PART ONE
Atobe writes
Your tenacity to find fault in my post truly amazes me
Now I wonder who is on an ego trip, in making "meaningless drivel
to fill up space" for each issue that you have not read with
objectivity, and in your haphazard haste to prove me wrong on each
and every mundane matter ?
.. already responded to your correction
of my earlier statement, which obviously you did not read as an
acknowledgement:
Its a very simple situation. (1) You made an error of
suggesting that getting Saturdays off is equivalent to working
fewer hours for more money. (2) You direct it to LHL and use it as
a fulcrum to serve up more sarcasm suggesting it was cleverness
on his part. (3) You certainly responded to my remarks, BUT nowhere
in all the posts did you explicitly acknowledge
you made an error, by admitting and expressing recognition that
getting Saturday off is NOT giving themselves a 5-Day work week to
enjoy the extra 10% wages.
Atobe writes
In your continued haste to dribble up all that is emitted from
LHL, will you be so gullible to take in every single word from him
with mindless efficiency ?
Western Government and societies and companies worked far less
hours than the 44 hour week practised by the Singapore
Government.
Even in the Private Sector in Singapore, some Companies that follow
a 5-day week do not insist on a 44 hour week, and even go a step
further by allowing their Employees flexi-working hours.
You serve up another conspiracy theory- the government is up to
no good in tweaking working hours, even though this has been
welcomed anecdotally. If it had been working longer for lesser pay,
or working more hours with no extra pay, there may have been cause
for complaint. I am amazed you think the government acceding to the
requests of new civil service recruits IS NOT a
thing to be applauded, but a thing to find fault with. You appear
obstinately ready to press on with the belief that civil servants,
and the encouraging of private companies to implement a five-day
work week is horrendous, and indeed, a conspiracy by the
government. What is your agenda here?
Notice I used working
days, not working hours. I am well aware that Singapore,
and indeed, the rest of Asia as well as the US clock in more hours
than Europe , with Denmark holding the record for lowest hours per
worker at 34. This has (1) caused many companies to threaten to
move abroad (with some already having done so, and not just to
China and India) to take advantage of more competitive conditions
(2) prompted reviews by the EU to overhaul its labour conditions so
as to be able to stay in the game against its competitors like the
US. Reality boy, not fantasy.
Nowhere in the post have I suggested that the private sector all
clock in 44 hours or more. That is your assertion, not mine.
While stay-at home-work, or flexi-hours is indeed laudable, it is
ultimately the prerogative of the private company or civil service
where implementation is concerned.
Atobe writes
Excuse me, what formal setting did you mention earlier ?
Or are you referring to the 'formal setting' that LHL had conducted
his "research" ?
When did you decide that you can fit his shoes ?
Will Civil Servants dare to complain ?
This is the formal setting I referred to in the very same
words
. my research/work carried
out in a formal setting over the last three years.
Again, a similar question should be posed to you: When did you
reach the conclusion I was aspiring to fill LHLs shoes, or
anyones shoes for that matter?
What do civil servants have to complain about? Getting the Saturday
off? Having the entire weekend to themselves? Why is it so
difficult for you to accept that many welcome a 5-day week, and not
having to work on Saturdays?
Atobe writes
The housewives are those who are married to close friends,
associates, social contacts, whom I have had the privileged of
communicating and listening to some of their views on social,
economic and political affairs that affect their domestic life.
How are housewives personally affected since they are homemakers
and do not work? Why would they complain that their family time
with husbands and kids on weekends has increased? Are the aghast
their husbands will no longer have their mornings at the office?
What grouses did they communicate to you?
Atobe writes
Now you are digressing with your exaggeration in your preffered
direction of argument that do not address the points that I have
made.
Were "kids" the issue of my last post, or did I mention the fact
that the Housewife will finish off 30 to 60 minutes later each day,
that will affect her household chores of preparing meals and doing
the laundry ?
All emotive
issues were brought up by you, not me. If anyone should be accused
of muddying the waters, digressing with other issues, making
irrelevant statements to take the focus away with the original
subject, its certainly not me.
Atobe writes
In either case, it will be near impossible for you to appreciate
the problems experienced by the average working housewife, who is
from the HDB heartland.
You insist on speculating on my marital status which really
serves no function other than contribute more irrelevant words to
this space.
Again, it is digressing from the subject at hand. What do the
demands and problems of a working housewife have to do with the
civil service tweaking working days? Again, it shows a lot of your
inability to acknowledge errors by insisting on working
housewife. Despite the evident oxymoron (a housewife does not
work in a fulltime career) you are unable to accept erroneous
remarks on your part, even though these have been pointed out to
you repeatedly. Says a lot about you, doesnt it? Your
prevarication, avoidance, resolve to evade truth.
Two dictionary meanings on houswife for your reference: (if you
even quarrel with dictionary meanings, you will understand why you
have the contempt of many here.)
house·wife
n. pl. house·wives (-w vz )
1. A woman who manages her own household as her main
occupation.
Main Entry: house·wife
Pronunciation: 'haus-"wIf; esp 2 and in early poetry
'h&-z&f or -s&f
1 : a married woman in charge of a household
Atobe writes
Did I insist that "Population and / or territorial size" are the
only determinants, or is this your inference of what was stated in
passing and which you have taken out of context to tailor it to fit
your own agenda ?
You know very well what you did. This is what you said when you
talked about the factors which give countries a headstart in
resolving unemployment:
Unfortunately, Singapore do not
have the attributes that will help those mentioned countries - such
as population and territorial size, industrial strength - which
will give these countries a headstart in flexiblity of
polici
I responded accordingly using the three factors you gave. Or did
you highlight the less important points and left out the main ones
instead? Hahaha 
Atobe writes
China and India is already stirring from their many years of
deep slumber, and even your beloved mentors from the Ruling Party
is already telling Singaporeans to wake up to the challenges from
these countries.
In the short span of the last 20 years, since China opened its
doors, we have seen China's foreign reserves and trade surplusses
increased in geometric proportions - that even outstripped
Singapore's reserves by three times.
Yes, yes, yes to all that digressive drivel. But what are the
unemployment rates
in those countries? What is the point of rehashing economic clichés
about India and China when no one is disagreeing about the size of
their foreign reserves. The pertinent subject here is unemployment rates.(Answer:
latest annual 2003
figures China 10% urban unemployment where ironically most jobs
are; India:9.1%) Is Singapore not, and indeed the rest of the
world, restructuring and taking note of the challenges posed by the
two countries? For example the American government highlighting the
outsourcing problem, the Japanese government fretting over its
domestic industries moving to China etc.
