Who would have thought that the campaign of a former chairman of a media group would be found wanting in the field of public communications. There was and is a decent narrative to his son’s 12-yr disruption.
Ignoring minor gaffes aside (censoring comments and not knowing how FaceBook works), there was one major balls-up: the failure to frame the debate of son’s 12-yr deferment within the “medical disruption” exception.
It didn’t work. The facts came out. See this (esp 1-7). Any queries should be addressed to Mindef, not the Tans. But because the now infamous reply to Jessica tried to frame the issue within the narrow confines of “disruption for medical studies” , and failed, people are not interested in giving the Tans the benefit of the doubt. The Tans should give each communications adviser a few tight slaps.
Because the sad and funny thing is that there was a perfectly good narrative to exploit. If an extremely bright student wants a 12-yr disruption so that he can undertake privately (at no expense to the tax payer) a course of study that could be of value to Singapore, why shouldn’t he ask for it? Why shouldn’t dad agree that his son should make the request?
It would be for Mindef to decide, not Tony Tan who was then minister for education.
Unfortunately most of the value of this narrative has been destroyed by the reaction to the attempt by the Tan team to frame the 12-yr disruption within the “medical studies” exemption. People focus on the fact that 12-yr disruption is very long for medical studies and that anyway he is still not a qualified MD. So what’s this tosh abt disuption to be an MD? They are not willing to see it in any other way.
And given the fishmonger incident, one suspects Tony Tan is not meant to be president. Maybe the stars are aligned for Doc Tan Cheng Bock. I sure hope for the sake of S’poreans, they are not aligned for the “People’s Voice”. Or is it “People’s Megaphone”?