Is PM Lee serious with promises in inauguration speech?
-
PM Lee in his inauguration speech, has advised people to speech up and said that he is prepared to answer their arguments but added that people who speak up must be prepared for robust arguments with the PAP.
I have paid attention to his progress over the past two years to see if he was any different from his predecessor and father and is his own man and will set new direction to allow Singapore to grow again instead of being choked by all the past autocratic bumbling stifling our social and economic vibrancy.
Sadly, PM Lee has not kept his words to date to enter into robust debates on real issues and problems affecting the people as shown by postings in this forum.
On the other hand, he has tried to make it look like the past policies are working well and there is no problems by getting his ministers only to come out with the same fallacious assumptions and conceptual governing method of the past.
To me, he has not changed from his father's iron-fisted assumptions that people must pay and pay to the state coffers and obey all the government ministers' corporatisation and privatisation policies.
It is now two years since PM Lee took over the helm from GCT so sufficient time has been given to him to show change.
Apart from pre-arranged forums on TV on specific topics relating to government's giving of goodies to the electorate he does not seem interested in debating us in this feedback forum.
In this Feedback Forum, people have debated that the government has created "20 Major Policy problems" which were not solved to date.
Forumers have pointed out the high cost of living and dropping incomes of the ordinary citizens are serious problem not recognized and not solved to date.
The system of charging the people i.e. double-charging on land (HDB flats) and triple-charging on vehicles show that the ministers do not know or care about impact of over-charging on economy.
If PM Lee is sincere and not trying to mull over such problems created by his predecessors, he should now before the election debate the forumers here on these few key issues and stop trying to cover up such problems through prearranged media interviews and talk-shows on TV.
Without being objective, frank and outright honest, in leading the country, Singapore has little future and future might be full of instability and chaos as I see it.
In particular, he should answer to the point of forumers that high costs of living is bad for the people and the ministers should govern the country taking into account impact of overcharging of fees on the economy and argue with forumers robustly in a reasonably objective point-by-point reply.
Otherwise to me everything represented by him and what he has said in his inauguration speech will come across as bull and NKF. -
Here is an extract of Susan Long's Straits Times' report on what Ngiam Tong Dow (taken from Atobe's post):-
S'pore 'bigger than PAP'
Time to get off the autopilot, says a former civil servant
By Susan Long
SINCE Mr Ngiam Tong Dow retired from the civil service in 1999, affairs of state have weighed heavily on his mind. The highly respected former Permanent Secretary worries about Singapore's long-term survival and the kind of society the next generation will inherit.
At 66, the HDB Corp chairman insists he is 'no radical', just a concerned Singaporean with three grandchildren, who wonders 'whether there will be a Singapore for them in 50 years' time'. In Tea with Think, a weekly interview series, he gives a candid appraisal of the civil service, and his prognosis of what the lack of an alternative political leadership means for Singapore. The interview will be continued next week.
Q. With all this pessimism surrounding Singapore's prospects today, what's your personal prognosis? Will Singapore survive Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew?
A. Unequivocally yes, Singapore will survive SM Lee but provided he leaves the right legacy.
What sort of legacy he wants to leave is for him to say, but I, a blooming upstart, dare to suggest to him that we should open up politically and allow talent to be spread throughout our society so that an alternative leadership can emerge.
So far, the People's Action Party's tactic is to put all the scholars into the civil service because it believes the way to retain political power forever is to have a monopoly on talent. But in my view, that's a very short term view.
It is the law of nature that all things must atrophy. Unless SM allows serious political challenges to emerge from the alternative elite out there, the incumbent elite will just coast along.
At the first sign of a grassroots revolt, they will probably collapse just like the incumbent Progressive Party to the left-wing PAP onslaught in the late 1950s.
I think our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP.
Q. What would be a useful first step in opening up?
A. For Singapore to survive, we should release half our talent - our President and Overseas Merit scholars - to the private sector.
When ten scholars come home, five should turn to the right and join the public sector or the civil service; the other five should turn to the left and join the private sector.
These scholars should serve their bond to Singapore - not to the Government - by working in or for Singapore overseas. As matters stand, those who wish to strike out have to break their bonds, pay a financial penalty and worse, be condemned as quitters.
But it takes a certain temperament and mindset to be a civil servant. The former head of the civil service, Sim Kee Boon, once said that joining the administrative service is like entering a royal priesthood. Not all of us have the temperament to be priests.
However upright a person is, the mandarin will in time begin to live a gilded life in a gilded cage.
As a Permanent Secretary, I never had to worry whether I could pay my staff their wages. It was all provided for in the Budget.
As chairman of DBS Bank, I worried about wages only 20 per cent of the time.
I now face my greatest business challenge as chairman of HDB Corp, a new start-up spun off from HDB. I spend 90 per cent of my time worrying whether I have enough to pay my staff at the end of the month.
It's a mental switch.
Q. What is your biggest worry about the civil service?
A. The greatest danger is we are flying on auto-pilot. What was once a great policy, we just carry on with more of the same, until reality intervenes.
Take our industrial policy. At the beginning, it was the right thing for us to attract multinationals to Singapore.
For some years now, I've been trying to tell everybody: 'Look, for God's sake, grow our own timber.' If we really want knowledge to be rooted in Singaporeans and based in Singapore, we have to support our SMEs. I'm not a supporter of SMEs just for the sake of more SMEs but we must grow our own roots. Creative Technology's Sim Wong Hoo is one and Hyflux's Olivia Lum is another but that's too few.
We have been flying on auto-pilot for too long. The MNCs have contributed a lot to Singapore but they are totally unsentimental people. The moment you're uncompetitive, they just relocate.
Q. Why has this come about?
A. I suspect we have started to believe our own propaganda.
There is also a particular brand of Singapore elite arrogance creeping in . Some civil servants behave like they have a mandate from the emperor. We think we are little Lee Kuan Yews.
SM Lee has earned his spurs, with his fine intellect and international standing. But even Lee Kuan Yew sometimes doesn't behave like Lee Kuan Yew.
There is also a trend of intellectualisation for its own sake, which loses a sense of the pragmatic concerns of the larger world.
The Chinese, for example, keep good archives of the Imperial examinations which used to be held at the Temple of Heaven.
At the beginning, the scholars were tested on very practical subjects, such as how to control floods in their province. But over time, they were examined on the Confucian Analects and Chinese poetry composition.
Hence, they became emasculated by the system, a worrying fate which could befall Singapore.
Q. But aren't you an exception to the norm of the gilded mandarin with zero bottomline consciousness?
A. That's because I started out with Economic Development Board in the 1959. Investment promotion then was all about hard foot slogging and personal persuasion, which teaches you to be very humble and patient.
I learnt to be a supplicant and a professional beggar, instead of a dispenser of favours. These days, most civil servants start out administering the law. If I had my way, every administrative officer would start his or her career in the EDB.
-------------------------------------------------
Hard foot slogging
1959: First class honours in economics from University of Malaya.
1959: Joined Administrative Service. Postings to the former Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Finance Ministry, and the Economic Development Board.
1964: Topped his Master's in Public Administration programme at Harvard University.
1970: Became the youngest-ever Permanent Secretary at age 33 at the Ministry of Communications. Subsequent postings as Perm Sec in the Ministries of Finance, Trade & Industry, National Development, and the Prime Minister's Office.
1990: Appointed chairman of Development Bank Of Singapore. Later also of the Central Provident Fund Board and HDB.
1999: Retired from the civil service as Permanent Secretary (Finance), a post he held for 13 years.
2003: Named chairman of HDB Corp. Currently also a director of Yeo Hiap Seng Limited, United Overseas Bank and Singapore Press Holding
..........SUGGESTION TO PM LEE HSIEN LOONG.........
So with the above-stated report on Ngiam Tong Dow's inner thoughts on PAP's shortcomings e.g.
(1) Auto-piloting of policies e.g. education streaming system (into EM1/EM2, scolars and non-scholars), high-cost tax-and-recover corporatization and privatisation aimed at building surpluses which have caused our losses of social and economic vibrancy.
(2) Over-promoting the elites based on academic assumptions, neglecting practical talents and broad-based education at the expense of nurturing growths of entrepreneurship and creativity.
If indeed, PM Lee Hsien Loong has analysed and understood what caused Singapore economy to be checkmated from the 1970s, he should have attended to fundamental changes on above-stated problems.
I would suggest that in this election, he and his ministers and MPs seriously address such form of autocratic auto-piloting and ponder long and hard on NKF and Susan Long's report on Ngiam Tong Dow's comments on what went wrong and introduce big changes to past policies which cause problems and the economy to go down.
............................................................................... -
I've read your above with my deepest concerns, last night our whole family were glued to the TV expecting NKF SAGA topic to be heard.Originally posted by robertteh:PM Lee in his inauguration speech, has advised people to speech up and said that he is prepared to answer their arguments but added that people who speak up must be prepared for robust arguments with the PAP.
I have paid attention to his progress over the past two years to see if he was any different from his predecessor and father and is his own man and will set new direction to allow Singapore to grow again instead of being choked by all the past autocratic bumbling stifling our social and economic vibrancy.
Sadly, PM Lee has not kept his words to date to enter into robust debates on real issues and problems affecting the people as shown by postings in this forum.
On the other hand, he has tried to make it look like the past policies are working well and there is no problems by getting his ministers only to come out with the same fallacious assumptions and conceptual governing method of the past.
To me, he has not changed from his father's iron-fisted assumptions that people must pay and pay to the state coffers and obey all the government ministers' corporatisation and privatisation policies.
It is now two years since PM Lee took over the helm from GCT so sufficient time has been given to him to show change.
Apart from pre-arranged forums on TV on specific topics relating to government's giving of goodies to the electorate he does not seem interested in debating us in this feedback forum.
In this Feedback Forum, people have debated that the government has created "20 Major Policy problems" which were not solved to date.
Forumers have pointed out the high cost of living and dropping incomes of the ordinary citizens are serious problem not recognized and not solved to date.
The system of charging the people i.e. double-charging on land (HDB flats) and triple-charging on vehicles show that the ministers do not know or care about impact of over-charging on economy.
If PM Lee is sincere and not trying to mull over such problems created by his predecessors, he should now before the election debate the forumers here on these few key issues and stop trying to cover up such problems through prearranged media interviews and talk-shows on TV.
Without being objective, frank and outright honest, in leading the country, Singapore has little future and future might be full of instability and chaos as I see it.
In particular, he should answer to the point of forumers that high costs of living is bad for the people and the ministers should govern the country taking into account impact of overcharging of fees on the economy and argue with forumers robustly in a reasonably objective point-by-point reply.
Otherwise to me everything represented by him and what he has said in his inauguration speech will come across as bull and NKF.
Sadly, there is'nt any NKF issues being reviewed. We've have to force ourself to take this Inauguration Speech in Gan Gan Wen Zhong li as another Funny Gao Xiao Xing Dong show directed by our Mr.Jack Neo.
Laugh with Tears ! -
In the recent Mandarin forum on Channel 8, broadcast on Saturday - amongst the panel of participants were some selected Singaporeans from all walks of life - including Jack Neo.
Mr Jack Neo, Film Director, says: "I want to ask the Prime Minister whether you think Singaporeans have enough money?"
How could the PM know if Singaporeans have any feeling that we don't have enough money, when his needs are all taken care of as a PM, and with a joint income with his wife that will total over $2 Million a year at least, and with him never experiencing what poverty and tight family budget is about throughout his life?
Mr Lee says: "I think many Singaporeans have a feeling that they don't have enough money. Why?
I don't know. You are an expert in the matter, so you should know better." - CNA/deBut he stressed that discussions on politics must be taken seriously, not as jokes, as in the case in some countries in the West .
Is this not an irony that PM LHL will speak of "politics must be taken seriously, not as jokes - when in Singapore, POLITICS as practised by the Ruling Political Party IS A JOKE ?
Speaking at a Chinese current affairs forum organised by MediaCorp TV Channel 8, he said that countries can become unstable if political figures are not given basic respect and acceptance.
Said Mr Lee, "Politics needs a proposition and an opposition. Disagreements and different opinions are acceptable, but we must treat the subject seriously. We can keep it informal, like today's discussion; this is informal." - CNA /ct
Is it surprising that PM LHL will demand that political figures need to be "given basic respect and acceptance" - when the Ruling Political Party has never given any respect nor acceptance of Opposition Parties and their leadership - with his father (MM LKY) giving the best virtuoso performance in deriding JBJ ?
Does PM LHL truly believe that "Politics needs a proposition and an opposition" , or is this mere rhetoric ?
The manner in which the Ruling Political Party treated WITHOUT ANY RESPECT the Workers' Party Manifesto clearly shows the standard of politics that the Ruling Political Party is capable of - and if that itself is not a JOKE, what possibly can the future hold for Politics in Singapore ?
From ChannelNewsAsia -
You can never comprehend the minds of geniuses.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
It is common sence and I had came to my own sence that The 1st April 2006, Inaguration Speech Title "Gan Gan Wen Zhong Li" is completely a very good and tricky.......... APRIL FOOL !
In the recent Mandarin forum on Channel 8, broadcast on Saturday - amongst the panel of participants were some selected Singaporeans from all walks of life - including Jack Neo.
Is this not an irony that PM LHL will speak of "politics must be taken seriously, not as jokes - when in Singapore, POLITICS as practised by the Ruling Political Party [b]IS A JOKE ?
Is it surprising that PM LHL will demand that political figures need to be "given basic respect and acceptance" - when the Ruling Political Party has never given any respect nor acceptance of Opposition Parties and their leadership - with his father (MM LKY) giving the best virtuoso performance in deriding JBJ ?
Does PM LHL truly believe that "Politics needs a proposition and an opposition" , or is this mere rhetoric ?
The manner in which the Ruling Political Party treated WITHOUT ANY RESPECT the Workers' Party Manifesto clearly shows the standard of politics that the Ruling Political Party is capable of - and if that itself is not a JOKE, what possibly can the future hold for Politics in Singapore ?
From ChannelNewsAsia
[/b]
So please don't take it serious about what they've said. -
That sounds exactly like Chairman Mao when he announced the "bai hua qi fang, bai niao zheng ming" campaign (let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred birds sing).
What came after that was the Cultural Revolution..