PM Lee’s extract of interview on Singapore’s leadership:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory…

April 15, 2008
Beyond kissing babies
What makes a good Cabinet minister? Why were DrNg Eng Hen and Mr Raymond Lim made ministers so rapidly? Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao posed these and other questions to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in an interview published last Sunday. Extracts from the interview:

EYE FOR A LEADER: One of the issues foremost on PM Lee’s mind is leadership renewal. Singaporeans have high expectations of ministers but, in reality, it is difficult to find leaders who are perfect, he says.

Since you assumed office 3 1/2 years ago, there have been many policy changes, in areas like education, medical subsidies, transport and CPF. What characteristics did the young ministers display in pursuing these reforms? Are there differences between them, your generation and the previous generation of ministers?

This is not an issue of differences between two generations of ministers. Times are different now and the circumstances have changed. The way we craft and implement policies must also adapt to the new environment.

Decades ago, when the economy was not that developed, we could be bold and resolute because we were very clear about what must be done. You could not go wrong as long as you moved in that direction.

In the current environment, we cannot say for sure that no problem will arise. We must think clearly how a policy must be adjusted to achieve our goal, to avoid undesirable effects. This is not easy.

Regardless of whether it is to do with car population control or health care or goods and services tax (GST) adjustment, you have to ask: What negative effects could there be?

What can be done to try and reduce these negative effects, to reduce misunderstanding, fear and unnecessary pressure among the people in the face of new policies?

It is not as easy to implement policies in this manner. The policies we rolled out in the last two or three years were deliberated and formulated over many years.

In the past, the Government adopted a rather paternalistic approach, saying this is right and we should just follow. But now you are worried that people do not understand, have fears and are discontented. Is the Government’s leadership style moving towards one of equal footing?

What you are describing are two extremes. We were not completely paternalistic in the past, and we are not completely populist today. We do not parrot the views of others.

Regardless of who the leader is, he must have his own views and ideas. If you have no ideas, you should not be a leader. If I do only the things that everyone agrees with, there will definitely be problems.

As a leader, besides listening to the people, you also have the responsibility of analysing, understanding and explaining the issues, trying to convince the people, striving for consensus, so that the nation can move ahead.

We are working more on this now. The people are relatively better-educated and can better understand the issues, including the nature and the difficulties of the issues.

On the other hand, the policies today are more complex. If we cannot explain the policies to the public in simple language, it will be very hard for them to accept these policies.

Our style has indeed changed, but we still must maintain our resolute and objective leadership style.

Ministers populist?

Do you feel that your ministers are populist?

We have to achieve good results in an election every five years, which is the basic requirement of a democratic system. But we cannot make decisions according to what is popular.

A minister should not be a MrNice Guy who knows only how to please the people. He should not follow the views of other people blindly. He must tell people what he believes in and what his stand is.

Every decision made by the people holding office will have a negative effect; every choice has a good and bad side.

You must pick the one with the least number of bad points and the most number of good points. This is not a matter of simple calculations, but a judgment, a choice. In the short term, your decision may not be accepted by the people, but you must realise that this is a long-term plan which is more appropriate.

Means testing and GST

Some people have been critical of some policies formulated by our ministers recently, for example, means testing in hospitals. Minister Khaw Boon Wan set the start point low when he was considering the personal income ceiling for means testing. It was then raised to more than $2,000, and it was finally set at $3,200. Perhaps the minister had a Plan A or a Plan B…?

You have to ask Minister Khaw Boon Wan. This is his style, his way of doing things. I think the public would not have accepted it if he had begun at $3,000, and it became $1,500 eventually.

This is because people hope there will be some compromise after discussions. We will make the adjustment if it is reasonable. But sometimes, we feel that there is no alternative but to carry on with the original plans even after discussions.

Let’s take the GST – it was raised from 5 per cent to 7 per cent last year. Many people feel that we should have done it slowly and raised it step by step. But my view is that the GST is not a popular policy, and if we want to raise it, we should do so when the economy is growing strongly.

The people will be more receptive, and the Government will have the ability to adopt several measures to help the people cushion the impact.

I prefer to do it fast and adopt several measures to cushion the impact at the same time. If the adjustment is slow and the increase small, the measures to cushion the impact will not be so generous and timely.

What is the Government currently most worried about?

In the short term, we are worried about whether the people can adapt to economic restructuring and whether we can attract investments and jobs to grow the economy. If we cannot grow the economy, then there is no need to talk about other issues. We have often talked about the social safety net and the quality of life, but they cannot be done without economic growth.

In the long term, the issue of leadership is very important. Cohesion and the leadership issue are related.

It is not easy to enhance cohesion and continue leadership renewal, and it is not easily understood by others.

It is not easy to maintain a system like Singapore’s, to have good and carefully chosen leaders. Whether in developed or developing nations, the systems will differ. The conditions are different in different countries, so too the system and mode of operation.

Our way of doing things best suits our situation and our environment, but the problem is how to maintain this leadership quality.

Few countries can maintain a selection and appointment system which is fair, open and based on merit from the highest to the lowest level.

Minister as CEO

The Government is seeking first-class talent from the top 1 per cent, but most people wonder why the Government cannot accept the next best talent, for example, talent from the top 5 per cent. What is your view?

Many people ask why the Government is so picky and accepts only the top talent when we talk about the broad principles, but they adopt a different attitude when they look at individual ministers. They will ask why this minister is not good enough, is not capable enough and has little eloquence.

In reality, it is difficult to find leaders who are perfect.

There are few people who are very capable and can connect with the people, while being willing to dedicate themselves to society and take up the responsibility to lead.

Of course, there are different grades of leaders. Let’s take the example of our grassroots leaders. We can find these devoted volunteers in every constituency. We can also find suitable candidates to run as MPs.

However, I believe Singaporeans have high expectations of ministers, the deputy prime minister and the prime minister.

In many countries, the ministers are like the directors of the ministries, and the deputy ministers or the permanent secretaries in the ministries are the real chief executives. The ministers’ speeches are usually drafted by the officials, and the specific policies and policy details are formulated by the officials.

If there is a major change in policy, unless the officials agree, the minister cannot make the change.

In Japan and other countries, it is not necessarily the ministers who answer the MPs’ queries, but the deputy ministers or the officials who do so.

It is different in Singapore. The minister is the chief executive of the ministry – he decides on the policy and guidelines and then personally explains in Parliament the rationale and aims of the policy.

Some people ask why the Government is so concerned that more than 100 top students are staying abroad every year. We are concerned as we have to rely on the top youngsters to create a future for Singaporeans. If they go overseas and stay for a long time in another country, it would not be easy for them to switch to politics here as they would have lost touch with Singapore to a certain degree.

They may hold Singaporean passports and their families may be here. But in the 10 to 20 years they are away, not having gone through the ups and downs in Singapore, and being unfamiliar with the worries of Singaporeans, the likelihood of them joining politics will be reduced and this will worsen the shortage of political talent.

Even if they are in Singapore working in the private sector or in a particular profession, and even if they are very capable, in their 30s or 40s, their way of thinking and social circles would be limited after being involved in a particular profession for a long time.

It may not be possible for them, overnight, to become ministers in white shirt and trousers, with the ability to interact well with the people.

Ng Eng Hen was a surgeon who succeeded in becoming a minister, but he needed some time initially to adapt.

Surgeons do not have to consider policies every day. They see patients and are concerned about the patients’ condition, treatment and the required operation. Such experience and way of thinking are different from those needed in policy formulations. But Ng Eng Hen is able to excel in his job as he has strong learning and working capabilities. Regretfully, there are not many people who are like him.

Ministers who have worked in government departments – for example, Tharman (Shanmugaratnam) or Khaw Boon Wan – will face smaller differences, but the disadvantage is they have never worked in the private sector.

---

Winning qualities

Q: Ministers like Ng Eng Hen and Raymond Lim who did not come from government departments have been placed relatively quickly in policy-making positions. According to your observations, what special traits do they possess?

PM LEE: Firstly, they possess the spirit to work hard when they agreed initially to switch from their jobs to become ministers of state.

Secondly, with their strong abilities, upon taking up their new positions, they were able to quickly master and understand which were the important issues and problems that should be addressed first.

Thirdly, they need to explain the policies. They are able to convey the problems and their views when they are in Parliament, at seminars or interacting with the grassroots, and make people feel that they understand the voters’ views.

There are basic conditions to becoming a minister, but individual ministers have different strong points. Some ministers are good at explaining the problems and interacting with the people and are more approachable.

But if every minister knows only how to carry a baby and display his friendliness, then we have a problem.

Fuck off PAP.

I don't buy your stupid propaganda.

Beyond kissing babies?

Here is Singapore, people depoliticised, fearful of criticising, know shit about politics, media under state control, sing the praises, of course no such need to kiss fucking babies.

Go and compete in Taiwan elections, where the people are politicised, where the media criticises the government.

See whether you want to kiss fucking babies or not.

See whether you can tell the people to eat frozen meat and pay yourself millions or not.

They will laugh at you.

Fuck Off.

Talk cock sing song, chiam see tong also can say, many kiss baby only, raymond limp, ERP to increase car ownership. The chicken Hen, bring in FT and talk cock

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/248273.asp

 

Said Mr Lee: "In fact, if we test people's understanding of policies, I think even news workers and PAP MPs might not pass."

 

So, that's why the non consultation. you won't understand.

 

"In fact, if we test people's understanding of policies, I think even news workers and PAP MPs might not pass."

Then you got the fucking balls to start political talkshows or not?

That will raise the interest in politics and also the level of awareness and knowledge.

The people will become POLITICISED.

Dare or not?

Don't give me fucking crap.

People criticise, want to sue or not?

Dare or not?

Don't bullshit with me lah.

You don't fucking dare.

People become politicised, where got kowtow to your bullshit autocratc rule?

They will tell you to

FUCK OFF.

 

PAP MPs have full time jobs. Their MPs duties are part time, so they dont have much time to study policies., so better be yes men, LHL said what just follow ok ? No use argue with the elite ministers

ha ha ha raymond lim and ng eng hen - these two are sickening self centred people who are where they are now to earn fast big bucks and care less about the people.   What is so good and special about them.   Ever since these two sicko take charge of the MOM and transport, nothing really good comes out from MOM and transport.   Glad the arrogant, good for nothing hen has left mom.

PAP can come and suck my cock.

I prefer that to kissing babies.

somemore he mentioned nowadays Chiam talked less, Sylvia is more reserved and Low Thia Kiang paint a bad pic on gahmen during rally. So ppl talk less, u complain, ppl talk more u say, they are crooks, head u win, tail I lose. Nia ma !!!

Why are you all so bitter about? Don’t you receive your growth dividends and GST rebates worth hundreds of dollars? It’s sharing the success of the Singapore’s leadership with actual cash for everyone.

Originally posted by Obama:

Why are you all so bitter about? Don’t you receive your growth dividends and GST rebates worth hundreds of dollars? It’s sharing the success of the Singapore’s leadership with actual cash for everyone.

Not all singaporeans think like 3 year old kids.

Why are you all so bitter about? Don’t you receive your growth dividends and GST rebates worth hundreds of dollars? It’s sharing the success of the Singapore’s leadership with actual cash for everyone.

Not all Singaporeans have such a narrow outlook on life and society.

Believe it or not, there ARE politicised Singaporeans.

And this trend will continue to grow.

I know PAP hates it.

They cannot control politicised people.

But there is no other way.

HDB flat is considered cheap housing for the poor, 20 years ago it was $60000 only for 4 rm flat, but now they want to make money out of it, and we have to suffer buying expensive flat. The gahmen can control the price, but they don't want, they say leave it to market forces, we suffer but they gain. Is this a caring gahmen ?

Originally posted by t_a_s:

HDB flat is considered cheap housing for the poor, 20 years ago it was $60000 only for 4 rm flat, but now they want to make money out of it, and we have to suffer buying expensive flat. The gahmen can control the price, but they don't want, they say leave it to market forces, we suffer but they gain. Is this a caring gahmen ?

There is increase in price for HDB flat.   Besides increasing the price, they really have the cheek to build the flat smaller than before.   This is really unfair and cheat mann!   Bloody asshole PAP really is tyrant in every way sucking money out of peasants.   Moreover, owning the HDB property is not absolute, the gahmen PAP still has a hand in it.   Me just waiting for me to be able to afford private apt and I will go ahead to buy it.  

The gahmen can control the price, but they don't want, they say leave it to market forces, we suffer but they gain.

A typical middle class (not elite class) Singaporean will buy a HDB flat as a first step to marriage.

The bulk of his income will be used to finance this HDB flat.

If PAP regime can lower the price of the flat, the excess income can be channeled to buy other consumer goods or finance other activities.

More purchasing power can be released to the economy to buy consumer goods.

...The factors necessary to achieve economic progress are supplementary to the factors necessary for production.

Production requires the organization of knowledge, time, energy, materials, land, labor, and so on.

Economic progress requires three additional factors.

These are: innovation, savings, and investment.

Unless a society is organized to provide these three, it will not expand economically.

"Innovation" means devising new and better ways of performing the tasks of production; "saving" means refraining from consumption of resources so that they can be mobilized for different purposes; and "investment" means the mobilization of resources into the new, better ways of production.

The absence of the third factor (investment) is the most frequent cause of a failure of economic progress.

It may be absent even when both of the other factors are working well.

In such a case, the savings accumulated are not applied to inventions but are spent on consumption, on ostentatious social prestige, on war, on religion, on other nonproductive purposes, or even left unspent...

...Thus, we see that the controversy which has raged in both Europe and America since 1932 between progressives and conservatives in regard to the causes of the lack of investment is an artificial one.

The progressives, who insisted that the lack of investment was caused by lack of consumer purchasing power, were correct.

But the conservatives, who insisted that the lack of investment was caused by a lack of confidence, were also correct.

Each was looking at the opposite side of what is a single continuous cycle.

This cycle runs roughly as follows:

(a) purchasing power creates demand for goods;

(b) demand for goods creates confidence in the minds of investors;

(c) confidence creates new investment; and

(d) new investment creates purchasing power, which then creates demand, and so on.

To cut this cycle at any point and to insist that the cycle begins at that point is to falsify the situation.

In the 1930's the progressives concentrated attention on stage (a), while the conservatives concentrated attention on stage (c). The progressives, who sought to increase purchasing po\ver by some redistribution of the national income, undoubtedly did increase purchasing power under stage (a), but they lost purchasing power under stage (c) by reducing confidence of potential investors.

This decrease of confidence was especially noticeable in countries (like France and the United States) which were still deeply involved in the stage of financial capitalism...

... The purchasing power available in the community is equal to income minus savings.

If there are any savings, the available purchasing power will be less than the aggregate prices being asked for the products for sale and by the amount of the savings.

Thus, all the goods and services produced cannot be sold as long as savings are held back.

In order for all the goods to be sold, it is necessary for the savings to reappear in the market as purchasing power.

The usual way in which this is done is by investment.

When savings are invested, they are expended into the community and appear as purchasing power.

Since the capital good made by the process of investment is not offered for sale to the community, the expenditures made by its creation appear completely as purchasing power.

Thus, the disequilibrium between purchasing power and prices in which was created by the act of saving is restored completely by the act of investment, and all the goods can be sold at the prices asked.

But whenever investment is less than savings, the available supply of purchasing power is inadequate by the same amount to buy the goods being offered.

This margin by which purchasing power is inadequate because of an excess of savings over investment may be called the "deflationary gap."

This '"deflationary gap" is the key to the twentieth century economic crisis and one of the three central cores of the whole tragedy of the century...

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/11.html

Without the effective leadership we have now, we would be having food riots like those poor developing countries. Thank god for this capable government, we are able to grow the economy and everyone is enjoying the fruit of success. Increased in values of our houses means increasing assets in our pocket if we want to sell off and upgrade. It made perfect economic sense to have appreciation of housing unlike USA where the prices of houses are plunging and as their assets drop in value, people will be jittery about spending on other essential things in life.

we now have one lackey to the add to the list.   Wow, PAP is so wonderful ah, so good ah, obama!  Oh worship PAP and make PAP God, hee hee hee.  Damn PAP lah!

Originally posted by Obama:

Without the effective leadership we have now, we would be having food riots like those poor developing countries. Thank god for this capable government, we are able to grow the economy and everyone is enjoying the fruit of success. Increased in values of our houses means increasing assets in our pocket if we want to sell off and upgrade. It made perfect economic sense to have appreciation of housing unlike USA where the prices of houses are plunging and as their assets drop in value, people will be jittery about spending on other essential things in life.

... wash your eyes with longkang water, then look again...

we now have one lackey to the add to the list. 

Who are the usual lackeys?

We should make a list of followers of the PAP.

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

Who are the usual lackeys?

We should make a list of followers of the PAP.

gazelle, oxford mushroom, lionnoisy, for the moment I can only remember these.   anyone has any more to add to the list?

Originally posted by Obama:

Without the effective leadership we have now, we would be having food riots like those poor developing countries. Thank god for this capable government, we are able to grow the economy and everyone is enjoying the fruit of success. Increased in values of our houses means increasing assets in our pocket if we want to sell off and upgrade. It made perfect economic sense to have appreciation of housing unlike USA where the prices of houses are plunging and as their assets drop in value, people will be jittery about spending on other essential things in life.

the house price drop in USA is due to `over- extended' loans. in any case, property prices across the world is also jittery now. Singapore will not be spared. data already showing cooling of private property transactions.

and what the government doesn't tell you doesn't mean it is not happening.

i am jittery too!

... these lackeys, they should STAY around and open their smart mouths when the FAP screws up...

... don't run and hide when they screw up...

 

 

We now have:

gazelle,

oxford mushroom,

lionnoisy,

Obama,

as followers of the PAP.

does a government need to be popular? yes, only then can it work to serve the people…..a government which despises anyone outside of their circle serves only to gratify itself….as we’re experiencing right now, the people are getting only token share of the country’s supposed wealth….$100 for this april ‘handout’ is what i’m to be thankful for…lol…forget it, all this showcase generosity serves little…..the more they try to contain, the greater the resentment….....

I don't think Singapore can advance any further under this PAP rule.

We have reached the turning point after 50 years PAP one party rule.

The only glue holding the situation together is Lee Kuan Yew.

After he dies, all bets are off.