MM Lee: If you say that this Government is corrupt or has mi
-
MM Lee: If you say that this Government is corrupt or has mismanaged the country’s resources, I’ll sue you!
MM Lee at a dialogue session on Wednesday, 09 July:
People can say anything they like: Singapore is undemocratic, we trip our opposition down, this, that and the other. But if you say that this Government is corrupt or has mismanaged the country’s resources, I’ll sue you!
And they still do that. And the Western press supports the people who say that because they want to see us down.
But because we sue them again and again, nobody in Singapore believes that anybody is doing anything that’s criminal, corrupt or improper. So we can make a mistake – and everybody knows you can’t be 100 per cent right every time – but nobody has profited from that mistake.’
-
the government is not corrupt, they're clean, just a little inept and lousy at times, sometimes dabbling in minor matters
-
One Nation Under Lee seizure to be raised at UN meeting
Written by the Singapore Democrats, 10 Sept 2008
Original linkThe seizure of the video One Nation Under Lee by the Government will be raised in Geneva this Friday, 12 Sep 08, during the 9th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Forum-Asia, a regional human rights group, will cite the case along with other human rights violations in the region when it is called to make representation before the UN Council. Apart from the matter of the video seizure, Forum-Asia will also bring up the prosecution of activists for taking part in peaceful protests in Singapore.
In May this year officials of the Media Development Authority gate-crashed a private screening of the video and demanded that the film be handed over (watch video of the incident here). They said that the video did not have a certificate of approval.
Despite the seizure, the video has since been uploaded on YouTube as well as Google. The YouTube account alone has received 27,300 views.
The Forum-Asia’s representation will also include the situation in Laos and Mongolia. The statement describes “…” The following is the text on Singapore that will be read to the Council:
…although the [Singapore] government has announced its rules to allow outdoor demonstrations (restricted to the Speaker’s Corner), there have been events this year that nevertheless underline a restrictive environment in which human rights defenders are not able to enjoy the freedom of expression and opinion and the freedom to be informed.
In May 2008, a private film screening of One Nation Under Lee was interrupted by representatives from the Media Development Authority who demanded that organisers of the screening hand over the film.
They cited the Films Act which states that it is an offence to have in your possession or to exhibit or distribute any film without a valid certificate. This provision therefore makes almost all Singaporeans hosting private screenings of private events violators of the said Act.
The government has also charged more than 20 activists for taking part in various activities such as peaceful protests and distributing flyers.
Readers can follow the live webcast of events at the session at http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/index.asp.
-
Originally posted by 2cansam:
the government is not corrupt, they're clean, just a little inept and lousy at times, sometimes dabbling in minor matters
Well...i guess it really depends on your definition of corrupt and clean...."passes the anti flame safety cap"
-
Some remarks made by MM Lee deserve further scrutiny
Written by Ng E-Jay
11 November 2008During a speech made after a tour of The Pinnacle@Duxton, one of Singapore’s most expensive public housing projects, MM Lee Kuan Yew said that many educated and young investors went into the Lehman-linked structured products with “their eyes open“, and that banks will offer compensation according to what is fair.
He said: “Please remember, when you get higher returns than what is the average in the markets, that means you are incurring higher risk. So on that message I leave you to ponder about your next purchase.” (CNA, “S’pore has enough reserves to see country through crisis”, 10 Nov 2008)
MM Lee added that if the authorities had handled the matter based on the law, the cases would be closed, if not for the fact that the banks wanted to retain their goodwill with their customers.
He said: “Higher returns means higher risks. So when somebody tells you, ‘you get 1.5 per cent at the bank, I give you 5 per cent’, read the small print carefully.” (ST Online, “Lehman investors ‘aware of risks’”, 11 Nov 2008)
Firstly, who is MM Lee to declare that many investors went into the Lehman-linked investments with “their eyes open“? Has he read through the interview transcripts and seen written acknowledgment by investors that at the point of purchase, they understood that the worst possible scenario was complete loss of their principal sum? Whether certain groups of investors went in with their eyes open is for an independent panel to determine through a rigorous process of fact-finding and scrutiny, not for any one man to assume.
MM Lee said that many cases would be closed if banks strictly followed the law. He is assuming that the Lehman-linked products are in fact suitable for individual investors, and that banks did not mis-sell them. Both these points are still open to debate.
I have previously made the case that the Lehman-linked products are in fact unsuitable for individual investors regardless of their risk profile, and they should not even have been approved for sale by MAS, given that they are linked to derivatives and credit instruments that few people apart from specialists can hope to comprehend, and that the possibility of complete loss of the principal sum simply cannot be justified given that the investor will only earn a few percentage points of interest from the investment even if all goes well.
For MM Lee to claim that banks are showing goodwill above and beyond what is legally required by even allowing the cases to be open for consideration is disingenuous.
MM Lee is correct to say that higher returns involves incurring higher risks. However in the case of the Lehman products investments, the promised return of 5% hardly compensates for the amount of risk the investor has to shoulder whilst being exposed to such arcane instruments like Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations linked to subprime mortgage debt.
The return of 5% quoted by MM Lee is in fact given by many statutory board bonds like HDB and URA bonds. These are obviously of far lower risk than the Lehman products. Given that there are many other financial instruments in the market offering the same kind of yield but are far less risky than the Lehman products, how can MM Lee claim that certain investors went in with “their eyes open“?
MM Lee was also quoted as saying: “How can they pay you 5 per cent, which is two to three times what the banks are paying, unless they are in dire need of the money?”
This is probably the most telling statement. Yes, on hindsight, Lehman Brothers was indeed in dire need of money due to its exposure to all the toxic products like subprime debt. Unfortunately, our banks transferred that risk that was supposed to have been Lehman’s onto our unsuspecting investors who thought they were getting into a low risk investment.
Clearly, MM Lee understands what is truly going on. Unfortunately, it appears he has to act tough towards investors and friendly to the banks in order to be consistent with the sheep skin of paternalism with which the PAP has governed Singapore since independence.
-
Known fact. Singapore government is never corrupt.
Why would they want to be corrupt when they can get lots of monies legally from their high salary. -
I don't know about mis managing the country's resources though I suspect it does but it is definitely corrupt.
-
If someone is paid salary + corruption money, there is no longer a need to be corrupt.
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
Known fact. Singapore government is never corrupt.
Why would they want to be corrupt when they can get lots of monies legally from their high salary.
It's called legitimized corruption. It's worse than usual corruption -
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:
I don’t know about mis managing the country’s resources though I suspect it does but it is definitely corrupt.
Putting your relatives and friends in positions which they are not suited for, demanding an exorbitant amount of salary, isn't that a form of corruption?
Definition of corruption in thefreedictionary.com:
CORRUPTION. An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. It includes bribery, but is more comprehensive; because an act may be corruptly done, though the advantage to be derived from it be not offered by another. Merl. Rep. h.t.
-
Nah they call it meritocracy and we must buy it! lol
-
Opposition is the most corrupt here..... scandals, bribery and ass lickin
-
No, they are not corrupted. They only give their own love ones / relatives benefits and favors to preserve their family's legacy.
-
Originally posted by Anyhowsay:
Opposition is the most corrupt here..... scandals, bribery and ass lickin
-
We need to change the way the Government manages our economy
Written by Ng E-Jay
30 March 2009At the launch of an alumni complex at the National University of Singapore (NUS) a couple of Fridays ago, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said that Singapore will take two to three years to bounce back from the recession, assumes that the United States recovers next year. (ST, “Full recovery at least 2 to 3 years away”, 21 March 2009)
MM Lee went on to lambast critics of Singapore’s economic model, citing for instance a recent Wall Street Journal editorial’s opinion that Singapore needed to focus more on stimulating domestic consumption of goods.
I have also opined repeatedly on this blog that Singapore’s strong emphasis on exports as opposed to domestic consumption has made it more vulnerable to global economic swings and increases the volatility of our local business cycle, bringing much hardship to Singaporeans in recessionary times such as these. (See here.)
But MM Lee said that Singapore “has no choice” but to export, adding: “Four million people to sustain industries supplying top-end goods to the world? That’s rubbish.”
Exports are undoubtedly important for a small economy such as ours with no natural resources, but MM Lee appears to be missing the point.
Critics like the Wall Street Journal (see here) are not advocating that Singaporeans attempt to purchase, with their limited resources, goods that are meant to cater to the whims and fancies of the wealthy from the world over, and hence do away with the need to export those goods.
What we are talking about here is reducing our over-reliance on exports, in particular, our dependence on the US and G7 economies which look set to be in a very turbulent phase over the foreseeable future. We also need to encourage the resident population to spend and invest more in our local economy, in all manners of goods and services, especially those produced by small and medium enterprises who have their roots and stakes firmly anchored within our shores. This would create a virtuous cycle that makes for sustainable economic growth and development.
Every economy, no matter big or small, that aims to be self-sustaining over the long run must develop a strong domestic consumption sector in tandem with robust export industries. As it stands however, domestic consumption accounts for only about 40% of our GDP — far less than that of other developed Asian economies like Hong Kong and Taiwan whose share of GDP in consumption is over 55%.
Singapore is thus hit by a double-whammy, in that efforts to stimulate the economy by putting cash into people’s pockets will have less results as compared to similar measures employed in other economies like Hong Kong, and our over-reliance on exports for growth leaves us acutely vulnerable to the sharp global downturn.
If the global economic meltdown has taught us anything, it is that capitalism unchecked leads to grave excesses, and that when global asset bubbles burst, small and open economies like ours that pursue a “growth at all cost” model of economic management are the hardest hit.
MM Lee and our political leaders have failed to recognize that the old ways of treating the entire country like a corporation while neglecting its soul and its greater purpose has not served us well in the new millennium, despite our rapid downward economic spiral suggesting precisely that.
Going forward, our emphasis as a nation should be to learn the lessons of the current financial crisis, and endeavour to temper the excesses that unbridled capitalism can engender by sound regulation of the financial sector, the institution of adequate checks and balances, and enlightened social policies that aim to distribute wealth from the top echelons of society to the working class.
The Government’s investment in infrastructure, healthcare and education is of long-term value to the nation. But we also need independent and effective labour unions and a strong political economy to help translate this into a narrowing income gap, and rising living standards for all and not just a few.
Unfortunately, with our political elite’s insistence on adhering to the corporatist model and continuing their self-serving ways, it would take a significant disruption in their political power base before we can hope for meaningful change to occur.
-
Singapore's Prevention of Corruption Act is distinctly different from UK's Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act.
UK's version is drafted in a way that includes nespotism as a form of corruption, whereas Singapore's version is not.
-
Gopalan Nair has called Singapore government corrupt more than once, he even called the judiciary corrupt.
Why was he not sued?
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Maybe he can only sue and win in Singapore, in another impartial judiciary like the USA, he knows the dire outcome.
-
In singapore, if you go against the PAP. YOu are guilty until proven innocent!
-
No Singaporean fit to manage our country’s reserves?
Written by Ng E-Jay
11 March 2009Is there really no Singapore citizen who is fit to manage our own country’s reserves?
That was the impression Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew gave last week when he said at the Thomson Reuters Newsmaker Event that “there was nobody inside Temasek equal to the job” of CEO.
MM Lee was explaining the events leading up to Ho Ching’s resignation, from the Cabinet granting in-principle approval for her to step down last month, to the release of a Cabinet paper tabled by the Ministry of Finance laying out her reasons for retiring. MM Lee emphasized that his daughter-in-law’s resignation had nothing to do with Temasek’s poor investment performance last year.
MM Lee has since backtracked on his statement, which seems to imply that our country is so devoid of talent that we need to find a foreigner to manage our own reserves — wealth that our citizens built up over the decades with sheer hard work and diligence.
In a statement issued by his press secretary, MM Lee said that Temasek Holdings has “corrected” him, and that their succession options include both Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, both inside and outside of Temasek.
I refuse to take this episode at face value, especially coming from a politician not exactly known for his graciousness in admitting his errors. MM Lee’s initial remarks clearly reveal that he had knowledge of Temasek’s internal succession planning and that no Singaporean within Temasek was up to the job of CEO in his honest opinion.
His backtracking is evidently made to ameliorate the backlash that would arise from inadvertently admitting that the PAP system has failed to produce talents capable to running the show.
Why is it that with our supposed first-world educational system and globalized population, we have failed to even produce one citizen capable of managing our country’s wealth?
Is this symptomatic of a larger problem our society faces, that a constant brain drain of our best and brightest towards fairer shores, as well as a dulling of the population through a rigid socio-political system has resulted in a talent deficiency within our borders?
If the PAP system has failed to produce talents amongst the local citizenry capable of taking over the helms of Government and managing the key pillars of our national infrastructure including our reserves, do they deserve to call themselves a first-world Government?
The level of opaqueness in Temasek Holding’s recruitment process and succession planning, as well as their lack of accountability to the people of Singapore regarding their risky foreign investments is unacceptable given that they have been vested by the Government to be stewards of our hard-earned savings accumulated over the decades.
Temasek’s website states categorically that it “is accountable to the Singapore Government, as its shareholder, for the overall performance of the group“.
But far from demanding accountability from Temasek Holdings, the ruling elite has defended all its actions and dismissed its staggering investment losses without ever putting its feet to the fire.
Had Temasek not pumped so many billions into failed US banks, the money, if reinvested locally, could have easily funded social assistance schemes for many years.
We can warily hope that Mr Charles Chip Goodyear will do a better job than Ho Ching, though without a proper system of checks and balances and accountability to the electorate, there is really no way of assessing his performance in a rigorous manner or assessing whether our nation’s wealth is truly in safe hands.
That should be something to think about, especially in this poor economic climate when the chips are down.
-
Rich city-state Singapore faces tougher future as crisis reveals cost of heavy export reliance
Source: AP, 12 June 2009
by ALEX KENNEDY, Associated Press Writer
SINGAPORE (AP) — This speck on the map leapt from poverty to First World riches in a generation. Now its halcyon years of breakneck growth may be over.
Ask none other than Lee Kuan Yew, the authoritarian statesman who oversaw Singapore’s transformation from a malarial outpost of the British Empire to a modern city-state churning out hard-drives, medicines and deepwater oil rigs for export.
Premier from 1959 to 1990, he squashed dissent and steered the tropical island into embracing globalization. It reaped the economic benefits, becoming the world’s fourth-richest country as Western consumers sent global trade soaring.
Now Singapore’s top customers — the U.S., Japan and Europe — are mired in the biggest global slump since World War II and may take years to recover their normal growth.
Lee, currently an adviser to his son, prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, acknowledges it’s improbable that China along with other Asian nations can pick up the slack. It will take “decades” for Asians to shake off their traditional caution and tendency to save rather than spend, he says.
“The Chinese always believe there may be an earthquake. So do the Japanese,” Lee said last month in Japan.
“We’ll have to wait for the American economy,” he said.
Fellow Asian “tigers” Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea have also been hammered by the global crisis. But Singapore is the most dependent on trade, with exports equal to a whopping 185 percent of gross domestic product.
As a result, the Southeast Asian city-state is reeling from its deepest recession since splitting from a short-lived federation with neighboring Malaysia in 1965. The International Monetary Fund forecasts GDP to shrink 10 percent in 2009, the most of any major Asian economy.
So far, there are few signs the downturn is threatening the ruling party’s five-decade hold on power. Singapore — known for its ban on chewing gum sales and canings for crimes some countries would rule as minor — strictly controls public speech and assembly though has become socially more liberal and allowed greater artistic freedom in recent years.
The People’s Action Party, which engineered yearly growth averaging 7.7 percent since 1961, is also doing what it can to soften the blows.
Officials are aiming to boost tourism with two casinos and promoting the island as a private banking haven for wealthy foreigners but concede no amount of tinkering can eliminate the tiny nation’s weaknesses.
Singapore’s 4.8 million population, 683 square kilometers of land — a fourth the size of Luxembourg — and lack of natural resources leave it with little choice but to sway with the global winds of trade and finance.
A speech by the prime minister this week welcomed the creation of a high-level committee to plot fresh directions for the economy. Yet it offered nothing new by touting Singapore as a base for corporate head offices and center for biotechnology research and drugs production.
Considerable hopes are also pinned on financial services as a bilingual Chinese-English work force and political stability have spawned a busy wealth management sector. But after years of promoting its finance industry, Singapore does not yet rival Hong Kong as a regional financial center.
“The road ahead will be difficult. First we have to see through this global economic storm. Beyond that, we face a new world,” Lee Hsien Loong said.
Many economists expect the U.S. to emerge from recession later this year, but say the strength of the recovery is uncertain. U.S. consumer spending may take several years to return to pre-crisis levels as Americans pay down debt and build savings.
“U.S. consumers seem to be undergoing a change in mind-set for the first time in a generation or two,” said Quentin Fitzsimmons, a fund manager for London-based Threadneedle. “You shouldn’t look to the U.S. consumer to lead us out of this recession.”
The collapse in demand for Singapore’s exports is already putting pressure on wages. Growth in real household incomes slowed to 5.7 percent in 2008 from 7.5 percent the previous year while incomes of the bottom 10 percent of households stagnated even with increased government aid for the poor.
GDP per person this year is expected to slide to about $32,000 from nearly $37,700 last year.
Analysts at Credit Suisse predict an exodus of 200,000 foreign professionals and other workers from the island, adding to a collapse in house prices.
Singaporeans still flock to the swanky malls that line Orchard Road, a shopping strip famous in the region. But they mostly eyeball the luxury goods rather than buy.
“Right now, I don’t feel like I can afford Fendi,” said Yolanda Wong, a 27-year-old accountant, as she window shopped at the Italian designer fashion store. “I still have my job, but when I see other people losing their jobs or taking pay cuts, it makes me afraid and want to save,” she said.
Freddie Lim, manager of a boutique selling watches with prices as high as $1 million Singapore dollars ($692,000), said sales are down 20 to 30 percent.
“Our regular customers, who may buy several watches a year when the economy is good, are telling us they are worried about the future and putting off big purchases. People say this downturn could last three years,” he said.
The government has sought to stem layoffs and keep living standards from slipping by dipping into its $174 billion pot of international reserves for the first time to help finance a $13 billion fiscal stimulus package. It is subsidizing the wages of the lowest paid workers.
Officials, meanwhile, have pledged to remain faithful to low-tax policies that have successfully attracted foreign investment.
Even so, the return of Singapore’s once booming growth hinges on the big developed economies bouncing back strongly in the next two years, said Selena Ling, an economist with OCBC, a leading bank in Singapore.
“The golden age of growth may be past,” she said.
-
Social divide inevitable in Singapore, but a lot of it is caused by PAP
Written by Ng E-Jay
21 October 2009During a dialogue held at the National University of Singapore on Monday night, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said that a social class divide was inevitable in a maturing society like Singapore.
He was responding to pre-planted questions raised by a couple of students who had asked him what Singapore could do to narrow its income gap, and if he was worried about the growing social divide.
A social divide may be inevitable in Singapore, but what MM Lee does not acknowledge is that a lot of it is in fact caused by PAP policies that favour Big Business and the elites, and not merely due to the unstoppable tide of globalization.
MM Lee argued that global competition depresses wages at the bottom and boosts wages at the top. If so, then it must be the responsibility of any Government to redistribute the spoils of capitalism through enlightened policies, including the creation of a comprehensive social safety net for the poor and underprivileged.
In Singapore however, the ruling PAP Government exacerbates the problem by indiscriminately importing huge numbers of low skilled foreign workers in order to boost GDP growth and enable large corporations to fatten their bottom lines.
This has led to wages at the lower end of the spectrum remaining depressed for well over a decade and has created a continuous cycle of hardship for the working class who have not only had to deal with increasing inflation from policies like GST, but also find themselves having to compete on equal terms with those who do not need to serve National Service or service the mortgage of an expensive flat in Singapore.
Our immigration and pro-foreigner policies which are meant to shore up population growth and counter our low birth rate also have the potential to create many social problems. The sudden influx of large numbers of foreigners who have not had sufficient time to adapt to the local culture (and who have not necessarily demonstrated sufficient willingness to do so) cannot be good for any society. This is not 19th century Singapore we are talking about here, where the population base is still tiny and large areas of the island remain uncultivated.
MM Lee also argued against a minimum wage, saying that it would do more harm than good, because employers who are forced to deal with higher staff costs would simply find ways to hire less people. He mentioned that every country that has set a minimum wage over what the market will bear has found that the move cuts jobs.
It has always been the opinion of this website that such simplistic arguments fail to take into account the responsibility of a Government to provide for its citizens by making sure there is always a level playing field for all. Such arguments also neglect to consider the unique circumstances Singapore is in and the failed economic policies of the PAP.
Firstly, what is the logic in avoiding a minimum wage policy in order to keep staff costs down, but yet allowing other cost factors like office rentals to balloon out of control, as what has happened in recent years?
Secondly, the entrenchment of GLCs in our economy has crowded out many small and medium enterprises over the years and has made our economy uncompetitive. Isn’t it far more logical to promote job creation and enterprise by doing away with this top-down, cronyistic approach to economic management?
The institution of a minimum wage in Singapore would not necessarily lead to businesses relocating their operations, because countries like China, India, Vietnam and Thailand have much lower cost structures even without us having a minimum wage. If businesses wished to relocate due to cost factors, they would have done so already, with or without minimum wages for employees.
Ultimately, I believe the question should boil down to the kind of society that we are trying to create and the kinds of businesses and models of free enterprise that we should encourage in Singapore. If a business or a corporation has to close shop simply because it is compelled to pay a minimum wage to its workers, perhaps we should ask if this is the kind of business or enterprise that we would like to see flourishing in Singapore. Shouldn’t we be compelling private enterprise to move up the value chain and reduce their dependence on cheap labour?
The Government believes that it is more practical to assist low income workers through tax relief or direct cash subsidies instead of instituting a minimum wage. However, these measures have thus far been quite ad hoc, and it is not clear whether low income families have been sufficiently helped by the Government in this regard.
Much more needs to be done to help our working class citizens secure jobs and lead a decent life, beginning with eliminating GST for essential items like food and giving them a head start in the job hunt against foreigners who neither have to serve National Service nor support their families in high-cost Singapore. In my view, a minimum wage would also go a long way toward helping them and would not be detrimental to our economy.
The Government has pursued a “growth at all cost” model of economic management that relies on the heavy import of foreign labour to depress wages at the lower end of the spectrum. This model of economic management is clearly unsustainable given the limits of population growth. It has benefited GLCs and multi-national corporations whilst pushing working class citizens into economic hardship and despair. Until such policies change, the vaunted social cohesion that the Government keeps talking about will never be fully realized.
-
Originally posted by Anyhowsay:
In singapore, if you go against the PAP. YOu are guilty until proven innocent!
And you are not entitled to decent living and must be subject to continual harassment and enmity and psychological torture. And they call it first world country. More like first class zoo. They way they treated people as mere obedient slaves. -
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:
I don’t know about mis managing the country’s resources though I suspect it does but it is definitely corrupt.
Lam Pah! Mismanaging the people which is one of the country's resources is an undeniable fact. When there was the economic downturn, lots of people lost their jobs and many couldn't get onto the job market. So far, considering the total number of jobless in Singapore, it still hasn't improve. -
where is angel3070? i thot she always against the government 1?
-
he always say that westerners say we have corrupt government is because they want to see us down. But he always never elaborate further why would they want to see us down? considering that we are only a tiny harmless country not some super power nation like china