QUOTE(RUI @ Aug 1 2018, 09:43 PM)
You seriously lacks wisdom. We need good people at every level. If you are a good, perhaps, you can reduce numbers of staff needed. So, that the rest can be upskilled or transferred elsewhere. Seeeeeeee the point yet? On the contrary of what you have preached, "strategic thinking", you would be surprised the monkeys are pretty good at "strategic planning", and for some reason, no service or value rendered but they are still there. (Does it ring a bell? Similarity with some characters here? Kling Klong Kling Klong, no value added, only apparent/future "value", engaged with some rich dudes). Hence, after hiring one after another, same type of monkey shows up. And it cost a bomb to remove them. (Again, does it ring a bell, why some married men cheats? In my experience talking to quite a fewl, they were married based perceived/apparent value; when it's below expectatiion; they covertly outsourced it elsewhere. As, discarding the wife cost a bomb).

. What we really need is to encourage more people to be cinderella and reduce monkey and the step sister. I think we can all agree on that.
NO. That's not RUI put it. It's RUI's interpretation of Ralna's insinuation of "So, where's the difference that they make?" & deliberate use of "over-population" as if they are useless.
P.S. I do agree at some place are redundant. But not all. So it's the duty of new minister to trim it down. I will personally focus on increasing good people in Education and Health. Rationales are simple. 1) We don't know where is the next Einstein or Tesla come from (I'm pretty sure it's wasn't Harvard or Stanford). 2) Keep daddies and mummies more time spent at work. And you may have the rest removed or replaced with monkeys. I don't care.

Completely agree with the bold part, lacks depth too
Tsk tsk tsk, I thought after the hiatus she realise all these "debate" is bad for her image in front of her fiance and will come back milder.
Well, perhaps this is already milder by her definition.
My take on the original question
Yes, there are many roles that you can only contribute meaningfully in the public sector. For example scientists. In commercial sector, they would only be willing to invest in R&D on the mainstream stuffs that are not far from an end product. Would they throw money into a very new idea, answer is unlikely
This is where the gov uni or reseach centres comes in, to nurture some of those ideas that may not in the short term make money, but someone gotta do it. Otherwise we would have no internet today
Another example would be policy making. If we do not have good policy makers; we would be stuck with bad policies that affect our day-to-day life. So if these jobs are too dirty for you or your children, the ppl more inferior than you would be doing them, then don't complain when you have to comply with obscure non-sensical rules
All the TS thinks about is the surface $$ and fame stuffs
The purpose of life and contributing to the society is so much more.
If you look at Azman Mokhtar's send off, are you thinking about the money he won't be earning anymore, or would you be thinking that he must have done something right that his staffs adore him so much
For me it's the latter for sure
This post has been edited by Zero Correlation: Aug 2 2018, 12:22 PM