The first statement he issued on Dec 9 said it was an isolated incident arising from the unlawful actions of an unruly mob reacting to a fatal traffic accident. Only once in 44 years, no big deal. Nevertheless Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to convene a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to: (1) look into the factors that led to the incident, (2) check how the incident was handled on the ground, and (3) review the current measures to manage areas where foreign workers congregate. On Dec 14, he explained why he left out (4), one of the possible causes of the riot being the eruption of pent-up tensions among foreign workers in Singapore.
Then there's the part that makes you wonder if the neurons in his cerebral cortex are misfiring: “The people who were involved in the riot were not from one company, or one dorm; (they were from) several dorms, many different companies, and it is unlikely that all the companies will have the same problem.” You don't need a degree from Cambridge or Oxford to deduce that since there were representatives from several dormitories and different companies that the problem is not isolated, but has to be island wide. Lee also blamed alcohol, also available island wide, provided in abundance at Clarke Quay watering holes and similar. Just count the number of liquor licences issued at Ang Moh havens.
After telling the COI what to write in their report, on 25 Dec, he specifically spells out what to leave out: the broader issues of whether social or population policies need to be re-thought. The sacred cow of Population White Paper will not be slayed.
“I do not accept that we must straight away ask whether fundamental approaches or the whole way our society is organised needs to be re-thought immediately,” he stubbornly insisted. His father said the same thing more or less when reminded of George Yeo's irritating suggestion of change, "And every defeat must be accompanied by a thorough rethink. But it does not mean a change in your basic values and policies." So much for "we didn’t quite get it right, I’m sorry, but we will try and do better the next time". The apple does not fall far from the tree.
In a perverse way, it makes glorious sense. Why change when one has benefited immensely from the system? The COI has been a very effective rubber stamp, LTA spent $10 million on the COI hearing, and trains still break down. Even the brand new Circle Line had a disruption involving 23 out of 30 stations on Wednesday. And they can always shell out big bucks for a consultant to add a layer of authenticity. Hopefully not a $2 set up headed by an ex-member of parliament like what Chandra Das did to supply software for Teo Ho Pin's town councils.
Then there's the part that makes you wonder if the neurons in his cerebral cortex are misfiring: “The people who were involved in the riot were not from one company, or one dorm; (they were from) several dorms, many different companies, and it is unlikely that all the companies will have the same problem.” You don't need a degree from Cambridge or Oxford to deduce that since there were representatives from several dormitories and different companies that the problem is not isolated, but has to be island wide. Lee also blamed alcohol, also available island wide, provided in abundance at Clarke Quay watering holes and similar. Just count the number of liquor licences issued at Ang Moh havens.
After telling the COI what to write in their report, on 25 Dec, he specifically spells out what to leave out: the broader issues of whether social or population policies need to be re-thought. The sacred cow of Population White Paper will not be slayed.
“I do not accept that we must straight away ask whether fundamental approaches or the whole way our society is organised needs to be re-thought immediately,” he stubbornly insisted. His father said the same thing more or less when reminded of George Yeo's irritating suggestion of change, "And every defeat must be accompanied by a thorough rethink. But it does not mean a change in your basic values and policies." So much for "we didn’t quite get it right, I’m sorry, but we will try and do better the next time". The apple does not fall far from the tree.
In a perverse way, it makes glorious sense. Why change when one has benefited immensely from the system? The COI has been a very effective rubber stamp, LTA spent $10 million on the COI hearing, and trains still break down. Even the brand new Circle Line had a disruption involving 23 out of 30 stations on Wednesday. And they can always shell out big bucks for a consultant to add a layer of authenticity. Hopefully not a $2 set up headed by an ex-member of parliament like what Chandra Das did to supply software for Teo Ho Pin's town councils.