"Credibility at stake" - SM Goh
-
This also showed that the govt had been telling lie. Didn't some minsiters said something to the effect that "it is not decided yet. We can walk out of it if it is no good"?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Ha...Freudian slip...so he confirms what we had suspected all along. This talk about public consultation before making the decision is all a farce. Make a big show about public consultation...and invite proposals for the casino. If the response is poor, they can say that they will not proceed 'cos they are sensitive to public sentiments. If the response is good, as it is, they say they have to proceed or lose credibility.
The government is losing credibility in the eys of Singaporeans
Anyway, we are used to the way the PAP rule the country - they know best so they decide everything for us.
Btw, aren't their renumerations pegged to the commercial sector's? How come they don't adopt the private sector way of doing business: business proposals are called without any obligations. -
Actually MM Lee also said the same thing about credibility at stake. He even said more and something very chilling He said that those ministers who feel very strongly against the casino should leave.
-
DId he?!
Can you provide the source of your information? -
here is one source from the new paperOriginally posted by lwflee:DId he?! Can you provide the source of your information?
http://newpaper.asiaone.com/news/story/0,4136,86993,00.html
{{{AS the Cabinet comes to grips with what's clearly been an internally divisive issue, Mr Lee Kuan Yew - true to his role as Minister Mentor to the present younger team of leaders - has dished out this piece of advice.
'After leaving Cabinet, we don't discuss differences, because otherwise it's impossible to run a government,' said Mr Lee in Parliament yesterday.
'You will also totally confuse the followers if... on every important issue, you have dissenting voices put across to the public.'
'At the end of the day, you close ranks and you carry out the policy.'
MM Lee reminded his colleagues: 'We are not bound by ideology or religion... If anybody feels strongly enough, he may leave the Government.'
The Cabinet had made its final decision at a special meeting on 9 Apr - where, in PM Lee Hsien Loong's words, the ministers 'collectively concluded that we had no choice but to proceed with the IRs'.}}} -
Ok, his quote about leaving the govt is imo spot on. He is talking about collective responsibility there. Once the cabinet has made its decision, it becomes the resposibility of all Ministers in the cabinet. No one in the cabinet should be able to turn around and say, "Hey, it wasn'y my idea. Its not my fault". If a minister disagrees strongly enough, he should resign.Originally posted by commonsense:here is one source from the new paper
http://newpaper.asiaone.com/news/story/0,4136,86993,00.html
{{{AS the Cabinet comes to grips with what's clearly been an internally divisive issue, Mr Lee Kuan Yew - true to his role as Minister Mentor to the present younger team of leaders - has dished out this piece of advice.
'After leaving Cabinet, we don't discuss differences, because otherwise it's impossible to run a government,' said Mr Lee in Parliament yesterday.
'You will also totally confuse the followers if... on every important issue, you have dissenting voices put across to the public.'
'At the end of the day, you close ranks and you carry out the policy.'
MM Lee reminded his colleagues: 'We are not bound by ideology or religion... If anybody feels strongly enough, he may leave the Government.'
The Cabinet had made its final decision at a special meeting on 9 Apr - where, in PM Lee Hsien Loong's words, the ministers 'collectively concluded that we had no choice but to proceed with the IRs'.}}}
This system is also in place in countries like the UK. For eg. Robin Cook and Claire Short resigned over the UK's government decision to go to war.
What i am uncomfortable with, however, is the fact that this old man is still intefering in government. In my opinion, He's outstayed his welcome.. Also, i don't like the terminology he uses. What Followers? I Hope he is not refering to the public. I am a citizen, not the government's follower. Last i heard Mr Lee, YOU are on the public's payroll. -
LKY shd have a gun pointed at his forehead for being there for so long. He's a money blood sucker and an outdated piece of $hitte!
Let's face it, this old fart doesn't belong in this modern era and his management 'skills' are outdated as well. We aren't in the 60s when communists posed a threat anymore.
His 'communist' excuses for retaining the ISA sounds as phony as crap for one. -
Originally posted by commonsense:
That's typical of him.
here is one source from the new paper
http://newpaper.asiaone.com/news/story/0,4136,86993,00.html
{{{AS the Cabinet comes to grips with what's clearly been an internally divisive issue, Mr Lee Kuan Yew - true to his role as Minister Mentor to the present younger team of leaders - has dished out this piece of advice.
'After leaving Cabinet, we don't discuss differences, because otherwise it's impossible to run a government,' said Mr Lee in Parliament yesterday.
'You will also totally confuse the followers if... on every important issue, you have dissenting voices put across to the public.'
'At the end of the day, you close ranks and you carry out the policy.'
MM Lee reminded his colleagues: 'We are not bound by ideology or religion... If anybody feels strongly enough, he may leave the Government.'
The Cabinet had made its final decision at a special meeting on 9 Apr - where, in PM Lee Hsien Loong's words, the ministers 'collectively concluded that we had no choice but to proceed with the IRs'.}}}
What he meant is simple:
You can have your varied views, but at the end of the day that a decision is made (after discussion in Cabinet), you gotta support the decision maker despite the varied view, since men ain't same and varied views are almost always there. That is, don't end up a split government, '...if you feel strongly enough, he may leave...'.
However, the public, once thrown into factions in a mega manner/fashion (that the Casino issue is not only opened online, ad big time in mainstream medias, events held big...), it is not really the leaders who'd offer confusion.
Casino itself as a topic is already a confusion unleashed. Outside the government, members of public from any factions/backgrounds and such can protest and support.
There is a basic political difference between personal disagreement/agreement and official role.
Just my 1ct view.