Power To The People
-
11) I think there is something wrong with the Sedition Act itself. But anyway, history has shown MOM and NTUC to be favourably inclined towards the employers; look at the SIA saga for example. NTUC is more a government department than a trade union, looking that it actually runs supermarkets and so on. Seriously, would FairPrice look into allegations of it mistreating its workers? I don't think so. There is too much vested corporate interests here. Singapore has basically sold its soul to the MNCs.
In the case of SIA pilots association vs SIA, everything was going fine and even the outcome was satisfactory for both sides, that is until someone stepped in unilaterally and revoked the preceived 'ringleader's PR status. To a neutral party, that was perhaps the single most amusing part of the saga and could well be deemed as the one detrimental part of the negotiations - clear and biased govt intervention where none was needed.
12) It always puzzles me as to why the only references people use for trade unions and demonstrations etc. are France, Germany, USA and Taiwan. These are not the only countries with trade unions and the right to public protest you know. For the trade union issue, French unions are not representative of the entire world's collection of free trade unions. There are free trade unions in Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark as well. In these countries, there is a very high level of social and political stability, and (surprise! surprise!) these unions have a very low strike rate. But they are also free trade unions, not like our NTUC, which like I mentioned before, looks more like a government department than anything else.
I used France because their unions have a reputation for being overbearing. They strike over the smallest things and can hold entire corporations to ransom. Ultimately and ironically, this does their union members no favours as the companies they work at will eventually lose valuable business customers and revenues combating worthless demonstrations.
Besides France, one simply has to look at the recent british airways strike. Tens of thosuands of passengers were stranded and had to make alternate arrangements simply because the entire fleet of employees went on strike, all because some ground staff were retrenched.
In the end, the long term result is a dip in passenger bookings and significant losses in annual revenues which, ironically, may imply more subsequent retrenchments. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Billybong,
[b]
11) I think there is something wrong with the Sedition Act itself. But anyway, history has shown MOM and NTUC to be favourably inclined towards the employers; look at the SIA saga for example. NTUC is more a government department than a trade union, looking that it actually runs supermarkets and so on. Seriously, would FairPrice look into allegations of it mistreating its workers? I don't think so. There is too much vested corporate interests here. Singapore has basically sold its soul to the MNCs.
In the case of SIA pilots association vs SIA, everything was going fine and even the outcome was satisfactory for both sides, that is until someone stepped in unilaterally and revoked the preceived 'ringleader's PR status. To a neutral party, that was perhaps the single most amusing part of the saga and could well be deemed as the one detrimental part of the negotiations - clear and biased govt intervention where none was needed.
12) It always puzzles me as to why the only references people use for trade unions and demonstrations etc. are France, Germany, USA and Taiwan. These are not the only countries with trade unions and the right to public protest you know. For the trade union issue, French unions are not representative of the entire world's collection of free trade unions. There are free trade unions in Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark as well. In these countries, there is a very high level of social and political stability, and (surprise! surprise!) these unions have a very low strike rate. But they are also free trade unions, not like our NTUC, which like I mentioned before, looks more like a government department than anything else.
I used France because their unions have a reputation for being overbearing. They strike over the smallest things and can hold entire corporations to ransom. Ultimately and ironically, this does their union members no favours as the companies they work at will eventually lose valuable business customers and revenues combating worthless demonstrations.
Besides France, one simply has to look at the recent british airways strike. Tens of thosuands of passengers were stranded and had to make alternate arrangements simply because the entire fleet of employees went on strike, all because some ground staff were retrenched.
In the end, the long term result is a dip in passenger bookings and significant losses in annual revenues which, ironically, may imply more subsequent retrenchments.[/b]
2) ya, I agree.
4-6) You miss my point. My point was that there exists in this world successful independent ttrade unions which have not jeopardized their own national economies.
the pikamaster -
such as?Originally posted by pikamaster:4-6) You miss my point. My point was that there exists in this world successful independent ttrade unions which have not jeopardized their own national economies. -
Hi,Originally posted by BillyBong:such as?
Other than those mentioned, Japan is a country with fairly stable labour relations.
I do not think we can put all the fault of jeopardising the economy on unions. What about employers? If they are not uncompassionate, they would not earn the rebuke from unions or government. I am not surprised France probably has the most hardy bosses in the world. Hence, they also have a fair share of the blame when a strike happens.
If nothing is done and unions are expected to be grateful no matter what the employers do, there will be low worker morale.
I think Singapore largely suffers from low worker morale. I remember a study done and reported in TNP 5 years ago, the "bo-chap" worker costs the Singapore economy $2.4 million a year.
Would one or two strikes a year in Singapore cost so much?
"Bo-chap" is due to the lack of avenues to express themselves.
Regards -
My point precisely!Originally posted by SGLoyalist:Hi,
Other than those mentioned, Japan is a country with fairly stable labour relations.
I do not think we can put all the fault of jeopardising the economy on unions. What about employers? If they are not uncompassionate, they would not earn the rebuke from unions or government. I am not surprised France probably has the most hardy bosses in the world. Hence, they also have a fair share of the blame when a strike happens.
If nothing is done and unions are expected to be grateful no matter what the employers do, there will be low worker morale.
I think Singapore largely suffers from low worker morale. I remember a study done and reported in TNP 5 years ago, the "bo-chap" worker costs the Singapore economy $2.4 million a year.
Would one or two strikes a year in Singapore cost so much?
"Bo-chap" is due to the lack of avenues to express themselves.
Regards -
I concur with GMS's views.
We, as intelligent citizens, must have our rights to excercise our voice.
Question is, who is willing to front this view to the ruling party? -
Soon, soon (I hope)Originally posted by mett:I concur with GMS's views.
We, as intelligent citizens, must have our rights to excercise our voice.
Question is, who is willing to front this view to the ruling party? -
Bo-Chap mentality is mainly due to our lack of local job diversity. The extent of which results in Singaporeans paying only due attention to their work based on their salary package. Indeed, we do not look at work as a CAREER but a JOB that pays bills. Given our weakness in this area, expect 'bo-chap' attitudes to continue well into 2010.Originally posted by SGLoyalist:If nothing is done and unions are expected to be grateful no matter what the employers do, there will be low worker morale.
I think Singapore largely suffers from low worker morale. I remember a study done and reported in TNP 5 years ago, the "bo-chap" worker costs the Singapore economy $2.4 million a year.
Would one or two strikes a year in Singapore cost so much?
"Bo-chap" is due to the lack of avenues to express themselves.
There are many factors stemming from a strike, not just a loss in revenue. For one, you have to suffer a loss in consumer confidence and very likely, a drop in potential investments. At the same time, many companies structure their direction based on continued customer satisifaction; it would be foolhardy to even contemplate a strike as many seldom recover fully from a drop in customer confidence.
1 or 2 strikes a year? If not for the right reasons, they can cause more damage than you think. -
Billybong,Originally posted by BillyBong:Bo-Chap mentality is mainly due to our lack of local job diversity. The extent of which results in Singaporeans paying only due attention to their work based on their salary package. Indeed, we do not look at work as a CAREER but a JOB that pays bills. Given our weakness in this area, expect 'bo-chap' attitudes to continue well into 2010.
There are many factors stemming from a strike, not just a loss in revenue. For one, you have to suffer a loss in consumer confidence and very likely, a drop in potential investments. At the same time, many companies structure their direction based on continued customer satisifaction; it would be foolhardy to even contemplate a strike as many seldom recover fully from a drop in customer confidence.
1 or 2 strikes a year? If not for the right reasons, they can cause more damage than you think.
1) I guess you are right...
2) Loss in investment yes, but why would there be a loss in consumer confidence? that needs explaining.
3) And what do you consider "right" and "wrong" reasons? And what kind of incomprehensible damage would strikes cause?
Aft) That having been said, are you sure not-striking in Singapore has not done any damage to our society?
the pikamaster -
Related in a way. "Lack of local job diversity" is a pre-occurence. There are many reasons. Quality of local management is another. Thereafter, there are no channels to express as bosses in Singapore have no pressure to listen, neither is applying licence for a mini-strike frivolously granted (which is not all that bad). Hence, workers will turn themselves off and just do their work. The egg is returned to the chicken when boss finds that with bo-chap workers, there is no potential to diversify job scope.Originally posted by BillyBong:Bo-Chap mentality is mainly due to our lack of local job diversity. The extent of which results in Singaporeans paying only due attention to their work based on their salary package. Indeed, we do not look at work as a CAREER but a JOB that pays bills. Given our weakness in this area, expect 'bo-chap' attitudes to continue well into 2010.
There are many factors stemming from a strike, not just a loss in revenue. For one, you have to suffer a loss in consumer confidence and very likely, a drop in potential investments. At the same time, many companies structure their direction based on continued customer satisifaction; it would be foolhardy to even contemplate a strike as many seldom recover fully from a drop in customer confidence.
1 or 2 strikes a year? If not for the right reasons, they can cause more damage than you think.
What you say is true. I am not pro-strike for unnecessary reasons. I am merely highlighting the TNP report in comparison with another labour statistic. The last strike that happened in 1986, the bill was about $60,000. Compare that to $2.4 million.
Regards -
You have to look at it both ways.Originally posted by pikamaster:Billybong,
1) I guess you are right...
2) Loss in investment yes, but why would there be a loss in consumer confidence? that needs explaining.
3) And what do you consider "right" and "wrong" reasons? And what kind of incomprehensible damage would strikes cause?
Aft) That having been said, are you sure not-striking in Singapore has not done any damage to our society?
the pikamaster
For an economy that prides itself as 'non-strike', a single strike can be devastating. It can be speculated that a one-party dominant govt may be starting to lose its grip, that NTUC no longer has the usual swagger it conducts itself with.
Similarly, a country which strikes all the time will suddenly set investors rolling if it is non-strike for a month.
This is how fickle-minded investors or existing customers can be as to the situation. And anyone who permits a strike (NTUC chief) has to weight the options carefully, at the same time, ensure that regardless of the outcome, there will be no row with the cabinet.
The direct terms 'right' and 'wrong' refer to issues which may or may not be negotiable. Let's face it, people complain for all kinds of reasons. You will always have union heads who conjure up enough dissatisfaction among the ranks over meagre issues. For example, if the economy slumps and companies exercise the MVC component in order to save jobs, and people are upset over the drop in salary and want to strike, then it would be a WRONG (no wait ...STUPID) reason.
As for right, there are plenty of tenable arguments. But most of them can be candily discussed at union level and then corporate level. All this avoids demonstrations.
Only when all avenues are exhausted do extreme measures take precedent.
Whether SG has benefited from a non-strike status is for everyone to gauge. Less disruptions mean a solid foundation for corporates to build and improve. On the flip side, many will cast a doubt whether companies have solicited govt aid in legislating numerous MOM directives to their beneift such as lower medical benefits or reduced leave, but then again, that is for the employee to judge. -
BillyBong,
1) I guess so, but of course NTUC is not a *genuine* trade union.
2) right again.
3) Why sould the cabinet come into the picture? The government is supposed to serve the citizens, which includes the unionized labour, not the other way round. Scrap the nonsensical political Confucianism!
4) That depends on whether the MVC compononent is the correct policy in the first place, and of course if you have management salaries in socially acceptable ratios. (For this discussion, ministerial salaries are considered socially unacceptable.)
5) Give examples, pls?
6) I don't disagree with this. But notice in a non-strike country like Singapore, even when all avenues are exhausted (I don't consider IAC a legitimate avenue), extreme measures still CANNOT take precedent. And that is what I find issue with.
7) What is "build and improve"? Able to squeeze the workers more? More possible to perform racial, religious and linguistic discrimination? More able to pay CEOs "peanuts" i.e. increase profits exorbitantly? More able to keep raising transport fares and other costs for the consumers? Improvement can take many forms, and not all socially or morally desirable.
the pikamaster -
3) Why sould the cabinet come into the picture? The government is supposed to serve the citizens, which includes the unionized labour, not the other way round. Scrap the nonsensical political Confucianism!
While i admire your brazeness, there is always a need to keep big brother informed. The transparency of which will ensure that there are no repercussions from drastic actions. (it's like saying: hey i told you so!)
4) That depends on whether the MVC compononent is the correct policy in the first place, and of course if you have management salaries in socially acceptable ratios. (For this discussion, ministerial salaries are considered socially unacceptable.)
The question is: who are we to determine what is or is not acceptable pay? That is a question big brother will throw back at us. As LHL mentioned in his interview with ST, the subject of ministerial pay will always be a talking point no matter how many times MPs explain the responsibilities and the formula to justify it. It will never be satisfactory to many as the gap is simply too large to comprehend or accept, especially among the lower income groups.
MVC is now a predominant item in employment contracts. After the large-scale abrupt retrenchement by SIA, including pilots and ground staff, many companies have factored in a percentage to be absorbed back in the event of downturns. The aim is to prevent a repeat of the SIA 'blunder' and to preserve jobs.
5) Give examples, pls?
What are you refering to?
6) I don't disagree with this. But notice in a non-strike country like Singapore, even when all avenues are exhausted (I don't consider IAC a legitimate avenue), extreme measures still CANNOT take precedent. And that is what I find issue with.
True, the law dictates that you have to 'apply' for a 'permit' from our boys in blue which will undoubtedly be thrown back in our faces. I suppose you can view it as a quiet nudge by our govt to say: go explore ALL avenues before adopting the demonstration option. There is ALWAYS another way, no reservations.
I'm not entirely in agreement with this either, but it helps to study all possibilities before moving ahead.
7) What is "build and improve"? Able to squeeze the workers more? More possible to perform racial, religious and linguistic discrimination? More able to pay CEOs "peanuts" i.e. increase profits exorbitantly? More able to keep raising transport fares and other costs for the consumers? Improvement can take many forms, and not all socially or morally desirable.
Not every company is so 'bloodthirsty' as to squeeze the living juice out of us. The employment benefits may vary between firms but in the end, you just have to reflect on the good points and bad.
Some people may have experienced really bad welfare benefits while in one company, but after hopping to another, might find the new perks amazing. It's really all subjective. You have to get a feel of the overall welfare plan for employees in numerous institutions before you can really judge what is desirable or not.
PS: Everyone always wants more annual leave. It's whether your workscope permits you to take them or not. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Billybong,
[b]
3) Why sould the cabinet come into the picture? The government is supposed to serve the citizens, which includes the unionized labour, not the other way round. Scrap the nonsensical political Confucianism!
While i admire your brazeness, there is always a need to keep big brother informed. The transparency of which will ensure that there are no repercussions from drastic actions. (it's like saying: hey i told you so!)
4) That depends on whether the MVC compononent is the correct policy in the first place, and of course if you have management salaries in socially acceptable ratios. (For this discussion, ministerial salaries are considered socially unacceptable.)
The question is: who are we to determine what is or is not acceptable pay? That is a question big brother will throw back at us. As LHL mentioned in his interview with ST, the subject of ministerial pay will always be a talking point no matter how many times MPs explain the responsibilities and the formula to justify it. It will never be satisfactory to many as the gap is simply too large to comprehend or accept, especially among the lower income groups.
MVC is now a predominant item in employment contracts. After the large-scale abrupt retrenchement by SIA, including pilots and ground staff, many companies have factored in a percentage to be absorbed back in the event of downturns. The aim is to prevent a repeat of the SIA 'blunder' and to preserve jobs.
5) Give examples, pls?
What are you refering to?
6) I don't disagree with this. But notice in a non-strike country like Singapore, even when all avenues are exhausted (I don't consider IAC a legitimate avenue), extreme measures still CANNOT take precedent. And that is what I find issue with.
True, the law dictates that you have to 'apply' for a 'permit' from our boys in blue which will undoubtedly be thrown back in our faces. I suppose you can view it as a quiet nudge by our govt to say: go explore ALL avenues before adopting the demonstration option. There is ALWAYS another way, no reservations.
I'm not entirely in agreement with this either, but it helps to study all possibilities before moving ahead.
7) What is "build and improve"? Able to squeeze the workers more? More possible to perform racial, religious and linguistic discrimination? More able to pay CEOs "peanuts" i.e. increase profits exorbitantly? More able to keep raising transport fares and other costs for the consumers? Improvement can take many forms, and not all socially or morally desirable.
Not every company is so 'bloodthirsty' as to squeeze the living juice out of us. The employment benefits may vary between firms but in the end, you just have to reflect on the good points and bad.
Some people may have experienced really bad welfare benefits while in one company, but after hopping to another, might find the new perks amazing. It's really all subjective. You have to get a feel of the overall welfare plan for employees in numerous institutions before you can really judge what is desirable or not.
PS: Everyone always wants more annual leave. It's whether your workscope permits you to take them or not. [/b]
2) My point is: should we need to keep Big Brother informed?
4) The answer is so simple, it hardly need be said: 'cos we are the ones being paid or left unpaid. The Big Question is: Is there any flaws in the formula itself and in the arguments used to justify the format of the formula?
5) Hmmm... you need to clarify why a private company would work to preserve jobs. No doubt a government might; since it could possibly lose a few election seats if unemployment over-swells.
But a private corporation or even a GLC???
7) Give examples of the legitimate conditions and reasons for strikes to occur.
9) No disagreement here; but is the govt always necessarily right?
10) We are here evaluating the necessity and the fairness of current existing laws; we are not discussing the possibilities present in the local context: we are debating on the motion "Does the local context (i.e. the "tripartite" system) justify its existence?".
12) A big MNC will have no qualms; see what Coca-cola was doing to the Indian environment and how Nike treated its Indian and Bangladeshi workers. Big companies aim for profits, because these are its only interests. A smaller company might find it more worthwhile to focus on workers' welfare, though, since it would stand to gain mroe from the increase of a single worker's productivity.
13 & 14) The subject is not limited to stuff like annnual leave. I am talking more on the lines of firms sacking or refusing to hire pregnant mothers, firms refusing to beleive in the possibility of bilingualism, firms retrenching workers w/o providing compensation, or compensation that's insufficient for the retrenched worker to survive for any prolonged length of time. These cannot be argued against, 'cos this is an employer's responsibility. Btw, all the above coem from real-life examples in our local newspapers, and are not figments of my imagination.
Regards,
the pikamaster (who believes in free trade unions) -
2) My point is: should we need to keep Big Brother informed?
My question is, if you don't, are you prepared for the consequences like the late Ong Teng Cheong? Are you prepared to risk your career, life and family for such a move?
4) The answer is so simple, it hardly need be said: 'cos we are the ones being paid or left unpaid. The Big Question is: Is there any flaws in the formula itself and in the arguments used to justify the format of the formula?
To address this formula, you have to review it on your own. It isn't enough to just speculate. You have to see it for yourself.
I didn't bother, since it would never have satisfied me anyway.
5) Hmmm... you need to clarify why a private company would work to preserve jobs. No doubt a government might; since it could possibly lose a few election seats if unemployment over-swells. But a private corporation or even a GLC???
Why not? Are you so one-tracked to assume that private corporations would lean on the unethical and unjust simply to churn profits? Who do you think has more to lose should labour unrest spill into frontpage headlines? The employees or the employer? Likewise for GLCs?
7) Give examples of the legitimate conditions and reasons for strikes to occur.
This is obvious. I will just say: one clear example would be open exploitation by the company management.
10) We are here evaluating the necessity and the fairness of current existing laws; we are not discussing the possibilities present in the local context: we are debating on the motion "Does the local context (i.e. the "tripartite" system) justify its existence?".
Were we? i seem to recall we were discussing why demonstrations should or should not be the appropriate way forward. I mean if you are specific.
12) A big MNC will have no qualms; see what Coca-cola was doing to the Indian environment and how Nike treated its Indian and Bangladeshi workers. Big companies aim for profits, because these are its only interests. A smaller company might find it more worthwhile to focus on workers' welfare, though, since it would stand to gain mroe from the increase of a single worker's productivity.
Sure. And i can name you SIA's mishandling of their retrenchment exercise a few years back. And SIA is a GLC.
Smaller companies will not have the resources nor bargaining position to offer better welfare options, period. More than likely, they will not have much better benefits than larger firms. The closest you can come to is the closely knit working conditions they have over larger companies.
13 & 14) The subject is not limited to stuff like annnual leave. I am talking more on the lines of firms sacking or refusing to hire pregnant mothers, firms refusing to beleive in the possibility of bilingualism, firms retrenching workers w/o providing compensation, or compensation that's insufficient for the retrenched worker to survive for any prolonged length of time. These cannot be argued against, 'cos this is an employer's responsibility. Btw, all the above coem from real-life examples in our local newspapers, and are not figments of my imagination.
There have been firms who discontinue expectant mothers for unacceptable reasons and i resent such acts. They are biased and unfeeling. On the other hand, the senior management has to decide productivity on an equal basis. They should not compare pregnant women differently from normal women in their company. In this regard, i believe more can be done to improve the suffrage of working women. Compensation should not be considered as an option, especially after lost of job.
I do not see how bilingualism comes into this picture?
In any case, most of the complaints you get are not from expectant mothers. What you get are the usual: pay too low, so little leave, medical benefits suck, company makes me pay pay pay...etc
We can address those with greater implications separately because they represent a valid view and fundamental human right. But most of the time, the complaints don't reflect this. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
If you have to fear for your career and your way of life to speak your mind, then I'd say leave the fecking island.
[b]
2) My point is: should we need to keep Big Brother informed?
My question is, if you don't, are you prepared for the consequences like the late Ong Teng Cheong? Are you prepared to risk your career, life and family for such a move?
4) The answer is so simple, it hardly need be said: 'cos we are the ones being paid or left unpaid. The Big Question is: Is there any flaws in the formula itself and in the arguments used to justify the format of the formula?
To address this formula, you have to review it on your own. It isn't enough to just speculate. You have to see it for yourself.
I didn't bother, since it would never have satisfied me anyway.
5) Hmmm... you need to clarify why a private company would work to preserve jobs. No doubt a government might; since it could possibly lose a few election seats if unemployment over-swells. But a private corporation or even a GLC???
Why not? Are you so one-tracked to assume that private corporations would lean on the unethical and unjust simply to churn profits? Who do you think has more to lose should labour unrest spill into frontpage headlines? The employees or the employer? Likewise for GLCs?
7) Give examples of the legitimate conditions and reasons for strikes to occur.
This is obvious. I will just say: one clear example would be open exploitation by the company management.
10) We are here evaluating the necessity and the fairness of current existing laws; we are not discussing the possibilities present in the local context: we are debating on the motion "Does the local context (i.e. the "tripartite" system) justify its existence?".
Were we? i seem to recall we were discussing why demonstrations should or should not be the appropriate way forward. I mean if you are specific.
12) A big MNC will have no qualms; see what Coca-cola was doing to the Indian environment and how Nike treated its Indian and Bangladeshi workers. Big companies aim for profits, because these are its only interests. A smaller company might find it more worthwhile to focus on workers' welfare, though, since it would stand to gain mroe from the increase of a single worker's productivity.
Sure. And i can name you SIA's mishandling of their retrenchment exercise a few years back. And SIA is a GLC.
Smaller companies will not have the resources nor bargaining position to offer better welfare options, period. More than likely, they will not have much better benefits than larger firms. The closest you can come to is the closely knit working conditions they have over larger companies.
13 & 14) The subject is not limited to stuff like annnual leave. I am talking more on the lines of firms sacking or refusing to hire pregnant mothers, firms refusing to beleive in the possibility of bilingualism, firms retrenching workers w/o providing compensation, or compensation that's insufficient for the retrenched worker to survive for any prolonged length of time. These cannot be argued against, 'cos this is an employer's responsibility. Btw, all the above coem from real-life examples in our local newspapers, and are not figments of my imagination.
There have been firms who discontinue expectant mothers for unacceptable reasons and i resent such acts. They are biased and unfeeling. On the other hand, the senior management has to decide productivity on an equal basis. They should not compare pregnant women differently from normal women in their company. In this regard, i believe more can be done to improve the suffrage of working women. Compensation should not be considered as an option, especially after lost of job.
I do not see how bilingualism comes into this picture?
In any case, most of the complaints you get are not from expectant mothers. What you get are the usual: pay too low, so little leave, medical benefits suck, company makes me pay pay pay...etc
We can address those with greater implications separately because they represent a valid view and fundamental human right. But most of the time, the complaints don't reflect this. [/b]
Confucian?What bleeding Confucianism?
The last time Confucianism was a way of government in China, she turned her back on the world due to the ill-advised and superstitious acts of the court mandarins in the Ming Dynasty. -
Brave talk. When faced with that situation, many who sprout intense courage suddenly develop shaky ankles and turn meek. You could push them over with little more than a baby finger.Originally posted by LazerLordz:If you have to fear for your career and your way of life to speak your mind, then I'd say leave the fecking island..
I'd say let them respond when the time comes. The brave answer may not necessarily be the right one. It's up to you to choose. If you have the courage of your convictions, then make the brave choice.
50 years later people may respect you for your decision to speak up, after you have your pants sued and your life in tatters and roam the streets selling your life story.
I prefer to raise my protests in moderation, offering an unbiased view while toeing the line. As long as it generates interest people will invariably talk about it. That is enough to get big brother's attention sooner or later.
People look at men like Chee Soon Juan and admire him for his bravery. But i prefer to respect others like Catherine Lim who hit the crux of the matter without betraying their hostility. -
GMS, where are you???
-
Dear Pikemaster,
I am here, just reading. A bit busy to put up posting right now.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by pikamaster:GMS, where are you??? -
Chee Soon Juan = someone who picks up the 5 dollar note on the groundOriginally posted by BillyBong:People look at men like Chee Soon Juan and admire him for his bravery. But i prefer to respect others like Catherine Lim who hit the crux of the matter without betraying their hostility.
Catherine Lim = someone who just says, "I wish that 5 dollar note is mine"
There are more and more people who are aware, but sadly, the real action men and women are way too little. Most are just dreaming of the 5 dollar note... -
Oh,Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Pikemaster,
I am here, just reading. A bit busy to put up posting right now.
Goh Meng Seng
I was waiting for you to answer my last post to you. Been waiting for a few weeks now...
the (patient) pikamaster -
GMS,
for ur benefit, here's the post again:-Originally posted by pikamaster:GMS,
1) Objectivity means to judge things based on all possible and available perspectives.
2) Ya, I agree with what credibility depends on. However, I'll clarify my take: if CiPRI is doing research first and then sharing its results with the political parties concerned, that's ok; if CiPRI is basing its research on the whims and fancies of the political parties, that is it is streamlining its research projects to suit partisan demands, then that is a definite no-no. I think the test for which condition CiPRI is currently in is this research question: Assess fully the political parties in Singapore and their respective policy lines. If CiPRI can do this question without shwoing bias in its analysis for/against any party in Singapore, then it has maintained its credibility.
3) You misunderstand me: "partisan" in my context means "sliding [CiPRI's] research to suit the interests of political parties".
4) Does PERC have much credibility in Singaporeans' eyes?
5) Ya, I'm not unrealistic. Clearly, you need politicians to implement the changes. But instead of turning too much into an activist group, despite the fact that membership is largely activist, why don't you leave the politics to the politicians and focus on research. Let the politicians use the research in whatever way they want, but let none of their interests get in the way of CiPRI's research focus.
6) Neither do I, which is why I believe CiPRI should be kept firmly out of the influence of any political party, especially WP; I noted your statements about having tensions with your WP mates regarding CiPRI's work: do you think perhaps that in the long-term, a future Chief Researcher or perhaps even you yourself might fall victim to these pressures, and in so doing, compromise CiPRI's character? No offence, but this is politics - I think.
I'm not advocating a pro-PAP stance for CiPRI - that would be absolutely nonsense, since it certainly won't add to the amount of knowledge we can get now from government sources. But neither do I wish CiPRI - as a concerned citizen - to adopt a wholly anti-PAP view, as it might be possible that the PAP does still have some good points, despite its obvious weaknesses.
Aft) btw, I actually think that if CiPRI could get government sponsorship, it would be good for it. haha
But I do believe that it should seek to outclass ISEAS, IPS, IDSS and all the other government think-tanks. That would be good for all of us, and might even win the govenrment's favour. And after that, well...
Good Luck!!
the (hopeful) pikamaster -
A better comparison of the two:Originally posted by Cindyfeh:Chee Soon Juan = someone who picks up the 5 dollar note on the ground
Catherine Lim = someone who just says, "I wish that 5 dollar note is mine"
There are more and more people who are aware, but sadly, the real action men and women are way too little. Most are just dreaming of the 5 dollar note...
Chee: One who is 'brave' but lacks the intellectual guile to know how to play poker with the Ruling party.
Catherine Lim: Her articles hit the ruling party dead centre. If one talks abt dreams, she is one who acts on them. Unafraid to deliver a scathing attack on the ruling party, abeit with appropriate language and wit, without the need to get emotional.
As the saying goes, 'wishing will make it so...' -
I agree, but one should also realize that Miss Lim's methods are also more passive and sophisticated. Less-educated folk (no offence to anyone here) will not be able to see through her arguments, and so will not understand. I mean, given that she is allowed to be printed in the ST, it shows that the censors have very naively assumed that she praises the Ruling Party after her incident in 1994.Originally posted by BillyBong:A better comparison of the two:
Chee: One who is 'brave' but lacks the intellectual guile to know how to play poker with the Ruling party.
Catherine Lim: Her articles hit the ruling party dead centre. If one talks abt dreams, she is one who acts on them. Unafraid to deliver a scathing attack on the ruling party, abeit with appropriate language and wit, without the need to get emotional.
As the saying goes, 'wishing will make it so...'
CSJ is much more active, but he is also much less subtle, which makes him incur the MIW's wrath more easily.
SO, both approaches have their good and bad points; I guess we should find somewhere in between: hmmm, is there anything that the MIW in their ivory towers wouldn't understand, but that the common folk would?
the pikamaster -
You're right.Originally posted by BillyBong:Brave talk. When faced with that situation, many who sprout intense courage suddenly develop shaky ankles and turn meek. You could push them over with little more than a baby finger.
I'd say let them respond when the time comes. The brave answer may not necessarily be the right one. It's up to you to choose. If you have the courage of your convictions, then make the brave choice.
50 years later people may respect you for your decision to speak up, after you have your pants sued and your life in tatters and roam the streets selling your life story.
I prefer to raise my protests in moderation, offering an unbiased view while toeing the line. As long as it generates interest people will invariably talk about it. That is enough to get big brother's attention sooner or later.
People look at men like Chee Soon Juan and admire him for his bravery. But i prefer to respect others like Catherine Lim who hit the crux of the matter without betraying their hostility.
Will the ah sohs understand what CL says?But I like the way the censors were toyed because they could not figure out what she was exactly pointing at..