Fine line between destitute and poor but exercising.
-
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.
Serious PAP's sheer arrogance and contempt
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
Fine line between destitute and poor but exercising.
Happiest people come from societies where there are social policies to bring help people achieve middle class standard of living. Middle class standard of living is not easily achieved when left to the free market because the cost of health care, education, daycare is prohibitively high for individual purchase. That's why the government can take a huge financial load of people when such services are provided through taxes.
U know who complains about elitism?
The poor.
And what do they do about it? Buy more 4D weekly and pray hard. Cheebye!
The poor.
And what do they do about it? Buy more 4D weekly and pray hard. Cheebye!
Chinese women regardless of nationalities normally prefer to stay in private condominium and pay premium bank loan for such a private property. To them, staying in HDB flats will be looked down and other people will say them poor
The middle class don't complain about elitism?
Man, if you don't like the poor, you should talk to your PAP MP to get rid of the poor.
We are discussing poverty not middle class living. I started off by stating that there is no poverty in Singapore. I have seen no evidence that makes me change my mind.
The standard of living in Singapore is so high that even the bottom 10% are way above anything that might even remotely resemble poverty.
As for happiness that opens up a whole new can of worms. If welfarism and income redistribution make everyone happy then why is the suicide rate in Sweden almost double that of Singapore's? The answer lies in the fact that happiness comes not from material comforts but from a sense of community and self worth. Handouts breed dependency and dependency lowers self esteem. The end result is not pretty.
I am thankful I have my morning mari kita every single day... only thing is I don't recite the pledge- my mantra is "Tantric sex is the best!"
Please don't forget to mention mice breeding in between those layers of attap leaves... KNN...
KNN in first world cuntry poverty will not be obvious like what you presented pictures becas there are free expired food thrown by supermarkets etc free used branded apparels and shoes to salvation army . you can see those in poverty rushing to collect them. first come first serve basis ho . however after fighting for all the expired products their last dollar will be used to huat with sg pool but you cannot blame them as the last dollar cannot do anything besides buying hopes KNN and some will even go around trying to befriend strangers in the hope that they can get free meals or kopi KNN
Last edited:
Poverty is when you have no proper roof over your head, no electricity, no clean water, no food and you are starving. You are confusing low income with poverty. Low income is not poverty.
If poverty is not visible it means that it is not poverty. Real poverty is very real. You can see the slums, the despair, the squalor, the walking skeletons.
Singapore is similar to the USA. In the US "poverty" is an inappropriately used label. Just take a look at the so called poverty stricken in the USA. They line up for food but they should actually be lining up at weight watchers. They are all well fed and comfortable. Their problem is that they cannot afford an iPhone and a Netflix subscription.
KNN as my uncle mentioned there are still fall back assocations for them. those fattie line up to collect free food that's why they maintain their size if not they will become the skinny monkeys in months to come KNN
Just to jump in on the issue of meritocracy. I think this article accidentally hit the nail on the head with regards to the problem of meritocracy: there is an imperfect flow of information within the context of meritocracy at the work place. Hence networking trumps merit in this imperfect flow of information.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...rs-online-posting-he-remains-indian-at-heart/
Mr Gupta on networking and merit:
Networking, in my definition, is not just knowing a large number of people, but ensuring that people who are relevant to your job choices know you, and develop a healthy respect for your capabilities. This is often very difficult, because these people may have nothing to do with your current job; in fact, they may not even know you exist.
In the 1990s, I used to be Chief of Staff and Head of Strategy for the Citibank business in India. As part of my career thinking, I figured out that my next job needed to be an assignment that was overseas. However, it was very tough sitting in Mumbai and trying to figure out how to get an overseas assignment. So I made a list of six people in the Citibank system whom I thought could be helpful in getting my next assignment, and I thought to myself, “These people don’t know me”. My personal goal was that by the end of year, they should all know who I am and have a positive impression of me. I worked at it very systematically. If somebody came, I made sure I went there and met them. If somebody sent an email, I made sure I wrote back with an intelligent, thoughtful response. I was able to connect with those people in the course of the year.
The reality of life is people give jobs to those they know (exist)...
So what if you're the best but if no one knows you exist in the organization?
Meritocracy can be an excellent guiding principle but it fails to account for human behavoir like politicking in the office. Humans are the weakness in the system.
We can't blindly ignore human nature which results in so many unintended consequences of our meritocractic system.
Anyway one of the biggest slaps in the face of meritocracy is in our primary school admission system with preferrential treatment for alumni.
The system is having an identity crisis.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...rs-online-posting-he-remains-indian-at-heart/
Mr Gupta on networking and merit:
Networking, in my definition, is not just knowing a large number of people, but ensuring that people who are relevant to your job choices know you, and develop a healthy respect for your capabilities. This is often very difficult, because these people may have nothing to do with your current job; in fact, they may not even know you exist.
In the 1990s, I used to be Chief of Staff and Head of Strategy for the Citibank business in India. As part of my career thinking, I figured out that my next job needed to be an assignment that was overseas. However, it was very tough sitting in Mumbai and trying to figure out how to get an overseas assignment. So I made a list of six people in the Citibank system whom I thought could be helpful in getting my next assignment, and I thought to myself, “These people don’t know me”. My personal goal was that by the end of year, they should all know who I am and have a positive impression of me. I worked at it very systematically. If somebody came, I made sure I went there and met them. If somebody sent an email, I made sure I wrote back with an intelligent, thoughtful response. I was able to connect with those people in the course of the year.
The reality of life is people give jobs to those they know (exist)...
So what if you're the best but if no one knows you exist in the organization?
Meritocracy can be an excellent guiding principle but it fails to account for human behavoir like politicking in the office. Humans are the weakness in the system.
We can't blindly ignore human nature which results in so many unintended consequences of our meritocractic system.
Anyway one of the biggest slaps in the face of meritocracy is in our primary school admission system with preferrential treatment for alumni.
The system is having an identity crisis.
If we define merit in the narrowest of terms then the person with the highest IQ would have the most "merit" and would therefore be the 1st choice in any system that chooses based upon merit.
However we all know that IQ alone does not determine a person's performance in any task. EQ is just as important.
The ability to network is part of that EQ and forms part of the definition of "merit".
However we all know that IQ alone does not determine a person's performance in any task. EQ is just as important.
The ability to network is part of that EQ and forms part of the definition of "merit".
We were promised SWISS standard... Are these SWISS standard?
Yes Singapore and Switzerland both have a category of citizens which are classified as "low income". In fact I would say that the Singapore standard of living is now higher.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/societ...nd-homeless-on-the-streets-of-zurich/41058006
why cabot to kiwi lan?????????
his mum got fugged by.......
What can you do? Your PAP MP can't save you!
If you're going with a wide definition, then anything that gives you an edge over the next sucker will be deemed merit. Adderall for rich kids to get a quick cognitive boost to ace the exams. It doesn't end.
One consequence of merit in our capitalist society is the inequitable allocation of resources. Every decision is reduced to dollars and cents, and he with the most merit, has the most cents.
When the PAP first came into power, they embarked on a massive reallocation of resources, nationalizing land and businesses. I do not know what wealth distribution was like pre-PAP, but I'd hazard a guess it was highly concentrated in the top 5% or less; worse than today.
But now we are headed back to those pre-PAP days of great wealth inequality. And merit has a large part to do with this.
There will always be the "losers" in every race. But the real issue is, how much do the winners deserve?
There is no viable alternative to meritocracy (we can't be going back to racial quotas,) but we need to relook at how much the winners of this race should get (to keep; aka taxes.)
Meritocracy is a beast if left unchecked. It is essentially survival of the fittest and if u die... Who's problem?
Last edited:
Similar threads
