Master servant relationship

There is a lot to learn from the relationship between an employer of a maid and how the rulers relate to the people. The relationship between an employer and maid is a contractual one, for a fixed duration to perform certain duties for a remuneration. In many unfortunate cases, the atrocious employer turned that contractual agreement into a master and slave relationship where the employer could abuse the maid to the extent of physical harm and deprivation of human needs and dignity.
 
The employer maid relationship often starts tentatively with the employer showing some respect and decency to the maid. There could even be some semblance of kindness and compassion. Once familiarity sets in, the relationship takes a new form and the employer takes on a new personality. Even the children of the employer feel entitled to treat the maid like slave instead of just a servant. The employer will take the maid for granted and only thinks of his own interest.
 
The maid no longer just provides a service but more. The maid is expected to do everything and not just a service, or like Shanmugam wrote in his facebook, ‘it is sad some parents are not conscious of their own role as transmitters of the value system….They are more focused on their children achieving results rather than on the softer skills.’ It is a case of once a master/servant relationship is crystallized, the master forgets that the servant is also a human bean with human needs, aspiration, desires and expectation. And the servant needs not be servant for life. 

The servant is now expected to be a piece of cog in the economic machinery, to get the machine turning non stop, at the lowest pay possible, and to work till they drop dead. The thought of a retirement and golden year is non existent, not relevant and to be dismissed. And the servant must not only work for life to service the master’s extravagant needs, but must also produce children to continue to be servants to the masters. It is the servant’s duty to produce babies to prolong the luxurious existence of the master.
 
Does a master ever reflect on the correct relationship, to treat the servant with more kindness and compassion, to know that there is a contractual relation and obligation, and the relationship can be ended? Does the master ever think of what the servant really wants, what are the needs of the servant, that the servant wants a better life too, and not to live and work for an existence without much meaning in life? But of course the master will think that he has been thinking and thinking for the good of the servant, by giving the servant meaning work to live with dignity but without the time to enjoy the dignity.

Kopi Level - Red

Non violence is a virtue of daft Sinkies

We have read so many instances of Sinkies being bullied and beaten by foreigners and all they could do is to kpkb in the social media, like Ah Q. I would do this and that to the bully, but nothing really happened. The end result, the daft Sinkies either got insulted, beaten and ended with bruises all over or worse. Who could he turn to? Don’t ask me.

There is this report on a Norwegian tourist facing five criminal charges in court. Now what had he done to suffer this fate? He was drunk, budged into a hotel room of two female guests and causing annoyance and trespassing into their privacy. Then he slapped a female hotel employee, then he punched her male colleague in the chest, then he kicked him on the side of his body. The hotel employees practised the Singapore virtue of non violence and allowed the Norwegian to whack them at will without retaliating. If they hit back, it is likely that they will be hauled up for hitting back. Hitting someone is a serious offence for Sinkies.

The Norwegian did not stop at that. He was found to behave in a disorderly manner, gesticulating and shouting outside Beach Centre in Beach Road.  That was ok as no one was hurt. Then he kicked a reservist inspector in the leg in the carpark of SGH. Again, as expected, the Sinkie inspector practised the virtue of non violence and did not hit back.

Now this rogue is in court. Would the court do justice to the daft Sinkies for turning themselves into punching bags for the tourist while practising the Sinkie virtue of non violence? Or would the tourist be slapped on the wrist like it used to be?

I am wondering when did this non violence virtue take root in the daft Sinkie mindset, that they should not hit back when beaten? Is there a story to this development, that getting beaten and not hitting back is a virtue, a first world social grace?

Kopi Level - Yellow

CPF improvements on the cards as Parliament reopens

The above is the title of an article by reporter Neo Chai Chin in the Today paper on 17 May and this is his first paragraph, ‘SINGAPORE — The savings and annuity schemes under the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system will be improved to ensure Singaporeans, who are living longer, have enough for their financial needs in their golden years, President Tony Tan said yesterday as he reopened the 12th Parliament after its mid-term break.’

There is so much hope and optimism in Neo Chai Chin’s article. But always remember, when the Govt voluntarily offers to help, you better beg them to leave you alone and say thank you. The Govt has been so proactive in trying to help Sinkies in managing their CPF savings and we know what is the end result. After every help, the Sinkies find the pot of gold, their CPF savings, placed further and further away from their reach.

So, Tony is talking about the CPF savings, about annuity scheme, about CPF Life scheme, in fact about all the schemes in the CPF set up. So far, how is it? Is it better for the CPF members? From my understanding, all the schemes and the things intended to help the CPF members, is all about using the money of the CPF members to help themselves and ended with the money stuck deeper and deeper in the quicksand.

What would come out from the CPF after Tony’s comments is anyone’s guess. I am not a single bit hopeful but more of fear that the pot of gold will be kicked further down the road, all for the good of the CPF members.

Anyone disagree with me?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Tony Tan’s presidential address in Parliament

Tony Tan said many things in Parliament in his opening address and there will be many follow up comments on what he said. He wanted the govt to do many things. What he has laid out are the bones, a broad framework and the govt would need to flesh them out with the details. That is the frightening part and I already have seen one, flashed in the media like Santa Claus in coming to town six month early. All I can see is nothing good. I will write about it subsequently in another post.

What Tony said in brief is that the Govt has screwed up big time and need to reflect on the failed policies and to rework on them. And he has laid them out, the areas that the Govt must redeem itself, to address the ills it has created in recent years. Ouch, no one sees it this way, and all were thinking that everything was fine and Tony was just reading a brief written for him and means nothing.

Another thing Tony made it very clear is that it is all about Singaporeans. In his speech, he has never mentioned a single word, the most offensive word in today’s context, about ‘locals’. Tony has made it doubly and triply clear, that it is about Singaporeans and those jokers that have been sputtering the word ‘locals’ better take heed. I hope Tony really meant what he said and the Govt takes note of this and erase the word ‘locals’ from their vocabulary and reports.

What else did Tony said? Oh, he touched on the political debate that is going on, where else but in TRE and cyberspace. He acknowledges that it was good and healthy for a constructive debate to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Destructive and crude attacks are not the right thing to do as they would distract the readers from the real issues. When people start to attack other people personally and viciously instead of addressing an issue, the debate ends there. The other party will just ignore what is being said and walk away. For a constructive debate to carry one to a fruitful ending, both sides must feel comfortable to engage. Confrontation politics is bad and must be discouraged.

Now this last sentence is a tricky one. Some opposition politicians have stood up to defend themselves. And some ruling party politicians have spoken smugly and derisively about opposition politics as if Tony was telling the opposition politicians off. Wait a minute. Is Tony addressing this confrontational politicking at the opposition? Who are the real culprits that have been indulging in confrontational politics? Who have been hitting below the belt, using all means and power to attack viciously at their opponents? Don’t look at me. Read Tony’s comments and ask yourself, are you the guilty one? Don’t always presume that it is always the other party that is at fault. Historical evidences and facts pointed to one direction, when politics were confrontational, vicious and destructive, you know who came up on top and who were the victims. Like that also cannot see, or still so thick, thinking that only other people must be at fault, and self is always an angel.

Tiok boh? Or did I read Tony wrongly?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Trust the Hongkies to do the right thing

Pardon me for calling them Hongkies, but it is done with no bad intention just like I called myself Sinkie. The Hong Kong govt is not going to let the top management of companies or organizations to get away with mismanagement and irresponsible conduct. They are going to make the senior management of Hong Kong’s MTR to suffer pay cuts for serious service disruptions. This is real business.

The western practice is for top management to share big bonuses when a company makes good profit but nothing happens to the pay of top management if the company flops. At the worst, they will not get their big bonuses but still some bonuses.  It is either 6 months or 24 months! The top management cannot lose or be held responsible for mismanagement. And if they are caught for major failures like the big banks, the banks will pay the fine on behalf of the top management. And the top management can continue to indulge in illegal or criminal activities with impunity. Making losses or mismanagement is a non issue or minor issue that would not hurt their pockets or their appointments.

That is how good life is in the private sector for the top management, privatise profits and socialize losses. Their compensation package is one way, how much they will get no matter how the company performed or how they mismanaged the companies. Familiar? Now the Hongkies are showing how the formula should be redesigned to make top management pay for mismanagement and failures. A word of caution. This cannot be applied in Sin City or all the top talents will run away to other bigger and better companies paying them bigger pay packages.

Compare the two approaches, which is more equitable is obvious. The crooks in top management have had it so good. They keep taking, no responsibility except how much to take, can even violate the law, and mismanagement is nothing to worry about.

This kind of approach to make top management accountable with cuts in their pay is unlikely to be put to practice here. How can?

Kopi Level - Yellow