You failed to realize one critical error in the analogy you
posted. Whether the junior's salary is S$2000, or US$100,000/mth or
RMB$600/mth, was he QUALIFIED for the post?
1. If he was, thus he was entrusted with the millions to get the
job right as is his job scope and responsibility. He then is
accountable solely for the loss.
2. If he was not, just a clerk, then that responsibility lies
with the manager. The manager oughtta be kicked out.
The keyword is - QUALIFICATION. It is only thru
qualifications can one be entrusted to a position that entails
specific duties. It had been the hallmark of our government of
putting only qualified people for the job so as not to waste
taxpayers money, and not just some Tom, dick and harry from
the streets- simply to get the job done.
So much so till the People are complaining of Qualified FTs
taking over our jobs. Now the govt is in a tight spot
- Support unqualified local personal ahead and they get
blame. Support qualified outsiders, they get blamed. Their
solution now is to adopt flexible education style - selection of
courses and upgrading of courses that best suit market
opportunities in the next few years to help our locals.
Would you yourself hire a primary school educated man without
even successful track management records to manage your
financial wealth portfolios?
Would you put a taxi driver incharge of a ship if he was not
trained for the job?
Most people are hire because they had been qualified for the
job, and thus solely responsible for it. They cannot shirk that
responsibility by pushing it upwards if management had already
approved their appointments, not by fortune telling, but by paper
qualifications.
Now that i had answer this on behalf of others, mau, perhaps you
can answer to my simple query:-
Who should take the blame if a son
commits murder, he or his father/mother/both in the name of
accountability? Do understand your answer will reflect the
kind of society you want and want others to live in.
let's use ur point against u.. if a son commits murder, the son is
responsible, BUT the parents are also responsible for the child's
actions.. that they failed to bring the child up correctly..and
hence they were not qualified, to put it that way..
lets use ur analogy, but not to the extent of murder, but just
say, teenagers who commit theft.. are the parents not responsible
for the actions of the child?
or, what do u think of teenagers who are rowdy on buses and so
on? straight away u think parents never teach, correct?
so why issit that below kena, up there nvr kena? dun say full
responsibility, dun say sack or what, but totally nothing from him?
come on man..
