Prof Lee Wei Ling says Singaporeans are gullible
-
those details about those operations I am not sure. but i agree with her about the donations in huang na's case, damn stupid.
-
sorrie, did iveco hurt your feelings??Originally posted by maxie:stop acting like a kid
-
to get rick quick, just engage a reporter to publicise your story and make your life sounds as pitiful as possible.Originally posted by Ray2:those details about those operations I am not sure. but i agree with her about the donations in huang na's case, damn stupid.
...........TA DA!!!!
next day, all the cheques will come flooding in your mailbox. -
Intelligence comes with maturityOriginally posted by Mr Fugue:to get rick quick, just engage a reporter to publicise your story and make your life sounds as pitiful as possible.
...........TA DA!!!!
next day, all the cheques will come flooding in your mailbox.
With lack of maturity , you are showing signs of poor intelligence -
or is it the other way round....lack of intelligence causing poor maturity?Originally posted by maxie:Intelligence comes with maturity
With lack of maturity , you are showing signs of poor intelligence
-
Haha, but I normally don't donate even before the NKF saga, there are too many people leeching Singaporean's compassion and I did not want to fall into the same trap.
I think this article sends a good message, but i think it will stir up a lot of controversy. Maybe police will come and investigate all the charity donations, or this will further lower the donation rate. -
if you guys want to donate to charity, why not donate to a internationally recognized organization with no connections to anything ? ... an organization that you can be sure will be using the money wisely ... namely the Red Cross ? ...
(okay, i have to confess that i'm a member of the volunteer aid division fo the Singapore Red Cross, but think about it ) -
it's actually a workable (and not to mention, legal) way of getting rich quick.Originally posted by maxie:Intelligence comes with maturity
With lack of maturity , you are showing signs of poor intelligence
what's wrong?? -
to add on:Originally posted by launtpc:Haha, but I normally don't donate even before the NKF saga, there are too many people leeching Singaporean's compassion and I did not want to fall into the same trap.
why should citizens bear the responsibility of taking care of the poor and disabled??
citizens are like children, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the parents (gahmen) to take care of their children? -
.......or maybe it's just a case of sacarsm.Originally posted by SnowFlag:or is it the other way round....lack of intelligence causing poor maturity? -
yesh yesh...Originally posted by crazy monkey:Lee Wei Ling is LKY dotter ?
Dun pway pway ah. She low key in the media, but got a lot of ppl give her face one. This year got one charity dinner. She just opened her mouth, quite a few rich ppl quickly buy tables to support liao. -
*shook head*Originally posted by Honeybunz:yesh yesh...
Dun pway pway ah. She low key in the media, but got a lot of ppl give her face one. This year got one charity dinner. She just opened her mouth, quite a few rich ppl quickly buy tables to support liao. -
How i wish i'm their relativeOriginally posted by Mr Fugue:*shook head* -
Anyone read yesterday's Sunday Times article about the Nepalese twins?
-
Perhaps the main issue here is merely the choice of words.
People are upset that Dr Lee has decided to use the word 'gulliable', which implies naviety on the part of EDUCATED singaporeans, a laughable irony as to how the SG education system has inculcated our masses.
As in the case of Mrs Goh who refered to 600k as 'peanuts', we have another of the ruling elite who is rather frivolous with her choice of words.
No doubt this was all designed to inspire debate among the people. -
tell me, what seriousness are there in PEANUTS??Originally posted by BillyBong:As in the case of Mrs Goh who refered to 600k as 'peanuts', we have another of the ruling elite who is rather frivolous with her choice of words. -
this time she shd keep her mouth shut lah.Originally posted by Honeybunz:yesh yesh...
Dun pway pway ah. She low key in the media, but got a lot of ppl give her face one. This year got one charity dinner. She just opened her mouth, quite a few rich ppl quickly buy tables to support liao. -
I actually agree with her (assuming that her sources are indeed accurate) in the entirety of her letter to ST.Originally posted by BillyBong:Perhaps the main issue here is merely the choice of words.
People are upset that Dr Lee has decided to use the word 'gulliable', which implies naviety on the part of EDUCATED singaporeans, a laughable irony as to how the SG education system has inculcated our masses.
As in the case of Mrs Goh who refered to 600k as 'peanuts', we have another of the ruling elite who is rather frivolous with her choice of words.
No doubt this was all designed to inspire debate among the people.
People can get upset over her choice of words, but i fail to see how else she can put herself across without bruising egos. like what, "singaporeans are a tad too giving..."? this isn't an exercise in group therapy.
this was clearly a letter to send a message, i think it's both well written and effective.
in the case of Mrs Goh, it was an entirely clear cut case of an inequitable valuation over "600,000", which she very loosely termed as "peanuts". certainly, a good 78%(i think? can' remember, read hdb's urban development report few years ago...) or so living in hdb of us wouldn't have agreed with her, seeing that we're mostly still financing our 200-400k apartment. that was an insensitive and pointless comment which has most of us pointing to the single most obvious reason -> it's peanuts to her and not us.
i find it hard to reconcile the fact that anyone would try to link these 2 statements together... one was poorly thought out and pointless whilst the other was well articulated and constructive. -
why so?Originally posted by crazy monkey:this time she shd keep her mouth shut lah. -
There are certainly other ways to express one's opinion.Originally posted by nomood:I actually agree with her (assuming that her sources are indeed accurate) in the entirety of her letter to ST.
People can get upset over her choice of words, but i fail to see how else she can put herself across without bruising egos. like what, "singaporeans are a tad too giving..."? this isn't an exercise in group therapy.
this was clearly a letter to send a message, i think it's both well written and effective.
in the case of Mrs Goh, it was an entirely clear cut case of an inequitable valuation over "600,000", which she very loosely termed as "peanuts". certainly, a good 78%(i think? can' remember, read hdb's urban development report few years ago...) or so living in hdb of us wouldn't have agreed with her, seeing that we're mostly still financing our 200-400k apartment. that was an insensitive and pointless comment which has most of us pointing to the single most obvious reason -> it's peanuts to her and not us.
i find it hard to reconcile the fact that anyone would try to link these 2 statements together... one was poorly thought out and pointless whilst the other was well articulated and constructive.
In her case, 'gulliable' could easily have been avoided as it is clearly used as a provocative term to drive home her blunt message that Singaporeans don't contemplate and are too easily swayed into making a decision.
If she believed that these people were merely here to squeeze us for all that we're worth, why not attack them and their ethics? Why risk alienating herself from the rest of the population by branding singaporeans naive?
Does that do us any good i wonder? Especially after our recent debacle with NKF? -
I dun care abt her
When the sibling in Yishun went to Taiwan and came back, then she say it can be done in SG.. I suspect they might not want to face with failure if the operation is done in SG -
so where is the $70,000 meant for Ganga and Jamuna?
how could Huang Na's mother get pregnant while Huang Na's trials were ongoing? -
i saw somebody said 'Charity is not neuroscience' on last sunday paper...
who's it? -
indirectly telling her to mind her own business......that's a good one!Originally posted by kaobeikaobu:i saw somebody said 'Charity is not neuroscience' on last sunday paper...
who's it? -
true, it could have been avoided, but obviously it is/was *not* her intent.Originally posted by BillyBong:There are certainly other ways to express one's opinion.
In her case, 'gulliable' could easily have been avoided as it is clearly used as a provocative term to drive home her blunt message that Singaporeans don't contemplate and are too easily swayed into making a decision.
If she believed that these people were merely here to squeeze us for all that we're worth, why not attack them and their ethics? Why risk alienating herself from the rest of the population by branding singaporeans naive?
Does that do us any good i wonder? Especially after our recent debacle with NKF?
her intent, in all purposes, was not to attack their ethics either. I personally don't believe in doing so; and had she done that i'd have thought that was silly, since greed is not unusual. it's the way singaporeans are so absolutely undiscerning that she's concerned about. Like sheeps to the slaughter, so as to speak.
so why use the word gullible? because it strikes the nail on the head. i could think of other words and ways of phrasing this, but i wouldn't have done it in any degree of lesser humility (or nonhumility).
why risk alienating herself? to begin with, was she close to us? she's a surgeon, not a politician. at best, one might describe her as socialite. that being the case, she would clearly know better about donations then any of us would. but once again, she didn't demonstrate that either; since donations are clearly personal and the money is sitting in your wallet.
does that do us any good? no. absolutely not. why should it? it's a message, not a charitable act. it's interesting tha tyou mentioned nkf; i hope you're not suggesting that it has done anything to help singaporeans, for i'd say it is a 'case in point' for Prof Lee. Note that after the revelation of the 'golden peanut', everybody simply tightened their purse strings without really questioning why. that's just as guilty as being gullible. and verily much, all the mainstream media within SPH simply stopped short of saying 'singaporeans deserved it'.
I don't know how you read her letter, but simply put, it's a reminder that we should donate to causes that we understand, and not because of hyped up media etf.c.. she simnply spelt out what we already knew but never acted upon. it is in no way a personal attack to singaporeans, i think it's quite shallow to think so otherwise. might be a good idea to start learning how to read things in context instead of ingesting parts that appeals or are easy to understand.