Making The Individual Accountable

[2lanu]

why jaya kumar's head is so small

dun be racist hor..

Collect millions$$ dun need big head. But hiding from public when things go wrong, easier mah.

 

[snrcitizen]

To be fair, I think that those in power to a large extent, do what they really think is best for the country. But in doing so, they also ensure that they themselves are well looked after and that the majority of the people in the country benefit in the long run. The problem is that there are people who are currently suffering and don't give a shit about the long run, and there is a tier of society that continues to suffer because they are not given enough special attention and help.
That is where the problem lies in my opinion, the country is being run like a corporation and not like a country. Doesn't mean they have to give welfare to everyone, but it's also not right to only ensure long term profitability and top management compensation, without considering the really poor and weak.

In my opinion, the way to alleviate this if SG have a few good men (alternative men) waiting in the wings, who are able and willing to step forward to serve the nation and in so doing, perhaps go against the ruling party and its powerful members.
My questions:
Who and where are these people?
Do they even exist?

I am not too sure of the part about doing what's best for Singapore. If a country is run like a corporation, then the attitude is to look only at the $ bottom line and the heck with everything else.

Look at everything that is implemented. It is all about money, money and more money at the expense of the people.

Many examples of money motivated schemes can be quoted but I need not elaborate here.

We spent so many early years from the birth of the nation to improve on our social well being. Look at what's happening now? So many foreigners around. Over a million of them. The stress signs have been showing but all feedback is brushed off with more propaganda. Diseases we have not encountered before in Singapore is now getting out of control here. Littering is rearing its ugly head again.

People are beginning to care less and less for others. The leaders are providing the very bad example for others to follow. There is a growing great divide between those ruling and those ruled.

How do we find good alternative men who are willing to really serve the nation and go against the ruling party when it is evident to everyone that they will smack you down like flies? Even if they don't (which is unlikely), the electorial system is so heavily manipulated to stack against anyone opposed to them and also smooths the way for anyone who is least interested to serve the people to get into parliament as long as they wear a PAP badge.

Those who are with means and expertise and possible leaders are leaving in droves. What future does this leave us with? Just foreigners who wouldn't give a shit to what happens here? I do not hold much faith that we can be of a nation for long. It's a hotel with revolving doors.

 

[jw5]

I am not too sure of the part about doing what's best for Singapore. If a country is run like a corporation, then the attitude is to look only at the $ bottom line and the heck with everything else.

Look at everything that is implemented. It is all about money, money and more money at the expense of the people.

Many examples of money motivated schemes can be quoted but I need not elaborate here.

We spent so many early years from the birth of the nation to improve on our social well being. Look at what's happening now? So many foreigners around. Over a million of them. The stress signs have been showing but all feedback is brushed off with more propaganda. Diseases we have not encountered before in Singapore is now getting out of control here. Littering is rearing its ugly head again.

People are beginning to care less and less for others. The leaders are providing the very bad example for others to follow. There is a growing great divide between those ruling and those ruled.

How do we find good alternative men who are willing to really serve the nation and go against the ruling party when it is evident to everyone that they will smack you down like flies? Even if they don't (which is unlikely), the electorial system is so heavily manipulated to stack against anyone opposed to them and also smooths the way for anyone who is least interested to serve the people to get into parliament as long as they wear a PAP badge.

Those who are with means and expertise and possible leaders are leaving in droves. What future does this leave us with? Just foreigners who wouldn't give a shit to what happens here? I do not hold much faith that we can be of a nation for long. It's a hotel with revolving doors.

You're probably right for the most part, although if those guys are looking after the long term bottom line of the country, they can be compared to good corporate men who lok after the long term bottom line and sustainability of a company.
But this is certainly not how I would envision a country being run, where perhaps 10% or more of the population have to struggle.
This question occurred to me:
Let's say you had 80% of the population (and I only mean citizens here) having a lifestyle with an average of 8 out of 10 and 20% of the population having a lifestyle with an average of 2 out of 10. Would you as a government be willing to move the 20% up to 4 out of 10 if it meant that the 80% would drop down to 7 out of 10? I don't think this government would, but I think they should, because 2 out of 10 is really very very poor and people are suffering. But once they reach 4 out of 10, they should be left to their own devices to improve their lives or stay there if they are not able or willing to do so. Hence pure capitalism and meritocracy should only take effect once those really at the bottom have reached a certain bearable and liveable level.
This is how a country should be run, because the people (citizens) matter. All of them.
The objective should not be to make a comfortable life for 80% of the people. (Not sure even if that's being achieved)

 

[snrcitizen]

You're probably right for the most part, although if those guys are looking after the long term bottom line of the country, they can be compared to good corporate men who lok after the long term bottom line and sustainability of a company.
But this is certainly not how I would envision a country being run, where perhaps 10% or more of the population have to struggle.
This question occurred to me:
Let's say you had 80% of the population (and I only mean citizens here) having a lifestyle with an average of 8 out of 10 and 20% of the population having a lifestyle with an average of 2 out of 10. Would you as a government be willing to move the 20% up to 4 out of 10 if it meant that the 80% would drop down to 7 out of 10? I don't think this government would, but I think they should, because 2 out of 10 is really very very poor and people are suffering. But once they reach 4 out of 10, they should be left to their own devices to improve their lives or stay there if they are not able or willing to do so. Hence pure capitalism and meritocracy should only take effect once those really at the bottom have reached a certain bearable and liveable level.
This is how a country should be run, because the people (citizens) matter. All of them.
The objective should not be to make a comfortable life for 80% of the people. (Not sure even if that's being achieved)

You are right. 80% is an over estimation. There is quite a substantial number of people who are worse off economically in recent years. Wages are artificially depressed and inflation (I am not talking about international inflation) is at a runaway pace. The really comfortable ones are, percentage wise, getting even lower. The situation for the lowest 20% or more is even worse.

Your suggestion on moving these 20% to 4 out of 10 is only viable for those who are still able bodied. The constantly ageing population and those infirmed will have no chance at all. These, the govenrment has even suggested to ship them out to other countries. Out of sight, out of mind, or washing their hands off.

Yes, I agree with you. How a country is run should be for ALL of its people. The gini coefficient that places us almost next to the world's poorest nations is a telling sign that something fundemental is not right, regardless of all the glitz and glamour figures that this government has been leading others to believe.

 

[jw5]

You are right. 80% is an over estimation. There is quite a substantial number of people who are worse off economically in recent years. Wages are artificially depressed and inflation (I am not talking about international inflation) is at a runaway pace. The really comfortable ones are, percentage wise, getting even lower. The situation for the lowest 20% or more is even worse.

Your suggestion on moving these 20% to 4 out of 10 is only viable for those who are still able bodied. The constantly ageing population and those infirmed will have no chance at all. These, the govenrment has even suggested to ship them out to other countries. Out of sight, out of mind, or washing their hands off.

Yes, I agree with you. How a country is run should be for ALL of its people. The gini coefficient that places us almost next to the world's poorest nations is a telling sign that something fundemental is not right, regardless of all the glitz and glamour figures that this government has been leading others to believe.

No, when I suggest moving those from 2 to 4 out of 10, I include everybody, old or young, disabled or able bodied. If the government have to support and give handouts to the disabled, old, and poor who can't fend for themselves, so be it. It's their responsibility to look after all the citizens in the country, not just to make the country richer for the majority of the citizens.
But of course it's important to note that they are only moved up to 4 out of 10 and not more than that, and the handouts and support do not go to those young and able bodied people who don't want to work or don't want to work hard.
If it means having more social workers to look at every individual case, so be it. Creates more jobs.

 

[snrcitizen]

No, when I suggest moving those from 2 to 4 out of 10, I include everybody, old or young, disabled or able bodied. If the government have to support and give handouts to the disabled, old, and poor who can't fend for themselves, so be it. It's their responsibility to look after all the citizens in the country, not just to make the country richer for the majority of the citizens.
But of course it's important to note that they are only moved up to 4 out of 10 and not more than that, and the handouts and support do not go to those young and able bodied people who don't want to work or don't want to work hard.
If it means having more social workers to look at every individual case, so be it. Creates more jobs.

Yes, I understand your suggestion to move every one from 2 to 4 out of 10. My point is, in doing so it will give a leg up to only those able bodied. Those who are old and disabled will not be able to move on by themselves, and yes, I agree that this group will need consistent help and it is their duty.

I am also pointing out that they do not see the need to look after the old and disabled as they are already throwing the idea around that this group should be shipped out to another country and this is wrong.

 

[angry_one]

I have observed this and it seems to boil down to the brilliant "divide and conquer" strategy concocted by the PAP. From Pr 1, we are divided and set against one another via streaming, competition, winner-takes-all system. And when we were older, so any labels divide us:

cosmopolitan vs heartlander
scholar vs nono scholar
uni grad vs poly grad
FT vs local talent
eng educated vs chinese helicopter
SAP school vs neighbourhood school
and so on.....

I have tried and it is so hard to get a group organised to do anything. People will argue, try to be the leader, or give up easily and make excuses to leave.

 

[NoOnEsAwMe]

i wonder how long can they keep up the charade of making themselves look like fools.

perhaps, after the old man goes to meet his maker?

 

[jw5]

i wonder how long can they keep up the charade of making themselves look like fools.

perhaps, after the old man goes to meet his maker?

That is very probable.

 

[mscitw]

The first group of swines that must be taken to task is the EMA.

EMA gleefully approves Singapore Power pegging Oct-Dec08 tariffs to forward fuel oil price of USD155!!!!

They screw up, stupid peasants pay the price!

The EMA is caught sleeping this time round.