Just a month after the GE and Singaporeans are greeted with some refreshing changes in the way some ministries are working. Boon Wan is throwing out a whole basket of waste policies in one go. Tuck Yew is going down to the ground to understand the problems of the people and to explore solutions that will make life more pleasant to the citizens.
In short, they are trying to change the holes so that all shapes and sizes of pegs can fit in. This is a big deviation from past attitude and policies when every peg must be shaped to fit the square holes. Those that could not fit in, just too bad, it is their fault.
The thinking or mindset then was that I am calling the shot, I decide what is good for the people, and the people must fit into my criteria to benefit from my policies. A glaring example is how housing policies were shafted down the people’s throat. Singles, single mothers, under achievers, over achievers, people who messed up their lives for good or bad reasons, not my problem, you created your own problems. Singles go and get married, single mothers, go and get married, under achievers, downgrade to your station in life, over achievers, go to the private market. Ha, ha, ha. There is no need to sweat the little thing to worry about the people’s concern and their angst.
And it was a case of, I only build at my own convenience, at my terms, at my pleasure. You wait, ok? And you know how my policies worked, you plan your life and finances to suit my policies. Don’t muck around with me. What I am doing is the best you can ever get, with affordably priced housing that you can afford, to pay and to wait. Yes, you can afford, I say so. You can wait, I say so.
The way MND works and how it treated the people is about the best example of what it was like then. Now they are trying to listen to the people, wanting to know how to serve the people better. At least it is a big step forward, a departure from the high and mighty and arrogant style of the past.
6/08/2011
Investigative journalism
There is a big report in the ST today about the number of MPs holding directorships in listed companies. Apparently Hsien Loong’s message has sunk in and not many are now holding such directorships, and those who are holding have only a handful to show.
It will be more interesting to know what the situation was like say a year ago or at its heyday when many MPs were sitting in the board of directors and how many were they accepting then. This will give a true picture of how effective Hsien Loong’s message has gone down and how the MPs have started to tow the line.
Another area of investigative journalism that the people would like to see is the remuneration of Ministers last year. This will be a good reference point to compare the change when the Salary Review Committee comes out with its recommendations. The 2009 and 2010 remuneration payouts are of great interests to the public and should not be forgotten though a review is in progress. It is a kind of a milestone, from where it came and where it goes.
Or perhaps some statisticians in the new media may want to take on this task. Many are dying to know so that they can tell how far the Salary Review Committee has come.
It will be more interesting to know what the situation was like say a year ago or at its heyday when many MPs were sitting in the board of directors and how many were they accepting then. This will give a true picture of how effective Hsien Loong’s message has gone down and how the MPs have started to tow the line.
Another area of investigative journalism that the people would like to see is the remuneration of Ministers last year. This will be a good reference point to compare the change when the Salary Review Committee comes out with its recommendations. The 2009 and 2010 remuneration payouts are of great interests to the public and should not be forgotten though a review is in progress. It is a kind of a milestone, from where it came and where it goes.
Or perhaps some statisticians in the new media may want to take on this task. Many are dying to know so that they can tell how far the Salary Review Committee has come.
PAP sponsored Presidential candidate
Two interesting developments today with Nathan saying he has not decided if he should run another term and Tony Tan surfacing as a potential PAP sponsored candidate. This brings me to ponder over the selection process of a PAP sponsored candidate. Will it be similar to the Tea Party used to screen potential MPs for GE, where the candidates will go through some kind of interview before being offered to run? This would also imply that the final decision to field a candidate is decided by the PAP and not the candidate who says, ‘I want, I want.’ Or is it that a candidate first decide if he wants to run and then informs the PAP of his intent?
How would the few candidates fit into the PAP selection process or scheme of things? Presumably Tan Kin Lian and Tan Cheng Bock would not even be considered if they inform the PAP of their participation and hoping for the party’s support. What about George Yeo? Would he be considered a candidate for sponsorship?
If the PAP decides to sponsor George, and if Nathan also decides that he wants to run, and if Tony also comes into the picture, would we then have 3 PAP sponsored candidates to choose from? Or can the PAP say no to the candidates and only select one while the others can go and run as independent candidates like the two Tans? Interesting if both Nathan and Tony say yes and PAP says no to any one of them. It can also say no to George if he asks for the party’s sponsorship.
Then if they go ahead to run, they would then be running against the interests of the PAP or running against a PAP sponsored candidate? Now would that runs against the vein and ruffles a few feathers in the process?
How would the few candidates fit into the PAP selection process or scheme of things? Presumably Tan Kin Lian and Tan Cheng Bock would not even be considered if they inform the PAP of their participation and hoping for the party’s support. What about George Yeo? Would he be considered a candidate for sponsorship?
If the PAP decides to sponsor George, and if Nathan also decides that he wants to run, and if Tony also comes into the picture, would we then have 3 PAP sponsored candidates to choose from? Or can the PAP say no to the candidates and only select one while the others can go and run as independent candidates like the two Tans? Interesting if both Nathan and Tony say yes and PAP says no to any one of them. It can also say no to George if he asks for the party’s sponsorship.
Then if they go ahead to run, they would then be running against the interests of the PAP or running against a PAP sponsored candidate? Now would that runs against the vein and ruffles a few feathers in the process?
6/07/2011
The idiots are thinking very hard
5 idiots are in a business that is commission based. There are only 5 operators in the industry. Business has been bad because the main operator of the business has turned it into a gambling den instead of the real business it used to be, when genuine goods were exchanged. Now the business is all about toxic notes that were printed from thin air.
The 5 idiots could not figure out why the business is running out of steam. In desperation, given the 5 IQ they had, one is suggesting to cut commission to gain market share. This idiot could not see one centimetre ahead of him and could not think that if he lowers his commission, the other 4 idiots will also do so.
So when one idiot comes out with his brilliant plan, the next will follow with a betterer plan. They will keep the cycle of commission reduction going on and on, from 5c to 4c to 1c, to 0.1c and so on and on, as long as they think they can gain market share.
And they are congratulating themselves for being so idiotically brilliant.
The 5 idiots could not figure out why the business is running out of steam. In desperation, given the 5 IQ they had, one is suggesting to cut commission to gain market share. This idiot could not see one centimetre ahead of him and could not think that if he lowers his commission, the other 4 idiots will also do so.
So when one idiot comes out with his brilliant plan, the next will follow with a betterer plan. They will keep the cycle of commission reduction going on and on, from 5c to 4c to 1c, to 0.1c and so on and on, as long as they think they can gain market share.
And they are congratulating themselves for being so idiotically brilliant.
Compromising the Singapore Brand
We have branded ourselves as the best in education, an education hub, and also in healthcare, a medical hub, to attract students and medical tourists for the fees they are willing to pay. They came and still coming, for the quality associated with the Singapore Brand.
The private schools sector has received quite a fair share of bad publicity. Now the medical profession is looking like the next candidate to tarnish the well built reputation of the Singapore Brand.
I have heard of countries lowering the standard of entry to medical schools to churn out more native doctors. But the standard has gone down so low that the better informed would avoid the local graduates for their own good.
Not that we have lowered our standards for the same purpose. We have raised our standard so high that many straight As students could not even enter local medical schools. They ended up overseas in some of the best medical schools available in the West. They are excellent doctors whether from our local universities or overseas. That is the kind of standard expected of the Singapore Brand. We have our best in medicine.
The grouses in the media are that we are mixing this elite core of highly qualified professionals with foreign imports of doubtful qualities. And the fear of fake degrees is even more frightening. This rojak of the best and the dubious is going to burn down our shining Singapore Brand in healthcare and, if not careful, destroy the medical hub that we have painstakingly built over the years.
Are we in a hurry for numbers, quick profit and ended up compromising the quality of our healthcare? Are we putting the patients at risk in the hands of quacks or poorly qualified medical professionals?
I hope not. I hope we still have a little commonsense left not to mix shit with good food and spread it around to the innocent and ignorant customers. Or has the rot already started?
The private schools sector has received quite a fair share of bad publicity. Now the medical profession is looking like the next candidate to tarnish the well built reputation of the Singapore Brand.
I have heard of countries lowering the standard of entry to medical schools to churn out more native doctors. But the standard has gone down so low that the better informed would avoid the local graduates for their own good.
Not that we have lowered our standards for the same purpose. We have raised our standard so high that many straight As students could not even enter local medical schools. They ended up overseas in some of the best medical schools available in the West. They are excellent doctors whether from our local universities or overseas. That is the kind of standard expected of the Singapore Brand. We have our best in medicine.
The grouses in the media are that we are mixing this elite core of highly qualified professionals with foreign imports of doubtful qualities. And the fear of fake degrees is even more frightening. This rojak of the best and the dubious is going to burn down our shining Singapore Brand in healthcare and, if not careful, destroy the medical hub that we have painstakingly built over the years.
Are we in a hurry for numbers, quick profit and ended up compromising the quality of our healthcare? Are we putting the patients at risk in the hands of quacks or poorly qualified medical professionals?
I hope not. I hope we still have a little commonsense left not to mix shit with good food and spread it around to the innocent and ignorant customers. Or has the rot already started?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)