9/06/2006

myth 61

'The failsafe solution, Singapore's answer to all problems' Teachers are quitting the service in huge numbers. And teaching our young is a very important part of our national and economic development. We cannot afford to lose teachers at this rate. Quick, quick, find a solution. 'Just throw some money to them.' $250 million, will it be enough? Surely that should solve the problem. The teachers said, not enough. We want lesser work. Not exactly. The teachers just want to teach. Cut away all the administrative work or ECAs, just let them do the most important function of their profession, to teach. Oh dear, throwing money at teachers is not good enough. And this is a vital profession that we cannot afford to lose good and well trained professionals. All the investment in the training go to waste. What shall we do now? Have they heard of multi tasking? All Singaporeans are expected to multi task, to wear on 10 or 20 hats to justify their stratospheric level salaries. And now teachers are also raised nearer to that level, how could they ask to do just one thing, teach and nothing else. Didn't they know that an insurance agent is now called a financial adviser? They not only sell insurance, they are also expected to sell all kinds of financial instruments, including advising clients on their financial matters. And their commissions are cut some more. Now who is next to claim that their profession is important and overworked? Ah, the doctors. How can we forget the doctors. And the lawyers too. Their jobs must also be important. Who else's job is not important? How much more money do we have to throw at them?

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

AntAss. We risk our lives to defend this little red dot and our allowance is even lower than what an '0' level holder can earn in a month. Meanwhile, females, PRs and "Fallen Trash" maximize job and educational opportunities at our expense.

Our government has taken us for granted and many reservists doing ICTs are very, very unhappy with the government's "Fallen Trash" policy.

redbean said...

there are many angles to look at an issue. the govt will say this is the best thing for singapore. the fts too will say this is a wise thing for the govt to do. and the ns men will show two ups.

Johnny Be Good said...

If as you so put it that a lot of reservists are unhappy with the govt's policy, I wonder why that unhappiness was not manisfested at the ballot box in May ? And if you're one of tha unhappy ones, what's stopping you from packing up and leaving ? The way I see it, two can play this game. They come and take our opportunities, we can also go out and grab the even more abundant opportunities outside this tiny island. problem is most Singaporeans have been too molly-coddled and hence lacked the balls to do it. The FTS who come have you do, they took a risk attempting to make it in a foreign land, and hence they deserve any rewards that they get. Singaporeans should grow up and stop begrudging them.

redbean said...

hi johnny be good said,

welcome to the blog.

i think singaporeans must be proud to know that at least they have a unique character, ie, complaining. we are all very good at it but would not march on the street. and as for the ballot box, there are too many other considerations.

the foreign talent thing has many sides to it and the usual pro and cons. what will matter eventually is the pain level and when the pain becomes unbearable. it is like an itch. you scratch it, soothe it, but comes a time when it hurts, then you will want to see the doc.

as for the talented, whether local or foreign, the world is their oysters. the issue is among the less talented having no where to go and fight tooth and nail with the not so talented but willing to slog harder in home territory. it is all about striking a balance.

Johnny Be Good said...

redbean, you have admitted that the foreigners in our midst are more hard working. So, why then do Singaporeans still begrudge them ? Like in school, those who studied harder and smarter in most cases will come out with better grades. As to your talented vs non-talented excuse, all I can say is everyone is born with a God-given brain. The only limitation to your abilities is the ones that you set for yourself. Everyone can be talented if they put their minds to it.

redbean said...

hi johnny,

as long as there are such concepts as nation, organisation, family etc, there is always a us and them divide. if only these concepts are no longer relevant.

children of a family will demand for the inheritance, shelter from family home etc, employees expect employee benefits, citizens expect privileges as citizens.

when a govt surrenders the interests of its citizens to foreigners, it is game over, no matter what reasons it gives and no matter how well meaning the act is.

li ka shing's sons will be the ceos even if you are better than them and work harder than them. this is a cardinal rule of state and family. the govt can break it at its own peril.

Anonymous said...

Cherche:
The issue of transnational immigration (foreign talent) is a blessing and a curse. It is an issue ALL countries face.

Johnny be good is right. If people here are not happy, leave for a life overseas. Then you shall see through your one-dimensional prism that you will face the same problem foreigners face in Singapore, and you shall see how you like it. Don't even argue national protectionism for one's own peoples, for your concept of nationalism is increasingly flimsy in this globalised world. A nation is an imagined community and this is one area in which your imagination is a liability to all.

Most countries entrench welfare rights to assist those who are considered 'less fortunate' or 'needing more help'- namely women, PRs and the jobless. They are not fallen trash as you so eloquently epitomised. The government can't please everyone, much less you in particular. If you don't fall within the recognised category of 'needing more help', that means you have more a chance than anyone else to succeed. Why haven't you succeeded; why are you so bitter? This is a question to ask yourself, not the government.

redbean said...

sorry cherche, got to disagree with you on this. there must be a distinction between a citizen and a non citizen. and the concept of country and nation will not go away just like the difference between race and religion.

maybe another 100 years from now.

Anonymous said...

Li Ka Shing has a right to install his sons as CEOs of his companies because he owns them. Singapore on the other hand doesn't belong to its citizens. It belongs to a tightly-held company called Lee Pte Ltd. The shareholders of that company is widely known.

redbean said...

wow anonymous, that is a very strong view. by the way, hsien loong was popularly elected in a general election and not installed by the family : )

Anonymous said...

He was installed as the leader of the PAP before he faced the people in an election. Once he is the leader of the party, winning the election is a foregone conclusion. SO how can you say he was popularly elected in a general election.

Johnny Be Good said...

Hi redbean, governments may make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens but at the end of the day, the marketplace will dictate terms that make that distinction inconsequential. One good example is the move to allow the sale of new HDB flats to PRs in selected estates.

redbean said...

hi anonymous, there are two parts here. one is being voted by unanimous decision to be the next pm. the other is the general election. both are legitimate. voted to be pm was from the ministers and cadres, i think.

in the general election, the votes were by the people. in both issues, factually you can't prove otherwise.

redbean said...

hi johnny,

there is the real market and the artificial market. when you said this, 'One good example is the move to allow the sale of new HDB flats to PRs in selected estates'it is not a market decision. it is an administrative or policy decision. if our policy is to screw up the people, it is a different issue altogether.

in a genuine free market, no one is complaining. or maybe some will still do. but not our own created market.

Johnny Be Good said...

A policy decision necessiated by a market forces, ie. oversupply which the current demand cannot absorb, hence the creation of additional demand to soak them up.

redbean said...

under normal circumstances policy decisions are market driven. but some are assumption driven, and assumptions can be wrong.

and some are driven by poor judgement or even vested interest.