LHL should give his salary incr to Papa...
-
LHL should give his salary incr to Papa...
Better LKY step down bef he falls ill/ dies in office... otherwise, economy will crash as investors opionate tt ministers cannot manage w-out a unique mentor for Ministers...
Ordinary logic applies to extraordinary countries too... LKY should earn his >$3M giving talks (like Clinton... after retiring for Head of Country posts) ; still serve as MP/ volunteer as member on various Special Ministerial comittees etc. (Or spend his time in other enriching activities.)
Being founding member of PAP, LKY can surely exert his moral influence w/o the imposing 'MM' title... SG should be projected as an egalitarian, happy and progressive country, Not "Singapore Inc: the Lee family business".
Maybe LHL should give his salary incr to Papa, I won't mind the turn around...
(food for thought...)
TODAYonline- http://www.todayonline.com/articles/184814.asp
Two good leaders who missed being great
'A great leader is one who plans his exit when he or she enters the job.' – Anonymous
Tuesday • April 24, 2007
P N Balji: Editorial Director, [email protected]
IN A country which has made succession an obsession, two top achievers, both with a banyan-tree approach to management, have left their high-profile jobs and must be asking themselves: What went wrong?
The story of Mr Philip Yeo and Mr Tan Kin Lian is a sad one indeed.
Instead of being remembered for his achievements in making Singapore a safe bet for investors or in creating Jurong Island out of practically nothing and turning it into a hive of activity for the chemicals industry, or for having the daring to plunge into research and development (R&D) when there were many naysayers, the Philip Yeo story is having an unpalatable footnote.
He has left the driver's seat at A*Star for a non-executive job as chairman of Spring Singapore without fulfilling his R&D dream and without identifying and mentoring a successor. Even worse was getting into another round of verbal sparring with a young bond-breaker whom he had already dealt with two years ago.
In the case of Mr Tan, taking NTUC Income from an asset base of $28 million 30 years ago — when this young man with a hard-luck story joined the organisation as general manager — to $17 billion when he left as CEO is no mean feat.
When Today was launched in November 2000, Mr Tan was one of the very few corporate chieftains who saw the need for competition and supported the product with advertising dollars and by endorsing it personally on TV.
He was a breath of fresh air in a corporate world known for having "no comment". He angered his rivals when he spoke his mind about the ills of the insurance industry, stumped motor workshops when he went on a one-man crusade against inflated accident claims and raised eyebrows when he wrote about social issues, definitely not in a politically-correct way.
Anecdotes and statistics tell only half the story. The other half is about a man who had a tight control on nearly everything that happened in the insurance cooperative. Every press release, even an innocuous one-line statement, had to be approved by him. Every advertisement had to be vetted by him. It was central control all the way.
And when it came to succession, there was really nobody in sight.
With a new chairman on board, attempts were made to bring in a couple of scholars and heavyweights, the most striking of them being insurance industry heavyweight Stanley Jeremiah. But Mr Jeremiah left in a huff last year, thus precipitating Mr Tan's departure.
What went wrong in a story that should have ended as sweetly as it started for both luminaries?
They didn't know when to step down, or at least step aside. And they had not identified and nurtured a successor.
When a leader has a successor at the ready, the thought of leaving the scene is always at the back of his or her mind.
Of course, when to step down is not a science. There is never a right time, never a perfect occasion. There is always the next target to chase, the next battle to fight.
World champion boxer Muhammad Ali never knew when to stop. He came rumbling back after winning the world crown thrice. The result: Humiliating defeat after defeat.
So, all you leaders out there: Take a leaf from former South African President Nelson Mandela's book. Jailed for 27 years, he went on to become President, identified a successor, handed over power after just one term in office and rode into the sunset a contented and happy man.
In those five years in power, he set the tone for his country and the world by pardoning all the brutal wrongdoings of whites during the repressive apartheid years.
That, in my book, is a great leader.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved. -
Do you seriously think LKY even had the remote charm of a dog, much less the charm of someone as capable and charismatic as Clinton?Originally posted by bic_cherry:Ordinary logic applies to extraordinary countries too... LKY should earn his >$3M giving talks (like Clinton...)
Clinton's presidential achievements commands respect in much of the free world - and that's the primary motivation behind why his talks are much sought-after and in demand. I'd be amazed if LKY could fill a third of any auditorium for a talk for which entrants had to pay.
Clinton hailed from a modest background and rose through the ranks to take the helm of the highest office in a democracy which is envied by many all over the world. Here's a man who did wonders with an economy over the span of 8 years which is unrivalled even by American standards (116 months of consecutive economic growth by the time he left office, transforming the highest budget deficit ever when he took office into the highest budget surplus ever when he left office, among other things) - and he did all that fighting a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8-year tenure.
The criminal, on the other hand, came from a privileged background and still needs to resort to tightening the noose around his press (to churn out his propaganda which conveys little truth about his achievements) to flex his muscle. It's remarkable how much Singapore's success story is attributed to him and his regime and so little to others who were instrumental in putting him in a position to do so to begin with. He doesn't even have the experience of leading a coalition government. You expect someone like that to be taken seriously on a global stage? If he had to make a living from giving talks around the world, he'd probably have starved to death.
It says a lot : Clinton makes millions (and actually donates a substantial portion of his income from such talks to his William J. Clinton foundation that oversees various worthy causes around the world) from giving talks around the world on his merit; criminals need to resort to paying themselves millions on the basis of abusing their political power to push through legislations they'd never succeed in doing had they relied on their merit. -
3 person to do 1 person's job? 3 of them should share 1 person pay. After sharing, they are still getting more than a peanut.
-
Dude you better tone yourself down. Dont invite troubles on your door. Anonimity on the web doesnt mean you are protected from being sued for slander and stuff like that.Originally posted by walesa:Do you seriously think LKY even had the remote charm of a dog, much less the charm of someone as capable and charismatic as Clinton?
The criminal, on the other hand, came from a privileged background and still needs to resort to tightening the noose around his press (to churn out his propaganda which conveys little truth about his achievements) to flex his muscle. It's remarkable how much Singapore's success story is attributed to him and his regime and so little to others who were instrumental in putting him in a position to do so to begin with. He doesn't even have the experience of leading a coalition government. You expect someone like that to be taken seriously on a global stage? If he had to make a living from giving talks around the world, he'd probably have starved to death.
It says a lot : Clinton makes millions (and actually donates a substantial portion of his income from such talks to his William J. Clinton foundation that oversees various worthy causes around the world) from giving talks around the world on his merit; criminals need to resort to paying themselves millions on the basis of abusing their political power to push through legislations they'd never succeed in doing had they relied on their merit.
You can critise the policies but i really suggest staying away from attacks on another person's intergrity. -
as much as u can criticsize the policies dey make, but no personal attacks please.Originally posted by walesa:Do you seriously think LKY even had the remote charm of a dog, much less the charm of someone as capable and charismatic as Clinton?
Clinton's presidential achievements commands respect in much of the free world - and that's the primary motivation behind why his talks are much sought-after and in demand. I'd be amazed if LKY could fill a third of any auditorium for a talk for which entrants had to pay.
Clinton hailed from a modest background and rose through the ranks to take the helm of the highest office in a democracy which is envied by many all over the world. Here's a man who did wonders with an economy over the span of 8 years which is unrivalled even by American standards (116 months of consecutive economic growth by the time he left office, transforming the highest budget deficit ever when he took office into the highest budget surplus ever when he left office, among other things) - and he did all that fighting a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8-year tenure.
The criminal, on the other hand, came from a privileged background and still needs to resort to tightening the noose around his press (to churn out his propaganda which conveys little truth about his achievements) to flex his muscle. It's remarkable how much Singapore's success story is attributed to him and his regime and so little to others who were instrumental in putting him in a position to do so to begin with. He doesn't even have the experience of leading a coalition government. You expect someone like that to be taken seriously on a global stage? If he had to make a living from giving talks around the world, he'd probably have starved to death.
It says a lot : Clinton makes millions (and actually donates a substantial portion of his income from such talks to his William J. Clinton foundation that oversees various worthy causes around the world) from giving talks around the world on his merit; criminals need to resort to paying themselves millions on the basis of abusing their political power to push through legislations they'd never succeed in doing had they relied on their merit. -
You're talking about the integrity of a criminal whose "integrity" only exists through the hollowed eyes of a media controlled by him. Carry on living in fear and I'm sure you'd go far in life - afterall, what else does this regime feed on?Originally posted by CM06:Dude you better tone yourself down. Dont invite troubles on your door. Anonimity on the web doesnt mean you are protected from being sued for slander and stuff like that.
You can critise the policies but i really suggest staying away from attacks on another person's intergrity.
Failings on the part of their policies, especially regimes who operate on the basis of one-party rule, are a clear testament to the incompetence of the regime.Originally posted by hiphop2009:as much as u can criticsize the policies dey make, but no personal attacks please.
Just as you're perfectly entitled to regard my opinion as a "personal attack", that "personal attack" is akin to your statement being a "personal attack" on me. At the end of the day, that's just freedom of expression to me. -
is it me or do they resemble the Borgias more and more?
-
There's a difference, I guess. The Borgias, for all its misdemeanours, did not subscribe to the notions of hypocrisy by claiming to uphold virtues of high morality...Originally posted by the Bear:is it me or do they resemble the Borgias more and more?
-
well, they did.. he was the PopeOriginally posted by walesa:There's a difference, I guess. The Borgias, for all its misdemeanours, did not subscribe to the notions of hypocrisy by claiming to uphold virtues of high morality...
-
The Borgias did not claim to possess any sense of moral authority - whatever respect they had was commanded from the reverence and awe the masses had for the papalcy. That's quite different from another bunch who resort to the avenues of a politicised Judicary(think bogus defamation lawsuits which would never see the light of day in any civilised society) to uphold their non-existent and delusional "upright" image, which is nothing more than a smokescreen to run their dirty dealings(similar to the Borgias' in this respect) in the open.Originally posted by the Bear:well, they did.. he was the Pope -
LOLOriginally posted by (human):3 person to do 1 person's job? 3 of them should share 1 person pay. After sharing, they are still getting more than a peanut.
-
If you feel you arent "afraid" of this "regime"...please do go outsude and write that on a big sign board and stand outside the parliment house.Originally posted by walesa:Failings on the part of their policies, especially regimes who operate on the basis of one-party rule, are a clear testament to the incompetence of the regime.
Just as you're perfectly entitled to regard my opinion as a "personal attack", that "personal attack" is akin to your statement being a "personal attack" on me. At the end of the day, that's just freedom of expression to me.
Remember to use the word "dog" too since that's what you said so clearly.
I look forward to you being in the news!
Please lah dont wave your e-peen infront of us!
On a personal basis, i dont believe they should increase salaries heh. -
why should anyone do what you "advised" ?
that's just stupid... about as stupid as CSJ...
do the correct things.. never publicity stunts.. -
That old man still wants to control Singapore. He can never let go. He is no where/way to be compared to Mr Bill Clinton. Clinton has a heart for his people (read his book). He is superb!! Clinton has a heart for charity, too! What does that old man do for charity?Originally posted by bic_cherry:LHL should give his salary incr to Papa...
Better LKY step down bef he falls ill/ dies in office... otherwise, economy will crash as investors opionate tt ministers cannot manage w-out a unique mentor for Ministers...
Ordinary logic applies to extraordinary countries too... LKY should earn his >$3M giving talks (like Clinton... after retiring for Head of Country posts) ; still serve as MP/ volunteer as member on various Special Ministerial comittees etc. (Or spend his time in other enriching activities.)
Being founding member of PAP, LKY can surely exert his moral influence w/o the imposing 'MM' title... SG should be projected as an egalitarian, happy and progressive country, Not "Singapore Inc: the Lee family business".
Maybe LHL should give his salary incr to Papa, I won't mind the turn around...
(food for thought...)
TODAYonline- http://www.todayonline.com/articles/184814.asp
Two good leaders who missed being great
'A great leader is one who plans his exit when he or she enters the job.' – Anonymous
Tuesday • April 24, 2007
P N Balji: Editorial Director, [email protected]
IN A country which has made succession an obsession, two top achievers, both with a banyan-tree approach to management, have left their high-profile jobs and must be asking themselves: What went wrong?
The story of Mr Philip Yeo and Mr Tan Kin Lian is a sad one indeed.
Instead of being remembered for his achievements in making Singapore a safe bet for investors or in creating Jurong Island out of practically nothing and turning it into a hive of activity for the chemicals industry, or for having the daring to plunge into research and development (R&D) when there were many naysayers, the Philip Yeo story is having an unpalatable footnote.
He has left the driver's seat at A*Star for a non-executive job as chairman of Spring Singapore without fulfilling his R&D dream and without identifying and mentoring a successor. Even worse was getting into another round of verbal sparring with a young bond-breaker whom he had already dealt with two years ago.
In the case of Mr Tan, taking NTUC Income from an asset base of $28 million 30 years ago — when this young man with a hard-luck story joined the organisation as general manager — to $17 billion when he left as CEO is no mean feat.
When Today was launched in November 2000, Mr Tan was one of the very few corporate chieftains who saw the need for competition and supported the product with advertising dollars and by endorsing it personally on TV.
He was a breath of fresh air in a corporate world known for having "no comment". He angered his rivals when he spoke his mind about the ills of the insurance industry, stumped motor workshops when he went on a one-man crusade against inflated accident claims and raised eyebrows when he wrote about social issues, definitely not in a politically-correct way.
Anecdotes and statistics tell only half the story. The other half is about a man who had a tight control on nearly everything that happened in the insurance cooperative. Every press release, even an innocuous one-line statement, had to be approved by him. Every advertisement had to be vetted by him. It was central control all the way.
And when it came to succession, there was really nobody in sight.
With a new chairman on board, attempts were made to bring in a couple of scholars and heavyweights, the most striking of them being insurance industry heavyweight Stanley Jeremiah. But Mr Jeremiah left in a huff last year, thus precipitating Mr Tan's departure.
What went wrong in a story that should have ended as sweetly as it started for both luminaries?
They didn't know when to step down, or at least step aside. And they had not identified and nurtured a successor.
When a leader has a successor at the ready, the thought of leaving the scene is always at the back of his or her mind.
Of course, when to step down is not a science. There is never a right time, never a perfect occasion. There is always the next target to chase, the next battle to fight.
World champion boxer Muhammad Ali never knew when to stop. He came rumbling back after winning the world crown thrice. The result: Humiliating defeat after defeat.
So, all you leaders out there: Take a leaf from former South African President Nelson Mandela's book. Jailed for 27 years, he went on to become President, identified a successor, handed over power after just one term in office and rode into the sunset a contented and happy man.
In those five years in power, he set the tone for his country and the world by pardoning all the brutal wrongdoings of whites during the repressive apartheid years.
That, in my book, is a great leader.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved. -
Think LHL not capable so must have two persons to guide and tell him what to do. Whatever, though there are 2 persons, he performance is mediocre!Originally posted by (human):3 person to do 1 person's job? 3 of them should share 1 person pay. After sharing, they are still getting more than a peanut.
-
strangely, LKY seek the new blood GCT and GCT seek new blood LHL but all still refuse to let go. why? probably found a less capable replacement
-
You're a great testament to this regime indeed. With education being one of the core tenets this regimes boasts about, I'm not even sure if they've done anything good if products like you are anything to go by. Can you tell the difference between possessing "the charm of a dog" and being "a dog"?Originally posted by CM06:If you feel you arent "afraid" of this "regime"...please do go outsude and write that on a big sign board and stand outside the parliment house.
Remember to use the word "dog" too since that's what you said so clearly.
I look forward to you being in the news!
Please lah dont wave your e-peen infront of us!
On a personal basis, i dont believe they should increase salaries heh.
Are you stupid, blind or both? With an intellect like yours, I wouldn't even dream of likening your intellect to that of a dog's - that'd be an insult to the great canines. Obviously the intellectually-challenged folks like you need fascists to lead you in every aspect of your life - your masters will be proud of you, no doubt.
On a personal basis, you certainly wouldn't find yourself out of place in an asylum.
You've got to understand there're ignorant folks all over the world who subscribe to everything they're inundated with - LKY is to that clown just as what Mao was to the Red Army or Fidel Castro to the Cuban youths who buy his thrash.Originally posted by the Bear:why should anyone do what you "advised" ?
that's just stupid... about as stupid as CSJ...
do the correct things.. never publicity stunts..
On a sidenote, it's incredulous to think anyone could even compare some opportunist fascists to exceptional statesmen like Clinton whose reputation and deeds transcend borders, race and cultures. For the record, Clinton's royalty for his autobiography (My Life) was also the highest in US history at the point he clinched the deal - and this is a book that's a genuine bestseller in many parts of the world, not like those penned by a criminal that lays claim to being a bestseller only in the territories over which he has a jurisdiction.