Probably the most cutting edge efficient govt in the world
-
Originally posted by speakup-:
Please enlighten me which great leader in history has been unequivocally agreed upon as a fantastic leader or have earned the adoration of the whole world. There is no such thing as perfection or unaninimous agreement that anyone or anything is undoubtedly good. Politics and life are not simple 1+1 mathematics.You cant just 'deal' with people. Talk is cheap. I mean you are working and even if you arent, school life should have taught you that in any group, disagreements are ubiquitous in every human community. Just like you and me here, we cant even see eye to eye in such simple issues. How do you expect 4 million people to agree that a particularly policy is good? Everyone has their own ideas how to do things. As a leader the best you can do is to assimilate the various good points and come up with a solution. You really cannot please everyone.
Honestly I still suscribe to the belief that its $$$ before morals cause honestly (i have used this example before) you do not see a beggar doing charity. Although I agree people are continuously looking for more and more wealth. I do not deny that i foresee myself working and hoping to rake in millions within my first 10-15 years of working or something. But there is nothing wrong with this idea and that is what keeps our capitalist society and meritocratic economy going. In my opinion $$$ having a higher weightage is inevitable and a true 50-50 balance can only be accomplished when your $$$ needs is settled first.
This thing you mentioned here is what we should truly be concerned about. Its not about being money minded or pro business or whatever. It is about after achieving monetary wealth, there is a lack of thirst for spiritual and mental wealth. That is what we should be focusing on.
That is where your focus is incorrect. We deal with people not based on the point of pleasing people. This may be more of a corporate nature what I am going to discuss next, but it should be sufficient to explain my point of view.
I deal with people from all over the world in my global role, and I interact with people from all walks of life, from the operational staff to the senior management, from US to Europe to Asia Pacific. I think working in such multi-cultural environments is sometimes even more difficult than addressing needs of a common population that grows from the same roots.
In corporate world, we do not make people happy. Our assumption is that all are professional and mature grown-ups. We agree to disagree, but at the end of the day, we resolve all differences by focusing on commonly-aligned objectives. Easier said than done, but done by me.
In short, being a leader is a choice. You choose to be a leader, you live with the consequence. That's a mature grown-up. Being a leader is not a thankless job, you get benefits from being in a leadership role. But of course, you get more s**t, after all, you are paid more to get the s**t, which you choose to take it up.
Following the words of my manager which I remember clearly - "We are all paid to solve problems. If there are no problems, then the position can be filled with a robot".
As a nation's leader you are paid to help to allay the concerns of the population. If there are no issues with leadership, then there is no need for leaders to be around.
Anyway, a balance could be 50-50, or 60-40 or even 70-30 in the favor of pro-business or $$$. But when it comes to 90-10 or 100-0, we have a big problem.
Great leaders? There are plenty. US has 4 great leaders in history for starters, each for making a major contribution to the country. They may not be perfect, but they are great leaders recognized by the world. Heck, even Hitler was a great leader, until he let victory get the better of him (or greed for the matter), and it caused his downfall. Again, there was no check in place to keep him moderated.
-
We deal with people not based on the point of pleasing people.
When i mentioned pleasing, i did not mean it literally. It simply means getting people to acknowledge and agree to whatever you are doing is good for the country.
They may not be perfect, but they are great leaders recognized by the world.
Recognized by the world unfortunately is a sweeping statement and i dont think it is that hard to find people who disagree that they are 'great leaders'. There are definitely people who disagree with you and thats what i meant by its impossible to come up with something that people unanimously agree it is good.
We agree to disagree, but at the end of the day, we resolve all differences by focusing on commonly-aligned objectives. Easier said than done, but done by me.
I applaud you for your achievements, but let me point out that in a population of 4 million, aligning objectives are particularly difficult. This is simply because each person has their own perspective of what should be priority. Even for a simple goal like for Singapore to be prosperous, everyone has different definitions and different perspective on what is the best way to let Singapore prosper. On a political stage, the kind of things you have to align as common objectives affects us in a very real way as compared to the corporate world where often its down to the profit margins (i know this is generalized but i think it drives my point bout the differences between public vs private corps.). When a government pass a policy to raise GST as a way to help the poor, some may agree, some may not. Those that disagree are those that felt the pinch. Those that agree are those getting handouts. (i know this is quite generic but its just for illustration purposes). Life is unfair and trials and tribulations and benefits and what not are never distributed evenly. Society is constructed such that you cannot manipulate individuals one by one, but establish institutions and policies on a broad level to direct people towards your desired outcome. There may be outliers, but that is just the way life is.
-
Originally posted by speakup-:
When i mentioned pleasing, i did not mean it literally. It simply means getting people to acknowledge and agree to whatever you are doing is good for the country.
Recognized by the world unfortunately is a sweeping statement and i dont think it is that hard to find people who disagree that they are 'great leaders'. There are definitely people who disagree with you and thats what i meant by its impossible to come up with something that people unanimously agree it is good.
I applaud you for your achievements, but let me point out that in a population of 4 million, aligning objectives are particularly difficult. This is simply because each person has their own perspective of what should be priority. Even for a simple goal like for Singapore to be prosperous, everyone has different definitions and different perspective on what is the best way to let Singapore prosper. On a political stage, the kind of things you have to align as common objectives affects us in a very real way as compared to the corporate world where often its down to the profit margins (i know this is generalized but i think it drives my point bout the differences between public vs private corps.). When a government pass a policy to raise GST as a way to help the poor, some may agree, some may not. Those that disagree are those that felt the pinch. Those that agree are those getting handouts. (i know this is quite generic but its just for illustration purposes). Life is unfair and trials and tribulations and benefits and what not are never distributed evenly. Society is constructed such that you cannot manipulate individuals one by one, but establish institutions and policies on a broad level to direct people towards your desired outcome. There may be outliers, but that is just the way life is.
Historians agree that they are great leaders, and in that, it's enough. In statistics, we call the naysayers exceptional cases, or noise, which we filter away. So long as the majority of people agree, that's already a fact. But I said majority, not 66.6%, which is not really a majority for me.
And no, I am not here to sing my achievements, just was trying to tell you that I believe in a few things:
- If you agree to a job, you accept the consequences that come with the agreement. Being a leader is the same
- If you put your heart and passion to being a leader serving the people, then end of the day, people would appreciate it that you are not serving for the $$$.
- It's not really that hard to bring most people in the same direction. Be a people's leader, earn their trust, and when you ask for them to take sacrifices and move in that direction. Goh Chok Tong did well in that, because he was sincere.
But in summary, if you agree to do the job, then you need to work to address those concerns. Telling me it's difficult is not my concern, because able and talented people overcome these obstacles. A president of the US earns US$400k a year to seek to bring together 300 million individuals. Our leader earns S$3m a year to seek to bring together 4 million individuals. He's ''able and 'talented' based on his 'able' compensation, so he better do a good job, and stop whining.
-
When i said i applauded you it wasnt meant to be sarcastic in case you thought so. And honestly after so many posts i finally see a convergence of our ideas, so much so that in your recent post i have nothing much else to disagree with. I definitely agree that taking on any job comes with the necessity to be committed to it and do whatever it takes to fulfil the requirements of the job. Taking upon the calling to be a leader comes with its responsibilities and the renumeration in terms of pay should be more than enough to ensure you do your job. And yes earning the trust of your followers in important to a leader. Without those below you, you are nothing.
He's ''able and 'talented' based on his 'able' compensation, so he better do a good job, and stop whining.
I particularly like this part cause it sits nicely with what i propose that our leaders albeit drawing a high pay are actually 'able' and thus command a pay in proportion to their ability. Simply put, they ability has earned them the job and the pay. Period. (this part is actually more relevant to the other post we are discussing in but i thought why not just bring it up here)
-
Originally posted by speakup-:
When i said i applauded you it wasnt meant to be sarcastic in case you thought so. And honestly after so many posts i finally see a convergence of our ideas, so much so that in your recent post i have nothing much else to disagree with. I definitely agree that taking on any job comes with the necessity to be committed to it and do whatever it takes to fulfil the requirements of the job. Taking upon the calling to be a leader comes with its responsibilities and the renumeration in terms of pay should be more than enough to ensure you do your job. And yes earning the trust of your followers in important to a leader. Without those below you, you are nothing.
I particularly like this part cause it sits nicely with what i propose that our leaders albeit drawing a high pay are actually 'able' and thus command a pay in proportion to their ability. Simply put, they ability has earned them the job and the pay. Period. (this part is actually more relevant to the other post we are discussing in but i thought why not just bring it up here)
Ok.
-
Originally posted by speakup-:
When i said i applauded you it wasnt meant to be sarcastic in case you thought so. And honestly after so many posts i finally see a convergence of our ideas, so much so that in your recent post i have nothing much else to disagree with. I definitely agree that taking on any job comes with the necessity to be committed to it and do whatever it takes to fulfil the requirements of the job. Taking upon the calling to be a leader comes with its responsibilities and the renumeration in terms of pay should be more than enough to ensure you do your job. And yes earning the trust of your followers in important to a leader. Without those below you, you are nothing.
I particularly like this part cause it sits nicely with what i propose that our leaders albeit drawing a high pay are actually 'able' and thus command a pay in proportion to their ability. Simply put, they ability has earned them the job and the pay. Period. (this part is actually more relevant to the other post we are discussing in but i thought why not just bring it up here)
Yeah I know you weren't being sarcastic, was just also highlighting that I am not here to brag about achievements in case people think I am.
I still stand against your acceptance of that crazy type of pay our leaders have though. Basically, you gotta prove that you have the ability before you can go there. Just as I am occasionally stating down my successes to date to give forumers here a feel of the weight of my views. The more success, the greater your weight is the usual formula.
But being a leader of a nation is not like a forumer in a forum. You do not just take their words "I am good" at face level. Everyone will say "I am good" (which idiot would say "I am lousy"?), but they must be able to justify just what makes them good. I just cannot see what abilities they have, and what sort of solutions they provide, that justifies the sort of crazy pay they have now.
-
Coming back to an interesting real story I heard.
One of my friend's friend went to a Meet-the-People's session, and requested the MP to provide some help to a problem he was having. The MP asked him "So what do you think I should do?". This got him so peeved that he lashed back at the MP "Aren't you here to provide solutions for me? If I provide solution to you, then why do I need you for? Why do I need to pay you so much for?"
Our govt starts to complain that the citizens depend on them too much. But let me give you a scenario, assuming you are staying in a hotel, and you need an iron for ironing your clothes, what would happen in the case if:
- You stay in Hotel 81?
- You stay in Ritz Carlton?
If I stay in Hotel81, my expectations of service would be really low since I pay peanuts. I would go down to get the iron myself. But if I stay in Ritz Carlton, and I pay hell of a lot of $$$ for each night, then I would call for their service staff to bring it to me.
The point is, the more you pay, the higher the expectations. The govt should be very clear about this. If you take so much more $$$ than all other leaders, then be prepared for the expectations from the people to go up. They will expect the govt to solve everything for them, thus increasing their dependency on the govt.
Look at China. The people generally don't depend on their govt coz they have low expectations of their govt. They tend to be able to think better and out of the box, as compared to us.
At the end of the day, the govt has no one to blame but themselves, because they over-reward themselves.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
Coming back to an interesting real story I heard.
One of my friend's friend went to a Meet-the-People's session, and requested the MP to provide some help to a problem he was having. The MP asked him "So what do you think I should do?". This got him so peeved that he lashed back at the MP "Aren't you here to provide solutions for me? If I provide solution to you, then why do I need you for? Why do I need to pay you so much for?"
Our govt starts to complain that the citizens depend on them too much. But let me give you a scenario, assuming you are staying in a hotel, and you need an iron for ironing your clothes, what would happen in the case if:
- You stay in Hotel 81?
- You stay in Ritz Carlton?
If I stay in Hotel81, my expectations of service would be really low since I pay peanuts. I would go down to get the iron myself. But if I stay in Ritz Carlton, and I pay hell of a lot of $$$ for each night, then I would call for their service staff to bring it to me.
The point is, the more you pay, the higher the expectations. The govt should be very clear about this. If you take so much more $$$ than all other leaders, then be prepared for the expectations from the people to go up. They will expect the govt to solve everything for them, thus increasing their dependency on the govt.
Look at China. The people generally don't depend on their govt coz they have low expectations of their govt. They tend to be able to think better and out of the box, as compared to us.
At the end of the day, the govt has no one to blame but themselves, because they over-reward themselves.
Frankly i think Wong Kan Seng set a very terrible precedent.
We are expected to pay top dollars for ministers the MM claimed are extra ordinary talents. Then it is with the understanding that if any ministry conducts a serious error the minister in charge must be made to pay the reprecussions. Because any laxity in procedure must be traced back to the man ultimately in charge, let alone one as serious as allowing a lame terrorist to escape
If we must pay top salary to them, then it is expected any serious mistakes would mean expulsion or forced resignation.
I would add on to your example though, it's more like if i get cold water at Hotel 81 i would curse my luck and just go to sleep. But if i pay top dollars to stay at Fullerton/Riz Carlton i would raise bloody hell if i can't even get hot water for the money i paid.
Much as i hate Lee Hongyi for being able to get away scotch free with his email, he pointed out the whole problem with the system. We are led to believe that talents man the system, yet they are not held accountable when they commit mistakes which would have resulted in severe punishment if the ordinary men did it.
If it was an ordinary private or corporal that sent out that email, he probably needs to wash his backside and prepare to bend over.
I do find very amusing the whole pardoxy about producing people who think out of the box. It always seems the more non existent(America/low government intervention) or dysfunctional (Taiwan, China) the government is , the more likely they produce people who think out of the box.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Frankly i think Wong Kan Seng set a very terrible precedent.
We are expected to pay top dollars for ministers the MM claimed are extra ordinary talents. Then it is with the understanding that if any ministry conducts a serious error the minister in charge must be made to pay the reprecussions. Because any laxity in procedure must be traced back to the man ultimately in charge, let alone one as serious as allowing a lame terrorist to escape
If we must pay top salary to them, then it is expected any serious mistakes would mean expulsion or forced resignation.
I would add on to your example though, it's more like if i get cold water at Hotel 81 i would curse my luck and just go to sleep. But if i pay top dollars to stay at Fullerton/Riz Carlton i would raise bloody hell if i can't even get hot water for the money i paid.
Much as i hate Lee Hongyi for being able to get away scotch free with his email, he pointed out the whole problem with the system. We are led to believe that talents man the system, yet they are not held accountable when they commit mistakes which would have resulted in severe punishment if the ordinary men did it.
If it was an ordinary private or corporal that sent out that email, he probably needs to wash his backside and prepare to bend over.
I do find very amusement the whole pardoxy about producing people who think out of the box. It always seems the more non existent(America/low government intervention) or dysfunctional (Taiwan, China) the government is , the more likely they produce people who think out of the box.
Yes, about to bring Ah Wong out to whack. He did not even have the balls to hand in his resignation letter. If PAP had wayang a bit (ie he submit resignation, they reject), his image would have been salvaged. But now, all I see is a cowardly turtle sitting on a diamond throne totally afraid of losing the seat. Even courage is out of the window, because he wants to keep his $$$.
Adding to your example, I have another friend who was 1st class honours in my cohort, he once told me, "For normal people like us, we should get punished for making mistakes, but for those elites, we have to forgive them because they are far and few"
Just what sort of logic is that??? Just like every Singaporean who was fed by the govt with "We have limited talent, so we cannot afford to lose them. They make mistake, we accept", he accepted that he must be punished but elites don't need to get punished for making the same mistake. DUH!!!
To me, the higher you go, the more accountability you should be holding. Such that, normal people make that mistake, they might be forgiven, but for the person sitting in an elite position, he CANNOT be forgiven for making that normal mistake, BECAUSE he is an ELITE.
*fainted* skewed logic to keep incapable and cowardly people in leadership positions. And the best part is, our fellow citizens accept! *fainted*
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I do find very amusement the whole pardoxy about producing people who think out of the box. It always seems the more non existent(America/low government intervention) or dysfunctional (Taiwan, China) the government is , the more likely they produce people who think out of the box.
This comes back to my argument about rebelling and breaking out of our parents grip when the time comes.
If we continue to depend on our lovey dovey parents, we cannot grow. It's just like me, training my juniors to think, and then releasing them to fight their own battles. They have to learn to fight and fall in order to grow tough.
But in Singapore, the govt has set a terrible example of paying so high $$$ to themselves, that the people just depend on them. That's why we fail to achieve a lot on the global level, in terms of creativity and passion.
-
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"
-
TEACHER to KID1 (Normal Kid): What is 1+1?
KID1: urm... 3?
TEACHER to KID1: Wrong. So simple thing also don't know. You deserve to be punished. Go to the corner and pull your ears.
TEACHER to KID2 (Labelled Elite Kid): What is 1+1?
KID2: urm... 3?
TEACHER to KID2: Not correct. It's 2. But you are an elite, you are rare so punishing you is out of the question. It's ok, just remember it's 2 next time.
Extreme example, but extreme examples are required to knock the truth home.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
Yes, about to bring Ah Wong out to whack. He did not even have the balls to hand in his resignation letter. If PAP had wayang a bit (ie he submit resignation, they reject), his image would have been salvaged. But now, all I see is a cowardly turtle sitting on a diamond throne totally afraid of losing the seat. Even courage is out of the window, because he wants to keep his $$$.
Adding to your example, I have another friend who was 1st class honours in my cohort, he once told me, "For normal people like us, we should get punished for making mistakes, but for those elites, we have to forgive them because they are far and few"
Just what sort of logic is that??? Just like every Singaporean who was fed by the govt with "We have limited talent, so we cannot afford to lose them. They make mistake, we accept", he accepted that he must be punished but elites don't need to get punished for making the same mistake. DUH!!!
To me, the higher you go, the more accountability you should be holding. Such that, normal people make that mistake, they might be forgiven, but for the person sitting in an elite position, he CANNOT be forgiven for making that normal mistake, BECAUSE he is an ELITE.
*fainted* skewed logic to keep incapable and cowardly people in leadership positions. And the best part is, our fellow citizens accept! *fainted*
If the people accepts, then there won't be any grumbling by now. Otherwise, why are we waiting for the next election. But the opposition parties better start fielding better people and less clowns like Dr CSJ. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
If the people accepts, then there won't be any grumbling by now. Otherwise, why are we waiting for the next election. But the opposition parties better start fielding better people and less clowns like Dr CSJ.66.6% jokers accepted in the previous election though
-
Dear forummers,
I could not understand exactly in what way does singapore/singaporeans/who? benefits when such money comes to singapore?
does it mean when they put money here, they spend it on cars and houses?
I thought they dont want people to know their wealth? If so, would they be spending it to let people know their wealth? If they are not staying here, would they need to buy a car? If they invest, would their wealth not be known?
sorry, I am not very knowledgeable in these aspects. care to enlighten? thanks.
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
If the people accepts, then there won't be any grumbling by now. Otherwise, why are we waiting for the next election. But the opposition parties better start fielding better people and less clowns like Dr CSJ.Please allow my opinion here.
To me 'ACCEPT' might come with several 'flavors'.
1. complete acceptance.
2. accept in a way that us not completely 100%, eg. 51% to 99%, but still accept because its either you accept or you dont. which is it?
If someone does not accept, he would have voted them out.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
66.6% jokers accepted in the previous election though
66.6% of those who were eligible to vote.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
TEACHER to KID1 (Normal Kid): What is 1+1?
KID1: urm... 3?
TEACHER to KID1: Wrong. So simple thing also don't know. You deserve to be punished. Go to the corner and pull your ears.
TEACHER to KID2 (Labelled Elite Kid): What is 1+1?
KID2: urm... 3?
TEACHER to KID2: Not correct. It's 2. But you are an elite, you are rare so punishing you is out of the question. It's ok, just remember it's 2 next time.
Extreme example, but extreme examples are required to knock the truth home.
That's why increasing GST is to help the poor.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
Yes, about to bring Ah Wong out to whack. He did not even have the balls to hand in his resignation letter. If PAP had wayang a bit (ie he submit resignation, they reject), his image would have been salvaged. But now, all I see is a cowardly turtle sitting on a diamond throne totally afraid of losing the seat. Even courage is out of the window, because he wants to keep his $$$.
Adding to your example, I have another friend who was 1st class honours in my cohort, he once told me, "For normal people like us, we should get punished for making mistakes, but for those elites, we have to forgive them because they are far and few"
Just what sort of logic is that??? Just like every Singaporean who was fed by the govt with "We have limited talent, so we cannot afford to lose them. They make mistake, we accept", he accepted that he must be punished but elites don't need to get punished for making the same mistake. DUH!!!
To me, the higher you go, the more accountability you should be holding. Such that, normal people make that mistake, they might be forgiven, but for the person sitting in an elite position, he CANNOT be forgiven for making that normal mistake, BECAUSE he is an ELITE.
*fainted* skewed logic to keep incapable and cowardly people in leadership positions. And the best part is, our fellow citizens accept! *fainted*
Well written. Unfortunately reality is that this limited talent thing came from within our country. They could hire a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates to head the civil service but the problem is the issue of national security and secrecy. We cannot take in any tom dick and joe Harry from the outside even though he could be very talented. Ours is a fragile economy and society and we cannot afford treason, betrayal
-
Originally posted by Worldlybusinessman:
Well written. Unfortunately reality is that this limited talent thing came from within our country. They could hire a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates to head the civil service but the problem is the issue of national security and secrecy. We cannot take in any tom dick and joe Harry from the outside even though he could be very talented. Ours is a fragile economy and society and we cannot afford treason, betrayal
TH got foreigners in its management leh.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
TH got foreigners in its management leh.
I dont think they are in top sensitive positions like minister.
-
it will never happen.
-
Originally posted by Worldlybusinessman:
I dont think they are in top sensitive positions like minister.
TH got that Goodyear guy as its CEO recently.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
TH got that Goodyear guy as its CEO recently.
He still under the control of LHL. Temasek does not have full access to information on national assets. Even ONG TENG CHEONG didnt. What makes u think this Goodyear fellow is any better?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
That's why increasing GST is to help the poor.
have to agree on that, kinda like 1 + 1 = 3, and the Teacher telling you the answer is correct.
All citizens scratch head and look at them, and they nod their heads at us fervously insisting that it's the correct thing to do.