Jayakumar: 'Be very clear' on powers of President

[HTOLAS]

It's hard to tell among the known potential candidates, so I'll wait until more is revealed. But among those who have not indicated their interest, I'd include:

• Prof Tommy Koh
• Walter Woon
• Justice S Rajendran
• Mary Ann Tsao

This does not mean I agree with the EP system - as I've said elsewhere it is a waste of money. But as far as possible I will not allow the PAPzis to sneak in another total yes-person. In other words, I'll not spoil my vote.

This is similar to LTK saying that while he thinks the GRC system is wrong, he still needs to show how wrong it is by winning one.

If we ended up having to choose from among, say, Abdullah Tarmugi, S Jayakumar, LKY and GY, Singaporeans should seriously consider denying the poll any legitimacy by boycotting it. Just imagine if the turnout is below 50% even when voting is compulsory.

hahaha...agree, now tell me who is further from centre of power among the group of potential candidates.....
must be tkl right?.....but some demi god says he is an opportunist leh....

 

[leoman]

they r worried dat 'sure-win elected presidency' will b broken juz like wp broke aljunied grc

 

[hairylee]

Tainted by the Parental Support Act.
One of the most intrusive legislations ever introduced.

He sold his soul to the devil.
We shall see what his karma is.

 

[jw5]

How about Walter Woon for President?

Bro, you want to make someone not happy and write about you in Sunday Times isit?

 

[jw5]

Tainted by the Parental Support Act.
One of the most intrusive legislations ever introduced.

Don't forget those mps who were subsequently involved in the refining of this act as well, the so-called "flag bearers of filial piety".

They thought that by having leglislation, they would cover 100% of all aged-parent child cases.
The very small minority of recalcitrant children who had the money but simply refused to pay, would be targetted, that I agree.

But there would be a negative impact from a much larger group which would include:

-- parents who could afford their own upkeep but went to the children because of the act.
-- parents who were already reasonably maintained but unreasonably wanted more, possibly to keep up appearances with their "friends".
-- parents who had mental illness or who had their own agenda to enforce the act against one or more children.
-- children who were disguntled with one or more siblings.
-- children who were already struggling and really could not pay; what next for them? incarceration?

The wealthy and contented parents and children and those in good harmonious relationships would not be affected one way or another, whether there was legislation or not.

So instead of covering 100% which was their apparent objective, the negative impact was possibly greater than the positive.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Bro, you want to make someone not happy and write about you in Sunday Times isit?

If she pays to interview me and if I am free, I don't mind! Will make her feel like a woman again. I can always sacrifice myself. No problem. Cheers.

 

[jw5]

If she pays to interview me and if I am free, I don't mind! Will make her feel like a woman again. I can always sacrifice myself. No problem. Cheers.

That would really be the ultimate sacrifice.
I would rank it with Yue Fei and Joan of Arc.