Comments on: MM Lee’s interview with NatGeo – transcript http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/ Singapore's #1 Socio-Political Site Fri, 25 May 2012 04:31:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Lashunda Sadar http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-3/#comment-197604 Lashunda Sadar Mon, 02 May 2011 15:38:06 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-197604 We absolutely love your blog and find a lot of your post's to be exactly I'm looking for. Do you offer guest writers to write content available for you? I wouldn't mind creating a post or elaborating on a few of the subjects you write concerning here. Again, awesome site! We absolutely love your blog and find a lot of your post’s to be exactly I’m looking for. Do you offer guest writers to write content available for you? I wouldn’t mind creating a post or elaborating on a few of the subjects you write concerning here. Again, awesome site!

]]> By: Future generations will pay for the sins of PAP | Sgpolitics.net http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-3/#comment-152256 Future generations will pay for the sins of PAP | Sgpolitics.net Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:03:41 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-152256 [...] [2] The Online Citizen’s transcript of MM Lee Kuan Yew’s interview with Mark Jacobson from National Geographic Magazine on 6 July 2009. [...] [...] [2] The Online Citizen’s transcript of MM Lee Kuan Yew’s interview with Mark Jacobson from National Geographic Magazine on 6 July 2009. [...]

]]> By: Future generations will pay for the sins of PAP | The Online Citizen http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-152119 Future generations will pay for the sins of PAP | The Online Citizen Tue, 06 Jul 2010 05:57:40 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-152119 [...] [2] The Online Citizen’s transcript of MM Lee Kuan Yew’s interview with Mark Jacobson from National Geographic Magazine on 6 July 200.... [...] [...] [2] The Online Citizen’s transcript of MM Lee Kuan Yew’s interview with Mark Jacobson from National Geographic Magazine on 6 July 200…. [...]

]]> By: poster http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131888 poster Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:56:08 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131888 Frankly guys, there's no use debating or grumbling about the biggest grumbler.   Why not take some steps to shake up the PAP?   1) Vote for the opposition party (if they sound sane)   2) Bring your skills overseas, to a nicer place! After all, we don't HAVE to be rooted here.   3) Study overseas, then migrate to that location.   This way, the government has to take steps to keep their citizens, like giving REAL incentives and privileges. Otherwise, Singapore will eventually evolve into a new "nation", called PRPore. Frankly guys, there’s no use debating or grumbling about the biggest grumbler.
 
Why not take some steps to shake up the PAP?
 
1) Vote for the opposition party (if they sound sane)
 
2) Bring your skills overseas, to a nicer place! After all, we don’t HAVE to be rooted here.
 
3) Study overseas, then migrate to that location.
 
This way, the government has to take steps to keep their citizens, like giving REAL incentives and privileges. Otherwise, Singapore will eventually evolve into a new “nation”, called PRPore.

]]> By: gemami http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131305 gemami Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:33:43 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131305 Well <strong>My Views, </strong>I seriously hope you are not running away again? I observed that you usually give your views at around 5pm? I'll be waiting ;) Well My Views, I seriously hope you are not running away again? I observed that you usually give your views at around 5pm? I’ll be waiting ;)

]]> By: gemami http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131269 gemami Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:55:49 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131269 Hi <strong>My Views,</strong>   I am glad that you finally have the courage to engage and I welcome your contributions and comments. I hope the rest of the posters here would accord you the respect for coming to a platform such as TOC to share your mainstream views. I hope you are here to stay. It would have been good of you if you had responded to some of the challenges put forth to you on the other threads.   Anyway, let’s get down to business, and as usual, I would like to respond to your comments and ask a few questions along the way.   <strong>“…MM’s act is “a wake-up call on Singaporeans”…</strong> There is no wake up call here. It is just an old record-player playing all the old songs. Go ask anyone contributing their comments here and most would not begrudge MM the credit for setting Singapore in the forward momentum during his governance of Singapore. It is the momentum going haywire after the hand-over of the old guards that most are griping over. If MM does not still see it as a wakeup call for his beloved PAP, then it can only mean that he is blatantly ignoring what must surely arise out of it – to the detriment of those still lend him their support – like your good self.   <strong>“…That spirit of hard work, never give up, sacrifice for the community, nation before family and self, had long been lost…”</strong> I have asked you to ponder over this in another thread and it is apparent that you have not done so. I ask again: “Whose fault do you think it is for generations of Singaporeans clamouring to possess the paper qualification at the expense of all these lost qualities?”.   Read the interview again and you will understand by MM’s own words why he found it necessary to shove the population toward what he thought would be best for the people – the paperchase syndrome. Your comments cement the fact that ‘nation before self’ has been overdriven to the cost of these lost qualities.   <strong>“…These were replaced by complacency, calculative, greed, selfish and unabated rising expectations from the nation…”</strong> Again, the echo of the MSM. Have you forgotten the pledge of SM GCT when he was PM? He declared that Singaporeans will be better off voting for the PAP as it is the only party that can elevate the lives of Singaporeans, giving them a better quality of life and enjoying life’s pleasures etc. See how we get the blame for wishing this upon ourselves and when things turned for the worst? It is always our fault and it will always be our fault when things don’t turn out well. I think we can write a whole book of adjectives to describe the Singaporean – in the PAP’s context.   <strong>“…they do not want to procreate unless the state gives huge baby bonus and world class education at cheap rate. In the 50s, in the 60s and may be in the 70s, no Singaporean would make such demand without feeling shameful…”</strong> See what I mean by Singaporeans getting the blame all the time? Did Singaporeans asked for a baby bonus to procreate? Were Singaporeans the one who <em>demanded</em> unabashedly for such payment? In case your memory fails you, the baby-bonus thing was offered by then PM GCT to increase birth rate. Like I argued earlier, when it failed to achieve its intended objective, Singaporeans are to take the blame for its failure – forgetting that so many of us out there were laughing at the stupidity of the offer when first heard. <strong>“…The import of foreign talents, in a way, could spur local Singaporeans to perform better and remind them how the nation achieved what it has today…”</strong> This was the rallying call when the first policy of foreign talent was introduced. Unfortunately, the objective of having foreign talents to provide a guiding hand to Singaporeans to become talents themselves is another failed policy. I hope you are not turning a blind eye to the rumblings coming from the government these days and the shift from having the need for foreign talents as compared to the need for cheap foreign labour? How subtle it is to use our grumblings on cheap foreign labour as an excuse for the failed foreign talent policies.   <strong>“…So you think it is easy job for a minister?...”</strong> What do you think? Why does one enter politics? To have an easy life? What makes you think the construction worker, or the cleaner’s job is less hard – relative to the worker’s ability? Do we place more emphasis on one who uses the mind over one who uses the hands to determine who works harder?   <strong>“…They gave up their high-reward-careers to serve their countries…”</strong> Do they? Lee Hsein Loong, George Yeo, Teo Chee Hean, Lui Tuck Whatever, are just examples of some who were earning no where near what they are earning today.   Everyone knows how much an army general earns compared to how much a top notch PAP minister’s earnings. What is $30,000 a month compared to the millions they are now earning? No, the jobs they gave up were nothing near ‘rewarding’. What they are assured of now is a life of rewards, even if they were to lose in an election.   <strong>“…You worked as a factory worker, you go home after 5 and play with your kids; the ministers do not have such a luxury. Your wife went on strike and refused to cook, you just go to the nearest food court and order what you like to eat; can a minister just do the same?...”</strong>   You have to be joking! There are so many of them out there taking on more than one job. Do you think they have time to play with their kids or to enjoy their wives’ cooking? Most of the time Maggie Mee would be the main staple for the entire family. Hmm… I wonder when was the last time any of the ministers had a bowl of Maggie Mee? The luxury that the ministers have over these people - they can have a dozen maids to play play with their kids and get caterers to cook their favourite dishes anytime they so liked.   <strong>“…One more example, an easy way out of getting jobs for Singaporeans is to close door to foreign talents. Can the ministers just do that?..”</strong> Ha! Ha! Ha! Here goes the foreign talent and foreign worker mix again. Please listen more closely – the gripe is not about foreign talent but the influx of foreign workers of the cheap and untalented sort.   Again , the problem is created by the PAP government. Why push the population toward a better life with promises of the luxuries that come with it when it failed to see that there was going to be a huge gaping hole left on the ground with every Singaporean becoming too talented for the untalented jobs?   This government must stop playing the blame-game once and for all. If there is any blame for our present predicament, it is solely the government’s fault. Period. Playing an old record does not help anymore – and MM’s interview is to be seen as an old man grabbing at old straws for survival in a modern world. Hi My Views,
 
I am glad that you finally have the courage to engage and I welcome your contributions and comments. I hope the rest of the posters here would accord you the respect for coming to a platform such as TOC to share your mainstream views. I hope you are here to stay. It would have been good of you if you had responded to some of the challenges put forth to you on the other threads.
 
Anyway, let’s get down to business, and as usual, I would like to respond to your comments and ask a few questions along the way.
 
“…MM’s act is “a wake-up call on Singaporeans”…
There is no wake up call here. It is just an old record-player playing all the old songs. Go ask anyone contributing their comments here and most would not begrudge MM the credit for setting Singapore in the forward momentum during his governance of Singapore. It is the momentum going haywire after the hand-over of the old guards that most are griping over. If MM does not still see it as a wakeup call for his beloved PAP, then it can only mean that he is blatantly ignoring what must surely arise out of it – to the detriment of those still lend him their support – like your good self.
 
“…That spirit of hard work, never give up, sacrifice for the community, nation before family and self, had long been lost…”
I have asked you to ponder over this in another thread and it is apparent that you have not done so. I ask again: “Whose fault do you think it is for generations of Singaporeans clamouring to possess the paper qualification at the expense of all these lost qualities?”.
 
Read the interview again and you will understand by MM’s own words why he found it necessary to shove the population toward what he thought would be best for the people – the paperchase syndrome. Your comments cement the fact that ‘nation before self’ has been overdriven to the cost of these lost qualities.
 
“…These were replaced by complacency, calculative, greed, selfish and unabated rising expectations from the nation…”
Again, the echo of the MSM. Have you forgotten the pledge of SM GCT when he was PM? He declared that Singaporeans will be better off voting for the PAP as it is the only party that can elevate the lives of Singaporeans, giving them a better quality of life and enjoying life’s pleasures etc. See how we get the blame for wishing this upon ourselves and when things turned for the worst? It is always our fault and it will always be our fault when things don’t turn out well. I think we can write a whole book of adjectives to describe the Singaporean – in the PAP’s context.
 
“…they do not want to procreate unless the state gives huge baby bonus and world class education at cheap rate. In the 50s, in the 60s and may be in the 70s, no Singaporean would make such demand without feeling shameful…”
See what I mean by Singaporeans getting the blame all the time? Did Singaporeans asked for a baby bonus to procreate? Were Singaporeans the one who demanded unabashedly for such payment?
In case your memory fails you, the baby-bonus thing was offered by then PM GCT to increase birth rate. Like I argued earlier, when it failed to achieve its intended objective, Singaporeans are to take the blame for its failure – forgetting that so many of us out there were laughing at the stupidity of the offer when first heard.
“…The import of foreign talents, in a way, could spur local Singaporeans to perform better and remind them how the nation achieved what it has today…”
This was the rallying call when the first policy of foreign talent was introduced. Unfortunately, the objective of having foreign talents to provide a guiding hand to Singaporeans to become talents themselves is another failed policy. I hope you are not turning a blind eye to the rumblings coming from the government these days and the shift from having the need for foreign talents as compared to the need for cheap foreign labour? How subtle it is to use our grumblings on cheap foreign labour as an excuse for the failed foreign talent policies.
 
“…So you think it is easy job for a minister?…”
What do you think? Why does one enter politics? To have an easy life? What makes you think the construction worker, or the cleaner’s job is less hard – relative to the worker’s ability? Do we place more emphasis on one who uses the mind over one who uses the hands to determine who works harder?
 
“…They gave up their high-reward-careers to serve their countries…”
Do they? Lee Hsein Loong, George Yeo, Teo Chee Hean, Lui Tuck Whatever, are just examples of some who were earning no where near what they are earning today.
 
Everyone knows how much an army general earns compared to how much a top notch PAP minister’s earnings. What is $30,000 a month compared to the millions they are now earning? No, the jobs they gave up were nothing near ‘rewarding’. What they are assured of now is a life of rewards, even if they were to lose in an election.
 
“…You worked as a factory worker, you go home after 5 and play with your kids; the ministers do not have such a luxury. Your wife went on strike and refused to cook, you just go to the nearest food court and order what you like to eat; can a minister just do the same?…”
 
You have to be joking! There are so many of them out there taking on more than one job. Do you think they have time to play with their kids or to enjoy their wives’ cooking? Most of the time Maggie Mee would be the main staple for the entire family. Hmm… I wonder when was the last time any of the ministers had a bowl of Maggie Mee? The luxury that the ministers have over these people – they can have a dozen maids to play play with their kids and get caterers to cook their favourite dishes anytime they so liked.
 
“…One more example, an easy way out of getting jobs for Singaporeans is to close door to foreign talents. Can the ministers just do that?..”
Ha! Ha! Ha! Here goes the foreign talent and foreign worker mix again. Please listen more closely – the gripe is not about foreign talent but the influx of foreign workers of the cheap and untalented sort.
 
Again , the problem is created by the PAP government. Why push the population toward a better life with promises of the luxuries that come with it when it failed to see that there was going to be a huge gaping hole left on the ground with every Singaporean becoming too talented for the untalented jobs?
 
This government must stop playing the blame-game once and for all. If there is any blame for our present predicament, it is solely the government’s fault. Period. Playing an old record does not help anymore – and MM’s interview is to be seen as an old man grabbing at old straws for survival in a modern world.

]]> By: mon http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131267 mon Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:10:55 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131267 Also, ask all the former PAP MP how much they are making now after they left parliament for more than 5 years. I don't know where you got your data to form your sample. it is definitely not representative. Ask Goh Keng Siu how much he makes now. He could be a top notch fund manager in London or new york. He could be as wealthy as George soros since they studied in the same school. He isn't making any money as near as George sorros did last year. Also, ask all the former PAP MP how much they are making now after they left parliament for more than 5 years.
I don’t know where you got your data to form your sample. it is definitely not representative.
Ask Goh Keng Siu how much he makes now.
He could be a top notch fund manager in London or new york. He could be as wealthy as George soros since they studied in the same school.
He isn’t making any money as near as George sorros did last year.

]]> By: mon http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131266 mon Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:07:22 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131266 // My Views yeah the old f**ker is giving a wake up call like the way he slapped his minister for law for misinterpreting the reasons for the massive run up in HDB prices. He is reminding the lawyer that if he doesn't perform, he could be locked up for no reason for 20 years under ISD or he would have to go back to his law practices. Let's see if a 60 year old lawyer can still clock enough to make 2 million a year... // My Views
yeah the old f**ker is giving a wake up call like the way he slapped his minister for law for misinterpreting the reasons for the massive run up in HDB prices.
He is reminding the lawyer that if he doesn’t perform, he could be locked up for no reason for 20 years under ISD or he would have to go back to his law practices.
Let’s see if a 60 year old lawyer can still clock enough to make 2 million a year…

]]> By: mon http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131265 mon Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:02:22 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131265 //My Views not possible.   ask yeo chow tong how much he makes now. //My Views
not possible.
 
ask yeo chow tong how much he makes now.

]]> By: mon http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131263 mon Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:52:32 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131263 //My Views oh yeah, most of the ministers made a loss serving the govt? that their income would not fluctuate ? that their policy / governance outcome justify their pay. I meant: what they are making previously might be justified like they make $1 fixing people's eyes but they did actually fixed it first before being paid. What we have now is: we pay they millions to create good policies for Singapore and execute it well but they: 1. lost billions (more than the equivalent of the wealth of Ng Teng Fong) in the reservoirs. We don't need the opposition to lose monies. By the time, the opposition, PAP would have lost it all. 2. their policies drive property price maddly upwards, 3. massive immigration that deny poor s'poreans an honest chance to make an adequate living, 4. copy opposition's ideas 5. neglected productivity growth for 15 years, 6. make other countries laugh at our police effectiveness - diplomat case 7. make people homeless 8. mismanaged charity 9. let a limping terrorist run away 10. cause our native population to grey without giving them adequate preparation for retirement despite having high saving rates. 11. arbitrary administration of treatment of Singaporeans in front of the law. and the list goes on. I would pay a doctor 20$ provided he cures me. If he didn't I would not recommend him to people. Given the cock ups, they don't deliver and don't deserve their pay. //My Views
oh yeah, most of the ministers made a loss serving the govt?
that their income would not fluctuate ?
that their policy / governance outcome justify their pay.
I meant: what they are making previously might be justified like they make $1 fixing people’s eyes but they did actually fixed it first before being paid.
What we have now is: we pay they millions to create good policies for Singapore and execute it well but they:
1. lost billions (more than the equivalent of the wealth of Ng Teng Fong) in the reservoirs. We don’t need the opposition to lose monies. By the time, the opposition, PAP would have lost it all.
2. their policies drive property price maddly upwards,
3. massive immigration that deny poor s’poreans an honest chance to make an adequate living,
4. copy opposition’s ideas
5. neglected productivity growth for 15 years,
6. make other countries laugh at our police effectiveness – diplomat case
7. make people homeless
8. mismanaged charity
9. let a limping terrorist run away
10. cause our native population to grey without giving them adequate preparation for retirement despite having high saving rates.
11. arbitrary administration of treatment of Singaporeans in front of the law.
and the list goes on.
I would pay a doctor 20$ provided he cures me. If he didn’t I would not recommend him to people.
Given the cock ups, they don’t deliver and don’t deserve their pay.

]]> By: preston loon http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131259 preston loon Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:25:17 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131259 I love it when MMlee says this,i quote "Well,it is useless to resist when it is everywhere".Does his statement apply also to the Singapore GLBT community?He further comments and i quote  again                    "No,you cannot stop it.You want to cut off the internet?You want to cut off your cellphones?You want to cut off the satellite T.V.?Then you will become like Myanmar.It is not possible".By these statements he made,TOC readers,especially the gays and lesbians you all can come to the conclusion that gayism will be soon be recognized by this secular government.Rejoice and hurray,He or his son will give u the desire of your hearts to have the biggest and the most colorful rainbow parade ever in the world.Our government always want the best. I love it when MMlee says this,i quote
“Well,it is useless to resist when it is everywhere”.Does his statement apply also to the Singapore GLBT community?He further comments and i quote  again                   
“No,you cannot stop it.You want to cut off the internet?You want to cut off your cellphones?You want to cut off the satellite T.V.?Then you will become like Myanmar.It is not possible”.By these statements he made,TOC readers,especially the gays and lesbians you all can come to the conclusion that gayism will be soon be recognized by this secular government.Rejoice and hurray,He or his son will give u the desire of your hearts to have the biggest and the most colorful rainbow parade ever in the world.Our government always want the best.

]]> By: mon http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131257 mon Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:32:26 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131257 //Mr Lee:  ”But it’s true.  So Singaporeans have to decide.  Do you want to underpay a minister and you have the kind of shenanigans as you have in the British Parliament? You know they repair their homes in the country and in London and charge it to their account.  Or you pay them a proper wage and said after that, look after everything. Nobody gets any special perks. That’s your salary, you buy your car, you do what everything is yours. Official entertainment, you have got an expense account. Your secretary monitors it and audits channel clears it.  So everything is above board and the public knows that.  So whatever they grumble, they know that they are not being shortchanged.”   That is assuming that nobody complains about the current system of remunerations through various channels under the PAP where ALL the ministers get high pay.   Which we know is false. Forums every day have comments/complaints about their excesses and incompetence. Mr LKY is trying to trick  the reporter into believing that the populace had no questions on PAP's remuneration policies. That it was really an exchange of option a over option b. //Mr Lee:  ”But it’s true.  So Singaporeans have to decide.  Do you want to underpay a minister and you have the kind of shenanigans as you have in the British Parliament? You know they repair their homes in the country and in London and charge it to their account.  Or you pay them a proper wage and said after that, look after everything. Nobody gets any special perks. That’s your salary, you buy your car, you do what everything is yours. Official entertainment, you have got an expense account. Your secretary monitors it and audits channel clears it.  So everything is above board and the public knows that.  So whatever they grumble, they know that they are not being shortchanged.”
 
That is assuming that nobody complains about the current system of remunerations through various channels under the PAP where ALL the ministers get high pay.
 
Which we know is false.
Forums every day have comments/complaints about their excesses and incompetence.
Mr LKY is trying to trick  the reporter into believing that the populace had no questions on PAP’s remuneration policies. That it was really an exchange of option a over option b.

]]> By: mon http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131256 mon Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:27:37 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131256 //Mr Lee:  ”I was once asked about the enormous, the best paid ministers in the world. I said you should look at the wives. The lowest-paid ministers have wives who are glittering with jewels and with big mansions.” And the world's highest paid ministers had a population that has the lowest purchasing power and retirement monies among populations at the same stage of development - economic development. meaning that these ministers' pay were funded by the difference in purchasing power and retirement monies. //Mr Lee:  ”I was once asked about the enormous, the best paid ministers in the world. I said you should look at the wives. The lowest-paid ministers have wives who are glittering with jewels and with big mansions.”
And the world’s highest paid ministers had a population that has the lowest purchasing power and retirement monies among populations at the same stage of development – economic development.
meaning that these ministers’ pay were funded by the difference in purchasing power and retirement monies.

]]> By: mon http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131255 mon Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:23:19 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131255 //Mr Lee: “There must be. Singaporeans are champion grumblers.” The HKers when they were unhappy, march on the streets. The south Koreans when they were unhappy, go on strike. The Taiwanese, wen on so many demonstrations. They all have more purchasing power than the Singaporeans on average and more retirement monies. And All four countries are supposedly at the same stage of economic development. //Mr Lee: “There must be. Singaporeans are champion grumblers.”
The HKers when they were unhappy, march on the streets.
The south Koreans when they were unhappy, go on strike.
The Taiwanese, wen on so many demonstrations.
They all have more purchasing power than the Singaporeans on average and more retirement monies.
And All four countries are supposedly at the same stage of economic development.

]]> By: nonsense http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131252 nonsense Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:19:55 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131252 LKY logic= only makes sense to LKY and bootlickers. He's a lawyer for goodness sake. :) LKY logic= only makes sense to LKY and bootlickers. He’s a lawyer for goodness sake. :)

]]> By: Jitpun Fighting http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131251 Jitpun Fighting Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:07:10 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131251 <strong>......Mr Lee: “And he described the Maoris. So when two tribes were fighting, the third tribe will come and see which tribe is more our side, more genes like us and they joined that side. So it’s an instinct. Can you overcome that instinct? .....</strong> <em>Did Mr. Lee base on the same instinct he mentioned above and decided to work for the cruel Japanese as an interpretor? The Japanese had more genes like his?  Genes of Cruelty?</em> ……Mr Lee: “And he described the Maoris. So when two tribes were fighting, the third tribe will come and see which tribe is more our side, more genes like us and they joined that side. So it’s an instinct. Can you overcome that instinct? …..

Did Mr. Lee base on the same instinct he mentioned above and decided to work for the cruel Japanese as an interpretor?
The Japanese had more genes like his?  Genes of Cruelty?

]]> By: What a gyp http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131246 What a gyp Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:01:37 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131246 Haha typical PAP logic. Other people lost either a arm or a leg in the war so I am lucky that I only lost my fingers. Haha typical PAP logic. Other people lost either a arm or a leg in the war so I am lucky that I only lost my fingers.

]]> By: Ah Siao http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131244 Ah Siao Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:55:57 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131244 @ ritu "Myabe they should visit India and China to see how much better off they are." Why not visit Switzerland or Australia? @ ritu
“Myabe they should visit India and China to see how much better off they are.”
Why not visit Switzerland or Australia?

]]> By: ritu http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-131243 ritu Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:50:41 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-131243 Waaah so many people criticising MMlee. If you see the full spectrum of dictatorships across the world you would have idi Amin/pol pot/mao one one side and MMlee on the other. By the strenght of his personality he transformed Singapore from third world to first world. Most posters like to take that for granted. Myabe they should visit India and China to see how much better off they are. Waaah so many people criticising MMlee. If you see the full spectrum of dictatorships across the world you would have idi Amin/pol pot/mao one one side and MMlee on the other. By the strenght of his personality he transformed Singapore from third world to first world. Most posters like to take that for granted. Myabe they should visit India and China to see how much better off they are.

]]> By: princess http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/mm-lees-interview-with-natgeo-transcript/comment-page-2/#comment-127685 princess Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:12:04 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=18319#comment-127685 i think as much as some of what MM Lee has said has raised some sort of disagreements with me, like what many has pointed out, i think it is still important that we give him the due credit that he deserves. Without this man, there will be no modern Singapore. Of course, I must say that it is not that I agree with everything that is done, but we must always look at the big picture. maybe we lack the big picture, that's why we pick on the little details. no matter what, it was a good interview, i think it was very nice and it was an honest sharing by him. (: i think as much as some of what MM Lee has said has raised some sort of disagreements with me, like what many has pointed out, i think it is still important that we give him the due credit that he deserves. Without this man, there will be no modern Singapore. Of course, I must say that it is not that I agree with everything that is done, but we must always look at the big picture. maybe we lack the big picture, that’s why we pick on the little details. no matter what, it was a good interview, i think it was very nice and it was an honest sharing by him. (:

]]>