Tag: National Pledge

  • In History Of Presidencies, Colour Blind Reality Of The Ordinary Singaporean Is The One Factual Highlight

    In History Of Presidencies, Colour Blind Reality Of The Ordinary Singaporean Is The One Factual Highlight

    A letter from Patrick Low on the Elected President.

    Dear Fellow Singaporeans

    Comes September 2017 we may be going to the polls to elect our 8th President reserved for the Malay race only. Notwithstanding the constitutionaI amendments passed in Parliament I am not convinced of the wisdom and logic of changing our Presidential system to ensure that a member of the minority must always have a chance to become President via rotation.

    As a Singaporean who lived through the time of our first President or the Yang di- Pertuan Negara appointed in 1959 in self governing Singapore to the 7th President elected in 2011 race was never an issue in my mind and in the minds of countless Singaporeans.
    He can be Chinese Malay Indian or Eurasian elected or appointed it did not make any difference. What matters most is the President must serve the people. If he is honest sincere and capable he will be able to unify all Singaporeans regardless of race language class and religion.

    As a 72 year old Singaporean it is my privilege to grow up colour blind even through the worst racial riots in 1951 1964 and 1965. I was a child of 6 when I first witnessed the horrors of the Maria Hertog riot from a cubicle window in Jalan Besar. Then came the 2nd and 3rd racial riot in 1964/65 when we were part of Malaysia. We were at the Cathay Cinema when racial riots broke out and we were told to go home.

    But none of these riots change our generation’s perception that in multiracial Singapore race should not matter and should never be allowed to matter certainly not in the choice of a President whether he is black white brown or yellow.

    It never occur to me that a Malay should not be the head of state in Chinese majority self governing Singapore in 1959. Neither did I have any reservation to a Eurasian President Dr. Benjamin Sheares a distinguished gynaecologist who served us well from 1971 to 1981.
    Then came our third President Mr. Devan Nair an Indian MP who came from the ranks of the PAP. He unfortunately had to leave office after 4.5 years as a result of personal health problem.

    Next came President Wee Kim Wee another appointive President who hailed from the Straits Time Press. He was a “baba” Chinese Singaporean who performed his role so well that he became known as the People’s President.

    Another well loved President was Mr. Ong Teng Cheong the first elected President in Singapore history. He was our Deputy Prime Minister before he took office but completed only one term owing to differences in perception of the President’s role as a guardian of our reserve.

    After him came the 2 term President S R Nathan a civil servant who was moderately popular with the people attending President’s Charity galas to raise funds for the people. Again race was not an issue even though the previous Indian President did not fare too well and had to leave office under a cloud.

    Now we are nearing the end of the term of Mr Tony Tan an endorsed elected Chinese PresIdent who was a former DPM in the PAP government.

    So all in all we have had 7 Presidents over 58 years. 1 Malay, 2 Indians, 1 Eurasian and 3 Chinese. Out of the seven 4 were appointed and 3 were elected. As far as the people are concerned it does not matter as long as they are men of integrity and perform the jobs well to serve the people.

    Without going into the merits and demerits of the government’s rationale for amending the Constitution to allow for a reserved Presidential Election for only members from the Malay race my main objection is that such a change violates the Singapore Constitution and undermines the daily National Pledge recited by all school children every morning that:

    “We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness prosperity and progress for our nation”.

    If we have any regards at all to the history of our Presidencies one fact that stands out is the colour blind reality of the ordinary Singaporean. There was never any perceived notion that the Presidency must be rotated by race to ensure fairness to the minority. All the friends acquaintances and strangers I meet on the streets and in the parks in the last one year invariably dismiss race as a factor in their reckoning of what makes a good President.

    The issue of the President holding the second key to the national reserve should also not be an issue for he is surrounded by the Council of Presidential Advisors whom he has to take advice from. So whether he is Malay Chinese Indian or others the key that he holds is a collective key held by a panel of advisors nominated by the government.

    As for the financial qualifications required of a Presidential candidate it is most unlikely that the government would be able to headhunt for one who would meet all the stringent requirements.
    In fact all our past Presidents never had the experience of running a $500 million company. Where then do they get the forte to disagree with the government on opening our national coffers.
    However in raising the bars so high the government turns what should be a level playing field into a pole vault pitch ruling out the possibility of sourcing for a few good men who can genuinely understand the plight of the ordinary people and work for their welfare.

    The office sadly is in danger of becoming the precinct of the rich and powerful.

    In this day and age when governments all over the world are beginning to lose the trust of the people it is incumbent on the PAP leadership not to erode that trust further by imposing a albatross around the people’s neck.

    Given the challenge from a former Presidential candidate Dr Tan Cheng Bok that the reckoning of the first elective President does not reside in Mr Wee Kim Wee’s term but rathet in Mr. Ong Teng Cheong’s it would be prudent for the government to pause before rushing to implement it’s Reserve Presidency – an area where angels may fear to tread.

    It would also be doing itself a huge favour to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of Singaporeans whether race is indeed a factor in the choice of our Head of State. Afterall what is the hurry when more haste produces less speed and further undermines the trust of the people in the midst of a economic recession and a very uncertain world.

    Patrick Low
    4th April 2017

     

    Source: Soh Lung Teo from Patrick Low

  • Has Lee Hsien Loong Changed Our National Pledge?

    Has Lee Hsien Loong Changed Our National Pledge?

    In August 2009, Lee Kuan Yew suggested that the pledge was just an aspiration to the dismay of NMP Viswa Sadasivan who had sought to move a motion to reaffirm the tenets enshrined in our National Pledge.

    Now 6 years on, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, not to be outdone by his father, has gone one step further. He concluded his recent National Day message with a chilling desecration of the pledge.

    50 years on, on our Golden Jubilee, we will gather again at the Padang. We will sing “Majulah Singapura” proudly, and recite the National Pledge. We will rejoice in the success of our last five decades, and commit ourselves anew to work together as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build Singapore, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation.

    (See http://www.pmo.gov.sg/mediacentre/prime-minister-lee-hsien-loongs-national-day-message-2015-english for the full transcript.)

    In case we have forgotten, here is what every Singaporean child pledges daily in school:-

    We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language, or religion to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

    Were the substitution of “democratic society” with “Singapore” and the eradication of “based on justice and equality” a cunning sleight of hand or a mere careless omission?

    When a leader changes the pledge in a manner which diminishes the importance of “democracy”, “justice” and “equality”, it spells trouble and augurs badly for us all and requires some deep soul searching on our part

    Will we ever know or forever be left wondering?  How does one form a reasonable judgment as to the intentions of the Prime Minister? Short of a clear and unambiguous statement from the PM’s office, are we left only to speculate or can we form a legitimate opinion based on his actions in recent months and years?

    The omission of “democracy” and “justice” appear to be consistent with the acts of an individual who has proceeded with the defamation charges brought against Roy Ngerng or the treatment of Amos Yee by the state for calling his father a “horrible person”.

    As for the notion of equality, speaking in 2013 at an inaugural DBS Asia Leadership dialogue, the Prime Minister had this to say:

    In fact, if I can get another 10 billionaires to move to Singapore and set up their base here, my Gini coefficient will get worse but I think Singaporeans will be better off...

    (http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pm-getting-politics-right-critical-spore)

    Perhaps for the Prime Minister, equality is no longer a consideration given the focus on getting “billionaires to move to Singapore”. Could the elimination of “equality” in his message also shed light on his recent comments on the need for a “certain natural aristocracy in the system”? Should we the citizens of Singapore therefore resign ourselves to the sight of large number of our old folks carrying cardboard, cleaning toilets and wiping tables with their hunched backs and trembling hands whilst being shouted at by patrons, stall-owners and managers of food courts?

    Is it truly possible for our nation’s leader to forget the pledge? Could it justifiably be argued that the speech was merely a paraphrase of the pledge which would be a difficult argument to accept given that the pledge was inserted almost word-for-word into the speech except for the elimination of the most critical phrase which anchors it and gives it impetus – “to build a democratic society based on justice and equality”.

    Then again, perhaps, we need to take a hard look at the last 50 years and wonder if the Prime Minister was like his father merely stating a reality which we the citizens of Singapore have chosen to ignore – that ultimately this is what the last 50 years of nation building by the PAP has been about – a Faustian bargain between the Party and the People – one in which democracy, justice and equality has been sacrificed for happiness, prosperity and progress.

    It is time for a drastic change and for us to inform the Prime Minister that we, the citizens of Singapore, intend to cash in the promissory note enshrined in our pledge of a “democratic society based on justice and equality” at GE2015 regardless of what he or his father thinks of our National Pledge.

    JN

    * Submitted by TRE reader.

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com