8/21/2011
The Tan Dilemma
The Hainanese Clan has invited Tan Jee Say for tea. And someone asked me if the Hainanese Clan be accused of participating in politics? My answer is simply no. The election of the President is a non political event. I know many political science students are covering their mouths to hide the cheeky smiles on their faces. It is not a political event, or the candidates are independent, and have no political affiliations. So be it.
And no one can point a finger at the Hainanese Clan to register as a political party if they want to be involved in politics. Such childish innocence is passé. Who ever dare to utter such a remark today will make himself looking quite foolish.
With the Tan Clan being the first clan to step forward to endorse Tony Tan, the door is left wide open for any clan or association, union or trade organisation to endorse any candidate, and not be accused of dabbling in politics.
This reminds me of the Tan Clan decision to endorse one Tan against the other three Tans. I am sure the other Tans must be feeling very let down by their own clan. They are all Tans and share the same ancestors. Why the favouritism for one against three.
This must be what I called the Tan Dilemma. How did they get caught in such a tricky situation to hurt the feelings of three for the good of one? Have they not heard of the slogan, one for all and all for one, staying united?
Their decision to support one Tan is very divisive. I thought it would be a wiser decision to support all four Tans and let the rest of the Tans vote for whoever they want. An even hand would look more pleasant for all the Tans. Have they compromised their position to treat all fairly and equally?
Can the other three Tans approach the Tan Clan for an explanation and endorsement?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
No wonder the wise old man called Singaporeans daft.
In GE2011, 60% of daft Singaporeans voted in a PAP govt despite widespread unhappiness with its policies. In this PE2011, 40% of daft Singaporeans will vote for populist candidates whose over promises could undermine the functions of the parliament.
Clan associations and other entities representing a particular dialect or ancestral origin should preferably not involve themselves in taking a stand in national elections. Sporeans have come this far, and we should not indulge in any action smacked of parochialisim.
I feel we are becoming more divisive if such calls to support certain candidates are openly touted by more and more clans.
I wonder how the Government will react if we have candidates from four different races running for EP. Each racial group will probably support the candidate of their own race.
Is this good for us?
who is being divisive?
@10.54am
"populist" means justice and equality for all.
"pragmatic" means 1st world salaries for the elite-scholars and 3rd world salaries for the rest of Singapore.
Tony Tan could really wants to unify Singaporeans. BUT, the PEOPLE do not seem to want to be UNITED.
It happens with the Tan Clan, the Malay Community, the Unions.
We can be sure that all the organizations that give supports to Tony Tan have to face their own members who are in favour of the other candidates.
Surely it must be clear to all that Tony Tan has 'disunited' almost every section of the population.
If he read himself or the people well, IT WOULD BE WISE OF HIM TO WITHDRAW FROM THE CONTEST as he is the One that started the splits everywhere.
patriot
I used to think that only Trade Unions, Community Centres, Community Clubs, PA Kindergartens, Law Society and some charitable organisations are completely politicalised.
Now it looks like even Clans and Associations are being turned into political arms of the PAP.
The Hainanese Tan Clan said their constitution forbids them from participating in political affairs and cannot endorse Tan Jee Say. They invited him for good luck tea and wish him all the best.
How can that be? The Presidential Election is not political. If not, all the other clans and associations are dabbling in politics.
Who is right and who is wrong?
Post a Comment