Naval accidents - Japan Defense Minister & Navy Chief sacked
-
yah although i dont see the need to sack him, he can still resign if he wants to...to smother the anger...
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
thank you for the chinese quote as it is very relevant to our topic.
it is unfortunate that there are very little information available to the public on the ISD management structure as well as their line of procedures thus the MSK issue is very difficult to assess. But jus for my 2 cents worth, although the escape of MSK has a unmeasurable effect on our security, it was all but the mistake of the frontline officers as well as the misjudgement of the supreintendant. I cant see why WKS as minister of MHA (consisting of so many agencies) should be taken to task over mistakes made in escort and in the feature of the prison structure.
Sacking WKS is like sacking the head of NTUC when one of the supermarket went on fire just because one staff was smoking in the room and the fire alarm system is faulty.
The MSK issue is sketchy so thats just my gut take but on the Courageous issue, i hope u guys understand that the CNV and the Minister of defence got nothing to do with the accident.
In that case, maybe you can consider employing me to be a Minister, I will just play golf everyday, do yachting, play tennis and go shopping. If something happens to any department, it will never ever be my responsibility, because I am not the frontline staff. All responsibility can always be pushed to the frontline staff. If the procurement department officer decides to be corrupt and orders inferior holster for their pistol, ends up with a police officer losing his pistol.Am I to be blamed? No, because I am not the person in charge of procurement.
If a chief of police decides to take a bribe, it's not my problem, because I wasn't checking up on him. I was busy playing golf. It's also not my problem because I wasn't the one taking the bribe.
Essentially anything that happens to any department or junior officers won't be my problem, because I am not directly linked to the event.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
yah although i dont see the need to sack him, he can still resign if he wants to...to smother the anger...
I think it's about integrity, which is seriously lacking in this administration.Do you think Saddam Hussein (if he was alive) or Kim Jong-il will sack his close relative if the relative did something wrong?
In an authoritarian regime, it's all about relationships, each covering each other's behind.
Japan, USA, UK, have we not heard the resignation of Mayors or Ministers if certain scandal occurred.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
the millions paid to them is of another issue...even if they are paid 2 dollars, the mistakes done in the Courageous issue is clearly unavoidable at their level.very importantly i think pple should take the blame for issues within their immediate responsibilities and reachable power not according onli and importantly to the amount of money they earn.
using your logic, CID Chief and his team should be the one paid millions since they are directly responsible for the numerous crimes solved within their job scope, not the Home Affairs Minister
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
In that case, maybe you can consider employing me to be a Minister, I will just play golf everyday, do yachting, play tennis and go shopping. If something happens to any department, it will never ever be my responsibility, because I am not the frontline staff. All responsibility can always be pushed to the frontline staff. If the procurement department officer decides to be corrupt and orders inferior holster for their pistol, ends up with a police officer losing his pistol.Am I to be blamed? No, because I am not the person in charge of procurement.
If a chief of police decides to take a bribe, it's not my problem, because I wasn't checking up on him. I was busy playing golf. It's also not my problem because I wasn't the one taking the bribe.
Essentially anything that happens to any department or junior officers won't be my problem, because I am not directly linked to the event.
A corruption-less system is the fundamental principle to the governence of Singapore. Cracking down on corruption in the ministry as pointed out to you is the immediate responsibility of the minister. He should taken to task if no effective actions are taken to clamp down on corruption to the extent that corruption is a problem.
The minister is incharge of the overall direction of the ministry. If He is to be held responsible over the escort of MSK, the proper make up of the WRD facility to the extent of which toilet bowl is working or not, then there is no need for cleaners, operatives, superintendent, director of ISD etc because it is better for him to do all himself because in your opinion all blame goes to him.
Should you as the boss of a taxi company be tried in court for a reckless mistake your employee (taxi driver) made on the road?
I have said enough on this issue and it seems like i cant convince you neither can you convince me. There are many school of thoughts around in many fields. They are meant not to buy over each other but to enrich the subject of discussion so..its a good thing.
Good day to you guys.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
using your logic, CID Chief and his team should be the one paid millions since they are directly responsible for the numerous crimes solved within their job scope, not the Home Affairs Minister
I agree totally. Someone said 上æ¢�ä¸�æ£ä¸‹æ¢�æª, i wish to add, knlbccb!ahahahaha
-
foxtrout8, i understand what u are driving at, and in fact, i was advocating it the other day too, that the bottom fucked up, y the top must kena..
but what we must know is that, it is essential is that the rules and guidelines set by the top must be COMPLETELY perfect.. so that eg. MSK will not escape, ships will not collide..
and if the rules and guidelines are not perfect, and mishaps happen, then everybody from the top to the bottom MUST somehow kena, because the top overlooked it, and the bottom failed to report/highlight it.. to say that he is not to be blamed at all will be outrageous..
until the rules and guidelines are perfect, the top cannot play golf, slack, do yachting, play tennis and go shopping.. and that includes u mau13 lol..
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
A corruption-less system is the fundamental principle to the governence of Singapore. Cracking down on corruption in the ministry as pointed out to you is the immediate responsibility of the minister. He should taken to task if no effective actions are taken to clamp down on corruption to the extent that corruption is a problem.
The minister is incharge of the overall direction of the ministry. If He is to be held responsible over the escort of MSK, the proper make up of the WRD facility to the extent of which toilet bowl is working or not, then there is no need for cleaners, operatives, superintendent, director of ISD etc because it is better for him to do all himself because in your opinion all blame goes to him.
Should you as the boss of a taxi company be tried in court for a reckless mistake your employee (taxi driver) made on the road?
I have said enough on this issue and it seems like i cant convince you neither can you convince me. There are many school of thoughts around in many fields. They are meant not to buy over each other but to enrich the subject of discussion so..its a good thing.
Good day to you guys.
But he not directly involved in the corruption wor. How would he know if his junior staff are corrupt? He is busy playing golf everyday. Funny when you say that he is not responsible for the overall working of the Ministry but he is responsible for corruption. I thought the responsibility of corruption is with the CPIB?
You sure you know the job scope of the Ministers?A Minister will have to make his rounds to all departments under his control, you mean for all those 10-20 years, he has never detected the lapse in security in ISD?
Answer this question please. If an investment manager delegates work to his junior to sell all the shares of a certain company, if the junior is negligent and didn't conclude the sale, which resulted in a loss of $200 millions. Whose responsibility is it? The responsibility of the $2,000 / mth junior or the manager being paid $2 million a year.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Answer this question please. If an investment manager delegates work to his junior to sell all the shares of a certain company, if the junior is negligent and didn't conclude the sale, which resulted in a loss of $200 millions. Whose responsibility is it? The responsibility of the $2,000 / mth junior or the manager being paid $2 million a year.
You failed to realize one critical error in the analogy you posted. Whether the junior's salary is S$2000, or US$100,000/mth or RMB$600/mth, was he QUALIFIED for the post?
1. If he was, thus he was entrusted with the millions to get the job right as is his job scope and responsibility. He then is accountable solely for the loss.
2. If he was not, just a clerk, then that responsibility lies with the manager. The manager oughtta be kicked out.
The keyword is - QUALIFICATION. It is only thru qualifications can one be entrusted to a position that entails specific duties. It had been the hallmark of our government of putting only qualified people for the job so as not to waste taxpayers money, and not just some Tom, dick and harry from the streets- simply to get the job done.
So much so till the People are complaining of Qualified FTs taking over our jobs. Now the govt is in a tight spot - Support unqualified local personal ahead and they get blame. Support qualified outsiders, they get blamed. Their solution now is to adopt flexible education style - selection of courses and upgrading of courses that best suit market opportunities in the next few years to help our locals.
Would you yourself hire a primary school educated man without even successful track management records to manage your financial wealth portfolios?
Would you put a taxi driver incharge of a ship if he was not trained for the job?
Most people are hire because they had been qualified for the job, and thus solely responsible for it. They cannot shirk that responsibility by pushing it upwards if management had already approved their appointments, not by fortune telling, but by paper qualifications.
Now that i had answer this on behalf of others, mau, perhaps you can answer to my simple query:-
Who should take the blame if a son commits murder, he or his father/mother/both in the name of accountability? Do understand your answer will reflect the kind of society you want and want others to live in.
-
Originally posted by Point_blank:
You failed to realize one critical error in the analogy you posted. Whether the junior's salary is S$2000, or US$100,000/mth or RMB$600/mth, was he QUALIFIED for the post?
1. If he was, thus he was entrusted with the millions to get the job right as is his job scope and responsibility. He then is accountable solely for the loss.
2. If he was not, just a clerk, then that responsibility lies with the manager. The manager oughtta be kicked out.
The keyword is - QUALIFICATION. It is only thru qualifications can one be entrusted to a position that entails specific duties. It had been the hallmark of our government of putting only qualified people for the job so as not to waste taxpayers money, and not just some Tom, dick and harry from the streets- simply to get the job done.
So much so till the People are complaining of Qualified FTs taking over our jobs. Now the govt is in a tight spot - Support unqualified local personal ahead and they get blame. Support qualified outsiders, they get blamed. Their solution now is to adopt flexible education style - selection of courses and upgrading of courses that best suit market opportunities in the next few years to help our locals.
Would you yourself hire a primary school educated man without even successful track management records to manage your financial wealth portfolios?
Would you put a taxi driver incharge of a ship if he was not trained for the job?
Most people are hire because they had been qualified for the job, and thus solely responsible for it. They cannot shirk that responsibility by pushing it upwards if management had already approved their appointments, not by fortune telling, but by paper qualifications.
Now that i had answer this on behalf of others, mau, perhaps you can answer to my simple query:-
Who should take the blame if a son commits murder, he or his father/mother/both in the name of accountability? Do understand your answer will reflect the kind of society you want and want others to live in.
let's use ur point against u.. if a son commits murder, the son is responsible, BUT the parents are also responsible for the child's actions.. that they failed to bring the child up correctly..and hence they were not qualified, to put it that way..lets use ur analogy, but not to the extent of murder, but just say, teenagers who commit theft.. are the parents not responsible for the actions of the child?
or, what do u think of teenagers who are rowdy on buses and so on? straight away u think parents never teach, correct?
so why issit that below kena, up there nvr kena? dun say full responsibility, dun say sack or what, but totally nothing from him? come on man..
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
let's use ur point against u.. if a son commits murder, the son is responsible, BUT the parents are also responsible for the child's actions.. that they failed to bring the child up correctly..and hence they were not qualified, to put it that way..lets use ur analogy, but not to the extent of murder, but just say, teenagers who commit theft.. are the parents not responsible for the actions of the child?
or, what do u think of teenagers who are rowdy on buses and so on? straight away u think parents never teach, correct?
so why issit that below kena, up there nvr kena? dun say full responsibility, dun say sack or what, but totally nothing from him? come on man..
Fine, you think that parents are responsible. Rightly so, but does our society now tell the parents to 'resign' or charge them in court? Society can change you know, if that is that the kind of society more of you push for it.
-
Originally posted by Point_blank:
Fine, you think that parents are responsible. Rightly so, but does our society now tell the parents to 'resign' or charge them in court? Society can change you know, if that is that the kind of society more of you push for it.
the society today doesn't tell the parent to 'resign' or charge them in court, but im quite sure if a teenager commits a criminal offence, the parents will kena up down left right by the judge at the least, no?to others, at least will feel that "ok the parents din teach, now kena by the judge, den will teach the child liao, if still never teach, then the judge will really fine the parents" or something along the line..
but if today the kid commits something, and the judge doesn't tell the parents to keep the child in hand, how u expect the child to learn?
and apply that to these kind of incidents.. if the upper ppl dun kena, how can we as citizens be sure that the guy thats supposed to be in charge has learnt and that such things will not happen again?
-
I think it boils down to perimeters of responsibilties. In the case of a son growing up to be a murderer, the law held only the son to be resposible because the son is no longer under the responsibility of the parents. What the son does when he is a grown up is beyond the control of the parents. But then if the son, when he was still young, was left alone at home and he accidentally set the house on fire and killed himself, then the parents are responsible. Well, at least in countries like the US and Hong Kong, parental negligence is a crime, I am not sure about Singapore.
In the case of MSK, his escape was due to several failures or negligence in the system. Who is responsible in ensuring the system is running smoothly and ensuring officers in charge do not neglect their duties? Whose perimeter of responsible is this?
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
the society today doesn't tell the parent to 'resign' or charge them in court, but im quite sure if a teenager commits a criminal offence, the parents will kena up down left right by the judge at the least, no?to others, at least will feel that "ok the parents din teach, now kena by the judge, den will teach the child liao, if still never teach, then the judge will really fine the parents" or something along the line..
but if today the kid commits something, and the judge doesn't tell the parents to keep the child in hand, how u expect the child to learn?
and apply that to these kind of incidents.. if the upper ppl dun kena, how can we as citizens be sure that the guy thats supposed to be in charge has learnt and that such things will not happen again?
So far, there we no cases of parents being 'hanged' for the crimes of sons. Thus our present society still upholds the societal rule of 'each being responsible for his/her own conduct as a rule.
-
ahh Japanese..Symbolic act of the HaraKiri..
-
Originally posted by Kachui:
I think it boils down to perimeters of responsibilties. In the case of a son growing up to be a murderer, the law held only the son to be resposible because the son is no longer under the responsibility of the parents. What the son does when he is a grown up is beyond the control of the parents. But then if the son, when he was still young, was left alone at home and he accidentally set the house on fire and killed himself, then the parents are responsible. Well, at least in countries like the US and Hong Kong, parental negligence is a crime, I am not sure about Singapore.
In the case of MSK, his escape was due to several failures or negligence in the system. Who is responsible in ensuring the system is running smoothly and ensuring officers in charge do not neglect their duties? Whose perimeter of responsible is this?
I agree with you -' it boils to responsiblities'. Thus 2 separate investigations were held. One by CID and another by an Independent Commission headed by respected members of our society and judiciary. Their results were made known, less national security issues, and punishments meted out to those held responsible to assure the public. Are we to dispute further such findings, to move on to secure up the place and intensify the search or continue on with non solving political sideshow upmanship? -
Originally posted by Point_blank:
So far, there we no cases of parents being 'hanged' for the crimes of sons. Thus our present society still upholds the societal rule of 'each being responsible for his/her own conduct as a rule.
not true.. parents will be dragged in in court cases.. eh no time for details now.. going home liao.. -
So if ministers don't need to take up responsibilities, why are they paid so much for?
-
Originally posted by 333225520:
So if ministers don't need to take up responsibilities, why are they paid so much for?
There is no such thing as 'don't need to take up responsibilities'. Their responsibilities are higher, more so the People's expectations of each ministry.If indeed they were found guilty or negligent by our independent commission, they would be sacked or asked to leave. But were they? None. Qualified and entrusted members were at fault. Would you recommend these operators continue in their jobs, getting their salaries, shaking their legs while our ministers get sacked?
-
that's accountability
-
Originally posted by Point_blank:
There is no such thing as 'don't need to take up responsibilities'. Their responsibilities are higher, more so the People's expectations of each ministry.If indeed they were found guilty or negligent by our independent commission, they would be sacked or asked to leave. But were they? None. Qualified and entrusted members were at fault. Would you recommend these operators continue in their jobs, getting their salaries, shaking their legs while our ministers get sacked?
But you said in your first line here, and I quote : "There is no such thing as "don't need to take up responsibilities... "
So how?
2 laws for 2 different groups of people?
You are starting to trip up here.
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
not true.. parents will be dragged in in court cases.. eh no time for details now.. going home liao..
I agree with you that parents will be dragged into the court. Would be absolutely irresponsible if they don't attend. At times even get reprimanded by the judge, espacially for juveniles.But had there been any case of a mother forced to 'resign' - give up her child for adoption, for the crimes of her child, or hanged for drugs sold by her son, young or old?
If this is the kind of society you and others want, it can happen. Laws were meant to be applicable to all, CEO or cleaner. Just follow the seduction clarion's call for 'change'.
-
Originally posted by Point_blank:
I agree with you that parents will be dragged into the court. Would be absolutely irresponsible if they don't attend. At times even get reprimanded by the judge, espacially for juveniles.But had there been any case of a mother forced to 'resign' - give up her child for adoption, for the crimes of her child, or hanged for drugs sold by her son, young or old?
If this is the kind of society you and others want, it can happen. Laws were meant to be applicable to all, CEO or cleaner. Just follow the seduction clarion's call for 'change'.
i say liao, i dunid the guy to resign, i say partial responsibility nia.. pay cut, or heck, even community service, why not.. forced to do something to return to the community..
for the harm and inconvenience such a mishap caused, surely the one in charge must step out and do something to make up for it?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
But you said in your first line here, and I quote : "There is no such thing as "don't need to take up responsibilities... "
So how?
2 laws for 2 different groups of people?
You are starting to trip up here.
Trip up, or you choosed to be selective in your reply? Read this post again, then decide again, otherwise you will be deem as not following the thread.Originally posted by charlize:But you said in your first line here, and I quote : "There is no such thing as "don't need to take up responsibilities... "
So how?
2 laws for 2 different groups of people?
You are starting to trip up here.
You failed to realize one critical error in the analogy you posted. Whether the junior's salary is S$2000, or US$100,000/mth or RMB$600/mth, was he QUALIFIED for the post?
1. If he was, thus he was entrusted with the millions to get the job right as is his job scope and responsibility. He then is accountable solely for the loss.
2. If he was not, just a clerk, then that responsibility lies with the manager. The manager oughtta be kicked out.
The keyword is - QUALIFICATION. It is only thru qualifications can one be entrusted to a position that entails specific duties. It had been the hallmark of our government of putting only qualified people for the job so as not to waste taxpayers money, and not just some Tom, dick and harry from the streets- simply to get the job done.
So much so till the People are complaining of Qualified FTs taking over our jobs. Now the govt is in a tight spot - Support unqualified local personal ahead and they get blame. Support qualified outsiders, they get blamed. Their solution now is to adopt flexible education style - selection of courses and upgrading of courses that best suit market opportunities in the next few years to help our locals.
Would you yourself hire a primary school educated man without even successful track management records to manage your financial wealth portfolios?
Would you put a taxi driver incharge of a ship if he was not trained for the job?
Most people are hire because they had been qualified for the job, and thus solely responsible for it. They cannot shirk that responsibility by pushing it upwards if management had already approved their appointments, not by fortune telling, but by paper qualifications.
Now that i had answer this on behalf of others, mau, perhaps you can answer to my simple query:-
Who should take the blame if a son commits murder, he or his father/mother/both in the name of accountability? Do understand your answer will reflect the kind of society you want and want others to live in.
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
i say liao, i dunid the guy to resign, i say partial responsibility nia.. pay cut, or heck, even community service, why not.. forced to do something to return to the community..
for the harm and inconvenience such a mishap caused, surely the one in charge must step out and do something to make up for it?
He already did. He apologised to the nation on behalf of his men, even though it was not his fault.
Just like a mother of a murderer would apologize to a victim's mother. It may not do anything to bring back the murdered victim, but the fault is acknowledged. Society accepts it. Unless you want to change society.
I understand some will not be satisfied, but for the greater good of society, should not we all moved on pragmatically, find Mas instead of bickering with one another on blamegames or be manipulated by others for political ends?