Prof Lee Wei Ling says Singaporeans are gullible
-
It's fair to say that her motive was to chide singaporeans for being naive. But really, the fact she thinks we are too easily conned is really whose fault? And with her ties (no matter how hard she may try to distinguish herself separately) to Lee Senior, who is not going to link the two together, however mistaken that might be?Originally posted by nomood:true, it could have been avoided, but obviously it is/was *not* her intent.
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.
Whenever someone writes, people are bound to interpret their underlying meaning differently. Anyone should be prepared for that, otherwise you don't write. You have evidently read it and understood it in a very benign manner.
Whether or not we read it differently, we both agree on something: that she chose to speak her mind on how the 'sheep followed the sherpard', or so she implied.
Ultimately, does that imply that people who discontinued funding of NKF were equally 'gulliable'? That they simply followed thru on the media's one-side coverage? People donate (or not) out of the goodness of their hearts, not based purely on the 'subtle' media 'propaganda'.
It would be equally 'gulliable' to believe singaporeans cannot make sound judgement on their own after all these years; or if you are led to believe that the media played a bigger role than they actually did. -
Come Come Lai Lai
Listen to the lastest edition of SDP radio:
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org
Got talk a lot of topics ranging from peanuts to .................
PS: Just listen for it as leisure -
As someone pointed out in the written Forum of the Straits Times a few days ago, the amount of money spent on the operations of the Nepalese twins could have been much better spent.
The amount of money for any issues or ideals is always limited.
And why did the Nepalese conntingent in Singapore declined in giving any more money to the twins' family? -
I'm beginning to not quite understand your stand anymore. "the fact that she thinks that we are too easily conned is whose fault?" are you trying to suggest that someone is @ fault here?Originally posted by BillyBong:It's fair to say that her motive was to chide singaporeans for being naive. But really, the fact she thinks we are too easily conned is really whose fault? And with her ties (no matter how hard she may try to distinguish herself separately) to Lee Senior, who is not going to link the two together, however mistaken that might be?
Whenever someone writes, people are bound to interpret their underlying meaning differently. Anyone should be prepared for that, otherwise you don't write. You have evidently read it and understood it in a very benign manner.
Whether or not we read it differently, we both agree on something: that she chose to speak her mind on how the 'sheep followed the sherpard', or so she implied.
Ultimately, does that imply that people who discontinued funding of NKF were equally 'gulliable'? That they simply followed thru on the media's one-side coverage? People donate (or not) out of the goodness of their hearts, not based purely on the 'subtle' media 'propaganda'.
It would be equally 'gulliable' to believe singaporeans cannot make sound judgement on their own after all these years; or if you are led to believe that the media played a bigger role than they actually did.
i read the article for what it was, a message and a reminder. how else would you have read it? a letter from the daughter of SM Lee? certainly not, and certainly not you, since you seem to think that "who is not going to link the two together, however mistaken that might be?"
However, inferring from your point of how she may choose to 'risk alienating herself' by 'branding singaporeans naive', i was merely stating that she dosen't need to do so ('risk alienating herself'). and subsequently, based on the assumption that you have read the letter without prejudice, her choice of words is as good as any others; and needn't be an exercise in public relations, agreed?
yah, i do think that her letter is absolutely benign where the message is concerned. i obviously do not think that she is trying to be malicious; what good does she have to gain from it? perhaps you could point out where the malice in the letter lies? not the choice of words; please. if you want, do think along the lines of me stating that it was an point emphasis and not a malicious statement.
and yes, of course we're in agreement that she spoke her mind. but that is not the crux of the subject. if anything, that has always been my point, and again i'm glad that you agree with it. however, my *main* point is/was that it was a well written letter and a good reminder, disagreeing on your point that 'Perhaps the main issue here is merely the choice of words.' and 'No doubt this was all designed to inspire debate among the people.'
whether singaporeans can make sound judgements is entirely subjective; since each and every individual is different.
However, what she pointed out was that the trend seems to indicate that singaporeans are very careless when it comes to donations, they don't seem to ask why they're doing it; the crescendo of the letter citing huang na's case.
it is my opinion that people who discontinued nkf donations are gullible. it's silly since, it took a t.t durai to question why they're donating. it might be a good idea to have questioned this *before* and not *after*. this debacle started only because nobody actually questioned where the money went, or if they did, never followed through.
like you said, it should be through the goodness of their hearts. but it's quite pointless if your brain isn't an active part of the process, since donation money will never reach those intended to begin with.
as a side note, i apologize if i'm getting out of point for this reply, especially the 2nd bit which i think has deviated quite a bit. You need to include some real names for your metaphors and rhetorics. it's getting very fuzzy as on to what you're trying to say. like, actually conclude what your'e trying to say. make a point or something. -
Originally posted by nomood:
To answer your question as to whose 'fault' it is, i would have to say to some extent, it lies with the govt. But i will not turn this into a political thread. I'll leave you to ponder on this.
I'm beginning to not quite understand your stand anymore. "the fact that she thinks that we are too easily conned is whose fault?" are you trying to suggest that someone is @ fault here?
i read the article for what it was, a message and a reminder. how else would you have read it? a letter from the daughter of SM Lee? certainly not, and certainly not you, since you seem to think that "who is not going to link the two together, however [b]mistaken that might be?"
However, inferring from your point of how she may choose to 'risk alienating herself' by 'branding singaporeans naive', i was merely stating that she dosen't need to do so ('risk alienating herself'). and subsequently, based on the assumption that you have read the letter without prejudice, her choice of words is as good as any others; and needn't be an exercise in public relations, agreed?
yah, i do think that her letter is absolutely benign where the message is concerned. i obviously do not think that she is trying to be malicious; what good does she have to gain from it? perhaps you could point out where the malice in the letter lies? not the choice of words; please. if you want, do think along the lines of me stating that it was an point emphasis and not a malicious statement.
and yes, of course we're in agreement that she spoke her mind. but that is not the crux of the subject. if anything, that has always been my point, and again i'm glad that you agree with it. however, my *main* point is/was that it was a well written letter and a good reminder, disagreeing on your point that 'Perhaps the main issue here is merely the choice of words.' and 'No doubt this was all designed to inspire debate among the people.'
whether singaporeans can make sound judgements is entirely subjective; since each and every individual is different.
However, what she pointed out was that the trend seems to indicate that singaporeans are very careless when it comes to donations, they don't seem to ask why they're doing it; the crescendo of the letter citing huang na's case.
it is my opinion that people who discontinued nkf donations are gullible. it's silly since, it took a t.t durai to question why they're donating. it might be a good idea to have questioned this *before* and not *after*. this debacle started only because nobody actually questioned where the money went, or if they did, never followed through.
like you said, it should be through the goodness of their hearts. but it's quite pointless if your brain isn't an active part of the process, since donation money will never reach those intended to begin with.
as a side note, i apologize if i'm getting out of point for this reply, especially the 2nd bit which i think has deviated quite a bit. You need to include some real names for your metaphors and rhetorics. it's getting very fuzzy as on to what you're trying to say. like, actually conclude what your'e trying to say. make a point or something.[/b]
Back to Dr Lee's comments: my position has always been that she could have used a different word but chose 'gulliable' (carefully measured i'm sure).
By using this term, she whitewashes the sincere and truly compassionate people who donate generously, prefering to label singaporeans on a whole as foolish and naive. With regards to trend analysis, certainly those who discontinued contributions to the NKF can be considered a statistic, since there was ample media influence and coverage of the trial to provoke singaporeans into a predictable response.
What about those who continued donating? Should we label them 'gulliable'? I wonder if we have let one man's greed blind us to the true concept of compassion. If so, then every CEO of SG charity organisations should be defined as mercernary entrepreneurs out to make the big buck at the expense of their patients.
And certainly, people are entitled to their opinions. Dr Lee is always welcome to comment on singaporeans but it is inevitable that writing such a strong letter will definitely invite links to the minister mentor, even if the original intention was to express her feelings as head of neuroscience or as a fellow citizen. I may be slightly prejudiced on this point, but certainly suspicious. However, i accept her letter as stand alone and not politically motivated, and have responded as such.
It is also incorrect to say singaporeans don't do their due diligence before opening their wallets. People have questioned flag day volunteers and inspected (even scrutinised) collection cans to ascertain which organisation they were contributing to. This line of questioning was further publicised in the ST after the NKF outcry, highlighting on the particularly rude manner in which student volunteers were interrogated while collecting donations. Either way, singaporeans do question organisations before make a decision.
It would be unfair to expect singaporeans to ask to a level that includes funds auditing or level of reserves before making any sound judgement.
With regards to Huang Na's case, at this point, has it been proven that the cash collected was indeed used to fund the renovation of the parent's house? Is there an active investigation into this matter? Or are we once again being fed blown-up media reports filled with half-truths trying to influence us? As it is, their neighbours probably said it best: what they do with their money is their business and no one elses. -
To answer your question as to whose 'fault' it is, i would have to say to some extent, it lies with the govt. But i will not turn this into a political thread. I'll leave you to ponder on this.
I don't actually need to know who is at fault here. by claiming that it lays with the govt, you seem to be missing the point entirely. i was more interested in what's your motive in trying to blaming someone? were you trying to make a point here? that's a yes no question... do answer that before justifying it.
side tracking, if i had to ponder on it based on this thread, i'd be quite quick to say that singaporeans are at fault. but that's entirely irrelevant. so let's not go there.
Back to Dr Lee's comments: my position has always been that she could have used a different word but chose 'gulliable' (carefully measured i'm sure).
of course of course.
now, that being the case, are you faulting her for a using an accurate but improper word? are you suggesting that she sugar coats her letters before sending them out to the press? what made you think that it was 'designed to inspire debate', and was not a letter to genuinely chide singaporeans?
By using this term, she whitewashes the sincere and truly compassionate people who donate generously, prefering to label singaporeans on a whole as foolish and naive. With regards to trend analysis, certainly those who discontinued contributions to the NKF can be considered a statistic, since there was ample media influence and coverage of the trial to provoke singaporeans into a predictable response.
ah, a classic case of mistaking how the 'sincere and truly compassionate' cannot be 'foolish and naive'.
but jsut for you, i'd spell it out
i don't see how she whitewashes the sincere and truly compassionate. i'd imagine that even the sincere and truly compassionate feels quite silly about donating to other people's paychecks and not the charity itself. 'sincere and truly compassionate' and 'foolish and naive' are entirely mutually exclusive sets, you can be both at the same time. and i certainly hope you're not suggesting otherwise.
also, wouldn't you agree that this statistic seem to indicate that most singaporeans felt rather bitter about their donations and henced stopped donating? i certainly feel so. if not, what's your point of citing how they can be considered a statistic?
What about those who continued donating? Should we label them 'gulliable'? I wonder if we have let one man's greed blind us to the true concept of compassion.
it's nice to wonder, but what conclusions are you drawing from it? what's your take on it? or have you just started wondering and left things hanging?
also, it'd be nice if you made definitive statements like, 'we should/shouldn't label people who continued donating gullible'. asking questions like these dosen't reflect your position at all. it's what's making replying to you so difficult. it's almost as if you're afraid to commit to a single stand, like you're just waiting for me to make a mistake in my replies.
If so, then every CEO of SG charity organisations should be defined as mercernary entrepreneurs out to make the big buck at the expense of their patients.
why should they be defined mercenary entrepeneurs? because 'we have let one man's greed blinded us ot the true concept of compassion'? how is that relevant?
i'll tell you what's relevant. have you actually checked out how much other ceos of charitable organizations are earning? based on the prevailing trend, i'd dare to say that you haven't. why is it relevant you ask? because you probably reflect most other singaporean apathy when it comes to donations.
see, it's these kindda blind statements & assumptions which are quite frustrating.
It is also incorrect to say singaporeans don't do their due diligence before opening their wallets. People have questioned flag day volunteers and inspected (even scrutinised) collection cans to ascertain which organisation they were contributing to. This line of questioning was further publicised in the ST after the NKF outcry, highlighting on the particularly rude manner in which student volunteers were interrogated while collecting donations. Either way, singaporeans do question organisations before make a decision.
have you actually conducted interviews? wherehence do you obtain the information to make such claims?
here, allow me to speak from having being a flag day volunteer myself. virtually nobody, as in *nobody* have ever asked me *why* or *where* the money is going. perhaps you would like to tell me that all your friends, uncle & aunties, siblings and cousins always asks why? or have you ran around asking people if they do?
but i digress, because 20cts is clearly different from $600,000.
you see, if we were just dealing with facts the nkf saga is as follows
1) t.tdurai, through a series of unfortunate events (hee) got his salary and gold tap exposed.
2) singaporeans feel conned. wonder why they weren't told about his pay.
3) stop donating.
had they done their homework, why would singaporeans feel conned? or do you think that singaporeans didn't feel conned about the salary but only about the NKF reserves?
It would be unfair to expect singaporeans to ask to a level that includes funds auditing or level of reserves before making any sound judgement.
why so? are you suggesting that we cut out the auditing process for charities altogether?
it's a simple matter of simply asking them for their financial statement. FYI, it is *not* uncommon practice. you could strut into NCSS in ulu pandan community centre and they'd have their financial statement color printed in nice 180gsm paper, bounded and ready for you.
or have you never tried doing that before? oh wait, i dare say a vast majority of people who donate to presidents challenge don't have a copy of that, including your said self.
do i make my point clear? it's there, but *people don't bloody ask*. now wait, i know you're tempted to stray into areas entirely irrelevant, such as 'but t.t durai lied about the reserves anyway!!' but perhaps you might be better off answering why singaporeans don't ask before we go there.
With regards to Huang Na's case, at this point, has it been proven that the cash collected was indeed used to fund the renovation of the parent's house? Is there an active investigation into this matter? Or are we once again being fed blown-up media reports filled with half-truths trying to influence us? As it is, their neighbours probably said it best: what they do with their money is their business and no one elses.
this is a classic example of how i fail to see you're making a point here, what with the questions and no conclusions.
HuangNa's case, in the format as above
1) HuangNa murdered. search initiated, huge press generated
2) found. people stream in in droves to start donating money for 'white money'
3) seems like the money isn't accounted for. singaporeans start asking why the final sum is so high, and wonder where all the excess money goes....
my point was, why didnt' they ask before? why is it the final step in the process? it dosne't matter what they used the money for, that is irrelevant. i hope you have understood that by now. what is more important is, why didn't singaporeans ask why they are donating? why do they start grumbling after the final amount was revealed to be so high?
~~~
you seem to be very enamoured and insistent with the fact that people question their donations. but it'd be nice if you actually start to make points in case and case in points. -
To answer your question as to whose 'fault' it is, i would have to say to some extent, it lies with the govt. But i will not turn this into a political thread. I'll leave you to ponder on this.
I don't actually need to know who is at fault here. by claiming that it lays with the govt, you seem to be missing the point entirely. i was more interested in what's your motive in trying to blaming someone? were you trying to make a point here? that's a yes no question... do answer that before justifying it.
side tracking, if i had to ponder on it based on this thread, i'd be quite quick to say that singaporeans are at fault. but that's entirely irrelevant. so let's not go there.
It is a very long discussion and i agree that it will completely side-track this thread, so as you say, 'let's not go there'.
Back to Dr Lee's comments: my position has always been that she could have used a different word but chose 'gulliable' (carefully measured i'm sure).
of course of course.
now, that being the case, are you faulting her for a using an accurate but improper word? are you suggesting that she sugar coats her letters before sending them out to the press? what made you think that it was 'designed to inspire debate', and was not a letter to genuinely chide singaporeans?
My previous post already mentioned that Dr Lee was chiding Singaporeans. I simply did not agree with the word gulliable. That's my opinion, period.
By using this term, she whitewashes the sincere and truly compassionate people who donate generously, prefering to label singaporeans on a whole as foolish and naive. With regards to trend analysis, certainly those who discontinued contributions to the NKF can be considered a statistic, since there was ample media influence and coverage of the trial to provoke singaporeans into a predictable response.
ah, a classic case of mistaking how the 'sincere and truly compassionate' cannot be 'foolish and naive'.
but jsut for you, i'd spell it out
i don't see how she whitewashes the sincere and truly compassionate. i'd imagine that even the sincere and truly compassionate feels quite silly about donating to other people's paychecks and not the charity itself. 'sincere and truly compassionate' and 'foolish and naive' are entirely mutually exclusive sets, you can be both at the same time. and i certainly hope you're not suggesting otherwise.
also, wouldn't you agree that this statistic seem to indicate that most singaporeans felt rather bitter about their donations and henced stopped donating? i certainly feel so. if not, what's your point of citing how they can be considered a statistic?
I plainly said that Dr Lee swept aside the ones who gave willingly and directly branded singaporeans in general as naive. Certainly those who give must have gone through some thought process. How can you or anyone assume stupidity or a lack of curiosity? It was curiosity that got people to find out the whole story on the twins in the first place. But certainly not everyone is a qualified neurosurgeon like Dr Lee, who can instantly ‘deduce’ whether the operation will succeed or not. In fact, if she knew from experience that the op was flawed to begin with, why publish an article now when it serves no purpose other than to chide Singaporeans? Why wait till after the whole op is complete than raise an issue? If she wanted to make a difference, she should have made her deduction known earlier so doctors can contemplate whether or not to risk going through with the op.
As to the statistic, I already said the mass withdrawals were following an obvious trend.
What about those who continued donating? Should we label them 'gulliable'? I wonder if we have let one man's greed blind us to the true concept of compassion.
it's nice to wonder, but what conclusions are you drawing from it? what's your take on it? or have you just started wondering and left things hanging?
also, it'd be nice if you made definitive statements like, 'we should/shouldn't label people who continued donating gullible'. asking questions like these dosen't reflect your position at all. it's what's making replying to you so difficult. it's almost as if you're afraid to commit to a single stand, like you're just waiting for me to make a mistake in my replies.
Do you enjoy sarcasm? The innuendo is clear: people who continue to contribute after the scandal do not imply gulliability. You or Dr Lee can say whatever you want. ThatÂ’s after all, your opinion and youÂ’re always entitled to it.
If so, then every CEO of SG charity organisations should be defined as mercernary entrepreneurs out to make the big buck at the expense of their patients.
why should they be defined mercenary entrepeneurs? because 'we have let one man's greed blinded us ot the true concept of compassion'? how is that relevant?
i'll tell you what's relevant. have you actually checked out how much other ceos of charitable organizations are earning? based on the prevailing trend, i'd dare to say that you haven't. why is it relevant you ask? because you probably reflect most other singaporean apathy when it comes to donations.
see, it's these kindda blind statements & assumptions which are quite frustrating.
The only frustrating thing is that you clearly have difficulty interpreting statements. And your follow-up rhetoric doesnÂ’t help. This statement simply said (and I will politely indulge you) that if people saw all CEOs of charities in the mould of TT Durai, then everyone will think they are simply profit driven. Yes, to clarify your presumptuous suggestion, I have indeed checked up on the salary packages of CEOs of such organizations before I responded. Whether they earn enough or too much is subjective. Clearly you think they are over paid, but can you explain how you came to that conclusion? Or is that simply your opinion?
Can you benchmark what formula should be used to calculate a CEOÂ’s pay? Do you even have the basic foundation to assess this? If not, thereÂ’s nothing to discuss, because all this is undoubtedly your opinion alone.
It is also incorrect to say singaporeans don't do their due diligence before opening their wallets. People have questioned flag day volunteers and inspected (even scrutinised) collection cans to ascertain which organisation they were contributing to. This line of questioning was further publicised in the ST after the NKF outcry, highlighting on the particularly rude manner in which student volunteers were interrogated while collecting donations. Either way, singaporeans do question organisations before make a decision.
have you actually conducted interviews? wherehence do you obtain the information to make such claims?
here, allow me to speak from having being a flag day volunteer myself. virtually nobody, as in *nobody* have ever asked me *why* or *where* the money is going. perhaps you would like to tell me that all your friends, uncle & aunties, siblings and cousins always asks why? or have you ran around asking people if they do?
but i digress, because 20cts is clearly different from $600,000.
you see, if we were just dealing with facts the nkf saga is as follows
1) t.tdurai, through a series of unfortunate events (hee) got his salary and gold tap exposed.
2) singaporeans feel conned. wonder why they weren't told about his pay.
3) stop donating.
had they done their homework, why would singaporeans feel conned? or do you think that singaporeans didn't feel conned about the salary but only about the NKF reserves?
I never said that Singaporeans felt cheated solely based on salary alone. Again, that was your suggestion. It was a series of events and incidents that brought a public outcry; gold tap, designer toiler bowl, the patron claiming 600K as peanuts, audacity of Durai to sue two men for defamation, that among other things he had a fleet of chauffeur driven cars etc.
Singaporeans should indeed do checks on who they are donating to. I’m not disputing that. But I reiterate that it is unfair to say Singaporeans should do extensive background checks right down to cash reserves, internal audit report findings and classify this as ‘homework’. If everyone did that, who will want to seriously donate?
Do you do a lengthy research to ascertain an organisationÂ’s well-being both in monetary and in goodwill just so you can contribute 20 cents?
And for that matter, being a volunteer and sharing your opinion doesnÂ’t amount to a global view. Just because nobody asked you doesnÂ’t mean nobody asked.
It would be unfair to expect singaporeans to ask to a level that includes funds auditing or level of reserves before making any sound judgement.
why so? are you suggesting that we cut out the auditing process for charities altogether?
it's a simple matter of simply asking them for their financial statement. FYI, it is *not* uncommon practice. you could strut into NCSS in ulu pandan community centre and they'd have their financial statement color printed in nice 180gsm paper, bounded and ready for you.
or have you never tried doing that before? oh wait, i dare say a vast majority of people who donate to presidents challenge don't have a copy of that, including your said self.
do i make my point clear? it's there, but *people don't bloody ask*. now wait, i know you're tempted to stray into areas entirely irrelevant, such as 'but t.t durai lied about the reserves anyway!!' but perhaps you might be better off answering why singaporeans don't ask before we go there.
As above.
With regards to Huang Na's case, at this point, has it been proven that the cash collected was indeed used to fund the renovation of the parent's house? Is there an active investigation into this matter? Or are we once again being fed blown-up media reports filled with half-truths trying to influence us? As it is, their neighbours probably said it best: what they do with their money is their business and no one elses.
this is a classic example of how i fail to see you're making a point here, what with the questions and no conclusions.
HuangNa's case, in the format as above
1) HuangNa murdered. search initiated, huge press generated
2) found. people stream in in droves to start donating money for 'white money'
3) seems like the money isn't accounted for. singaporeans start asking why the final sum is so high, and wonder where all the excess money goes....
my point was, why didnt' they ask before? why is it the final step in the process? it dosne't matter what they used the money for, that is irrelevant. i hope you have understood that by now. what is more important is, why didn't singaporeans ask why they are donating? why do they start grumbling after the final amount was revealed to be so high?
~~~
you seem to be very enamoured and insistent with the fact that people question their donations. but it'd be nice if you actually start to make points in case and case in points.
Your sarcasm notwithstanding, people contribute to the parents out of sympathy. What they do with the money is really their business. This is not a charity organization. You canÂ’t give them money out of your own wallet and then tell them how to spend it. And to clarify, who are the Singaporeans who are complaining? Are there hundreds of letters to the press stating their displeasure? Or are you basing your assumption on the few interviewed individuals and their comments to represent the whole? -
My previous post already mentioned that Dr Lee was chiding Singaporeans. I simply did not agree with the word gulliable. That's my opinion, period.
I plainly said that Dr Lee swept aside the ones who gave willingly and directly branded singaporeans in general as naive. Certainly those who give must have gone through some thought process. How can you or anyone assume stupidity or a lack of curiosity?
I'll be quite happy to assume that they have gone through some thought process. however, the question here is if it is enough? i certainly do not think so.
as a matter of interest, i do happen to think that understanding the organization through and out is important; such as who's leading it and what they're doing and how. and to this end, extensive research *is* important.
otherwise, like i said, donating 20cts and $600,000 are 2 totally different ball games. I don't give out of compassion when i donate 20cts. sometimes, i toss it in to get a sticker so that others will stop bugging me. other times, i toss it in because the girl who asked was very pretty, or perhaps they're from my alma mater. hence i wouldn't care a hoot if the total amount collected comes up to 20cts, or a million. because i wasn' t donating to a cause.
and as such, the thought process i afford it as opposed to donating $50 on a monthly basis is ENTIRELY different. i want to know where my $$ goes, not just because the girl was pretty, or that the money just happens to be sitting in my wallet. if you happen to disagree on that point, i'll concede that you're right that singaporeans do question enough, since we're obviously operating on 2 different brain platforms here.
point in case, prof lee was describing a very specific target group here; ie: people who do not question why they donate. or are you suggesting that she's directing it against everyone irregardless of whether donations have been made or not?
contextual reading is important. try reading the letter again.
Do you enjoy sarcasm? The innuendo is clear: people who continue to contribute after the scandal do not imply gulliability. You or Dr Lee can say whatever you want. ThatÂ’s after all, your opinion and youÂ’re always entitled to it.
of course we are entitled to opinions and all, as you clearly are.
what i had a problem with was how shallow your dismissal was. and i refer to the post:
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.
so
a) we've agreed that we should read prof lee's letter as an individidual and not a ruling elite.
b) following which, i'd say it's fair to say that singapore's educational system has nothing to do with her? so i guess there isn't any irony anymore?
c) again, now that we've removed both the irony and political association, if people get upset over her choice of words, (which i take as non-frivolous now that we're in agreement that her intent was to chide) i suppose then the message got across? because it certainly wasn't meant to please.
ironically, this is really getting to be the relevant bit. i dunno why we're arguing about the rest...
but these i can't resist...
The only frustrating thing is that you clearly have difficulty interpreting statements. And your follow-up rhetoric doesnÂ’t help. This statement simply said (and I will politely indulge you) that if people saw all CEOs of charities in the mould of TT Durai, then everyone will think they are simply profit driven. Yes, to clarify your presumptuous suggestion, I have indeed checked up on the salary packages of CEOs of such organizations before I responded. Whether they earn enough or too much is subjective. Clearly you think they are over paid, but can you explain how you came to that conclusion? Or is that simply your opinion?
Can you benchmark what formula should be used to calculate a CEOÂ’s pay? Do you even have the basic foundation to assess this? If not, thereÂ’s nothing to discuss, because all this is undoubtedly your opinion alone.
wait a minute. you mean you actually *don't* think that $600,000 isn't overpaying t.t durai?? now you're fringing on hilarity. yes, it is no doubt my personal opinion. but i dare say it is not 'undoubtedly my opinion alone'.
i know $$ when i see $$. i don't need someone else to tell me that $600,000 is a large sum.
sheesh. and just out of curiosity, having claimed tha tyou have checked up on the salary packages, perhaps you can post a few here just for us to compare?
Your sarcasm notwithstanding, people contribute to the parents out of sympathy. What they do with the money is really their business. This is not a charity organization. You canÂ’t give them money out of your own wallet and then tell them how to spend it. And to clarify, who are the Singaporeans who are complaining? Are there hundreds of letters to the press stating their displeasure? Or are you basing your assumption on the few interviewed individuals and their comments to represent the whole?
of course, you mean you'd rather go interview 100s of others yourself? i know for sure that apathy is in my blood, which is why i'm not a journalist. but as it stands, at least i have a source. do you?
you really ought to be asking yourself those questions that you pose. i could presumably ask you the exact same questions like, "who are the singaporeans who aren't complaining?", but that woudl be a futile exercise since, as with most of your other replies, the major flaw here is that you have *no* sources *at all*.
you needn't reply to the 2nd bit. it's going quite OOT. i shall just leave you to ponder upon it...... -
as a matter of interest, i do happen to think that understanding the organization through and out is important; such as who's leading it and what they're doing and how. and to this end, extensive research *is* important.
otherwise, like i said, donating 20cts and $600,000 are 2 totally different ball games. I don't give out of compassion when i donate 20cts. sometimes, i toss it in to get a sticker so that others will stop bugging me. other times, i toss it in because the girl who asked was very pretty, or perhaps they're from my alma mater. hence i wouldn't care a hoot if the total amount collected comes up to 20cts, or a million. because i wasn' t donating to a cause.
My my...judging by your 'thoroughness' in putting charity firms under the microscope, i suppose you probably live the live of scrooge to actually do such ridiculous calculations over donations. And from all your rhethoric about background checks, do you even contribute? (based on your negative and keen intellect on how Singaporeans are 'stupid' and 'ignorant', it's very clear you're not)
Hence my point: If you are not a regular contributor, what gives your the right to criticise others who continue to do so? Shallow we all may be, but being arrogant is doubly worse.
wait a minute. you mean you actually *don't* think that $600,000 isn't overpaying t.t durai?? now you're fringing on hilarity. yes, it is no doubt my personal opinion. but i dare say it is not 'undoubtedly my opinion alone'.
i know $$ when i see $$. i don't need someone else to tell me that $600,000 is a large sum.
sheesh. and just out of curiosity, having claimed tha tyou have checked up on the salary packages, perhaps you can post a few here just for us to compare?
Evidently, you can't even pick out simple info from statements. I was discussing the PAY of CEOs, not THEIR BONUSES. Read my post again and wear your spectacles next time.
And since you obviously have no formula to calculate a CEO's pay, why harp on this issue? Why evade my question and throw it back at me to provide info? If you haven't done your research, don't try and worm it out of me.
of course, you mean you'd rather go interview 100s of others yourself? i know for sure that apathy is in my blood, which is why i'm not a journalist. but as it stands, at least i have a source. do you?
you really ought to be asking yourself those questions that you pose. i could presumably ask you the exact same questions like, "who are the singaporeans who aren't complaining?", but that woudl be a futile exercise since, as with most of your other replies, the major flaw here is that you have *no* sources *at all*.
This only goes to show how pretentious you can be. It is exactly this kind of contemptous remarks that irk people off. Using yourself as a 'source'? This must be laughing stock of the century.
My response on people who are complaining are legitimate. Maybe you haven't read the papers or perhaps you do your own selective reading. Maybe you're just here because a couple of Newpaper articles highlighted the use (or by your opinion mis-use) of funds.
So again, where are the complaints? Who are the people who donated and are now crying foul?
You seem to think very highly of your answers so let's hear your 'impressive' response. -
it depends...Originally posted by CoolMyth:http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,345571,00.html?
Moral of the story: Don't anyhow donate. Make sure what you are donating to and its purpose. Don't anyhow donate just because some people put a "sad story" in front of you but installed a gold tap in their office.
Don't be swayed by propaganda.
-
I think I know why so many people donated to Huang Shuying. Apparently many 4D numbers associated with the Huang Na murder case came out in the weekly draw. Those gamblers, being superstitious folk, gave generous donations as a form of thanks to the dead person's spirit for helping them strike.