5/23/2006
consistency in HR policies and job creation
Over the last few days we have seen two conflicting models of human resource management put on the showcase. The first case was the halfing of the pay of a professor at NTU, working for the same number of hours, but the HR dept claimed that his workload is half and thus deserved half pay, at the age of 55.
Then we have another model from the PAP. This model emphasises the creation of many high paying jobs. So, other than being an MP, a candidate can be a Prime Minister, Senior Minister, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary. In addition to these positions, more are created like Senior Minister of State, Senior Parliamentary of State and Minister without Portfolio. And if that is not enough, they can have more than one minister in one ministry and more that one minister of state or parliamentary secretary. Not to mention that MPs can also be appointed as Mayors.
Between the two models, understandably the second model is better as it is a very creative way of creating more high paying jobs. The NTU model is not only dissecting high paying jobs into halves, but also goes against the govt policies of keeping people gainfully employed after 55. It is also against the trend of people being able to live longer and be economically active till past 80 years.
But the important thing is consistency. The govt must be consistent in its policy of encouraging employment past 55 years and to support its call to create more high paying quality jobs. And by setting a good example with its models of having multiple ministers in a ministry and creating more jobs at minister or junior minister levels, other govt or govt link organisations should follow the lead.
On the other hand, if each organisation is deemed different and has their own peculiarities like after 55 years, professors and academics will suffer from dementia and their mental faculties will degenerate, then all the professors and academics reaching 55 should also have their workload halves and their pay also halves. Then people cannot cry discrimination or inconsistency.
Fairness must be seen, and application of HR policies must be transparent.
banning the da vinci code
An educator and a mother of six pondered over the pros and cons of the movie, The Da Vinci Code and was pleased that it was categorised as NC16. So only her eldest child is allowed to see the show. But she deliberated quite thoroughly on the virtue or approach to ban movies or books that are seen as having a bad influence on children. And for that matter many of the movies screened on prime time TV and computer games should also be banned. Their contents in many instances were anti Christianity or religions, or of questionable moral values.
But she came to the conclusion that we should let our children see and judge the movie, to shift through the half truths from the truths themselves. She has faith in the intelligence of her children.
Banning the Da Vinci Code is not a solution. For that matter, the explicit descriptions of immoral sexual behaviours and excesses, including incests, in the Old Testament should not be freely available to the children. The Bible should only be for adult readings only.
5/22/2006
it is painful watching a freak show
I happened to be fiddling with my remote control button during the commercial break watching Da Vinci Code, and 'Ouch!' It was so painful to my eyes when I saw these few freaks trying to appear queer on TV. And then there was a panel of judges, also trying to look cute and sound cute.
My goodness, who is on show, or who is performing? The contestants were there as props. It is the judges that were the performers, trying very hard to be someone they were not.
I grimaced with so much pain. I shouted 'Cut, cut, cut!' But nothing I could do except to switch back to the channel I was watching. The commercial break was still on. Then I told myself, it could not be that bad right? So I bravely pushed on the remote button to take another peep.
'Ouch! No, it is just as painful. No way I am going to take a second look ever again. It was supposed to be some kind of idol show. My gosh! Remove the contestants, remove the freaks. Oh, wait a minute, it is the judges that need to be removed.'
my government or my people?
When is enough enough? When will the people stand up
and tell the PAP that they will not let the PAP to
continue to rough handle anymore?
There are some consensus views of what or how the PAP
is being seen by the voters in the aftermath of the
recent general election. 'The PAP is seen as a very
arrogant party, and totally unfair to both the
opposition and the people. I am against offering
upgrading as a carrot. The money belongs to the
nation, not the PAP...Christopher Lee in the ST.
'When the people say that the cost of living is high,
the PAP says we have cellphones and air conditioners.
When the people ask for GST waivers on necessities and
medical items, the PAP says they are subsidised. How
to talk to the Govt?'...Neo Kim Seng in the ST.
'During the campaign, the PAP told Hougang and Potong
Pasir voters: ...Why be so stupid and continually
support the opposition which never contributed
constructively in Parliament or which only makes
trouble in Parliament?...I am surprised at their
unsporting attitude.' Sylvestor Goh in the ST.
Despite these views which are quite common and quickly
surfaced in a discussion, the PAP is still voted to
power for another term. The people are unhappy with a
PAP that is seen to treat the people badly and even
ignoring the people's pleas with their clever
arguments, with their views of what they think is best
and not coming around to try to understand the
people's concern.
But then again, its seems that the voters will have to
tolerate the arrogance of PAP, or have to grit their
teeth and accept PAP as a matter of no better choice.
And worst is that they are happy just to know that the
PAP is now trying to be gentler to the people.
'I am a PAP supporter who believes the Govt has done a great
job and is changing to adopt a softer approach towards
the people...' Billy Lee in the ST.
This last quote speaks for all Singaporeans, that they
have grown use to be push around, or bashed around and
all they can hope for, and will be happy, if only the
PAP just try to be a little nicer to them. Is this the
attitude and expectation of the people on the PAP or
any future govt, that it is the natural state of
affair for a govt to be stern and even treat them
roughly?
When would the Singaporeans said enough is enough,
that no govt shall ever mistreat them like thrash or
to be thrashed around? And a little kinder govt is a
great blessing? Do the Singaporeans ever think that it
is only right and proper for any govt to treat them
fairly and respectfully?
The Singaporeans deserve a govt for what that govt is
if they let the govt sit on them as a natural state of thing.
5/21/2006
another productivity drive
Quantum Leap In Productivity?by Heng-Cheong Leong
Lim Swee Say is asking the low income to "make quantum leap in producitivty" in order to move ahead. Great, let's ask your favorite food court's dish clearing auntie how exactly is she going to clear "quantum leap" number of tables?
I guess most folks' answer will simply be either OT or Second Job.
Is that all NTUC can do?
the easiest and most efficient way to help the aunties to clean more dishes and faster is to buy a few dish washing machines. then one aunty can clean what 10 aunties can do. then can replace the 10 aunties with dish washing machines. then can say productivity of 1 aunty is now equivalent of 10 aunties.
i still like the idea of creative management in designing high paying jobs. one way is to create more town councils, maybe one town council for every 10 blocks of flats. and every 10 town councils one mayor. then every ten mayors one zone mayor, and every 3 zone mayors one region mayor. and every 3 region mayors one district mayor. and every 3 district mayors one governor mayor.
wow, so many jobs created, and high paying one also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)