Oct 04, 2012
F1 reveals ethical dissonance
THANK you, Ms Anna Quek, for so eloquently expressing the concerns about the Government's decision to extend the hosting of the Formula One (F1) race for another five years ("S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please"; last Saturday).
[I don't know why you are thanking her. Her points were nothing related to yours. Oh! You were just using it as a hook! Or simply to form solidarity of "SG against the F1". I see. No logical or philosophical alignment other than a simple common foe: the F1.]
Singapore risks evolving into a country of contradictions.
[Wrong. Singapore is already a country of contradictions. Farrer Park is not on Farrer Road. Marina Bay Station is not at Marina Bay Sands. Esplanade Station does not open directly to the Esplanade. There are 4 different brands of "Katong Laksa" all claiming to be the authentic one. Right in the middle of our city centre, we have a cricket club and how many Singaporeans even know the rules of cricket let alone play it?]
We welcome casinos and try to teach values in our schools.
[No. No. No. We teach students to be disciplined and want our soldiers to think!]
We host a clearly environmentally hostile race, while we make increasingly loud noises about sustainability.
[We do? (make increasingly loud noises about sustainability)?]
We also claim great pride in our reputation for integrity.
Yet, integrity is about doing the right thing, even if it costs one personally.
[So... JBJ, CSJ are men of integrity, but since CST and LTK have never been sued by the PAP and so never suffered personal costs, they have no integrity, or at best less integrity than JBJ and CSJ?]
It means having to make financial sacrifices in order to preserve and build a long-term reputation.
[Like Ng Eng Hen giving up his multi-million practice to make just about $1m as a minister? Or K Shanmugan giving up his multi-million dollar law practice? or Vivian Balakrishnan?]
I am increasingly concerned that we are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices because we cannot see beyond dollars and cents.
[Like how your definition of integrity is pegged to financial costs? How about a simple, "Integrity is simply doing what one says one will do and saying what one will do"? Like CST? What's with all these personal costs and financial sacrifices crap? Integrity - it's not real until you put a price on it.]
If we do not watch it, we may one day be called ethical pragmatists, which is an oxymoron.
Mak Yuen Teen
[Thank you ethical moron. My problem with your letter is your assumption that contradictions are an evil. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind and the same time and still retain the ability to function" says F. Scott Fitzgerald.
There is an obvious failure to function here.
Contradictions abound in life. Mature people navigate these contradictions and can even hold opposing ideas in their mind at the same time. They don't selectively seek to resolve the "contradictions" that contradict their wants.
Here's a contradiction: we value tolerance. So here is an example of me being intolerant of intolerance!
Let's see what Anna Quek actually wrote.]
Sep 29, 2012
S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please
I AM dismayed that Singapore has committed itself to a further five years of Formula One ("Five more years for S'pore race", Sunday; and "F1 'to bring bigger benefits' in next lap", Tuesday).
[Narcissistic delusion. Assumes we are concerned about her dismay. Or that her dismay amounts to an earth shattering catastrophe that needs urgent attention to address or prevent.]
I am unconvinced by its purported benefits and worry about the ethical implications from the promotion of the event.
[See "Narcissistic Delusion" above. Assumes that others should be similarly unconvinced.]
The only certainty about F1 is the financial outlay for each race, amounting to about $150 million, with the Government co-funding 60 per cent of approved costs.
[Her first factual assertion.... and it's WRONG! OK, possibly wrong. The figures she stated were the conditions of the first 5 years deal. We have not been told what the deal is for the next 5 years.]
It is widely acknowledged that Singapore paid a hefty premium for the first deal, and there were expectations that the Government would negotiate better terms for a second contract.
It is disappointing that there has been no disclosure of the actual financial terms of a deal involving millions of dollars of public funds. Instead, Singaporeans are asked to place their faith in "consultants" who claim favourable international publicity generated by the F1 glitz.
[Life is disappointment. Get used to it.]
I am sceptical that any for-profit company would pooh-pooh such a trophy event and risk incurring the wrath of its clients.
[There's healthy scepticism, and poisonous cynicism, and pathological paranoia. She has a 1 in 3 chance of being healthy. Consultants thrive on the value they provide to their clients, and their reputation depends on it. Bad advice can kill their reputation. Ask Arthur Anderson. Similarly, I am sceptical that any myopic, idealistic, xenophobic puritan with no business experience or business acumen, would approve such an event and risk not being able to impose her values and wants on others.]
Even assuming the survey results are representative, there is no certainty that favourable impressions translate into actual benefits for Singapore and the average Singaporean.
At any rate, $150 million is a princely sum for a three-day "marketing campaign".
[And here is the essence and evidence of the naivete of the idealistic, myopic, xenophobic puritan with the mono-factorial decision-making heuristic. You can spend $150m (less actually for the SG govt) for EFFECTIVE marketing that reaches your TARGET audience in 3 days and it would be better than spending $15m for a year long campaign that is ineffective. Or $50m. Or $100m. Or even $150m for a year long campaign that is not as effective. Judging the worth simply by the cost is precisely why we need consultants and not Ms Quek and her ilk.]
I am also curious how the "incremental tourism receipts" of $560 million, from 2008 to last year, were attributed to F1, or how the fantastical "billions" in revenue projected by the consultants were arrived at.
[Finally! A good question!]
Is every tourist asked upon arrival at Changi Airport if they came specifically because of F1, and if so, were their wallets tagged and monitored?
[Followed immediately by a stupid research methodology!]
How were the losses suffered by Marina Bay area businesses and commuter inconvenience accounted for?
[Another good question! I think those businesses have been ignored by the govt! What do you think we should do Ms Quek?]
I believe I am not alone in noticing that there have been many more "super-cars" on our roads since the introduction of F1.
[... And... other than that short question, she has also ignored the fate of those "few, those unhappy few" businesses.... And has instead decided to imply that F1 has caused a surge in "super-cars" in Singapore! Correlation is not causation, as any researcher can tell you. ]
On our Little Red Dot, the allure of super-cars probably lies in their bragging rights, driven home by deliberate loud revving and speeding (if only for 10m).
While it may be a stretch to blame F1 for the anti-social behaviour of some drivers, the marketing thrust of F1 - fast cars, grid girls, extravagant parties and "bling-bling" - is nothing short of crass consumption, with its corrosive effect on social values.
[And so she admits it is a stretch to blame the F1... and then proceeds to cast her disapproving eye on crass consumption, and pass judgement on its"corrosive effect" on social values. Why corrosive? I don't know. Bravo Ms Quek! In one sentence, you have managed to start with understated research methodology, and jump straight to the conclusion you had already decided! Bravo! Such intellectual sleight-of-hand! Mental illusion that is exceeded only by your narcissistic delusion! Beautiful were it not also opinionated and misleading.]
Hosting F1 in Singapore will appear much less triumphal once its true economic and social costs are weighed against a realistic assessment of "incremental receipts".
Anna Quek (Ms)
[When we require a realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of hosting the F1, we can be sure that you will be the most biased and unqualified person to make that assessment. We may have to ask one of those for-profit consultants to run the assessment. Again. You will probably be disappointed. Again.
Tough.
Deal.
Personally, I have no interest in the F1, or to want to watch it up close and in person. This is a made for TV spectacle, and I would watch only for the thrill of seeing slips, slides, skids, crashes, collisions, and explosions. From the safety of my home or a sports bar somewhere. I hate unrelentingly loud noises. I hate packed-like-sardines crowds. Would I be unhappy if F1 were not renewed for 5 more years in SG? No. It bothers me not one bit. But it matters to many others. So for a week or so, downtown SG is off-limits to me, by my own choice. Big deal. So the F1 is "environmentally hostile". If so, it is so regardless of where it is held and affects the global climate eventually.]
F1 reveals ethical dissonance
THANK you, Ms Anna Quek, for so eloquently expressing the concerns about the Government's decision to extend the hosting of the Formula One (F1) race for another five years ("S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please"; last Saturday).
[I don't know why you are thanking her. Her points were nothing related to yours. Oh! You were just using it as a hook! Or simply to form solidarity of "SG against the F1". I see. No logical or philosophical alignment other than a simple common foe: the F1.]
Singapore risks evolving into a country of contradictions.
[Wrong. Singapore is already a country of contradictions. Farrer Park is not on Farrer Road. Marina Bay Station is not at Marina Bay Sands. Esplanade Station does not open directly to the Esplanade. There are 4 different brands of "Katong Laksa" all claiming to be the authentic one. Right in the middle of our city centre, we have a cricket club and how many Singaporeans even know the rules of cricket let alone play it?]
We welcome casinos and try to teach values in our schools.
[No. No. No. We teach students to be disciplined and want our soldiers to think!]
We host a clearly environmentally hostile race, while we make increasingly loud noises about sustainability.
[We do? (make increasingly loud noises about sustainability)?]
We also claim great pride in our reputation for integrity.
Yet, integrity is about doing the right thing, even if it costs one personally.
[So... JBJ, CSJ are men of integrity, but since CST and LTK have never been sued by the PAP and so never suffered personal costs, they have no integrity, or at best less integrity than JBJ and CSJ?]
It means having to make financial sacrifices in order to preserve and build a long-term reputation.
[Like Ng Eng Hen giving up his multi-million practice to make just about $1m as a minister? Or K Shanmugan giving up his multi-million dollar law practice? or Vivian Balakrishnan?]
I am increasingly concerned that we are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices because we cannot see beyond dollars and cents.
[Like how your definition of integrity is pegged to financial costs? How about a simple, "Integrity is simply doing what one says one will do and saying what one will do"? Like CST? What's with all these personal costs and financial sacrifices crap? Integrity - it's not real until you put a price on it.]
If we do not watch it, we may one day be called ethical pragmatists, which is an oxymoron.
Mak Yuen Teen
[Thank you ethical moron. My problem with your letter is your assumption that contradictions are an evil. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind and the same time and still retain the ability to function" says F. Scott Fitzgerald.
There is an obvious failure to function here.
Contradictions abound in life. Mature people navigate these contradictions and can even hold opposing ideas in their mind at the same time. They don't selectively seek to resolve the "contradictions" that contradict their wants.
Here's a contradiction: we value tolerance. So here is an example of me being intolerant of intolerance!
Let's see what Anna Quek actually wrote.]
Sep 29, 2012
S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please
I AM dismayed that Singapore has committed itself to a further five years of Formula One ("Five more years for S'pore race", Sunday; and "F1 'to bring bigger benefits' in next lap", Tuesday).
[Narcissistic delusion. Assumes we are concerned about her dismay. Or that her dismay amounts to an earth shattering catastrophe that needs urgent attention to address or prevent.]
I am unconvinced by its purported benefits and worry about the ethical implications from the promotion of the event.
[See "Narcissistic Delusion" above. Assumes that others should be similarly unconvinced.]
The only certainty about F1 is the financial outlay for each race, amounting to about $150 million, with the Government co-funding 60 per cent of approved costs.
[Her first factual assertion.... and it's WRONG! OK, possibly wrong. The figures she stated were the conditions of the first 5 years deal. We have not been told what the deal is for the next 5 years.]
It is widely acknowledged that Singapore paid a hefty premium for the first deal, and there were expectations that the Government would negotiate better terms for a second contract.
It is disappointing that there has been no disclosure of the actual financial terms of a deal involving millions of dollars of public funds. Instead, Singaporeans are asked to place their faith in "consultants" who claim favourable international publicity generated by the F1 glitz.
[Life is disappointment. Get used to it.]
I am sceptical that any for-profit company would pooh-pooh such a trophy event and risk incurring the wrath of its clients.
[There's healthy scepticism, and poisonous cynicism, and pathological paranoia. She has a 1 in 3 chance of being healthy. Consultants thrive on the value they provide to their clients, and their reputation depends on it. Bad advice can kill their reputation. Ask Arthur Anderson. Similarly, I am sceptical that any myopic, idealistic, xenophobic puritan with no business experience or business acumen, would approve such an event and risk not being able to impose her values and wants on others.]
Even assuming the survey results are representative, there is no certainty that favourable impressions translate into actual benefits for Singapore and the average Singaporean.
At any rate, $150 million is a princely sum for a three-day "marketing campaign".
[And here is the essence and evidence of the naivete of the idealistic, myopic, xenophobic puritan with the mono-factorial decision-making heuristic. You can spend $150m (less actually for the SG govt) for EFFECTIVE marketing that reaches your TARGET audience in 3 days and it would be better than spending $15m for a year long campaign that is ineffective. Or $50m. Or $100m. Or even $150m for a year long campaign that is not as effective. Judging the worth simply by the cost is precisely why we need consultants and not Ms Quek and her ilk.]
I am also curious how the "incremental tourism receipts" of $560 million, from 2008 to last year, were attributed to F1, or how the fantastical "billions" in revenue projected by the consultants were arrived at.
[Finally! A good question!]
Is every tourist asked upon arrival at Changi Airport if they came specifically because of F1, and if so, were their wallets tagged and monitored?
[Followed immediately by a stupid research methodology!]
How were the losses suffered by Marina Bay area businesses and commuter inconvenience accounted for?
[Another good question! I think those businesses have been ignored by the govt! What do you think we should do Ms Quek?]
I believe I am not alone in noticing that there have been many more "super-cars" on our roads since the introduction of F1.
[... And... other than that short question, she has also ignored the fate of those "few, those unhappy few" businesses.... And has instead decided to imply that F1 has caused a surge in "super-cars" in Singapore! Correlation is not causation, as any researcher can tell you. ]
On our Little Red Dot, the allure of super-cars probably lies in their bragging rights, driven home by deliberate loud revving and speeding (if only for 10m).
While it may be a stretch to blame F1 for the anti-social behaviour of some drivers, the marketing thrust of F1 - fast cars, grid girls, extravagant parties and "bling-bling" - is nothing short of crass consumption, with its corrosive effect on social values.
[And so she admits it is a stretch to blame the F1... and then proceeds to cast her disapproving eye on crass consumption, and pass judgement on its"corrosive effect" on social values. Why corrosive? I don't know. Bravo Ms Quek! In one sentence, you have managed to start with understated research methodology, and jump straight to the conclusion you had already decided! Bravo! Such intellectual sleight-of-hand! Mental illusion that is exceeded only by your narcissistic delusion! Beautiful were it not also opinionated and misleading.]
Hosting F1 in Singapore will appear much less triumphal once its true economic and social costs are weighed against a realistic assessment of "incremental receipts".
Anna Quek (Ms)
[When we require a realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of hosting the F1, we can be sure that you will be the most biased and unqualified person to make that assessment. We may have to ask one of those for-profit consultants to run the assessment. Again. You will probably be disappointed. Again.
Tough.
Deal.
Personally, I have no interest in the F1, or to want to watch it up close and in person. This is a made for TV spectacle, and I would watch only for the thrill of seeing slips, slides, skids, crashes, collisions, and explosions. From the safety of my home or a sports bar somewhere. I hate unrelentingly loud noises. I hate packed-like-sardines crowds. Would I be unhappy if F1 were not renewed for 5 more years in SG? No. It bothers me not one bit. But it matters to many others. So for a week or so, downtown SG is off-limits to me, by my own choice. Big deal. So the F1 is "environmentally hostile". If so, it is so regardless of where it is held and affects the global climate eventually.]
No comments:
Post a Comment