Minister for Law and Home Affairs K. Shanmugam said today that Dr Tan Cheng Bock “spliced my remarks, rearranged them, and put them together in a way to suggest something which I did not say.” He was referring to the remarks he had made in Parliament this week, with regards to the term count that triggered the reserved Presidential Election that disbarred Dr Tan from contesting the election.
Dr Tan alleged that the Minister’s arguments about the term count were contradictory, in a Facebook post yesterday.
Responding on his own Facebook page, the Minister clarified the comments he had made in Parliament before saying, “Dr Tan may be bitter. But that is no excuse for engaging in these elaborate charades”:
- “Dr Tan Cheng Bock now claims that I had said that the Government would publish AGC’s advice, and that this is inconsistent with what I said in Parliament last week. This is untrue.
- Dr Tan has spliced my remarks, rearranged them, and put them together in a way to suggest something which I did not say.
- Here is what I said in full, as reported in CNA (link below).
- “Q: When would the circuit-breaker (to hold a reserved election after a racial group has not been represented in Presidential office after five continuous terms) come into effect?
- Mr Shanmugam: The most direct answer is actually, the Government can decide. When we put in the Bill, we can say we want it to start from this period. It’s… a policy decision but there are also some legal questions about the Elected Presidency and the definition and so on, so we have asked the Attorney-General for advice. Once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the Bill gets to Parliament, which is in October, I think we will have a position and we will make it public. At present, there are a number of legal questions… including whether such provisions are consistent with the Convention to eliminate racial discrimination, how you draft it, whether you count all presidencies, elected presidencies, which is the first elected president – there are a number of questions we have to sort out.”
- It is a policy decision, for the government to make;
- The Bill can state when the term count begins, and that will determine when the circuit breaker comes into effect;
- But there were a number of legal questions to sort out before the Bill could be finalised, and we were getting AGC’s advice on those questions;
- The Government will decide on the term count after we received AGC’s advice, and will then set out its position [I said ‘ we will send it out’];
- At the latest, the Government will have a position on the term count by the time the Bill gets to Parliament. And at that point, it will make its position public.
- The question was when the circuit breaker will come into effect. My answer was that we would make our position clear after we had sorted out some points; and at the latest, we will make our position clear by the time the Bill gets to Parliament.
- As it so happened, the Prime Minister himself made clear the Government’s position on the term count when Parliament debated the Constitutional amendments. He said we would start counting from President Wee Kim Wee’s second term. As the Court of Appeal has said explicitly, the Prime Minister was clear.
- Dr Tan may be bitter. But that is no excuse for engaging in these elaborate charades.
- Dr Tan also asks why I – and not the PM, DPM Teo or Minister Chan Chun Sing – replied to Ms Sylvia Lim. I’m surprised Dr Tan should ask me this question. Surely as a former parliamentarian he knows that adjournment motions have strict time limits. The MP moving the adjournment motion has up to 20 minutes; and someone else has all of 10 minutes to respond. That’s it. As Law Minister, I responded on behalf of the Government.”
read more
‘I am still cheerful’: Tan Cheng Bock responds to K Shanmugam’s rebuttal within 2 hours
Within two hours of Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam’s pointed rebuttal response on Sunday night, Oct. 8, former presidential hopeful Tan Cheng Bock issued a riposte within two hours:
Tan’s quick response at 11.11pm on Sunday night was issued within two hours of Shanmugam’s post published at 9.13pm.
Tan Cheng Bock’s response to Shanmugam’s rebuttal - Tan made three main points in his quick response to Shanmugam:
- He said he will let readers decide if he had unfairly misquoted Shanmugam and if the minister has answered adequately the questions posed previously.
- He also said he never asked about parliamentary procedure, but simply asked why Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stayed silent when he could have spoken during the 10 minutes allocated since it was the PM’s statement that was being challenged.
- Lastly, he said he wanted Shanmugam to know he is still cheerful despite being accused of being bitter and engaging in “elaborate charades” by posing the questions he did in his previous Facebook post.
read more
Question remains as to why PM Lee 'stayed silent' during motion on EP: Tan Cheng Bock
Former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock (left) and Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam crossed swords online over the reserved presidential election.
- In a response to Law Minister K Shanmugam’s post accusing him of engaging in “elaborate charades”, former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock said on Sunday (8 Oct) that his question as to why the Prime Minister “stayed silent” during the adjournment motion on the Elected Presidency remains unanswered.
- On Saturday (7 Oct), Tan had commented on Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam’s statements during a parliamentary session last week, saying that Shanmugam made an “apparent contradiction” about whether the government would make public the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) advice on the timing of the reserved election.
- Citing a Channel NewsAsia report from 2016 that quoted Shanmugam as saying “Once we get the advice, we will send it out”, Tan noted that the minister had told the House last Tuesday (3 Oct) that, as a general rule, the government does not publish legal opinions that it gets.
- Tan said that the report “appears to have words opposite to what the Minister mentioned”, and asked if the Minister would “explain to Singaporeans his apparent contradiction”.
- Shanmugam responded on Sunday by accusing Tan of “splicing and rearranging” his remarks. The minister also said he was referring to making the government’s position public, and not making the AGC’s advice public.
- In a Facebook post written two hours after Shanmugam’s rebuttal, Tan reiterated his question about why the prime minister did not speak during Sylvia Lim’s adjournment motion. Shanmugam had said that adjournment motions have strict time limits, and that he spoke on behalf of the government as Law Minister during Lim’s motion.
- Tan said in his latest post, “But I never asked about parliamentary procedure. I simply asked why the PM stayed silent. PM could have spoken during those 10 minutes since his statement was being challenged.”
- Tan said he would let readers decide whether the minister answered adequately, and whether Tan had unfairly misquoted him.
- Shanmugam had said that Tan should not engage in “elaborate charades” even if he “may be bitter”.
- Tan added, “On my part, I can assure the Minister that I am still cheerful. But I think the Minister, who said ‘I’m happy to be confronted with anything else I might have said’ didn’t sound so happy when he saw my questions.”
read more
K Shanmugam Dances around Issues Raised by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Says He “May be Bitter…”
Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shamugam says Dr Tan Cheng Bock “may be bitter” and that’s why he embarked on “elaborate charades” regarding the recent parliamentary debate on the reserved election.
Over the weekend, Dr Tan had raised 2 issues regarding the parliamentary debate, accusing Mr Shanmugam of going back on his word, and questioning why Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong shied away from the debate and let Mr Shanmugam speak for him:
- Whether the government misled parliament into thinking that the AG’s advice would be made public
- Why did the PM and no others cited by Sylvia Lim speak for themselves?
- I asked if the Minister had contradicted himself when he at first told CNA “… once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the bill gets to Parliament, which is in October … and will make it public” but later said in Parliament “this government, as a rule, generally, does not publish legal opinions that it gets.”
- His answer on FB was that there was no contradiction. He says the “it” in “send it out” was referring to the government’s position on the term count, and not AG’s advice.
- I also asked why the PM remained silent during the debate. His answer was “ I’m surprised Dr Tan should ask me this question. Surely as a former parliamentarian he knows that adjournment motions have strict time limits. The MP moving the adjournment motion has up to 20 minutes; and someone else has all of 10 minutes to respond. That’s it. As Law Minister, I responded on behalf of the Government.” But I never asked about parliamentary procedure. I simply asked why the PM stayed silent. PM could have spoken during those 10 minutes since his statement was being challenged.
- He also said that I “spliced .. and rearranged” his remarks, that I “may be bitter” and am engaging in “elaborate charades” in posing my questions. I will let readers decide whether the Minister has answered adequately, and whether I had unfairly misquoted him.
- On my part, I can assure the Minister that I am still cheerful. But I think the Minister, who said “I’m happy to be confronted with anything else I might have said” didn’t sound so happy when he saw my question
read more
Tan Cheng Bock And K Shanmugam Embroiled In Facebook Feud Over Elected Presidency
A war of words between ex-lovers is always a sight to behold. But when former political comrades engage in a robust debate on social media, you know you have to bring out the popcorn.
Over the weekend (8-9 Oct), ex-PAP colleagues Tan Cheng Bock (TCB) and Law Minister K Shanmugam decided to lock horns in an argument that spanned 3 Facebook posts. The reason for the spat? The comments made by the Law Minister on the Reserved Presidential Elections in Parliament on 3 Oct.
During the Parliamentary sitting, Workers’ Party (WP) Chairman Sylvia Lim’s sought clarifications on whether the leaders of PAP had misled the house into thinking that the decision to count from President Wee Kim Wee was a legal one. This question was specifically aimed at PM Lee Hsien Loong, DPM Teo Chee Hean, and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing.
However, it was Law Minister K Shanmugam who retorted on their behalf. He replied snidely, saying that “the Government [could]decide” — a fact that Ms Lim would have known if she had read the judgement passed by the Court of Appeal during TCB’s appeal. Mr Shanmugam then turned tables on Ms Lim by suggesting that Ms Lim “should know all about misleading Parliament”.
With Ms Lim at a loss for words, we thought that Mr Shanmugam had nailed the coffin shut on this political debate, but boy were we wrong:
- TCB accuses Shanmugam
- Shanmugam’s rebuttal
- TCB’s retort
- Is it finally over?
read more
K Shanmugam: Tan Cheng Bock may be bitter, but no excuse for elaborate charades
Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam has issued a pointed response to former presidential hopeful Tan Cheng Bock, who only a day earlier had said the minister had apparently made contradictory remarks. In response to Tan in a Facebook post on Sunday night, Oct. 8, Shanmugam said: “Dr Tan may be bitter. But that is no excuse for engaging in these elaborate charades.”
Tan Cheng Bock’s initial post:
- Tan’s initial post on Saturday night, Oct. 7, pointed out an “apparent contradiction” in Shanmugam’s parliamentary remarks earlier this week that supposedly did not tally with what the minister said last year at a dialogue.
- In Parliament on Oct. 4, Shanmugam had said in response to Aljunied Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim that the government does not generally publish legal opinions that it is given.
- This was after Lim had challenged the government to publish the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) advice on the timing of the reserved election.
- Tan said compared to a Channel News Asia report on Sept. 15, 2016, Shanmugam was quoted as saying: “Once we get the advice, we will send it out.”
- Tan took the “it” in the CNA report to mean the AGC advice.
- In response, Shanmugam said Tan had “spliced my remarks, rearranged them, and put them together in a way to suggest something which I did not say”.
- Shanmugam said in his post that he was clearly referring to making the government’s position public, and not the AGC’s advice.
- This was so as he was responding to the question: When would the circuit-breaker to hold a reserved election after a racial group has not been represented in Presidential office after five continuous terms come into effect?
- As such, there was no contradiction as the government does not generally publish legal advice it was given.
- Shanmugam also responded to Tan’s other question as to why he had responded to Lim, given that she had posed questions to earlier statements from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chung Sing.
- He said he responded in Parliament on behalf of the government.
- Shanmugam replied: “Surely as a former parliamentarian he knows that adjournment motions have strict time limits. The MP moving the adjournment motion has up to 20 minutes; and someone else has all of 10 minutes to respond. That’s it. As Law Minister, I responded on behalf of the Government.”
read more
“Cheerful” Tan Cheng Bock suggests Minister Shanmugam is unhappy to be confronted by his questions
Former Presidential candidate, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, has suggested that Mr Shanmugam is unhappy to be confronted by his questions. Dr Tan was responding to Mr K Shanmugam’s Facebook post in which the Law and Home Affairs Minister claimed that the doctor was “bitter” and engaged in “elaborate charades”.
Dr Tan said that he would let readers decide if Mr Shanmugam had adequately answered him or if Dr Tan himself had misquoted the Minister:
- Dr Tan earlier asked if the if the Minister had contradicted himself when he at first told CNA “… once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the bill gets to Parliament, which is in October … and will make it public” but later said in Parliament “this government, as a rule, generally, does not publish legal opinions that it gets.”
- The Minister answered Dr Tan and said that there was no contradiction. He said the “it” in “send it out” was referring to the government’s position on the term count, and not Attorney-General’s advice.
- Minister Shanmugam answered him saying, “I’m surprised Dr Tan should ask me this question. Surely as a former parliamentarian he knows that adjournment motions have strict time limits. The MP moving the adjournment motion has up to 20 minutes; and someone else has all of 10 minutes to respond. That’s it. As Law Minister, I responded on behalf of the Government.”
- Dr Tan said that he never asked about parliamentary procedures.
- “I simply asked why the PM stayed silent,” he said.
- “PM could have spoken during those 10 minutes since his statement was being challenged,” Dr Tan added.
read more
K Shanmugam Sc added 2 new photos 12 hrs
[ Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s splicing and rearranging my remarks ]
Dr Tan Cheng Bock now claims that I had said that the Government would publish AGC’s advice, and that this is inconsistent with what I said in Parliament last week. This is untrue.
Dr Tan has spliced my remarks, rearranged them, and put them together in a way to suggest something which I did not say.
Here is what I said in full, as reported in CNA (link below).
read more
Minister Shanmugam shows us how much we need to improve our English
We thought we heard the last of the debate on the changes to the system to elect our president when Minister Shanmugam and Ms Sylvia Lim sparred in Parliament recently. We were wrong. So wrong. Dr Tan Cheng Bock fired another salvo after Ms Lim’s adjournment motion. Dr Tan claimed that Minister Shanmugam’s response to Ms Lim contradicted what he had earlier said. What, exactly, did Minister Shanmugam say and mean?
So what did Minister Shanmugam say? In a dialogue session Minister Shanmugam was asked “When would the circuit-breaker (to hold a reserved election after a racial group has not been represented in Presidential office after five continuous terms) come into effect?”
Minister Shanmugam’s answer was:
“The most direct answer is actually, the Government can decide. When we put in the Bill, we can say we want it to start from this period. It’s… a policy decision but there are also some legal questions about the Elected Presidency and the definition and so on, so we have asked the Attorney-General for advice. Once we get the advice, we will send it out (emphasis ours)”Pay particular attention to the last sentence.
Dr Tan probably read that sentence and took the “it” in that sentence to refer to the advice that the government was to get from the Attorney-General. That’s why Dr Tan thought that Minister Shanmugam had meant that the government would send out the advice it got from the Attorney-General.
And that contradicts what Minister Shanmugam said in Parliament in response to Ms Lim:
“This government, as a rule, generally, does not publish legal opinions that it gets.”Minister Shanmugam has since responded to Dr Tan. In that response, Minister Shanmugam clarified that the “it” in the sentence “once we get the advice, we will send it out” has to be read in context of his entire answer. And if read in the context of the entire context, the “it” actually refers to the government’s position, not the Attorney-General’s advice to the government. Minister Shanmugam isn’t wrong. If we read his answer to the question in the dialogue session carefully, in its entirety, and thought hard about it, then yes, we might have comprehended the sentence the way Minister Shanmugam had intended it to mean.
read more
K Shanmugam claims that Dr Tan Cheng Bock spliced his comments on publishing of AGC’s advice
- Minister of Law and Home Affairs, K Shanmugam posted a Facebook status on Sunday evening, disputing the claims that he made contradictory statements on the publishing of Attorney-General's Chambers advice to the government on the counting of first president for the Reserved Presidential Election (RPE).
- Mr Shanmugam alleged that Dr Tan Cheng Bock who made a Facebook post on the matter, had spliced his remarks and put them together to suggest something that he did not say. He also wrote, "Dr Tan may be bitter. But that is no excuse for engaging in these elaborate charades."
- Dr Tan, a former PAP member of parliament and candidate in the Presidential Election 2011 who nearly won the election, quoted statements by Mr Shanmugam made in a dialogue session on Elected Presidency and reply to Ms Sylvia Lim's adjournment motion and asked if the Law Minister made contradictory statement on whether would the government make public the advice that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said to have received to count Dr Wee Kim Wee as the first President for the purpose of the RPE.
- Mr Shanmugam posted the full question and answer he gave and wrote, "Clearly, I was referring to making the Government’s position (and not the AGC’s advice) public. The question was when the circuit breaker will come into effect. My answer was that we would make our position clear after we had sorted out some points; and at the latest, we will make our position clear by the time the Bill gets to Parliament." He further states that PM made clear the Government’s position on the term count when Parliament debated the Constitutional amendments and is confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
- However, the "misinterpretation" of the contradictory statements raised by Dr Tan is not limited to the doctor himself. Many readers, expressed that they share the same interpretation when they read the Minister's comments.
- For example, member of public, Benson Tan wrote on Channel News Asia's Facebook post in regards to the comments made by the law minister, "To me it is clear Shan is recanting. He said "we asked the AGC for advice. Once we get the advice, we will send it out". Any English reader will take it to mean the G will send the AGC advice out when received. Yes, the G may have 10 mins to respond. But why did Shan and not (ANY) of the other 3 respond when Sylvia's question was clearly directed to those 3 - did they mislead parliament? Sylvia's question was NOT a question of Law that needed Shan's reply."
Tan Cheng Bock engaging in 'elaborate charades' over remarks on reserved Presidential Election: Shanmugam
Minister for Law & Home Affairs K Shanmugam on Sunday (Oct 8) rejected claims by Dr Tan Cheng Bock that remarks he made in Parliament last week were inconsistent with previous statements he had made concerning the publication of the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) advice on the reserved Presidential Election.
Referring to a Facebook post made by Dr Tan on Saturday, Mr Shanmugam said that Dr Tan was “engaging in elaborate charades”, & had “spliced my remarks, rearranged them, & put them together in a way to suggest something which I did not say”.
Speaking in Parliament last week, Mr Shanmugam had said that the call to start counting from Dr Wee Kim Wee's 2nd term as President for the purpose of holding a reserved Presidential Election was a policy decision, and also said that the Government generally does not publish legal opinions that it gets.
read more
Law Minister Shanmugam takes issue with Dr Tan for 'splicing and rearranging' his remarks
Refuting Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s allegations that he had flipped-flopped on his position on the Elected Presidency scheme, Law Minister K Shanmugam described the former presidential candidate’s comments as “charades” from a “bitter” man.
In a Facebook post on Sunday (Oct 8), Mr Shanmugam said Dr Tan had misrepresented his position by “splicing & rearranging” his remarks made at a forum on Sep 15 last year.
Dr Tan had on Saturday posted on his Facebook page his observations on an adjournment motion in Parliament on Tuesday by opposition Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim. It was on whether the government’s count, from the tenure of the late Dr Wee Kim Wee, in triggering the recent reserved election for the Malay community, was a policy decision or legal question.
read more
Dr Tan Cheng Bock raises questions on Law Minister’s contradictory statements on AGC’s advice and wonders why PM did not answer Ms Lim’s questions himself
Dr Tan Cheng Bock, former People's Action Party Member of Parliament and candidate in the Presidential Election 2011 posted a Facebook post to question Mr K Shanmugam, Minister of Law and Home Affairs for contradictions in his statements made during a dialogue session and what he said in the Parliament just this week. He also commented that since the questions filed by Ms Sylvia Lim, Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC from Workers' Party, was on the Attorney General's advice raised by the Prime Minister, he should be the one answering Ms Lim instead of the Minister of Law.
Ms Lim had earlier filed an Adjournment Motion, "Counting From President Wee Kim Wee Or President Ong Teng Cheong For Reserved Presidential Election – Policy Decision Or Legal Question?" on 3 October 2017 (Tuesday), seeking an explanation from the government on whether did the PM, DPM Teo Chee Hean and Minister Chan Chun Sing make misleading statements to the Members of Parliament that the question of which President to count from was a legal question
She also asked whether did the government all along make a policy decision itself to count from President Wee Kim Wee and merely use the AGC’s advice as a cover to avoid full Parliamentary debate on why the count was not starting from President Ong Teng Cheong.
Mr Shanmugam had denied that PM Lee has misrepresented the matter to the Parliament and insisted that it has always been clear that the decision to count Mr Wee Kim Wee as the first President for the purpose of the reserved presidential election is a policy decision by the parliament and not a legal matter.
read more
Shanmugam’s response to Sylvia Lim on reserved election has ‘apparent contradiction’: Tan Cheng Bock
- Former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock has questioned the ‘apparent contradiction’ in Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam’s statements during a parliamentary session earlier this week.
- In the session on Tuesday (4 October), Aljunied Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim had asked the government to publish the Attorney-General’s Chamber’s advice on the timing of the reserved presidential election, to which Shanmugam replied that, as a general rule, the government does not publish legal opinions that it gets.
- However, as Tan pointed out in a Facebook post published on Saturday (7 October), Shanmugam had told the media last September that the government would make the advice public.
- The Minister was quoted in a Channel News Asia report, “Once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the Bill gets to Parliament, which is in October, I think we will have a position and will make it public.”
- Tan said that the report “appears to have words opposite to what the Minister mentioned”, and asked if the Minister would “explain to Singaporeans his apparent contradiction”.
- Additionally, Tan took issue with the fact that Shanmugam responded to the adjournment motion by Lim, while Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing “sat quietly behind”.
- Given that Lim’s motion questioned the three ministers’ statements to Parliament and whether they had indeed misled the house, they should have been the ones answering it, instead of Shanmugam, said Tan.
- “One would have expected the PM, DPM or Minister Chan to speak for themselves and clarify their own words. After all, they are the government’s top leaders,” Tan said.
- “In fact, PM Lee should be the one answering Ms Lim. This debate started with PM’s statement on taking AG’s legal advice. Why he remained silent during this parliamentary debate continues to baffle many Singaporeans.”
read more
PAP supporters criticise Dr Tan Cheng Bock for Facebook posting to question K Shanmugam
Something that is not seen elsewhere on the news reports on the matter happened on the Minister's Facebook post.
Instead of critising the government non-transparency on the matter, many commentators took to criticise Dr Tan's Facebook posting. But the names of these individuals should be pretty familiar to those who frequent social media posts on current affairs in Singapore, they are also commonly known to frequent fan-pages that trash opposition and activist figures and praise the ruling party to seventh heaven, such as "Fabrication of PAP" and "FLOP":
- Jason Chua Chin Seng – The administrator of "Fabrication of PAP" – wrote, "Dr Tan Cheng Bock needs skill future credits to learn English."
- Eunice Chia-Lim, the chairwoman of PAP Women's wing at Bedok wrote, "Think TCB should just give up the idea to be president, he didn't get voted in in 2011, he won't get voted in 2017. His action these last six years have made many lose respect for him. And what he did to Min Shan's statement is a new low."
- Surya Kumra wrote, "Dr. C.B. Tan's FB cover pic states "Unifying Figure for Singapore". I have categorically stated to him that, in my view, I have never seen a more divisive figure in Singapore in my lifetime.
- Now, this is one more clear example that substantiates my view. Please, Dr. Tan, change your cover picture because it is a blatant untruth, similar to your post on Min Shan. You are more like a wolf in sheep's clothes. Do not insult the majority of Singaporeans through the use of that title. I am so glad that you will never be President. You undoubtedly will dissect and divide our people. You have just shown your devious 'dissection' skills."
- Julie Chin wrote, "All that TCB stood for when he was an MP, all lost now. Why has he become such a selfish and bitter man? Is it because he lost everything when he quit the PAP in order to run for the PE? He lost his MP position. He lost his power. He lost his connections. He lost his prestige. After all that, he lost the Presidency."
- She also wrote, "TCB used to stand up for the truth and fair play. Now he is twisting words to suit his agenda. Very much like Sylvia and Co. have been doing. Not enough that a man who aspired to be the President of Singapore engage in a public protest against the Government, he needs to fabricate statements too?"
- Tommy On wrote, "TCB has turned all his merits (before) into sad remnants of his own moral beings what's little left today."
- Robert Ko wrote, "Tan Cheng Bock has come out very ugly in all this as a sore loser. A country's presidency is not about an individual. He's said it himself as a former MP! He's the one contradicting himself."
- Qiu Yan wrote, "Another indication of just how desperate TCB is to be president. He had already got to court twice, engaged even a queen's counsel, and his own lawyer agreed with the court that AG's advice to the government was irrelevant to him and yet there he was, still attempting to stir. Not a unifying figure, is he?"
- Ellenisia Goh wrote, "The records speak are clear and speak for themselves. Dr Tan Cheng Bock has been dishonest.
- Just wants to turn people against the Govt by twisting the facts. Sore and bitter loser indeed."
- Ed Sim wrote, "No one from the public talked about the Presidential Election until the day after ELD announced the issuance of the Certificate of Eligibility. The changes in the constitution for EP was heavily debated in Parliament over several sessions. However, there are some prominent members of the public chose to NOT read the proceedings and jump to their own silly conclusion base on public sentiments. Perhaps people like Dr Tan and Sylvia Lim can pay better attention before making any remarks."
- Danny Ngiam wrote, "Dr Tan is a very sore old man. Lost all my respect for him."
- Junjie Boo wrote, "If Tan Cheng Bock cannot read a speech properly, then lucky he's not President. Probably cannot read our financial spreadsheets properly either!"
- Daniel Ng wrote, "I wonder why he is doing all these, he still does not qualify under the 500Million benchmark so all else is moot as far as he is concerned. Parliament, as the law making body of our country has the absolute right to pass legislation to protect our long term multi-racism. I wonder which part of this Sylvia didn't understand. And now the two of them are patting each other on back. Sylvia, I can understand but I am thoroughly disappointed with CB Tan who is an ex PAP man!"
- Swee Heng wrote, "Disappointing that ego and bitterness have driven TCB to stoop so low."
- Mark Ko wrote, "It's very sad to see the man I used to respect going down the route of what alternative media do on a daily basis. Anyway, a lot of people love using a sad day for this and that. Well, this is a sad day for us indeed to see how TCB turns into a man we don't recognise anymore."
- Malcolm Goh wrote, "Mr Tan should just retire and go have a good rest and relax. His time serving the nation has past and was done with much dignity and respect and it should be and must be remembered as such."
- Desmond Pek wrote, "Used to respect TCB a lot but lost it all over the years. wise man says that time will tell if a person truly is honourable with values."
- Huang Dayu wrote, "Poor TCB. The desire to become president had consumed him so much that he now tries every mean and way to stay relevant and act like he is the voice of the people."
- Gary Ngiam wrote, "Dr Tan seems to be searching for attention all these while. All for the wrong reasons ."
- Yew Ah Tee wrote, "Sad case.From an honourable to a "Instigator" to create confusion for his own motive."
- Kieth Tay wrote, "Dr Tan Cheng Bock, is he alright ? Seems to me these few incidents he is desperately trying not to be forgotten or something?"
- Vicky Lee wrote, "TCB? What is wrong with him? Can someone ever be so bitter just because he cant be president?"
- Suhaimi Hafidz wrote, "Sir, TCB only eyes for being president, not serving the people of Singapore!"
- Joseph Tan wrote, "Aiya. He seems to be sour grapes. Eyes sore.
- He just wish for second opportunity to be opportunist. However, too bad. He bet wrongly. He has since loss more and more respect and supporters."
- PK Ang wrote, "He (TCB) needs supporters, now WP comes in at the right time, they needed one another."
read more
Comments in Dr Tan Cheng Bock added 2 new photos 23 hrs
Cassandra Edith You have done your best as an elder, a pioneer leader, to protect the interest of the next generation. Now whats left, you are unable to control. Thanks for doing ur best! ❤️
72 · 23 hrs
Mike Gan Dr. Tan, please dun waste anymore time on them, quickly set up a new party and try getting some of the outspoken ex MPs and start walking the ground for next GE and give us an alternate opposition with a sound and loud voice and presence. Forget abt the PE cos you can do more as an elected MP. Please the country need you.
58 · 23 hrs · Edited
3 Replies
Wee Michael When asked why PM did not speak when the PM's statement was challenged, his "roti-prata" answer was really unprofessional and unbecoming of a law minister. He simply has no class.
Like I earlier remarked, LKY would have never allowed anyone to answer for something he said or done.
The class of these 2 people's way of facing the public as a PM is distinctively exposed-bravado vs cowardice.
29 · 21 hrs · Edited
2 Replies · 4 hrs
Yewsin Lai Dr Tan, Well done! Many of us awakened on twisty episodes in our noble LAW making parliament. Enough is enough. 5 decades of trust built up by our great pioneer leaders not longer binding me anymore. SAD n disappointed I must said
37 · 23 hrs
Philip Lim It is so sad to see those goons and minions of that so-called Law Minister, Indian (or maybe Malay, depending on the weather) blindly supporting the PAP's rubbish each and every day. Totally lacking in morals and conscience and yet daring to pull wool over Singaporeans' eyes.
15 · 22 hrs
Rahim Hassan Thambi flipping more pratas than his wok can handle.
27 · 23 hrs
Sas Karma
Sas Karma Pap is rotting at the Top when we have such shameless government who twist and turn their words and mudslinging, sueing every citizens who dont agree with them. Just very shameful bringing Singapore to this stage.
11 · 21 hrs
AhWei Wei maybe someone can track his assets overseas. trying to get sympathy from us while he is actually laughing at us the poor singaporeans
10 · 23 hrs
Henry Thyamus In a MNC, when the CEO speaks, he represent the company, his words are important. If he ever spoke things which others misinterpret, , he should be in the presence of the same media, telling what he meant and not letting his colleagues answer what he said. Simple as that. If LHL can't even do this, he isn't fit to lead PAP or even Singapore
7 · 19 hrs
Samuel Sim Singapore has a bigger issue than water in mrt.... with Sham at the helm, moral decline has began in Parliment. Now .... can we trust any ministers in parliment to speak the truth or should we constantly question what they say till it is understood in ...See more
8 · 22 hrs
read more
Dr Tan Cheng Bock shared K Shanmugam Sc's post. 11 hrs
MINISTER SHANMUGAM’S REPLY
- I asked if the Minister had contradicted himself when he at first told CNA “… once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the bill gets to Parliament, which is in October … and will make it public” but later said in Parliament “this government, as a rule, generally, does not publish legal opinions that it gets.”
- His answer on FB was that there was no contradiction. He says the “it” in “send it out” was referring to the government’s position on the term count, and not AG’s advice.
- I also asked why the PM remained silent during the debate. His answer was “ I’m surprised Dr Tan should ask me this question. Surely as a former parliamentarian he knows that adjournment motions have strict time limits. The MP moving the adjournment motion has up to 20 minutes; and someone else has all of 10 minutes to respond. That’s it. As Law Minister, I responded on behalf of the Government.” But I never asked about parliamentary procedure. I simply asked why the PM stayed silent. PM could have spoken during those 10 minutes since his statement was being challenged.
- He also said that I “spliced .. and rearranged” his remarks, that I “may be bitter” and am engaging in “elaborate charades” in posing my questions. I will let readers decide whether the Minister has answered adequately, and whether I had unfairly misquoted him.
- On my part, I can assure the Minister that I am still cheerful. But I think the Minister, who said “I’m happy to be confronted with anything else I might have said” didn’t sound so happy when he saw my questions.
Comments in Dr Tan Cheng Bock Yesterday at 08:11 hrs
Maggie Chia Totally disappointed with this government. They think they can do anything they like because they have 70% mandate. Last time maybe 70%...time will tell.
别嚣张。
124 · Yesterday at 08:29 · Edited
13 Replies
Alvin Yh Dr Tan, you’re certainly our unifying figure. The government will definitely try their best to justify for its position on reserved election. Thank you for upholding our values and democracy.
90 · Yesterday at 08:36
Lim Chang Siang Thank you for putting yourself forward for the sake of transparency and democracy. You voice is important to many, because "Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented". While, in any country there will always be division and difference in politics, Singapore should not allow our race and personal religion belief to divide our country. Thank you Dr Tan!
70 · Yesterday at 08:29 · Edited
Philip Lim This is another new low for Singapore. And for pap. I have never seen any past pap ministers as arrogant as him ....See more
60 · Yesterday at 09:32
4 Replies · 10 hrs
Richard Loh "It’s… a policy decision but there are also some legal questions about the Elected Presidency and the definition and so on, so we have asked the Attorney-General for advice. Once we get the advice, we will send it out." English fail. He is talking abo...See more
31 · Yesterday at 08:35 · Edited
5 Replies
Royce Teo Yes Dr Tan, I can still see cheerful. Very cheerful indeed when you were in HLS. Stay healthy n keep on fighting, don't let it down and sleep well.
25 · Yesterday at 08:40
Yee Meng Kum Haahaa... the fool act and think that he is smart... but the whole nation know who is the one telling the lies.... Emperor without clothing... LOL.
24 · Yesterday at 08:38
Wee-How Lim Dr Tan, our current MIW ministers are really hopeless. Please take care of health and have an early sleep.
38 · Yesterday at 08:20
Antony Lee I believe in Britain, the BBC Parliament channel will telecast live of all parliamentary sessions, and everyone can view live.
There will not be fake news as all stake holders are accountable for whatever being said. ...See more
19 · Yesterday at 09:02
1 Reply
Saravana Kumar Kavinesh The indian roti prata! Dr Tan the ministers in ruling party will never ever accept their mistakes or do anything useful to the people at all. What they know is how to trick us again and again every GE and make sure their pay chq is not affected! We as ...See more
25 · Yesterday at 09:36
read more
Dr Tan Cheng Bock Yesterday at 06:44
MY OBSERVATIONS ON THE MOTION BY MS SYLVIA LIM ON TUESDAY 3 OCT 2017
I have 2 observations on Ms Lim’s excellent motion.
1st, Minister Shanmugam made these statements in reply to Ms Lim:
- “… I was asked the following question “When would the circuit breaker to hold the reserved election after a racial group has not been represented in presidential office after five continuous terms, come into effect?” What was my reply? The most direct answer is actually, “The government can decide. When we put in the bill, we can say we want it to start from this period. It is a policy decision.” The CNA reported it, it is still on record….. and I said on record, and I’m happy to be shown any other part …. I am very clear and careful about what I say. And I’m happy to be confronted with anything else I might have said.”
- The Minister had quoted from a CNA report dated 15 Sept 2016 (by Linette Lim “On Tan Cheng Bock, mixed-race candidates: Singaporeans ask tough questions on the Elected Presidency review” http://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/on-tan-cheng-bock-mixed-ra…)
read more
Comments in Dr Tan Cheng Bock 7 October at 06:44 hrs
David Lee I know someone is lying in this issue. It is uncommon for the top leaders to keep quiet, knowing they will rebutt whenever the opposition said in parliament. The fact that they remain silent throughout the motion tells much what they have done and dare not own up.
188 · 7 October at 06:52
10 Replies
Mark Cheong Sir, just 1 more fight. next GE, we vote you in to ask necessary questions. That is if your health amd well being permits.
137 · 7 October at 06:51
7 Replies
Minsoon Lim Can you imagine LKY hiding behind K Shanmugam to defend the words he has said. LKY would have stood for himself, shut the critics and render them speechless. This is the problem of our nation today, lack of leadership and taking accountability.
130 · 7 October at 07:49
13 Replies
Eng-Joo Gay My take on why Shanmugam was asked to speak and no one else. He has the arrogance and ligation experience to respond. The PAP has already put themselves into this mess so it can only get worst if more MP come out explain what was on hindsight a poorly coordinated decision that holds no water.
119 · 7 October at 06:57 · Edited
20 Replies
Chua Yong Tong Doc...you are spot on!... Why the PM is sitting there quietly when it is a Policy decision by the government, unless it is a legal issue that required the Law Minister to clarify .... I am disappointed with the Law Minister. He is no where to clear any ...See more
80 · 7 October at 07:17
11 Replies
Mark Lim Sir, thank you for continuing to ask the hard questions. Our government leaders need to be accountable to the people regarding the decisions they make. As it stands, I am not satisfied with the callous way in which pertinent questions are answered. No one is above the law, and the law must serve the needs of the people, and not one individual government leader or one individual political party.
82 · 7 October at 07:19
2 Replies
Tat Kong Leong The pm has no balls,he knew he done wrong,but no gut to face the questions,he just hide behind the minister who tweets and turn his words,come on be a man, your challenger is a lady,but beware,she is our lady with a big heart, you are not on par with her.
72 · 7 October at 07:04
4 Replies
Kok Beng Lee Because the three, PM, DPM, KeeChiu are now caught with their pants down and don't know how to answer and face Ms Sylvia Lim questioning ... And the three have to depend on Law Minister to come to their rescue and answer on their behalf....See more
read more
Tan Cheng Bock claims K Shanmugam contradicted his own words: Does the govt publish legal opinion or not?
- It is about something the minister said last year and in Parliament recently that doesn’t tally.
- Does or does not publish legal opinion?
- In the recent Oct. 4 session, Shanmugam said the government does not publish legal opinions that it gets as a general rule.
- This was after Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim asked the government to publish the Attorney-General’s Chamber’s advice on the timing of the reserved presidential election.
“Once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the Bill gets to Parliament, which is in October, I think we will have a position and will make it public.”However, it is not clear which part of the quote Tan was referring to:
- This is so as the first sentence in the quote that mentioned “the advice” said that the government “will send it out”. There was no further elaboration on to whom the advice will be sent to.
- The second part of the quote mentioned “a position” and the government “will make it public”. It does not explicitly say whether the position to count Wee Kim Wee as the first elected president will be a result of AGC’s advice.
- Nevertheless, Tan asked if the minister would “explain to Singaporeans his apparent contradiction”, and said that the report “appears to have words opposite to what the Minister mentioned” in Parliament.
- Tan also took issue with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing, who “sat quietly behind” as Shanmugam responded to the adjournment motion by Lim.
- Tan said Lim’s motion should have been answered by the three ministers as they were the ones who gave their statements to Parliament and have been asked if they had indeed misled the house.
- “One would have expected the PM, DPM or Minister Chan to speak for themselves and clarify their own words. After all, they are the government’s top leaders,” Tan said.
- “In fact, PM Lee should be the one answering Ms Lim. This debate started with PM’s statement on taking AG’s legal advice. Why he remained silent during this parliamentary debate continues to baffle many Singaporeans.”
read more
On Tan Cheng Bock, mixed-race candidates: Singaporeans ask tough questions on the Elected Presidency review
Q: When could the circuit-breaker (to hold a reserved election after a racial group has not been represented in Presidential office after five continuous terms) come into effect?
Mr Shamugam: The most direct answer is actually, the Government can decide. When we put in the Bill, we can say we want it to start from this period. It’s… a policy decision but there are also some legal questions about the Elected Presidency and the definition and so on, so we have asked the Attorney-General for advice. Once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the Bill gets to Parliament, which is in October, I think we will have a position and we will make it public.
At present, there are a number of legal questions… including whether such provisions are consistent with the Convention to eliminate racial discrimination, how do you draft it, whether you count all presidencies, elected presidencies, which is the first elected president – there are a number of questions we have to sort out.
read more
Decision On Who Was Singapore’s First Elected President Was Decided By Govt, Not AGC: Minister Shanmugam
Did the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) tell Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to recognise the late Dr Wee Kim Wee as Singapore’s first elected President? According to Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, no they didn’t.
Instead, the Government were simply asking the AGC to advise them on a number of questions — including who Singapore’s first elected President is. Despite being the legal adviser to the Government of Singapore, their word was “irrelevant as to a matter of law”, but were nonetheless consulted to “see whether there are any impediments”.
This seems odd, given that we were always under the impression that the AGC had defined the identity of our first elected president, given that PM Lee had said he had “taken the Attorney-General’s advice” when announcing the amendment to the hiatus-triggered model. His exact words were:
"We have taken the Attorney-General’s advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee."But apparently, the AG’s advice wasn’t actually to start counting from Dr Wee.
read more
MP Sylvia Lim and Minister Shanmugam on the adjournment motion on reserved Presidential Election
related:
Decision On Spore’s 1st Elected President Was Decided By Gov Not AGC
Malay President, Chinese Prime Minister and Indian Chief Justice
Silent sit-in protest against PE2017
Singapore's 8th and first female President
No contest for Singapore Presidential Election 2017
President Tony Tan reflects on his six years at the Istana
PE2017: Mr Owl for President?
Presidential Election polling day will be on Sep 23
High Court dismissed Tan Cheng Bock's challenge on Elected Presidency
Presidential Election 2017: What makes a person Malay?
Singapore's 8th and first female President
No contest for Singapore Presidential Election 2017
President Tony Tan reflects on his six years at the Istana
PE2017: Mr Owl for President?
Presidential Election polling day will be on Sep 23
High Court dismissed Tan Cheng Bock's challenge on Elected Presidency
Presidential Election 2017: What makes a person Malay?
2017 Presidential Election to be reserved for Malay candidates
Public Forum on Elected Presidency cancelled due to poor response
White Paper on Elected Presidency scheme
Spore push for minority President but not ready for non-Chinese PM
Changes to the Elected Presidency Scheme
Order of Succession And Baton Passing
