Minilee wouldn't know what's transparency, democracy or accountability if it came around and bit him on the ss. He expects every country's citizenery to be as complaint and as naive as singaporeans.

Trackback from The Nation: Lesson for Temasek in buyout:

It is almost a certainty that Temasek will increasingly have to deal with political issues as it steps up its investments overseas....

The intertwining of business, political and diplomatic interests is understandable. But investment is not the only way to show goodwill.

Wonderful statement. I believe that occasionally, Singapore - or any other country, for that matter - should take a step back and think to themselves: is it really that important to operate so blindly in economics and forget for a while that diplomacy keeps harmony and promotes stability?

The new Thai leader had said that they are not going to obsessed with GNP growth but that their primary concern is that their people be happy. PM Lee, take this message seriously. What the point of country rich, citizens poor.

8 million for Potong Pasir.... you forgot...

If country 's rich, then the Scums in White can continue to give themselves fat bonuses and world record salaries. Citizen's happiness is the least of their concerns.

I have this hunch that Lee Con You* is actually Chee Soon Juan in disguise.

And so?

actually, we're just too eager to jump on any criticism and also to jump on any bandwagon on "democracy". The thai coup was never about democracy,or the thai people clamouring for clean government - which some foriegn press have claimed. It was a two-fold situation
1)Its the Thai King's birthday this year, and as his life winds down, he's staring at a PM who's even more popular than him. He cannot tolerate that.
2)ITs about the rich and poor divide. Thaksin's policies were to bring up the poor, rural people, which makes up the majority of the country - free healthcare, better roads, loans to help them etc. The rich, bangkok people didn't like it..that's why the protests wwas in Bangkok, and support is VERY strong in the country side.

The coup took place before the next election becos the rich, and the king knew they couldn't win a legitimate election against Thaksin. IE the coup was to overthrow democracy.
If we want to make Singapore a better place, we have to be aware of what exactly we're criticising or want. o/w we look stupid.

Shrewdly observed!

I really don't think the PM is more popular the the King. Thaksin is highly unpopular, even the rural areas.

The PM had leveled accusations against the military about failed assassination attempts and others. I don't think there's any royal conspiracy involved. You've been reading too much Da Vinci Code.

If Thaksin really cared, will he evade taxes applicable to sale of Shin Corp? Helping the poor is his job and might just be a veil to cover up his sins. So, what's wrong with wanting to get rid of a hypocrite?

Thaksin's contribution to the poor are pretty much what you'd call "populist" policies which conflicted with existing programmes run by the king, if I'm correct. I'm for bridging that rich-poor divide, but what these people need are firm, concrete policies that benefit them in the long run - not free healthcare and handouts that aren't economically sustainable (not to mention, a popular tactic in weak democracies to buy favours).

The coup was staged because Thaksin was about to reshuffle the military and put his own people on top of its hierachy, which would undermine the military's neutrality in Thai politics. But what really angered the Thais was still the Shin Corp deal. No country in its right mind would want to sell its television, telecoms, and satellite assets to a foreign country; it's more damning when it's the prime minister's family who does so and reap the benefits from the deal. Singapore has always been touchy about foreign ownership (and even foreign interference) of the local media and telecoms - so why should we believe that the Thais are going to think any differently?

Boy miniLee criticising another country's 'democracy'. does no one else see the irony?

Hm, not going to engage in a discussion on domestic thai politics on a Singapore page. I'll make a few points though 1)the military in thailand has never been neutral in thai politics..count the number of coups . 2)if the military was really neutral they won't be discarding the current consitution. The current constitution was written after students and protesters lost their lives protesting against the last violent thai coup, and was meant to ease out the military's involvement.
3)When Thaksin started Shin Corp. , nobody believed it would work. Shin Corp is NOT the equivalent of SingTel.
4)for all the criticism -- the thai opposition has never made an attempt to address how to bring up the rural thais...and btw: if thaksin was really that unpopular in the countryside, eh his party won't have won two major elections (that's excluding the one annulled). All the polls indicate he will win the next one as well..
There's obviously been a charge that thaksin buys his votes..but eh, the democrats (the opposition party and incumbent government) has been doing that forever....and they are just as rich as thaksin.
Critical Criticism of Singapore is well and good - eg what's happened with the FEER is ridiculous..but perhaps we need to be more critical about our own thoughts and information sources so we don't just parody foreigners.

Uh, neutral meaning the military isn't affliated to any political party. Had Thaksin been successful in putting his own people in the army, he would have influence over the Thai military as well. The same can be said of the Indonesian army, which is supposed to be committed to the Constitution rather than any political party.

3)When Thaksin started Shin Corp. , nobody believed it would work. Shin Corp is NOT the equivalent of SingTel.

But iTV, which Shin Corp bought over, started off as a public broadcasting station following the 1992 uprising. There's a fair bit of nationalistic feeling that links it to the Thai people. But what the case, no country would want to sell its key broadcasting, telecoms, and satellite businesses to a foreign country. These are assets that concern a country's national security.

4)for all the criticism -- the thai opposition has never made an attempt to address how to bring up the rural thais...and btw: if thaksin was really that unpopular in the countryside, eh his party won't have won two major elections (that's excluding the one annulled). All the polls indicate he will win the next one as well..

Which is all fair game, but Thaksin was obviously trying to consolidate his grip on power. Read somewhere that he supports the PAP model of governance. Could be wong, but if thats true then that's alarming enough for the intellectuals in Thailand.

I vaguely remember a newspaper report quoting a Thai villager about why she wanted to vote Thaksin into power. The reason? "He's so handsome!" If you thought mooning after your favourite star only lies in the entertainment business, then this report certainly showed otherwise.

Then again, which party does not want to eventually be able to be the dominant power? If so, that party does not believe in their values strong enough. Was the deal clean or not? My retort is, does it really matter? Thaksin is ousted, a new government is in power, and Singapore has pledged its friendship once again with our Southeast Asian neighbours. So for us, I believe that this matter is past.

News reports are known make use of isolated examples to support its bias. To the gullible, Thai villagers certainly sound bimbotic.

This matters is not past because our money is still at stake, pending the case on licenses.

One can only hope we will not repeat the same mistakes in Russia
-
`In a sense, Singapore's planners were swimming against the tide because investors were looking to Suzhou for costs lower than Shanghai's, and the SIP was charging Shanghai-style prices`

Trackback from a little fish finding her way in the world:

Lee Hsien Loong claimed that "Thailand's military coup as(was) "a setback" for the Kingdom and its democracy." However, I begged to differ as this depends on how one defines democracy. ...