Part 3: One Swing Voter’s View of The Little Red Dot: “SMART” Goals.
[Part 1: Govt’s GDP push does nothing for citizens’ well-being]
[Part 2: A swing voter’s view – Heartware vs hardware]
Key Objectives Outlined In The New Parliament Session
The key objectives set out in the 12th parliament 2nd session may be summarised as follows:
The strategies set out to achieve these goals briefly are:
1) strengthen social safety net;
2) enhance retirement adequacy;
3) support strong families and communities;
4) create conditions for Singaporeans to enjoy a better quality of lives;
5) create more opportunities for working adults and
6) enable young Singaporeans to fulfil their potentials.
a) keeping pathways upwards open;
b) sharing Singapore’s success;
c) new pioneers and community actions;
d) endearing homes, fulfilling lives;
e) constructive politics and
f) adaptation to new environments.
In modern management, as we know, strategic planning entails incorporation of “SMART” planning principle in our goal settings. Essentially, “SMART” encompasses:
S - Specific goals
M - Measurable goals
A - Attainable goals
R - Relevant goals
T - Time frame/ Dateline
Measuring the goals and strategies set out against “SMART” planning
Constructive politics
Arguably, the first “hurdle” to the goals outlined was almost immediately encountered when the “debate” started. One of the highlights was the “exchange” between the two main political parties’ chiefs in the current parliament namely PM Lee and MP Low Thia Khiang. The main theme in their “verbal exchange” seemingly was “constructive politics”. There were many views and perceptions regarding the seemingly “heated exchange”. The possible perceptions across the spectrum could be broadly classified under the following “opinionated proxy videos”:
(1) “Mud Wrestling” [YouTube Link]
(2) “Intellectual Political Debate” [YouTube Link]
(3) “School Debate” [YouTube Link]
The actual debate is in the following video clip:
28th May 2014 Parliamentary Debate [YouTube Link]
Viewers are likely to form their own conclusions and quite expectedly their differing views would cut across the spectrum of the social, economic and political divide. Nonetheless, the focus here is the “planning”, “setting”, and “achieving” components of this whole exercise funded by tax payers monies.
Measuring against “SMART” goal planning as aforementioned, are the goals set out in the address achievable and realistic?
Are the goals “specific” enough as in the “S” of “SMART”?
Are the goals “measurable” as in the “M” of “SMART”?
Are the goals “attainable” as in the “A” of “SMART”?
Are the goals “relevant” as in the “R” of “SMART”?
Are the goals set out to be achieved within a “targeted time frame” as in the “T” of “SMART”?
Possibly, by measuring what were set out to be achieved against “SMART” goals planning principle, it is probably far easier to come to a conclusion whether it was and would continue to be an effective, efficient and efficacious exercise in the context of tax payers monies spent.
P S S
*The author blogs at pro-sustainable-sg.blogspot.