The story of a permanent secretary driving around in his old 1.6 Japanese jalopy was legendary. Those were the days of thrift and leading by example. I remember a govt link company CEO was only comfortable with a 2000cc Mercedes Benz. Anything above was seen as flaunting and undesirable. A GM actually got a bollocking when he ordered a 3 litre limousine. That was seen as unbecoming. Thrift and propriety were important values to observe.
The ethos today is quite different. Not only is a 3 litre limousine common, some even flashed around in Lamborghinis and Ferraris. These are things that were frown upon in the good old days. I am not complaining as we have climbed the ladder of economic prosperity and what is a 3 litre car? It is time to enjoy our hard work and our success. Who would dare to announce a $50k cooking class in Paris then?
The ethos of new is to be who you really are. We need to announce that we have arrived. Perhaps it is also a dignity issue. In those days, a permanent secretary’s title is enough dignity to carry a long way. There is no need to show the pay slip and the number of zeros behind. Respect was more easily achieved and earned, and was real. Today, you need to be a billionaire to be respectable, or at least earn a million a year. Just flash it in the face of whoever and there will be instant recognition.
The ethos of the day is always set by the leaders. Monkeys see, monkeys do. Good example and exemplary behaviour at the top will be carried downwards. When the top is senget, you bet the bottom will be too.
8/06/2011
I dunno what to say
In a high power forum chaired my Professor Tommy Koh, and with two key speakers in Law Minister K Shanmugam and Professor Thio Li Ann, the Law Minister repeated his position that the Elected President is not to be heard, or cannot express any views unless approved by the Govt. He said, ‘It is quite clear the president has no such power and that was not the role that was envisaged for the president.’ ‘The president,’ he added, ‘can speak on issues only as authorised by the Cabinet; and he must follow the advice of the Cabinet in the discharge of his duties.’
The only time the president can wield some influence on the PM is if he is on good terms with him, or if the PM finds him amiable and willing to listen to him. It is not the other way, that you have a president and the PM try to be nice to him and listen to him. Thus, a President that is pally pally with the govt is in a better position to be listened to by the govt. So the people should know who to vote if they want a president that can have influence on the govt.
What if the people want a president that does not need to be nice to the PM or the govt and want him to be firm and be ready to say no to the govt, should they then vote for someone that is more distant from the govt? To influence the govt or to check on the govt are two distinct roles that require quite a different character in the president.
But my main point is not all of these as they are immaterial. In more probability the president will have nothing of crisis level to do and spend his time writing his memoirs or raising funds for the disabled or shaking hands and waving at the crowd during NDP. Occasionally he may try to visit other countries to improve relations and trade. I am not sure that this is part of his portfolio, or if he is being advised by the govt to do so. Or maybe he is trying to give the Trade Minister a helping hand since he is not allowed to talk freely.
For such a role, do we need a president that should be as good as a permanent secretary, a chief justice material, or someone who manages a $100m paid up capital country when the PM and his ministers need not be that highly qualified? A butcher or a gardener can also be our PM under our constitution. And this must be the best part, the gardener PM is going to advise this high power president what to say and do. Does the country really need to pay him so many millions to perform such a role?
What is needed perhaps is a person of good conduct, dignified, good looking and respectable, and be given an honourarium of $500k per annum max. Of course a little commonsense and a tertiary education should be good enough as he would be advised by the Presidential Council and also the govt on what to do and what to say. No need to sweat the small stuff to find a super super talent and to pay him obscenely for the nature of the job. He may end up more dignified than the gardener PM who is going to tell him what to do.
Please feel free to disagree with me. If you don’t I will like to recommend some of the better and dignified looking Media Corp actors for the job. I am sure the people will love to shake their hands and feel good when they looked good standing side by side with kings and queens.
The only time the president can wield some influence on the PM is if he is on good terms with him, or if the PM finds him amiable and willing to listen to him. It is not the other way, that you have a president and the PM try to be nice to him and listen to him. Thus, a President that is pally pally with the govt is in a better position to be listened to by the govt. So the people should know who to vote if they want a president that can have influence on the govt.
What if the people want a president that does not need to be nice to the PM or the govt and want him to be firm and be ready to say no to the govt, should they then vote for someone that is more distant from the govt? To influence the govt or to check on the govt are two distinct roles that require quite a different character in the president.
But my main point is not all of these as they are immaterial. In more probability the president will have nothing of crisis level to do and spend his time writing his memoirs or raising funds for the disabled or shaking hands and waving at the crowd during NDP. Occasionally he may try to visit other countries to improve relations and trade. I am not sure that this is part of his portfolio, or if he is being advised by the govt to do so. Or maybe he is trying to give the Trade Minister a helping hand since he is not allowed to talk freely.
For such a role, do we need a president that should be as good as a permanent secretary, a chief justice material, or someone who manages a $100m paid up capital country when the PM and his ministers need not be that highly qualified? A butcher or a gardener can also be our PM under our constitution. And this must be the best part, the gardener PM is going to advise this high power president what to say and do. Does the country really need to pay him so many millions to perform such a role?
What is needed perhaps is a person of good conduct, dignified, good looking and respectable, and be given an honourarium of $500k per annum max. Of course a little commonsense and a tertiary education should be good enough as he would be advised by the Presidential Council and also the govt on what to do and what to say. No need to sweat the small stuff to find a super super talent and to pay him obscenely for the nature of the job. He may end up more dignified than the gardener PM who is going to tell him what to do.
Please feel free to disagree with me. If you don’t I will like to recommend some of the better and dignified looking Media Corp actors for the job. I am sure the people will love to shake their hands and feel good when they looked good standing side by side with kings and queens.
So a fare hike of 1% instead of 2.8%
Rejoice, celebrate, the unhappiness of the people has been heard. The PTC must have taken heed of the general unhappiness of the people over the rising cost of living and came out with a smaller increase for public transport fare. A 2c increase per trip is negligible and well absorbed, may even be unnoticeable. There are still complaints. People are still unhappy.
The PTC quoted the profits of other private companies including non transport operators, to justify the increase. Other organisation’s profits ranged from 3 to 14.9%. These include companies like Hongkong’s Transport International and MTR, London’s Stagecoach Group. SembCorp Industries and Singpost. And the profits of SBS and SMRT were 7.8 to 11.2%, very reasonable and within the spread of the companies quoted.
There is no point trying to go into the details of the little data provided. For those who are sceptical, doubts on the credibility and relevance of the data are glaring. I could quote more transport companies and non transport companies running at a loss to justify that it is ok to run public transport companies at a loss or with little profit.
What is still seen as wrong or unacceptable with the minimal increase? What is 2c when people are earning millions? The issue here is the principle of public transport and how this is treated as any other organisation whose interest is profit. And the operators deserved to be making profits like any other organisation.
Is public transportation with the privileges of a monopoly attached, to operate without competition, any other organisation? A govt run public transport monopoly is a govt monopoly under any colour or stripe. And a public transport system is an essential service and should not quickly be swept away as any other business for profit.
Why is the govt so obsessed with the public transport companies making profit as its major concern to shareholders, and coming out to defend its right to such profits? Why is the govt so persistent in proclaiming that the govt officers are daft and unable to run a public transport system if it is returned as a stats board? It is unbelieveable that any govt would say such a darn thing, that they could not run a transport service unless it is run privately. What a profound statement to acknowledge an inadequacy in a govt filled with top talents. I just dunno what to say.
The PTC quoted the profits of other private companies including non transport operators, to justify the increase. Other organisation’s profits ranged from 3 to 14.9%. These include companies like Hongkong’s Transport International and MTR, London’s Stagecoach Group. SembCorp Industries and Singpost. And the profits of SBS and SMRT were 7.8 to 11.2%, very reasonable and within the spread of the companies quoted.
There is no point trying to go into the details of the little data provided. For those who are sceptical, doubts on the credibility and relevance of the data are glaring. I could quote more transport companies and non transport companies running at a loss to justify that it is ok to run public transport companies at a loss or with little profit.
What is still seen as wrong or unacceptable with the minimal increase? What is 2c when people are earning millions? The issue here is the principle of public transport and how this is treated as any other organisation whose interest is profit. And the operators deserved to be making profits like any other organisation.
Is public transportation with the privileges of a monopoly attached, to operate without competition, any other organisation? A govt run public transport monopoly is a govt monopoly under any colour or stripe. And a public transport system is an essential service and should not quickly be swept away as any other business for profit.
Why is the govt so obsessed with the public transport companies making profit as its major concern to shareholders, and coming out to defend its right to such profits? Why is the govt so persistent in proclaiming that the govt officers are daft and unable to run a public transport system if it is returned as a stats board? It is unbelieveable that any govt would say such a darn thing, that they could not run a transport service unless it is run privately. What a profound statement to acknowledge an inadequacy in a govt filled with top talents. I just dunno what to say.
8/05/2011
The battle for cyberspace
Controlling the media by any political party or ruler is a strategic move to control a country. Control of the media means controlling what the people see and hear, controlling the agenda, saying all the good things on the right people and all the wrong things on the wrong people. The masses are easily swayed and manipulated in their thoughts and views. That is why advertising is such a powerful tool. Controlling the media the controls the minds of the people.
Most govts of the day have more or less a monopoly of the main media to do as they pleased. And their opponents were often denied such access, may be persecuted or rubbished repeatedly in the media with no ways of replying. It was a very comfortable position to be in, to be able to take potshots at political opponents at will and the other party unable to hit back.
Cyberspace is a free for all zone, and no govt is able to control much of it other than blocking it off from its citizens. This requires big machinery and an army of keyboard soldiers hammering at the buttons full time. It is a costly affair and a misuse of public fund. The nature of how the internet works makes surveillance that much more tedious and often unenforceable.
In the last few days there seemed to be a big battle going on in cyberspace. Many popular forums and blogs were subjected to unexplained down time or difficulties in access. Many links and videos that were provided were blocked and getting through them is a tough act. Even the NLB was down with some old news not retrieveable. But that was due to some internal updating issue. The popular political forum of TRE was purportedly under heavy attacks and was down most of the time. So were some other blogs and sites. Even my little blog is facing difficulties and many bloggers have complained that it is moving exceptionally slow and can be very irritating. There are many strange things happening in cyberspace lately.
Competition for the attention of readers is hotting up especially with the run up to the Presidential election. With the main media becoming a has been, when local news are no longer exciting but a regurgitation or rerun, they have lost the grip for readership. Who wants to read stale news that is no better than listening to an old tape recorder?
On the other hand cyberspace is fresh and exciting. And reporters/bloggers are given a free hand to post whatever they want, free from any restraints or editing. Investigative journalism is taking on a fervor that is hardly known in the main media. And these people are doing it without being paid. And the material is informative, controversial and thought provoking. It is an act that the main media finds difficult to replicate to the extent that they look like boy scouts. Or maybe they are all busy covering the National Day Parade.
While the main media are busy or on vacation, the internet is driving and firing all its engines. All systems are running at full speed. And the readership is flocking into cyberspace in increasing numbers. A small outfit like The Temasek Review Emeritus operated by a few volunteers are garnering more readership than many professional media with a huge budget. It has in a way becomes the primary alternative media here.
Who is winning this battle for readership, for the people’s mind? The battle of cyberspace has begun, and the winner will determine how the people think and look at things. The Presidential Election is likely to be the first test case of the power of alternative media to influence how the people will vote. Control of cyberspace is like control of the sky in military terms.
Most govts of the day have more or less a monopoly of the main media to do as they pleased. And their opponents were often denied such access, may be persecuted or rubbished repeatedly in the media with no ways of replying. It was a very comfortable position to be in, to be able to take potshots at political opponents at will and the other party unable to hit back.
Cyberspace is a free for all zone, and no govt is able to control much of it other than blocking it off from its citizens. This requires big machinery and an army of keyboard soldiers hammering at the buttons full time. It is a costly affair and a misuse of public fund. The nature of how the internet works makes surveillance that much more tedious and often unenforceable.
In the last few days there seemed to be a big battle going on in cyberspace. Many popular forums and blogs were subjected to unexplained down time or difficulties in access. Many links and videos that were provided were blocked and getting through them is a tough act. Even the NLB was down with some old news not retrieveable. But that was due to some internal updating issue. The popular political forum of TRE was purportedly under heavy attacks and was down most of the time. So were some other blogs and sites. Even my little blog is facing difficulties and many bloggers have complained that it is moving exceptionally slow and can be very irritating. There are many strange things happening in cyberspace lately.
Competition for the attention of readers is hotting up especially with the run up to the Presidential election. With the main media becoming a has been, when local news are no longer exciting but a regurgitation or rerun, they have lost the grip for readership. Who wants to read stale news that is no better than listening to an old tape recorder?
On the other hand cyberspace is fresh and exciting. And reporters/bloggers are given a free hand to post whatever they want, free from any restraints or editing. Investigative journalism is taking on a fervor that is hardly known in the main media. And these people are doing it without being paid. And the material is informative, controversial and thought provoking. It is an act that the main media finds difficult to replicate to the extent that they look like boy scouts. Or maybe they are all busy covering the National Day Parade.
While the main media are busy or on vacation, the internet is driving and firing all its engines. All systems are running at full speed. And the readership is flocking into cyberspace in increasing numbers. A small outfit like The Temasek Review Emeritus operated by a few volunteers are garnering more readership than many professional media with a huge budget. It has in a way becomes the primary alternative media here.
Who is winning this battle for readership, for the people’s mind? The battle of cyberspace has begun, and the winner will determine how the people think and look at things. The Presidential Election is likely to be the first test case of the power of alternative media to influence how the people will vote. Control of cyberspace is like control of the sky in military terms.
What should Tony Tan do?
It is not easy to be in Tony Tan’s shoe now. His shiny armour of a white knight is now smeared with tomatoes and eggs. It takes great effort and convincing to remove the grits. The thing is, how is this going to be done? Can god stand up and say Tony has done no wrong. Period. Let’s move on.
Even if god is to pronounce that Tony is innocent, the point is that would the people accept the judgement? If the people do not agree, then comes the election and Tony might get a real bruising, and this is no good.
On the other hand if there is no election, a walkover, unthinkable but possible, the smear will not go away. It will harden into a scar. Not only will Tony be affected, the whole institution will come under questioning and a big dark cloud will fall over the island. I don’t think this is an acceptable scenario, and the pus will keep festering and spread to the whole system.
There is another possibility, with a case that is like jumping into the Yellow River will not wash away the dirt, will Tony do the necessary and withdraw his candidacy for the EP? If this be the case, if Tony is no longer in the lime light like some of his contemporaries, the vibes may just fade away.
Well, what if Tony were to walk into the Istana uncontested, this episode is likely to be hanging in the air, in cyberspace, for as long as he is the Elected President, or by walkover. And the plot may thicken.
Which is a better or amiable scenario? An important point to note is that nearly every male Singaporeans has gone through NS and knew how the system should work. Any variation or deviation could be spotted from a mile away. Never try to bluff a NS man about NS. They can get very angry. They have given the best part of their lives to it.
PS. Another possibility. The PEC decides not to issue Tony with the COE in view of the controversies surrounding him and his son. Ok, this is really remote. Heheh. Whatever, once the election campaigns start, many of the concerns raised in the internet may spill over to the main media. It is not going to look good.
Even if god is to pronounce that Tony is innocent, the point is that would the people accept the judgement? If the people do not agree, then comes the election and Tony might get a real bruising, and this is no good.
On the other hand if there is no election, a walkover, unthinkable but possible, the smear will not go away. It will harden into a scar. Not only will Tony be affected, the whole institution will come under questioning and a big dark cloud will fall over the island. I don’t think this is an acceptable scenario, and the pus will keep festering and spread to the whole system.
There is another possibility, with a case that is like jumping into the Yellow River will not wash away the dirt, will Tony do the necessary and withdraw his candidacy for the EP? If this be the case, if Tony is no longer in the lime light like some of his contemporaries, the vibes may just fade away.
Well, what if Tony were to walk into the Istana uncontested, this episode is likely to be hanging in the air, in cyberspace, for as long as he is the Elected President, or by walkover. And the plot may thicken.
Which is a better or amiable scenario? An important point to note is that nearly every male Singaporeans has gone through NS and knew how the system should work. Any variation or deviation could be spotted from a mile away. Never try to bluff a NS man about NS. They can get very angry. They have given the best part of their lives to it.
PS. Another possibility. The PEC decides not to issue Tony with the COE in view of the controversies surrounding him and his son. Ok, this is really remote. Heheh. Whatever, once the election campaigns start, many of the concerns raised in the internet may spill over to the main media. It is not going to look good.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)