(12-06-2014, 01:09 AM)Freenasi Wrote: [ -> ]It's quite apparent the whole system try to discredit Roy so that it serves 2 purpose 1) cannot go against the master 2) if u go against pinky u must be bad guy.
Think again what you said, is this really the truth? It may have some truth in the past, but I do not think it is the same now. Read today's post by Egghead, which IMO is very sensible.
Before Roy N, there were a few similar cases, for example, TR Emeritus. However, PM only asked for an apology, but in Roy N case, he further demanded a compensation, which Roy initially agreed to pay $5K. Do you think $5K is a fair amount? Do you think our PM should accept the $5K? What would the world think of our PM if he does accept the $5K? I want my PM to be able to stand tall among the world leaders. If anyone can make baseless remarks and not get deal with, what would happen to our society? If it is indeed truth that the whole system is to prevent people from going against the master, than TR Emeritus would be long gone, we will not have a Hong Lim park anymore and Jack Neo would by now served jails for a few times for filming movies that suan the govt.
Oh, btw, did you hear WP supporting Roy N in this case? IMO, WP is a responsible opposition, with smart leaders. They have remained silent about the whole thing. What does this means to you? To me, it means they do not support Roy's accusations either.
(12-06-2014, 09:39 AM)Ben Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2014, 01:09 AM)Freenasi Wrote: [ -> ]It's quite apparent the whole system try to discredit Roy so that it serves 2 purpose 1) cannot go against the master 2) if u go against pinky u must be bad guy.
Think again what you said, is this really the truth? It may have some truth in the past, but I do not think it is the same now. Read today's post by Egghead, which IMO is very sensible.
Before Roy N, there were a few similar cases, for example, TR Emeritus. However, PM only asked for an apology, but in Roy N case, he further demanded a compensation, which Roy initially agreed to pay $5K. Do you think $5K is a fair amount? Do you think our PM should accept the $5K? What would the world think of our PM if he does accept the $5K? I want my PM to be able to stand tall among the world leaders. If anyone can make baseless remarks and not get deal with, what would happen to our society? If it is indeed truth that the whole system is to prevent people from going against the master, than TR Emeritus would be long gone, we will not have a Hong Lim park anymore and Jack Neo would by now served jails for a few times for filming movies that suan the govt.
Oh, btw, did you hear WP supporting Roy N in this case? IMO, WP is a responsible opposition, with smart leaders. They have remained silent about the whole thing. What does this means to you? To me, it means they do not support Roy's accusations either.
Why should WP involve in such issue when it has nothing to do with their party ?
(12-06-2014, 01:09 AM)Freenasi Wrote: [ -> ]It's quite apparent the whole system try to discredit Roy so that it serves 2 purpose 1) cannot go against the master 2) if u go against pinky u must be bad guy.
The same tactic worked in the past, and most people r ignorant about politics. Nowadays more r educated and with Internet, Fb, forum r better informed too. It's presumption that people r easily influenced by the newspaper or tv. Unless the Internet is shut down and Fb disabled, I think it was a miscalculated move to corner this poor chap who is harmessless AfterAll.
Mr Low Thia Khiang did go against the "masters", both on current "master" and the more "garang" previous "master". I didn't recall he was sued for defamation
There must be a major difference between him and ROY, to allow the privilege.
(12-06-2014, 01:33 AM)Big Toe Wrote: [ -> ]In life, a lot of incompetent people are taking on management/high level positions, I have lost count of them.
You take them out of that position of power and ask them to strike out on their own, they wont last a day.
Life is indeed unfair at times. The truly deserving people are the self made ones.
A normal paying job is what the company thinks you're worth. Striking it out on your own is the true measure of what you're worth and what work means to you.
Truly said.
Like when you put your money in the market then you will know what it means. The Market doesn't care a damn who you are or are not. All are equally treated by MR. MARKET.
(12-06-2014, 10:13 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]Mr Low Thia Khiang did go against the "masters", both on current "master" and the more "garang" previous "master". I didn't recall he was sued for defamation
There must be a major difference between him and ROY, to allow the privilege.
Agree
And to set the record straight please correct this chronology of events if you think it's incorrect, then we have some basis on why I think Roy deserve it:
1) Roy Accusing PM of stealing.
1a Roy took down post
1b Instead posted summary of what he posted before and made a video (?)
1c Offered $5k compensation
2) PM suing of Roy
http://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-5216-...l#pid85621
WP being the main opposition will have a view on major issues or debates. Fact that they kept quiet is an agreement by omission. Those parties that join the rally shows me what substance they really are. It is one thing for individuals to join, but quite another when a political party with a stated manifesto joins.
Which leads to my disagreement to what said below: An entity can have their own view, but if your view is a decision against another entity, ie sacking in this case, it has to be able to stand up to scrutiny. What NPark did to Lim on the Brompton Bike is correct protocol and sensible. What TTSH did is not... or rather half... if they just shutup up to the point when they said they dismissed Roy due to poor performance... that's valid enough
(11-06-2014, 05:38 PM)egghead Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see it that way.
Any person or organization can act on its own. It cannot mean that just because A is sued by B for defamation, everyone else has to wait for that case to settle. It is totally ok, for example, that in the mean time, C comes out and call A a liar as well and act accordingly in C's own interest. As long as C is satisfied that its own action is defensible.
____________
(11-06-2014, 09:41 PM)pianist Wrote: [ -> ]seems like many troubles or signs of troubles got brewed from the public service sector. I recalled there was one civil servant playing double 1) talking up & 2) talking down on new toyo thread.
is it true that civil service got so much free time? if so, I wonder if they are really doing their job during work hours..hmm..
I don't see a difference between the amount of commitment or the potential for hubris between public or private sector.
I don't believe civil sector should be talked down like in Taiwan. All it does is immobilise the civil service and essentially the infrastructure
I agree with LKY and believe for the common good a strong civil sector competitive with the pte sector is needed. It is the execution that I sometimes find issue with.
100% agreed.
TTSH doesn't have to justify to the public or anybody whether the SACKING is due to PINKY or not? Let ROY N proves it is a much better thinking. i think someone wants to AB of PINKY's.
Quote:. if they just shutup up to the point when they said they dismissed Roy due to poor performance... that's valid enough
(12-06-2014, 10:38 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2014, 10:13 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]Mr Low Thia Khiang did go against the "masters", both on current "master" and the more "garang" previous "master". I didn't recall he was sued for defamation
There must be a major difference between him and ROY, to allow the privilege.
Agree
And to set the record straight please correct this chronology of events if you think it's incorrect, then we have some basis on why I think Roy deserve it:
1) Roy Accusing PM of stealing.
1a Roy took down post
1b Instead posted summary of what he posted before and made a video (?)
1c Offered $5k compensation
2) PM suing of Roy
http://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-5216-...l#pid85621
WP being the main opposition will have a view on major issues or debates. Fact that they kept quiet is an agreement by omission. Those parties that join the rally shows me what substance they really are. It is one thing for individuals to join, but quite another when a political party with a stated manifesto joins.
Which leads to my disagreement to what said below: An entity can have their own view, but if your view is a decision against another entity, ie sacking in this case, it has to be able to stand up to scrutiny. What NPark did is correct protocol. What TTSH did is not... or rather half... if they just shutup up to the point when they said they dismissed Roy due to poor performance... that's valid enough
(11-06-2014, 05:38 PM)egghead Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see it that way.
Any person or organization can act on its own. It cannot mean that just because A is sued by B for defamation, everyone else has to wait for that case to settle. It is totally ok, for example, that in the mean time, C comes out and call A a liar as well and act accordingly in C's own interest. As long as C is satisfied that its own action is defensible.
(12-06-2014, 10:38 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Which leads to my disagreement to what said below: An entity can have their own view, but if your view is a decision against another entity, ie sacking in this case, it has to be able to stand up to scrutiny. What NPark did is correct protocol. What TTSH did is not... or rather half... if they just shutup up to the point when they said they dismissed Roy due to poor performance... that's valid enough
I disagree with your "disagreement"
If a staff committed a wrongdoing and admitted it unambiguously, not verbally, but in signed black and white. The company is absolutely right to dismiss the staff, even the case is not reported to police, and convicted in court.
I assume the same applies to Roy case.
Storm in a tea cup. Let's move on.
(12-06-2014, 10:59 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2014, 10:38 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Which leads to my disagreement to what said below: An entity can have their own view, but if your view is a decision against another entity, ie sacking in this case, it has to be able to stand up to scrutiny. What NPark did is correct protocol. What TTSH did is not... or rather half... if they just shutup up to the point when they said they dismissed Roy due to poor performance... that's valid enough
I disagree with your "disagreement"
If a staff committed a wrongdoing and admitted it unambiguously, not verbally, but in signed black and white. The company is absolutely right to dismiss the staff, even the case is not reported to police, and convicted in court.
I assume the same applies to Roy case.
U have a valid point. He did admit it first. The chronology should be amended to
1) Roy Accusing PM of stealing.
1.1 PM threatened to sue
1.2 Roy admit cannot substantiate what he said
1a Roy took down post
1b Instead posted summary of what he posted before and made a video (?)
1c Offered $5k compensation
2) PM suing of Roy
(12-06-2014, 12:04 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]1) Roy Accusing PM of stealing.
1.1 PM threatened to sue
1.2 Roy admit cannot substantiate what he said
1a Roy took down post
1b Instead posted summary of what he posted before and made a video (?)
1c Offered $5k compensation
2) PM suing of Roy
I roughly remember more details as follow:
1) Roy Accusing PM of stealing.
1.1 PM threatened to sue
1.2 Roy admit cannot substantiate what he said
1a Roy took down post
and apologized. Asked for more time to offer damage and was granted
1b Instead posted summary of what he posted before and made a video (?)
Received further demand to remove postings and video or face aggravated damage. Pretend to comply but instead circulated postings and videos to international media.
1c Offered $5k compensation
2) PM suing of Roy
Correct me if I'm wrong.