ABSOLUT INFLEXIBILITY.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/205372/1/.html
CNA would have you believe that the moral of the story is how gracious the PAP are towards their opponents, but IMHO, the real moral of the story is how unbelievably rigid our bureaucratic process is. Firstly, I don't see why you need so many forms to submit and so many certificates to apply, e.g. it's not enough that you're Indian, but you must apply for a certificate to prove you're Indian. Secondly, even if the forms are so necessary, why is there a need to disqualify them? Why cannot give them some time to go get the form? And lastly, and most ridiculously, the problem could easily have been solved because heng-heng there was a photocopying machine around, but no, cannot let Opposition use.
The government has spent so much effort asking Singaporeans to be an active citizenry, to step forward for political competition, and finally when you do have an Opposition team to contest the elections, you almost disqualify them because your photocopying machine is sacred and only you can touch. Only in Singapore can a candidate for public service be disqualified not because he is not worthy but because he had neither a form nor a photocopier. For every step forward we slide two steps back.
[X-posted to sg_ljers]
Another example of how unbelievably inflexible and progress-resistant our bureaucracy is.
In recent years we have seen progress in carpark technology: from the auntie sitting in a booth at the exit, to the automated ticket machine, to cashcard payment, and now the pinnacle of convenience, ERP payment. You just leave the cashcard in the IU, drive in and drive out, and the carpark charge gets deducted. Easy-peasy.
The only problem with this arrangement is that if you are required to prove you paid $x.xx for parking. Last month I had to represent my office to attend an official dinner at the Marina Mandarin, which is claimable. So when doing my claims, I keyed in the distance travelled and also included the carpark charge of $1.50. Last week the woman from claims calls me up and asked me to submit proof of the carpark charge for her to verify. But I have no proof, I told her, because it was the super-duper convenient ERP system, so there's no button to push for a receipt. Imagine my surprise when she tells me that I have to go to an ATM with my cashcard, and print out the transaction log to submit to her, to prove that at that date and time, $1.50 was deducted from my cashcard. This was impossible, I told her, because it was so long ago! She told me that the best thing to do now was then to resubmit my claim without the $1.50 since I could not prove the charge. This was in spite of the fact that a variety of people-my boss included-can attest to me having attended the dinner, and a quick check of the charges for that date, time and duration could easily verify that the charge would indeed have been $1.50. Not to mention too that to print out the transaction log at the ATM costs 20¢-which she readily informed me was not claimable, so effectively I would only be reimbursed $1.30.
I always thought that the ERP system was supposed to make things easier, to move the human race forward, but now I find myself praying that if I ever do have to pay carpark charges for official trips, the bloody carpark better have an antiquated magnetic ticket system.
CNA would have you believe that the moral of the story is how gracious the PAP are towards their opponents, but IMHO, the real moral of the story is how unbelievably rigid our bureaucratic process is. Firstly, I don't see why you need so many forms to submit and so many certificates to apply, e.g. it's not enough that you're Indian, but you must apply for a certificate to prove you're Indian. Secondly, even if the forms are so necessary, why is there a need to disqualify them? Why cannot give them some time to go get the form? And lastly, and most ridiculously, the problem could easily have been solved because heng-heng there was a photocopying machine around, but no, cannot let Opposition use.
The government has spent so much effort asking Singaporeans to be an active citizenry, to step forward for political competition, and finally when you do have an Opposition team to contest the elections, you almost disqualify them because your photocopying machine is sacred and only you can touch. Only in Singapore can a candidate for public service be disqualified not because he is not worthy but because he had neither a form nor a photocopier. For every step forward we slide two steps back.
[X-posted to sg_ljers]
Another example of how unbelievably inflexible and progress-resistant our bureaucracy is.
In recent years we have seen progress in carpark technology: from the auntie sitting in a booth at the exit, to the automated ticket machine, to cashcard payment, and now the pinnacle of convenience, ERP payment. You just leave the cashcard in the IU, drive in and drive out, and the carpark charge gets deducted. Easy-peasy.
The only problem with this arrangement is that if you are required to prove you paid $x.xx for parking. Last month I had to represent my office to attend an official dinner at the Marina Mandarin, which is claimable. So when doing my claims, I keyed in the distance travelled and also included the carpark charge of $1.50. Last week the woman from claims calls me up and asked me to submit proof of the carpark charge for her to verify. But I have no proof, I told her, because it was the super-duper convenient ERP system, so there's no button to push for a receipt. Imagine my surprise when she tells me that I have to go to an ATM with my cashcard, and print out the transaction log to submit to her, to prove that at that date and time, $1.50 was deducted from my cashcard. This was impossible, I told her, because it was so long ago! She told me that the best thing to do now was then to resubmit my claim without the $1.50 since I could not prove the charge. This was in spite of the fact that a variety of people-my boss included-can attest to me having attended the dinner, and a quick check of the charges for that date, time and duration could easily verify that the charge would indeed have been $1.50. Not to mention too that to print out the transaction log at the ATM costs 20¢-which she readily informed me was not claimable, so effectively I would only be reimbursed $1.30.
I always thought that the ERP system was supposed to make things easier, to move the human race forward, but now I find myself praying that if I ever do have to pay carpark charges for official trips, the bloody carpark better have an antiquated magnetic ticket system.