Skip to main content

When convenience becomes liability: iPhone and high pay




My brother commented that there was a communication gap between two of us as I was not a smartphone user.  My sister even claimed that she could not imagine life without iPhone.  A relative with a family of four also proudly declared they had 4 iPhones and 4 iPads even the two kids were in primary schools.

Am I losing out something by not using a smartphone?
Am I going backward without the access of instant messages and information?  Even though I find myself OK but there is an increasing pressure for me to get a smartphone as soon as possible.  I don’t’ feel the communication gap but why others think so.

I am confused.  Is this another kind of social divide in the information age?  If there is a gap between those who can afford, then there is even a bigger gap between those who can afford and those who can’t afford.

When the PAP sets high pay for political positions, perhaps they only look at those who can afford to pay for either iPhone or high salary to ministers.  However, as PM Lee had said some joined politics not because of money. These are people who don’t see the gap with or without a smartphone.  They are willing to settle down with a normal phone or a normal salary. 

Hence, the bigger picture, that is missing, is the gap between those can afford and those cannot afford an iPhone.  The PAP has failed to realise there are people who cannot afford an iPhone and of course, cannot afford to pay high pay to the ministers.

Different social class of mobile users

We generally can tell who use the smartphones and who don’t.  In order not to be associated with the group of non-smartphone users, some may have to shift to smartphones just to avoid being misidentified. Is this necessary? Why should we have this social divide?

One will need a certain purchasing power to own an iPhone and its associated subscription fees.  In a low income family, owning smartphones will take up quite a big percentage of their income.  But it may not be the best option to spend a big sum of family income into smartphones or iPads. 

When iPhone was launched, it was for entertainment, fun, then information, then working tool, then……? However, there is a limit to growth, unless one day the small toy can replace human brain and functions smarter than a human being.

Will smartphone help you to think smarter? Will paying high salary to ministers help Singapore to think smarter? One has only 24 hours a day. If you spend more times playing with the smartphones, you will have less time to think and learn other things. If ministers are occupied by the task of justifying their high pay, then they will have less time to think for the country. Sometimes, fast may not necessary to be good. People are occupied by the smartphones in the meetings, in the train, in the bus, over lunch and dinner, even walking in the street.  Are they really smart thinking and acting rationally?  Thinking too fast and acting too quick can be dangerous – this is why we have cooling off day before elections.  Because you need to think carefully before choosing a right candidate!

There are pros and cons for iPhone and high salary. Because the smartphones are so convenient, so trendy, we nearly forget its disadvantages.  Just like plastic bags, bottles, and products, there are so easy to use and we only realise the environment problems many years later.

It is also easy and convenient to link political pays to top earners. However, we will know the consequence  later.  In fact, a warning sign, the voters had already given their answers last year.

Cheaper iPhone, cheaper housing

IPhone and iPad are expensive in China, especially to low income Chinese people.  An Apple product can cost more than a month of a worker’s salary. So when Steve Jobs passed away, a major Chinese property developer commented that to remember Jobs, Apple should come out with RMB 1000 iPhone or iPad so that more Chinese could own Apple iPhone or iPads.#  However, his comment draw a lot of criticisms in the social media. Netizens demanded the developer to come out with RMB 1000 per sq.m of flat in memory of his deathr.

When the developer suggested a lower price for iPhone, he thought he was doing a favour for the ordinary Chinese. But comparing an iPhone and a flat, housing is even a bigger and expensive item than a communication tool.

The developer could only see a small item like the iPhone but had failed to observe the bigger item like a flat which he has full knowledge about the high property price in China. 

So do the PAP.  When linking the political pay to top earners, the government only sees the affordability of the rich and forget the feelings of the poor.     
 

Comments

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 ...

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...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...