"A Nation Awakes: Frontline Reflections"

(source)

ABOUT THE BOOK (launched on 16 December 2011)

Few nations if any, have ever held two national elections in a span of four months. Fewer still are key players who took part in both. This book is the story of extraordinary men and women who fought Singapore's 2011 General Election in May and the Presidential Election in August. Together with their loyal and dedicated supporters, they displayed great courage and conviction, and in so doing changed the political landscape forever.

The writers of this book represent a broad spectrum of Singapore society - student, teacher, university researcher, social worker, doctor, economist, lawyer, advertising, media and IT personnel, blogger, housewife and retiree. They cut across all age groups from their twenties to their sixties. They have come together in this book to relate and share their personal journey with Singaporeans.

Unlike most post-election commentaries written by third-party observers, this book is unique as it allows readers to hear from the horse's mouth how in four short months, Singapore's single dominant party system has given way to the emergence of a politics of diversity with positive implications for the country's future system of government.

CONTENTS:

• Foreword by Sir Ivor Crewe
• Preface by Tan Jee Say
• Prologue by Prof Staffan I Lindberg
• From Essay to ‘Ho-say’ by Tan Jee Say
• Fear No More by Dr Ang Yong Guan
• Building A Singapore Our Future Generations Can Be Proud Of by Michelle Lee Juen
• I Could Not Say No by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
• Is There a Climate Change? by Dr Wong Wee Nam
• The Doctor’s Heart by Dr Leong Yan Hoi & Dr Tan Lip Hong
• A Personal Journey To The 2011 Elections by Dr Paul Ananth Tambyah
• Beyond Social Work But Not Apart by Dr Vincent Wijeysingha
• Let’s Run The Race Together by Fahmi Rais
• Singapore’s Social Media Revolution by Jarrod Luo
• Staying Relevant With Neither Sound Nor Fury by Alex Au
• All The World’s A Stage by Bentley Tan
• Young And Emancipated by Nicole Seah
• Bridging the (Democracy) Gap With Youthful Passion by Dexter Lee
• A New Lease Of Life For Old Fogies by Patrick Low
• Like A First Lady by Patricia Khoo Phaik Ean
• Epilogue: Get Organised For A Broad-Based, Non-PAP Government by Tan Jee Say
• Appendix: Summary Extract Of Essay by Tan Jee Say



REVIEW

“The courageous spirit and vision of Tan Jee Say and other bravehearts from Singapore’s opposition parties and civil society in the 2011 elections resembles a collective ‘Singa’s roar’ which continues to reverberate across this city-state in Southeast Asia. The ‘Singa’s roar’ resonates with other popular movements striving for democracy in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and around the world.”

-- Associate Professor Lily Zubaidah Rahim, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney. She is an author of several books on Singapore and Southeast Asia.

“I met Jee Say in Singapore a few months after his historic candidacy for the presidency, nearly forty years after we had been students together at University College, Oxford. The ideals of fairness and justice of his youthful days had clearly survived a very distinguished career in the public service and in finance, along with passion and courage.”

-- Professor Rajiva Wijesinha, Member of Parliament and adviser on national reconciliation in Sri Lanka; he contested the presidency of Sri Lanka in 1999. He is currently the Chairman of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats.

“This book brings out the robust and diverse nature of Singapore, and these attributes are positive for the development of Singapore as a financial centre.”

-- Tim Tacchi, Senior Partner, TT International, a global fund manager with its head office in London.

"It gives me great pleasure to introduce and commend this fascinating and stirring book about Singapore’s recent presidential and general elections....By revealing the feelings, thoughts and motives of a diverse group of hard-working professional Singaporeans…, this book is testimony to the vital importance and benefits of active citizenship, vigorous democracy and public-spirited leadership. Many of the individual accounts of involvement in the elections are a moving reminder of the personal sacrifices that people are willing to make to further their vision of a better society. To support an opposition candidate in a country accustomed to continuous single-party rule is to risk job security, business prospects, family life, personal privacy and social acceptance. Although the contributors to this book would never make the claim themselves, they are all modest heroes.

....The founder of the modern Olympics said that “the most important thing is not winning but taking part”. This is the message that shines out from the contributors to this book. The presidential election was one of those elections in which the official winner was in many ways the loser and the official loser was in many ways the winner. By showing that it was possible to launch a major challenge against the dominant party, Jee Say Tan and his friends and supporters bestowed a great service to the people of Singapore, not only this year but for the future."

-- Extract from the Foreword by Sir Ivor Crewe, Master of University College, Oxford. He has published and broadcast extensively on British and American politics mainly in the subjects of elections, parties, public opinion and public policy.

***************************************************

(source)

The Online Citizen (TOC) interviews Tan Jee Say (TJS)

TOC: When did the idea for this book come about? What were the motivations?
TJS: The idea came after the Presidential Election ended. Like the GE before it, the PE was hotly contested. To have one heavily contested election is already quite unusual in Singapore, to have two in a span of 4 months is unprecedented and this led to much heightened political awareness among a normally docile and apathetic electorate. We feel this should be recorded and our contributory role explained so that Singaporeans can understand and appreciate how ordinary people like ourselves can make a difference.

TOC: Your media release says the writers of the book represent a broad spectrum of Singapore society. Do they include any PAP members and/or supporters?
TJS: The broad spectrum refers to the writers coming from all social-economic sectors rather than political. PAP members and supporters are not included because this book is about the role of non-PAP forces in transforming the political landscape whereas PAP wants status quo.

TOC: What do you hope this book will achieve?
TJS: We hope the book will help Singaporeans get rid of their fear about participating in the political affairs of their own country and see it as normal, healthy process in taking Singapore to the next level.

TOC: Are there any other things you would like to say about the book and the book launch?
TJS: This book is unique as it is written by players not bystanders or political observers.It is an insiders account which is seldom seen in Singapore.

------------------

The Online Citizen (TOC) interviews Paul Tambyah (PT)

TOC: When were you approached to write for this book? Describe the circumstances.
PT: Soon after the Presidential elections, Jee Say brought up the idea of writing a book to document the remarkable events surrounding the two elections. He asked me if I would contribute and I readily agreed.

TOC: Why did you decide to contribute?
PT: I thought that it was important for me to be a part of this book as I had been a part of the campaigns and I thought that it would be useful for Singaporeans to hear a little background that could not be conveyed in a Rally speech. I was also proud to be associated with the people in the campaign and pleased to be asked to contribute to this historical text.

TOC: What do you hope the stories contained the book will achieve?
PT: I sincerely hope that the stories in the book will show how ordinary Singaporeans who are part of the mainstream but are not satisfied with many of the policies and directions that are being promoted by the ruling party can come forward sincerely to offer alternative views. These views now have a number of platforms by which they may be heard and Sinagaporeans, being a mature people can decide for themselves which policies are best for themselves and their families. This book is one such platform and I hope that it will help more Singaporeans to come forward. This can only be good for Singapore

------------------------


Extract from Associate Professor Tambyah’s chapter:

Paul Ananth Tambyah

One day in 2009, I received a call from a friend who was politically active in the ruling party asking if he could talk with me in person. I was a bit apprehensive, but when he said that the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) had decided to nominate me for consideration as a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), I decided to say yes. It turned out that the SMA, which represents a significant proportion of general practitioners (GPs) in Singapore, was upset about several issues that had come up recently. It perceived there to be a media campaign highlighting errant doctors, especially those in the private sector. More importantly, the SMA guideline on fees which had helped self-regulate the profession for years and was, in fact, established as a result of prompting from the Ministry of Health, was suddenly deemed anti-competitive and had to be withdrawn.

The SMA warned of dire consequences, all of which have come to pass at both ends of the spectrum. At the lower end, we have the spectacle of corporate GPs charging less for a consultation than a hawker charges for a plate of char kway teow! Naturally, these GPs are forced to shift the charges to medication prices, and reducing the impetus to prescribe judiciously. Patients are thus locked into high-cost drugs often prescribed for chronic illnesses, contributing significantly to the rising cost of healthcare in Singapore. Other GPs have had to become highly qualified beauticians in order to cover their costs by offering aesthetic services. After the elections, the moves to incorporate more GPs in the management of chronic diseases are a positive sign, but one only hopes that the paperwork will not be too great a hurdle. At the other end, we have the story of Dr Susan Lim charging what her patient was willing to pay and numerous others who have not garnered the attention of the media, but are well known within the medical community.

The SMA, for some reason, thought that I would be bold enough to speak up in parliament about its concerns, and that perhaps things would change for the profession and for patients. Subsequently, I received a message letting me know that the professional bodies had nominated me for NMP and that I had to go for an interview. I called my good friends Siew Kum Hong and Braema Mathi and asked them about the interviews and the wisdom of going ahead with the application. Both had done very good work as NMPs despite the constraints of the position and they encouraged me to go ahead.

The interview began with a question on what issues I would raise if selected. I was frank and began by talking about patients who were penalised for diseases that they had through no fault of their own. I asked, which parents would choose for their child to have leukemia and thus why should they be forced to deplete their Medisave accounts or their resources so that they became eligible for Medifund in order to pay for the treatment. I did not get a very encouraging response and, in fact, Mrs Lim Hwee Hwa turned the question around and asked whether I thought that the same principle applied to other sectors of the economy. She asked if I felt that GST should be lifted for essential goods, as I had argued that basic, essential and children’s healthcare should be free. I was cautious but I said I did feel that GST should not be imposed on basic necessities such as rice and milk, and cited other countries which exempt these from GST. At once, I saw from the faces across the table that I had mentioned the unmentionable. Apart from Mr Low Thia Kiang who had a silent grin, the rest of the committee had stern faces.

To lighten the mood, Mr Michael Palmer asked what other issues I would raise. I mentioned that I had been nominated by the SMA and thus was morally obliged to bring up issues of concern to the organisation in addition to patient issues. The issue I highlighted was the plight of the ‘HDB GPs’ who face rising costs and are unable to pass these costs onto their ‘heartlander’ patients who often cannot afford expensive medications or treatments. The result of this is well documented in the SMA GP surveys which I cited and which have shown declines in the income and standard of living of the average GP in Singapore over the last decade.

This was met with some incredulity as all the MPs, beginning with Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, began to point out that at every meet-the-people session after the university admissions process started, anguished parents were out in force to appeal for their children who did not get into medical school. My answer was a little weak as I mentioned that they probably did not realise the average GP’s plight, or even know that more than half of the graduating class were GPs doing the hard work of primary healthcare in Singapore’s housing estates.

I now know why Singaporean parents want their children to become doctors – this was wonderfully explained by Professor Lee Wei Ling in her Straits Times (ST) column on 23 December, 2009. Singaporeans parents anxious about their own health and that of their families resonate with the situation described by Professor Lee in our public hospitals. The rest of the interview was unremarkable, and to be honest, I was not too surprised when I discovered through both The Straits Times and The Online Citizen that nine other worthy individuals had been chosen as NMPs (five of whom had listed then-Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew as their favourite politician!). I did write in to ask why I was not selected, but the reply was merely a polite “we are unable to comment on the special select committee’s decision” on either mine or Kum Hong’s non-reappointment.

J P Morgan discussed Singapore politics with Tan Jee Say

by Tan Jee Say (source)

Many of you who have read my earlier posting "J P Morgan discussed Singapore politics with Tan Jee Say" are curious to know what I said to the J P Morgan Directors. The following query is from John Lee -


{ Hi Jee Say,

So, what did you say to the JP Morgan folks? They are obviously on an "intelligence gathering exercise" on Singapore's future opposition leadership. Big funds are watching us. They want to know whether the current crop of opposition leaders will likely form a non-PAP government in the near future? And if they do, will they do it on the back of populist policies, foregoing sound economics and fiscal policies? This is the slippery road many of us fear Singapore will fall into, if opposition leaders stoke the "entitlement mentality" among the voters (especially the young and naive) in order to gain power. }

And my response below -

Dear John,

Yes they wanted to know what are my political beliefs, where I stand in the political spectrum and why more and more Singaporeans are rooting for the opposition. Below is what I said to to them.

There is now greater acceptance of the opposition because they (we really) are ordinary folks whom the people can identify with; many are in fact part of the establishment, so the standard PAP propaganda against them, or us, doesn't work. We are not out to destroy the system simply because we are part of it and benefit from it; rather we are seen as trying to improve the system and eliminate unfairness and injustices. Yes the media tried to portray me as socialist with leftwing populist policies, but they were obviously off the mark. I reminded the J P Morgan folks that a leftwing socialist believes in public ownership of the means of production but I believe in the free market. In fact, I went even further to explain that I believe in a liberal market economy (LME) rather than a co-ordinated market economy (CME) (these two terms are discussed at length in the book Varieties of Capitalism but basically a CME is a government-directed economy that masquerades itself as free - sounds familiar?).

At the same time, I believe in a social safety net. While many will succeed in a free market economy, many more will not make it; not only do the lower income groups suffer, but the middle class as well because free market economics widens the income gap and inflates prices particularly of assets, so our middle class children cannot afford housing - the rich become very rich, the poor get poorer and the middle get stretched out or squeezed. So the safety net has to be meaningful and cover not just the poor but also the middle class - in education, healthcare, housing and others.

Is this raiding the reserves? Hardly. In fact, the budget has chalked up huge surpluses year after year, in the tens of billions per annum during most of the past decade. So the truth is the other way round - the government has been raiding the people's savings by over-taxing the people more than what is required to enable the government to provide social services to the people.

Does this belief in a meaningful safety net make me a socialist? The world has moved on. Conservatives and parties of the right used to denounce a safety net as socialist welfarism or populism but they no longer do so; they have now unashamedly embraced it, calling it compassionate conservatism (the Republican Party in the US and the Tories now style themselves as such, saying they are compassionate when in the past they would decry those who do not make it as lazy or stupid - the PAP in their hearts of hearts still think so, that they are the talented and hardworking ones who deserve to be paid millions). It is the PAP that is still stuck in the politics of the old, one of the very few ultra rightwing parties still standing. I am certainly left of the PAP (not difficult for anyone to be left of the PAP as the PAP is so far to the right) but I am not leftwing - my belief in a liberal market economy with a social safety net, puts me right in the centre of the political spectrum.

At the end of my explanation, one of the J P Morgan directors, Alun Evans, remarked that my political beliefs are similar to those of former UK prime minister Tony Blair and present prime minister David Cameron. I told them a little secret, that David Cameroon and I shared the same economics tutor Peter Sinclair. I sensed that the J P Morgan folks felt assured with what I said and were happy (look at their smiling faces in the photograph!) that I wasn't some crazy guy out to destroy the system but a sensible middle-of-the road with a big heart for the poor and the middle class. The re-assuring remark from Alun Evans was telling because of his background. At the start of the lunch, he asked me about Eddie Teo and I told him he was doing very well and had kindly granted me a certificate of eligibility to run for President ("the spy chief!", "yes, that's how I know him"). Officially Alun was a diplomat and served in the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office but I would not be surprised if his report went up to the SIS as well. He is a CMG (Companion of St Michael and St George), so moves around the establishment circles. Well you can bet who will be interested to hear what he has to say. Yes intelligence gathering exercise indeed! But we have nothing to hide. I mean the opposition has nothing to hide; I can't speak for the PAP though.

Hope the above helps to elucidate.

Kind regards,
Jee Say


J P Morgan Asia Investment Trust is based in London and is listed on the London Stock Exchange. It invests in Asian companies on behalf of its shareholders. Its Board of Directors visits Asia regularly to talk to policy makers, opinion leaders and others in order to update its understanding of the politics, the economy and companies of Asia. On Thursday 6 October 2011, the Board invited me to lunch to get to know me, my ideas and the changing politics in Singapore. The Directors showed keen interest in the underlying reasons for the growing support for opposition parties and the emergence of high quality opposition candidates. They wanted to know if more of these highly qualified individuals will surface in future elections. I told them that we are seeing more and more successful professionals and businessmen coming forth to volunteer their services and expertise in the various parties. The signs are pretty good and "good for Singapore", they nodded in agreement as I shook their hands to thank them for their interest in Singapore and the wonderful lunch they had hosted. (I actually didn't eat much as they kept me talking throughout and I had to fill my stomach elsewhere afterwards.)

At lunch with the Directors of J P Morgan Asia Investment Trust - (Right to Left) Andrew Sykes, James Long (Chairman), James Strachan, TJS, Dr Linda Yueh, Alun Evans and Ronald Gould.

Tan Jee Say: Prepare for a broad-based non-PAP Government

(source1, source2)
The following is the transcript of a speech by Tan Jee Say at the Thank-You Lunch for Volunteer Helpers of TJS Presidential Campaign 2011 on Sunday 25 September 2011:

Friends, fellow Singaporeans, good afternoon.

Thank you very much for coming to this lunch gathering to allow me to thank all of you for helping me in my recent Presidential Campaign.

Many of you had also helped me in the General Election held a few months earlier. Some even stood with me as fellow candidates in the GE. You have been wonderful and unstinting in your support. I would not have done as well as I did without your help. You have made all the difference in transforming a little-known political newbie into a national figure with command of a quarter of the national vote, all in the short span of four months and against senior experienced politicians who have been in the public eye for more than 25 to 35 years.

Some commentators tried to diminish your contribution by ascribing our showing as a hardcore opposition vote. You know which camp they probably come from. An assenter to Dr Tony Tan’s nomination, a good friend of mine no doubt, even described me as a much-hyped opposition. Do we detect more than a tinge of envy in their camp? Even in victory, they were not gracious. It is hardly a good start to a dignified Presidency whose declared intention is to unify a divided nation. Of course, we can understand their frustration and humiliation at the tiny margin of victory despite all the high-level endorsement and never-ending publicity. Seen in this light, our share of the national vote is a phenomenon, not a hype. The internet helped but it took more than on-line chat to bring about this phenomenon. It was your hardwork, dedication and imagination that fascinated and captivated more than half a million Singaporeans to cast their sacred vote for me. For this great and selfless effort of yours, I am eternally grateful.


A Vote for Diversity

I am glad that I had offered myself as a candidate in the Presidential Election. I believe I have contributed to a more robust debate about the role of the President and other national issues, and consequently helped Singaporeans understand these matters better. My candidature had also added to the diversity of choice for voters and made them think carefully about the issues and the candidates before them. Singaporeans were offered diversity and they responded with an overwhelming vote for diversity.

The PE results have given us a clearer indication of the feelings of Singapore voters. The May GE showed clearly a strong under-current of unhappiness among Singaporeans. The August PE clarified their feelings and sharpened our understanding of the divisions among Singaporeans.



Open Disapproval – Leadership Crisis

The first and foremost conclusion is that 65%, the vast majority Singaporeans, are not happy with the Government. They have resoundingly rejected the moral authority of key PAP and PAP-backed leaders in Government, the trade unions, clan associations and chambers of commerce, ignored the leadership’s endorsement of its preferred candidate and given their carefully considered votes to the others. Never has our nation seen such a clear and outright show of disapproval. The PAP leadership is in crisis. However much party leaders might deny in public, the party is split right through the middle. It is not just about the division between the elite on the one hand and the grassroots on the other. Even among many of their former Ministers and Members of Parliament, there is serious misgiving about the direction that the Government is embarking upon in its economic, political and social policies. They feel strongly that the Government has deviated from the original ideology of the PAP which had always put people first in everything that they did in the past. Alas, this is no longer so. The current leaders in their ivory towers are increasinlgy disengaged and insulated from their members. This is consistent with their elitist stance towards ordinary Singaporeans, with their tens of millions of dollars in salaries and pensions, good-class bungalows and elite lifestyles. A similar division is occurring in its affiliate and supporting organisations. The leaders can no longer muster the support of the rank and file and galvanise them to go to battle. They are like army generals who commanded their soldiers to charge forward but discovered on turning round that the soldiers were not following them.

Leadership vacuum


All these signs point to a serious leadership vacuum in Singapore today. The world has changed, society takes on new perspectives. Singaporeans particularly the young cry out for new ideas to take Singapore forward. Yet the PAP is stuck in its old ways. Before the PE, Dr Tony Tan spoke about the “new normal” in politics after the GE. But his first act after being elected President was to prove that nothing has changed, by re-appointing the previous chairman of the Presidential Council of Advisers. Similarly, following pressure from the last GE, some unpopular ministers were dropped from Cabinet, but PM missed one of them so much that he re-hired him to be his adviser on economic cooperation with China. Is Singapore so short of leadership talent that even leaders who have questionable talents have to be recycled for use? Or is it more a case of lack of confidence in trying out something new and different? How can a new generation of leaders be nurtured if the old continued to be re-used over and over again?

PM said he welcomes new ideas and views. But he missed his chance of showing original thinking and setting himself apart from the old when he failed to translate his 1991 statement on the Internal Security Act into reality; he had said he would seriously consider abolishing it if Malaysia were to do the same. While Malaysia has announced it will abolish the ISA, Singapore wants to keep it. By retaining the ISA, PM showed his diffidence as he hangs on to the Government’s main instrument of fear. If he cannot keep his promise on such a fundamental issue, what can we expect from the promises that he has made during and after the May General Election? Will he prove to be just another man of promises rather than a promising Prime Minister?

The Government is seriously short of new ideas and new leaders. Nature abhors a vacuum. The leadership vacuum has to be filled. A non-PAP Government is in sight. But much needs to be done to achieve it. We must understand what Singaporeans are telling us with their vote. The PE vote has shown that Singaporeans want a diversity of choice.

They have signalled that they want an end to a single dominant party that has been a distinctive feature of Singapore’s politics in the last 50 years.

Coalition Government

Diversity of views is the hallmark of a mature and developed society. Society and choices in life are simply not cast in just black and white. There is a multitude of colours in between. Different people have different circumstances in life and accordingly make different choices to suit their circumstances or beliefs. Singapore society is maturing and we want our diverse views to be respected and represented, not trampled upon or subordinated to others. These diverse views cannot be adequately represented by a single political party. In the PE, Singaporeans have shown their preference for three large distinct blocs of opinion. During the May GE, one PAP minister derided the notion of diversity among opposition parties and described it as rojak. I responded by saying that rojak was delicious; it was Singapore’s favourite national dish and we should not be ashamed or even make fun of it. Diverse views coming together in a coalition government will be far more representative of the diverse groups of people in society. To be a stable government, the partners in the coalition will need to accommodate each other’s interests and concerns and as a result will become a broad-based government that will take care of the interests of all partners and their supporters.

Coalition governments are common across the world today. More than 75 countries have some form of a coalition government. The experience of many developed countries with coalition governments has shown us that they can produce stable governments, social cohesion and credible economic performance. They have also nurtured great global companies and innovative thinkers. Finland has had coalition governments for 94 years and experienced its most stable government since independence under a “rainbow coalition” of 5 parties. Their rainbow coalition is not unlike our rojak but without the sprinkle of nuts and spice. It also boasts of one of the better known global companies Nokia. Denmark with a population of about 5 million has at least 13 Noble Prize winners, Singapore with a similar population, has none. Even the United Kingdom which has a coalition government since last year, has its share of great companies and has not seen them or investments leave the country. Only yesterday, we read that a Singaporean tycoon, my good old schoolmate from RI, has invested a few hundred million dollars in a British company. So be wary when PAP tells you that coalition governments will frighten away investments.

Singaporeans should not fear but must be prepared for the eventuality of a coalition government. Like-minded individuals and political parties in the opposition will need to get together more often and build themselves into a cohesive and potent force. We should also reach out to members and supporters of the PAP who are disillusioned with their current party leadership and want to continue contributing to Singapore in a meaningful way. Together with them, we can forge a powerful combined majority to serve Singapore. In the next few years, I will dedicate my effort to building up this broad coalition of forces and strengthening our ranks with many more talented Singaporeans who have the passion to serve Singapore. We must work towards being in a position to offer ourselves as a credible alternative government in the next GE. It is our duty to do so. We owe it to the people of Singapore to fill the leadership vacuum.

A Book to Inspire

We live in exciting times. We have reached a critical turning point in our political history. We, you and me, have been a part of this process that stretched over the last two elections. We should write a book about our journey so that it can serve as an inspiration for future generations of Singaporeans. I have discussed this with some of the principal players and they all supported the idea. It is too good an opportunity to be missed. Few nations if any, have ever held two nation-wide elections in a span of four months. Fewer still are key players who took part in both. The book will be the story of extraordinary men and women who fought Singapore ‘s 2011 General Election in May and the Presidential Election in August. Together with their loyal and dedicated supporters, they displayed great courage and conviction, and in so doing changed the political landscape forever. It will be an inspirational book that provides an analysis of the GE and PE with a focus on the themes of Maturity and Courage, and what these 2 elections and the response of Singaporeans portend for the future of Singapore. It is a book written by players, not bystanders. Each player describes a personal journey in his or her own perspective. The book aims to inspire, inform and acknowledge Singaporeans for their role in positively changing the political landscape of Singapore and helping her move towards a more mature democracy. We target to launch the book before Christmas.

Engaging the community

We have a long and exciting road ahead. We must engage our supporters and the community on a continuing basis. In addition to the book, a group of us plan to organise a number of community outreach activities such as forum discussions, tuition centres, care-centres for children, the elderly and people with special needs, and legal and medical clinics for the poor. These activities need resources and volunteers. We are working out the plans now and will share them with you soon.

Meanwhile, please enjoy the rest of the lunch and the camaraderie of your friends and fellow travellers.

Once again, thank you for all your support in my Presidential campaign. I hope to see you again in the months and years ahead as we work together for a better Singapore for all Singaporeans.

Are we rich or are we bankrupt?

The Singapore Democrats (source)

11 July 2011

With the Presidential Elections just weeks away and the fact that the president is supposed to act as a custodian of our financial reserves, it is amazing that the state of our reserves and hence our nation's fiscal health is not more a subject of national debate.

How these reserves are deployed has a bearing on our financial well-being – a bearing much more direct and serious than people think.

The SDP has in the past raised concerns about the high level of public debt incurred by the Government. At 102.4 percent of GDP, this amount is the ninth highest in the world. In fact, Greece which is facing severe economic troubles is placed only slightly higher at fifth spot with 144 percent of GDP.

The public debt-to-GDP ratio is a measure of what a country owes as a proportion to what it produces. A high ratio means that it is harder for a country to pay off what it owes and that it is more likely that the country will default on its payments. This is the financial predicament that Greece currently finds itself.

What about Singapore? Is Singapore's situation as bad as it looks? Despite our high public debt, analysts say that Singapore is in a different category. This is because our economy generates budget surpluses most years and this surplus counter-balances the debt incurred. Therefore, on balance, our books show a surplus and not debt.

Borrower calling the shots

But why, if we are generating budget surpluses, would the Government need to borrow money and go into debt? At last count the amount of debt is upwards of $200 billion. And, equally important, who are we borrowing from?

Let's tackle the second question first. From whom is the PAP Government borrowing these large amounts of money?

The answer is us, the people. The Government issues debt instruments in the form of bonds, securities, Treasury bills, and deposits with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) which financial institutions buy.

One of these financial institutions is, of course, the CPF which uses almost all of our savings to buy these instruments making it the single biggest holder of Government debt.

So we have a situation where the Government is the debtor and we the people are, collectively, the creditor. With a twist, of course. A big one. In our case, instead of the lender setting the terms on when and how the debt will be repaid, in this case it is the borrower who decides the terms. And to add insult, the debtor keeps changing the terms of repayment.

Years ago when the CPF scheme started, we were able to withdraw our CPF funds at age 55. But the Government changed the law in the late 1990s, introducing the Minimum Sum Scheme which gave it the power to retain a portion - a huge portion - of our savings even beyond the age-55 limit. The amount started off at $80,000 and has been increasing every year. As of July 2011, the Minimum Sum is set at $131,000.

Singaporeans reaching 55 will only be able to withdraw any savings in excess of $131,000 (which the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans do not have).

It is only when one reaches 62 will one be able to start withdrawing one's savings – in monthly instalments of a couple of hundred dollars depending on how much one has in one's account. Of course, this is after the Government deducts another $27,500 more (as of January 2011) for Medisave.

After "borrowing" our savings, issuing debt as a collateral, the Government is now free to use the funds for whatever it deems fit. It invests this money mainly through the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings.

Through the years, these two conglomerates have invested in industries ranging from telecommunications to banks to hotels and everything in between. Domestically, it uses the funds to set up companies that deal with all kinds of businesses. To what extent and where these funds are parked no one quite knows because they are hidden from public view, especially those of the GIC.

The perfect arrangement

There is still the question of why the Government needs to borrow our CPF funds when it generates a healthy budget surplus annually. The simple answer is that the money is there. By issuing securities and bonds at low interest rates, the Government avails itself to more than a hundred billion dollars of CPF funds.

With such a vast amount of money at its disposal for investments, Government officials can strut the world's stage and command fawning attention from the international business community that few politicians can.

Domestically, it places itself as employer, CEO and landlord to all that Singaporeans do. The next time you buy a house, watch cable TV, or buy your groceries chances are that you are giving your business to the Government. Not that you have much of a choice as a customer because most big local businesses are run, directly or indirectly, by the Government through GLCs.

The political control that the PAP derives from such economic dominance is what has kept it in unchecked power all these decades. For the PAP it is the perfect arrangement. It borrows money at low interest rates from the CPF at little or no risk. If it incurs losses, it doesn't have to tell the people. It simply changes the rules governing the return of the savings to CPF members. If it turns over a profit, it pays to the CPF an artficially depressed rate of around 2 percent.

Heads the Government wins, tails the people lose.

Part 2:  How all this affects the average citizen  .

Final Presidential vote tally (including overseas votes) and candidate expenditure

(source)

The final vote tally, including the overseas votes, is:

Tony Tan                     745,693 (35.20%)

Tan Cheng Bock          738,311 (34.85%)

Tan Jee Say                  530,441 (25.04%)

Tan Kin Lian                104,095 (4.91%)

Total valid votes        2,118,540

Rejected votes                 37,849

Total votes cast          2,156,389

A mere 0.348% of valid votes separates Tony Tan from Tan Cheng Bock. This margin of victory is even narrower than the 0.516% of national popular votes that separated Al Gore (winner in popular votes) from George W. Bush (winner in electoral votes, hence the elected President) in the 2000 US presidential election (source).  However, it is far wider than the astonishing 0.009% that separates the Florida popular votes of Bush and Gore in the same election (source).

Candidate Expenditure

(source)

Getting their names and faces out to the electorate within the nine-day campaign period was a top priority for all four candidates in the August Presidential Election, with advertising and printing of promotional materials constituting the bulk of their expenses.

The expenses filed by the candidates were made available for inspection at the Elections Department on October 4, 2011.

The top spender was Dr Tan Cheng Bock, who spent S$585,045.03 on his campaign. More than 86 per cent of that went to traditional publicity material like posters, as well as novel means such as smartphone apps.

President Tony Tan Keng Yam was the next highest spender at S$503,070.

58 per cent was spent on promotional material, such as the ubiquitous black-framed-spectacle magnets and caps, and some S$50,000 on new media advertisements, such as those found on Google and Facebook.

Mr Tan Jee Say spent more than S$162,337, with nearly 45 per cent of it on advertising and publicity.

Mr Tan Kin Lian was the leanest spender, doling out about S$70,912.16 on his campaign, or merely 3 cents on each of the 2.27 million registered voters.

Related: The financially savviest PE candidate of them all (here)

Presidential votes at some counting centres

(Source)  Raw data (unofficial): here.

Tan Jee Say's post-Presidential election press conference

Tantamount to a humiliation: The Economist

The Economist (source)

(extract)

The PAP never endorsed Tony Tan formally. But he has held a number of cabinet jobs, and the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, enthusiastically endorsed his candidacy. He also enjoyed the backing of party activists, trade unions, chambers of commerce and community groups. So, that he won not much more than a third of the vote is a remarkable slap in the face for the government. All the same, PAP diehards protested that, since two former PAP MPs had garnered 70% of the vote, this was an endorsement for the party.

This follows the general election in May when the PAP did worse than in any election since 1965. It still won 60% of the vote, which left it, in Singapore’s first-past-the-post system, with 81 out of 87 elected seats in parliament. But the party acknowledged it as a setback, and Mr Lee promised to do some “soul-searching”. Voters seem to feel, however, that the government has still not got the message. The presidential election turned into a relatively low-risk chance to teach it a lesson.

****************

In general elections opposition parties, which are small and fragmented, are at a disadvantage. Most parliamentary seats are in big “group” constituencies, where they struggle to field slates of credible candidates, and whose boundaries, they claim, are manipulated in the PAP’s favour. The presidential poll is the only one that is island-wide and not affected by these considerations. It gave voters the opportunity to install a different sort of check into the political system. The result is sobering for the PAP. As the country's biggest newspaper, the pro-government Straits Times, put it in reporting the result: "the voting patterns show a society more politically divided than ever before.”

They reflect a widespread sense that the government, blinded by Singapore’s astonishing economic progress, has lost touch with the grievances of ordinary citizens. This sense is in part about particular issues, such as the cost of housing or immigration, which some blame for depressing local wages. But it is as much a question of style—a resentment at what is seen as the government’s paternalistic belief that it knows best.

They also reflect the breakdown, thanks to the internet, and especially social-networking sites, of the government’s virtual monopoly over the media. In both general and presidential elections, the government’s opponents were able to change the terms of the debate by taking it online. For example, when one of the newly elected opposition MPs complained on his Facebook page that he was not allowed to attend constituency functions on a public-housing estate, the issue soon became a national one about the perception of a pro-PAP bias in public bodies.

The realisation that more than 60% of Singaporeans voted against the government’s favoured candidate will presumably provoke more soul-searching within the PAP. Some will take it as proof that the party must move further and faster in opening up to adjust to the “new normal” of a political system with a sizeable opposition. Others, however, may take the opposite view: that too much liberalisation has led to a fading of the fear of the unpleasant repercussions that used to deter critical commentary and opposition activism. In short, that Singaporeans are forgetting who knows best what's good for them.

How PAP and opposition supporters voted in the Presidential election

Based on the few online surveys, it is possible to estimate (crudely) the Presidential preferences of the PAP and opposition supporters, as shown below.

	PAP voters (60%)	Opp voters (40%)
Tony Tan	35%	0
Cheng Bock	25%	10%
Jee Say	0	25%
Kin Lian	0	5%

*Hardcore PAP voters =  Tony Tan supporters = 35%

      [cf. minimum PAP vote share = 35.2% (Hougang SMC) in GE 2011]

*Middle ground voters = Cheng Bock supporters = 35%


*Hardcore opposition voters = Jee Say and Kin Lian supporters = 30%

      [cf. minimum opposition vote share = 29.4% (Hong Kah North SMC) in GE 2011]






Of course, Tan Jee Say could have won if the following were true:

	PAP voters (60%)	Opp voters (40%)
Tony Tan	30%	0
ChengBock	30%	2%
Jee Say	0	33%
Kin Lian	0	5%

Tan Jee Say: I wish I had been given more time

By Kai Fong (source)




Tan Jee Say says he wished he could have been given more time to correct the impression in the media that he was "confrontational."

The Presidential candidate, who conceded the elections shortly before 2am, insisted that this was not the case.

"I could not have achieved so much in the government and private sector by being confrontational," said the former principal private secretary to former PM Goh Chok Tong.

"That's the image that was created, but it was certainly not an image that is true to me. Obviously I come in with an intention to ask questions, and asking questions is not being confrontational."

"I was prepared to give answers to questions and I did not want to hedge here and there like some of my opponents, waiting for more information and all that," he added. "So that is where I stood and I wanted to be clear, to be fair to the voters what they're voting for."




The former Singapore Democratic Party member, who also lost in the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC during the May elections, said, "The period of campaigning is quite short… I wish I had been given more time to explain to the people so that I can have a better vote share."

"We saw that awareness picked up mid-way through the campaign. More people know more about me and what I stood for, and I was able to respond to many of the criticisms, allegations against me."

A campaign period of three months would have been ideal, he added. "So that we don't have to be so intense over the nine-day period… I think a lot of countries do that, and then you can scrutinize the candidates even better."

When pointed out that his opponents worked with the same nine-day campaign period, Tan said that while timing was common to all, "someone has got a better advantage because of what he has done. So he has the natural advantage over the rest."

Tan also wished he had "better coverage in the media".

"I think the media, one particular newspaper, has tried to paint me as confrontational, right up to the last day. So I think that is despite my trying to say that I am not," he said, to which a supporter was heard shouting "Straits Times no good!" in the background.

The candidate had repeated several times during his campaign that "challenging does not mean confrontation."

"That's the thing, I am not confrontational. But it's the image that has been created, I have not gone out into the streets to wave my hands and throw stones."

Tan added that he thought he "should be given a newspaper permit to start another newspaper," if given a chance.

Tan also said that he "would have preferred Dr Tan Cheng Bock" to cheers from supporters at Bedok Stadium, when asked to make a choice between former Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan and the ex-PAP member and Ayer Rajah MP Tan Cheng Bock. This was before the official release of results by the Elections Department.

He added that he had no regrets by distinguishing himself as an "independent voice" during his campaign.

"The overwhelming majority did not want to be a government-sponsored candidate," he said.

Estimating his vote share to be "in the 20s", he insisted that it was still a victory for him for three reasons.

"First of all, I widened the space for candidates to put themselves up for the campaign. I also created a better understanding of the role of President."

"Thirdly, I put forward ideas on what causes disunity among Singaporeans," said the candidate, who ran under the campaign slogan of "Heart for the Nation".

He congratulated the newly elected President and said he hopes the President can take advantage of the issues that were raised and use his moral authority to do better for Singapore, instead of being "restricted to the specific role of the President, as specified in the Constitution".

As for what is next for him, Tan Jee Say declined to commit on his next step, preferring instead to "first talk to my supporters to see what kind of role I can play in public life."

In a short thank you speech, he asked for supporters to "continue to walk with me side by side on our journey, as we write together the next chapter of the Singapore story".

Tan Jee Say's final concession came about an hour after he asked his supporters at the Bedok Stadium assembly area to "go home and rest" if they were tired.

He admitted then that it was "neck and neck" between Dr Tony Tan and Dr Tan Cheng Bock.

Addressing a small but vocal crowd of supporters, the investment adviser said, "Whether we win or lose, we have already won Singaporeans with our heart."

"By standing up to be counted, we already gave Singaporeans a voice," he added. "A voice that has been heard and will continue to be heard."

"Singaporeans are asking for a government that is transparent, just and sincere. It is clear that the government can no longer expect unquestioning obedience from its citizens. The integrity of its governance must be proven, and the trust of the people earned and not taken for granted."

Tan Jee Say came in third in the four-way race, garnering 25.04 per cent or 529, 732 of votes out of a 2.1 million cast.

Said NSP's Nicole Seah, "The reason why all of us supported him was really because he has shown that he understood the diversity within our society and he was willing to accept that and that’s what I appreciated him for."


"It was a very good fight," added Seah, who volunteered as a counting agent in the East where she said “Mr Tan Jee Say actually came in a very close second in quite a number of stations”.

"While we hope that he could have been our next president, we accept the results and I think that we can look forward to greater things," she said.

Another supporter who had stayed on at Bedok stadium told Yahoo! Singapore that he "expected him to lose even before the elections but he made it a point to speak up for some Singaporeans," which was "very courageous of him".

Netizens were evenly split about Tan Jee Say's supposed forceful style, which came to the fore at least twice during the campaign when he notably clashed with Tony Tan over the issue of the Internal Security Act and the national reserves.

"Our ruling party is such that they need confrontation in order to listen... Hence a lot of smear was directed at TJS. Perhaps this is where it went wrong," wrote Shah Rizal Baharudin on Yahoo! Singapore's Facebook wall.

"It's his assertiveness that I like about him," said another reader Teo Boon-Pin, before adding, "He is in fact saying that the media has wrongly portrayed him."

But another netizen, Mei Ling, said the 57-year-old candidate should have put his best image on right from the start.

"This is an election for a president of a country. Since he decided to run for it, he should have put forward his best image right from the very start. His ambitions on the nation reserves made people worried," she wrote.

Eugene Yuhin Wong also said that "Tan Jee Say would have made a good MP, but a President is not his thing for now."

A comprehensive Post-Presidential election 2011 analysis (New Asia Republic)

(bar heights not to scale)

Tony Tan: 744,397 (35.19%)

Tan Cheng Bock: 737,128 (34.85%)

Tan Jee Say: 529,732 (25.04%)

Tan Kin Lian: 103,931 (4.91%)

Total valid votes: 2,115,188

Rejected votes: 37,826

Total local votes:  2,153,014

Total overseas voters: 5504

Local votes counted are conclusive of the results.

Of every 20 voters, 7 support Tony Tan, 7 support Tan Cheng Bock, 5 support Tan Jee Say, and 1 supports Tan Kin Lian.

Dr Tony Tan has been elected Singapore's seventh President, winning by a 0.34 per cent margin, or 7,269 votes.


Some 2.15 million Singaporeans, or 94.65 per cent of registered electors, cast their votes at 781 polling stations.

 5,504 Singaporeans have registered as overseas voters. Their votes will be counted on Tuesday, August 30.

The new President will be sworn in on Thursday, September 1.

A comprehensive Post-Presidential election 2011 analysis (New Asia Republic): here

All is Tan: MrBrown Show

Online influence of Presidential candidates

The online influence of the Presidential candidates, whether measured by website Alexa rank (in Singapore), website visitors, or Facebook likes, shows a consistent rank order.

The Presidential candidate with the strongest online influence is Tan Jee Say, followed in rank order by Tan Cheng Bock, Tony Tan, and Tan Kin Lian.

The Alexa traffic ranks in Singapore (as of Aug 24) of their websites are, in the above order, 751, 1421, 1862, 5414.

Alexa reach (%)

Alexa reach (%)

The number of daily website visitors are, in order, 5120, 2560, 2240, and 1303 (source).

The number of Facebook likes are, again in order, 12061, 11410, 5561, 3917.

It is clear that the Internet-savvy Singaporeans favour Tan Jee Say as the next President. The great unknown is how the rest of the electorate will vote.


ps.  From The Online Citizen (here):

On 24th August, we asked our readers who had watched our ‘Face to Face 2: Presidential Forum’ (F2F2) videos to take a survey which asked three questions.
The 3 questions being:

1. Did you decide who to vote for before watching F2F2?
2. Did you change your vote after watching F2F2?
3. After watching F2F2, who do you intend to vote for?

2382 of our readers responded to this survey over the last two days. Of these, 1632 responded that they had decided who to vote for before watching F2F2; but 597 of the 1632 (or more than 26 per cent of respondents) , responded that they changed their mind on who they would vote for after watching F2F2.

According to this survey, Tan Jee Say is the most popular candidate as more than 65 per cent of the respondents to this survey indicated that they intend to vote for him.



pps. As of Sep 3, 2011,  the Alexa traffic ranks in Singapore are: Tan Jee Say 628, Tan Cheng Bock 850, Tony Tan 898, Tan Kin Lian 2942. 

Social Media Score Card on the Presidential candidates (Bell Pottinger)

(source)

TAN JEE SAY

www.tanjeesay.com Avg Daily visitors: 5,120

11,917 Likes

261 Tweets 701 followers

Embedded as a part of the website

Nil

TAN KIN LIAN www.tkl2011.com Avg Daily visitors: 1,303 3,901 Likes 580 Tweets 590 followers Since 2007 Avg Daily visitors :4,596 Android App - (50-100 installs) TAN CHENG BOCK www.tanchengbock.org Avg Daily visitors: 2,560 11,235 Likes 1,758 Tweets 439 followers Embedded as a part of the website iPhone App crossed 4700 downloads Andriod App - (500-1,000 installs) TONY TAN www.tonytan.sg Avg Daily visitors: 2,240 5,561 Likes 78 Tweets 291 followers Embedded as a part of the website Nil