Boiling the daft brains

After a long period of gradual abuses, the human beans would have adjusted and adapted to a higher level of pain and absurdity. Subsequently any lowering of suffering would be greeted with relief and gratitude. The high housing price is a living example that the people are getting used to it and paying a little less is cause for celebration. The people are now jubilant over the announcement by Boon Wan of the release of more public housing and a change in policy to build in advance of demand instead of waiting for demand to build up. Great man, compassionate man, with people centric policies, compare to his predecessor. Now this is a caring govt for the people and will look after the needs of the people. They have forgotten how they have ended in the shit hole in the first place. The history of lack of housing in the founding years need not be retold. The story of govt building public housing for the people, where people can go and choose their flats like choosing to buy a car or private properties must be repeated to remind the beans that it should be that way. But after getting used to waiting for 4 or 5 years, the beans are so happy if they can get it in 3. Now they will go down on their knees if they can get it in 2 years. Even the expectation for 5 rm, executive or private properties is forgotten. They no longer aspire for them and are contented with a 4 rm public flats for young professionals. Boiling daft brains are not much different from boiling frogs. The daft Singaporeans deserved to be treated that way, easily conned, easily appeased, easily contented, in their unthinking way. They will take it lying down when told to plan their marriages 4 or 5 years in advance or they will have to suffer the brilliant BTO housing policy. It is their fault for not planning ahead. Dumbos.

Michael - King of Pops

This is what Master Nature painted of Michael. And Master Nature says, beneath the cosmetics, he is Afro American. More pics at Art of RAR Gallery at top right.

The irrelevance of KPIs

Amid the hoohaas for change and the thrills of a Ministers’ Salary Review Committee, many well meaning experts have offered their views and suggestions on how to assess the performance of ministers and the appropriate rewards due to them. KPIs have been booted around as the panacea of all the ills that have surfaced. KPIs are widely used as a HR tool and also seen as a better and more objective tool for performance appraisal. It also has many drawbacks and easily misused by management to serve the wrong objectives with very adverse consequences for the organisation. The recent political developments have provided many interesting aspects on the misuse or misinterpretation of KPIs as a management tool. Kan Seng was promoted to Coordinating Minister earlier, Mah Bow Tan openly announced how great and successful were his housing policies and programmes. He would probably write a memoir on his great contributions to public housing and expecting the people to thank him profusely. These incidents were evidence that they were doing well, or their superior must be telling them so, for a job well done. How well they have done, in the eyes of their superior, using whatever KPIs, can easily be deduced by the amount of performance bonuses and growth bonuses they received over the years. Check it out. From their confidence and the high positions they held in cabinet, there were no doubts that their performances were rated very highly. What about the people’s assessment of their performances? Though the people did not have access to their KPIs, from the reactions and feedback in the media, it is quite clear that both must be ranked at the bottom of the people’s assessment. Here lies the first fault, what their superior think is good may not be good to the people. Both the ministers and their superior could be congratulating themselves for achieving all the goals in their KPIs. But to the people these are not the goals that are good for the people. So we have conflicting expectations and KPIs to start with. How then could KPIs be used to be both relevant to the superior of the ministers and the expectation of the people, if the KPIs are in conflict? Who then shall set the KPIs, the superior, the ministers or the people? If only the three can agree on the same set of KPIs, perhaps that will be a good reason to use KPIs to appraise ministers for their performance. It is a non starter in the first place.

The perpetual strawman for whacking

‘Only US can balance China’, why not ‘Only China can balance the US?’ Why is it necessary to keep the Americans interested in the Western Pacific to balance the influence of China and not keeping the Chinese interested to balance the influence of America? The inherent biased of a WOG or a western biased viewpoint of international balance of power is obvious. China is the perpetual strawman for whacking. ‘You can take Japan, Korea, Asean, and even include Taiwan and India, but you cannot balance China. It is too big. Only with the US and its superior technology can you balance China.’ Why not, ‘You can take Japan, Korea, Asean, and even include Taiwan and India, but you cannot balance the US. It is too big. Only with China and its superior technology can you balance the US?’ This western view has always placed China as the rogue nation, or the nation that is dangerous and all out to bully the smaller nations. In reality, the rogue nation is always the US. Look at the wars and the bullying of smaller nations across the world map. Who is bullying the smaller countries? But if one eats too many hamburgers and potatoes, one’s is gonna look at China like a potato or a hamburger, or think like a potato or hamburger.

Who shall decide who can be President?

Tan Cheng Bock is thinking of standing for the elected Presidency and has to meet the eligibility criteria of the PEC. The criteria include the following to ensure candidates are people of integrity, good character and reputation: 1. At least 45 years 2. Held key appointments such as minister, chief justice, speaker or permanent secretary for not less than 3 years, or been chairman or chief executive of a statutory board. 3. Or similar or equivalent positions in the private sector. The above criteria mean that one must be some big shot or else not good enough even if one is a person of integrity, good character and reputation. A school teacher, school principal, a GP, an accountant, a lawyer, a successful insurance or housing agent, a good social worker, an academic etc etc, will not be considered as good enough. Why? MP also cannot? Not perm sec also cannot? The criteria are actually PAP’s criteria. Do the people have any say in them? Who should decide the eligibility criteria for an elected President, the people or a political party that is in power?