Rilek1Corner

Tag: Lee Kuan Yew

  • Mdm President. A Tale Told By Idiots Full Of Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

    Mdm President. A Tale Told By Idiots Full Of Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

    So much nonsense is being spouted about the Presidency that you have to wonder  if Singaporeans have lost all of their critical faculties or are they just too busy virtue signalling.

    There was widespread righteous indignation in our so-called “alternative” media over a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing’s alleged Freudian slip when he addressed Halimah Yaacob as “Madam President” rather than “Madam Speaker” in Parliament on Monday. I see that. Yes. It was a slip that gave away an early indication that our next President is going to be Madam Yaacob. Shock horror! But frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn and here’s why.

    1. It’s a fact that this election is reserved for a Malay candidate.
    2. It’s a fact that the PAP introduced new eligibility rules last year.
    3. It seems likely that Mdm Halimah Yaacob will be the only Malay candidate who will be eligible given facts 1 and 2. 

    How many of these indignant scribblers are  even minority race, obliged by law to carry an National Identity card identifying them as minority race?   Whatever race you are, why bother getting worked up over the PAP’s moves to ensure that they have even more control over who gets elected President?

    All checks and balances on executive power in Singapore disappeared a long time ago. How did they disappear? Historically through the usual power plays, deceit and conniving by Colonial rulers and vested outside interests.  More recently because we the people, who still have the vote, did not resist. In fact most people welcomed the chance to give up their individual power  to a draconian nanny state.

    Get over yourselves. The PAP have unfettered power. Every branch of government and every institution has been brought firmly under the PAP’s control.  There are no checks on that power and control. ( actually in recent years there was one. A man called M Ravi and he stopped the PM’s power over when to call a by-election- but he’s been fixed now)

    Despite all the manufactured outrage by alternative media and keyboard warriors over the changes to the Elected Presidency, the EP was never an institution that was intended to keep Lee Kuan Yew and his son and later generations of the Lee family from power. The Elected Presidency  was introduced solely to put a potential pebble in the machinery of government if an Opposition party was ever to take power in Singapore and produce a constitutional crisis to allow the PAP to take back power.

    To understand what the Elected Presidency was about, everyone should watch this video of JBJ and Chiam See Tong debating with Lee Hsien Loong:

    if you watch it and educate yourself as to how the role changed you will understand my view point. I simply cannot  get excited over some of our brave so-called “civil society activists” slamming the  recent changes to the Elected Presidency. These people are not prepared to agitate about any issues of real importance, merely where they feel the PAP have permitted them a safe space for a controlled and calibrated amount of dissent.

    If Singaporeans want to see real democracy in action they can look no further than the huge protests have erupted all over the US against Trump and his executive orders. A judge, appointed by a Republican President, is prepared to stand up and place a temporary hold on Trump’s ban on Muslim immigration.

    What does it matter who our President is? It is always going to be a PAP choice. Even before the new rules it was always pre -selection according to a PAP agenda and never was a free and open election.

    I also cannot be bothered with the fools who get worked up about a  not-so-much PAP candidate- i.e. retired long term PAP MP or civil servant. If one of these candidates were to be elected then again it would not matter. Why? The EP has no power because the EP must follow the advice of the Council of Presidential Advisors, which has recently been expanded and given more power. Should the EP ever go against that PAP group ‘s advice then he or she can be overruled by  a 2/3 majority vote in parliament. The PAP always has, always had and probably always will have that 2/3 majority required to veto any President.

    And why should I get excited over the EP when last election not one of the four campaigned on the actual unconstitutionality of the role? How it is a breach of parliamentary sovereignty. Did even one candidate ever say , “I’m just a ceremonial figurehead so long as the PAP have that 2/3 majority.”

    How did all these virtuous bloggers and scribblers and activists follow up the wins of GE 2011?- by making sure the unified message to get 1/3 of opposition seats in Parliament was sabotaged. The result is a PAP majority and veto.

    Get over it. You chose to put your lives  and every aspect of life in Singapore into the hands of one political party. Ownself fury about ownself choice. Uniquely Singaporean!

     

    Source: https://kenjeyaretnam.com

  • Osman Sulaiman: I Would Tolerate Donald Trump’s Bigotry Then Put Up With LKY’s Hypocrisy

    Osman Sulaiman: I Would Tolerate Donald Trump’s Bigotry Then Put Up With LKY’s Hypocrisy

    I dont like Trump. But voters know what they are getting. No deception. No hypocrisy.

    Against LKY who wooed my community by subterfuge, wears the ‘songkok’ and visited the mosques and championing meritocracy but acted against it.

    Cozened a whole generation into believing equality for everyone. So in this aspect, Trump anytime. Better the devil we know than the devil we dont.

     

    Source: Khan Osman Sulaiman

  • What’s Really Making Beijing Angry With Singapore?

    What’s Really Making Beijing Angry With Singapore?

    The argument between Singapore’s ambassador to China and the editor-in-chief of the nationalistic Chinese tabloid Global Times is less about specific actions and deeds as it is about Beijing’s growing disappointment with the tiny Asian city-state.

    Until recently, the two nations – which share deep ethnic and cultural bonds – had enjoyed what was often described as a special relationship. This was manifest most clearly in two recent events – China’s rare high-profile treatment of the death of Singaporean leader Lee Kuan Yew in March last year and Singapore’s hosting of the historic meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping ( 習近平 ) and his Taiwanese counterpart Ma Ying-jeou last November.

    But since then, mistrust has grown, spurred by the escalating rivalry between China and the United States and the landmark ruling by The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on July 12 denying Chinese claims to huge swathes of the South China Sea.

    The Global Times, which is affiliated to People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party, reported on September 21 that Singapore wanted to include the Philippines’ position on The Hague arbitration ruling on the final communique issued by the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Venezuela this month.

    Troubled waters: Beijing’s ‘anger’ lurks beneath surface of Singapore-Global Times South China Sea row

    But Stanley Loh, Singapore’s envoy to China, rejected the Global Times report, issuing two open letters to the newspaper’s editor-in-chief Hu Xijin this week.

    Seemingly at the centre of the argument is whether the Singapore delegation had tried to add an endorsement of the tribunal’s ruling to the summit’s final document.

    But what’s really causing the friction is Beijing’s growing intolerance of Singapore’s diplomatic approach to China. The public spat over the Global Times is just a trigger. The disagreements have been simmering for a long time. Beijing believes the island state has been playing both China and the US cards to advance its own interests.

    Chinese culture requires friends to help each other. In view of its traditional friendship with Singapore, Beijing hopes the island state will use its unique role in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) and its influence in the region to help China solve its disputes with neighbours. At the very least it wants Singapore to remain neutral.

    What a minister’s reluctance to be PM reveals about race in Singapore

    But Singapore’s gestures on the ruling have dismayed Beijing. Singaporean officials have spoken repeatedly in support of the ruling, which Beijing rejects as “illegal” and “none binding”. Not only has Singapore supported the ruling – it has made efforts to mobilise international pressure on China.

    Beijing is particularly annoyed by Singapore’s attempt to use the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit as a forum to make a statement against China. The NAM was formed during the cold war as an organisation of states that did not want to formally align themselves with either the United States or the Soviet Union. China, though not a member of the 115-member organisation, has long used the forum to assert its role as representative of the developing world. China might not be so bothered were Singapore shouting alone, but because it is leading the charge, it feels offended.

    While the quarrel has exposed their division, it is likely a concealed diplomatic effort by Beijing to save their traditional friendship with the island republic from plunging.

    Current leaders treasure the special ties with Singapore. These ties were built by generations of leaders, including the founding fathers of China – Mao Zedong ( 毛澤東 ), Zhou Enlai ( 周恩來 ) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平 ) – and of Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew).

    Chinese leaders attach great significance to the ethnic and cultural bonds between the city state’s 6 million populace, dominated by ethnic Chinese, and China’s 1.3 billion people.

    The Global Times is not an “official” publication and while it can represent the view of “some officials”, it tends to reflect the voice of the hawks in the establishment.

    ‘Global Times didn’t have journalists at summit’, says Singapore ambassador as row escalates over South China Sea report

    It is likely that the paper’s editors wanted the recent reports to reflect the view of “some Chinese officials” – or just as likely, some senior officials wanted to use the paper’s “semi-official” status to air their views in a diplomatically feasible manner.

    Either scenario reflects Beijing’s growing disappointment with Singapore, both over the South China Sea disputes and its increasing embrace of Washington. Chinese leaders may have respected the elder Lee, but this does not mean they will automatically give the same favour to his son, Lee Hsien Loong. The open endorsement of the Global Times’ report by a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman is evidence of its disappointment.

    Beijing has no intention on giving up its attempts to draw Singapore into its orbit. It treasures Singapore’s unique role in the region – a role that could help improve China’s relations with Asean and its neighbours – too much to do so.

    Blow-by-blow account of the China-Singapore spat over Global Times’ South China Sea report

    That is why President Xi Jinping ( 習近平 ) told Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hangzhou ( 杭州 ) in early September, that Sino-Singapore ties had always been one step ahead of China’s ties with other Asean countries.

    So while the Global Times episode may highlight the difficulties both sides face in nurturing their traditional friendship, it also reflects China’s intent to keep that relationship ‘special’.

    Source: www.scmp.com

  • Ismail Kassim: Grading Your Leaders

    Ismail Kassim: Grading Your Leaders

    Lately I have been thinking about the nature of political leadership.
    What is the difference, I ask myself, between good leaders and great leaders and between the former and those regarded as average, ‘’Ok, can-do or so-so’’ leaders?
    I think we can all agree that good leaders are good managers. They are relatively hard-working, efficient, and to some extent, able to deliver the promised material goods to the people.
    Great leaders, on the other hand, need not necessarily be good at managing, but they have a grand vision and the ability to inspire their people towards a common goal.
    They are leaders who are ready to sacrifice their lives for a cause they believe in. They become great only after emerging victorious after a struggle against great odds.
    History is replete with such great leaders: Mao, Nehru, Uncle Ho, Thatcher, Reagan, Mandela, Deng Xiaoping and our very own LKY. I will also put Mahathir and Putin, despite their shortcomings, in the same category.
    In short, the underlying common factor is struggle. It is only through a tough battle that a leader can stamp his authority and forge group cohesion and solidarity around him.
    There is no other way. Camaraderie cannot arise in the absence of a battle against deadly opponents and certainly not through devious means to achieve victory without fighting.
    How about good leaders who lived in stable, post-revolutionary times? Is there any hope of them becoming great?
    Of course – lots of hopes. One way is to create your own challenges through manipulating the internal or external landscape.
    Abe, I think, is on the way to greatness if his efforts to remould the Japanese mind after the traumas of WW11 succeed.
    Duterte and Modi too have a chance if they could last the distance in their valiant goal to reshape their nations.
    So good leaders can become great, but if they are not careful they can also be downgraded one rung down to the level of the ‘’so-so’’ leaders.
    Badawi is a fine example of a leader considered good initially but later downgraded. He had great dreams and goals, but he could not control the greedy warlords and also the religious misogynists in and out of his party. Under their combined onslaught, his vision evaporated into thin air.
    Cameron, after winning a second term, was on the road to greatness, but then he stumbled badly over the Brexit issue. After his defeat in the referendum and subsequent resignation, history will put him under the ‘’so-so’’ category.
    Other leaders who are currently classified as good will also meet the same fate as Cameron if they mishandle or spurn the challenges facing them.
    Actually, leaders who have to face tough but winnable challenges during their rule should consider themselves lucky. They do not have to manufacture a crisis. All they need is to brace themselves and rally their good-minded people to battle.
    But if they take the soft or easy option, shifting the goalpost and disqualifying their opponents through dubious constitutional manoeuvres, then they risk slipping from good to the ‘’so-so’’ category.
    Such ‘’so-so’’ leaders, of course, can still console themselves. At least they are one rung above the bottom group of rotten leaders; the corrupt who steal their people’s money to feed their family frenzied overseas shopping sprees and bribe or buy political support from friends and foes alike.
    There are so many of these rotten apples, near and far, that I don’t think it is necessary for me to mention any by name.
    Readers should not have any problems in identifying at least some of them. What, if in the process of dodging a fight, a good leader makes a monumental blunder, an error of judgement, with grave consequences for his people in the coming years?
    Will he just be demoted to ‘’so-so’’ or kick down two rungs to join the rotten lot? I will let history make that call.
    spurns greatness
    falls from good to rotten
    ah! what a fate
    Source: Ismail Kassim
  • Bernard Chen: Lee Kuan Yew Would Not Have Approved Of Malay President Through Affirmative Action

    Bernard Chen: Lee Kuan Yew Would Not Have Approved Of Malay President Through Affirmative Action

    The PAP turns 62 today. A week ago, they spoke up for and stood by affirmative action, the very principle that its founding members fought against, every tooth and every nail. The irony passes them by as they legitimises it with an overwhelming vote in Parliament.

    Unlike affirmative action apologists, the late Lee Kuan Yew would never rush into positions for appearance sake. He would have turned in his grave, literally and metaphorically. He took what he saw as a Malaysian Malaysian, put everything on the line and took us out of a merger that he had so vehemently believed in. The conviction in their spirits then, soulless today. The PAP of 2016 turned their back on what the pioneer generation believed, the same generation whom they had so profusely thanked in 2015. We the younger ones were asked to learn from our pioneers. They have clearly forgotten all of that today.

    I grew up being told by my PAP leaders that affirmative action is not what Singapore believes in. Look at Malaysia, affirmative action. Singapore wants none of that. Now we have affirmative action delivered on a plate by that parliamentary majority. Sad, none of the sitting MPs thought that this was so so wrong. None. And they say they have the interests of Singapore at heart. The temerity, the audacity, the tragedy of it all.

    Today, we have nothing but this obscurantist doctrine, reinforced by the sitting Minister for Malay-Muslim affairs. Simply to get a ceremonial position for a Malay and their problem as a community will be resolved. This is no different as how easily a bill gets passed in a parliament heavily skewed in the favour of these new apologists. The whole clan [and parliament] celebrates. It was not too long ago they call members on the other side of the spectrum chauvinists and discredit them with the might of the machinery.

    They clutched at straws but wielded the stick with the blank cheque they were given. The recent amendments to the Constitution is an indictment of how far the PAP had deviated from their beliefs and founding principles. Just cut the rhetoric. This is a totally different party today, from what it was in 1954.

    With you, for you, for Singapore. The hypocrisy. The PAP of 2016. Happy 62nd Birthday, the leviathan that is the PAP. Barely recognisable from the one that ushered in independent Singapore in 1965.

    The next time, when you say you believe in the PAP, remember to opt yourself out from that affirmative action that is now a part of the PAP’s DNA. Guilt by association, as they say.

    Source: Chen Jiaxi Bernard