I desist from using the word wayang. What about a better way to handle
the issue with a win win for everyone, especially for Hsien Loong? It
can be easily done. For the moment, other then all the allegations from
Hsien Yang and Wei Ling about abuses of power and govt organs, Hsien
Loong is also being accused of being unfilial. All these could have
been avoided with the govt gazetting the property and Hsien Loong still
coming out looking good and very filial, and his siblings could not to
anything about it or to accuse him of all the allegations.
Here is what I thought would be an easier and nicer way for Hsien Loong
to have his cake and eat it, ie keep the property from being demolished
and do whatever he wants with it and looking very, very filial and
honourable and maintaining Singapore as a rule of law country. There is
no need for the Ministerial Committee to go asking Hsien Yang and Wei
Ling funny questions. Just get the National Heritage Board to put up a
case to gazette the house as a historical and national monument.
Hsien Loong can then go to Parliament and make a plea for the
demolishment of the property, telling the House that as a filial son, it
is his duty to fulfill his parents’ last wish. He could even shed a few
tears to make it even more emotional, to tug at the heart strings of
people when the session is aired on TV plus a few photos on the front
page Straits Times and other local media. Then he can let Parliament to
put it to a vote and knowing that all the ministers and MPs would want
to keep the house and would vote for it, he could then say his father is
not above the law and he would respect the law no matter how filial he
wanted to be. He would then reluctantly agree to let his father’s last
wish past as the decision of Parliament is about the rule of law, above a
private citizen, and he cannot go against it for personal interest. He
could even make a last plea for Parliament to reconsider its decision,
maybe a second voting after 3 months or 6 months of cooling off period
to think it over and over again. This is what a filial son could do to
try to fulfill a father’s last wish, die standing for it.
By then, whatever the decision of Parliament to keep the house, he would
be seen as a filial son, honouring his father, and also respecting the
law of the country. No abuse of state organs or power, just following the normal process of Parliament. Wouldn’t that be nice? And his siblings cannot
accuse him of any abuse of law or being unfilial. Swee swee.
What is so difficult about this, why mess around with a Ministerial
Committee and having so many ministers voluntarily standing up to run
down the will of his father and at the same time running down LKY in the
process? All this is so unnecessary.
It could have been done better surely, and quite easily done too.
PS. An after thought. How nice it would be if the will was put to a vote and Hsien Loong, after declaring that he has a vested in it to grant his father's last wish voted to demolish it while all his ministers and MPs voted to keep it. It could then be used to tell the world that democracy works in Singapore when the ministers and MPs dare to vote against the PM. Damn good PR for Singapore.
7/04/2017
7/03/2017
Kishore Mahbubani – Telling the unpleasant truth is hard to do
When Singapore was beating its gongs and blowing its trumpets during the
South China Sea claims by the Philippines and screaming that the fake
Tribunal was ‘UN backed’ and China must obey or be seen as not abiding
by the rule of law, I thought Kishore would say something to cool down
the hot heads in the Foreign Ministry and the Rajaratnam School of
International Relations. He did not.
Perhaps he was still recovering from his ops. Or maybe he was just folding his arms and standing by the ring side, telling himself it was better for the hot heads to learn the lesson the hard way. Subsequently the teacher did deliver the lesson. Whether the hot heads have learnt anything, this I am not too sure, and I think not likely though they kept a very low profile for a while, probably gagged from doing more damage to Singapore China relations.
Finally after a long wait, Kishore opened up. The School of Lee Kuan Yew did not share the youthful or naïve enthusiasm of the Rajaratnam School. You see, today information is everywhere, knowledge is everywhere, at the finger tips. There is no need to go to the library and bury oneself in tomes of literature to gather knowledge and information. The difference between two persons having the same store of knowledge is the wisdom in understanding, interpreting and applying the knowledge. That separates the boys from the men.
When there is an eclipse of the moon, some will take out their gongs and drums and beat to their hearts content for the moon to reappear. The wise and knowing will just wait for the truth to show up. Everyone is concerned, but beating the drums and gongs like crazy would not help but to make one looked crazy in this modern world.
What Kishore said is the hard truth, the painful truth, but the stubborn and arrogant would not want to understand. It is difficult and painful to be told of the unpleasant truth. Singapore was what it was during the time of LKY, being a big mouth in everything, was not because Singapore was principled or strong, but because of LKY. He was the senior statesman that achieved a lot in his life time. He was the oracle, the Jedi master that green political leaders would come to beg for some pieces of enlightenment. He could say anything he want and they would defer to him. Singapore’s politicians then rode on his coat tail to talk big. Now he is gone. No one could fit that shoe and think he could talk like LKY and people around the world would listen to.
Some arrogant nuts would think otherwise, that they are as clever and influential as LKY and demand respect from leaders of the world, to listen to their cocky stories.
It is painful to delve further into this silly mindset that Singapore must blow its trumpets and beat its gongs on grounds of principles. Kishore reminded the hot heads that Singapore went against its principles to join the Americans to invade Iraq without the consent of the UN. Why, to serve Singapore’s interest, to join the world’s number one bully to invade a smaller country and think it was safe to do so? Kishore was warning the hot heads that Qatar too did the same only to be turned against and dropped by the Americans.
Yes, Singapore was not a tame dog to the Americans. Would it sound better being the barking dog, the attack dog of the Americans? Singapore could talk big during the time of LKY on two important factors. One is the LKY dominant presence. The second was to be in the American camp with the Americans standing behind it. Today LKY is gone. Singapore still can talk big with the Americans standing behind. But be careful. This big bully has many interests and should its other interests rule to favour others more than Singapore, than it is going to screw Singapore in the back.
Oops, I think everyone has been chirping that there is no permanent friend but permanent interests. Is this so difficult to understand? Should Singapore throw everything into a relationship and cut all other options loose, and keep shouting and bragging about its ability to punch above its weight with a big bully standing behind, or standing on the shoulders of the big bully? Isn’t this dangerous, like riding a tiger and unable to dismount? Is this good for a small state?
The contest for wisdom, not ideas, between the Lee Kuan Yew School and the Rajaratnam School has started. If the latter has its way, we can expect to hear more shouting by Singapore and China would not be too nice to Singapore again. If the former’s wisdom rules, then the hot heads would be kept in a tight leash, not allowed to bark crazily thinking that the more they shout, that only they have principles and others did not, it is ok, that Singapore may be small, but Singapore can punch above its weight, with big bully around to protect Singapore.
I think the Rajaratnam School would triumph in this match as they have more hot heads and is better at shouting down their opponents. Kishore is going to be alone in the Lee Kuan Yew School as no one would have the dare to shout back except to apologise for Kishore’s excesses in his ideas.
China, please respect Singapore’s principles, abide by the rule of law and listen carefully to what Singapore is going to say about the South China Sea, all over again.
PS. Would Singapore be able to punch above its weight, to talk big and loud without the Americans standing at the back?
Perhaps he was still recovering from his ops. Or maybe he was just folding his arms and standing by the ring side, telling himself it was better for the hot heads to learn the lesson the hard way. Subsequently the teacher did deliver the lesson. Whether the hot heads have learnt anything, this I am not too sure, and I think not likely though they kept a very low profile for a while, probably gagged from doing more damage to Singapore China relations.
Finally after a long wait, Kishore opened up. The School of Lee Kuan Yew did not share the youthful or naïve enthusiasm of the Rajaratnam School. You see, today information is everywhere, knowledge is everywhere, at the finger tips. There is no need to go to the library and bury oneself in tomes of literature to gather knowledge and information. The difference between two persons having the same store of knowledge is the wisdom in understanding, interpreting and applying the knowledge. That separates the boys from the men.
When there is an eclipse of the moon, some will take out their gongs and drums and beat to their hearts content for the moon to reappear. The wise and knowing will just wait for the truth to show up. Everyone is concerned, but beating the drums and gongs like crazy would not help but to make one looked crazy in this modern world.
What Kishore said is the hard truth, the painful truth, but the stubborn and arrogant would not want to understand. It is difficult and painful to be told of the unpleasant truth. Singapore was what it was during the time of LKY, being a big mouth in everything, was not because Singapore was principled or strong, but because of LKY. He was the senior statesman that achieved a lot in his life time. He was the oracle, the Jedi master that green political leaders would come to beg for some pieces of enlightenment. He could say anything he want and they would defer to him. Singapore’s politicians then rode on his coat tail to talk big. Now he is gone. No one could fit that shoe and think he could talk like LKY and people around the world would listen to.
Some arrogant nuts would think otherwise, that they are as clever and influential as LKY and demand respect from leaders of the world, to listen to their cocky stories.
It is painful to delve further into this silly mindset that Singapore must blow its trumpets and beat its gongs on grounds of principles. Kishore reminded the hot heads that Singapore went against its principles to join the Americans to invade Iraq without the consent of the UN. Why, to serve Singapore’s interest, to join the world’s number one bully to invade a smaller country and think it was safe to do so? Kishore was warning the hot heads that Qatar too did the same only to be turned against and dropped by the Americans.
Yes, Singapore was not a tame dog to the Americans. Would it sound better being the barking dog, the attack dog of the Americans? Singapore could talk big during the time of LKY on two important factors. One is the LKY dominant presence. The second was to be in the American camp with the Americans standing behind it. Today LKY is gone. Singapore still can talk big with the Americans standing behind. But be careful. This big bully has many interests and should its other interests rule to favour others more than Singapore, than it is going to screw Singapore in the back.
Oops, I think everyone has been chirping that there is no permanent friend but permanent interests. Is this so difficult to understand? Should Singapore throw everything into a relationship and cut all other options loose, and keep shouting and bragging about its ability to punch above its weight with a big bully standing behind, or standing on the shoulders of the big bully? Isn’t this dangerous, like riding a tiger and unable to dismount? Is this good for a small state?
The contest for wisdom, not ideas, between the Lee Kuan Yew School and the Rajaratnam School has started. If the latter has its way, we can expect to hear more shouting by Singapore and China would not be too nice to Singapore again. If the former’s wisdom rules, then the hot heads would be kept in a tight leash, not allowed to bark crazily thinking that the more they shout, that only they have principles and others did not, it is ok, that Singapore may be small, but Singapore can punch above its weight, with big bully around to protect Singapore.
I think the Rajaratnam School would triumph in this match as they have more hot heads and is better at shouting down their opponents. Kishore is going to be alone in the Lee Kuan Yew School as no one would have the dare to shout back except to apologise for Kishore’s excesses in his ideas.
China, please respect Singapore’s principles, abide by the rule of law and listen carefully to what Singapore is going to say about the South China Sea, all over again.
PS. Would Singapore be able to punch above its weight, to talk big and loud without the Americans standing at the back?
The story of loyalty in Red Dot
Until the death of LKY in 2015, loyalty in Singapore is synonymous with
LKY. From the politicians, party stalwarts and the common people in the
streets, loyalty means loyalty to LKY. The final show of loyalty was the
last day of his funeral. No Singaporean leader has ever come close to
the kind of relationship and intimacy between LKY and the masses at
large. There was a bond between him and many people out there, young and
old.
During the GE, this loyalty to LKY was somewhat transferred or inherited by Hsien Loong and the PAP as LKY’s party. Loyalty to LKY, to PAP and to Hsien Loong was never tested or challenged till the current feud between the siblings. There was no occasion to choose loyalty to who. With Hsien Yang and Wei Ling taking sides against Hsien Loong, this loyalty is now in question. Would the loyalty to LKY be just to Hsien Loong or would there be people who would split this loyalty equally among the children of LKY, 1/3 each?
The loyalty to LKY has never been questioned or doubted at least among the PAP members and among the MPs and ministers. This appears to be cracking and apparently some PAP politicians have openly threw stones at LKY, showing scant respect to him while defending his son Hsien Loong and attacking Hsien Yang and Wei Ling. There is a new loyalty to Hsien Loong. There is no indication that these people care two hoots about their loyalties to LKY or even gave it a second thought. LKY is history and there is a new loyalty to pledge to.
There is also the loyalty to Chok Tong. Chok Tong is still around and kicking on the side line. I think some must be quite close to Chok Tong and were beneficiaries and recipients of Chok Tong’s generosity and largesse and would be loyal to him especially when LKY is no longer in the equation.
Another element is the DPMs or senior PAP ministers. Do they have their own following and loyal supporters within the party or in the masses? This has never been an issue so far but when the moment comes when people and party members are faced with a choice, put in a position to make a choice, would the splintered loyalties to the different leaders become an influential factor in the fate of Hsien Loong or the next PAP leader? Or would they play down their loyalties to other individuals, suppressed them in favour of one leader like during LKY’s era and pledge their loyalties to Hsien Loong?
Would the different loyalties be fractious enough to pose a challenge to Hsien Loong’s position as the undisputed leader of the PAP or would the present fracas throw up a new leader to challenge Hsien Loong’s leadership? Is his command and control of the PAP as dominant as his father LKY and continue to rule unchallenged at least for some time to come?
During the GE, this loyalty to LKY was somewhat transferred or inherited by Hsien Loong and the PAP as LKY’s party. Loyalty to LKY, to PAP and to Hsien Loong was never tested or challenged till the current feud between the siblings. There was no occasion to choose loyalty to who. With Hsien Yang and Wei Ling taking sides against Hsien Loong, this loyalty is now in question. Would the loyalty to LKY be just to Hsien Loong or would there be people who would split this loyalty equally among the children of LKY, 1/3 each?
The loyalty to LKY has never been questioned or doubted at least among the PAP members and among the MPs and ministers. This appears to be cracking and apparently some PAP politicians have openly threw stones at LKY, showing scant respect to him while defending his son Hsien Loong and attacking Hsien Yang and Wei Ling. There is a new loyalty to Hsien Loong. There is no indication that these people care two hoots about their loyalties to LKY or even gave it a second thought. LKY is history and there is a new loyalty to pledge to.
There is also the loyalty to Chok Tong. Chok Tong is still around and kicking on the side line. I think some must be quite close to Chok Tong and were beneficiaries and recipients of Chok Tong’s generosity and largesse and would be loyal to him especially when LKY is no longer in the equation.
Another element is the DPMs or senior PAP ministers. Do they have their own following and loyal supporters within the party or in the masses? This has never been an issue so far but when the moment comes when people and party members are faced with a choice, put in a position to make a choice, would the splintered loyalties to the different leaders become an influential factor in the fate of Hsien Loong or the next PAP leader? Or would they play down their loyalties to other individuals, suppressed them in favour of one leader like during LKY’s era and pledge their loyalties to Hsien Loong?
Would the different loyalties be fractious enough to pose a challenge to Hsien Loong’s position as the undisputed leader of the PAP or would the present fracas throw up a new leader to challenge Hsien Loong’s leadership? Is his command and control of the PAP as dominant as his father LKY and continue to rule unchallenged at least for some time to come?
7/02/2017
The price of filial piety - $24m or $36m
There have been many guesses as to how much Hsien Yang paid Hsien Loong
for the property at 38 Oxley Road. All that was known was that he paid
at market price plus 50% or 150% of the market value of the property of
about 12,000 sq ft. Some have made an estimate of $2,000 per sq ft for
the land or approximately $24m. This is how the $24m number is being
tossed around.
Why did Hsien Yang want to pay so much for this piece of property? For all we know or read, he wanted to fulfill his father’s last wish, that is to demolish the property when Wei Ling decided not to stay in the house. As simple as that. Of course some people have made many other inferences of his motive and intention, like he wants to build a multi storey condo on it and make a big profit from this deal. Hsien Yang has disputed this by saying he has offered to turn the property into a memorial garden for Lee Kuan Yew.
Both Hsien Yang and Wei Ling are fighting very hard to want to grant their father and mother their last wish, to demolish this house. This kind of filial piety is normally immeasurable. But in this case, at least one can put a monetary number to it as the minimum value of filial piety. It is $24m or $36m, a handsome sum they have paid, or Hsien Yang had paid, as a filial son.
How many people can afford or willing to pay so much money to show how much they respect and love their parents? Filial piety does not come cheap. It is rare that one can attach a value to it. This is the least Hsien Yang has paid.
The price I paid for the house was simply a price I paid to ensure my father’s wishes are honoured' Lee Hsien Yang
Why did Hsien Yang want to pay so much for this piece of property? For all we know or read, he wanted to fulfill his father’s last wish, that is to demolish the property when Wei Ling decided not to stay in the house. As simple as that. Of course some people have made many other inferences of his motive and intention, like he wants to build a multi storey condo on it and make a big profit from this deal. Hsien Yang has disputed this by saying he has offered to turn the property into a memorial garden for Lee Kuan Yew.
Both Hsien Yang and Wei Ling are fighting very hard to want to grant their father and mother their last wish, to demolish this house. This kind of filial piety is normally immeasurable. But in this case, at least one can put a monetary number to it as the minimum value of filial piety. It is $24m or $36m, a handsome sum they have paid, or Hsien Yang had paid, as a filial son.
How many people can afford or willing to pay so much money to show how much they respect and love their parents? Filial piety does not come cheap. It is rare that one can attach a value to it. This is the least Hsien Yang has paid.
The price I paid for the house was simply a price I paid to ensure my father’s wishes are honoured' Lee Hsien Yang
7/01/2017
Singapore idol takes a beating
Barely two years after his departure from the face of Singapore and
Singapore’s political scene, this issue suddenly surfaced overnight. No one
would expect anyone to be attacking or deriding this famous founding father
of Singapore, to be brazenly attacking him personally as a person so soon
after his death, and so soon even when his party is still in absolute power
and his son is the unchallenged PM of the island. This is surprising to
everyone, even to his own party members and to the cabinet and the MPs. Who
in his right mind would dare to attack or throw negative comments at LKY
when his son is still the PM of the island?
Unfortunately this unpleasant truth is now out in the open, in the main
Unfortunately this unpleasant truth is now out in the open, in the main
media and in social media. People on both sides of the political divide are
not holding their punches and are embolden by the fact that PAP ministers
are also in the game, attacking or ridiculing LKY as a man with many flaws,
unthinking or unclear in his thinking or maybe senile if not wishy washy.
What is more unexpected is that despite of all the things thrown at LKY,
What is more unexpected is that despite of all the things thrown at LKY,
only Hsien Yang and Wei Ling have stood up to defend their father and
hitting out at those saying bad things about their father. What is more
surprising is that no one on the PAP side thinks it a responsibility to
stand up to stop the barbs hurled at LKY. No minister has done so, no MP
has done so, no old or senior PAP stalwart has done so. It is like anyone
is free to do so, at your own time, your own target, fire.
So many are taking pot shots at LKY and it is not funny anymore. Poor
So many are taking pot shots at LKY and it is not funny anymore. Poor
thing.
Are there anyone out there, within the PAP or in the public, in the civil
Are there anyone out there, within the PAP or in the public, in the civil
service, people who were beneficiaries of LKY’s policies and decisions, be
willing to stand up to defend this man they once revered and cried for?
No, no?
Anyone wants to defend kong kong? Defending kong kong is an honourable
Anyone wants to defend kong kong? Defending kong kong is an honourable
thing to do. Never mind if the politicians are keeping mum. He is not their
kong kong after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)