Lee Hsien Loong Quotes

Maybe politically it wasn't wise but when people have different view points I think the public has a right to hear it and the public has a right to make decisions based on those view points.

When we speak freely, let us speak plainly, for plain speech is wholesome; especially, plain speech about public affairs and public men.

Most Canadians don't understand the House of Commons. They turn on their televisions, see us yelling at one another, and dismiss us as a bunch of fools.

My view is, let's not shut down anyone's right to speak, let's meet their comments with more speech.

I don't mind people writing about me. Personal attacks are different, but political arguments? I'm putting myself out there on a daily basis. I'm giving my opinion. So it only makes sense that others might differ and will criticize me.

I think it's appropriate in America for anyone to speak out and say what their reaction is to the president's State of the Union speech.

Healthy disagreement, debate, leading to compromise has always been the American way.

Freedom rings where opinions clash.

Avoid any specific discussion of public policy at public meetings.

The more internal criticism and dissatisfaction publicly communicable within a society, the better and freer the society.

Part of what's great about America, and Canada as well, is that we can talk about our political leaders in public.

I think it's important to have conversation about things instead of shutting things down.

Canberra can be a bit of a debating society from time to time.

The foundation of our democracy is the ability to have a debate about any subject. That is why I am so committed to defending free speech.

I think politics is always about dialogue. I think journalism ranges from dialogue to monologue, and there are times when different poles are necessary.

Our democracy works because the parties air and debate their differences in public.

My philosophy is that I may not like all the questions that you ask, and you may not like all the answers that I give, but this is part of a transparent government.

I want people to have conversations, to have controversy because it creates dialogue and builds bridges.

We ought to be able to talk about ideas, we ought to be able to debate ideas because that's how you get to consensus and that's how you move this country forward and that's how you move this state forward. We do a better job of it in Iowa. We do.

If you're going to have an exchange of ideas, the only thing you can do is to meet people face-to-face in front of a crowd who may think differently than you do. I mean, that's what democracy is about, isn't it?

I understand the principles of dissent in parliament.

Good people can disagree - all you want is honesty, because you know, if I disagree, I'm willing to debate you on that, and then let the public decide what's good policy and bad policy.

Our history is that we can very aggressively, if necessary, and openly and democratically discuss our differences. We have a democratic history in which we come together and vote on these things.

I don't think a system or a government should fear critical opinions or views. Only by heeding those critical views would it be possible for us to further improve our work and make further progress.

Shouting down and intimidating someone from speaking their mind is not exactly a Vermont town meeting value, nor should it be an American town meeting value.