‘Leaders must be able to take criticism, acknowledge mistakes’: PM Lee

[skyleon]

Continuity for Singapore regardless of who is PM: Chan Chun Sing


30 Oct 2017 10:20PM (Updated: 30 Oct 2017 10:20PM)


SINGAPORE: There will be continuity in Singapore no matter who the prime minister is, as the country is run by a team of leaders, said Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Chan Chun Sing on Monday (Oct 30).


"In Singapore, you are not going to expect, if person A becomes the Prime Minister versus person B, that the direction is going to be so diametrically opposite as to cause a huge discontinuity or disruption," he said at a dialogue with foreign correspondents based in Singapore.

"In fact, whatever policies that we have in place now are thought through by the team, carried by the team, owned by the team."

Mr Chan, 48, is one of a few Cabinet ministers, including Education Minister Ong Ye Kung and Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat, who have been tipped as future prime ministerial candidates.

He added: "I accept every leader has got his own style and personality ... but by and large, those are not the determining factors. At the margins, the personality, style, all that makes a bit of a difference, but the central policy direction is determined by the team."

When asked if he would like the top job, he said: "All of us have to be prepared to do the job when called upon. I will repeat what Minister Khaw Boon Wan has shared: 'In Singapore, leadership is a responsibility to be borne, not a position to be sought.'"

Mr Chan also fielded questions ranging from foreign affairs to the public dispute between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his siblings over the fate of their late father Lee Kuan Yew's Oxley Road house.

When asked about how the Oxley issue was handled, he said that the most important thing is that it showed no man is above the law, not even the late Mr Lee.

Mr Chan explained why it was necessary for the Cabinet to set up a committee to consider options for the house. "People say: 'Why did you set up a committee to examine the issue, perhaps in defiance of his wish?' If Mr Lee had his personal wish and no one in the current or future cabinet has the sense of responsibility to think through the issue according to the needs of the society and the times, what would it speak about the quality of leadership in Singapore?"

Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...n-sing-9358530

[skyleon]

Chan Chun Sing said he is prepared to become the next PM if called upon

October 30, 2017

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing has told news agency Reuters that he is prepared to become the nation’s next Prime Minister if called upon.

According to an article released this evening, the 47-year-old Minister told journalists at a Foreign Correspondents Association of Singapore briefing that he had an obligation to be ready to take on the head of government role.

“All of us have to be prepared to do the job when called upon.

“In Singapore, leadership is a responsibility to be borne, not a position to be sought.”

The cabinet member added that the next Prime Minister, whomever he may be, was unlikely to drastically change the government’s policy direction.

Chan Chun Sing has been rumoured to be a frontrunner for the position ever since interest in PM Lee’s successor heated up when the PM repeatedly announced in recent years that he would step down some time after the next general election, which must be held by 15 Jan 2021.



continue reading here : http://www.theindependent.sg/chan-ch...f-called-upon/

[skyleon]

Chan Chun Sing says teamwork is more important than personality & style of 4G leader

How he responded to questions at an event with foreign correspondents were perhaps as interesting as what he said.

By Chan Cheow Pong | 30 mins



When Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and NTUC Secretary-General Chan Chun Sing was asked about his political ambition in a Chinese TV interview last March, he replied with a Chinese idiom, which can be loosely translated as:

“Man proposes, God disposes”.(谋事在人；成事在天）

That cryptic answer reflected one thing that Chan had to grapple with, since he was identified to be the one of the core members among our fourth generation of leaders: Being caught in an awkward position when faced with questions about his political ambition and potential career progression.

If he said he had zero political ambitions, he would have sounded weak and disingenuous, but if he expressed his desire for leadership, he would be at risk of sounding presumptuous and full of himself.


“Rare comments” reported by Reuters raises eyebrows

Hence naturally eyebrows were raised when Reuters reported that he made “rare comments” about succession at a Foreign Correspondents Association of Singapore briefing on Monday (Oct. 30), saying he had an obligation to be ready to take on the job of PM if called upon.

So what did Chan actually say when he was asked point-blank if he would like to take on the job as the next Prime Minister?

Based on the transcript Mothership.sg obtained from Chan’s office, his somewhat meandering response was actually remarkably consistent with his personal style — marked by a disinclination bordering on aversion to talk about himself and the constant references to “we” as a team — when it comes to answering questions like these.

This was what transpired during that exchange:

Sharanjit Leyl (BBC): “Would you like the job?”

Chan Chun Sing: “All of us have to be prepared to do the job when called upon. And I will just repeat what Minister Khaw Boon Wan shared with us – In Singapore, leadership is a responsibility to be borne, not a position to be sought. You might think we sound very cliché, but I think I can speak for my fellow colleagues, that we all believe in this. We are where we are because of what the Singapore system has given us. We own this dream that we want to be called Singaporeans forever more. We know that it is an uphill task for a small nation to defy the odds of history, to survive without a hinterland. But we are also confident that with the advent of new technologies, that we can make it transcend our innate geographical and resource limitations. We are confident but we are never complacent.But all of us know that when called upon, we must not shirk from the responsibility.” (emphasis ours)

You can say he avoided answering the question directly, but he did manage to make an indirect point that in Singapore politics, it’s most probably best not to talk about personal ambitions.


continue reading here : https://mothership.sg/2017/10/chan-c...-of-4g-leader/


Seriously I wonder what he has contributed to the Singapore society ? An ex-army general with no grassroots experience .

[skyleon]

Originally Posted by yobyella

Saga? Bro you serve NS? All this are smoke, camouflage.

What smoke ? What camouflage ?

[yobyella]

Originally Posted by skyleon

What smoke ? What camouflage ?

Oxley drive saga. All wayang. i dont even trust our opposition party WP.

[skyleon]

AGC is reportedly going ahead with contempt of court proceedings against Li Shengwu

November 6, 2017

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is reportedly moving ahead with contempt of court proceedings against founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s grandson, Li Shengwu, according to Yahoo News sources.

Sources also appear to have revealed that a pre-trial conference has been set for one week from now, on 13 Nov.

Shengwu attracted the attention of the AGC on 15 July after posting a private “friends-only” Facebook post, criticising Singapore’s government and judiciary.

Linking a Wall Street Journal article that offered a thorough analysis of the public Oxley Rd feud, Shengwu had said in his own words: “Keep in mind, of course that the Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system. This constrains what the international media can usually report.”

He then linked a New York Times article on censorship and the use of defamation laws by both Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong to censor the foreign press.

In responding to media queries about Shengwu’s private post, an AGC spokesperson had said then, “AGC is aware of the post and is looking into the matter.”

Shengwu’s post followed the explosive Oxley Road dispute, in which his father Lee Hsien Yang and paternal aunt Dr Lee Wei Ling had been embroiled in a public feud against their elder brother, Singapore’s current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The PM’s younger siblings alleged that the PM was abusing his power to preserve their family home against their father’s willed desire to demolish the house, in June and July this year.

They also accused the PM of convened a secret committee to make a decision on the house and claimed that state organs were being used against them.

PM Lee addressed the allegations against him in a Parliamentary debate where he declared that he has been cleared of all charges. He added that he does not intend to sue his siblings.

Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang reinforced their allegations, following this, but offered a ceasefire on releasing further evidence in favor of settling the matter in private, on the condition that they nor their father’s will be attacked or misrepresented.


continue reading here : http://www.theindependent.sg/agc-is-...st-li-shengwu/

[HorYiSee]

Just another day in sinkie lol

[circle22]

Originally Posted by HorYiSee

Just another day in sinkie lol

Agree with you .

[skyleon]

Dr Chee Soon Juan: Who holds them accountable?

Published on 2017-11-08 by Neyla Zannia


Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan has written an article questioning the behaviour of the Government in pointing their fingers towards others, instead of admitting to the mistakes committed.

He gave the example of Minister of Transport Khaw Boon Wan, who, in a parliamentary speech on 7 November, laid blame on the SMRT maintenance crew when a train tunnel flooded after a perfunctory downpour.

Dr Chee wrote, "Not every minister's head should roll every time something goes awry on this island. But when major incidents occur, especially ones that endanger public safety, ministers cannot be permitted to stage a kabuki and scapegoat their subordinates."

He stated that such impoverished leadership has a corrosive effect on the morale of the ministries and agencies they lead.

"With time, they lead to 'deep-seated cultural issues'," he added.

Here is what he wrote in full:


“SOMETHING MUST HAPPEN to the staff,” Mr Khaw Boon Wan hissed as he laid blame on the SMRT maintenance crew when a train tunnel flooded after a perfunctory downpour.

They “failed us”, the Transport Minister added as he drove the knife further in. Just as quickly, the management announced that the unit members would see their bonuses decapitated. Three weeks later, the company declared that six of those responsible would face disciplinary action.

Mr Khaw's anger may have been appropriately directed. The question is: Why stop there?

SMRT's CEO Desmond Kuek, in a rare display of candour, admitted that the incident was also the result of company's “deep-seated cultural issues”. The confession signals a wider malaise which usually involves workers' morale and attitude.

If anyone is to shoulder any blame, shouldn't it be the CEO whose job description, after all, includes constructing an organisational culture – including changing personnel root and branch if necessary – that optimises productivity and efficiency? Yet, having been with the company for five years now, this is the first time that Mr Kuek has raised the issue.

Expectedly, his boss pounced. “If there is poor work culture, the CEO is responsible,” Mr Khaw told Parliament yesterday.

But it would also be disingenuous of the Minister to stop at Mr Kuek because this is not the first big incident to happen at SMRT. In 2016, two maintenance staff were killed when they were run over by a train at the Pasir Ris station.

As before, Mr Khaw was quick on the draw promising that “those responsible will be held to account.” Those were two junior staff, including a train driver, who were blamed and sacked.

Investigations found that SMRT had “failed to ensure that procedures practised by employees on the ground were duly audited, documented and disseminated. This resulted in an unsafe workplace that eventually led to the death of two of its employees.”

But get this: the probe found that the negligence spanned a period of 14 years! That's way before Mr Kuek joined the company. In that time, four transport ministers – Messrs Yeo Cheow Tong, Raymond Lim, Lui Tuck Yew and Khaw Boon Wan – had oversight of the train system but none paid attention to the lax safety standards.

Then there was the suspected terrorist, Mr Mas Selamat, who escaped detention and went walkabout all the way to Johor. He got out of prison by climbing through a toilet window, landing on a heap of toilet rolls, and scaling a parapet – all while surveillance cameras were not operational.

This was Singapore's Keystone-cops moment. As a consequence, eight officers were sacked or demoted. Yet, the problem clearly that went beyond just negligence on the part of a bunch of careless officers; it involved a facility-wide systems breakdown for which the Home Minister cannot evade responsibility.

Then consider this: It took 49 seconds for Mr Selamat to escape, 11 minutes for the staff to realise it – and a whole four hours for then Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng to sound the public alert. Another week lapsed before the Minister told us what the escapee was wearing and that he had a “distinct limp” when he ran. By that time, the prisoner could have already been in the Bahamas sipping on apiña colada.

But in his Parliamentary statement, Mr Wong pointed the finger at everyone and everything except himself. It was self-exoneration elevated to an art form.

A similar meltdown in our security system occurred in 2013 when a riot broke out in Little India where more than half-a-million dollars of property was damaged, several emergency vehicles wrecked, and scores of police officers injured.

The Committee of Inquiry hearing threw up some disturbing observations: there were insufficient number of officers available at the outset, they were not properly equipped, radio airwaves jammed at the crucial moment, the commanding officer did not have any idea how many men he had at his disposal, and officers on the scene admitted that they were not trained to handle a full-scale riot. And when the riot police finally arrived at the scene, it did not have the numbers to fully contain the mob.

The COI remarked that “a lot of things were wrong” and the police response was “not acceptable”. Surely, some of these “wrong things” were well within the purview of the Home Minister, Mr Teo Chee Hean. But like much of everything else that goes wrong in Singapore, PAP Ministers are shielded – or rather, they shield themselves – from blame.

Ditto the Health Minister in 2015. Just after the general elections in September, news broke that there was an outbreak of the hepatitis C virus at the Singapore General Hospital (SGH). The first case was detected in April that year, but it wasn't until October that the Ministry of Health (MOH) informed the public. The delay affected 25 patients of which eight died.

Two issues are pertinent here. The first is that the SGH and MOH personnel messed up, a transgression which resulted in 16 employees either fined or reprimanded. (Mr Gan raised eyebrows – and not little ire – when he refused to name those responsible and the penalties meted out. Excuse? He did not want to develop a “blame culture”.)

The second issue relates to the delay in the public disclosure of the incident which worsened an already dire situation. This was the Minister's responsibility and no one else's. Even if his claim that the MOH was not informed of the outbreak until late August, why did it take another two months before the public was alerted?

Mr Gan was, of course, not in the habit of holding himself accountable even though the incident had caused several deaths.


continue reading here : https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...m-accountable/

[winphenom]

This is Singapore and not Japan or some other country where the minister takes responsibility for the lapses committed by the departments under their jurisdiction. It's a statutory board so the minister should accept responsibility for his own lapses also in failing to watch and control his subordinates. Likewise, if they did very well and contributed vastly to society, then the minister will surely bask in their glory too and accept the accolades heaped upon his great leadership.
Shame that such finger pointing and blame shifting is happening to this present govt. Such actions will only result in more such scenarios occurring where all ministers will just push the blame to the CEO or Chairman of the stat board concerned and absolve themselves of any oversight. Such an easy and high paying job, I am sure, any citizen of certain academic abilities can also be a minister.
Be a gentleman and own up to your own inability too and share the burden of your subordinates who had failed. SAF didn't teach us to push the blame to others.
Real pity and another incident for other countries to take a dig at singapore.
My humble thoughts and hope good things are learnt from these lessons.

[gjlow]

Ironically the situation is so different when things go well

[squirtzer]

Well, 70% of the electorate didn't seem to think that accountability, transparency and an institutionalised system of checks and balances are necessary so those oligarchs in white and the feudal system of patronage and minion-hood they sit atop of will just continue in cruise control, thank you.

[ruhua]

Originally Posted by squirtzer

Well, 70% of the electorate didn't seem to think that accountability, transparency and an institutionalised system of checks and balances are necessary so those oligarchs in white and the feudal system of patronage and minion-hood they sit atop of will just continue in cruise control, thank you.

Unfortunately they sign a blank cheque for it.

[EasternWind]

They only know how to sue people .

[musselsmurf]

Originally Posted by EasternWind

They only know how to sue people .

Fully agreed .