8 hour paying job

In general, the pay for an employee or office bearer is computed based on his contribution for an 8 hour day or 44 hour week making up to a month. An employer can expect an employee to be at work for 8 hours daily or its equivalent. Some employees may moonlight, take on a second job elsewhere but on his own time, and do not infringe on the 8 hours of work time committed to his employer. In such instances, all is fair and the employer may not want to interfere with the employee’s other preoccupation as long as it does not affect his work.

An employee that takes on two jobs, with two full pay during his normal working time is actually doubling his pay by working 4 hours for each job daily. If he takes on 4 jobs, his working hours per job is only 2 hours daily and his pay, assuming the same for each job, will be quadrupled.

Imagine someone having 8 or 10 jobs over the same 8 hours working day, his contribution to the organization is 1hr or less per day for each job. And he is being paid fully for 8 or 10 jobs. These are simply wonder men and wonder women.

Readership of mysingaporenews.blogspot.com

After 8 years of blogging, mysingaporenews has become a staple diet for many Sinkie bloggers and those hungry for alternative viewpoints. The readership has spread far and wide among the English speaking world. Other than Singapore, the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, Malaysia, Australia, Germany, Russia, Canada and Hongkong constantly registered high readership. Viewers also came from Taiwan, Sweden, Poland, Ukriane, China and India and occasionally from some other countries as well.

Today the blog has a pageview of 1,457,524. The daily pageview has also risen from an average of 3,000 to about 4,500. A total of 6,780 articles have so far been published with at least an article a day.

Mysingaporenews is quite an international publication in its own way. Its articles have been reposted in other social media aggregators like Temasek Review Emeritus, Singapore Daily and Singapore Alternative News, to name a few.

Keep up the good effort guys and gals.

PAP in an awkward position

It is not what you think. It is not a 69 or 66 or a 99. It is neither about Michael Palmer. The PAP has always been on the right side of things, or on top of things. This time it is like the gun is pointing at the wrong direction, at the PAP. The AIM thing is looking very awkward for the PAP.

This time the Town Council or the Town Council Chairman, or the directors of AIM are all synonymous with the PAP. They are the PAP. Now there is a certain act that the legal counsels will say that there is a prima facie case to answer. All the facts are on the table, or almost all. And the people are asking for more. There are many questions being asked and the answers are still yet to come forward. Whatever answers that have been given were not acceptable, not good enough.

Soon the people are going to ask the PAP to come clean, to be transparent, to tell all there is to tell. Now this is familiar ground, not aiming at the opponents but at PAP. All the guns are trained, big and small, but without the firepower of a coordinated PAP machinery, ministers, MPs and the IBs and more. But in terms of breath and depth, it is far more reaching. It is the people that are taking the PAP to task.

The PAP is now in the dock. Everyone is asking questions. The people want the truth and nothing else will do. The people are making very uncomfortable but reasonable demands on the PAP to come clean and tell all.

Would there be answers? Or would the questions, like the questions on the construction cost of a HDB flat, or the money in the SWFs, be left unanswered? The people are standing on high moral grounds and wanting answers from the PAP. The PAP is in defense, in damage control mode. The people are setting the agenda and the mood of questioning. It is awkward, very awkward. The Michael Palmer saga was awkward until some went into hiding. This one is extremely unsettling.

Our sacred Constitution

I read some articles that we don’t really have a Constitution though we have one. The rationale is that when a constitution can be changed at the whims and fancy of law makers, it is no longer a constitution. There is some merits to this kind of explanation. Constitution is the highest document and must be highly respected and guarded, protected and not to be trivialized. Anyone thinking of changing any part of the Constitution must give a damn solid reason to do so, and the citizens must also agree to the change.

With the influx of foreigners into this little piece of rock, with the original citizens being diluted and some may even disappear or become a rarity, some of the fundamental legislation may be subject to attack by the newcomers who are growing and will become a substantive force to reckon with.

One of the main pillars of our country is the four official languages that are sanctioned in the Constitution. Correct me if I am wrong. With foreigners becoming more in numbers to our very own minorities, it is only a matter of time before some will insist that their language be made an official language in addition to the four existing language. Some may even suggest the removal of lesser used language to be removed. Possible?

Let’s hope there will not be such a day when our Constitution comes under such attacks. This part of our Constitution is sacred and no new citizens should even think of amending the Constitution to adopt their new languages or whatever. The new citizens are here to adapt to our way of life, and our Constitution, no the other way round. They are here because our way of life and our Constitution are better than those they left behind. It cannot be the other way, that they came from a far worst place, a way of life that they seek to runaway from, to want to change our way of life, and our Constitution to be like them. It sounds ridiculous, but it will happen if we are not careful or if we are silly enough to do it.

The depth of internet discussion on current issues

The key issues in the internet over the last week were AIM, bomb threat and the Punggol East by elections. Netizens were fully engaged in very serious and heated discussions over these issues and the intensity and volume of discussions must be a sign that they are things of great concern.

In contrast, reports of these issues in the main media were brief and scant and lack of continuity. This could be one of the drawbacks of the main media as they could not spare the space for a sustained discussion in depth and breath. And in the case of AIM and the bomb threat, both were promptly reported in the internet before the main media picked them up.

The main media is now finding it tough to play catch up to the ongoings and issues in the social media. The availability, timeliness and the space for in depth and engaging discussion in the social media will be an act very difficult for the main media to follow. The main media’s role is likely to be on reporting incidents on a once off basis, and this may not even be timely. The other role it can continue to play is to put up a monologue article, a one sided affair where discussion and engagement is rare and minimal or non existence. It is like a talk down instrument, telling the readers, informing the readers, and that is about it.

The social media is going to change all the news reporting and discussion on national or people issues to beyond what the main media can envisage. It is a totally new form and way of communication and journalism. It is engaging, alive and interactive and timely.