Guess: which TWO politicans?

Politician A, in 1984:

I am not worried whether the new admission policy will lessen the chances of children of non-graduate mothers not getting the schools of their choice. The main problem is whether the policy will have any significant effect on graduate mothers wanting to have more children."

"I will certainly support any move which will help to reverse this trend [of graduate mothers not having their 'fair share of children']. So, in my view, the [graduate mother] priority scheme is worth a try."

Politician B, in 2011:

"I fought against the Graduate Mothers Scheme. I persuaded my colleagues that it was unfair to put the children of mothers without university degrees at a disadvantage. I got the policy changed."

Question: Who's that bastard politician A who was "not worried" about the unfairness ("lessen the chance of") of the Graduate Mother Scheme, and who thought it was "worth a try"?

Question: Who's that heroic politician B who "fought against" the unfairness and "persuaded" others that it was unfair?



Answer: who else, but (again!!!), that very same man who "face thick thick", is now everyday busily (passively) shaking the hands of fishmongers and saving fainting children (on camera), desperately hoping that such comical last-minute manoeuvre can help fool Singaporeans.

Meet Tony Tan, Politician A.

Meet Tony Tan, Politician B.

That's right - there are no "TWO politicians".

Just one - a double-headed snake with forked tongue!

This man had done nothing of positive significance at the Ministry of Education or any other ministry he headed!

He has no record to back him up! He is desperate for some credentials! And that's what a desperate man does: lie through his teeth!


At the flick of his forked tongue, he can switch history around to suit his convenience:
- from an asshole who was "not worried", to a hero who "fought against"!
- from a piece of shit who would "certainly support", to a savior who "got the policy changed".

Is he suffering from multiple personality disorder?

No lah! He is very sane; A sane, desperate politician, fighting and lying, so as to live in a super-huge mansion called Istana, with $4,000,000 per year for 6 years, all for doing nothing!

Is this the kind of person whose photo you want your children to look up to, in the school hall everyday?

SAY NO TO TONY TAN!

You and I deserve better! We are not paying peanuts; We should not be getting a monkey (or a double-headed snake!)

We deserve an honest, fair and active president who intends to do lots of work and has a mission to fulfill! Such a person will be worth the money we pay him.

That man is Tan Jee Say.

Tan Jee Say, HO SAY!
陈如斯，好势！

Who said: "FOOLISH ENOUGH to build MRT"?

On the one hand, we had President Ong Teng Cheong (then Minister of Communication):

"The MRT is much more than a transport investment, and must be viewed in its wider economic perspective. The boost it'll provide to long term investors' confidence, the multiplier effect and how MRT will lead to the enhancement of the intrinsic value of Singapore's real estate are spin-offs that cannot be ignored."
- 28 March 1982

"The MRT will usher in a new phase in Singapore's development and bring about a better life for all of us."

On the other hand, we had a "visionary" Minister who went out of his way to deliberately, publicly, and rudely slam President Ong - the chief advocate for the MRT system - as being "FOOLISH ENOUGH":

"The construction industry has become over-heated and if Singapore were to be foolish enough to want to build its proposed mass rapid transit (MRT) system now, it will find itself in trouble."
- Forum on economic affairs at NUS, 17 December 1981.

Question: So, who was this "visionary" Minister who was not as "foolish enough" as President Ong?



Answer: Who else, but (again!) that very same man who "face thick thick", is now everyday busily (passively) shaking the hands of fishmongers and saving fainting children (on camera), desperately hoping that such comical last-minute manoeuvre can help him to get $4,000,000 per year as our President.

Meet Tony Tan, the "not-foolish-enough" Minister for Trade and Industry in 1981.

Yes, this is the same Tony Tan whose forecast that Singapore had too many university graduate went wrong (again!), and whose forecast that pumping billions of dollars into failed western banks is good investment went wrong (again!)

Oh, by the way, when he made that wrong forecast on education, he was the Minister for Education.

When he made that wrong forecast on investment, he was in charge of GIC.

And yes, you guessed it, when he made that wrong forecast on the impact of MRT on the construction industry, he was the Minister for Trade and Industry!

Just what's wrong with this Minister? 他妈的，he made the wrong forecast in every ministry he headed and when he had finally done enough screwing up all these ministries, he went right into the "private" sector (i.e. GIC) and immediately proceed to lose billions of dollars of our CPF money!

Is this the kind of President you want?

Not me.

I am not "foolish enough" to want to listen to any of his Presidential "visions"!

More importantly, I am not "foolish enough" to vote him to let him scold me; Notice that President Ong Teng Cheong was then his colleague in the cabinet and yet, despite having already had the opportunity to counter Mr. Ong privately during cabinet meetings, he was not contented. No, not enough! He had to 'suan' his colleague publicly and make sure the "nation-building" newspaper reported on it!

So, do you think he will have any problem labelling you - an ordinary citizen - as "foolish enough", when he becomes the President.

His good friend LKY has already called you "daft". Not enough meh? You want to be called "foolish enough" next?



So, Singapore did "foolishly enough" went ahead with the MRT construction. Did Singapore "find itself in trouble"?

The VERY ANGRY minister for trade and industry

President Ong Teng Cheong
(Asiaweek, March 10, 2000):

in January 1986 I did sanction a strike, the first for about a decade. It was in the shipping industry where the management was taking advantage of the workers.

I did not even tell the cabinet about sanctioning the strike. And some of them were angry with me about that. The minister for trade and industry was very angry, his officers were very upset. They had calls from America, asking what happened to Singapore? -- we are non-strike.

I said: if I were to inform the cabinet or the government they would probably stop me from going ahead with the strike.

It only lasted two days. Then all the issues were settled. It showed that management was just trying to pull a fast one. So I believe what I did was right.

So, who was this "very angry" Minister for Trade and industry, who could not be bothered with solving the exploitation of Singapore workers, and whose interest and concern was with protecting a management which was "taking advantage of the workers"?



Answer: The very same man who is now busy (passively) shaking the hands of fishmongers and saving fainting children (on camera), desperately hoping that such comical last-minute manoeuvre can help hide his true colour from voters!

Meet Tony Tan, the very angry Minister for Trade and Industry in January 1986, who now wants us to pay him $4,000,000 per year as our President!

Is this the kind of President you want?

Someone whose interest is aligned with unscrupulous employers who demand cheap foreign workers and/or obedient work-till-you-drop-dead Singapore workers?

Someone who will become "very angry" if Singaporean workers refuse to be exploited?

Someone who will never, ever, speak up for ordinary Singapore workers like you and me?

Please think carefully:
Which of the 4 "Tan, Tan, Tan, Tan" is most likely able - and willing - to continue the unfinished work of President Ong Teng Cheong?

Perhaps the following "How to vote 101" video will help?

No NS deferment for postgrad degree

The Straits Times
4th Sept 2001
NS deferment limits set for fairness
(Young-pap: though the date of this letter is 2001, it is talking about things that happened in 1993, which is exactly the time period we are interested in)

I REFER to the letter, “Inflexible policies could lead to brain drain” (ST, Aug 23), by Dr Ronald Paul Ng.

The Ministry of Defence (Mindef) understands the desire of Singaporean males to pursue their university studies prior to national service (NS) enlistment.

However, this has to be balanced with the duty to serve NS.

For Dr Ng’s son, Mindef had exercised flexibility by granting him deferment from NS to pursue his overseas undergraduate studies.

However, there is a limit to how long a person’s NS obligations can reasonably be deferred when others in his cohort have already been enlisted and some have even completed their NS.

In our universal conscription system where equity is a key tenet, Mindef has to apply its policies fairly and consistently.

When Dr Ng applied for NS deferment for his son in 1993, he was aware that further NS deferment could not be granted for his son to pursue a postgraduate degree after his undergraduate studies, and had agreed to this in writing.

COLONEL BERNARD TOH
Director Public Affairs Ministry of Defence

Indeed, "how long [can] a person’s NS obligations reasonably be deferred"?

Well, the answer clearly depends on who "a person" is.

If "a person" is a nobody, then 3 to 4 years is a reasonable period.

But if "a person" happens to be Patrick Tan Boon Ooi, son of Minister Tony Tan Keng Yam, 12 years is a reasonable period!


Oh, by the way:

The Straits Times
14th August 2006
Mindef lets violin prodigy defer NS

Violin prodigy Ike See, 17, will get to study at the prestigious Curtis Institute of Music in the United States after all.

The talented youngster, who was twice turned down by the Defence Ministry (Mindef) when he applied to defer national service training to pursue a three-year course, has opted for a two-year diploma programme instead.

He will leave for Philadelphia late this month to make it in time for the institute’s placement examinations, which decide which classes he will attend. His studies are fully paid for by a Curtis scholarship, but his family will have to post a bond of more than $75,000 for the NS deferment.

Ike’s music career was the subject of much debate in May, when Mindef rejected an appeal to defer his military training until after his university studies.

Mindef’s position was that it allowed students to attain educational qualifications up to A levels, polytechnic diplomas, or their equivalent, before requiring them to do national service. Deferments to pursue university studies were granted only under very exceptional circumstances, and such cases were rare and could be considered only for ‘exceptionally strong reasons’.

Mindef maintained that allowing Ike to defer his NS would have been unfair to others who put their personal aspirations and goals on hold to serve NS. There is no change in this position.

Colonel Benedict Lim, Mindef’s director of public affairs, explained that, in the latest appeal, Ike had sought deferment for a two-year diploma programme, which Mindef had assessed to be a non-degree course that is equivalent to GCE A levels or a polytechnic diploma.
.....

What a fool Ike See is!

Instead of downgrading from a 3-year bachelor degree to a 2-year diploma, he should have done the opposite: upgrade to a 12-year PhD cum MA cum BA package!

That will ensure his success in getting a deferment.

After all, there is precedent in the form of Minister Tony Tan Keng Yam's son - Patrick Tan Boon Ooi, who was granted a 12-year disruption from NS for his PhD cum MD cum BA studies.

And as we all know from the 1st letter, "In our universal conscription system where equity is a key tenet, Mindef has to apply its policies fairly and consistently."

Tony Tan for President?

He will have to Tan ku ku (wait long long) for my vote!