Connect with us

Comments

Netizens express skepticism over PM Lee’s succession timeline

During his 19th National Day Rally on Sunday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated that his succession plans were back on track following COVID-19 disruptions.

Singaporean netizens remain uncertain about his retirement timeline, speculating that hesitance to reveal it could reflect doubts in successor DPM Wong’s capability.

Published

on

On Sunday (20 August), during his 19th National Day Rally, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong confirmed that his succession plans are back on track” after setbacks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although he assured the nation of the renewed trajectory, he did not specify a clear timeline for this succession in his address.

Previously expressing his wish “to step down before his 70th birthday in February 2022,” the unexpected challenges of the pandemic disrupted Lee’s plans.

“I promised Singaporeans that I would see the nation through the crisis, together with both the current and the 4G leadership,” the 71-year-old Secretary-General of the People’s Action Party (PAP) declared.

He further elaborated, “Now that COVID is behind us, my succession plans are back on track.”

Addressing recent controversial headlines, including the arrest of Transport Minister S Iswaran and certain resignations within the Parliament due to extramarital affairs, PM Lee stated, “We dealt with each incident thoroughly and transparently. Let me assure you: These incidents will not delay my timetable for renewal. We are on track.”

Reflecting on the foundational values of the nation, PM Lee emphasized, “Integrity and incorruptibility are ‘fundamental’ to Singapore.”

He fondly remembered his father, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s stance, noting that he had “considered these ideals as the most crucial of all.”

Recalling a poignant memory, Lee shared his father’s words during a parliament sitting on his 90th birthday: “He reminded us that Singapore must always remain clean and incorruptible, with ministers and MPs setting the example. Otherwise, he cautioned, we are finished.”

Highlighting the upcoming leadership transition, PM Lee mentioned Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, describing him and his 4G team as “increasingly setting the pace.”

Speculation on PM Lee’s retirement timeline

Intriguingly, a check on CNA and the Straits Times Facebook posts reveals the prevailing sentiment among Singaporean netizens, reflecting their uncertainties regarding PM Lee’s retirement timeline.

Many are engaged in speculation that PM Lee might not be prepared to step down yet, given the circumstances of the past few years, particularly Singapore’s gradual recovery from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Furthermore, the Singaporean ruling PAP government is facing heightened scrutiny from the public. This is notably due to the emergence of controversies such as the Ridout Road saga, the arrest of Transport Minister S Iswaran, and several parliamentarians resignations prompted by extramarital affairs.

Conversely, certain netizens have pointed out that PM Lee has not provided a definitive timeline for his transition of power, leading to inquiries about when the handover will occur.

There’s also curiosity about whether PM Lee will continue to deliver speeches at the 2024 National Day Rally.

Some claim DPM Wong ‘might not be PM Lee’s preferred choice’

There is growing speculation that PM Lee’s hesitance to reveal an exact retirement timeline might stem from uncertainties about his confidence in his chosen successor, DPM Wong.

This is in contrast to his predecessor, Goh Chok Tong, who confidently provided a clear timeline for his own succession.

Echoing this sentiment, a Facebook user concurred, suggesting that Wong might not be PM Lee’s preferred choice.

This prompts wider concerns about PM Lee’s capacity to identify and cultivate effective leaders within his party.

Instances like his handling of the former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin matter and his overall approach to party management and guidance are cited as examples of potential shortcomings in his decision-making process.

Amidst the discussions, an intriguing theory put forth by a netizen suggests that Lawrence Wong might be serving as a temporary placeholder, strategically positioned for the imminent entry of another individual, bearing the Lee surname.

PM Lee said ‘no system is perfect’

In his NDR 2023 speech, PM Lee addressed concerns about Singapore’s political system, following a wave of scandals in recent months.

He also elaborated about the importance of maintaining the trust between Singaporeans and the government to build a prosperous Singapore.

In addressing concerns over Singapore’s political system, PM Lee said that no system is perfect.

“Whether these events would be a blow to Singapore depends on how we respond,” he stated.

PM Lee promised that he and his team will do their utmost to maintain Singapore’s clean and effective political system and our reputation for incorruptibility.

Discontentment with current PAP leadership echoed by netizens

Critiques of the present People’s Action Party (PAP) leadership have surfaced online, reflecting the discontentment felt by some netizens.

One netizen’s disappointment with the current leadership is palpable. The sentiment harks back to the eras of revered figures such as the late Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, and S. Rajaratnam, individuals remembered for their dedication and public service.

This netizen voices the collective desire for leaders of their caliber, contrasting them with the perceived self-serving nature of today’s leadership.

“Standards were great back then. So proud to be Singaporean then. “

Aligning with similar sentiments, another netizen named Siva Ram weighs in on the state of affairs, drawing a comparison between past and present Finance Ministers.

Siva Ram fondly recalls the period when Tharman Shanmugaratnam held the position of Finance Minister, suggesting that those were times of prosperity and contentment.

However, the netizen laments the subsequent transitions to Heng Swee Keat and now Lawrence Wong in this role, hinting at a perceived decline in economic circumstances.

Looking ahead to 2024, Siva Ram expresses the concerns of many citizens regarding the projected increases in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and overall living costs. This anticipation of rising financial burdens adds to the prevailing apprehension.

Another netizen, who claimed to be an elder born in the 1950s, voices a perspective contrary to the government’s practice of distributing cash.

The comment cites the current costs of vital necessities like HDB flats, food, and COEs (Certificate of Entitlement for vehicles) as evidence of the broader inflationary effects.

In a follow-up response, Siva draws attention to the older generation, pointing out that they managed without the need for government handouts.

“The key aspect is to keep everything affordable without all these extra taxes.”

Challenging the notion of high ministerial salaries as a deterrent to corruption

In response to a CNA Facebook post, a netizen reflects on a notorious statement made by a Singaporean leader, asserting that high salaries were intended to deter corruption.

However, he expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of this approach. He then proposes a bold suggestion: that all ministers consider a substantial reduction in their salaries, potentially halving them.

“Can all the ministers reduce their salaries by at least half to prove that they want to serve Singapore and it’s citizens because they want and not because of the high salary?” the netizen challenged.

Interestingly, the netizen references a statement made by Prime Minister Lee in 2020.

In July 2020, in a conversation with American philanthropist and businessman David Rubenstein and the Atlantic Council, PM Lee defended the existing system works for Singapore, despite acknowledging that it is “not uncontroversial”.

He went on to say that the Government pays the officials “according to what he (or she) is worth), as well as “according to what they are contributing”.

The Prime Minister noted that if the Government does not do that, it would compromise on the quality of the civil service.

Challenging claims of clean governance amidst recent scandals

In response to Prime Minister Lee’s assertion about the integrity of governance, a netizen expresses strong disagreement.

The netizen starkly questions how the claim of being “cleaner than clean and whiter than white” can be maintained in light of a series of recent scandals that have emerged over the past month.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Comments

Redditors blame driving school shortages, not bots, for booking woes in Singapore

A Reddit thread has critiqued Singapore’s driving schools for long wait times, arguing that limited capacity—not bots—is the real issue. Redditors question government restrictions on private instructors and suggest inefficiencies are driving up costs for learners.

Published

on

A Reddit thread has surfaced in response to a Channel News Asia (CNA) article published on 12 September, which highlighted the growing problem of internet bots being used to book practical driving lessons in Singapore.

The CNA article points out that driving schools like the Singapore Safety Driving Centre, ComfortDelGro Driving Centre, and Bukit Batok Driving Centre are struggling to manage the post-pandemic surge in sign-ups, with waiting times now stretching from two to six months for practical lessons.

Redditors highlight deeper issues beyond bots

While the CNA article focused on the ethical concerns of bot usage and the efforts by schools like ComfortDelGro to mitigate these activities through CAPTCHA and AI algorithms, Redditors argue that the real issue lies in the limited capacity of driving schools, which has remained stagnant for years despite the growing demand.

One Redditor summed up the issue succinctly: “I think the problem is very clear, and it’s not the bots. Despite the growth in population size and the number of lanes on the road, I don’t think our driving school capacity has increased much over the last 2 decades.”

This view reflects a shared frustration with the limited availability of lessons, rather than the bots being the core problem.

Intentional restrictions?

Another thread participant speculated that these capacity limitations might be intentional, aligning with Singapore’s long-standing goal of becoming a car-lite society.

This commenter remarked: “I thought this was intentional to make it harder to learn to drive. Coupled with the fact that they’ve stopped giving out new private driving instructor licenses since forever.”

This sentiment resonated with other Redditors, who pointed out that restricting driving access through such methods might be an indirect way of discouraging car ownership without implementing more obvious or direct measures.

A common theme throughout the discussion was the call for more private driving instructors, as their dwindling numbers have exacerbated the problem. The CNA article notes that Singapore stopped issuing new licenses for private driving instructors in 1987, and only around 300 private instructors remain today.

Redditors expressed frustration over this restriction, with one saying: “Opening the doors for more private driving instructors would solve a lot of this crazy pent-up demand… I can’t understand why TP [Traffic Police] refuses to consider this when their 3 authorized schools are run like a shitshow.”

Others echoed this call, questioning why the private route isn’t expanded when the schools are clearly overwhelmed.

The CNA article reported that bots are used to snap up slots when other learners cancel bookings, often leaving regular students scrambling to secure lessons.

Many Redditors shared their personal frustrations with the booking systems, with one user stating: “I remember many years back when I took my lessons, it was already very hard to book… In the end I wrote a script to help me to book lessons and I could complete in a much shorter timeframe.”

Another user mentioned: “I enrolled in February, it’s September now, and I can’t even get a single slot for my 3A.”

These anecdotes reflect a widespread sense of exasperation with a system that many feel has not adapted to meet current demand.

Allegations of inefficiency

Some Redditors also questioned whether driving schools have any incentive to resolve these issues, accusing them of benefiting from drawn-out processes and high fees.

One participant commented: “The school instructors have no relationship with the student and are paid to just go through lessons like a robot rather than concentrating on the student’s weaknesses. Meanwhile the school has an incentive to drag the process out as long as possible to collect as much fees as possible.”

This view paints a picture of inefficiency and potential exploitation, adding to the frustrations of those trying to obtain their driving licenses.

The broader impact of Singapore’s car-lite policy

Several Redditors tied the bot controversy to Singapore’s broader push for a car-lite society, with one remarking: “They’re probably thinking: it’s part of the system to discourage cars on the road… TP failed lots of people, that’s why they have so much backlog.”

Some users felt that discouraging people from learning to drive could lead to long-term issues, with one suggesting that the difficulty in obtaining a license might ultimately reduce the number of private hire vehicles (PHVs) on the road: “All this is doing in the long run is making taxis extinct faster and possibly creating an issue years from now where there aren’t enough PHVs around because most Singaporeans gave up learning how to drive.”

The Reddit thread responding to the CNA article reveals that many Singaporeans believe the issues with booking driving lessons run deeper than just bots.

The root causes—limited capacity, intentional restrictions, and inefficiency—are seen as part of a broader challenge in Singapore’s car-lite ambitions.

Redditors are calling for reforms, such as more private instructors and greater transparency, to address the growing frustrations around learning to drive in Singapore.

Continue Reading

Comments

Halimah Yaacob proposes classifying platform workers as employees for enhanced protections

Former Singapore President Halimah Yaacob hailed the Platform Workers Bill as a “good start” for protecting gig workers but suggested a simpler approach: classifying some platform workers as employees for automatic labour law, social security, and union protections. She emphasised that the current system, which leaves workers bearing all risks and costs, is unsustainable and adversely affects their future and families.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Former Singapore President Halimah Yaacob has lauded the recently passed Platform Workers Bill as a “good start ” in protecting gig economy workers.

However, she suggested that a more straightforward approach would have been to classify platform workers who meet certain criteria as employees, thereby granting them automatic coverage under labour laws, social security protections, and union representation—an approach already adopted by some countries.

In her Facebook post, Halimah acknowledged the Bill’s role in addressing the vulnerabilities of platform work.

The legislation, effective from 2025, mandates increased Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for platform workers and provides enhanced work injury compensation and representation through union-like associations.

 

The parliamentary debate on September 9 and 10 centered on the distribution of costs—whether they will fall on platform workers, companies, or consumers.

Concerns were raised about the potential impact on consumers and the financial burden on platform companies.

Several MPs expressed worries about discrimination against workers who choose higher contributions and advocated for expanding the law to include other platform services such as domestic cleaning and caregiving.

Senior Minister of State for Manpower Koh Poh Koon reiterated that the protections are meant to level the playing field for businesses and ensure fair competition, while also preventing platform operators from passing the costs unfairly onto consumers or workers.

Madam Halimah highlighted how platform work can distort the pricing of goods and services, with consumers expecting low-cost, fast deliveries.

She noted that if platform workers were classified as employees, the costs of their protection—such as for sickness, business downtime, and social security—would be borne by employers and partially passed on to consumers.

She said It’s then up to us to decide whether to make use of such great convenience but at a certain price.

“It’s then up to the companies to properly factor in their costs to remain competitive as all other businesses are doing. It’s all about the business operating model that has fundamentally changed with the availability of platforms.”

Madam Halimah argued that since platform workers are essentially employees subject to company conditions, they should receive the same protections as other employees in terms of health, social security, and business downtime.

She pointed out that platform workers have been shouldering all the risks and costs, which is not sustainable and affects their ability to secure homes and plan for the future, impacting their families and future generations.

She also discussed the negative aspects of information technology and algorithms, referencing a case from a US fast-food chain where algorithms disrupt workers’ rest periods based on fluctuating customer demand.

The Platform Workers Bill defines platform workers as individuals who provide ride-hailing or delivery services for an online platform and are under the platform’s control.

According to data from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), there were approximately 70,500 platform workers in Singapore in 2023, accounting for about 3 percent of the workforce.

This total includes 22,200 taxi drivers, 33,600 private-hire drivers, and 14,700 delivery workers.

Continue Reading

Trending