4/25/2006

first world govt

What is a first world govt? It is easy to brush aside a third world govt as it is simply regarded as third grade, unworthy and basically no good. But what is first world govt? Is the US or UK govt a first world govt, or the European and Japanese govt a first world govt? Superficially they are or should be as their countries are regarded as first world countries. So govt of first world countries must be first world govt. When the question of first world govt is raised, it implies something more. It suggests that being in the first world does not mean that one is a first world kind of people. So does the govt. How can one define what is a first world govt? The academics will definitely have a whole list of criteria to apply to their formula. But for the layman, a simple and easily recognisable definition should suffice. Lets use something quantifiable. Lets use the all familiar criteria of money and perhaps qualifications. Everyone is free to disagree with this formula. It is used here for convenience. In a way, our govt is first world when qualifications is concerned. Our govt is an elected govt and I would consider only the elected representatives. So it is a limited definition. All these people now in govt are not only people with tertiary education, but from the best universities around the world, and scoring first class honours too. Unlike those who went to Yale but with an average grade. So academically our govt must be first world. The other criteria is money. In terms of income, our govt must also be indisputably first world as they are all high earners, easily half a million a year each, matching or exceeding those in the first world countries. And this is not their real worth. Everyone of them actually worth more. They are hotshots that will readily be grabbed by MNCs and paid more, much more than what they are currently getting. We are so lucky that they volunteered and accepted public office and getting a discount in their income. And their lifestyle must definitely be first world too. With all the loose change to see the world, driving the finest cars in the most expensive car market, living in the most expensive homes and a life of plenty. I conclude that indeed we have a first world govt. I am not looking at the intangibles or things that are unquantifiable. Those will be easily questioned and are very subjectives. One can argue till the cow comes home about how good is decision making, the morality, the values, the compassion, how the people's life are affected. These are very cumbersome things to discuss in a forum like this. Yes, we have a first world govt.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Going by your definition, our government is not first world; it's members' salaries are 'out of this world'!

redbean said...

: )

Elfred said...

We might have a first world govt.
As MM said, becos so we reach first world status.

But the catch is this govt is first world in the 70s. :D

In the late 80s through now, that's something to consider through...

Don't just focus on the salary part. If they are doing a marvelous jobs, not many people would really bother.

In any case, the best and most apt political elements are obviously sidelining. Because they emerge, nothing much shall change.

redbean said...

just look at some of the nouveau riche and their lifestyles. yes they have made it financially. but what kind of lifestyle are they leading?

to be rich does not mean that all is well.

Elfred said...

This election has kinda fix the trend. I doubt the party would make it in term of a about turn.

But in all, this is an important historical moment to educate future political leaders on the failure of their earlier generations' incumbent.

A regret that MM would probably not be around to witness by then. :)

Anonymous said...

Cherche wonders:
Why the need to employ French to denote certain terms for the purpose of injecting some form of intellectuality into your discussion, Redbean? (See "nouveau riche") Because anything French has the connotation of a higher cultural ground? Haute couture?

This is digressing from the topic but I think it's pretty interesting how a country ascends to such cultural heights that it seeps into the private spheres of the hoi polloi. How do they do it?

If you do not know, most French came from peasant stock. The language itself is a vulgar form of Latin. How then did it and its phallic symbol of an Eiffel Tower come to dominate high culture?

((Disclaimer: I do not hold any grudge to France. In fact, it's number bloody one country I love, but this hegemony is perplexing me.))