister Mah Bow Tan, who else on the PAP slate might be inadequately vetted?

Already, Singaporeans have been outraged by the selection of Ms Tin Pei Ling to stand with the popular SM Goh Chok Tong in Marine Parade.

This will now be exacerbated by another unintended consequence of the Steve Tan debacle: the fluke entry of a complete unknown into Parliament, Dr Chia Shi Lu.

Not yet as bad as it gets

Ironically, Dr Chia is the only candidate of any party not introduced to the public to date, and yet has had the good fortune to have been fielded in the only uncontested GRC in Singapore. Even the eccentric Zeng Guo Yan who turned up at a nomination centre today and tore up his nomination forms has given one interview on RazorTV, albeit with a parrot on his shoulder.

Dr Chia’s entry into Parliament could come to exemplify the worst excesses of the unrepresentative GRC system. It also completely neutralizes the PAP argument that the opposition only turns up during election time: Dr Chia only turned up on nomination day!

Finally, Mr Baey’s grassroots leaders and constituents deserve an explanation. They have had no chance to size their new MP up, let alone vote for him. To the broader electorate, the refusal so far to give a forthright explanation can come to remind them of the least likeable aspects of the PAP’s style of decision making: its’ opaque and condescending tone.

Unless a full and frank accounting for what went wrong with Steve Tan is given, this debacle has the potential to set a very inauspicious note for the PAP’s election campaign.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

抨击现有公共组屋政策 半辈子供房  最后一无所有

针对近期总理李显龙在国庆群众大会上,宣称将确保提供国人可负担的公共组屋、医疗服务和教育,让国人无需担心。 不过,在总理宣布了数项新政策后,仍令一些网民感到失望。 网民Calvin Goh认为现有公共住宅政策根本就不是“可负担”,我们几乎花大半辈子,把大部分积蓄花在上面,但是到最后,缺什么也不能传承给下一代。 “当你买下组屋并偿还房贷好些年,房子应该属于你的。但在新加坡,到最后房子却不属于你的。你只是偿还房租和长期住在那间组屋。供了这么多年房贷,但最后好多人还是一无所有,什么也不能传承给子孙后代。” 他提问:究竟新加坡属于谁的?国人的存在,是否就只是为了还房贷和贡献给政府?我们究竟是为了谁打拼? 公共住宅理应负担得起 我指的是公共组屋,或者公共住宅。至于私有产业不管是永久屋契还是租赁权,都属私人“拥有”,开放给本地或外国人购买(设定一些条规限定只有国人能购买土地财产),又或者较少法规限制。 他认为,建屋发展局的公共住宅,理应让民众负担得起或真正拥屋。但实际上只要看看售屋合同,就很明白所谓屋主其实都只是租户。 公共住宅理应让人民有瓦遮头,不应让国人对房屋产权有其他的猜测。“我不认为用20-40年偿还公共组屋房贷是可负担的。真正的可负担,指的是国人只需要数年时间,即5至10年就可清还所有房贷。” 如此,在清还房贷之后,国人才有余钱储蓄,或追求其他梦想。 但是,在现有制度下,国人几乎大部分收入都花在房贷,可是一旦屋契到期,价值归零。形同公积金一样,所有的价值只能看,却用不了。…

SPF Internal Affairs Office initiated investigation on allegation of police violence

Three men, all Indian Nationals in Singapore, have filed a formal complaint…

Charging for tap water – is it justifiable?

G Hui Singapore is an island surrounded by water. Rainfall is plentiful…

在有盖步道棚顶骑电动滑板车 骑士被警逮捕

政府在本月初已颁布禁令,禁止电动滑板车在人行道上行驶,以进一步保护行人安全。 不过日前有网民分享一段视频,显示一名电动滑板车用户突发奇想,既然人行道上不能骑,就索性把电动滑板车开上有盖走道的棚顶,似乎想藉此规避禁令限制。 据了解,有关骑士已在前日(19日),在鲁莽行为罪名下,被警方逮捕,惟案件仍在调查中。 若鲁莽危急他人性命被定罪,这位男子将面对什么刑罚?最高可被判坐牢长达六个月,或罚款高达2500元,或两者兼施。 此前,也有一些自作聪明的用户就想到,既然不能在人行道上行驶,就在路旁和人行道中间的草坪上行驶。 惟国家公园局(NParks)警告,根据《公园及树木法令》(Parks and Trees Act),在草坪上骑脚车也是违法的,一旦被定罪,将面对不超过5000元的罚款。