where have all the forumers gone?

I have posted this article in response to Green Peas in redbeanforum. Hi Green Peas, A very big welcome to the forum. You are quite right to say that most of the forumers have disappeared after the general election. I was scratching my head to find out why. I scoured the forums and the activities have really died down except for those threads where forumers were biting at each other. Not many issues are now floating around. Even the news media are still clinging onto the post election bit to push out some articles to keep themselves busy. But the key thing is that Singaporeans are by nature quite conservative, reserve and inhibited in expressing their views. And one cannot run away from the element of fear. Everything we said here may one day be used or misquoted as evidence against us. The best example is Gayle Goh who was warned by all the well wishers to be careful in what she said. And prior to the election, when Balaji came out with the statement that blogs and forums need to be registered, the same quiet enveloped the whole cyberspace. Singaporeans need to speak out and express themselves. We should remove the fear and inhibition within us. We all make mistakes in our lives, in the things we said and do. By not saying or doing anything does not improve things except to minimise our mistakes. But it is through our mistakes that we learn. In general, the people are now more mature and more forgiving, more liberal in their judgement of other people's behaviours and little mistakes. Steve Chia is an example that despite the little skirmishes he had with the law, people still accept him as what he is. Of course there are parties or people who will rush to condemn someone for a little misdemeanour as if they themselves were angels and gods. But they could do so only because they kept their cupboards tightly closed and guarded. Practically everyone, every human being, has a cupboard full of skeletons. Lets be human and live with our mistakes and other people's mistakes. If we can do that, maybe we can speak a bit more freely, and laugh at ourselves. Relax a little, and kick a few arses if needed to and be kicked as well. one thing for sure, the number of new forumers coming to read blogs and forums are growing. i can see it from my statistics.

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.

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.