Skip to main content

Trading off PM Lee and/or the PAP in 2016?

Is there any difference between trading off PM Lee or the PAP?  Yes. There is a big difference. If you don’t like Lee Hsien Loong, as what he had suggested choosing between work and life, you can trade him off with another PAP leader. However, if you are not happy with the PM and the PAP, you can choose to trade-off both.  

Alternatively, if you still want the PAP to be in government and hesitate to trade off the PAP but are willing to trade off the PM, then, you may wait and see, and check out other Singaporeans whether they will go ahead to trade off the PAP government in the General Election 2016.

It is interesting to watch whether there will be a trade-off effect in Singapore politics. PM Lee suggests a trade-off in work-life balance. Singaporeans can also do the same trade-off between PM Lee and another person and/or an additional trade-off between political parties. 

So, the PAP has to think very carefully.  Which arrangement is preferred by the party?  Does it want to go along with PM Lee to be a trade-off item?

What is work-life balance or harmony?

In PM Lee’s opinion, work and life can be easily traded off.  There is a price to pay, especially our competitors will steal away our lunch. So, in his mathematical mind, it is a balancing act. You can’t have both and eat them all.

Before we discuss further, let take a look at Ministry of Manpower’s website for a clear explanation on work-life harmony: 

[Providing work-life friendly workplaces will result in a win-win situation for both employers and employees. Work-life friendly workplaces enable employees to balance their personal and work commitments. Employers who proactively support a work-life friendly environment will stand to benefit from having a more engaged and productive workforce. This will also help in attracting and retaining talent, especially in light of the tight labour market.]http://mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/work-life-harmony/Pages/work-life-strategies.aspx

PM Lee seems to suggest there is no win-win situation.  Of course, as Prime Minister, he can overwrite the MOM statement and give each of the three parties (employers, union and government) #1 a slap by promoting work-life balance without deep consideration of lunch box issues.

Is the PAP government serious about work-life harmony?

Has the PM’s position on work-life balance indicated the future work-life direction in Singapore?  How come the Tripartite has not voiced out their concerns?  Or, it is just like the Chinese saying: talking and doing moving into different direction. （讲一套做一套）The PM sees the stealing of lunch and MOM sees the win-win outcome.     
  
Perhaps, these are all usual practices and public policies of the PAP. You can apply the same logic to many other policies, e.g. housing (affordable flats), education (no tuition), transport (COE, ERP), etc.

New business model of inclusiveness – stockholders rather than shareholders

Work-life balance is not a winners-take-all arrangement. In fact, work-life harmony is a better explanation.  All parties involved acting like stockholders in a harmony environment. This is a new business model promoting social responsibility, inclusive society and community.

However, PM Lee looks only at the shareholders’ point of views, or even worst, from the investors’ view point.  It is not surprised he is so concerned about the ‘stealing of lunch’. He sees work-life as a cost factor rather than a social value creation.

Is there any empathy? He claims that he spent 20 years to learn how to be a PM.  After 20 years of learning and tuition he still cannot think out of the lunch box, should we trade him off?

#1
http://www.tripartism.sg/page/Work-Life-Harmony/


Instead of stealing away your lunch, you can get a free pair of shoes! A new business model?


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...
275 comments
Read more

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...
65 comments
Read more

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...
50 comments
Read more