ShareJunction - Member Posts

x 0

Marina Bay Sands " Triple Joss Sticks"

It Is an EXTREMELY STRESSFUL ICON fOr SingapOreans

whO are bOrn GAMBLERS ? ? ? ?

As it appears On T.V. and varIOUs advertIsIng medIa everyday ? ? ? ?

cOUple wIth the S$100 casInO levy, It wIll caUse UndUe mental Illness tO SingapOrean bOrn GAMBLERS whO cannOt affOrd tO pay fOr the daIly levy ? ? ? ?

pharoah88 ( Date: 20-Apr-2011 13:36) Posted:

Do we really want a casino as our icon?

Letter from Tong Jee Cheng

IT is disappointing that the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort (picture) is fast becoming an iconic representation of Singapore.

We see it in the background in local television dramas, we see it in tourist leaflets. It seems to appear often as backdrops in the various advertising media.

The first I heard of such sentiment was at a talk held at the National Museum — the speaker, whose name I cannot recall, was a local historical researcher.

And in another local newspaper, a retired architect and urban theorist echoed this sentiment and said he would rather that the Botanic Gardens be the iconic landmark for Singapore.

Which other country in the world has a casino as its most famous icon?

x 0

I AM working full-time and my husband is currently on a long-term overseas working stint.

My official working hours end at 6.30pm and I usually take about an hour via public transport to get from Raffles Place to Sengkang to pick my son up from his childcare centre every day, while my mother helps to take care of my 17-month old daughter at home.

At first, this arrangement suited me as the childcare centre closed at 9pm. Two years ago, they changed this to 8pm, and then they adjusted it again last year to 7.30pm.

I was alarmed by the new timing as this meant I could not afford any unexpected delays or mishaps. I had to brave the crazy rush-hour traffic with my heart in my mouth, praying I would not be late to pick up my son or else I would be fined.

The final bombshell came last month, when the centre issued a notice to say they would adjust the closing time to 7pm with effect from June 1 this year in accordance with stipulations by the Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports. I was shocked — no way am I going to be able to make the trip in half an hour.

I do not have anyone else to rely on to pick up my son, and I have already tried calling other childcare centres to seek a place for him, to no avail. [sUpply restrIctIOn ? ? ? ?]

As most of the centres were full as of March, I can only be on the waiting list.

I am near to desperation for an alternative.

Where can I seek help?

x 0

Earlier closing hours at childcare centre leave mum in a bind

Letter from Esther Tan

I had to brave the crazy rushhour traffic with my heart in my mouth, praying I would not be late picking up my son or else I would be fined.

OVERHEARD:

It Is a fIned natIOn ? ? ? ?

x 0

Do we really want a casino as our icon?

Letter from Tong Jee Cheng

IT is disappointing that the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort (picture) is fast becoming an iconic representation of Singapore.

We see it in the background in local television dramas, we see it in tourist leaflets. It seems to appear often as backdrops in the various advertising media.

The first I heard of such sentiment was at a talk held at the National Museum — the speaker, whose name I cannot recall, was a local historical researcher.

And in another local newspaper, a retired architect and urban theorist echoed this sentiment and said he would rather that the Botanic Gardens be the iconic landmark for Singapore.

Which other country in the world has a casino as its most famous icon?

x 0

Proper sales process carried out: Prudential

Letter from Pauline Cheah

Director, Corporate Communications, Prudential Assurance Company Singapore

WITH reference to the letters from Mr Alex Ang Chung Chung (“An ill advised plan”, April 2) and Jessica Loy (“Not the right place to sell complex insurance products”, April 5), Prudential Assurance Company Singapore has been in contact with Mr Alex Ang and are currently investigating the issue as raised by him.

With reference to the sale of insurance products at SingPost branches, we wish to assure consumers that the proper sales process is carried out on such occasions.

Where such services are available, Prudential Singapore places financial consultants who are fully trained, qualified and certified to provide financial advice and sell insurance products. This ensures that these products are sold in the correct manner.

In addition, all Prudential products come with a minimum 14-day “free look” period, during which the customer is at liberty to change their mind about taking up the policy.

Having adequate and the right insurance coverage for times of need gives customers peace of mind.

Last year alone, Prudential Singapore paid out over S$148 million in claims to over 32,000 cases.

x 0

Rainy-day provisions for smokers nOt acceptable
I work at DBS Tower 2. I recently received anemail from our building management which states: “In accordance with the National Environment Agency’s regulation, smoking is also prohibited within 5m of entrances exits.”
I replied, asking where smokers are supposed to smoke when it rains, since they all currently smoke under the shelter which is within 5m of the building’s entrance.
The reply was: “During raining days, there is exception for this and movable ashtrays will be provided at the boundary of the building.”
I am wondering what the NEA’s stance is on this?
Considering how frequently it rains in Singapore, I don’t see how it’s an acceptable solution.

Letter from Troy Parry

x 0

A young first-time voter’s

view of the General Election

Chua Sheng Yang

It is undeniable that the Government has done an amazing job in raising Singapore to the status of a first-world country in a short space of 40 years and that they continue to implement sound policies to ensure the economic engine drives us forward.

This

OVERHEARD:

" Group Think" is a Party Imposed Policy ? ? ? ?

Today reader is a 31-year-old management consultant and a voter in Yuhua.

However, there is always the danger that the overemphasis on policies designed to fuel economic growth could result in the sidelining of policies that might improve the welfare of citizens at the expense of growth. (As one participant at a recent forum with the Prime Minister put it, Singaporeans no longer just want a competent Government but also one that shows empathy.)

This scenario is more plausible should a “group-think” mentality emerge within the Government, with no Opposition voices to provide a different perspective. It is interesting to note that of the new PAP candidates introduced, few felt that any policies needed review or change, despite many Singaporeans having recently raised numerous issues affecting our lives.

Does this suggest that, if elected, they would vote along party lines instead of what they personally believe to be in the best interest of their constituents? Or do they think that the Government is doing a perfect job without room for improvement?

Either way, both scenarios could have negative implications for the country.

The detractors of a two-party system are right in saying that it can lead to an inefficient system of government, where differences in ideology result in an impotent Parliament.

I personally have been a strong opponent of two-party systems as implemented in the West. I feel this is where Singaporeans need to define the two-party system some say they want. It is not unthinkable that a two-party system can result in cooperation between both parties to achieve the best result for Singapore, if Singaporeans make it clear that is what they want from their political system.

As a young Singaporean likely to have the opportunity to vote for the first time and have an impact my country’s future, I have paid close attention to the candidates unveiled by each political party.

While the PAP has revealed candidates of unquestionable pedigree, both in terms of educational background and careers, the nagging feeling remains that they are candidates I cannot fully identify with.

Would they be able to identify with my concerns on the cost of housing, transportation and the general cost of living?

For example, one candidate remarked that lowering public transport fares could lead to the operators being unable to cover operating costs, as is the case in many countries where transportation is subsidised.

Yet the company he mentioned reported a net profit last year of more than S$50 million. Perhaps as a layman, I cannot understand the intricacies of finance.

On the other hand, the Opposition has revealed a slew of candidates comprising Singaporeans from all walks of life and ones that I can identify with more closely. Yet internal strife dogs the parties and they seem unable to coordinate their efforts to run an effective election at the moment, with disputes over how to carve up the battleground.

A more unified approach, such as each party contributing one member each to run in a GRC, would appeal more. However, such thinking is simplistic given the many different political agendas.

Another concern is the repeated caveats by the Opposition that they are not yet ready to govern, which causes people to hesitate in voting for them as they do not want an unexpected election result where the Opposition is put into power.

Either way, this is shaping up to be a watershed election that I am eagerly looking forward to.

x 0

bE PRUDENT * * * *

Or

be ImpOverIshed ? ? ? ?

x 0

FIRST WORLD DEBATE

nO mOre SLEEPING DEBATE ? ? ? ?

This is when the “HOW ? ? ? ?” questions become more important.

How do we ensure that our political system remains inclusive and representative in tandem with growing democratic aspirations — while increasing Singaporeans’ civic participation and ownership of governmental processes?

For now, Singaporeans look forward eagerly to exercising their mOst pOwerful RiGHT as a cItIzen on May 7, at the ballot box.

Eugene K B Tan is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law.

x 0

hegemony - definition of hegemony by the Free Online Dictionary ...

he·gem·o·ny (h -j m -n , h j -m n ). n. pl. he·gem·o·nies. The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others. ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/hegemony - Cached - Similar

►

x 0

Shaping up for a landmark election

The stage is set for a robust contest, where hopefully integrity and voter due diligence will prevail

EUGENE K B TAN

A WATERSHED ?

Come Polling Day, Singaporeans will wait with bated breath for the results. Barring a dramatic reversal of fortune the PAP will form the Government, continuing an unbroken run dating back to 1959.

But will its political hegemony be threatened?

It may well be that the PAP could win as many as 86 out of 87 seats but with a smaller overall vote share.

Under our “first past the post” electoral system, whether a political party wins a seat by a single ballot or 99.9 per cent of the votes, the winner takes it all.

Or, the Opposition might wrestle a GRC or two from the PAP.

If they succeed, then the GRC is no longer the impregnable fortress for the PAP.

Would it mark the beginning of a viable two-party system in Singapore’s democratic development?

The stage is set for this GE to be contested robustly. As we mature as a society, our political landscape will inevitably be more diverse and competitive.

This is when the “how” questions become more important.

How do we ensure that our political system remains inclusive and representative in tandem with growing democratic aspirations — while increasing Singaporeans’ civic participation and ownership of governmental processes?

For now, Singaporeans look forward eagerly to exercising their most powerful right as a citizen on May 7, at the ballot box.

Eugene K B Tan is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law.

x 0

宁可放过，不可杀错

（ 2011-04-17）

叶鹏飞

往深一层思索，这个问题的答案恐怕还将影响社会的长期发展。英国智囊组织 “工作基金会 ”（ Work Foundation）执行长、经济学家、《观察家》报专栏作者及前任主编 威尔 ·赫顿（ Will Hutton） 在其 2010年的新著 《他们与我们：政治、贪婪及不平等》 中，针对全球越来越严峻的贫富差距说，社会公平一方面是保护运气不好的人，另一方面则限制好运气带来的不公义。

　　赫顿认为，经历了 2008年的华尔街全球金融风暴，单纯地重建原有的金融系统并加强其安全已经无济于事，而必须反省现有制度的价值基础 ， “公平合理 ”（ fairness） 必须是资本主义新的核心价值，因为既有的 赢者全拿 的价值体系将 难以为继 。

正如哈佛经济学者熊彼特（ Joseph A Schumpeter）所谓的 “亚当斯密问题 ”（ das Adam Smith Problem），世人只称道《国富论》所强调的私利，却鲜少知道亚当斯密另一本同样重要的巨著 《道德情操论》 所突出的同情心。只强调同情心当然无法呈现人性的完整，但金融风暴的惨痛教训说明，仅歌颂 私利将导致更大的集体灾难 。

　　历史经验表明 ， “公平合理 ”并非常态 ，因而才促使人们锲而不舍地追求。《道德经》说： “天之道，损有余而补不足。人之道，则不然，损不足以奉有余。 ”在 “人之道 ”大行其道的今天，不妨多思考 “天之道 ”，宁可放过，不可杀错。

　　（作者是本报评论员）

x 0

宁可放过，不可杀错

（ 2011-04-17）

叶鹏飞

历史经验表明， “公平合理 ”并非常态，因而才促使人们锲而不舍地追求。

《道德经》说： “天之道，损有余而补不足。 人之道，则不然，损不足以奉有余 。 ”

在 “人之道 ”大行其道的今天，不妨多思考 “天之道 ”，宁可放过，不可杀错。

得鱼忘筌

根据社会发展、青年及体育部政务部长符喜泉年初在国会辩论时透露的数字，目前有 3600个国人接受每个月 400元的公共援助金（ Public Assistance）。对牛车水 —金声区议员梁莉莉医生而言，这个数字无法让人接受，因为它远远不能满足受援助者的温饱。她在 2007年时便指出，她的贫困选民每天必须少吃一餐，才勉强能靠公共援助金过活。当年的公共援助金更微薄，每个月才 260元。

　　 梁莉莉是少数一贯地热心为弱势群体请命的议员 ，她在 2008年的一次访谈中说，她无法不为这些穷人奔走呐喊。通过她一次次在国会的发言，我们知道 新加坡目前还有约 10万户处于生活线下、需要帮助的家庭 。她最终的希望， 应该是政府从制度入手，让这些人不必惶恐度日 ，比如设立社会保护网，而不是仅通过暂时性的措施，如就业奖励计划（ Workfare）或社区关怀基金（ ComCare）来应付。

　　政府的立场也一以贯之，认为福利制度会养成国民好吃懒做的依赖心理，且会对财政支出造成负担。此外，慷慨的福利会引诱人们钻漏洞，乘机占制度的便宜。这个立场有很强的经验法则支持；对于人性稍有了解者，也能表示同情。《荀子》就说过： “人之性恶，其善者伪也 ……从人之性，顺人之情，必出于争夺，合于犯分乱理而归于暴。 ”因此，在制度设计上有必要堵住漏洞，避免诱发人们的贪婪心。

　　这种基于对人性的悲观认知，决定了治理的基调，不但在社会福利政策上显得没有同情心，在其他领域如对廉价租赁组屋设下严苛的条件、限制乐龄人士特价使用公共交通的时段、公共医疗津贴上的支付能力调查（ means testing）等等，处处表现了一种怕被坏人利用，而 宁可杀错，不可放过的心态 。

　　慎用纳税人的钱当然是对的，但矫枉过正的副作用，却也同样不乏值得探讨的社会成本。首先，正因为对弱势群体的援助 “政出多门 ”，名目繁杂的措施，导致许多需要帮助者不知何去何从，以至于最后仍然求助无门。社青体部高级政务次长张思乐坦承，连他自己每天都接触这些措施内容的人，都搞不清各个细节，更遑论一般民众了。

　　其次，这种根据特定情况个案援助的做法， 让弱势者必须四处奔走 ，一些有工作但收入低微，甚至需要一天打两份工的人士，根本就没有时间精力去求助。而且， 目前援助机构 “守株待兔 ”，待援者不求不助的基本原则 ，或许会让一些人穷志不短者干脆默默承受；对比之下，统一且制度性的福利保障安全网，显然更有人情味，也更顾及 弱势者的基本尊严 。

　　当然，与个案处理的方式相比，福利保障安全网较容易被人钻空子。这就回到最根本的问题：是宁可杀错，不可放过，代价是容易发生没有照顾到需要照顾者的情况；还是宁可放过，不可杀错，成本是让个别人士滥用福利，却相对全面地照顾弱势群体。这个问题的答案，决定了社会到底希望以 冰冷的理性 ，或是温暖的人情作为生活的基调。

x 0

ＥＶＥＮ when

UNITED NATIONS

went tO W A R

alsO

refUse tO resIgn Or retIre ? ? ? ?

The POLITICAL REWARD Is TRUELY TOO GOOD TO LET GO ? ? ? ?

bishan22 ( Date: 20-Apr-2011 11:41) Posted:

We have 1 in Sg. Hahah

EVERY POLITICIAN SEEMS TO WANT TO WORK UNTIL THEY D I E ? ? ? ?

pharoah88 ( Date: 20-Apr-2011 11:37) Posted:

宁可放过，不可杀错

（ 2011-04-17）

叶鹏飞

历史经验表明， “公平合理 ”并非常态，因而才促使人们锲而不舍地追求。

《道德经》说： “天之道，损有余而补不足。 人之道，则不然，损不足以奉有余 。 ”

在 “人之道 ”大行其道的今天，不妨多思考 “天之道 ”，宁可放过，不可杀错。

得鱼忘筌

根据社会发展、青年及体育部政务部长符喜泉年初在国会辩论时透露的数字，目前有 3600个国人接受每个月 400元的公共援助金（ Public Assistance）。对牛车水 —金声区议员梁莉莉医生而言，这个数字无法让人接受，因为它远远不能满足受援助者的温饱。她在 2007年时便指出，她的贫困选民每天必须少吃一餐，才勉强能靠公共援助金过活。当年的公共援助金更微薄，每个月才 260元。

　　 梁莉莉是少数一贯地热心为弱势群体请命的议员 ，她在 2008年的一次访谈中说，她无法不为这些穷人奔走呐喊。通过她一次次在国会的发言，我们知道 新加坡目前还有约 10万户处于生活线下、需要帮助的家庭 。她最终的希望， 应该是政府从制度入手，让这些人不必惶恐度日 ，比如设立社会保护网，而不是仅通过暂时性的措施，如就业奖励计划（ Workfare）或社区关怀基金（ ComCare）来应付。

　　政府的立场也一以贯之，认为福利制度会养成国民好吃懒做的依赖心理，且会对财政支出造成负担。此外，慷慨的福利会引诱人们钻漏洞，乘机占制度的便宜。这个立场有很强的经验法则支持；对于人性稍有了解者，也能表示同情。《荀子》就说过： “人之性恶，其善者伪也 ……从人之性，顺人之情，必出于争夺，合于犯分乱理而归于暴。 ”因此，在制度设计上有必要堵住漏洞，避免诱发人们的贪婪心。

　　这种基于对人性的悲观认知，决定了治理的基调，不但在社会福利政策上显得没有同情心，在其他领域如对廉价租赁组屋设下严苛的条件、限制乐龄人士特价使用公共交通的时段、公共医疗津贴上的支付能力调查（ means testing）等等，处处表现了一种怕被坏人利用，而 宁可杀错，不可放过的心态 。

　　慎用纳税人的钱当然是对的，但矫枉过正的副作用，却也同样不乏值得探讨的社会成本。首先，正因为对弱势群体的援助 “政出多门 ”，名目繁杂的措施，导致许多需要帮助者不知何去何从，以至于最后仍然求助无门。社青体部高级政务次长张思乐坦承，连他自己每天都接触这些措施内容的人，都搞不清各个细节，更遑论一般民众了。

　　其次，这种根据特定情况个案援助的做法， 让弱势者必须四处奔走 ，一些有工作但收入低微，甚至需要一天打两份工的人士，根本就没有时间精力去求助。而且， 目前援助机构 “守株待兔 ”，待援者不求不助的基本原则 ，或许会让一些人穷志不短者干脆默默承受；对比之下，统一且制度性的福利保障安全网，显然更有人情味，也更顾及 弱势者的基本尊严 。

　　当然，与个案处理的方式相比，福利保障安全网较容易被人钻空子。这就回到最根本的问题：是宁可杀错，不可放过，代价是容易发生没有照顾到需要照顾者的情况；还是宁可放过，不可杀错，成本是让个别人士滥用福利，却相对全面地照顾弱势群体。这个问题的答案，决定了社会到底希望以 冰冷的理性 ，或是温暖的人情作为生活的基调。

x 0

宁可放过，不可杀错

（ 2011-04-17）

叶鹏飞

往深一层思索，这个问题的答案恐怕还将影响社会的长期发展。英国智囊组织 “工作基金会 ”（ Work Foundation）执行长、经济学家、《观察家》报专栏作者及前任主编 威尔 ·赫顿（ Will Hutton） 在其 2010年的新著 《他们与我们：政治、贪婪及不平等》 中，针对全球越来越严峻的贫富差距说，社会公平一方面是保护运气不好的人，另一方面则限制好运气带来的不公义。

　　赫顿认为，经历了 2008年的华尔街全球金融风暴，单纯地重建原有的金融系统并加强其安全已经无济于事，而必须反省现有制度的价值基础 ， “公平合理 ”（ fairness） 必须是资本主义新的核心价值，因为既有的 赢者全拿 的价值体系将 难以为继 。

正如哈佛经济学者熊彼特（ Joseph A Schumpeter）所谓的 “亚当斯密问题 ”（ das Adam Smith Problem），世人只称道《国富论》所强调的私利，却鲜少知道亚当斯密另一本同样重要的巨著 《道德情操论》 所突出的同情心。只强调同情心当然无法呈现人性的完整，但金融风暴的惨痛教训说明，仅歌颂 私利将导致更大的集体灾难 。

　　历史经验表明 ， “公平合理 ”并非常态 ，因而才促使人们锲而不舍地追求。《道德经》说： “天之道，损有余而补不足。人之道，则不然，损不足以奉有余。 ”在 “人之道 ”大行其道的今天，不妨多思考 “天之道 ”，宁可放过，不可杀错。

　　（作者是本报评论员）

x 0

宁可放过，不可杀错

（ 2011-04-17）

叶鹏飞

往深一层思索，这个问题的答案恐怕还将影响社会的长期发展。英国智囊组织 “工作基金会 ”（ Work Foundation）执行长、经济学家、《观察家》报专栏作者及前任主编 威尔 ·赫顿（ Will Hutton） 在其 2010年的新著 《他们与我们：政治、贪婪及不平等》 中，针对全球越来越严峻的贫富差距说，社会公平一方面是保护运气不好的人，另一方面则限制好运气带来的不公义。

　　赫顿认为，经历了 2008年的华尔街全球金融风暴，单纯地重建原有的金融系统并加强其安全已经无济于事，而必须反省现有制度的价值基础 ， “公平合理 ”（ fairness） 必须是资本主义新的核心价值，因为既有的 赢者全拿 的价值体系将 难以为继 。

正如哈佛经济学者熊彼特（ Joseph A Schumpeter）所谓的 “亚当斯密问题 ”（ das Adam Smith Problem），世人只称道《国富论》所强调的私利，却鲜少知道亚当斯密另一本同样重要的巨著 《道德情操论》 所突出的同情心。只强调同情心当然无法呈现人性的完整，但金融风暴的惨痛教训说明， 仅歌颂私利将导致更大的集体灾难。

　　历史经验表明 ， “公平合理 ”并非常态 ，因而才促使人们锲而不舍地追求。《道德经》说： “天之道，损有余而补不足。人之道，则不然，损不足以奉有余。 ”在 “人之道 ”大行其道的今天，不妨多思考 “天之道 ”，宁可放过，不可杀错。

　　（作者是本报评论员）

x 0

老子《道德经》说：

“天之道，损有余而补不足。

人之道，则不然，损不足以奉有余 。 ”

x 0

宁可放过，不可杀错

（ 2011-04-17）

叶鹏飞

历史经验表明， “公平合理 ”并非常态，因而才促使人们锲而不舍地追求。

《道德经》说： “天之道，损有余而补不足。 人之道，则不然，损不足以奉有余 。 ”

在 “人之道 ”大行其道的今天，不妨多思考 “天之道 ”，宁可放过，不可杀错。

得鱼忘筌

根据社会发展、青年及体育部政务部长符喜泉年初在国会辩论时透露的数字，目前有 3600个国人接受每个月 400元的公共援助金（ Public Assistance）。对牛车水 —金声区议员梁莉莉医生而言，这个数字无法让人接受，因为它远远不能满足受援助者的温饱。她在 2007年时便指出，她的贫困选民每天必须少吃一餐，才勉强能靠公共援助金过活。当年的公共援助金更微薄，每个月才 260元。

　　 梁莉莉是少数一贯地热心为弱势群体请命的议员 ，她在 2008年的一次访谈中说，她无法不为这些穷人奔走呐喊。通过她一次次在国会的发言，我们知道 新加坡目前还有约 10万户处于生活线下、需要帮助的家庭 。她最终的希望， 应该是政府从制度入手，让这些人不必惶恐度日 ，比如设立社会保护网，而不是仅通过暂时性的措施，如就业奖励计划（ Workfare）或社区关怀基金（ ComCare）来应付。

　　政府的立场也一以贯之，认为福利制度会养成国民好吃懒做的依赖心理，且会对财政支出造成负担。此外，慷慨的福利会引诱人们钻漏洞，乘机占制度的便宜。这个立场有很强的经验法则支持；对于人性稍有了解者，也能表示同情。《荀子》就说过： “人之性恶，其善者伪也 ……从人之性，顺人之情，必出于争夺，合于犯分乱理而归于暴。 ”因此，在制度设计上有必要堵住漏洞，避免诱发人们的贪婪心。

　　这种基于对人性的悲观认知，决定了治理的基调，不但在社会福利政策上显得没有同情心，在其他领域如对廉价租赁组屋设下严苛的条件、限制乐龄人士特价使用公共交通的时段、公共医疗津贴上的支付能力调查（ means testing）等等，处处表现了一种怕被坏人利用，而 宁可杀错，不可放过的心态 。

　　慎用纳税人的钱当然是对的，但矫枉过正的副作用，却也同样不乏值得探讨的社会成本。首先，正因为对弱势群体的援助 “政出多门 ”，名目繁杂的措施，导致许多需要帮助者不知何去何从，以至于最后仍然求助无门。社青体部高级政务次长张思乐坦承，连他自己每天都接触这些措施内容的人，都搞不清各个细节，更遑论一般民众了。

　　其次，这种根据特定情况个案援助的做法， 让弱势者必须四处奔走 ，一些有工作但收入低微，甚至需要一天打两份工的人士，根本就没有时间精力去求助。而且， 目前援助机构 “守株待兔 ”，待援者不求不助的基本原则 ，或许会让一些人穷志不短者干脆默默承受；对比之下，统一且制度性的福利保障安全网，显然更有人情味，也更顾及 弱势者的基本尊严 。

　　当然，与个案处理的方式相比，福利保障安全网较容易被人钻空子。这就回到最根本的问题：是宁可杀错，不可放过，代价是容易发生没有照顾到需要照顾者的情况；还是宁可放过，不可杀错，成本是让个别人士滥用福利，却相对全面地照顾弱势群体。这个问题的答案，决定了社会到底希望以 冰冷的理性 ，或是温暖的人情作为生活的基调。

x 0

ALL OVER the WORLD ? ? ? ?

NOWADAYS ? ? ? ?

NO POLITICIANS WOULD RESIGN AND EVEN THEY REFUSE TO REITRE ? ? ? ?

EVEN WHEN THEY MADE VERY CRITICAL MISTAKES ? ? ? ?

BECAUSE the M O N E Y IS T O O * G O O D ? ? ? ?

THE PERKS ARE E X C E L L E N T ? ? ? ?

EVERY POLITICIAN SEEMS TO WANT TO WORK UNTIL THEY D I E ? ? ? ?

THE WORLD ECONOMY IS DIRE B A D ? ? ? ?

NO BETTER JOB THAN SUCH OVERPAID JOB WITHOUT KPIs ? ? ? ?

MOST OF ALL, POLITICIANS CAN RAISE OWN SALARIES AND PERKS ? ? ? ?

DO NOTHING AND CONTINUES TO GET PAID AND PROMOTED ? ? ? ?

SOUNDS LIKE A WORLD's 1st 3RD WORLD JOKE ? ? ? ?

IT IS A GOLDEN RICE BOWL ? ? ? ?

OVERHEARD :

THE RICH DON'T FLY FIRST CLASS WITH OWN MONEY ? ? ? ?

THE RICH DON'T STAY PRESIDENT SUITE WITH OWN MONEY ? ? ? ?

bUt THEY DO WHEN ON COMPANY ACCOUNT OR NATIONAL ACCOUNT ? ? ? ?

niuyear ( Date: 19-Apr-2011 13:13) Posted:

$13,000 not easy to earn.

1) constant of priving from public, no privacy

2) must follow rules, get married, have at least 2 or 3 kids

3) cant be gay or lesbian

4) no divorce

4) cant go casinos and pub or buy 4ds and totos or go race course

5) must behave well in holland vlllage, or Samantha will have something to say again.

6) wear white top andn whie bottom

7) sacrifice blck hair for white hair, cos must think a lot

louis001 ( Date: 19-Apr-2011 12:54) Posted:

MP allowance is $13,000 per month......it's not Salary.if one have a seat in parliament, one get that amount, of course, need to do some ground work lah, plus one get to keep your FULL-TIME profession, be it technician, clerk, businessman, sales consultant, lawyer, accountant, telemarketeer,,,,go FULL-TIME MP also can, good money right.

x 0

教育部成語典 --得魚忘筌

- [ 转为简体网页 - Translate this page ]

筌，捕魚用的竹器。「得魚忘筌」指捕到魚後，便忘掉了捕魚的器具。比喻悟道者忘其形骸。語出《莊子．外物》。後亦用「得魚忘筌」比喻人在達到目的成功後就忘掉賴以成功 ...
dict.idioms.moe.edu.tw/pho/cy/cy01481.htm - Cached - Similar- Block all moe.edu.tw results

教 育 部 成 語 典 --得 魚 忘 筌

教育部成語典 --得魚忘筌