- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=1]NATHAN CRITICISES 2 FOUNDING FATHERS WHO PASSED AWAY AND ARE UNABLE TO REBUT HIM[/h]
Post date:
27 Jan 2015 - 9:40am
Former President S R Nathan has recently published a new book in which he shared some thoughts on some of Singapore’s founding fathers.
In fact, Nathan has criticized two people, namely Dr Toh Chin Chye and former DPM S Rajaratnam, who are already deceased and unable to rebut his criticisms.
On Dr Toh Chin Chye, Nathan said that he changed his attitude after leaving cabinet. According to Nathan.
Nathan explained that when he first met Dr Toh while he was DPM, Dr Toh had believed that the media should support the government and he would get agitated if the media printed something he didn’t like.
However, by the time Dr Toh left the cabinet, Nathan said that he would often get phone calls from him with leads to possible investigative stories to expose the government.
At that time, Nathan was working with the Straits Times and he felt that there was no reason actually to ‘expose’ the government.
Nathan highlighted this sudden change of attitude in his book and concluded that Dr Toh was just bitter.
He reflected and said that Dr Toh was just unhappy with the fact that he had been replaced as DPM.
In his book, Nathan went on to say that Dr Toh had to be “treated with care and tenderness” because he was so upset about being kicked out of his DPM position.
He also noted however, that there was reason for the old ministers to feel upset like Dr Toh. He was asked to step down from the cabinet and he became just an MP in 1981. This was to make way for more younger faces in cabinet. Interestingly, at the same time, ministers’ salaries were raised so there was some cause for bitterness.
Another founding father that Nathan attacked in his book was another former DPM and former Minister for Foreign Affairs, S Rajaratnam.
He said that S Rajaratnam was not good at managing the staff under him and he could cause confusion when he was in the MFA. He shared this as Nathan had once been a staff member at MFA under S Rajaratnam.
He criticised his former boss saying that sometimes, staff would approach Mr Rajaratnam with a problem but instead of teaching them how to solve it, Rajaratnam would go off on his own and solve it leaving the staff with no idea how to deal with similar things in future.
He also said that Rajaratnam was not focused as he would often get confused and digress into other irrelevant issues such that he forgot what he wanted to say to his staff in the first place.
On a positive note though, Nathan also admitted that Rajaratnam was familiar with many broad issues around the world and it was this knowledge which made him suitable for foreign affairs minister.
While everyone should be entitled to share their thoughts, it is interesting that Nathan has decided to criticise these two founding fathers now in his book after they have passed on and are unable to rebut.
Nathan shared his personal accounts which are quite one-sided on these two. He did not deal with their many achievements and contributions to Singapore and only talked about some of their personal flaws.
What do you think?
Post date:
27 Jan 2015 - 9:40am
Former President S R Nathan has recently published a new book in which he shared some thoughts on some of Singapore’s founding fathers.
In fact, Nathan has criticized two people, namely Dr Toh Chin Chye and former DPM S Rajaratnam, who are already deceased and unable to rebut his criticisms.
On Dr Toh Chin Chye, Nathan said that he changed his attitude after leaving cabinet. According to Nathan.
Nathan explained that when he first met Dr Toh while he was DPM, Dr Toh had believed that the media should support the government and he would get agitated if the media printed something he didn’t like.
However, by the time Dr Toh left the cabinet, Nathan said that he would often get phone calls from him with leads to possible investigative stories to expose the government.
At that time, Nathan was working with the Straits Times and he felt that there was no reason actually to ‘expose’ the government.
Nathan highlighted this sudden change of attitude in his book and concluded that Dr Toh was just bitter.
He reflected and said that Dr Toh was just unhappy with the fact that he had been replaced as DPM.
In his book, Nathan went on to say that Dr Toh had to be “treated with care and tenderness” because he was so upset about being kicked out of his DPM position.
He also noted however, that there was reason for the old ministers to feel upset like Dr Toh. He was asked to step down from the cabinet and he became just an MP in 1981. This was to make way for more younger faces in cabinet. Interestingly, at the same time, ministers’ salaries were raised so there was some cause for bitterness.
Another founding father that Nathan attacked in his book was another former DPM and former Minister for Foreign Affairs, S Rajaratnam.
He said that S Rajaratnam was not good at managing the staff under him and he could cause confusion when he was in the MFA. He shared this as Nathan had once been a staff member at MFA under S Rajaratnam.
He criticised his former boss saying that sometimes, staff would approach Mr Rajaratnam with a problem but instead of teaching them how to solve it, Rajaratnam would go off on his own and solve it leaving the staff with no idea how to deal with similar things in future.
He also said that Rajaratnam was not focused as he would often get confused and digress into other irrelevant issues such that he forgot what he wanted to say to his staff in the first place.
On a positive note though, Nathan also admitted that Rajaratnam was familiar with many broad issues around the world and it was this knowledge which made him suitable for foreign affairs minister.
While everyone should be entitled to share their thoughts, it is interesting that Nathan has decided to criticise these two founding fathers now in his book after they have passed on and are unable to rebut.
Nathan shared his personal accounts which are quite one-sided on these two. He did not deal with their many achievements and contributions to Singapore and only talked about some of their personal flaws.
What do you think?
