Maslow's 5th level of Needs - Self Delusion

Maslow's 5th level of Needs - Self Delusion Have we crossed the rubicon? The staunch supporters of PAP, some MPs and Ministers, adamantly said no and are sticking to their guns. This is the best policy, though a giant bitter pill to swallow. This is reality. People loves money and will work only for money. They would even go to the extend of paying even more as the formula is deemed the correct formula and the answers coming out from the formula must be correct. A cold calculative method, delinked from any emotional attachment and sentiments. Another GIGO. Can political decisions be made by a mathematical formula that does not take into consideration all the sensitivities of politics? Why is there a need to get our best minds to be in Humanities? Maybe this is a case of too much hard sciences and engineering. The lack of the human element is so glaring. Just hear the responses from the ground as reported in the Straits Times. 1. The numbers just don't look good, laments Nee Soon South grassroots leader Poh Phien Seah....he is finding it almost impossible to explain to constituents why the same govt that this week said it was necessary to raise ministers' salaries to $1.6 million, also refused to raise the public assistance allowance for its poorest citizens by more than $30 a month. 2. The disparity is so great...says Mr Poh, who owns a logistics business. 3. People ask me, why not do more for the poor, especially in their twilight years? I don't know how to explain to them...grassroot leaders 4. Shanmugam, ...the decision was bound to strain the social compact. This is one of those policies on which political capital has to be spent. 5. Medical practitioner Edith Quah, a grassroots leader in Chong Pang, warns that some community volunteers are so disillusioned by the Govt's decision, they might stop helping out. I am talking about very loyal grassroots people who are saying this. Why? Because they see the fragmentation in society. We feel this move is a bit self serving and the timing is very insensitive. Here you have people struggling to buy school books and uniforms for their children. Despite such negative feedbacks, is there any minister who will say that it is a bad thing to do? Or how many MPs will still insist that it is a right thing to do? Or would they have stuck to the position if they were not ministers or MPs? Do they really believe in what they are saying if they were not in the same camp? Here comes the self delusion. At this stage, no decision can be wrong. Every decision is the best decision and must be right. Like it or not, it has been decided and it is for the good of the people and country. The people are just too ignorant to understand the goodness and wisdom of the decision. I know best. And they will forget when the next election comes. Or when the economy is good the decision will be vindicated. The people appreciate the Govt's transparency and intention and are probably more receptive to the proposal now. Presumably some bought the arguments.... The people will just move on because there is nothing much they can do except to register in private ways their disquiet. Where it matters, at election time, Singaporeans will not judge the PAP govt on this issue only. I think the next election will be just another walkover. Just paste a dollar sign on the candidate's face and nothing more needs to be said.

Is this debate worth it?

Is this debate worth it? A definite yes from the PAP's point of view. It is an opportunity to air all the misconceptions and misunderstanding about the pay rise. It is all about transparency and that they have nothing to hide. And the PAP has achieved its objectives of explaining to the people and the people are satisfied with the explanation and justification for the formula and the pay rise. My impression is totally reverse. I think this is a serious tactical mistake on the part of the PAP. Once the formula is out for the airing, it was torn to pieces by everyone, the men on the street as well as inside Parliament. Only the converted will still want to believe that everything is alright and the formula is still worthy of what it was set out to be. The presentation of the charts etc did more harm than good to its cause. The whole debate is not only creating a big doubt. It confirms a lot of things which the people were not happy about. It reinforces the cynicism and scepticism that were once only heard in whispers. Now it is spoken loud and clear in Parliament and in prints in the MSM. Anyone agree or disagree with my assessment?

myth 131

Beware of your supporters! This guy dug a hole in the middle of the road. Then he went to his master and assured him the road ahead was all rosy. And together with a few more followers they cheered their master as he gingerly tip toed ahead towards the hole.

down with silly virtues and idealism

Virtues and benevolence in public office are passe I read with amazement, Chua Mui Hoong's article that in the present new age of Moneyism, old virtues should be dumped. Forget about Confucianism. Just think Money with a capital M. She also said that only the ministers and PAP MPs were strongly in support of high pay for ministers and the opposing voices came from the opposition and NMPs. This is only a simple generalisation as some MPs also spoke candidly about their opposition. What I am uneasy about is whether Chua Mui Hoong is extolling the new virtues of money talks? No money no talks. No money no public service, no passion for service to nation and people. Sacrifice is now an anachronism. And she put it as if this is what the new generation of Singaporeans are today. Is that a true picture? Are the people all so money minded? Are there no longer any saints or heroes among Singaporeans who would work just for a paltry $1 million in public service? Are chivalry, duty and honour, all to be dumped into the waste bin? I am wondering what are we teaching our young in schools today? I am also wondering what are we telling our soldiers and our civil servants? Would every Singaporean walk into his boss' office and ask, 'How much?'

work ethics and public assistance recipients

Public Assistance Recipients These people are defined 'as those with no kin nor any means to support themselves due to age, illness or disability.' What kind of work ethics can we expect from these people?

Defending an Indefensible position

Defending an Indefensible position An article by Jasmine Yin in the Today paper tried to defend the position that it is justifiable to pay ministers the million dollar payrise and $1 extra a day for the destitute. And it was argue that the two were separate issues and had 'no logical linkage'. Come on lah, the linkages are so loud and clear for all to see. Only the blind or those who refused to see them would say so. And it was also said that 'Money is not an issue'. What the f... Money is THE issue. If not, all these debate, all the time and resources would not have been spent to justify the million dollar increase. What I want to say is that the $290 for the poor and the multi million dollars for the ministers are very delicately intertwined. One is a social issue that the govt must look after. The other is the pay for the people who are going to look after this issue. How can $290 a month be enough when more than a million cannot be enough? It is all about public service. People who want to make millions must not think of making the millions from taxpayers money. There are many avenues to make the millions. Taxpayers money is to pay a reasonable rate for the passionate people who want to look after the nation and people. Not for cold logical people who want to be multi millionaires and still want the power of public service. Obviously after the debate, both in the media and parliament, many people do not agree with the increase and are unhappy with it. It is the people's view that matters. Maybe not. Maybe it is the decision makers' view that matters.

More than just MONEY

More than just MONEY Balaji Sadasivan finds more value in being a Minister of State, earning lesser money, than being a practising neurosurgeon. The position of a Minister or Minister of State is a position of a national leader and cannot be measured simply in monetary terms. So what if someone is making several millions more? A minister, the appointment as a minister, the role or function of a minister is much much more. A minister is a much respected and honoured member of our society. He is someone to be looked up to, a leader, a guardian of the people and nation. Let us not degrade the value of a minister and the respect and honour due to such a position and compare them to money. Money is just money, to be earned and spent. It is not recognised as anything worthy except as as a commodity. We should accord more respect to our political office just like in developed countries. Why would so many successful people want to take up political offices and assume the role of Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers, and getting lesser income? Do they take up public office because they can take more under table money? Obviously not. These positions are positions of authority, of fame, of recognition, of being part of history. How can we equate them with cheap money? We should cease comparing the value of political office with money. For all the money that a person may earn, he is never in the same standing as the political leaders of a nation. Balaji knows when he chose to remain as a Minister of State. It is a greater honour. Money cannot buy such positions. Can it? And I am not even talking about the power that comes with it. Why is it that historically many leaders will just cling on to the seat of power and refused to let go?