This appeared on TRE
LIONS:
As poor as the churh’s mouse.
now,we have ‘AS RICH AS CITY HARVEST’?
Singa’s FT replacement?
In Humour on 22/05/2013 at 6:16 am
Shir Sultan, or the Lion King, from Kabul is believed have applied to replace Singa. Kabul-based, Shir Sultan. is employed to visit schools in the Afghan capital to spread the message of keeping Kabul clean and green says the BBC.
So if he comes here, the govt can have one mascot for two campaigns: courtesy. and a clean and green environment. And it will reassure employers that S’pore still prefers FTs to locals. That taz productivity!
Watch out Productivity Bee. Shir Sultan can multi-task as the Lion of Productivity.
See how fit and tall Shir Sultan looks. Not fat and short, like Singa and the (un)Productive Bee.
But let’s not cry for Singa or the Bee. Remember ex-public servants like Goerge Yeo, Mah Bow Tan, Wong Kan Seng are enjoying their pensions. So will Singa and the Bee. And do remember that while Singa did a good job until the FTs came flooding in, Bee has never ever done anything for productivity but was kept on like Raymond Lim, Mah Bow Tan, GCT and Yaacob.
Related post: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/singas-resignation-the-hard-truths/
Town Council Debate: Cocks posturing & preening
In Political governance on 22/05/2013 at 5:30 amYes,yes Aunties’s not a cock but she sure behaved like Khaw and Dr Teo. All these three, and the other supporting speakers didn’t try to bother to explain what the facts were. They juz tried to slime the other side, hoping that some mud would stick. No one drew blood.
I won’t bother to go into detail critcising what the PAPpies said as Sg Daily has done a gd job over the last few days providing links to a critique of the PAP’s position and its attacks on the WP. All I will say is that it confirms my view, many yrs ago, that the idea of town councils would come to haunt the PAP. It wasn’t even a gd idea at the time. Ah well, another black mark to Goh Chok Tong and one Lee Hsien Loong and their team.
I’ll juz make some points about what I found astounding about the WP’s position and netizens’ views.
I find it really strange that the WP thinks its OK for it to give a contract to its supporters but that it is wrong for the PAP to give a contract to a PAP linked company. The distinction escapes me. To me, “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice”. (Deng Xiaopin).
The other point is Auntie telling Dr Teo to report the WP to the CPIB if he had evidence of wrong-doing. Err Auntie, why so more PAP than the PAP? Imagine if when Auntie first made her allegations, those many noons ago, the PAP had said the same to her. I mean she, WP and netizens would be bitching at the PAP for trying to hide something. And rightly so. So why like that Auntie?
Which brings me to the point that netizens are so anti-PAP that they unthinkingly cheer the WP’s position on
– it’s OK to give contracts to supporters, but not party-affiliated organisations; and
– trying to win the argument by telling other side to report the matter to the CPIB.
While the PAP has the 120% support of the constructive, nation-building media, netizens are 99.9% anti-PAP. Here’s a tot for the PAP: if the local media were less servile to the PAP, would the internet be a less hostile place to the PAP. Could the hostile environment on the internet be a reaction to the power of the PAP over the local media.
To end, it would be nice if both sides respected the other side so that we the public can learn the truth of the allegations. Here’s an interesting excerpt on the benefits of respecting one’s opponent, though the author readily admits it’s damned difficult,:
Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticising the views of an opponent? If there are obvious contradictions in the opponent’s case, then you should point them out, forcefully. If there are somewhat hidden contradictions, you should carefully expose them to view – and then dump on them. But the search for hidden contradictions often crosses the line into nitpicking, sea-lawyering and outright parody. The thrill of the chase and the conviction that your opponent has to be harbouring a confusion somewhere encourages uncharitable interpretation, which gives you an easy target to attack.
But such easy targets are typically irrelevant to the real issues at stake and simply waste everybody’s time and patience, even if they give amusement to your supporters. The best antidote I know for this tendency to caricature one’s opponent is a list of rules promulgated many years ago by social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport.
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
One immediate effect of following these rules is that your targets will be a receptive audience for your criticism: you have already shown that you understand their positions as well as they do, and have demonstrated good judgment (you agree with them on some important matters and have even been persuaded by something they said). Following Rapoport’s rules is always, for me, something of a struggle…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/19/daniel-dennett-intuition-pumps-thinking-extract
