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 ...
277 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...
51 comments
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more