The Americans are superb in mobilizing mass thinking to serve their own interest. They raised a few targets, gave them some names that people loved to hate, and viola, the masses of the world will be attacking the targets and forget about what is happening around them. The silly Asians are hating the Iranians, the Iraqis, the North Koreans happily and obsessively.
In the army, many males Sinkies will be familiar with the command, ‘At your own target, at your own time, fire!’ And the soldiers will be furiously firing at the raised targets in front of them, oblivious of what is happening around them.
What have all these got to do with the current big hooha on ministerial salary review? A big set of numbers are given to the people and all are happily digesting them and firing at them like good soldiers. Does anyone bother to step back and check if the numbers given are accurate or the numbers that they should really be looking at? As an example, the annual salary of a minister is $2,368,500. Is this what the minister really gets as his annual income? Are the bonuses included, and if not, do they want to know what is the total annual income? In other words, what is the real total annual income of a minister, excluding the minor perks? Are there other incomes that need to be included? Does a minister still collect his MP allowance? How many other appointments is he holding and being paid as well?
Are the numbers giving a full and complete picture of the income of a politician/MP/Minister? While everyone is happily firing, do they want to take a step back and examine if they are getting the full picture and firing at the target they should be firing at?
14 comments:
The questions you raised are good questions and every citizen knows he or she will not get an answer.
Singapore is an opaque society.
Excellent point!One needs to relate it to the motto:that Singapore aims for the most transparent system in the world.
The People Get The Government They Deserve!
Are they seriously worried that a few million bucks a year (after the cuts) will not be enough to attract private sector talents. Since when have the PAP truly have private sector talents, even after the few hundred percent increase in ministerial salaries in 1994? Most of the ministers are from the SAF, unions, universities and GLCs. The only truly private sector inductee was Peter Chen from Shell - and what happened to him?
Well,the one super talent from private sector that joined politics opted for opposition party,Chen Show Mao
Don't anyhow shout lah. Your Maslow's theory does not work here. In Sin, after all the 4 levels of needs have been attained, they go back to basic needs again. They just recycle their needs level.
I have not talked about Maslow's 5th level of needs for a long time.
Fuck Marlow lah you fake intellectual, use common sense. Many in the private sector are die-hard private enterprise types. Die die they'd never work for govt.
Remember, to avoid being labelled a fake intellectual you might want to consider:
Realist -- observed phenomena, then form hypotesis and /or conform non-conform to existing theories
Bullshit fake intellectual (usually employed by government or on tenure at a government funded academic institution) -- theory first. Theory is god. Reality MUST CONFORM to theory. If not, reality is WRONG. All hail the mighty infallible theory! (ie theory = religion)
My god, Matilah, you dare called people fake intellectuals by quoting this?
'Realist -- observed phenomena, then form hypotesis and /or conform non-conform to existing theories'
This is a copy of Marx dialectical materialism modified with a change of words and you fly it like a kite. Eh, malu or not?
Redbean, better stay clear before his tourette syndrome got aroused.
sorry clarification : Dialectical materialism not the same as scientific materialism. Marx used the same arguments (of science) to make an economic case for communism which is of course flawed on many levels.
So be careful or you'll make the same mistakes as Marx :-P
Ok, but let me add one more.
Matilah, my observation of you is that you are not confident of yourself and that is why you have to keep quoting someone else.
It may also be your way of telling people you are damn well read, showing off, which is also a sign of inferiority.
Ok, I bunk off now.
@ anon 445
Kaypoh izzit?
Redbean, you are nearly all correct. I make tons of mistakes, and I'm unafraid to make mistakes.
I am VERY confident of myself. I am NEVER 100% confident of what I say, write or do. Notice the difference. Self doubt to me -- just a little -- keeps me real.
As for quotes, you can take or leave em. I like HL Mencken, Jefferson, Ayn Rand etc etc.. writers who favour individualism, the free market, that sort of thing. There you have it: my cognitive biases, my "filters". We all have filters so fuck it, I'm not embarrassed by my own.
So if you took a pot shot at me, sorry to tell you -- you didn't make a dent. Not a motherfucking scratch.
No lah, just making an observation: )
Post a Comment