Defender of Freedom is against Mr Tan Kin Lian's President's Personal Council

When I checked my Gmail, I saw these 2 comments by one Defender of Freedom. He seems to be the same Defender who was also (like me--initially) expressing his objection against the idea of Mr Tan Kin Lian on the President's Personal Council.

Commented today on 1319 hrs:
Here are the reasons which make me uncomfortable with his suggestion:

1. The name of his suggested Council is itself in itself a cause for concern. He is attempting to give legitimacy to a group of people that is operating outside and beyond the scrutiny of the civil service. Yet these people, hired personally by him are given official titles and pontentially access to presidential office affairs.

2. These individuals will not be members of the civil service since they are paid by him personally. They will not be duty-bound to be loyal to the country and its people. He has already said he will sign their pay-checks and therefore their loyal will be to him and him alone.

3. As citizens we will have a group of people who are given surface legitimacy to act on behalf of the president in his dealings with the public but who are not accountable to Singapore but accountable only to him. Should we not be worried at such a suggestion?

In conclusion, his suggestion sows the seeds for the creation of an alternative group who works with and for the President but whose loyalty and accountability to the nation is an unknown factor.

Commented on 1350 hrs--also today:
Here are the reasons:

1. The title of his so-called council is in itself a cause of concern. Seems to me that this presidential council is an offical group of people within the president's office.

Hence, he is giving legitimacy to a group of people who are not employed by the state, therefore outside of the scrutiny of the citizens and who are actually not permitted by the constitution to act for or on behalf of the presidential office. Yet he is advocating that they will do so. This council is therefore not accountable for their actions to Singapore and its people. Yet he has stated that they will act on behalf of the presidential office in dealing with the public.

2. This council has no ties to the civil service which are duty-bound act in the interest of the country and its people. On the other hand, his presidential council will be duty-bound to serve only him. He has already stated clearly that he will be paying them himself.

4. This appears as an attempt to create a group who can act on behalf of the president but who are not constrainted by the constitution to do so in the interest of Singapore and its people.

As a citizen I am against such a suggestion.

There are notably similarities between his suggestion and some notable groups in history. These similarities should be noted and examined.

As a citizen, it is my right to point out concerns of suggestions made in the statements of presidential hopefuls in the interest of public education.

He expressed his points articulately (though I'm curious to find out more about the so-called 'some notable groups in history'), thus I'd have expected Mr Tan to clarify or his supporter(s) to argue against Defender of Freedom.


To my surprise, the above 2 comments were not displayed in my blog, "Tan Kin Lian President's Personal Council: 3 Reasons I'm Against It...".

See the screenshots below. The comments were meant to be displayed in that specific post of mine.

I too checked my subsequent post, "Super 8: Council of Presidential Advisers (Or why Mr Tan Kin Lian's idea of President's personal council starts appealing to me...)" for the possibility if Defender's comments were somehow shown there.


Well, Defender, your time to reply & post the comments was not wasted. This post is specifically credited to you. Thank you.

And like you, Defender, I am eagerly awaiting Mr Tan's further clarification. Back to you, Mr Tan.


Post a Comment

Blog Archive