<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - Cracks appearing in PAP hierarchy</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>snablogspot <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Apr-15 5:30 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 15) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>47806.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD id=msgtxt_1 class=msgtxt>http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/4/16/focus/8487138&sec=focus
Saturday April 16, 2011
No longer of one mind
INSIGHT DOWN SOUTH BY SEAH CHIANG NEE
Differences in opinion have been publicly aired by various ministers over the past week, leading Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to go on TV twice to address the resultant disquiet among citizens.
IN this staid city where politics is as uneventful as the annual election of company directors, a tinge of excitement is creeping into boring lives.
You’ll get an idea of what I mean if you browse the Net or watch television these days as election jostling in Singapore intensifies.
Recent TV coverage, which was widely watched, showed what could be a glimpse of a future, politicised Singapore.
First, a top leader of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) was last week seen weeping emotionally on nationwide TV after announcing his retirement from politics.
Then the Prime Minister rejected on live TV, rather than privately, his Senior Minister’s suggestion to limit ministerial office to only two five-year terms to allow for faster rejuvenation.
More shocking was the sudden departure of PAP chairman Lim Boon Heng, 63, after 30 years of public service – as well as his emotional response.
These are seen as signs that not all is well within the PAP hierarchy.
They lend weight to public perception that, with ageing Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on the sideline, the younger leaders have been discussing crucial politics – and were not always in agreement.
Some differences emerged in the form of contradicting statements concerning, among other things, the speed of leadership change and political liberation.
It led Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who is not always known for high-profile leadership, to go on state TV on two successive weeks to address the disquiet among citizens.
He was apparently using the two-hour long sessions to:
> Reassert his own leadership over a fast-changing political landscape, while nudging colleagues with different views back into line and stamping out any more talk of naming his successor now.
> Regurgitating the hard-line policy enunciated by his father, MM Lee, that Singapore cannot have a two-party democracy for lack of talent to form two good parties.
This contrasted with the views of two of his senior colleagues.
In a TV appearance, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam had said a strong opposition was good for the PAP and for Singapore.
Foreign Minister George Yeo had also welcomed the better slate of opposition candidates introduced so far.
“This will give Singaporean voters a better choice,” he told reporters.
“It is important to have a credible opposition so that should the PAP turn corrupt or become flaccid ... there’s an alternative that Singaporeans can go for.”
The strongest challenge, however, was apparently posed by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who wanted this election to throw up the names of the fourth generation Cabinet, including the Prime Minister.
In his TV appearance, however, PM Lee had a different view.
“The issue is not ‘Can we spot the next PM?’ but rather, ‘How we can maintain the virtuous circle of political stability, good government, etc’.”
The Prime Minister’s view is that the fourth generation leadership will take shape only after the 2016 election – not this one.
That would theoretically put him in office for at least another 10 years, the time needed to choose and groom a successor.
“If the general election is this year, five years from now will be 2016, and beyond in each election,” the PM told 1,200 undergrads.
“But within two terms from now, the new MPs (in 10 years’ time) will have to choose from among themselves the new leadership team and a new leader – the new PM.
“They will have to start assembling the next leadership team to succeed them, to take Singapore forward.”
Recently Goh pushed his case further.
He said that in time to come, Cabinet ministers may serve no more than two (five-year) terms “so we can have new blood coming in”.
Goh added that the long tenure of current Ministers, who had served longer than three terms, including himself, was a hindrance to bringing in new leaders.
He was implying there was so much potential talent that existing leaders must make way for them to be promoted, which seems in contrast to PM Lee’s argument of insufficient talent.
It may be too early to say that factions are being formed, either consciously or not, or that a rift exists.
Neither is it posing a serious threat to the PM, now facing a hot election.
There is little or no possibility that it will result in any dissenter openly challenging the PAP, considering its tremendous power to deal with threats.
“Besides, the very high pay scheme will discourage such adventurous ventures,” said a former grassroots leader.
However, if you were to ask any Singaporean, he will likely tell you that a split will take place after Lee Kuan Yew quits.
The PM will be challenged by more others who believe they can do a better job. PM Lee may already have moved to strengthen his support base in the Cabinet and reduce potential challengers in the party while his father is still around.
Lee Kuan Yew himself said in 1991, when he was Senior Minister, that a leadership split might happen after his exit, and it would be over ideology rather than personal reasons.
Take the case of Lim Boon Heng’s exit. He appears disappointed, even angry, but after his emotional outburst, he will likely continue to serve the party’s cause.
His break-down was probably partially to dismiss charges that Cabinet members are all yes-men.
Ironically, his tears might have helped to give credence to his argument that PAP leaders are not always of one mind.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap>
Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle>
Reply</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Saturday April 16, 2011
No longer of one mind
INSIGHT DOWN SOUTH BY SEAH CHIANG NEE
Differences in opinion have been publicly aired by various ministers over the past week, leading Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to go on TV twice to address the resultant disquiet among citizens.
IN this staid city where politics is as uneventful as the annual election of company directors, a tinge of excitement is creeping into boring lives.
You’ll get an idea of what I mean if you browse the Net or watch television these days as election jostling in Singapore intensifies.
Recent TV coverage, which was widely watched, showed what could be a glimpse of a future, politicised Singapore.
First, a top leader of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) was last week seen weeping emotionally on nationwide TV after announcing his retirement from politics.
Then the Prime Minister rejected on live TV, rather than privately, his Senior Minister’s suggestion to limit ministerial office to only two five-year terms to allow for faster rejuvenation.
More shocking was the sudden departure of PAP chairman Lim Boon Heng, 63, after 30 years of public service – as well as his emotional response.
These are seen as signs that not all is well within the PAP hierarchy.
They lend weight to public perception that, with ageing Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on the sideline, the younger leaders have been discussing crucial politics – and were not always in agreement.
Some differences emerged in the form of contradicting statements concerning, among other things, the speed of leadership change and political liberation.
It led Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who is not always known for high-profile leadership, to go on state TV on two successive weeks to address the disquiet among citizens.
He was apparently using the two-hour long sessions to:
> Reassert his own leadership over a fast-changing political landscape, while nudging colleagues with different views back into line and stamping out any more talk of naming his successor now.
> Regurgitating the hard-line policy enunciated by his father, MM Lee, that Singapore cannot have a two-party democracy for lack of talent to form two good parties.
This contrasted with the views of two of his senior colleagues.
In a TV appearance, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam had said a strong opposition was good for the PAP and for Singapore.
Foreign Minister George Yeo had also welcomed the better slate of opposition candidates introduced so far.
“This will give Singaporean voters a better choice,” he told reporters.
“It is important to have a credible opposition so that should the PAP turn corrupt or become flaccid ... there’s an alternative that Singaporeans can go for.”
The strongest challenge, however, was apparently posed by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who wanted this election to throw up the names of the fourth generation Cabinet, including the Prime Minister.
In his TV appearance, however, PM Lee had a different view.
“The issue is not ‘Can we spot the next PM?’ but rather, ‘How we can maintain the virtuous circle of political stability, good government, etc’.”
The Prime Minister’s view is that the fourth generation leadership will take shape only after the 2016 election – not this one.
That would theoretically put him in office for at least another 10 years, the time needed to choose and groom a successor.
“If the general election is this year, five years from now will be 2016, and beyond in each election,” the PM told 1,200 undergrads.
“But within two terms from now, the new MPs (in 10 years’ time) will have to choose from among themselves the new leadership team and a new leader – the new PM.
“They will have to start assembling the next leadership team to succeed them, to take Singapore forward.”
Recently Goh pushed his case further.
He said that in time to come, Cabinet ministers may serve no more than two (five-year) terms “so we can have new blood coming in”.
Goh added that the long tenure of current Ministers, who had served longer than three terms, including himself, was a hindrance to bringing in new leaders.
He was implying there was so much potential talent that existing leaders must make way for them to be promoted, which seems in contrast to PM Lee’s argument of insufficient talent.
It may be too early to say that factions are being formed, either consciously or not, or that a rift exists.
Neither is it posing a serious threat to the PM, now facing a hot election.
There is little or no possibility that it will result in any dissenter openly challenging the PAP, considering its tremendous power to deal with threats.
“Besides, the very high pay scheme will discourage such adventurous ventures,” said a former grassroots leader.
However, if you were to ask any Singaporean, he will likely tell you that a split will take place after Lee Kuan Yew quits.
The PM will be challenged by more others who believe they can do a better job. PM Lee may already have moved to strengthen his support base in the Cabinet and reduce potential challengers in the party while his father is still around.
Lee Kuan Yew himself said in 1991, when he was Senior Minister, that a leadership split might happen after his exit, and it would be over ideology rather than personal reasons.
Take the case of Lim Boon Heng’s exit. He appears disappointed, even angry, but after his emotional outburst, he will likely continue to serve the party’s cause.
His break-down was probably partially to dismiss charges that Cabinet members are all yes-men.
Ironically, his tears might have helped to give credence to his argument that PAP leaders are not always of one mind.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap>
