09 February 2009
Re: suggested career path for Madam Ho Ching
Temasek Holdings announced a few days ago that CEO Ho Ching will be leaving at the end of September. Speculation is rife that she will be moving into politics to take up a ministerial position. Alex Au and Choo Zheng Xi have a better idea which should interest the prime minister. Guest entry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
by the same "protest vote" argument you used, Mdm Ho standing for the presidency would bring out qualified candidates to run against her; it seems that instead of the 3-man committee deciding that there is only one qualified candidate and no election is necessary (twice!), the voters will get the chance to express their will; I deduce that your proposal will lead to progress for democracy
by the same "protest vote" argument you used, Mdm Ho running for presidency would bring out qualified candidates to stand against her; it seems that instead of the 3-men committee deciding that there is only one qualified candidate and no election is necessary (twice), people would get the chance to vote; I deduce that your proposal would lead to progress for democracy
Biting sarcasm. Very nice. :-)
I was making wild speculation too that she might be contesting for President next. That would be blatant nepotism man if that ever happens! Let's assume there is no viable opponent or even there is one, PAP assumes character assasination position like what they did with the last aspiring Presidential wannebe candidate who had to retreat quickly.
Her next role could also be that of CEO of DBS Bank perhaps granted that the current one is not doing too well on the medical front. But of course we will dread the damage that will come from being in another financial position again.
BTW, the news of her departure from TemaSICK as reported by the foreign press has a "you did a bad job so out you go" tone compared to our sickening sweet flattering praises from our local press.
Man, I'd hate to see the bedroom ... whoops I mean boardroom tussles over reserve issues if that happens!
Putting her in the Presidency bid could be a sure-win bet if they just raise the bar by insisting that aspiring candidates should have experience in managing hundred billion dollar companies. That should get rid of the competition ccming from any direction.
Lost Citizen
"by the same "protest vote" argument you used, Mdm Ho running for presidency would bring out qualified candidates to stand against her; it seems that instead of the 3-men committee deciding that there is only one qualified candidate and no election is necessary (twice), people would get the chance to vote; I deduce that your proposal would lead to progress for democracy"
How naive. They can get Ong Teng
Cheong to stand down, they can
get anyone to stand down. Anyone
"qualified" will have too much to
lose to even want to try.
> Anyone "qualified" will have too much to lose to even want to try.
you mean presidential elections can never happen? that the people who designed the law made a mistake? now that's naive..
(I will leave you to choose for yourself whether I meant you or they...)
seriously now, I feel the next PAP presidential candidate is more likely to be Goh Chok Tong than Ho Ching; today's Today has an article by P N Balji, the founding editor (who handed over to Mano Sabnani for a while but returned after the Mr Brown saga, till Warren Fernandez took over a few months ago), suggesting her role would be in charity, and he ought to be well informed.
Hilariously tongue-in-cheek!
"you mean presidential elections can never happen?
that the people who designed the
law made a mistake? now that's naive.."
Are you joking?
The country has not been shamed enough
by Ong Teng Cheong vs Chua Kim Yeoh?
Mickey Mouse democracies put a single
name on the ballot and get ridiculous majorities.
We try to out-Mickey-Mouse these democracies by
putting a second appproved name - an reluctant one
at that to make a better attempt at pretense.
This fools no one and makes us a laughing stock when some of
us take it seriously.
Let's add clueless to naive.
""you mean presidential elections can never happen?
that the people who designed the
law made a MISTAKE? now that's naive.."
I hope you are not naive enough
to disbelieve that for all intents
and purposes, LKY is the designer
of the law.
And as for it being a mistake,
LKY hinted as much when he said (at the end of Ong Teng Cheong's term) that the country didn't need an activist president -exactly the kind of president you will get if his win is based
on "protest votes".
Guess why after the first time,
the government is so unenthusiastic
about elections for the elected
presidency.
Naive indeed.
Dear Alex,
Well, we could say that there is nothing extraordinary about sleeping with one's boss in this case.
Do they throw people in jail for sarcasm in Singapore?
none of us know what goes through LKY's mind, but I dont believe he prefers not to have presidential elections, because it is admission that the election method was poorly designed and actually prevents elections from taking place
however, they have not yet worked out a way to make sure that each time someone qualified is willing to be the losing candidate; I think they need to provide for some kind of consolation prize - since even losing candidates are first found to be well qualified by the 3-men committee, they must be good enough to be given some nice jobs in a GLC or some other well funded organization
To Yuen:
Your inability to call
a spade a spade never ceases
to amaze me.
What to do mean "qualified"?
They don't want another Ong Teng Cheong - qualified or not.
They have the means to make you stand down no matter how qualified
you are.
Unless you are really naive, there
are not going to be candidates
who they think will not play ball
with them.
How is
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-982.htm
possible without a candidate
who knows how to play ball?
>What to do mean "qualified"?
as you well know, the 3-men committee decides whether a candidate is "qualified"; twice they found that Nathan was the only qualified candidate and no election was necessary
what exactly do you mean by "call spade a space"? which of my statements do you disagree with exactly?
you are not the only person here that remembers what happened with Ong Teng Cheong; because of the history, they selected someone whose background was purely civil service and apolitical, rather than another ex-minister
however, if the next choice turns out to be GCT (which is my bet - you are welcome to make your own bets), I dont think he would make the kind of demands for information that OTC made
To Yuen:
To which of these two previous presidencies does
Nathan's most closely resemble?
Ong Teng Cheong's
or
Benjamin Sheares'?
The fact it more closely resembles a presidency
under a completely different constitution (as
regards the presidency) means that they have achieved for
constitutions what Humpty Dumpty only claims to have achieved for
words:
"a constitution means what I want it to mean."
As if the shame of having all this done in our
name were not enough, some of us have to compound it
by talking about it like it was a serious thing.
The only appropriate response, the only one
that can salvage whatever dignity we have left,
is scorn and sarcasm.
If you are still not sold on the shame, this is what
"state assisted funeral"
means in the original home of the language we are using for this discussion:
http://www.waveney.gov.uk/Environment/Cemeteries/funerals.htm
After all this, thinking that having two names
on the ballot is something serious to be discussed
is beyond naive.
To Yuen:
"as you well know, the 3-men committee decides whether a candidate is "qualified"; twice they found that Nathan was the only qualified candidate and no election was necessary"
Is it even possible to say
this with a straight face?
Would these be the same three
men who decide what sort of funeral
a president might have?
>scorn and sarcasm
I am sure YB and his readers know something about scorn and sarcasm; however, I am not sure you would recognize sarcasm when you see it
YB suggests that HC should stand for the presidency, listing various benefits as he saw it; I took it a step further and saw the benefit of protest votes bringing out qualified candidates
you are welcome to believe this is impossible; not sure why you are so convinced PAP is afraid of having another presidential election; whether one occurs or not in 2011, the government will be able to get its choice into office
To Yuen:
"YB suggests that HC should stand for the presidency, listing various benefits as he saw it; I took it a step further and saw the benefit of protest votes bringing out qualified candidates"
The point of sarcasm is that
people must recognize it(YB's was well done). The problem is that your paragraph above and elsewhere in this thread sounds exactly like your serious ones!
At least I hope for your
sake you were being
sarcastic ;)
BTW, I hope this was also sarcastic:
"however, they have not yet worked out a way to make sure that each time someone qualified is willing to be the losing candidate; I think they need to provide for some kind of consolation prize - since even losing candidates are first found to be well qualified by the 3-men committee, they must be good enough to be given some nice jobs in a GLC or some other well funded organization"
To Yuen:
"as you well know, the 3-men committee decides whether a candidate is "qualified"; twice they found that Nathan was the only qualified candidate and no election was necessary"
Just out of curiosity, you
are being really serious here or
serious/facetious for
humourous effect?
to the two anons:
you are free to read what you want into what I say, but what specific part do you disagree with and for what reason?
no one so far has pointed out a fault in: that "qualified" is determined by a 3 men committee, that the election system has twice produced non-elections, that "protest vote" or consolation prize might bring out qualified candidates; my statements cannot be dismissed merely by calling them "naive"
On the topic of satire, I am
reminded of Tina Fey and
Sarah Palin.
What if satire required only
faithful imitation?
What if satire is
indistinguishable
from its object?
You see this not only in
internet forums but in our
newspapers.
Issues that merit only contempt
are seriously discussed.
Some of the readers' letters
in the Straits Times are
so servile I have a hard
time believing they are
not sarcastic.
To Yuen:
When asked, were you being
sarcastic, you say:
"you are free to read what you want into what I say"
Then you say:
"my statements cannot be dismissed merely by calling them "naive""
If they were indeed sarcastic, then
they don't need to be dismissed or
argued against (you don't debate
against satire).
If they were not sarcastic, maybe
the fact it was debatable that
they were should set you thinking.
Was this actually sent to the PM?
Post a Comment