Howard Lee /

It unfolded almost melodramatically. After a period of aspiring candidates indicating their interest to run for the Elected Presidency, the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) decided to give what amounted to a provisional endorsement of Tony Tan, the candidate of choice of the ruling People’s Action Party and the out-going President SR Nathan.

The next day, almost as if on cue, the Prime Minister issued the Writ of Election, starting the official process by which the next President will come into office.

One can almost imagine the excruciating angst that NTUC president John De Payva had to go through in coming to that position. NTUC’s support for former President, the late Ong Teng Cheong, was almost by default, given the man’s long contribution to the labour movement. But this Presidential election was different. The choice unionist candidate, Tan Kin Lian, was not the candidate of choice of the ruling PAP. Tony Tan was, but he has contributed little, if any, to the labour movement.

You might see it this way – NTUC had to choose between its core tradition and what it is supposed to stand for (the labour movement), and its realistic position and what it really stands for (alliance with the political elite).

But this move by NTUC is essential in order for the ruling PAP’s well-manicured chess-game to move forward. NTUC represents the “working class”, and by all counts, this traditional group accounts for the vast majority of the electorate. NTUC’s endorsement, even provisional, is supposed to be a signal to the “working class” on which candidate serves their interest best, and by logical deduction, which candidate they are encouraged to vote for.

NTUC’s position has always been easily aligned to the tripartite relationship encouraged by the ruling PAP’s representative in the labour movement. Not any more, not this election, it would seem.

This one fracas reminds us precisely how politicised the Presidential elections really is – not of candidates raising themselves up for the populist vote, but of the partisan politics that surround them. For all the calls to make this Presidential election a tussle befitting the stature of the office, this round is starting to sound like it could be another general election slug-fest.

Such endorsements smell familiarly of the US Presidential elections, with one key difference: the US President holds an executive appointment, not a ceremonial one.

So we have political parties and the trade union giving nods and nays, thus far. Who will we have next joining the endorsement bandwagon? Captains of industry? NGOs? Church leaders? Celebrities?

Snide aside and in reality, if such power play is not just of my imagination, the endorsement by NTUC is unnecessary, for two reasons.

The first is the psyche of the “working class” and their willingness to buy into such endorsements by NTUC. In the times of Ong Teng Cheong, the labour movement drew heartstrings with him. My father can still recount the famous incident in our history when Ong sanctioned a strike, even when he was a Cabinet Minister. Ong spoke of an interest for the common man, and the people would have gladly rallied behind him.

Ong represented an NTUC of a nearly forgotten era of worker rights that people aligned with and remembered him for. An era where the tripartite relationship was not the support structure for efforts to make us “cheaper, better, faster”; for improving the productivity of locals to exploitative extremes; for slashing employer CPF contributions during bad times that were never restored; for wage increases during good times that come across as “encouragements”…

Since Ong, the workforce has evolved, the NTUC is now better known for its business franchises and social club status, and the power of influence once accorded the labour movement, even if it only applied to the traditionalist, has waned. To begin with, many eligible voters who just entered the workforce might even have doubts about what NTUC can do for them in the short or long term, apart from offering competitive insurance plans.

The second reason is that attempts to steer public opinion in favour of one candidate is not going to work. If the professed independence of all the candidates themselves is anything to go by, there is reason to suspect a clear ground sentiment that the people have grown weary of the official position.

In other words, NTUC’s endorsement of Tony Tan could very well backfire on him, since its affiliations with the ruling party is now taken as a matter of fact. Not least to note, a number of new PAP candidates fielded in the latest general elections proudly professed former ties with the trade union body.

There seems to some factions in our political landscape who think that this particular election, like the general election, can be sculpted and controlled to reflect the preferences of the status quo. Whether the outcome on polling day re-establishes the status quo or not is of little consequence. What is key to note is that, instead of learning from the general elections and starting to listen to the ground, the political elite has chosen, once again, to influence the election environment by trying to (re)define the boundaries of play.

What could have made the Presidential elections a “clean and fair fight”, without encouraging the intentional blurring of executive and ceremonial functions of government, would be if the executive functions have been clearly resolved before the Presidential elections. The general elections have given a clear indication on the key areas of policy that need to be addressed, but almost three months after, Parliament has not convened and no major policy changes have taken place. And if the political elite believe the last trump card is the eligibility certificate, think again – playing blind to the problem does not remove it.

Failure to recognise this is failure on the part of the political elite. There is no one else to blame if the Presidential elections turns out to be a brawler house of executive evangelism vs creaky ceremonialism. And attempts to manage public expectations will only have as much effect as attempts to manage public preference.

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

14200艾滋病患个资泄露 卫长颜金勇道歉

卫生部于今日召开记者会,揭露于2013年1月之前在本地确诊的1万4200名艾滋病病患,姓名、身份证号码、电话号码、住址和相关医疗资料等遭泄露。卫生部长颜金勇。针对病患个资泄露郑重道歉。 与他们有联系的另外2400人的一些资料也遭泄露,共有1万6600人受影响。 颜金勇表示,目前最主要是照顾受影响病患,卫生部已积极联系他们并提供必要协助,同时卫生部中士此问题,对于不负责任、涉滥用职权和数据资料职员,都会采取严厉行动。 根据卫生部文告,警方是在上周二(22日),通知卫生部指这些个资被公开上网。卫生部于隔日报警,随后与相关单位合作屏蔽有关资料。 据了解,泄露艾滋病患个资的涉事者名为美籍人士费雷拉(Mikhy Farrera-Brochez ),他正是前年轰动一时的淡马锡理工学院“冒牌专才”一案,在2017年,因涉及诈欺、欺骗公务员、拥毒和文凭造假等23项罪行,在2017年被判28个月监禁。 他的36岁医生男友吕德祥,为包庇有艾滋病的费雷拉,被指在2008年3月20日和2013年11月29日,以自己的血液样本偷龙转凤瞒过人力部,让后者得以通过就业准证申请。 在2016年5月,卫生部报警,指费雷拉可能藏有有关艾滋病患机密资料,后者的住处被搜查,现场搜出资料也被警方充公。 2018年5月,费雷拉被驱逐出新加坡。但卫生部收到消息,指费雷拉可能仍非法保存有部分病患机密资料,为此卫生部再次报警,并联系那些可能受影响者。 2019年1月22日,卫生部则受到消息,指费雷拉非法收藏了这些病患个资,并在网络上公开。 警方寻求外国执法机构协助 警方受询时证实在1月23日接到卫生部报案,并正寻求外国执法机构的协助。由于调查在进行中而无法加以置评。…

Senior Minister Janil Puthucheary claims commuters don’t mind a longer public transport journey so long as it’s comfortable

According to Senior Minister of State for Transport Janil Puthucheary on Sunday,…

259 new cases of COVID-19 infection in S’pore; 253 locally transmitted cases, 116 unlinked

As of Saturday noon (4 Sep), the Ministry of Health (MOH) has…

威胁”辣玉莎父亲是下一个” 爆料者违《防止骚扰法》 遭警调查

日前工人党候选人辣玉莎因涉嫌发表种族歧视言论被举报,警方介入调查。如今声称第一位爆料的网友,被爆涉嫌发表蓄意伤害宗教和种族情感的言论,如今亦正接受警方调查。 警方于昨日(7日)表示正对一位脸书用户,名为Abdul Malik Mohammed Ghazali进行调查。 “警方根据《刑法》第298条在社交媒体上发表评论,蓄意伤害宗教和种族感情,以及根据《防止骚扰法》第四条进行相关调查。”目前该案件正在侦办中。 此前,该名网友在脸书上公开表示对辣玉莎的看法,称自己当时将辣玉莎的歧视性言论截图,并在网络上爆料,还称希望辣玉莎能够被取消竞选资格。 “她是否会被取消资格?甚至会让她团队的所有人也被取消资格?无论如何,我非常荣幸能够成为第一个将这份截图(辣玉莎的言论)发到网上,还造成轰动。谢谢那些无名人士能够帮我一传十十传百。” “希望她能够结束她的政坛之路,让人民行动党能够首次不战而胜。” 他也在文末,以威胁的口气表示,“谁管你的父亲?新加坡马来商会(SMCCI)很大吗?最好你能下台,否则他(法立Farid Khan)就是下一个。“ 辣玉莎父亲是马来总商会会长法立(Farid…