The suggestion that a presidential candidate who was previously a member of a political party would continue to serve that party's agenda if elected is a "sweeping statement" that should be avoided, said presidential candidate Tharman Shanmugaratnam, during an Aug. 29 walkabout in Sengkang.

Calling it "absurd," Tharman urged his fellow candidates to move past these "simple labels" and "sweeping statements" to position themselves based on their potential contributions to Singapore, rather than to "politicise this debate endlessly."

Tharman also said that fellow candidate Ng Kok Song had misquoted his remarks during a live forum hosted by CNA, and clarified what he said.

Doesn't mean you cannot be independent: Tharman

Tharman was addressing a statement issued by Ng earlier the same day.

Ng said that the People's Action Party (PAP) "has had its say" on the past elected presidents, and added that the president should be free of political influence to serve as a check and balance on the government.

He had previously also suggested that a candidate who is endorsed or supported by a political party might be influenced to serve that party's political agenda, during an Aug. 28 CNA live presidential forum.

Ng Kok Song's distinguishing card: Tharman

In response, Tharman noted that Ng had been saying "from the very start" that being a member of a political party is a disadvantage, in this election.

Tharman added that this is because Ng is trying to distinguish himself as a candidate that Singaporeans should vote for.

"Unfortunately, it's a rather weak argument, as I've been explaining," Tharman said.

He went on to say that "we have to move away from these simple labels", and that the label of previously being from a political party would have ruled out many past candidates, including Ong Teng Cheong.

Tharman went over his points from the forum once again, saying that most people on the public service track could have jobs dependent on appointments by political figures, and applying "simple labels" would rule them out of contention.

He gave other examples from the private sector, such as running a construction company dependent on government contracts.

"And what I said there, is that it doesn't mean that you cannot be independent. In other words, let's not apply simple labels to virtually everyone who qualifies...

We shouldn't rule any of them out, or we shouldn't assume that they are therefore not independent."

Ng Kok Song "misquoted" him: Tharman

Tharman also said that Ng had "completely misquoted" him on the former's reference to "a fund management company that depends on government monies" during the CNA forum.

In his statement, Ng had said:

"(Tharman) also went on to say that private companies, construction companies, and fund management companies are also dependent on the government and thus could be seen as not independent.

First, Mr Tharman’s remark about the fund management company is clearly about me, and I would like to respond to that. I have said during this campaign that, should I be elected President, I will fully divest my ownership of Avanda.

This is a worthwhile financial sacrifice to ensure the independence and impartiality of the office of the presidency."

At the media doorstop, Tharman said Ng seemed to have thought that because Tharman had alluded to the fact that the latter ran a fund management company dependent on government money, he was therefore not independent.

But Tharman clarified that he was actually trying to make the opposite point.

"I said the opposite actually, I said it doesn't mean you're not independent.

The whole point I'm making is whether you're a member of a political party, or you've been a top civil servant, or you're running a company that's dependent on the government for its business — the whole issue is your character."

Partisanship

Tharman also pointed out that "we should not assume that people are partisan because they've been a member of a political party".

"I mean, everyone knows me, in my instance. They just know that my whole orientation has been nonpartisan," he said, and referred to a past, unspecified "disagreement with the government".

"But leaving myself aside, don't assume that people are partisan simply because they have decided to enter politics.

I entered politics to serve Singaporeans. And I've always had a tilt in my views, because I wanted to serve Singaporeans who are from lower incomes, and who've had less chances in life."

"We shouldn't make these sweeping statements that everyone in politics is there because they're partisan," Tharman continued.

"It's naive, it's misleading. But it also I think, just weakens our whole culture, of how we view political parties, how we view politics, how we view governance, and most importantly, here, you're talking about the elected presidency."

Tharman referred to previous presidents, like Ong Teng Cheong and SR Nathan, and said one shouldn't assume they have been serving the political agenda of the ruling party, despite Ong's past links to the PAP, and SR Nathan's career as a civil servant who was appointed by ministers.

"Very unfortunate" if people spoil votes due to politicisation of election

Additionally, Tharman responded to a question about the possibility of people spoiling their votes to express their displeasure towards the government.

"I think that'll be very unfortunate," he said. "Again, it's because of this whole atmosphere around the elected presidency, that has been politicised too much, I think."

He urged Singaporeans to "take this seriously" and said he respected everyone's vote, "whichever way they decide to do it."

"This is about our future. There will be a General Election coming along, where people will have a chance to decide on which political party they support, which political leaders they support. They should focus on that when it comes to political views.

I'm just here to serve every Singaporean. And if I'm fortunate enough to be elected, that includes those who vote against me."

Related stories:

Top image by Mothership