Someone mentioned that for a manager, you've got to be confident about yourself. When the team perform, they will make the manager look good. Give the people their due credit in front of higher bosses, speak up for them when needed and reward them when you get a good rating for your performance because without them, it wouldn't be possible. Is this so difficult to do?
When other department bully your department staff, the least you can do is to stand up for them and not stand aside and keep quiet. Not ask your staff to do work and you take credit for it.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Morals vs laws
Doing the right thing while not dictated by the law, this is the objective that a developed country should be working towards. Of course, in every society, there are bound to be black sheep that lacks the basic moral values but that doesn't mean that we should resort to binding laws while not educating people on the right thing to do.
Eating on a bus vs not giving up seats to needy people, which one should warrant more condemnation? The idea behind fining people who eat on public transport is so that people don't dirty or litter on the public transport but that still doesn't stop people who don't eat from littering or dirtying it. At the end of the day, puny matters such as eating on public transport boils down to: are you a responsible person? If you are, then eating shouldn't matter as you will take care not to litter or if you dirty the place, you will clean it up. The law just assumes that everyone is irresponsible and so therefore bans you or better yet, earn some extra income from people who breaks the rule. The right thing to do therefore should be not littering or dirtying the place and NOT the action of eating or drinking.
I'm sure matters such as not giving up seats to the needy should warrant a more serious outlook than eating or drinking. Think of what the consequences could be should there be a sudden brake and an elderly or pregnant or handicapped person should lose their balance? And by the way, not just the people who are taking up the designated seats should give up the seat for the needy, this should be regardless of what seat anybody is in. Instead of blaming people who take up the designated seats and not giving them up, why don't they ask why did the rest not give up their seats?
I'm disappointed that Singaporeans should choose to be ruled by the law instead of using their conscience as a measure of what's right or what's wrong. To a typical law-abiding Singaporean, if there's no laws, it's ok to do it; if there's laws, you are so going to get it. So eating on public transport is a cause for hoo-haa and be subjected to fines while not giving up seats to the needy is left entirely up to a person's choice -- that says so much about the people in the country.
Eating on a bus vs not giving up seats to needy people, which one should warrant more condemnation? The idea behind fining people who eat on public transport is so that people don't dirty or litter on the public transport but that still doesn't stop people who don't eat from littering or dirtying it. At the end of the day, puny matters such as eating on public transport boils down to: are you a responsible person? If you are, then eating shouldn't matter as you will take care not to litter or if you dirty the place, you will clean it up. The law just assumes that everyone is irresponsible and so therefore bans you or better yet, earn some extra income from people who breaks the rule. The right thing to do therefore should be not littering or dirtying the place and NOT the action of eating or drinking.
I'm sure matters such as not giving up seats to the needy should warrant a more serious outlook than eating or drinking. Think of what the consequences could be should there be a sudden brake and an elderly or pregnant or handicapped person should lose their balance? And by the way, not just the people who are taking up the designated seats should give up the seat for the needy, this should be regardless of what seat anybody is in. Instead of blaming people who take up the designated seats and not giving them up, why don't they ask why did the rest not give up their seats?
I'm disappointed that Singaporeans should choose to be ruled by the law instead of using their conscience as a measure of what's right or what's wrong. To a typical law-abiding Singaporean, if there's no laws, it's ok to do it; if there's laws, you are so going to get it. So eating on public transport is a cause for hoo-haa and be subjected to fines while not giving up seats to the needy is left entirely up to a person's choice -- that says so much about the people in the country.