Who Are these People, who Begs for Nanny-ism?
-
Is it time for us to grow up?
Yes, say some: Enough of calling for Government to act every time we're offended
By Leong Ching
November 18, 2007
SMOKING kills; so ban cigarettes.
Sex corrupts; so ban bikini pictures, and ban that computer game too.
Cybergames are addictive, so the Government should pass a law...
If there is any doubt that Singapore remains a largely conservative society, all you have to do is read the forum pages of newspapers, or man the feedback telephone lines at the various ministries.
Ultimately, the message is the same: The Government should step in, stop that, enact a law.
Call them the nanny-addicts.
An MP's nephew got hooked on cybergames so she quizzed three Ministers in Parliament on what the Government was doing about it.
The Media Development Authority banned Mass Effect, a futuristic space adventure game, because of complaints over a scene between a woman and a female alien.
But it reversed the ban yesterday and allowed it to be released under an M18 rating.
A man becomes obsessed with a car and ogles at the sexy models parading in car shows, and his friend blames it on newspapers which publish bikini-clad pictures of women at car shows.
This was what a reader wrote in response to a report on the car show in The New Paper.
In an effervescent metropolis like Singapore, sex, alcohol and gambling are openly available. But we're also conservative in many ways.
Censorship standards are strict, and strictly enforced. Nudity is banished to small and dingy cinema halls for Ah Peks in their slippers.
As the recent debate over the 377Alaw shows, the majority of people still see the Government as a bastion of morals.
We have grown economically, but have we matured enough to take responsibility for our own lives? Can we ever be rid of this nanny dependency and start thinking for ourselves?
Political watcher Viswa Sadasivan thinks so. But he puts it delicately: 'We can afford to have greater confidence in the way we raise our young with values that we deem important.
'This is especially relevant and vital in the world we live in today, where the limits to exposure are shrinking.'
He added that what is instilled in the young ' is the most effective inoculation against the avalanche of undesirable ideas and images that we must assume will come their way'.
As a media practitioner and observer, does he think that Singapore's media is too 'liberal' in the way it portrays women?
He scoffed: 'We must have a warped sense of reality if we describe our media as 'liberal'. For me, it is prudent, at best.'
MODERN MEDIA
The media cannot censor itself strictly to avoid offending those who fear such moral decay.
Clearly, it has chosen to adopt accepted practices of modern, cosmopolitan cities, over the rules of a Taleban or Amish community.
There are also signs that Singaporeans are sometimes content to let the free market decide what society wants.
Take bar-top dancing. As MP Charles Chong pointed out, a senior politician had fretted that allowing it would lead to 'conflicts, fights and murders'. But it has been allowed since 2003, and 'the world has not come to an end yet,' he said.
By last year, it had faded to a whimper.
So too French cabaret Crazy Horse, which featured topless dancers. It opened in 2005 with a $7 million budget. Two years later, it keeled over, a victim of poor attendance and takings.
So, it was the free market, not the nanny, who laid these events to rest. Instead of laws and regulations, not why let people vote with their wallets and feet?
For some, it would be because the free market does not recognise moral standards.
Holland-Bukit Timah GRC MP Christopher de Souza, 31, a lawyer, had called on the Government to ensure that the upcoming integrated resorts would not sell risque entertainment.
In a small country like Singapore, 'moral corruption' would spread fast, he argued.
Still, there are others who want to push the boundaries.
For NMP Siew Kum Hong, who led the emotionally-charged debate to repeal Section 377A which criminalises sex between men, Singapore is slowly moving away from being a 'nanny nation'.
'I would say we are moving in the right direction, away from being a 'nanny state', but at a slower pace than I would like to see.'
He said: 'When the Government consistently tells or directs people how to act, it is only predictable that people will have a reduced sense of ownership over their own problems or issues.'
Staying with nanny is obviously not a good thing, he said.
'In today's world, the Government cannot do everything. People need to take greater ownership of and responsibility for their own lives,' hesaid.
Is it time to grow out of the nanny nation? -
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
You are right. The list of nannying (knee jerk reactive government) taking shortcuts to avoid solving real problems goes on...
[b]Is it time for us to grow up?
Yes, say some: Enough of calling for Government to act every time we're offended
By Leong Ching
November 18, 2007
SMOKING kills; so ban cigarettes.
Sex corrupts; so ban bikini pictures, and ban that computer game too.
Cybergames are addictive, so the Government should pass a law...
More examples can be given below:-
(1) To avoid welfare, increase taxes and recover all costs keeping taxes as surpluses and boast success with such surpluses and pay ministers higher salaries and bonuses and life pensions.
(2) Cannot find local talents get foreign talents.
(3) To attracts talents to join politics increase ministers' or own pays and rewards.
(4) Chewing gum sticks on and mars the floor so ban chewing gum,
(5) To prevent lawlessness stop freedoms or free speeches stop the press to publish as they like and ban assemblies of people.
(6) Failing to restructure the economy, build IR and blame the problems on people.
(7) Failing to honor promised solutions to road congestion problem increase taxes and increase ERP.
(
Windows falls from poorly designed HDB flats fine or jail occupiers.
(9) To avoid answering to illegal immigrants make the landlords do the police job of catching them.
(10) To avoid answering to terrorism, make the security guards and agencies answer examinations questions to make themselves look good.
(11) To stop more arguments with oppositions, check or fix them or deprive Potong Pasir or Hougang voters of upgrading.
(12) Failing to make democracy successful or avoid problems in answering to democratic checks and balances blame problems on democracy.If there is any doubt that Singapore remains a largely conservative society, all you have to do is read the forum pages of newspapers, or man the feedback telephone lines at the various ministries.
These are the reactive type (as opposed to "Proactive") who view government as elected to control and punish people and because of their own lack of creativity or imagination they have today encouraged and brought about a government which only knows how to government by controls and punishments and nothing else.
Ultimately, the message is the same: The Government should step in, stop that, enact a law.
Call them the nanny-addicts.
An MP's nephew got hooked on cybergames so she quizzed three Ministers in Parliament on what the Government was doing about it.
The Media Development Authority banned Mass Effect, a futuristic space adventure game, because of complaints over a scene between a woman and a female alien.
But it reversed the ban yesterday and allowed it to be released under an M18 rating.
A man becomes obsessed with a car and ogles at the sexy models parading in car shows, and his friend blames it on newspapers which publish bikini-clad pictures of women at car shows.
This was what a reader wrote in response to a report on the car show in The New Paper.
In an effervescent metropolis like Singapore, sex, alcohol and gambling are openly available. But we're also conservative in many ways.
Censorship standards are strict, and strictly enforced. Nudity is banished to small and dingy cinema halls for Ah Peks in their slippers.
As the recent debate over the 377Alaw shows, the majority of people still see the Government as a bastion of morals.
We have grown economically, but have we matured enough to take responsibility for our own lives? Can we ever be rid of this nanny dependency and start thinking for ourselves?
Political watcher Viswa Sadasivan thinks so. But he puts it delicately: 'We can afford to have greater confidence in the way we raise our young with values that we deem important.
'This is especially relevant and vital in the world we live in today, where the limits to exposure are shrinking.'
He added that what is instilled in the young ' is the most effective inoculation against the avalanche of undesirable ideas and images that we must assume will come their way'.
As a media practitioner and observer, does he think that Singapore's media is too 'liberal' in the way it portrays women?
He scoffed: 'We must have a warped sense of reality if we describe our media as 'liberal'. For me, it is prudent, at best.'
The government ended up either punishing the wrong people, or becoming more and more suppressive and oppressive refusing to go for real solutions to tackle root causes of problems.
Just go through the list of nannying and see how many of these solutions are tackling the root causes of problems.
MODERN MEDIA
The media cannot censor itself strictly to avoid offending those who fear such moral decay.
Clearly, it has chosen to adopt accepted practices of modern, cosmopolitan cities, over the rules of a Taleban or Amish community.
There are also signs that Singaporeans are sometimes content to let the free market decide what society wants.
Take bar-top dancing. As MP Charles Chong pointed out, a senior politician had fretted that allowing it would lead to 'conflicts, fights and murders'. But it has been allowed since 2003, and 'the world has not come to an end yet,' he said.
By last year, it had faded to a whimper.
So too French cabaret Crazy Horse, which featured topless dancers. It opened in 2005 with a $7 million budget. Two years later, it keeled over, a victim of poor attendance and takings.
So, it was the free market, not the nanny, who laid these events to rest. Instead of laws and regulations, not why let people vote with their wallets and feet?
For some, it would be because the free market does not recognise moral standards.
Holland-Bukit Timah GRC MP Christopher de Souza, 31, a lawyer, had called on the Government to ensure that the upcoming integrated resorts would not sell risque entertainment.
In a small country like Singapore, 'moral corruption' would spread fast, he argued.
Still, there are others who want to push the boundaries.
For NMP Siew Kum Hong, who led the emotionally-charged debate to repeal Section 377A which criminalises sex between men, Singapore is slowly moving away from being a 'nanny nation'.
'I would say we are moving in the right direction, away from being a 'nanny state', but at a slower pace than I would like to see.'
He said: 'When the Government consistently tells or directs people how to act, it is only predictable that people will have a reduced sense of ownership over their own problems or issues.'
Staying with nanny is obviously not a good thing, he said.
'In today's world, the Government cannot do everything. People need to take greater ownership of and responsibility for their own lives,' hesaid.
Is it time to grow out of the nanny nation?
[/b][/quote] -
It never ceases to amaze me how folks can live with such fallacies that are effectively double-edge swords.
Perhaps, the fascist regime should first take the initiative to steer clear of welfarism by first halting its exploitation of those they rule through the shameless profiteering from national scams (in the name of helping an individual save for retirement
) and the curtailing of fundamental freedoms (it says a lot when you need a permit to travel, assemble, speak in public and protest 
).
After all, domesticated animals are - as studies have shown - pretty much devoid of the very survival instincts its counterparts living in the wild depend on. How realistic (if it is even possible) is it then for one to school domesticated animals in the art of self-reliance?
After all, as George Orwell so aptly documents it in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". -
Stephen R. Covey:Originally posted by walesa:It never ceases to amaze me how folks can live with such fallacies that are effectively double-edge swords.
Perhaps, the fascist regime should first take the initiative to steer clear of welfarism by first halting its exploitation of those they rule through the shameless profiteering from national scams (in the name of helping an individual save for retirement ) and the curtailing of fundamental freedoms (it says a lot when you need a permit to travel, assemble, speak in public and protest ).
After all, domesticated animals are - as studies have shown - pretty much devoid of the very survival instincts its counterparts living in the wild depend on. How realistic (if it is even possible) is it then for one to school domesticated animals in the art of self-reliance?
After all, as George Orwell so aptly documents it in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
Animals behave thus: Stimuli = > (Instincts) => Response
Human Being behave thus: Stimuli => Freedoms of Choose (Self-awareness, Independent Will, Imagination, Conscience) => Response.
By the way the government has been governing this country to date, it looks like they are governing like the first method - instinctive - while people are asking them to govern by the second - freedom of choice.
A government which has deviated or departed from adopting a humane governing philosophy will continue to govern unthinkingly with instinctive self-protectionism of its own gains and advantage very much like a lion who will continue to kill to maul and protect his own territories by whatever power and advantages he could command. -
Compulsory Annuity.
You have people that support this coz they don't have the guts to take responsibility with their lives.
TheGoodEarth wants this implemented to ensure he won't get cheated by china women when he is an old man, because the Govt ensures he don't have the money to get cheated thru the annuity. -
Proponents of a nanny state are people who are unable to take control of their lives.
Or they have a stake in ensuring that this control exists. -
All I have to say is dis, TS:
We Sow what THEY Reaped.
kllbccb lkyks! -
The CEOs and management in any private incorporated enterprises are engaged to make monies for the stakeholders. Nowadays the government has been transformed into an incorporated enterprise which is no longer concerned with social problems or issues or welfare or wellbeing of people so its job scope has changed.Originally posted by reddressman:All I have to say is dis, TS:
We Sow what THEY Reaped.
kllbccb lkyks!
We the citizens should not regard our government as provider of services or guardians. Instead we should treat them like the CEOs whose job is to create wealths for us citizens for every dollar of our monies and taxes so that our taxes and surpluses will be multiplied to give us returns.
Let us see to it that these government CEOs are treated in the same way as in private sector to meet our expected KPI and profits targets and business deadlines failing which we just have to hold meetings or AGMs somewhere once a year to sack them.
First let us ask them for a published annual reports like the public listed companies to show whether the targeted profits or yields are met and our assets and surpluses have increased in values per citizens or per dollar in the surpluses.
It is time to tell our government CEOs we the citizens will not create wealth for them - they have to create wealths and yields or returns on accounts for us. -
It's happening in other places too, parents are pushing their responsibilities to schools, the state, everyone other than themselves.
-
It is true that school principals are now upgraded to CEO with salaries increased to $15,000.00 pm. The principals are getting extra assistants to look after administration and maintenance and upkeep of the schools who are also well paid.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:It's happening in other places too, parents are pushing their responsibilities to schools, the state, everyone other than themselves.
The normal teachers who are longer in service are paid $8,000.00 pm to keep up with ministers' own pay increases. So the public sector is quite well remunerated and looked after while the ordinary employees in the private sector keep seeing their wages dropping year after year due to recessions etc from which the private sector has yet to recover.
So if government cannot lower its costs we can understand why. Taxpayers' monies are there for the spending so just spend them. Where is the problem? Talking about calling on people to sacrifice for the nation, this is what we will be getting eventually - spending taxpayers' monies and increasing GST and making more profits seems to be the governing philosophy rather than trying to get us value for monies or passing savings back to help the lower income earners to lower their costs of living.
So under such circumstance it is not very wrong for parents to demand the highly paid school Principals and teachers to do a good job and answer for any lack of professionalism or effectiveness in education of children. -
You're twisting logic for your own means. That is not an excuse for off-loading parental responsibilities. Parents should the ones forming their children's morals and values, and schooling only reinforces them.Originally posted by robertteh:It is true that school principals are now upgraded to CEO with salaries increased to $15,000.00 pm. The normal teachers who are longer in service are paid $8,000.00 pm to keep up with ministers' own pay increases. So the public sector is quite well remunerated and looked after while the ordinary employees in the private sector keep seeing their wages dropping year after year due to recessions etc from which the private sector has yet to recover.
So under such circumstance it is not very wrong for parents to demand the highly paid school Principals and teachers to do a good job and answer for any lack of professionalism or effectiveness in education of children. -
No he isn't exactly twisting it.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:You're twisting logic for your own means. That is not an excuse for off-loading parental responsibilities. Parents should the ones forming their children's morals and values, and schooling only reinforces them.
In a sense, if you are staying in a 5 or 6 star hotel, you would expect 5 or 6 star service that will take care of your every needs.
A school is a place for education. And if you pay 5 star or 6 star fees to the school, you expect the 5 star or 6 star standards of service, which means they should ensure the children's morals and values are well taken care of.
I am not saying its an appropriate excuse for irresponsible parents. I am just saying that this could be an influence to how some of today's parents think.
And with those in the private sector being squeezed so hard and milk out their output, it becomes very tempting to just offload their responsibilities to the school, where these people are paid so well. -
But we still agree that it's wrong and that institutions of learning should not be treated as such, eh?Originally posted by soul_rage:No he isn't exactly twisting it.
In a sense, if you are staying in a 5 or 6 star hotel, you would expect 5 or 6 star service that will take care of your every needs.
A school is a place for education. And if you pay 5 star or 6 star fees to the school, you expect the 5 star or 6 star standards of service, which means they should ensure the children's morals and values are well taken care of.
I am not saying its an appropriate excuse for irresponsible parents. I am just saying that this could be an influence to how some of today's parents think.
And with those in the private sector being squeezed so hard and milk out their output, it becomes very tempting to just offload their responsibilities to the school, where these people are paid so well. -
My logic actually is quite simple. If we pay someone to do a job, that someone should be made responsible to do it efficiently and effectively and let us not quickly give them excuses such as by blaming any poor performance on parents or the customers or the pupils themselves.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:You're twisting logic for your own means. That is not an excuse for off-loading parental responsibilities. Parents should the ones forming their children's morals and values, and schooling only reinforces them.
Our management excellence as a society cannot grow if we continue to give excuses after excuses to protect those who are paid to do a job by accepting whatever they say and blame any poor performance on people or customers.
We need to establish a strong fundamental principle he who is paid a wage to do something must fulfill his roles duties and responsibility and will not be easily excused for any shortcomings or poor performance. -
How would you define:
"do a good job and answer for any lack of professionalism or effectiveness in education of children." -
I'll put it very succinctly to you - I strongly suspect that if you were in the USA or GB you'd be one of those twerps who'd sue the school if their kids fail a test, trip during recess or become delinquent rather than kick themselves for not doing their part.Originally posted by robertteh:My logic actually is quite simple. If we pay someone to do a job, that someone should be made responsible to do it efficiently and effectively and let us not quickly give them excuses such as by blaming any poor performance on parents or the customers or the pupils themselves.
Our management excellence as a society cannot grow if we continue to give excuses after excuses to protect those who are paid to do a job by accepting whatever they say and blame any poor performance on people or customers.
We need to establish a strong fundamental principle he who is paid a wage to do something must fulfill his roles duties and responsibility and will not be easily excused for any shortcomings or poor performance.
Doing their part. Get it? -
Originally posted by kramnave:
Before going into the nitty gritty it will be wise to examine the fundamentals first.
How would you define:
[b]"do a good job and answer for any lack of professionalism or effectiveness in education of children."[/b]
Our system so far seems to be one of promoting rewards to attract talents etc in various services without correspondingly establishing responsibility, KPI and accountability for any failures or poor performance.
Without establishing fundamental principles such as these and we start giving all our views about who cause what problems and who should be responsible for non-performance or poor performance in any situation we are unlikely to become excellent.
The quickest way out of any situation in our culture it seems is to deny problem and blame it on the people or the customers themselves.
Why can't those who are paid and paid well to do a job do the job and answer for any failures or poor performance.
Is it that difficult to take care of measurements of performance or professionalism if someone has been paid to do the job? It is a matter of being proactive, conscientious, positive, willingness to shoulder responsibility, commitments, values, morality and EQ as well not just denying problems, giving justifications to glorify oneself from the position of power or throwing back of the problems to the people or the customers. -
Theres always two sides to the story, even though you may pay me well and expect me to do a better job, i cannot do it if there are variables not within my control. So how would you define "do a good job and answer for any lack of professionalism or effectiveness in education of children." ?Originally posted by robertteh:Before going into the nitty gritty it will be wise to examine the fundamentals first.
Our system so far seems to be one of promoting rewards to attract talents etc in various services without correspondingly establishing responsibility, KPI and accountability for any failures or poor performance.
Without establishing fundamental principles such as these and we start giving all our views about who cause what problems and who should be responsible for non-performance or poor performance in any situation we are unlikely to become excellent.
The quickest way out of any situation in our culture it seems is to deny problem and blame it on the people or the customers themselves.
Why can't those who are paid and paid well to do a job do the job and answer for any failures or poor performance.
Is it that difficult to take care of measurements of performance or professionalism if someone has been paid to do the job? It is a matter of being proative, willingness to shoulder responsibility, commitments, values, morality and EQ as well not just denying problems, giving justifications to glorify oneself from the position of power or throwing back of the problems to the people or the customers. -
I suppose in the like manner, you are also not in favor of making the principal in this case answerable for any poor performance or results and will accept readily his or her reasons for any shortcomings.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:I'll put it very succinctly to you - I strongly suspect that if you were in the USA or GB you'd be one of those twerps who'd sue the school if their kids fail a test, trip during recess or become delinquent rather than kick themselves for not doing their part.
Doing their part. Get it? -
Actually many of societies' 'Problems' will solve itself without the government's intervention, its not needed, maybe its part of the government's plan to increase the people's reliance on the government so that it can stay in power.
The only way to grow out of a nanny nation is to limit the powers of the government, simple as that. No point saying we need to take more responsibility for our lives when the government keeps on pushing compulsory annuities scheme or 'social safety net schemes' for that matter in the end we'll still end up in the same place -
Originally posted by kramnave:
Yes, there are always two sides to a story. Which side is in greater need for a revamp now in our society?
Theres always two sides to the story, even though you may pay me well and expect me to do a better job, i cannot do it if there are variables not within my control. So how would you define [b]"do a good job and answer for any lack of professionalism or effectiveness in education of children." ?[/b]
Is it a case of people being more demanding and fussy in which event the solution it general education or blaming everyone without solving problems more proactively and positively or is it a case of lack of accountability on the part of those in charge due to lack of management excellence or EQ. -
No, not before asking the parents for their excuses too. I'm just not as quick to jump to conclusions, unlike you. You appear to have some trouble understanding that it's a collaborative effort - only Dr. House might be able to help you.Originally posted by robertteh:I suppose in the like manner, you are also not in favor of making the principal in this case answerable for any poor performance or results and will accept readily his or her reasons for any shortcomings. -
Let's not get personal.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:No, not before asking the parents for their excuses too. I'm just not as quick to jump to conclusions, unlike you. You appear to have some trouble understanding that it's a collaborative effort - only Dr. House might be able to help you. -
Yes it is personal - you are the problem.Originally posted by robertteh:Let's not get personal. -
Yeah but we are going nowhere with your general overview on things and statements like "do a good job and answer for any lack of professionalism or effectiveness in education of children."Originally posted by robertteh:Yes, there are always two sides to a story. Which side is in greater need for a revamp now in our society?
Is it a case of people being more demanding and fussy in which event the solution it general education or blaming everyone without solving problems more proactively and positively or is it a case of lack of accountability on the part of those in charge due to lack of management excellence or EQ.
What exactly do you expect from educators ? How do you define lack of professionalism and effectiveness ?