I posted excerpts from two readers' letters -- one to Today and one to The Straits Times -- two days ago, and wondered how long it would take the relevant authorities to reply to them. Well, the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister has given a swift response to the question asked by the ST reader, to wit, "Why is the President paid more than the Prime Minister and veteran ministers?"
In his reply, "Why the President's salary is pegged higher" (ST, 18 March, page A23), the PM's Press Secretary said (as excerpted here): "The President occupies the highest office in Singapore. He exercises custodial powers to protect our past reserves and over the appointment of key public officers to protect the integrity of the public service. As the head of state, he represents the country and advances our interests internationally. This is why it is appropriate to peg the President's salary higher than ministers' and just above the Prime Minister's."
Moving on, I had also earlier commented on the sad plight of the remaining rebels in the Libyan imbroglio. The latest news is that the UN Security Council has given the "international community" the go-ahead to take "all necessary actions" to protect civilians there. That's code for military action.
But now that the Western powers have got what they wished for ("Be careful, you may get what you wish for", is an old Chinese saying, I believe), they are scrambling around on how to act. Meanwhile, the wily Gaddafi has declared that he is not pursuing further military action -- for now. So, if this "desert fox" is simply sitting tight, while the rebels run out of food, water, etc, what can the West do?
Roger Cohen, in his opinion piece in the New York Times, wrote a very trenchant essay on this matter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/opinion/18iht-edcohen18.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
I will wrap up this posting with two stories about the outcomes that can attend good intentions.
This first one actualy happened many years ago. A group of people were observing turtle hatchlings hiding in a sheltered cave. The beach beyond beckoned. There was still light but dusk was approaching. Up above, predator birds circled.
A few brave baby turtles ventured out, and quickly became dinner for the hungry birds. Still, after some time, a few more of the hatchlings, impatient despite the sunlight still there but rapidly fading, sallied forth -- and the birds again swopped down and started to attack their tiny, hapless victims.
It was at this point that one of the humans felt he had to do something. He broke from his cover and chased the birds away. Someone else joined him.
Momentarily surprised, the birds retreated into the air.
That was when all the other baby turtles, thinking the way was now clear, rushed out from their safe sanctuary. The few humans who now tried to fight off the great mass of birds that now came swooping down on the young turtles were outnumbered. That day, nearly everyone of the baby turtles died.
They never made it to the beach and the freedom to swim away. Yet, if nature had taken its course, the few hatchlings that had first ventured out were sacrificial signposts that it was not dark enough yet. Probably a few more such "suicide" waves would have taken place. But the vast majority would eventually make it to sea, when darkness fell.
This is the pessimistic story. The other one, probably apocryphal, is the optimistic one.
A little boy is picking up starfish stranded on a beach, as the water ebbs. He throws them -- one by one -- as far into the sea as he can. But there are hundreds of stranded starfish, dusk is approaching, and he must go home soon. A man walks up to him and says, "You are wasting your time. It makes no difference; there are too many of them to save."
The boy, still innocent of years, looks at the man in the eye and, as he throws yet one more starfish into the sea, says, "It makes a difference to this one!"
No comments:
Post a Comment