A writer asked me for information to write an article on the Financial Advisory Industry Review (FAIR) led by MAS. I provided the information. They asked me for the mailing address to send a complimentary copy of the magazine containing my article. I asked for a soft copy but they replied that the cannot send me a soft copy because it is their "company policy".
I do not accept this type of "company policy" and replied that if they insist on this policy, they will not get any further help from me. They then explain that they cannot send the soft copy to me because of "copyright issue". I asked what was the copyright issue for an article that was written by me?
I suspect that the "copyright issue" was for the whole magazine, which I was not interested anyway. I only wanted a soft copy of my article.
I want to share this story, because it is quite common, and in the culture of Singaporeans, to be negative and to find ways why something cannot be done. They should and can think out of the box and look for ways that it can be done, and get a different outcome. In this instance, they can send me a soft copy of my article, and not the whole magazine!
The paranoid fear, the excessive cautiousness - that is the stamp of our culture. It is a trait that should be removed and replaced by a positive outlook.
I do not accept this type of "company policy" and replied that if they insist on this policy, they will not get any further help from me. They then explain that they cannot send the soft copy to me because of "copyright issue". I asked what was the copyright issue for an article that was written by me?
I suspect that the "copyright issue" was for the whole magazine, which I was not interested anyway. I only wanted a soft copy of my article.
I want to share this story, because it is quite common, and in the culture of Singaporeans, to be negative and to find ways why something cannot be done. They should and can think out of the box and look for ways that it can be done, and get a different outcome. In this instance, they can send me a soft copy of my article, and not the whole magazine!
The paranoid fear, the excessive cautiousness - that is the stamp of our culture. It is a trait that should be removed and replaced by a positive outlook.
5 comments:
Dear Mr Tan,
You are right. This is also why most Singaporeans cannot succeed in life. No matter how high the education, they are only as good but limited to within the books.
People don't ask questions why something cannot be done, but just follow what can be done.
It is a sad case. It seems like we are talking to robots that are wired to response accordingly to how we press the buttons. Wrong button no matter how heavy you press it, you will just get error feedback.
regards,
jasen
I guess it reflects not only on mentality but on confidence of the remit and parameter of powers.
When I was a police officer, I've done certain things to expedite cases that seemed to stun senior officers who'd call me up to their office to explain, that of course I was able to do, since I could quote that Chapters and Sections to rest their weary hearts worrying about themselves being implicated adversely by my discretionary decision.
As a marketing offer in NTUC Income (under TKL as CEO) I'd do the same too. Some colleagues and senior managers were stunned too. The first few months, I was unpopular and shunned by them, even casually cautioned.
Later, some of them got my point. I broke no rules, neither NTUC internal nor MAS directives. One must have the understanding and the confidence in that to do it.
From the eduction system to NS to the corporate world, many Singaporeans can't break through that imaginary cage of, if it's not in the rules, it can't be done.
My take is, if it's cast in the rules, it should be complied with. If not, it's discretionary. That's the meaning of officer or executive or manager, respective to ranks and powers granted.
At work, we have to differentiate between rigid rules and discretionary decisions.
It's a legal issue. That's why there're so many fineprint disclaimers in documents and contracts, especially for financial and publication issues.
Just to summarize, the company or institution will state that they reserve all rights to edit or reject any article or application without any reason. However, law as it is, you can sue them for misrepentative editing if they really misrepesentated your article out of context.
Agree.
It's a variation of the Singlish "double confirm" syndrome.
Yesterday, I went to a government hospital to fill out a prescription for a controlled drug for my 80 year old mum.
The prescription was for 4 doses which will last my mum 36 days.
I asked for 2 doses first.
Balance to be taken at a later date.
1.First they kept my original doctor's prescription and gave me back a photocopy. Telling me that because I now only have the photocopy prescription, I can now only buy the balance 2 doses from them, and no other pharmacy anywhere else.
2.Then they pointed out the date they wrote on my photocopy prescription. I must buy the balance of the 2 doses within the next 30 days, or the photocopy prescription will cease to be valid.
I made the following points to them:
a.The controlled drug is already controlled by the doctor who has to write the prescription. Why do we need additional controls?
b.By taking away my original prescription, they want to further limit my operational flexibility to just buying from their one single hospital.
c.By dating my photocopy prescription, they further limit my operational flexibility to buying the balance 2 doses within the next 30 days.
Do they have an understanding of how much unnecessary operational difficulties they place upon caregivers?
As usual, I'm told the "it's government policy. I only work here."
Well, I don't care either.
I only live here.
So my feedback to the "government policy" is I will vote Opposition until I get a good explanation.
One morning last year, I woke up and had a shower, but was shocked when coming out to see my towel stained red. I checked my body all over and it was my left ear bleeding.
It wasn't profusely, but kept dripping. So I rushed to TTSH ENT in a taxi. The counter nurse said no, I couldn't see a doctor because I didn't have an appointment. Go to A&E first.
I was like ??? I thought you hospital people are supposed to discourage unnecessary queue at A&E. But with my ear at their mercy, I went to A&E and queued about 45 minutes, enough for a football match for play one half.
Finally, a doctor attended to me and examined my bleeding ear. He said, they don't have expertise or equipment to remove the remnant cotton bud in my ear that was causing the infection and bleeding.
The doctor wrote a slip of note for me to go back to ENT. I brought the slip to the ENT counter and was given a queue number again, another half of a football game. In the end, the ENT doctor did a fine job removing the cotton stucked in my ear turned infectious amd cleansed my infected ear.
However, question is, is such to and fro waste of time neccessary? Isn't it commonsense that when your ear is bleeding, you go to ENT? ENT stands for Ear, Nose & Throat. Why sent me to A&E to jam others more dire in queue?
The answer is rigid adherence to procedure. No appointment or referral means cannot. You can even die somewhere else but please don't die here, unless you have an appointment or a referral.
Post a Comment