"Minister of State Tan Chuan-Jin, choking over his words said: “I’m pained by the knowledge that I’ll miss the many moments when my children are growing up and time with my family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those moments missed do not return. Ever… In time I will look back and there will be gaps. But that’s life. I’m not sure how one considers it a privilege to miss these precious moments. It trivialises all of us who do cherish these.” Copied from CNA video/FeedmetotheFish commentary.
I am starting to feel very sorry for all these good men and women making their terrible sacrifices for the country and people. I am sad to hear this. We must not allowed such a painful state of affair to go on and do nothing about it. The Americans got the best answer to this and we should see if we can borrow their ideas so that our leaders do not have to make this kind of big sacrifices.
The Americans put Obama and his families in the White House, although in so doing they paid him a little lesser, but it is a good thing. Now Obama cannot claim that he is making a big sacrifice on his family life. He could work from his bedroom or his family could be playing next to his office. Now that is a humane way of looking after the welfare of their leaders.
We should send a petition to the govt to make such an arrangement so that our ministers need not have to suffer so much. This is all about inclusiveness, about taking care of our people. And ministers are people too. Poor thing.
1/20/2012
What did Parliament approve?
The approval of the Salary Recommendation by the Review Committee also means that all the assumptions and logics are accepted as valid. The major points are, need to pay high salary to attract talent, right to peg ministerial salary to top 1000 income earners, right to pay allowances and variable bonuses based on the formula submitted.
The other things that are accepted include a clean wage bill. Clean here means everything that is approved by parliament. Just wonder if clean means whatever is paid, now that it is public knowledge, be reported in Parliament? What if there are other additions, other appointments, would they be part of the approval as well and Parliament be informed as well? One thing for sure, they are definitely clean as they are known, and unclean if unknown to the public.
After the big debate, I thought something is missing? Are the people involved in this debate? Are their opinions important?
What is really important is that the MPs are representing the people in Parliament and voted for the salary recommendation. One question, did they ask the people they represented for their opinions? When they voted, were they voting as an individual or voting on behalf of the people? Is this a matter that concerns them only or a matter that concerns the people?
How many MPs have consulted the people on this matter, please kee chiu.
The other things that are accepted include a clean wage bill. Clean here means everything that is approved by parliament. Just wonder if clean means whatever is paid, now that it is public knowledge, be reported in Parliament? What if there are other additions, other appointments, would they be part of the approval as well and Parliament be informed as well? One thing for sure, they are definitely clean as they are known, and unclean if unknown to the public.
After the big debate, I thought something is missing? Are the people involved in this debate? Are their opinions important?
What is really important is that the MPs are representing the people in Parliament and voted for the salary recommendation. One question, did they ask the people they represented for their opinions? When they voted, were they voting as an individual or voting on behalf of the people? Is this a matter that concerns them only or a matter that concerns the people?
How many MPs have consulted the people on this matter, please kee chiu.
Poll on Ministerial Salary(at top right of page)
Parliament has approved the recommendation of ministerial salary by the Review Committee. Technically, the MPs are representatives of the people and when they support the bill, it means the people also support the bill. So technically the MPs have spoken and voted on behalf of the people and voted for the new salary package.
I have just created a poll on this to find out how many people support this salary package and whether the MPs position is reflective of the people's position and aspirations. This will act as a kind of feedback to the MPs to confirm that the people are with them or the people and the MPs are going in different ways.
I have just created a poll on this to find out how many people support this salary package and whether the MPs position is reflective of the people's position and aspirations. This will act as a kind of feedback to the MPs to confirm that the people are with them or the people and the MPs are going in different ways.
The warcraft of parliamentarians
MPs elected to parliament quickly learn that parliament is not a kopitiam to sing song and talk cock. Parliament can be a treacherous place, like a war zone or battle field and requires special skills to survive the day. Maybe that is a reason why so many MPs chose to disappear during parliament sessions.
The democratic process of parliament is the culmination of a contentious way of pursuing political power between opposing parties. And that set the tone for debates in parliament, and also the behavior of parliamentarians. Once in parliament, it is me against them. There is no good idea or bad idea, it is our idea against your idea.
Every session in parliament is a battle. Anyone stands up must be prepared to be shot and then returns with counter offensive from supporting forces in the background. Some use small arms, some use snipers, some big guns and artilleries and air power. These are figuratively speaking of course.
The most effective or often used tactic against the enemy in parliament is the steely stare. Many have used them quite effectively. The way they manipulated their eyes to meet the enemy’s eyes, eye contact. To look straight into the enemy with big wide eyes or to squint the eyes to shape like a cutting blade of a knife, they all look very intimidating. It all ends up with the cold hard stare, in silence and measured in minutes.
Another effective way is to giggle or simply laugh the enemy away. This tactic is only effective if there is a superiority in number so that the laughter can be coordinated and the volume raised at the same time. Any MP speaking when everyone is giggling or laughing must be a frightening experience. He may even be made to have doubts on what he is saying to draw the giggling and laughters.
An alternative to this tactic, to dismiss an enemy MP, is to simply walk out, and this is even more effective when done in numbers. The psychologist will explain this as a kind of humiliating act, to humiliate the enemy, to make him question his own ability to make people listen.
The pedestrian style of picking at every wrong use of words or comments and raining blows at them may not be too effective after a while. Some comments in the media about new MPs jumping up like little frogs at on queue to attack the enemy’s viewpoint showed that this methodology is frown upon by the audience. It looks pretty childish, like school boys in a debate. Score points, score points. Damn clever like dat. Clap, clap, clap.
There are many tactics that were used, and one only needs to observe closely to detect them. The use of position power, authority, and the ‘I will fix you later’ body language are also quite common. The effectiveness of all these tactics basically boils down to power in numbers. Those without power and small in numbers will definitely be at the losing end. There is no way that one can use guerilla hit and run tactics inside the parliament house. There is no where to run and no where to hide.
What I thought would be a good weapon is to bring a tape recorder with tapes of laughters and giggling and play it out loud when the laughter offensive comes on. As for the cold hard steely stare, perhaps a big enough mirror may be able to deflect some of the venom. Or a wear a big pak kwa in the front chest could give an MP some cold comfort that a pak kwa has a defensive ability to ward off evil stares.
Parliament is a serious place and serious things are being discussed all the time. But there are interesting and humorous moments as well. And there are frightening moments too. Political parties must train their MPs in the art of war in parliament and armed them with offensive and defensive tactics before they step foot in parliament. And make sure they bring a tape recorder and some protective gear for their own protection. The naïve may thing good ideas is all they need to bring to parliament. As I said earlier, there is no good or bad idea in parliament. Only our idea or their idea.
The democratic process of parliament is the culmination of a contentious way of pursuing political power between opposing parties. And that set the tone for debates in parliament, and also the behavior of parliamentarians. Once in parliament, it is me against them. There is no good idea or bad idea, it is our idea against your idea.
Every session in parliament is a battle. Anyone stands up must be prepared to be shot and then returns with counter offensive from supporting forces in the background. Some use small arms, some use snipers, some big guns and artilleries and air power. These are figuratively speaking of course.
The most effective or often used tactic against the enemy in parliament is the steely stare. Many have used them quite effectively. The way they manipulated their eyes to meet the enemy’s eyes, eye contact. To look straight into the enemy with big wide eyes or to squint the eyes to shape like a cutting blade of a knife, they all look very intimidating. It all ends up with the cold hard stare, in silence and measured in minutes.
Another effective way is to giggle or simply laugh the enemy away. This tactic is only effective if there is a superiority in number so that the laughter can be coordinated and the volume raised at the same time. Any MP speaking when everyone is giggling or laughing must be a frightening experience. He may even be made to have doubts on what he is saying to draw the giggling and laughters.
An alternative to this tactic, to dismiss an enemy MP, is to simply walk out, and this is even more effective when done in numbers. The psychologist will explain this as a kind of humiliating act, to humiliate the enemy, to make him question his own ability to make people listen.
The pedestrian style of picking at every wrong use of words or comments and raining blows at them may not be too effective after a while. Some comments in the media about new MPs jumping up like little frogs at on queue to attack the enemy’s viewpoint showed that this methodology is frown upon by the audience. It looks pretty childish, like school boys in a debate. Score points, score points. Damn clever like dat. Clap, clap, clap.
There are many tactics that were used, and one only needs to observe closely to detect them. The use of position power, authority, and the ‘I will fix you later’ body language are also quite common. The effectiveness of all these tactics basically boils down to power in numbers. Those without power and small in numbers will definitely be at the losing end. There is no way that one can use guerilla hit and run tactics inside the parliament house. There is no where to run and no where to hide.
What I thought would be a good weapon is to bring a tape recorder with tapes of laughters and giggling and play it out loud when the laughter offensive comes on. As for the cold hard steely stare, perhaps a big enough mirror may be able to deflect some of the venom. Or a wear a big pak kwa in the front chest could give an MP some cold comfort that a pak kwa has a defensive ability to ward off evil stares.
Parliament is a serious place and serious things are being discussed all the time. But there are interesting and humorous moments as well. And there are frightening moments too. Political parties must train their MPs in the art of war in parliament and armed them with offensive and defensive tactics before they step foot in parliament. And make sure they bring a tape recorder and some protective gear for their own protection. The naïve may thing good ideas is all they need to bring to parliament. As I said earlier, there is no good or bad idea in parliament. Only our idea or their idea.
Political appointments are part time jobs
MPs are part time jobs as they have another job or can have another job that requires them to work full time or 8 hours a day officially. MPs that resigned from their full time jobs to go full time are the full time MPs. This is easily understood.
When I say that political appointments are part time jobs, I can see many eye brows being raised. The smarter ones could see immediately where I am coming from and could see the logic of my statement. Ok, let me explain it to the slower ones who are still unable to grasp the logic of part time political appointments.
A full time job requires the incumbent to be on the job for about 8 hours a day, depending on how many days and the organization. A 44 hour week is the norm. Take for example a minister. He could be a minister of a ministry and a second minister of another ministry. He is also an MP. He probably holds several other appointments, like Chairman of A or B organizations, or sits in several committees.
A minister who is in charge of a ministry and nothing else will have all his 44 hours a week working in the ministry. If he has two ministries, he has to split his time between the two. He also has to split his time for his MP role even though some were taken care of by other MPs or grassroot leaders. If he is chairman of two organizations, he would need to spend some time there as well. The more appointments a minister has, the more part time is he in his primary job. It depends on what is the nature of these other appointments and if they are really that important as a ministerial job or if they must be part of a minister’s jobs. If they are not necessarily a minister’s jobs, or if they are of much lesser importance, and if they are taking too much of the minister’s time, what it means is that the minister is paid a ministerial salary to work part time in his main job and part time in other jobs that should not be paid that kind of salary.
For a minister to justify his high pay and devoting full time to his ministerial responsibility, he should be doing lesser of the other lower level or non ministerial work. He can do his MP duties, which is part time anyway, during after office hours, which is fair.
So, depending on the hours and the number of part time or other appointments, a minister is part timing his minister job to look after other part time jobs or appointments. Unless those other appointments and part time jobs are part and parcel of the minister’s main responsibility.
How many of you now agree with my statement that a minister’s job is a part time job? It can only be a full time job if the minister devotes all his working hours on his minister job. And this interpretation can be applied to all the other political appointees.
A political appointee who spent too much time in his secondary appointments like sports clubs or other social and civic or even commercial organizations is part timing his main appointment. The more he spreads his time, the lesser will he have time for his main appointment.
With the kind of world class pay that the political appointees are getting to perform his main job, it is better that he reduces his time on other lesser jobs to justify his pay, I think.
When I say that political appointments are part time jobs, I can see many eye brows being raised. The smarter ones could see immediately where I am coming from and could see the logic of my statement. Ok, let me explain it to the slower ones who are still unable to grasp the logic of part time political appointments.
A full time job requires the incumbent to be on the job for about 8 hours a day, depending on how many days and the organization. A 44 hour week is the norm. Take for example a minister. He could be a minister of a ministry and a second minister of another ministry. He is also an MP. He probably holds several other appointments, like Chairman of A or B organizations, or sits in several committees.
A minister who is in charge of a ministry and nothing else will have all his 44 hours a week working in the ministry. If he has two ministries, he has to split his time between the two. He also has to split his time for his MP role even though some were taken care of by other MPs or grassroot leaders. If he is chairman of two organizations, he would need to spend some time there as well. The more appointments a minister has, the more part time is he in his primary job. It depends on what is the nature of these other appointments and if they are really that important as a ministerial job or if they must be part of a minister’s jobs. If they are not necessarily a minister’s jobs, or if they are of much lesser importance, and if they are taking too much of the minister’s time, what it means is that the minister is paid a ministerial salary to work part time in his main job and part time in other jobs that should not be paid that kind of salary.
For a minister to justify his high pay and devoting full time to his ministerial responsibility, he should be doing lesser of the other lower level or non ministerial work. He can do his MP duties, which is part time anyway, during after office hours, which is fair.
So, depending on the hours and the number of part time or other appointments, a minister is part timing his minister job to look after other part time jobs or appointments. Unless those other appointments and part time jobs are part and parcel of the minister’s main responsibility.
How many of you now agree with my statement that a minister’s job is a part time job? It can only be a full time job if the minister devotes all his working hours on his minister job. And this interpretation can be applied to all the other political appointees.
A political appointee who spent too much time in his secondary appointments like sports clubs or other social and civic or even commercial organizations is part timing his main appointment. The more he spreads his time, the lesser will he have time for his main appointment.
With the kind of world class pay that the political appointees are getting to perform his main job, it is better that he reduces his time on other lesser jobs to justify his pay, I think.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)