- Joined
- Dec 6, 2018
- Messages
- 18,132
- Points
- 113
Money not enough
PM Lee To Stay As PM A Little While Longer Than Expected! ESM Goh Promises His Loyalty And Support! Majulah PAP!
- Thread starter JohnTan
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 90,888
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 16,854
- Points
- 113
Its all euphemism on how he will stay on to fix the opposition.
Watch as more restrictive laws are rolled out and more chickens slaughtered.
Watch as more restrictive laws are rolled out and more chickens slaughtered.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 14,764
- Points
- 113
oh pls, he thinks too highly of himself. Ever thought of him resign immediately and then covid will be gone for good? His holding on to post might be a liability for the country, especially his salary.
It cannot happen as the dynasty ruler cannot lose faceLee Hsien Loong should abdicate and let Ho Ching take over. Wu Zetian 2.0.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,551
- Points
- 113
Why not just do a XJP? PM for life
While he’s at it might as well abolish elections
While he’s at it might as well abolish elections
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 108,944
- Points
- 113
Sinkieland is a totalitarian shithole, I highly doubt Lee Hsien Loong will ride off into the sunset. They all want to be 太上皇 to continue smooching off taxpayer money while doing fuck all. Senior Minister, Minister Emeritus, Minister Mentor etc.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 24,544
- Points
- 113
Not as if he retire pap no more in charge.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 36,768
- Points
- 113
Sinkieland is a totalitarian shithole, I highly doubt Lee Hsien Loong will ride off into the sunset. They all want to be 太上皇 to continue smooching off taxpayer money while doing fuck all. Senior Minister, Minister Emeritus, Minister Mentor etc.
My inside sources tell me that even if PM Lee steps down as PM, he'll still be around as Minister Mentor or Senior Minister to advice the 4G and 5G leaders. He'll be around until the PAP 6G leaders fully take over.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 108,944
- Points
- 113
Not as if he retire pap no more in charge.
Ah Heng and Ah Chan, wait until their lumpar turned blue already.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 24,544
- Points
- 113
It a given to ensure her missus stays in the mass sick. May be he worry Heng gang planning a cool d tart. Will Loong do an Anwar? Guess we not so different from matland after all!Sinkieland is a totalitarian shithole, I highly doubt Lee Hsien Loong will ride off into the sunset. They all want to be 太上皇 to continue smooching off taxpayer money while doing fuck all. Senior Minister, Minister Emeritus, Minister Mentor etc.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 108,944
- Points
- 113
It a given to ensure her missus stays in the mass sick. May be he worry Heng gang planning a cool d tart. Will Loong do an Anwar? Guess we not so different from matland after all!
Loong charges Ah Heng with sodomy? And the sodomy partner was Ah Chan?
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 24,544
- Points
- 113
Charge him for stealing stationary. How to hand over cuntry to a pencil thief u tell me?Loong charges Ah Heng with sodomy? And the sodomy partner was Ah Chan?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,215
- Points
- 113
Who made the decision that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong should not retire yet?
by Ghui
16 November 2020
in Opinion
Reading Time: 3min read
22
Much has been recently made about succession plans in Singapore’s Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) led Government. While Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (Lee) had previously indicated that he intended to retire by his 70th birthday, this was the pre-COVID-19 pandemic plan. Post pandemic, Lee has given hints that his retirement will be delayed in order to see the country through this health and economic crisis.
Senior PAP stalwarts have also chimed in to hammer home the same message of a delayed succession plan. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean (Teo) was the first, saying that “when you are sailing into a storm, you want to be certain who your captain is, and that he will not be changed halfway…..You want to make sure that he is there – together with you, working with you, guiding you through the storm.” Presumably, the captain is Lee and the storm is COVID-19.
More recently, former Senior Minister S Jayakumar (Jayakumar) also said in an interview while plugging his new book, that he was glad that Lee had given himself some flexibility on the succession timeline. He said that “however capable the 4G leaders, we should not change horses in midstream”.
Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (Goh) was also quick to jump onto the bandwagon, noting on social media that the current crisis reminded him of the proverb: “Don’t change horses in mid-stream”.
The PAP does not have a reputation for encouraging lone wolves or loose cannons. Every public communication will therefore likely be curated and agreed beforehand to send out a united front. In view of this, there is no coincidence to Teo, Jayakumar and Goh’s messaging.
Without knocking the message, the question still remains as to who has made the decision that it is in everyone’s best interest for there to be no change in leadership?
In any given crisis, there can be two schools of thought. One school will be of the view that because a particular crisis occurred under the watch of the given leader, that leader should go to make way for fresh leadership. The other school of thought will be what Goh, Jayakumar and Teo are advocating.
Yet, are the trio performing the role of advisors imparting wisdom or are they paving the way for the announcement of a decision that has already been made? In other words. are Goh, Jayakumar and Teo merely presenting the “already made” decision that Lee should stay on as fait accompli?
If the latter, who is the unseen hand that made the decision? Who is that intimate individual or group that holds the highest decision making powers of the land? As stakeholders, doesn’t the public deserve to know how and who makes such decisions? Shouldn’t something as important as this be at least voted upon within the PAP?
People talk about needing checks and balances within Government so that the PAP cannot “ownself check ownself”. But within the PAP itself, are there checks and balances? Clearly, not all are equal within the party – so whose decision ranks supreme? Has Lee unilaterally decided that he should stay? Did he seek counsel from anyone else within the party? If so, who?
In addition, does this mean that the 4G leadership are far from ready to take power? While Jayakumar has tried to say that this is not the case, it remains a fact that Lee feels (for whatever reason) that the timing is not right to relinquish power. It is also noteworthy that 4G leaders like Lawrence Wong and Josephine Teo had both (on separate occasions) appeared teary-eyed in public, giving the impression that the pressure has gotten to them.
The decision for Lee to stay might well be right. Be that as it may, the public still needs to be told of why and how the decision is reached. Last I checked, Singapore is not supposed to be a dictatorship.
16 November 2020
in Opinion
Reading Time: 3min read
22
Much has been recently made about succession plans in Singapore’s Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) led Government. While Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (Lee) had previously indicated that he intended to retire by his 70th birthday, this was the pre-COVID-19 pandemic plan. Post pandemic, Lee has given hints that his retirement will be delayed in order to see the country through this health and economic crisis.
Senior PAP stalwarts have also chimed in to hammer home the same message of a delayed succession plan. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean (Teo) was the first, saying that “when you are sailing into a storm, you want to be certain who your captain is, and that he will not be changed halfway…..You want to make sure that he is there – together with you, working with you, guiding you through the storm.” Presumably, the captain is Lee and the storm is COVID-19.
More recently, former Senior Minister S Jayakumar (Jayakumar) also said in an interview while plugging his new book, that he was glad that Lee had given himself some flexibility on the succession timeline. He said that “however capable the 4G leaders, we should not change horses in midstream”.
Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (Goh) was also quick to jump onto the bandwagon, noting on social media that the current crisis reminded him of the proverb: “Don’t change horses in mid-stream”.
The PAP does not have a reputation for encouraging lone wolves or loose cannons. Every public communication will therefore likely be curated and agreed beforehand to send out a united front. In view of this, there is no coincidence to Teo, Jayakumar and Goh’s messaging.
Without knocking the message, the question still remains as to who has made the decision that it is in everyone’s best interest for there to be no change in leadership?
In any given crisis, there can be two schools of thought. One school will be of the view that because a particular crisis occurred under the watch of the given leader, that leader should go to make way for fresh leadership. The other school of thought will be what Goh, Jayakumar and Teo are advocating.
Yet, are the trio performing the role of advisors imparting wisdom or are they paving the way for the announcement of a decision that has already been made? In other words. are Goh, Jayakumar and Teo merely presenting the “already made” decision that Lee should stay on as fait accompli?
If the latter, who is the unseen hand that made the decision? Who is that intimate individual or group that holds the highest decision making powers of the land? As stakeholders, doesn’t the public deserve to know how and who makes such decisions? Shouldn’t something as important as this be at least voted upon within the PAP?
People talk about needing checks and balances within Government so that the PAP cannot “ownself check ownself”. But within the PAP itself, are there checks and balances? Clearly, not all are equal within the party – so whose decision ranks supreme? Has Lee unilaterally decided that he should stay? Did he seek counsel from anyone else within the party? If so, who?
In addition, does this mean that the 4G leadership are far from ready to take power? While Jayakumar has tried to say that this is not the case, it remains a fact that Lee feels (for whatever reason) that the timing is not right to relinquish power. It is also noteworthy that 4G leaders like Lawrence Wong and Josephine Teo had both (on separate occasions) appeared teary-eyed in public, giving the impression that the pressure has gotten to them.
The decision for Lee to stay might well be right. Be that as it may, the public still needs to be told of why and how the decision is reached. Last I checked, Singapore is not supposed to be a dictatorship.
Who made the decision that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong should not retire yet?
by Ghui
16 November 2020
in Opinion
Reading Time: 3min read
22
Much has been recently made about succession plans in Singapore’s Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) led Government. While Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (Lee) had previously indicated that he intended to retire by his 70th birthday, this was the pre-COVID-19 pandemic plan. Post pandemic, Lee has given hints that his retirement will be delayed in order to see the country through this health and economic crisis.
Senior PAP stalwarts have also chimed in to hammer home the same message of a delayed succession plan. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean (Teo) was the first, saying that “when you are sailing into a storm, you want to be certain who your captain is, and that he will not be changed halfway…..You want to make sure that he is there – together with you, working with you, guiding you through the storm.” Presumably, the captain is Lee and the storm is COVID-19.
More recently, former Senior Minister S Jayakumar (Jayakumar) also said in an interview while plugging his new book, that he was glad that Lee had given himself some flexibility on the succession timeline. He said that “however capable the 4G leaders, we should not change horses in midstream”.
Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (Goh) was also quick to jump onto the bandwagon, noting on social media that the current crisis reminded him of the proverb: “Don’t change horses in mid-stream”.
The PAP does not have a reputation for encouraging lone wolves or loose cannons. Every public communication will therefore likely be curated and agreed beforehand to send out a united front. In view of this, there is no coincidence to Teo, Jayakumar and Goh’s messaging.
Without knocking the message, the question still remains as to who has made the decision that it is in everyone’s best interest for there to be no change in leadership?
In any given crisis, there can be two schools of thought. One school will be of the view that because a particular crisis occurred under the watch of the given leader, that leader should go to make way for fresh leadership. The other school of thought will be what Goh, Jayakumar and Teo are advocating.
Yet, are the trio performing the role of advisors imparting wisdom or are they paving the way for the announcement of a decision that has already been made? In other words. are Goh, Jayakumar and Teo merely presenting the “already made” decision that Lee should stay on as fait accompli?
If the latter, who is the unseen hand that made the decision? Who is that intimate individual or group that holds the highest decision making powers of the land? As stakeholders, doesn’t the public deserve to know how and who makes such decisions? Shouldn’t something as important as this be at least voted upon within the PAP?
People talk about needing checks and balances within Government so that the PAP cannot “ownself check ownself”. But within the PAP itself, are there checks and balances? Clearly, not all are equal within the party – so whose decision ranks supreme? Has Lee unilaterally decided that he should stay? Did he seek counsel from anyone else within the party? If so, who?
In addition, does this mean that the 4G leadership are far from ready to take power? While Jayakumar has tried to say that this is not the case, it remains a fact that Lee feels (for whatever reason) that the timing is not right to relinquish power. It is also noteworthy that 4G leaders like Lawrence Wong and Josephine Teo had both (on separate occasions) appeared teary-eyed in public, giving the impression that the pressure has gotten to them.
The decision for Lee to stay might well be right. Be that as it may, the public still needs to be told of why and how the decision is reached. Last I checked, Singapore is not supposed to be a dictatorship.
