Will there be future if leaders keep brushing off views?

robertteh SG

PM Lee and all the ministers who spoke strongly about a bright future ahead have not answered the most important question asked by many Singaporeans - will there be a future if they keep sticking to their own views and brushing aside people's views as can be seen in so many debates and problems ?

NKF is one. Nicol Highway's collapse and public's demand for accountability and transparency is another. GRC election law is yet another. Brushing aside younger people's views or perceptions of leaders' arrogance in one more. Temasek's losses of citizens' monies in Shin Corp (paper loss $1.4 billion now) and many overseas projects is another.

If the government continues to run the country in the same self-centred manner how could it bring about progress and prosperity. People will be turned off by arrogance and narrow-minded leaders. On the other hand, changes where finally take place even after people's repeated pressures only took place after long delays resulting in much damage done e.g. elitist academic education streaming system. (no credit to government or Shamugaratnam because of this long delays)

If there is no accountability and transparency in governing the most important areas and all the errors and mistakes are conveniently forgotten without making those in charge responsible, how are the people to agree with their confidence that there will be a great future ahead.

blazon SG

Agree. PAP think they Know Best for the future.
But look at what happened over last 5 years???

It was the Result of Arrogance and Turning a Deaf ear to Feedback.

An all Win for PAP, or a strong mandate, is Extremely Dangerous
for Singapore Future!

TooFree SG

Disagree. Our imcumbent leaders have generally proven themselves and had shown a track records in placing Singapore on the world map. A point to note here is that leaders do have limitation too. We should not discredit a person with meritorious records because of just one mistake. The concerns and worries of citizens' views not reflected and not make known are uncalled for. We have the NMP in the parliament to speak on behalf of the citizens. The system is already in place to generate feedbacks.

I am more concern whether the candidates from the opposition party can solve problems of the citizenry or tackle global issues. At this stage in time, I have not yet heard of any 5 years plans from the opposition party to steer the nation forward. Only keep talking and debating on the flaws of government past polices. Get real. We need a first world opposition to solve problems not create problems.

robertteh SG

You may disagree with what I said but what I said are facts of what affected our progress for the past many years. May be you believe our governing system was superior because of lack of complete understanding of good corporate governance.

A good government cannot be right all the time, over-righteous and unchanging in views and policies over so many issues like ours.

A good government will not hold itself as know-all or omniscient and always enforce its will on its people all the time or nearly all the time as has happened for years in our case.

My view that our past government policies have been unchanging and too rigid all these years. Even in the current election campaign one can see the same accusations of oppositions' characters which completely turned off the common humanity. The accusations are one-sided with them in control of all the ammunications of defamation law suits while the other side defenceless or younger persons. Ruling party was not without blames in integrity yet they behaved like they were so righteous throughout.

Granted that our leaders have made some past achievements. They have not just one or two flaws but many which are mainly caused by self-centred preserving of their own images and reputation as if it so perfect and without flaw. It is lacking creativity in many policies not being able to see larger perspective than their immediate concern to be effective in control.

By such autocratic self-belief of self has caused many good men to stop short in making necessary changes e.g. Ex-president Ong Teng Cheong was prevented from putting across some good ideas before and set back the whole accountability of govenrment and economy for years.

If forumers' good ideas given to feedback unit for many years but the leaders refused to respond to them or accept their contributions. They only knew something went terribly wrong like when bigger threats happened to PSA, SIA and HDB or big-scale recessions. Isn't it all too clear that such autocratic self-centred governance has shut out better ideas and contributions of others. Isn't it all too clear that Singapore has been set back due to such narrow track-minded governance.

It is not just the hype about meritocracy or elitish streaming education system which caused setback to creative innovations and practical knowledge application for years. The other major errors like the pro-foreign investment and employment policies have set back the economy.

Even if Shamugaratnam today finally has made some changes the changes hardly touched the surface and has failed to acknowledge that these were not the his ideas and he had taken the credit away to himself?

Forumers have pointed out the danger of over-relying on pro-foreign policies and suggested implementation of technology-driven practical knowledge application, from 2002.

Did any of our scholars or ministers in charge at the time listen. Finally they did perhaps only after the most severe downturns and lagging way behind other Asian tigers and others for years. Yet they pretended they had achieved the big switch to poly- and ITE broad-based practical knowledge application on their own.

The major changes were not the direct results of your admired great leaders because his ministers being paid millions would be too vulnerable to disagree with his over-bearing conceptual meritocracy too deeply planted six feet deep for any one to dare to voice out their own better judgement. Even new promising ministers appeared constrained who spoke only for a while and then kept completely away from any more ideas of their own. Why?

So what was the cause of brushing aside of people's right views and suggestions which caused set-back to education and practical knowledge application for years?

Think about the whole problems in perspective of good corporate goverance which is practised by John Howard of Australia and many others without chaos. Such system will lead to collective leadership which will be far more creative or entrepreneurial. Do not just blindly believe the superficial concepts and assumptions of the old which caused our governance to lag behind for years which did not work at all during the last three recessions. (just read the old Straits Times of Ministers' despairs and their pushing problems to the people)

The biggest danger to our future is the reemergence of old assumptions and concepts which even Ngiam Tong Dow ex-civil servant has commented as too narrow and unhelpful. There has to be fundamental changes if there is going to be any future that PM Lee is talking about.

Otherwise what he said will remain empty slogans like what he said of the opposition.

king108 SG

Cool According to doctor, they say be happy can have long life. By getting upset or angry, life is shorter.

Hence, in order to live a longer life, please remember to make yourself happy. Laughing although it will hurt the heart a bit. Hence better keep relax and let other to do the jobs..

dragg SG

i dont think anyone is going to vote the opposition into running singapore. do not be sidetracked by this.

many are concerned about the lack of opposing voice in the parliament. an overwhelming victory for any party is not a healthy sign.

LinYu SG

Agree.

Just look at what they have said throughout the campagin "I"
1. I have...upgrading
2. I have ...track record
3. I know the voters....
4. I.......
etc etc etc

miongisback SG

My main worry is this -

The intensity of MM Lee's lifelong campaign to put out
oppositions may have a wicked purpose.

I believe he wants his son, grandsons to continue
the Lee's grip on power for a long long time after
he is dead and buried (or burned).

How so?

Well, "the people dont want any opposition.
Let's
change the election system. No need for oppositions
to participate from
now onwards, since people dont want them around.

The government gives you the candidates and you decide who will
be your MPs. ..."

This scenario could well play out in the future, maybe
10 - 15 years from now.

But it won't come to fruition, so long as oppositions remain in
parliament.

This my silly thought, and worry, for Singaporeans of the future.

lftwgr SG

That'll never happen because nobody could take that lying down. We may be sheep. But sheep also got black color one.

Look at Nepal. The king tried to install absolute monarchy but failed.

king108 SG

Originally posted by dragg:
[b]b]

Laughing

I only hear check this check that and balance it only...you say until like no tomorrow..sky black black...

robertteh SG

The boss of Taiwan IT Giant Acer Mr. Stanley Shih revealed his secret of success to CNA Mr. Yang Ming in CNA interview with him this morning:-

Stanley Shih as a young man believed to be successful, he would need:

(1) To build an international Brand Name

(2) To build new products needed by the world.

These two ideas led Acer all the way to become a top IT MNC providing many jobs for Taiwan.

Our leaders believed:

(1) Meritocracy (A few elites are recruited to government to administer public services.

(2) Legalistic wrangling for control of populations to keep laws and order.

In this interview he disclosed that he depended on buidling up his team to review and take action to apply the above-mentioned two ideals. He was able to develop a team of staff who could carry on achieving these two ideals and take actions to overcome many practical problems and challenges. He did not pass the ownership of Acer to his own son but to his team who was welll versed in such governing philosophy to build Acer's competitiveness.

So where are the major differences between Stanley Shih and our leaders' governing philosophy?

One is proactive aimed at building capabilities for the economy to meet outside competitions with real focus on knowledge application the other on controls to prevent chaos and dissidents from giving their views.

Singapore could not upgrade its economy because it has lacked leadeship in mass empowerments and practical knowledge application as envisioned by government, people and industrial leaders in Taiwan.

The above-mentioned merely confirmed one point that our future as spoken of by PM Lee is not dependent on past assumptions as these past assumptions might not work as well as pro-active pro-technology and pro-competition living system like that of Acer. If our leaders have adopted Acer two practical goals and consistently applied them today we would no doubt have built a team of Acer-type ministers who would provide more jobs and upgrade the economy for all.