• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Tan Jee Say: A force to be reckoned with

sense

sense

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
1,463
Points
48
20110817-TJS-Wikipedia.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_Jee_Say

Tan Jee Say 陈如斯
Born February 12, 1954 (age 57)
Nationality Singaporean
Alma mater University of Oxford
Occupation Corporate executive, civil servant
Political party None
Singapore Democratic Party (April – July 2011)
Website
tanjeesay.com

Tan Jee Say (simplified Chinese: 陈如斯; traditional Chinese: 陳如斯; pinyin: Chén Rúsī; born 12 February 1954) is a Singaporean corporate executive, politician and former civil servant. He was a principal private secretary to former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and contested the 2011 general election under the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), but failed to win a seat. Tan then resigned from the SDP to stand as a candidate in the 2011 presidential election.

1 Education, civil service and the private sector

Tan attended University College, Oxford, on a Government Overseas Merit Scholarship.[1] He graduated with a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.[2]

Tan was a member of the civil service for 11 years, including six years in the Ministry of Trade and Industry from 1979 to 1985.[2] He rose to become Deputy Director for Economic and Manpower Planning.[1] During that period, he served concurrently as secretary to Albert Winsemius, the government's economic adviser.[1]

He went on to serve as then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's principal private secretary from 1985 to 1990.[1][3]

He left the civil service in 1990 and entered the finance industry, where he has worked for more than a decade.[1][2] Tan became director of corporate finance of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell in 1990.[1] He then became head of Peregrine Capital Singapore in 1994.[1] He was regional managing director for AIB Govett, an asset management company, from 1997 to 2001.[4]

Entry to electoral politics

Tan joined the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in April 2011 due to his "dismay" at Singapore's society and economy.[5] In the 7 May 2011 Singaporean general election, Tan contested the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC.[3]

On the economy, Tan proposed that Singapore move away from manufacturing and focus on the services sector.[6] He argued that "we should not promote manufacturing because it requires a lot of land and labour. But Singapore is short of land and labour... We want to promote, we want to use our land, limited tax incentives... promoting services sector such as medical, health sectors, education, creative industries."[6] Tan's suggestion was rebuked by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who questioned his qualifications.[7] Lee said the manufacturing sector is more "steady" compared to the "volatile" services sector.[8] In response, Tan pointed out that his proposals were endorsed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, the British Cabinet Secretary from 1988 to 1998.[7] He disputed Lee's assertion that the manufacturing sector is more steady by citing a 2009 study by Ministry of Trade and Industry economists which concluded that the services sector as a whole has a relatively low volatility.[7]

During the campaign, Senior Minister Goh claimed that Tan left the civil service because Goh "did not think he could make it as a permanent secretary."[9] Tan refuted the Goh's claims and explained that he had intended to leave the civil service in 1984 after his scholarship bond ended, but was persuaded instead by Goh to become the latter's principal private secretary (PPS). After five years as Goh's PPS, Tan said he stated his intent to leave again, which Goh accepted.[7]

Tan's team, comprising of Vincent Wijeysingha, Ang Yong Guan and Michelle Lee lost to the People's Action Party (PAP) team led by then-Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan, which won 60.1% of the vote.[10]

3 2011 presidential election

In July 2011, Tan resigned from the SDP and announced his candidacy for the 2011 presidential election.[11]
3.1 Platform

He campaigned on a platform of being a candidate who is "clear[ly]" independent from the ruling PAP and declared that he would be the "conscience of the nation."[12][11] Tan said he could "provide real and effective checks and balances on the excesses of the PAP government" since the President has veto power in some key areas.[13] He cited the country's new casino industry as an example of PAP "[losing] its moral compass."[12]

In addition, Tan said he wanted to "raise the profile of all non-PAP forces" in preparation for the next general election.[13] He added that he aimed to show Singaporeans that the office of the president "is not a shoo-in for the PAP."[13]

Tan also emphasized his economics background and policymaking experience.[14]

He pledged to lobby the government to reduce its role in private business to encourage entrepreneurship. He explained: "t is not the business of Government to be in business... I think Singaporeans can get better service from people who are motivated to serve, not because they are civil servants."[15] Among his proposals are to gradually sell Temasek Holdings' assets to the private sector and invest the earnings in education and health infrastructure.[15] Tan estimated that Temasek Holdings accounted for 60 percent of Singapore's GDP, but this claim was discredited by the company, which put the figure at 10 percent.[16]

Tan also hoped for a review on taxes, saying: "The fact that you have accumulated huge surpluses every year... is excess of revenue over expenditure. So by having more revenue than necessary to finance government service, you are overtaxing the people. I think that's wrong."[15]

Tan also called for a minimum wage in Singapore, saying that not having one would be "unconscionable."[15]
3.2 Eligibility

Doubts were initially raised over his eligibility as a presidential candidate as he did not meet the criterion of being the chief executive officer of a Singapore company with a paid-up capital of S$100 million.[17][18] Tan said he was CEO with the title of regional managing director of AIB Govett Asia which managed total assets in excess of S$100 million which, in his view, would make it equivalent to managing a company with a paid-up capital of S$100 million.[11]

He also pointed out that he had met the alternate criterion of having served for not less than three years in "any other similar or comparable position of seniority and responsibility in any other organisation or department of equivalent size or complexity in the public or private sector."[18]

He submitted his application to the Elections Department on 4 August under the latter criterion[18] and was awarded a certificate of eligibility (COE) a week later, along with Tony Tan Keng Yam, Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Kin Lian.[19] The awarding of the COE to Tan Jee Say was seen as a liberal interpretation of the eligibility criteria by the Presidential Elections Committee.[20]
[edit] 3.3 Campaign

Tan's bid has been endorsed by the popular Temasek Review Emeritus website[21] and National Solidarity Party politician Nicole Seah.[22]

Political pundits suggested that among Tan Jee Say, Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Kin Lian, two candidates should withdraw to facilitate a straight contest between one of them and Tony Tan, who is widely seen as the leading candidate.[23][24] On 12 August, Tan Jee Say said he wouldn't back out of the contest.[25]

Also on 12 August, Tony Tan said it would be a "grave mistake" to phase out manufacturing in Singapore.[26] Tan Jee Say responded by telling The Online Citizen blog that he did not suggest closing down factories and that his views were "distorted" during the general election.[27]

All four candidates participated in a roundtable discussion hosted by The Straits Times on 16 August. When responding to the question "What do you think would be a fair salary for the President?", Tan Jee Say said he disagreed with the government basing the President's salary on that of CEOs and that it should be benchmarked against public sector salaries instead.[28]

4 References

 
Actually, not say I want to say..but for a guy who succeeded in graduating from Oxford in Philosophy, Politics and economics, his spoken English leaves much to be desired.

Humble me didnt go to Oxford can speak better.
 
depeche said:
Underdog...?
Click to expand...

Many underdogs don't frighten the incumbents. This one does it extremely well... will give more details to back my claims for those who think otherwise.
 
[video=youtube_share;GYrFeqi1bI0]http://youtu.be/GYrFeqi1bI0[/video]

Transcript:

My Fellow Singaporeans,

This Presidential Election is a historic opportunity for all our citizens to fulfil the mission of the Office of President.

In the past, the President was appointed by the Prime Minister. But about 20 years ago, the Constitution was changed to enable the people to elect the President directly. This was a fundamental change.

The purpose of direct election is to give moral authority to the President to provide checks and balances on the Government.

Remember the key words "provide checks and balances on the Government".

This is the over-riding objective of having an elected President.

It is a very important and timely objective in the light of the recent General Elections. Most of us can still remember that only 3 months ago, Singaporeans from all walks of life openly expressed their unhappiness with Government policies.

A substantial 40% did not vote for this Government. Yet the PAP Government still has 81 out of a total of 87 Members of Parliament. With their overwhelming majority in Parliament, the Government can implement whatever policies they want or even change the Constitution.

Do you want this to happen? Can you prevent it? Yes you can. But only if you elect a President who has the moral courage to stand up for you and to speak up whenever the Government crosses the line.

You have before you a choice of 4 candidates. All of us want your vote. You have to decide who among us can best perform the duty of providing checks and balances on the PAP Government.

The importance of independence
To do the job effectively, the President must be independent of the ruling party. This independence must be clear, obvious and cannot be in doubt. Only such an independent person can have the moral authority to check on the Government. He must not be influenced or hampered by past ties with the ruling party. If his ties with the ruling party had been long and strong, it will be difficult for the person to shake off the emotional ties he has with the party.

My three opponents are honourable men but they were members of PAP for 20 to 30 years until they resigned from the party with two of them having quit only very recently. During this period, they ate, slept, walked and breathed PAP. Do you now expect them to have a breath of fresh air? Mentally and emotionally, it will be very difficult for them to think differently from the ruling party and challenge their former colleagues and friends.

Unlike them, I do not have the same emotional baggage that they carry because I have never been a member of the PAP. Because of this, I can provide checks and balances on the Government without restraint. I can and will remind them of their lapses without feeling embarrassed. I shall be their conscience, as well as yours.

The economy
The economy faces an uncertain future with a difficult global environment. The President will likely be called upon to help meet the economic challenges. This will require the President to stay on top of the economy.

I am equal to the task. I studied economics in university and worked in the Ministry of Trade and Industry where I headed economic and manpower planning. In addition, I had worked in international banks and investment houses, so I understand global finance.

The coming global financial crisis will put domestic economic issues into greater focus. The open expression of widespread anger during the recent General Elections has shown how divided the nation has become. Job losses and the widening income gap will become more pronounced as the global economy worsens. They will divide society further and deeper. To prevent such deep division, bold measures are needed.

The Prime Minister has acknowledged that there is great unhappiness among the people. But the recent measures he announced during the National Day Rally Speech do not address the people's concerns adequately. They represent the same piece-meal approach of recent years.

A new and more comprehensive approach is needed to address the issues that trouble Singaporeans such as influx of foreign workers, over-crowding and high cost of living. We should not just be obsessed with high GDP growth with little regard for the resultant adverse consequences on society and Singaporeans.

The benefits of economic growth have not been shared by all, rather some have benefitted greatly at the expense of others and this has divided the nation. To play a unifying role, the President need to engage the Government in coming up with an economic philosophy that puts the happiness of all Singaporeans at the heart of its policies.

My Promise as President
This is what I promise to Singaporeans if I am elected President.
I will encourage the Government not to pursue high GDP growth at the expense of ordinary Singaporeans.
I will not hold back resources including the national reserves from the Government
........if they need to use them to achieve stable economic growth with a fair distribution of benefits for all Singaporeans,
........and to pursue measures that will ensure that Singaporeans are competing on an equal footing with foreigners,
.......that adequate resources are put aside to meet the educational and career aspirations of young Singaporeans,
.......that families are helped to cope with rising costs in all areas,
.......that enough is done for the healthcare needs of all particularly the elderly,
.......that generous assistance is given to families to bring up their children particularly those with special needs, and
........last but not least, that your CPF savings are well-protected so that you have enough to live a happy retirement.

The Heart of the Nation
These matters should rightly be left to the Government to deal with but the input of a caring President will help the Government come out with more compassionate solutions. We have reached a point where the President needs to help heal the social division and unify the nation.

If elected President, I will step in with good intention and a good heart. I will work with the Government to achieve a better society for all.

My fellow Singaporeans, this is my mission. But I can only do it with your help.

Let us set our hearts to do it. Together we can. I shall be your voice and the heart of the nation.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
The fact that he got the moral courage to stand up to a PAP top dog makes him the heaven's choice for the President.
 
[h=3]As President, ‘I will be the conscience of the nation,’ says Jee Say[/h] <small class="entry-meta"> Published <abbr class="published" title="2011-08-07T18:38:10+0000">7 August 2011</abbr>http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/5363/#comments
</small>

The same day that Law Minister K Shanmugam told a seminar that “The president can speak on issues only as authorised by the Cabinet; and he must follow the advice of the Cabinet in the discharge of his duties,” (Straits Times, 6 August 2011, Law Minister debunks notions on what president can say, by Lydia Lim) Tan Jee Say told me that he intended to “project myself as the conscience of the nation” should he become President.

Tan is one of the six men who have submitted an application to the three-man Presidential Elections Committee for a Certificate of Eligibility.

I caught up with him Friday afternoon to get a sense of his thoughts.

He expanded on the same theme when approached by the Straits Times, on the evening of 6 August:
‘I think the mission of the President is to provide checks and balances on the Government and the President would not be doing his duty if he doesn’t speak up, whenever the Government crosses the line or fails to deliver its promises to the people. He has the moral authority to do so because he has been directly elected by the people. If I’m elected president I would not betray the people’s trust and speak up for them,’ he said.
– Straits Times Breaking News, 6 August 2011, Tan Jee Say: ‘I will speak up on issues of conscience’, by Tessa Wong
​
Shanmugam tried very hard at the seminar to argue that the Constitution forbade the President from speaking out of turn. In actual fact this is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. What we have is a convention from the British system where the monarch never says anything except the most innocuous of pleasantries. Even when she makes a speech, the script is either written by the Prime Minister or the cabinet, or is approved by it.

However, it is a bit rich for any member of the present government to demand adherence to British constitutional practice when the same government has raped it by introducing Group Representation Constituencies, continuing with detention without trial, giving itself editorial leverage over mainstream media, and carrying on with Section 377A of the Penal Code when all four would be outrageous by the standards of British constitutional and human rights practice.
Most crucially, however, there is a key difference between the British monarchy and the Singapore presidency — the latter is elected by popular mandate.
The British system makes sense because the person who gets to be monarch does so by accident of birth; naturally it is not right that this person should interfere in any way with government. But when the whole idea of an elected presidency is to accord the man in the office a mandate in his own right, it would be naive — and insensitive to popular will — for the law minister to think that the office remains virtually identical to that of a British head of state. Citizens expect their votes to count for something. Voters are not window-dressing to give legitimacy to the People’s Action Party (PAP) alone.
That said, how exactly the office will evolve will depend on what the elected occupants make of it. It may well be that one after another, our presidents will be “dumb” — as another hopeful, Tan Kin Lian, put it, (Yahoo News, 6 August 2011, ‘No requirement that President should be dumb’ by Ion Danker) — and after a few decades, this becomes the convention here. Or a few presidents, through force of personality, carve out a role for the office over time.
* * * * *
In my interview with Tan Jee Say, I began by asking what he thought people looked for in a president. In his view, he said, “people look for someone independent of the PAP who will have the moral authority to provide check and balance.”
While there is a place for the ceremonial, the traditional practice of the presidency, as he acknowledged, there needs to be a bigger role, “to do justice to the elected presidency, for the purpose for which it is designed.”
As he saw it, there is a risk of Singapore suffering from a “tyranny of the majority” referring to the super-majority that the PAP has in Parliament. “They can do anything they like.” And for this reason, it is important to have someone able to speak up “as the conscience of the nation”.
“I have a good understanding of how government works,” he said, citing his period in the upper echelons of the civil service before he left in 1990. Although he was mainly in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, he was also involved in many inter-ministerial committees, he reminded me. Among these was one on the problems of the aged, another on the Banking Secrecy Act, and yet another related to housing issues in the wake of the PAP’s loss of Anson constituency in 1984.
That may be so, but many people might envisage a situation where the government would simply refuse to engage with him should he get to be President. In fact, none other than Shanmugam himself spelt it out:
‘Whether the president actually wields influence obviously depends on who the president is. If he is someone who commands little or no respect of the prime minister, then of course influence will be limited,’ [Shanmugam] said.

– Straits Times Breaking News, 6 August 2011, Tan Jee Say: ‘I will speak up on issues of conscience’, by Tessa Wong
​
I asked Jee Say: Are you not too identified with the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)? He had stood under its ticket for the Holland-Bukit Timah constituency in the May 2011 general election.
“My association with the SDP was quite brief, and I have already resigned. My views are fresh, and are shared by many people; they are not the exclusive domain of the SDP.
“I brought my views to the SDP,” he added, to underline how his views were his own even before he joined the SDP for the elections.
While he said he could not name names, Tan described how even some ex-PAP members of parliament and cadres are in contact with him, going out of their way to point out stuff that he might be interested in reading. One such message, he said, highlighted similarities between the unnamed correspondent’s report submitted to the Economic Review Committee and his own ideas.
He took pains to stress that unlike the other leading aspirants, he is the only one never to have been associated with the PAP. He might have been a civil servant, but was never a member of the party. But this measure, he considers his claim of independence to be the most credible.
* * * * *
Moving on to the areas where the President has discretion, by virtue of the Constitution, I asked him to sketch out his broadbrush thinking. I think it is useful for the public to know what a candidate’s overarching philosophy is when he has to decide on any of these issues.
On the reserves, his first reaction was that Singapore is terribly lacking in transparency. “All sovereign wealth funds, including the Norwegian one — the world’s best performing one — publish their figures,” he pointed out. “Why not Singapore?
“How much do we have? Are the reserves here?” — a question that is particularly pertinent in a week when financial markets are in turmoil.
In a brief digression, he asked me to look up the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation’s annual report, saying that I would find an annualised rate of return in US Dollars of about seven percent over a ten-year period. “Why US Dollars?” he asked.
So I did. Indeed, if you too go to the Portfolio Investment Report for 2010/2011, you will find this table on page 10:

We don’t know how much our sovereign wealth increased in value over the last twelve months, but if we estimate from the annualised 5-year and 10-year rates, perhaps it grew by about 7 percent, in US Dollar terms. But note this: The US Dollar itself declined 11 percent between end-July 2010 and end-July 2011.
From another angle, take the full 5-year period. At an annualised rate of 6.3 percent, the total return over all five years would be 35.7 percent. Ah, but five years ago, around mid-2006, the exchange rate was US$1 = S$1.58. Thus, in this period, the US Dollar has depreciated 23.4 percent. Hence in Singapore Dollar terms, our assets have grown by about 2.3 percent per year.
Please note: this discussion about numbers is from me, not from Tan Jee Say.
Coming back to him, what else did he say about the reserves?
“Our reserves are growing by more than S$10 billion a year,” he pointed out. “This means that people are overtaxed.”
He believes that citizens have a right to know the details of money that is theirs. But isn’t it important to preserve freedom of manuoevre when handling investments? I asked. Wouldn’t revealing too much deny the fund managers that?
“But other sovereign wealth funds can publish details, why can’t we?” was his response. Tan conceded that there may be a risk that speculators might attack the Singapore Dollar if they knew exactly how much we had in reserves, but evidently he considers the risk small and manageable.
Then what about people clamouring for more welfare spending? I asked. His response was that even if people are surprised initially, “cool heads will prevail”. He was confident that Singaporeans “are not a hysterical people, we are rational about these things.”
The second area where the President has a specific role is that of corruption investigations, as provided by Article 22G of the Constitution. It’s actually a very limited role that comes up only when the prime minister has blocked an investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. The President may unblock it.
My own gut feeling is that moving forward, this power will prove to be an important one for the elected president. Singapore’s reputation for being corruption-free is largely the legacy of one man’s will — Lee Kuan Yew. As we move into the post-Lee era, there is no reason to think we are special. Many parties, too long in power, see the rise of cronyism, which is a form of corruption, if not outright money-takings. Even under the PAP, there have been high-level misdeeds. I reminded Jee Say of the case involving the former housing minister Teh Cheang Wan, which took place while Tan himself was serving as a senior civil servant.
“It would be ideal,” he said, after some thought, “for the elected president to be continually briefed about the important cases the CPIB is looking into” and not have to wait until the prime minister vetoes it. Tan is however also aware that the CPIB is at any given time, engaged in a lot of inquiries; it may not be practical to keep the president informed of all of them, but certainly, if any suspicions point to a senior officer of the state, the president should be kept informed.
On a related front, Tan Jee Say thinks that the role of the president in approving top-level appointments is an important one, for which he would exercise special diligence. Article 22 of the Constitution gives the president a veto over appointments of Supreme Court judges, military and police chiefs, Auditor-General, Attorney-General, and so forth. “We have to make sure they are not motivated by money” and that they have a passion for the job. This is especially critical now that salaries are so high. How can one be sure that they are not aspiring to the job because of the high pay? “This is an important consideration before confirming them to their posts.”
* * * * *
The first hurdle that Tan has to cross is that of the Certificate of Eligibility. This should be known within a week. Few Singaporeans believe that the committee is totally independent of political considerations. A common feeling is that who the committee disqualifies or approves will, to a great extent, be determined by which scenario is considered least risky for the government’s preferred candidate, Tony Tan. So whether Tan Jee Say will get a chance to present himself and his case to voters is right now a huge unknown.

source: http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/5363/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rocket
Dr Tan Cheng Bock PSP
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
rotiprata
rotiprata
k1976
Sir Tan want a clean fight de woh…no smelly 暗步 Lao Hoong Biscuit, please
Replies
9
Views
598
k1976
k1976
threadfin
DBS employee Huang Pin Wen jailed for accessing customer data, passing details to moneylender and bookie
Replies
3
Views
293
rocket
rocket
rocket
PAP set to replace branch chair in Aljunied GRC in second reshuffle in 6 months, as it moves closer to finalising GE slate
Replies
2
Views
374
Robert Half
Robert Half
rocket
Marcus Tan Wei Sheng admitted to consuming a dog's semen
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Balls2U
Balls2U
Back
Top