PHILIP YEO: NO VALUE SYSTEM, NO FUTURE
-
Unfortunately, this is but the first time that my views will differ from that stated by you.
Originally posted by BillyBong:
MM Lee and Philip Yeo can hardly belong to the same generation, as Philip Yeo is a product of MM LKY's generational work; and begun to behave in the same pushy manner as LKY - as mentioned by Retired Senior Civil Servant Ngiam Tong Dow
Men like MM Lee and Philip Yeo belong to an era where putting the fear into people in order to drive them was a better method then earning their respect and loyalty.
Yet one cannot deny the results. It is easy to say that with such a strong financial backing, anyone can duplicate his success; but that's rhetorical speech, as it's just as easy to end up losing your millions in a bad investment.
Philip Yeo is already stepping down, change will take place, and A*Star will get the reforms it needs. The sparring match between himself and Dr Lee Wei Ling was already his swansong.
Both ignored the good counsel of others in their respective Teams, and achieved the results that we are burdened with - whether good or bad as seen and experienced by different Singaporeans.Originally posted by BillyBong:
LKY is revered and respected as much by many Singaporeans, as also hated by those whom he had unfairly treated, and continue to suppressed the "Truth" from being revealed.
Those who cannot deny his successes will probably agree with you: that they do not see eye to eye with him or his ideas.
Let's not forget Philip Yeo himself is probably respected and loved by those whom he nurtured, scholars who made it big with his system, those who prospered as a result of it.
No one system is best for all. There are also those few who fail to make the cut. The difference is whether one can recognize it and prevent themselves from falling into this trap.
Our system doesn't not tolerate failures, and Philip Yeo's is just a plain example of it. The only difference is that the bar was set phenomenally high.
While no one system is best for all, do we have the best system as it is today - given the closed political, social, economic and cultural environment that the MAJORITY of Singaporeans are familiar with ?
Is Philip Yeo the "be-all-and-end-all" authority in the manner that the Best of Singapore's Future is to be moulded, or do Singaporean not have a say in the values of ourselves as an INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY ?
Is everything said by the supposedly Elected Government merely political rhetoric, and not count for anything ?Originally posted by BillyBong:
Without any further chiding or reminder, the stark reality of failure is quite clear to Singaporeans.
We mustn't forget that the price for failure is exceedingly high, especially in SG context.
Getting results is all that matters. A society that tolerates failure may breed a bunch of half-baked technocrats in the long run; pointing out the ruthless streak required to make it big is just reality. Nobody ever said success is achieved without sacrifice. By the same concept, some resolves are hardened by failures, while others crumble; it's merely separating the wheat from the chauff.
As the saying goes, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I'm not disagreeing that at some point, we should take a step back and ponder if our direction is for the best. Some mistakes have to be made along the way, but the cost has to be acknowledged and analysed to ensure no repeat incident occurs.
However, what has the leadership done to nurture and encourage success, and prevent the Singapore Society from accepting failure as second best ?
Has it not been a fact that the Singapore Leadership has nurtured an environment that guarantee success for its own exclusively monopolistic and absorbing enterprises and ideas; while creating a hugely competitive environment for Singaporeans ?
It is easy for Philip Yeo to preach about - NO VALUE SYSTEM, NO FUTURE; when the values are created by his own self-interest, and the Future is already staked out for him and the Government.
Is there any system to accomodate the values of the Majority of Singaporeans ?
Is there a Future for our Singaporean Values ?
Does the Singapore Leadership accept the values of the MAJORITY of Singaporeans ? -
By that argument, we shouldn't even be in Biotech research. The price for failure in biotech can be very high. A pharmaceutical company has gone off laying off entire laboratories just because of one drug's failure. That wasn't even the first time that has happened. Even if we pick low risk research, the returns aren't great at all. The point of A*Star is not to produce technocrats but scientists! There's a huge difference between technocrats and scientists! Aside from the fact the former are bureaucrats and not even scientists for that matter.Originally posted by BillyBong:We mustn't forget that the price for failure is exceedingly high, especially in SG context.
Getting results is all that matters. A society that tolerates failure may breed a bunch of half-baked technocrats in the long run; pointing out the ruthless streak required to make it big is just reality. Nobody ever said success is achieved without sacrifice. By the same concept, some resolves are hardened by failures, while others crumble; it's merely separating the wheat from the chauff.
As the saying goes, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I'm not disagreeing that at some point, we should take a step back and ponder if our direction is for the best. Some mistakes have to be made along the way, but the cost has to be acknowledged and analysed to ensure no repeat incident occurs. -
now the "in" thing seems to be clean energy research. Apparently,sg is being groomed to be a clean energy hub in the future by 2015,creating 7000 jobs for the people in the industry(of which i guess majority goes to foreign 'talent' as usual)
I really think we shd be in the Guinness World Records for being the country trying to have the most number of hubs. And make that world-class hubs too. Sg will be known as "Hub of the hubs".
Why not call ourselves Singhubporeans?
im so proud of our CEO and their board of directors' visions to dabble in virtually ANYTHING, as long as it can make $$$ for them. Casino, IR, F1, Clean energy R&D...wat nxt? nuclear energy research perhaps?
Truly traits of Uniquely Singhubpore.
-
The Govt is actually known for being incredibly slow with catching up with trends. Bureaucrats are always very conservative and naturally are slow. THen the Govt would naturally hurl money at the problem as usual.Originally posted by forumer84:now the "in" thing seems to be clean energy research. Apparently,sg is being groomed to be a clean energy hub in the future by 2015,creating 7000 jobs for the people in the industry(of which i guess majority goes to foreign 'talent' as usual)
I really think we shd be in the Guinness World Records for being the country trying to have the most number of hubs. And make that world-class hubs too. Sg will be known as "Hub of the hubs".
Why not call ourselves Singhubporeans?
im so proud of our CEO and their board of directors' visions to dabble in virtually ANYTHING, as long as it can make $$$ for them. Casino, IR, F1, Clean energy R&D...wat nxt? nuclear energy research perhaps?
Truly traits of Uniquely Singhubpore. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Philip Yeo is widely considered a 'Protégé' to MM Lee, possibly a reminder of how firebrand Lee was in his days as a political activist. Both methods and ideals are identical, and it is an open secret Yeo had the silent backing of MM Lee during his tenure as head of A*Star.
MM Lee and Philip Yeo can hardly belong to the same generation, as Philip Yeo is a product of MM LKY's generational work; and begun to behave in the same pushy manner as LKY - as mentioned by Retired Senior Civil Servant Ngiam Tong Dow
Both ignored the good counsel of others in their respective Teams, and achieved the results that we are burdened with - whether good or bad as seen and experienced by different Singaporeans.
Possibly the only thing lacking is Yeo's relatively inept command of the English language as compared to Lee. His tit-for-tat spat with the ex-A*star scholar exposed his petulance and emotional tandrums and could easily have been outmanoeuvred had the scholar been a little more diplomatic.
Ironically, his daughter's recent sparring match prompted a silent audience from the head honcho (Lee), lest people start claiming that the Lee houshold is 'not in order'.
We will never know whether taking the 'good advice' may have led to equally good (or better) results. Yet we cannot deny the success his brand of leadership has brought.
LetÂ’s not forget that change takes time. We cannot expect overnight results, nor should we demand them.
LKY is revered and respected as much by many Singaporeans, as also hated by those whom he had unfairly treated, and continue to suppressed the "Truth" from being revealed.
While no one system is best for all, do we have the best system as it is today - given the closed political, social, economic and cultural environment that the MAJORITY of Singaporeans are familiar with ?
Is Philip Yeo the "be-all-and-end-all" authority in the manner that the Best of Singapore's Future is to be moulded, or do Singaporean not have a say in the values of ourselves as an INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY ?
Is everything said by the supposedly Elected Government merely political rhetoric, and not count for anything ?
Dr LeeÂ’s points concerning the biotech investment clearly rattled Philip Yeo, prompting a rather sarcastic response which in turn saw an equally blunt reply from Dr Lee. The can of worms it opened will surely keep A*star on their toes, and any failed investment will almost certainly be an embarrassment now that the issue has been discussed in the open. With Philip Yeo leaving the organisation, expect A*star to appoint a more diplomatic face as incoming chairman.
It took a heavyweight to put a street bully in his place, and her comments echoed the silent majority of educated dissenters, so for once, at least there was a voice of reason spoken loud and clear, never mind that it came from a member of the Lee Family.
Unfortunately, for success, every system used will undoubtedly leave behind debris in its destructive wake. Ours is no different.
Without any further chiding or reminder, the stark reality of failure is quite clear to Singaporeans.
However, what has the leadership done to nurture and encourage success, and prevent the Singapore Society from accepting failure as second best ?
Has it not been a fact that the Singapore Leadership has nurtured an environment that guarantee success for its own exclusively monopolistic and absorbing enterprises and ideas; while creating a hugely competitive environment for Singaporeans ?
It is easy for Philip Yeo to preach about - NO VALUE SYSTEM, NO FUTURE; when the values are created by his own self-interest, and the Future is already staked out for him and the Government.
Is there any system to accomodate the values of the Majority of Singaporeans ?
Is there a Future for our Singaporean Values ?
Does the Singapore Leadership accept the values of the MAJORITY of Singaporeans ?
Like the analogy of the private sector, CEOs hire people who can work with them, and not work against them. No one ever brings in people who object and raise questions on a daily basis. And even if one disagrees, they do so discreetly and through proper channels. There is always a select protocol involved when dealing with top leadership.
Again I am not condoning the monopolistic style of our current government, but leaders, whether good or bad, will always have their detractors. It is therefore important to target only the critical mistakes that have been made. No point aiming the whole forest and missing the trees.
In the stark reality of life, it is unfortunately the leaders who take all the credit, while their subordinates do all the leg work. Raffles will forever be remembered as the founder of Singapore, but the forgotten William Farquhar was the unassuming grunt who managed the island state.
Similarly, after its immense success and progress over the years, everyone remembers only the ‘founding father’ of Singapore, and visionaries like Goh Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen are sadly consigned to history, only to be remembered by those who acknowledged their supreme contributions over the one who merely talked the talk.
It is therefore change that will consign the backward thinkers in our current leadership to historical oblivion, once Singaporeans learn to wield their vote with more authority and less ‘fear’.
With those who clearly reject Philip Yeo’s ‘NO VALUE SYSTEM, NO FUTURE’, as seen in ‘My way or the highway’ and ‘No place for discussion in Philip Yeo’s value system’, surely hope remains for the future that not all Singaporeans will abandon their homeland, but instead stay and fight?