- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 18,141
- Points
- 113
The govt's greed is very dangerous to S'pore.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Crown Prince Li Hongyi criticizes PAP Govt, says he wants to make Sg much better, preparing to win himself votes?
- Thread starter UltimaOnline
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 843
- Points
- 63
Is he gay? Homosexuality seems to run in the family.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2023
- Messages
- 11,754
- Points
- 113
Gov tech, previously known as ida
Their director has the power to provide feedback about extending a service contract or award a new contract to a company. Here we are talking about 100m in size.
Henceforth, everyone take them like an emperor.
Sorlee. Wrong target. the 100m doesn't goes to me.
Hence I whacked them till they becum puppies.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,337
- Points
- 113
FB , Ravi Philemon,
. .
In a recent LinkedIn post, Li Hongyi, GovTech Director and the son of Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, seems to suggest that Megan’s tragedy could have been avoided if technology was better deployed. (If you want to read his post, it's here: https://shorturl.at/QduIv.) And for someone like me who's been in the social services sector for decades, his post lays bare how out of touch and elitist he is.
. . .
A culture that teaches people to keep their heads down, follow instructions, and avoid making the wrong person look bad. A culture that rewards neat paperwork over decisive action and silence over speaking up. That is what failed Megan. Not the absence of tools, but the presence of fear, hierarchy, and self protection.
Now, consider this. Hongyi said: “I think it is unconscionable that your Grab orders are tracked down to the minute while a child abuse case gets dropped because someone got reassigned.” He also said that “TikTok has a detailed profile of your every interest, but we didn’t share information of whole body bruising and caretakers being drug addicts.” The suggestion is that the system simply failed to use the tools available.
But anyone who has worked in social service agencies knows the problem goes deeper than tools. The culture prizes order over urgency, compliance over courage, and reputation over truth. It rewards those who follow instructions and punishes those who ask questions. It measures performance by how tidy the reports look, not so much by how many lives are changed.
, , : , , ?
This is why Hongyi's comparison to the Grab food delivery rider sounds silly. The food delivery rider is at the bottom of the organisational “food chain.” And in his case, the system can and wants to react quickly to remind him of his place in the scheme of things. His timing is tracked to the minute. Any delay triggers penalties.
The truth is, the system we have built and prize, has no hesitation in enforcing rules when it is managing someone with no power. It disciplines downward as a default.
But when a child like Megan, who is even further down the “food chain,” needs protection, the urgency disappears because the culture forces everyone to pause and think if there is anyone at the top they need to protect.
People start considering internal implications, reporting lines, and how the decision might reflect on supervisors or departments. The instinct is no longer to act. It is to avoid being the one who causes trouble. And in that hesitation, a child’s life was left unprotected.
, .
As Minister Gan Kim Yong said during the 2016 Hepatitis C outbreak debate, “Instead of naming the individuals and developing a blame culture … we need to encourage a learning culture” — which often results in protection for senior officials while frontline staff bear the brunt of accountability.
In keeping with this culture, when Megan’s case first came to public attention, the initial communication from government agencies appeared to place responsibility on Beyond Social Services (BSS), the community agency operating her preschool.
The suggestion was that BSS did not communicate the seriousness of the situation clearly enough. This interpretation frustrated many social workers. And rightly so, because BSS did not have the authority to remove Megan from her caregivers. That authority rests with statutory bodies such as MSF’s Child Protective Service (CPS). The preschool could report and flag concerns, but it could not decide or enforce protective action.
So the reaction from social workers was immediate. Because we have seen this before. When something goes wrong, blame travels downward. Responsibility is placed on the people with the least power to change the situation. Community agencies are told to carry the risk, but they are not given the authority to intervene.
MSF later accepted that the framing was wrong and apologised. The review confirmed what many already knew. The failure was not in one agency. It was across agencies, across decision points, and across the culture that governs how these decisions are made.
The failure was not caused by a lack of information. The reports were made. Multiple professionals saw signs of harm. The issue was how institutions responded to the information they had.
- , , .
To put it plainly, new dashboards are not going to prevent the next tragedy as long as the culture remains the same.
Megan’s death must lead us to confront how power, responsibility and caution operate in our institutions. Without cultural reform, technological improvements risk becoming just another layer of documentation.
This is why we have called for the Megan Escalation Protocol. (The proposal for the Megan Protocol is here: https://rdusg.short.gy/Jhto6j)
The protocol makes clear that when any educator, social worker or community practitioner believes a child may be at risk of harm, the system is obligated to act without waiting for certainty or multiple rounds of verification.
Professional judgment alone must be enough to trigger immediate escalation, a supervisor review within 24 hours, and the authority to intervene across agencies where needed. This takes the burden off individual workers to fight the system and places responsibility back on the institutions that are meant to protect children.
So, Hongyi, just in case you are reading this post, dashboards can be a useful tool to support child protection. But to guard children effectively, we need a culture shift in the establishment. A shift that values truth over reputation, initiative over avoidance, and the safety of the vulnerable over the stability of the organisation.
My point is, Megan’s case cannot be treated as an isolated failure. If the culture does not change, the outcome will not change.
.
.
. .
In a recent LinkedIn post, Li Hongyi, GovTech Director and the son of Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, seems to suggest that Megan’s tragedy could have been avoided if technology was better deployed. (If you want to read his post, it's here: https://shorturl.at/QduIv.) And for someone like me who's been in the social services sector for decades, his post lays bare how out of touch and elitist he is.
. . .
A culture that teaches people to keep their heads down, follow instructions, and avoid making the wrong person look bad. A culture that rewards neat paperwork over decisive action and silence over speaking up. That is what failed Megan. Not the absence of tools, but the presence of fear, hierarchy, and self protection.
Now, consider this. Hongyi said: “I think it is unconscionable that your Grab orders are tracked down to the minute while a child abuse case gets dropped because someone got reassigned.” He also said that “TikTok has a detailed profile of your every interest, but we didn’t share information of whole body bruising and caretakers being drug addicts.” The suggestion is that the system simply failed to use the tools available.
But anyone who has worked in social service agencies knows the problem goes deeper than tools. The culture prizes order over urgency, compliance over courage, and reputation over truth. It rewards those who follow instructions and punishes those who ask questions. It measures performance by how tidy the reports look, not so much by how many lives are changed.
, , : , , ?
This is why Hongyi's comparison to the Grab food delivery rider sounds silly. The food delivery rider is at the bottom of the organisational “food chain.” And in his case, the system can and wants to react quickly to remind him of his place in the scheme of things. His timing is tracked to the minute. Any delay triggers penalties.
The truth is, the system we have built and prize, has no hesitation in enforcing rules when it is managing someone with no power. It disciplines downward as a default.
But when a child like Megan, who is even further down the “food chain,” needs protection, the urgency disappears because the culture forces everyone to pause and think if there is anyone at the top they need to protect.
People start considering internal implications, reporting lines, and how the decision might reflect on supervisors or departments. The instinct is no longer to act. It is to avoid being the one who causes trouble. And in that hesitation, a child’s life was left unprotected.
, .
As Minister Gan Kim Yong said during the 2016 Hepatitis C outbreak debate, “Instead of naming the individuals and developing a blame culture … we need to encourage a learning culture” — which often results in protection for senior officials while frontline staff bear the brunt of accountability.
In keeping with this culture, when Megan’s case first came to public attention, the initial communication from government agencies appeared to place responsibility on Beyond Social Services (BSS), the community agency operating her preschool.
The suggestion was that BSS did not communicate the seriousness of the situation clearly enough. This interpretation frustrated many social workers. And rightly so, because BSS did not have the authority to remove Megan from her caregivers. That authority rests with statutory bodies such as MSF’s Child Protective Service (CPS). The preschool could report and flag concerns, but it could not decide or enforce protective action.
So the reaction from social workers was immediate. Because we have seen this before. When something goes wrong, blame travels downward. Responsibility is placed on the people with the least power to change the situation. Community agencies are told to carry the risk, but they are not given the authority to intervene.
MSF later accepted that the framing was wrong and apologised. The review confirmed what many already knew. The failure was not in one agency. It was across agencies, across decision points, and across the culture that governs how these decisions are made.
The failure was not caused by a lack of information. The reports were made. Multiple professionals saw signs of harm. The issue was how institutions responded to the information they had.
- , , .
To put it plainly, new dashboards are not going to prevent the next tragedy as long as the culture remains the same.
Megan’s death must lead us to confront how power, responsibility and caution operate in our institutions. Without cultural reform, technological improvements risk becoming just another layer of documentation.
This is why we have called for the Megan Escalation Protocol. (The proposal for the Megan Protocol is here: https://rdusg.short.gy/Jhto6j)
The protocol makes clear that when any educator, social worker or community practitioner believes a child may be at risk of harm, the system is obligated to act without waiting for certainty or multiple rounds of verification.
Professional judgment alone must be enough to trigger immediate escalation, a supervisor review within 24 hours, and the authority to intervene across agencies where needed. This takes the burden off individual workers to fight the system and places responsibility back on the institutions that are meant to protect children.
So, Hongyi, just in case you are reading this post, dashboards can be a useful tool to support child protection. But to guard children effectively, we need a culture shift in the establishment. A shift that values truth over reputation, initiative over avoidance, and the safety of the vulnerable over the stability of the organisation.
My point is, Megan’s case cannot be treated as an isolated failure. If the culture does not change, the outcome will not change.
.
.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 28,183
- Points
- 113
Only the Lees can lead Singapore to greater heights. LW is just a seat warmer. He can go back to busking with his guitar.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2025
- Messages
- 765
- Points
- 43
GovTech Is a place where people are busy drafting emails to shoot here and there
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 18,141
- Points
- 113
There is a lot of "shuffling of papers" in the civil service.
They are busy playing office politics as most of the work are subcontracted out. 555
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 18,141
- Points
- 113
Sounds like my Corp Comms Dept which outsources most of their work to digital agencies and strategic communication firms.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2025
- Messages
- 765
- Points
- 43
Interested in only collecting monthly salary and bonuses and subcontractors suffer from their wimps and sudden deadlines
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2025
- Messages
- 765
- Points
- 43
Either no talent or beneficial to outsource better
Similar threads
