How do we lost out in technological excellence ?
-
If you can use the criteria set in Goh Keng Swee's days as yardstick for performance, it will be clear that we are falling short of objectives - social, political and entrepreneurial by the 1980s.
Goh Keng Swee targeted at economic progressions from labor-intensive to technological value-added development.
By 1980s, what we saw were foreign-oriented investment policies forgetting to give due weightage to technological content and value adding in our economic planning.
There has been a continuing emphasis on meritocracy but technological upgrade were largely unplanned and not promoted consistently.
So new technological excellence went to Taiwan, Korea and Japan and now lately China. We shut our eyes and ears to other ways to upgrading our economy with continuing humdrum promotion of academic talents and getting scholars to go into working for public sector.
Bread and butter policies such as getting business start-up on new technologies to be established here were relegated to free market forces.
Entrepreneurs are drifting off to other countries. Local SMEs are given minimum help with most policies oriented to attracting foreign investments which do not seem to come.
So Singapore lost the original direction set in Goh Keng Swee's days and by the 1980s, we are promoting conceptual pro-foreign economic strategies which did not work so well due to our lack of understanding of technologies or the knowhow among our planners to attract or encourage them.
Is it too late to adopt an overall Goh Keng Swee's type of economic upgrading and pre-emptive Taiwan-type of promoting entrepreneurships, I don't think so.
Past policies were too overwhelming for new and younger leaders to unravel. They have to re-orientate and re-strategise the whole economic master plan from ad-hoc pro-foreign to pro-technological upgrading strategy.
If not like our various projects e.g. Growth Triangle, Resorts, Financial hubbing and even Sentosa re-development, efforts will be too diverse and scattered and will end up in medicrity. -
thats what happens when muggers who don't know anything about how the real world functions are put in charge of a country.
-
The risk of putting one-man in charge of a country is very great. When the strongman becomes too conceptual or headstrong, he will be foregoing many alternative entrepreneurial and practical solutions.Originally posted by vito_corleone:thats what happens when muggers who don't know anything about how the real world functions are put in charge of a country.
Life is not as simplistic as consisting of leadership or meritocracy. An effective team will have to be found consisting may be a few good thinkers but the rest should be action-men like Goh.
After Goh, who single-minded put together Jurong and many industrialization prime-moving strategies, there was a lack of his calibre. The one who came very close may be Hon Sui Seng.
The dearth of result-oriented team has been caused by all the general assumptions and beliefs that scholars will be able to do it. However, as Singaporeans have seen, by the late 1980s, none of the scholars have assumed the mantle of Goh and Lou Lee could not even see the difference and still regarded them as saviors.
Come the Asian Financial crisis, the scholar teams told the media that everything cannot be done and Singaporeans will have to face the prospect of losing jobs through structural unemployments.
These are utterances of "yes"-men or conceptual scholar men not Goh Keng Swees or Hon Sui Sengs.
Singapore really missed many golden opportunities to build a really entrepreneurial and competitive full-fledge team outnumbered by action people like Goh Keng Swee. -
Ya Bro, These are what I have been wondering why singapore's ''great leader'' has not been doing that. I have indeed mentioned the same scenarios in the topic of something like''singapore over ambitious lah''.Originally posted by robertteh:If you can use the criteria set in Goh Keng Swee's days as yardstick for performance, it will be clear that we are falling short of objectives - social, political and entrepreneurial by the 1980s.
Goh Keng Swee targeted at economic progressions from labor-intensive to technological value-added development.
By 1980s, what we saw were foreign-oriented investment policies forgetting to give due weightage to technological content and value adding in our economic planning.
There has been a continuing emphasis on meritocracy but technological upgrade were largely unplanned and not promoted consistently.
So new technological excellence went to Taiwan, Korea and Japan and now lately China. We shut our eyes and ears to other ways to upgrading our economy with continuing humdrum promotion of academic talents and getting scholars to go into working for public sector.
Bread and butter policies such as getting business start-up on new technologies to be established here were relegated to free market forces.
Entrepreneurs are drifting off to other countries. Local SMEs are given minimum help with most policies oriented to attracting foreign investments which do not seem to come.
So Singapore lost the original direction set in Goh Keng Swee's days and by the 1980s, we are promoting conceptual pro-foreign economic strategies which did not work so well due to our lack of understanding of technologies or the knowhow among our planners to attract or encourage them.
Is it too late to adopt an overall Goh Keng Swee's type of economic upgrading and pre-emptive Taiwan-type of promoting entrepreneurships, I don't think so.
Past policies were too overwhelming for new and younger leaders to unravel. They have to re-orientate and re-strategise the whole economic master plan from ad-hoc pro-foreign to pro-technological upgrading strategy.
If not like our various projects e.g. Growth Triangle, Resorts, Financial hubbing and even Sentosa re-development, efforts will be too diverse and scattered and will end up in medicrity.
You are absolutely right.
Just look around us, most of singaporeans are losing out to the world; that why the feaking government is bringing in fallen talents. Freaking government!!!
-
We lost out simply because we put all our eggs in one basket. Globalisation has increased immigration diaspora and that by itself hints at cheaper well trained labour all round.
When we first gained independence, the gist of the ideal was to combine successfully a self-consciously toughminded meritocratic individualism, in which individual Singaporeans cultivated their talents and successfully competed in the international economy, with an equally self-conscious identification with "Asian roots" and "traditional values," which referred to precolonial India, China, and the Malay world. In retrospect, Singaporeans were to be modern and cosmopolitan while retaining their distinctively Asian traditions.
Now our national identity stands at peril due to the common mindset of us being a victim of cultural imperialism. ( Hands up those that wished you were born in the states or even japan! )
It could also be because we employed the wrong thinkers for our direction. Edward De Bono's books arent exactly life shattering ( spermatozoa illustrations wow! ) and we failed to see what was coming.
Our education aims us at being us yes men. Even Sim Wong Hoo's attempt at broadening our mindset with his NUTS ( No U Turn Syndrome ) didnt gather as much attention as I thought it should. So we are effectively training more yes men for the future.
My personal take is that Action men like goh are few and far between. And how many have enough national pride and identity to follow through the path of revolution? The gov has effectively developed enough bureucratic sludge to stop trend setters before they get too far ahead in the political world.
There is too much discourse analysis in everything and not enough implementation. I think it will be difficult to thrive unless the cabinet *god forbid* reshuffles or maybe introduce a shadow government composed of more gung ho people with temporary legislative powers.
I am but a humble farmer so if I said anything wrong or incorrect, forgive my ignorance. -
Yes, it is true, we have put all our eggs in lee's basket.Originally posted by panicTheory:We lost out simply because we put all our eggs in one basket. Globalisation has increased immigration diaspora and that by itself hints at cheaper well trained labour all round.When we first gained independence, the gist of the ideal was to combine successfully a self-consciously toughminded meritocratic individualism, in which individual Singaporeans cultivated their talents and successfully competed in the international economy, with an equally self-conscious identification with "Asian roots" and "traditional values," which referred to precolonial India, China, and the Malay world. In retrospect, Singaporeans were to be modern and cosmopolitan while retaining their distinctively Asian traditions.
Assumptions of all kinds took rein during the whole period when all the eggs were in lee's basket. One assumption was cultural and another was ancient confucianism with a half-baked objective to serve bureaucratic purposes.
The final assumption was that all the government needs is to bring in all the top graduates and give them high pays and everything will be taken care off.
Hence, 1970s and 1980s saw assumptions after assumptions being put to tests. We missed real contributions of good action- or result-oriented people some of whom might not even possess any top degree but extremely effective.
Now Singapore is shrouded by all scholarly people who will be fielded for election and given higher responsibility but we are still waiting for implementation of a master economic upgrading strategy with stage-set results showing up every quarter as Goh Keng Swee has done.
We only hear scholarly-type ministers saying things very conceptually pushing away actions and results and giving craps like the circumstances are beyond controls or people must change mindset etc etc.Now our national identity stands at peril due to the common mindset of us being a victim of cultural imperialism. ( Hands up those that wished you were born in the states or even japan! )
There is this constant self-praises and self-adulations related to race or cultural characteristics or east versus west. At the end of all grandiose geo-political preaching of the populations, citizens are waiting for some ministers carrying out plans and policies to get results. Citizens are kept in the dark how the assumptions and concepts about cultural superiority talks will bring more bacons or food to the kitchen. There is no more Gohs or Hons monitoring and taking full responsibility to reverse crisis or downturns with proactive actions taken every day at higher level to get results.It could also be because we employed the wrong thinkers for our direction. Edward De Bono's books arent exactly life shattering ( spermatozoa illustrations wow! ) and we failed to see what was coming.
Scholars talk assumptions and theories. Action-men are contemptuous of too much theories and work towards certainty with actions taken every day and every phase to reach goals. Theories are mostly conceptual and cannot be implemented. Only logical steps with attainable quality-time-cost controls will get to the results. These are not taught in schools or universities. They are taught in the school of hard knocks. When a government is over-weighting on scholars it is taking too much risk of theories and assumptions not being pushed or put to work.Our education aims us at being us yes men. Even Sim Wong Hoo's attempt at broadening our mindset with his NUTS ( No U Turn Syndrome ) didnt gather as much attention as I thought it should. So we are effectively training more yes men for the future.
Sim Wong Hoo's has not talked about leadership or theoretical or undefined talents. He talks about actions measuring results and certainty beyond the U-turn. Goh Keng Swee does not talk too much about assumptions or leaderhsip too. So he carried his programs right through to end results.My personal take is that Action men like goh are few and far between. And how many have enough national pride and identity to follow through the path of revolution? The gov has effectively developed enough bureucratic sludge to stop trend setters before they get too far ahead in the political world.
Agreed that bureaucratic sludge will take some time to de-sanitise. The scholarly type does not deliver us another changi-terminal or another Jurong. They only talks and assume someone will do it. If no one does they are not answerable for lack of performance. Salaries are too high for them to make mistakes at middle action levels so they don't want to be too pushy or action-packed for obvious self-preservation reason.There is too much discourse analysis in everything and not enough implementation. I think it will be difficult to thrive unless the cabinet *god forbid* reshuffles or maybe introduce a shadow government composed of more gung ho people with temporary legislative powers.
Daily, we read from newspapers all growing reports and statistics about performance excellence. Good men don't have to depend too much on news and publicity to show off - they let results speak for themselves.I am but a humble farmer so if I said anything wrong or incorrect, forgive my ignorance.
I am a farmer too. I do not claim to be any scholar or leader or talent. Where the leaders have gone wrong, I think I like you sir can sense it !! -
Conceptual assumptions wasted us many valuable opportunities to re-structure and upgrade the economy.Originally posted by Lowclassman:Ya Bro, These are what I have been wondering why singapore's ''great leader'' has not been doing that. I have indeed mentioned the same scenarios in the topic of something like''when LKY is gone''.
You are absolutely right.
Just look around us, most of singaporeans are losing out to the world; that why the feaking government is bringing in fallen talents. Freaking government!!!
Singaporeans have seen for themselves whether we do have among our ministers the type that will upgrade our economic competitiveness. Right now I keep hearing their refrains ...the world is too competitive, we need foreign talents (forgetting that our local talents are placed last on recruitment list) China is too cheap or India has got new outsourcing technologies...
If only the media understand that they are dragging our progress by continuing such droning to support non-performance !!! It is very sad that all the talents cannot see simple truth that we need action-ministers and action-civil servants not all the talkish types. -
The half baked objective is out of the window now. This isnt related to the topic but I feel the reason why people arent exactly having a vested interest in our traditional culture has to do with the fact that there was an enforced main language of utility i.e english. And a strangarm tactic in dealing with dialectic diaspora by enforcing mandarin wholly without paying attention to pidgins. Our much famed singlish creole is also not helping being a segregation force and breaking the social dialect continuum. No wonder that there is such a strong sense of disassociation. Stayers or quitters indeed.
>>>The final assumption was that all the government needs is to bring in all the top graduates and give them high pays and everything will be taken care off. ...We only hear scholarly-type ministers saying things very conceptually pushing away actions and results and giving craps like the circumstances are beyond controls or people must change mindset etc etc.
I blame greenspan.
And we are still doing that. We just bring in top grads from other countries and pay them exhorbitant rates.
>>>There is this constant self-praises and self-adulations related to race or cultural characteristics or east versus west. At the end of all grandiose geo-political preaching of the populations, citizens are waiting for some ministers carrying out plans and policies to get results. Citizens are kept in the dark how the assumptions and concepts about cultural superiority talks will bring more bacons or food to the kitchen. There is no more Gohs or Hons monitoring and taking full responsibility to reverse crisis or downturns with proactive actions taken every day at higher level to get results.
I think we rested on our laurels long enough. We have become integrated on the global scene as a success story and yet, the dynamics and actions taken these past few years have not shown much. We arent educated to think about self rule, we are educated to be led.
Wasnt there some controversy over LKY's investment towards a certain installation in China that resulted in a big hoo ha? I remember reading that there will be some transparency from the top down for the populace to read. Has that been done?
>>> Theories are mostly conceptual and cannot be implemented. Only logical steps with attainable quality-time-cost controls will get to the results. These are not taught in schools or universities.
hahaha I would expected the time to be up for talks after our slow recovery from recession, but till now I dont see what any drastic changes other than an increase in minister's salaries.
Sim Wong Hoo's has not talked about leadership or theoretical or undefined talents. He talks about actions measuring results and certainty beyond the U-turn. Goh Keng Swee does not talk too much about assumptions or leaderhsip too. So he carried his programs right through to end results.
Agreed that bureaucratic sludge will take some time to de-sanitise. The scholarly type does not deliver us another changi-terminal or another Jurong. They only talks and assume someone will do it. If no one does they are not answerable for lack of performance. Salaries are too high for them to make mistakes at middle action levels so they don't want to be too pushy or action-packed for obvious self-preservation reason.
Yes. Beyond the comfort zone please! I wonder if Sim's creativity could be channelled to policy making? And if they really do increase salaries, I hope the nepotism in our 'democracy' does not spread to ministers of state.
Daily, we read from newspapers all growing reports and statistics about performance excellence. Good men don't have to depend too much on news and publicity to show off - they let results speak for themselves.
Actually Im wondering about this too. I strongly believe our country can do better, media and censorship wise. We know too little. And of things of no import, i.e. SPG blogs, we know too much. McLuhan once advocated the medium is the message, I feel that there is no medium that is susceptible on a collective mental mindset of singaporeans to be of any message, what more to make a change.
I am a farmer too. I do not claim to be any scholar or leader or talent. Where the leaders have gone wrong, I think I like you sir can sense it !!
hahaha I love farming. Not as much as I love my tapiocas! -
i guess since the real men of substance reliquished their leadership positions the new batches are getting worse by the year...
-
The solution to get back to where we should be:
1) Emphasis on an education system that not only focus just purely on academic grades but also on each and every student's all rounded development for a new world.
2) Reduce the govt's control of the private sector
3) Give out govt. sponsored scholarships to those who are really talented in their respective fields, irregardless of background, race and sex.
4) Promote the development of SMEs through business-friendly labour and tax policies.
5) Emphasis that while family values are important, feeding a child with knowledge of the world and food are also just as important. In this regard, a growing child needs all three. So family values, steeped in tradition, can be taught with modern issues as well. We don't need a case of "either/or" but a case of "both".
6) Encourage young people to have opinions, even when different. Because in the end, frank discussions promote the development of ideas through differences. And then to reinforce the encouragement of candor, the govt. shouldn't do the exact opposite if someone decides to be on the opposite side. -
7) Create a system of asynchronous transparent communication between all levels. Local thinking should be encouraged regardless of qualification and not all kopitiam gahmen talk is biased. And create a public sphere for this to be aired without penalty. I.e, maybe a post in a forum where certain higher ups actually take notice of.Originally posted by timothytsgsg:The solution to get back to where we should be:
1) Emphasis on an education system that not only focus just purely on academic grades but also on each and every student's all rounded development for a new world.
2) Reduce the govt's control of the private sector
3) Give out govt. sponsored scholarships to those who are really talented in their respective fields, irregardless of background, race and sex.
4) Promote the development of SMEs through business-friendly labour and tax policies.
5) Emphasis that while family values are important, feeding a child with knowledge of the world and food are also just as important. In this regard, a growing child needs all three. So family values, steeped in tradition, can be taught with modern issues as well. We don't need a case of "either/or" but a case of "both".
6) Encourage young people to have opinions, even when different. Because in the end, frank discussions promote the development of ideas through differences. And then to reinforce the encouragement of candor, the govt. shouldn't do the exact opposite if someone decides to be on the opposite side.
8 ) Create more jobs for farmers. They are a dying breed. While not a farmer himself, LKY actually worked in the black market manufacturing a glue named Stikfas out of tapioca during the occupation. Moral of the story is the causality of tapiocas are why we are here today. -
Good one!Originally posted by panicTheory:Moral of the story is the causality of tapiocas are why we are here today.
Agreed as well. We are educate to be led... there is a shortage of the independent / critical thinking in the population today. Sad to say, NUTS does not apply to SGPreans... there are few tat are willing to break the rules.