Jason Lee/

For almost 12 years, I have never been a fan of outgoing President S R Nathan.

In view of the legacy left by the late President Ong Teng Cheong, is inevitable that comparisons between Mr Ong and his successor(s) would be made.

In this regard, Mr Nathan’s actions, or “inactions”, over the years further alienated me from him.

I often ask: What exactly did he do apart from making overseas state visits and gracing events in Singapore?

And when I read in January 2009 that the Finance Minister had submitted a formal proposal to the President for permission to dip into the reserves in the midst of the financial crisis just two days before Budget Day, my disappointment grew further.

Was the Government so certain that the President would agree to their request, I asked? If that was the case, was it because the President had been perceived as a Government-friendly custodian of the reserves, I had wondered?

Since then, I had been looking forward to the next Presidential Election in August 2011. I was optimistic that the next President of Singapore would be someone I know we can depend on to “safeguard” our interests; someone who would put national interests above self-interest or that of the ruling party of the day.

Almost 30 months on, my sentiments have changed and how I wish Mr Nathan would continue for a third term.

For one, I am now convinced that this is a President who cares for his fellow Singaporeans. It is not something new but it took me almost 12 years to “realise” that this is a President who loves to mingle with fellow Singaporeans whether in public or at private events. This is a President who, despite his age, still relishes the opportunities to meet-and-greet ordinary folks. How many of our current Ministers feel the same way?

More importantly, my “desire” to see Mr Nathan serve a third term stems from my personal belief that none of the six presidential hopefuls would perform the role any better.

One presidential hopeful has been saying that his experience and expertise would add value to the nation if he is elected as President, especially since he now sees “dark clouds on the horizon”. If that is the case, shouldn’t he be serving in Cabinet? Wouldn’t that add more value to the nation as it seeks to ride out the tough times ahead? Moreover, what exactly did Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong say to this presidential hopeful when he told the former of his intention to run in the Presidential Election in early June? Did PM Lee endorse his bid, whether explicitly or implicitly?

Another presidential hopeful has been highlighting past cases/events to illustrate his independence from the Government. Most Singaporeans who are eligible to cast their vote on August 27 would already have known of his independent streak, and hence, would it not be better for this hopeful to spell out his exact plans going forward if elected as President? (Of course, he might argue that there is no reason to do so since he has yet to be certified fit to run in the election.) Moreover, this hopeful was quoted as saying that he decided to run in the Presidential Election after sensing much anger during the rallies in the lead up to May 7 General Elections. Personally, I would think that it should not require someone with the grassroots experience and contacts to realise the sense of ground resentment only after attending the political rallies.

A third high-profile potential candidate has been championing himself as the “Voice of the People”. Having represented many ordinary folks during the mini-bonds saga, that might indeed be the case. Surprisingly though, this candidate actually wrote on his blog a few weeks ago: “Many people are writing to me for assistance on their insurance and other personal problems, more so than previously. I am not able to find the time to assist them now, as I have many things to attend to for the Presidential Election. I hope that they can approach me after the election, when I can find more time.” Hmm, I just wonder whether he will be able to spare the time to respond to these online requests for assistance/advice after the election if he should be elected?

Another possible candidate “graciously” backed out of the recent General Elections so as to avoid a three-cornered fight. One cannot help but wonder whether he would similarly do so should the PEC grant three or more hopefuls the Certificate of Eligibility next week?

Come August 27, I want to vote for a man whom I believe would always place the nation’s interests above all else; someone who is pro-people at all times, and would never demonstrate deference or blind loyalty to any individual or party except to the people of Singapore.

True, we may have more choices this time round, but that certainly does not make my “job” as a voter any easier. If only the incumbent President had decided to seek another term, I would not be in such a dilemma.

Today, I am convinced that President Nathan has served Singapore to the best of his abilities, and I sincerely thank him for his contributions to this nation.

I just hope and pray that Singapore’s next President will continue the legacies of the late President Ong and President Nathan. Whoever that may be, I know it’s unlikely I’ll be among those who will vote for him on August 27. It’s more likely that I’ll spoil the vote. What a shame – especially since I genuinely believe in the significance of the EP scheme.

Jason is a former journalist with a mainstream media.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Establishing the Internet as a credible opinion base

The Internet has tremendous potential but must not be undermined by irresponsible reporting or interpretative proclivities. Lester Lim

林志蔚投稿《联合早报》 最低工资需足以反映“生活工资”

续上周针对最低薪金制议题,在国会与执政党议员交锋,工人党盛港集选区议员林志蔚也投稿《联合早报》,续阐述对于最低工资和政府渐进式薪资模式的比较。 尽管林志蔚的国会辩论获得广大报导和讨论,惟他也认为,论述中某些较细致复杂的部分却似乎被埋没。他表示,朝野双方都同意有必要向收入最低的工友给予援助,而通过某种形式的最低工资制,来提高工友工资也是做法之一。 “国务资政尚达曼甚至把渐进式薪金模式称为“加强版最低工资制”,可见这两项提议之间并不存在巨大的差距。” 当然,从设计上说,制定最低工资确实有可能造成失业率上升,进而降低经济效率。在我们看来,为了加强社会公正,作出一定的权衡取舍是值得的。更何况,全球各地数百项研究的证据也显示,只要不把最低工资定得太高,最低工资制对就业的影响微乎其微,甚至无法察觉。 而政府渐进式薪金制(PWM)和最低薪金制的差异,在于后者主张定下一个简单划一、适用于经济体系中所有工薪阶层的最低收入水平。“相比之下,渐进式薪金模式则根据不同行业设定不同的最低工资,同时为工资增幅制定额外层级,让工友随着掌握更多技能、赚取更高工资。” 渐进式薪金模式自2012年首次公布,并于2015年起正式推行以来,仅涵盖三个行业领域,覆盖收入处于底层第30个百分位数的受薪工友当中仅20巴仙人口。 但是,若让渐进式薪金模式以更快速步伐覆盖所有行业,正如全国职工总会副秘书长许宝琨所期许,那至少就最低工资的概念而言,这两种制度之间几乎没什么实际区别。 唯一有待厘清的,就只剩下必须决定工资最低的行业应有的最低工资水平。由于所有其他行业的最低工资都不可能低于这个底限,因此工人党在乎的是,这个工资底限水平必须足以反映“生活工资”,意即足以维持基本生活费。 虽然渐进式薪金模式具备让工友提升技能的灵活性和奖励元素,看似有一定的好处和优势,但是林志蔚认为,设计更简单的最低工资制,成效会更显著。最低工资制体现了这项政策的目标:确保努力工作的国人能赚取足够收入来维持生活。 “工人党建议把最低工资定为1300元。我们是根据政府2019年一家四口的家庭平均基本生活必需品开支调查报告得出这个数额。当然,我们没必要固执地紧咬着这个数字不放。就如我在国会上回应其他议员提问时也曾说过,我的建议是成立一个独立的全国理事会来探讨这个问题,决定最低工资水平,并在必要时定期修订这个数额。” 第二,根据不同行业设定不同的最低工资水平,可能会间接鼓励业者抱着侥幸心态钻漏洞,以至于违背了推行这个模式的初衷。打个比方,一些雇主可能刻意篡改行业领域的类别,以便符合资格采用适用于这个特定行业的较低工资底限。随着更多行业推行渐进式薪金模式,这种滥用情况恐怕只会更严重。 第三,为不同的行业设定不同的最低工资水平、工资层级,以及种种条件和标准,只会使行政工作变得非常繁琐复杂。这还会带来额外的交易成本,并为制度注入诸多低效元素。这些额外的低效元素对经济可能造成的负担,比起从一开始就推行最低工资制,恐怕还要更沉重。…

国大偷拍事件:涉事男生遭停职 网络联署逾四万要求严惩

据了解,涉及偷拍风波的男生,已遭其所任职的保险公司大东方勒令停职。 新加坡大东方保险公司,今午透过脸书专页发文表示,理解有关偷拍风波涉及旗下一名财务规划师Nicholas Lim,已命令他停职,而后者也已呈辞。 Nicholas Lim停学期间,到大东方工作。 该公司表示,强烈反对旗下财务规划师,涉及任何不当行为,且会毫不犹豫采取行动。 逾四万人联署 另一方面,在请愿专页change.org,出现两份要求警方重新开档调查涉偷拍国大生、并予以重罚的联署声明,两份联署各获得两万9718人和1万1582人签名支持。 其中一份声明谴责涉及性骚扰者未被严惩,并质疑此次风波不过是院方扫在地毯下的众多个案冰山一角,不愿承认他们无力对付那些利用女同学来满足自己欲望的加害者。 其中一位联署发起人在声明中认为,不应因为出生而对犯同样罪行的人有差别待遇,例如一名外籍工人Manikandan过去因为偷窥而被严惩。但是,即便获得完整教育福利的大学生,若作出同样行为,至少获得应得的惩罚。 对于各界的呼声,国立大学校方也终于同意,在本月25日下午5时,在校内UTown视听室召开对话会,与师生讨论针对应对校内性骚扰问题进行对话,同时校方组成检讨委员会,加入校方和学生会成员商议性骚扰问题对策。

Forget “natural aristocracy”, focus instead on closing the gap: Jeanette Chong

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, at an Institute of Policy Studies dialogue…