Its another day helping my dad. Lol. just heard of another unfair practice by Neo Group Pte Ltd: a person who orders buffet in the morning and afternoon or afternoon and night do not have to pay for the later's delivery of tables. The customer would find it very delectable. But to the person who make the deliverys and have to absorb that cost would find very unreasonable and unfair. It not like we are not carry the table like other deliveries. Of course complains were made and there are disagreements but there was nothing we could do. But i must say that it is just like how our government do things so there is no use complaining. Though i do wonder why some times we are not fighting for ou own rights.
Enough of ramblings.
My dad told me of this very interesting idea as we were walking pass the car park. "Oh no place to park car again. Singaporean really very poor public holiday all dun wan to go out. And no money to spend already. HAHAHA" Some thing to that extend, i didnt remember his statement word for word. Actually he has mentioned it a lot of times and its just that it did not strike me that the number of cars in the carpark can be used as an way to measure the well-being of our people.
The total number of cars in car park lots the country divided by the total number of carpark lots in the country at each point of time.
Due to the apparent inaccuracy and disadvantages and limitations of using GDP to measure well-being of Singaporeans, there has been many substitues measurements for well-being like Gini Coefficient and more unorthordox ones like HPI. The above mentioned method may be an appropiate measure too? The no. of cars in the carpark reflect the well-being of the country as it show the frequency of activities of those that can afford a car (in Singapore). Activities can range from leisure activities to occasions to work events. Leisure activities would show the purchasing power and the willingness to spend of these people. It will also show the people's happiness and satisfaction as they are spending. Work activities would show employment and well-being because work gives people something to focus on. Also shows how much wealth is being produced by both underground and legitimate economies and maybe non-monetary economies.
Of course there are its downsides too. It does not seperate the many things that it is suppose to mease and represent and it is not representative of the whole population. But maybe we can consider other modes of transportations too? >< haha
I wonder if any scholars or masters researcher or economists who would be writing thesis would be inspired from my rubbish? lol
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
$100 billion
Today, while i was at my grandma house and i saw a publication by Singapore Democratic Party. It had some alternative views in contrast with the mainstream media, some of which i was quite agreeable with.
"Billions of our hard earned money down the drain" was the title of the front page that caught my attention so i started reading it.
Temasek Holdings and GIC (investment firm own by MM) both lost a little more than $100 billion. Then the article continued to elaborate on what did the $100 billion mean to the ordinary singaporean (like what it could have been used for Singaporeans, HBD upgrades, vouchers for the poor, etc.)
At this point, i recalled something our SPM has said regarding this matter (with that meaning): "...in investments there are times when we win, but also times when we lose..." In my opinion, that kind of statement is akind to saying "it is just another lost, so just live with it"; as if pushing the blame away from him. It is easy for him to make such uncaring statements, because it is not his money that he loses.
Even if we forgive them for making the wrong decision for the investment (or the talents they hire to decide for them), at least share the benefits with us when Temasek Holding and/or GIC is earning????????
"Billions of our hard earned money down the drain" was the title of the front page that caught my attention so i started reading it.
Temasek Holdings and GIC (investment firm own by MM) both lost a little more than $100 billion. Then the article continued to elaborate on what did the $100 billion mean to the ordinary singaporean (like what it could have been used for Singaporeans, HBD upgrades, vouchers for the poor, etc.)
At this point, i recalled something our SPM has said regarding this matter (with that meaning): "...in investments there are times when we win, but also times when we lose..." In my opinion, that kind of statement is akind to saying "it is just another lost, so just live with it"; as if pushing the blame away from him. It is easy for him to make such uncaring statements, because it is not his money that he loses.
Even if we forgive them for making the wrong decision for the investment (or the talents they hire to decide for them), at least share the benefits with us when Temasek Holding and/or GIC is earning????????
Buffet
Just came back from delivering a buffet from hougang Forida condo.
However, helping my dad deliver is quite fun sometimes...
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Rumors about uni life
I heard from my gf that one of her friends in uni broke down and cried in one of the physics tutorial. It must be really tough and stressful to study in a uni? Which made me wonder why some of us are putting ourselves through this. A lot of us would think that getting a uni degree would get us better and more job opportunities. I do not denied that for most employers do look at their employees educational background to judge whether or not to hire them.
However, I feel that a lot of people tend to over-value a good educational background. Of course, a good educational background would most probably mean that the person is more learned and cultured. But I feel that it does not mean almost everything in life.
Employers may judge employees by their educational background like people choosing friends by their looks. But they may not eventually get what they want ( work capability and productivity). I feel that this situation; when there may exist who are willing and probably skillful in that aspect of work but lacking in a good educational background would be denied of the job, is sad one for both the employer and employee, since the potential good worker does not get the job and the employer loses a worker that he thinks is more suitable for the job.
Then this would lead to a process not so different from Charles Darwin's idea of natural selection. Those people with good educational background and "get the job"(and probably a comfortable live?) would tell their children to go for a "good education" and study hard, look at people's abilities based on their academic results, et cetera. Those people who do not have a good educational background and are "punished" when they are denied of a job (or some other opportunties?) would also advocate the same thing to their children and relatives. As such the most valued ability would became studying the academic subjects.
It is not difficult to understand when i link up these thoughts with some of the other stories i heard from my gf about employers facing arrogant degree employees. With most people educating and influencing other people that people with good educational background should and would do it in life, when employee have higher educational background then employers, they tend to be more "self-dignifying". It is almost as if their view of the world was built in a hierarchy of educational level.
Not everyone is academically inclined. Everyone has one or more unique strengths and it may not lie in the academic area. Thus i feel it would be more appropriate if the education system could be structured such that it emphasized on nothing. So they people would be allow to develop their strength and become masters in it.
However, I feel that a lot of people tend to over-value a good educational background. Of course, a good educational background would most probably mean that the person is more learned and cultured. But I feel that it does not mean almost everything in life.
Employers may judge employees by their educational background like people choosing friends by their looks. But they may not eventually get what they want ( work capability and productivity). I feel that this situation; when there may exist who are willing and probably skillful in that aspect of work but lacking in a good educational background would be denied of the job, is sad one for both the employer and employee, since the potential good worker does not get the job and the employer loses a worker that he thinks is more suitable for the job.
Then this would lead to a process not so different from Charles Darwin's idea of natural selection. Those people with good educational background and "get the job"(and probably a comfortable live?) would tell their children to go for a "good education" and study hard, look at people's abilities based on their academic results, et cetera. Those people who do not have a good educational background and are "punished" when they are denied of a job (or some other opportunties?) would also advocate the same thing to their children and relatives. As such the most valued ability would became studying the academic subjects.
It is not difficult to understand when i link up these thoughts with some of the other stories i heard from my gf about employers facing arrogant degree employees. With most people educating and influencing other people that people with good educational background should and would do it in life, when employee have higher educational background then employers, they tend to be more "self-dignifying". It is almost as if their view of the world was built in a hierarchy of educational level.
Not everyone is academically inclined. Everyone has one or more unique strengths and it may not lie in the academic area. Thus i feel it would be more appropriate if the education system could be structured such that it emphasized on nothing. So they people would be allow to develop their strength and become masters in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)