Originally posted by Atobe:
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
Lets not forget that change takes time. We cannot expect
overnight results, nor should we demand them.
Dr Lees 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.
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 ?
Unfortunately, for success, every system used will undoubtedly
leave behind debris in its destructive wake. Ours is no
different.
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 Yeos NO VALUE SYSTEM, NO
FUTURE, as seen in
My way or the highway and
No place for discussion in Philip Yeos value system, surely
hope remains for the future that not all Singaporeans will abandon
their homeland, but instead stay and fight?
