[Lillie_Steins]

By Tan Jee Say -


In an interview to mark the first anniversary of the 2011 Presidential Election, I told Tessa Wong of the Straits Times about my priorities with regard to the next presidential and general elections, my plans going forward and what I would do if I were President today. In this posting, I will give my views on the general and presidential elections. I will touch on the other two topics in subsequent postings.





1. Mr Brown poked some fun at you, saying you are someone who is trying to contest everything. What do you make of that? Is there any truth to it and do you think there is a danger of that becoming part of how the public perceives you?

Answer : The President and Parliament serve different roles. Anyone seeking public office must be prepared to serve the country in whatever capacity that is available and for which he can contribute in a meaningful way. Let me illustrate with two recent examples. Hillary Clinton did not succeed in her presidential bid but went on to serve her country in a different role even though it meant serving under her political rival. French presidential candidate Marine le Pen came in third in this year's presidential election but contested the French parliamentary elections a few months later. We must answer the call of duty when it comes and not be too choosy about it or think that it is too low or demeaning for us.

2. Are you likely to contest the next GE, and if so under which banner?

Answer : I have the following priorities. My first priority is to work towards forming an alternative government. This is absolutely fundamental because only with a change of government, can we then implement our ideas and policies to benefit the people. If regime change eludes us, then my next priority is to be part of a strong opposition, and by strong opposition, I mean 40% of parliamentary seats, not 40% of popular votes. With this level of representation, the opposition will have a strong influence on government policy initiatives and implementation. But this is not possible if the opposition gets fewer than one third of the seats, which also means that the opposition would be completely powerless to stop the government from changing even the constitution. In this case, it would be better off being a President who will have the power of veto in several key areas besides being a great source of moral influence on the government and on society. So I will contest the next GE but I haven't quite decided under which banner. Reproduced below are relevant extracts from the interview article written by Tessa Wong

: Tan Jee Say: You can't say 'I only want to be President, I don’t want to be an MP'

Posted on Aug 23, 2012 1:41 PM Updated: Aug 24, 2012 3:34 AM Mr Tan Jee Say talks about why he plans on contesting the future general and presidential elections, whether he will rejoin the Singapore Democratic Party and explains why his policy discussion group won't be on Orchard Road. On accusations that he is a political opportunist, and how his case is like that of Hillary Clinton and Marine Le Pen:

Q: Earlier this year, blogger Mr Brown wrote a blog post which basically criticised you for being a political opportunist for contesting both the General Election (GE), Presidential Election (PE) and then considering to contest the Hougang By-Election. What do you say to that? Mr Tan: The President and Parliament serve different roles. Anyone seeking office must be prepared to serve the country in whatever capacity that is available, and for which he can contribute in a meaningful way. I will illustrate with two recent examples. Hillary Clinton did not succeed in her presidential bid but she then went on to serve the country in a different capacity even though it meant serving under her political rival, Barack Obama. French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen came in third in this year’s presidential election, but two months later she contested the French parliamentary elections. So we must answer the call of duty when it comes and not be too choosy about it or think that it is too low or demeaning for us.


Q: But those examples are common in countries where politicians do contest several types of elections. In Singapore, we don’t have that history, we have politicians who do contest repeatedly but stick to the same type of elections.

Mr Tan: Well, that’s because we have what we call the New Normal, everybody’s contesting now. And I would expect all these political offices to be contested.And I think the Government expects them to be contested, if not for (a) last minute glitch in last GE, all seats would have been contested. And I think for the Presidential Election, will attract a lot more now, now that I've opened, I've come in and tested the system on the criteria. So I suppose more people are more familiar with the criteria and the role of President, the office of the President. In the past, people were not sure about what it is. But now it has been contested, and the criteria tested, I expect more people will come in.For the other countries, yes they have long histories of political contest, two to three hundred years. But I believe our time will come too.

Q: If you were to contest again, how would you convince people that you are not a political opportunist, given that people here are not used to it? Mr Tan: Well I’d have to explain to them, that you know, we have to serve in whatever capacity. The point is public service. You can't be too choosy, you can't say 'I only want to be President, I don’t want to be an MP'. You can serve different roles as well. There are lots of different examples in the West. Well, you say that the West is not a good example, but there are lots of examples in the West too, you can do in whatever capacity. People grow, they become different in various stages in life. Q: What do you say to those who might see you as being power hungry? Mr Tan: No, it doesn't work like that. Being an MP doesn't mean that. You are serving the country and only when you have power can you make a difference in people's lives. It is not hunger for ourselves, it's not power hunger for ourselves. It's towards an end, an end of serving the people. Next, Mr Tan lists out his three priorities.

‘My mission? Form an alternative government’

Q: What are your plans to contest in future elections? Which ones? Mr Tan: I have the following priorities. First is forming an alternative government. This is absolutely fundamental because only with a change of government can we then implement our ideas and policies to benefit the people. If regime change eludes us, then my next priority would be part of a strong opposition. And by strong opposition I mean 40 percent of parliamentary seats, not 40 per cent of popular votes. With this level of representation the opposition can exert a strong influence on government policy initiatives and implementation. But this is not possible if the opposition gets fewer than one-third of the seats – which also means that the opposition will be completely powerless to stop the government from changing even the Constitution. In this case, it would be better off being a President who has veto powers in several key areas. And he can also serve as a great source of moral influence on the government and society. So I will contest the next GE, but I haven't quite decided under which banner.

[Drugmachine]

Q: Do you want to play a role in galvanising opposition?

Mr Tan: Well, we still have four more years to go, so we'll work towards that. That's where I come to your next question, plans moving forward. I'm actually considering three options. The first option is to continue doing political work and engaging in policy group discussions in a non-partisan context. And in the process gather around me a group of Singaporeans with common beliefs and convictions to contest the next GE.

The second option is to form a new party with my supporters.

Finally, I could also join an existing political party and work towards forming a broad-based platform with other political parties to contest against the PAP.

Actually his Options 1 and 2 essentially means the same thing and can be done together, so I don't know why it is 3 options instead of 2 (because number 3 sounds nice?)

But anyone who wants to galvanise the opposition should join an existing party. It's hard to convince people that you want to unite the opposition then split them by forming a new party. But this party must be sizeable of course. Where this is concerned, WP seems out, SDP also seems out, so he should consider NSP. And I think the group with him would be most open to NSP.

Anyway I heard it (his joining NSP) is a done deal.