Are we living in The Matrix?
-
in this world there must be a majority of ignorant and stupid peasants and a select few who will rule them. those of us who realise the grim reality..congratulations for being a part of the enlightened few as for the other 95% of the population..sorry guys..peasants' lives for u.
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
....post truncated due to length of quote....
[b]
c. Dissolve MITA.
Isn't this the Ministry of information and the arts? Or am i reading wrong that you want to dissolve this?
e. Make MOE immune to Parliament.
By doing so, you make MOE a de-facto ministry answerable unto itself. It is less likely they will be more open to subsequent policy changes etc.
g. Get Fandi Ahmad to be principal of Sports School.
No offence but the only good that will come out of this is soccer players. The rest will rot in decay.
h. Sack Lim Boon Heng and CJ Yong. (no personal grudge, merely to keep NTUC and the Judiciary politically neutral.) Separate FairPrice from NTUC.
Not sack but rotate. A policy stipulating that presiding heads of positions in cabinets and judiciary should be rotated after a designated number of years, brings in change instead of one omnipotent person holding the chair till his last dying breath.
j. Make Prefectorial Boards, Student Councils and Student Unions independent of school administrative control. Abolish School uniforms and school ties.
Student council committees can't even manage themselves at sec sch level and you want to offer autonomy?
School uniforms given a sense of belonging and identity. It will be difficult to set a similar standard to plainclothes should that day come.
g. ban abortion.
This has been debated over countless times over countless years. No one policy can declare an outright banning of abortion despite its ills to society because it is in fact killing a foeteus, which being a living person, has a right to live.
i. Abolish the Death penalty and ban Euthanasia.
While the death penalty is primitive at times, there is no viable alternative for it at the moment. Life imprisonment doesn't even cut it. Perhaps if mind-warping (forcefully reprogramming a convict's mind to adhere to society) is possible in the future, it may be a humane substitution to the DP.
Euthanasia is a similar argument to Abortion, except this time, a person should be given the right to die in a dignified manner of his choosing.
l. Replace the ISA with a series of Acts providing the same functions, but respecting Citizens' privacy at the same time.
You can't re-design the ISA into a series of polices and still respect citizen's privacy. Then it won't work at all.
o. Make all companies in the country sell 50% of their shares to their staff. Establish by law that 50% of a Corporation's (as defined by the Constitution) shares must be owned by its staff.
No profit-making business will agree to your suggestion since it gives undue power to the staff which will eventually lead to 'company-hostage' situations in decision-making instances.
p. Dump SEF, NTUC and CASE into one debating body under the supervision of the Minister of Trade and Industry and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This body will be responsible for deciding on macro-economic policy.
It's still under the scrutiny of the MTI and MFA. What's the difference even if you dissolve them? Better to have them form an independent body to provide the necessary check on the welfare of consumers and workers, completely separate from the govt. The way the late Ong Teng Cheong sanctioned a strike by workers during his tenure as NTUC Chief in Jan 1986 showed how important it is to have your own union backing when workers are being exploited. It only succeeded when Ong withheld the news of the impending strike from the cabinet.
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0310/nat.singapore.ongiv.html
[/b] -
------post deleted--------
-
Billybong,
1) yes, I plan to dissolve MITA for reasons I've explaiend to nsdef in an earlier post.
2) See all the policies as one organic whole, not as disseparate parts. The political immunity of MOE is counter-balanced by the new political power of the Student Unions and the STU. MOE will become pure executive, implementing policy changes mooted by EP, rather than stipending their own changes.
3) Well, Fandi is the only sportsman I can think fo at the moment - I'm not so much into sports. I suppose, logically speaking, we might want a board of directors consisting of prominent athletes. Fandi is a mere suggestion. I'm open to better suggestion; I never said that my policy suggestions were perfect.
4) right. Well then, sack the current ppl than set up a rotation, or even better an electoral, system in its place.
5) What do you mean by "Student council committees can't even manage themselves at sec sch level"? Do you mean that they can't implement effective changes? If so, then the blame is not on them, but on the over-bearance of the school adminsitrations. Anyway, don't forget, discipline in the school is being surrendered to the police.
Also, the JC/Poly Councils will be watching and guiding the council committees of sec schs and pri. schs, so presumably they should be able to tackle issues more efficiently and effectively, with more maturity. (In case you are wondering, ITECs will be abolished, as the new syllabus structure has no palce for them. Technical Studies is under SUK.)
Belonging and identity? I daresay identity is created, but that does nto necessarily create a sense of belonging: I don't feel any sense of belonging to my pri. sch. or sec. sch. What creates a sense of belonging is how the teachers, school administrators, and fellow students treat you, not the intricateness of the school badge or the beauty of the school tie.
As for identity, we want to promote national identity and individual identity, not communal identity. Communal identity leads to elitism, which is what I'm aiming to abolish through the entire educational reform program.
6) Well, someone has got to have the moral courage to pass such a policy. Anything can be achieved; it's just a matter of will and commitment.
7) I ought to have made myself clearer. I myself would prefer abolition of the Death penalty for the reasons I've stated in 5 long posts on another thread on this subject matter, but in order not to alienate social retentionists (like you) so much, I would limit it to abolition of the Madatory Death Penalty for all crimes. Thus, the Death Penalty will be subscribed at the Judiciary's - and the CRJ's - consideration. As an aside, have you actually considered criminal rerform programs?
As for Euthanasia, my argument is the same as for abortion. The pro-lifers need to be taught that they themselves are violating the very rights they claim to protect.
Before the Patriot Act, what I'm proposing was what the USA had. ANd that hasn't made the USA at large any anarchic place...
9) I confess that my economic ideas are not very well-developed yet. But with the provisions of point p, the firms might accept it out of pure reasons of survival. Point p comes with provisions allowing the NTUC to organize strikes, or at least to threaten them.
Anyway, there's two sides of the coin. The staff will realize that their wealth now crucially depends on the performance of the firm they work for. If the firm makes more profits/ revenue , their shares are worth more. Likewise, retrenchment will be considered twice by the employer. Retrenchment will open the door to large amounts of shares being sold, which could result in a Great Depression for the firm, and logically no profit or revenue-maximizing firm is going to want that. So there's a likelihood that they will accept this arrangement.
Besides, threats to revoke business licenses might make dissenting firms think twice...
10) Actually, my exact idea is to create some kind of Trade and Industrial Parliament, similar to the lines of EP and the House of Miscellaneous (the current Parliament minus MOE and p'raps MTI, and with MCYS reduced back to MCDS). MTI and MFA will have a dual role corresponding to the summation of the role of the Presidency toward Parliament and the CPA toward the President. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is there to act as an advisor on the Foreign situation, filling in what the MNCs themselves don't know, or don't feel in their interest to raise in Industrial Parliament, as what this new body will be called. IP is also meant to act as a platform for collective bargaining in peace.
In such a sense, it is not managed by MTI and MFA. MTI and MFA are there to provide information on the economic limits SIngapore has, not to push through policy or resolve issues pertaining to trade relations. This will be guaranteed by CPIB and the new Electoral Authority (ELA). When the body exists, it will make policies on trade and industry and handle trade relations disputes, in the same way that EP will make educational policies and settle issues pertaining to youth, as well as age gap, as well as high-level discipline problems.
Hope that clears the issues.
Cheers,
the (hopeful) pikamaster -
----duplicate post-----
-
2) See all the policies as one organic whole, not as disseparate parts. The political immunity of MOE is counter-balanced by the new political power of the Student Unions and the STU. MOE will become pure executive, implementing policy changes mooted by EP, rather than stipending their own changes.
Past experience likens STU to a silent version of the NTUC. Whatever political power bestowed upon them will have little effect on teachers as a whole. Unless you have STU members who 'dare to speak up', their contribution to the 'counter-balance' will add little more weight than a feather. However this could be the right direction to move for MOE, if the right people can be motivated to push for it.
5) What do you mean by "Student council committees can't even manage themselves at sec sch level"? Do you mean that they can't implement effective changes? If so, then the blame is not on them, but on the over-bearance of the school adminsitrations. Anyway, don't forget, discipline in the school is being surrendered to the police. Also, the JC/Poly Councils will be watching and guiding the council committees of sec schs and pri. schs, so presumably they should be able to tackle issues more efficiently and effectively, with more maturity.
When you have cases of students burning down their exam storage rooms in the dead of night, you venture to think of this as more criminal than ill-discipline. While counsillors and teachers play their role, there will always exist a nucleus of hard-core delinquent-wannabes who run vice in their schools. The maturity level at sec schs is still below a level where self-governing by students is not an option. They will seek to tackle the issue the only way they know how: respond to force with equal or greater force. That degenerates into juvenile anarchy.
On the flip side, introducing JC/Poly counterparts is a start to educate their younger juniors on behaviourial politics. To learn how to manage large groups of students at an earlier age is surely better. However, primary sch level should remain in the hands of teachers at this point in time.
Belonging and identity? I daresay identity is created, but that does nto necessarily create a sense of belonging: I don't feel any sense of belonging to my pri. sch. or sec. sch. What creates a sense of belonging is how the teachers, school administrators, and fellow students treat you, not the intricateness of the school badge or the beauty of the school tie.
Certainly the grotesque combination of colours and ties of some schools hardly endears their uniforms to the students. But with the 'uniformity' it brings to classroom instruction, peers will have a higher tendency to see everyone as equals. With plainclothes brings the discord of fashion wear and acessories and that may lead to even greater divide among pupils.
6) Well, someone has got to have the moral courage to pass such a policy. Anything can be achieved; it's just a matter of will and commitment.
A noble sentiment. However, realistically such a cause is morally impossible. Efforts were made to increase awareness in both US and Australia. In US, some states actually lobbied for court rulings on the issue of abortion. And till this day even with their respective populations fully knowledgable on the enormity of abortion, the debate continues.
In Asian countries, the prevalent conservative culture means you are not likely to succeed in such campaigns for the next 20 years at least. In SG, so long as big brother rules against you, the issue will eventually gain no headway.
7) I ought to have made myself clearer. I myself would prefer abolition of the Death penalty for the reasons I've stated in 5 long posts on another thread on this subject matter, but in order not to alienate social retentionists (like you) so much, I would limit it to abolition of the Madatory Death Penalty for all crimes. Thus, the Death Penalty will be subscribed at the Judiciary's - and the CRJ's - consideration. As an aside, have you actually considered criminal rerform programs?
Taking a human life is always the hardest thing to do. The repercussions to the convicted's family alone is bad enough. But as much as we want to salvage life, how to you reform a unrepentent murderer? Or a hard core recalcitrant drug addict and peddler? How does anyone with good conscience address the issue of the victim's suffering and the ripple effects unleashed?
The death penalty for the smuggling of heroin the weight of a 20cent coin serves more as a deterent and not as the ultimate punishment. It is the fear of death that discourages the scourge and influx of drug smugglers. Aside from 1st degree murders and drug smuggling, there are no other crimes receiving mandatory death certs.
As for Euthanasia, my argument is the same as for abortion. The pro-lifers need to be taught that they themselves are violating the very rights they claim to protect.
When the will to die outweighs the will to live, can we call that a crime? If pulling the plug will save a family member from financial ruin, is that a crime? It is difficult to play prosecution and defence in euthanasia, especially when situations vary.
You use euthanasia as a counter argument to abortion: that any who demand the right to die actually violates the right to live. But have you considered the two are very dissimilar? In the case of the foetus, others make the decision. For euthanasia more often than not, the person her/himself decides.
Anyway, there's two sides of the coin. The staff will realize that their wealth now crucially depends on the performance of the firm they work for. If the firm makes more profits/ revenue , their shares are worth more. Likewise, retrenchment will be considered twice by the employer. Retrenchment will open the door to large amounts of shares being sold, which could result in a Great Depression for the firm, and logically no profit or revenue-maximizing firm is going to want that. So there's a likelihood that they will accept this arrangement.
Besides, threats to revoke business licenses might make dissenting firms think twice...
Your position places you in the negative band of the company-relations. There is also the question of overbearing workers with ridiculous wage demands and welfare benefits. Dissenting firms are not common as there are strict regulations and guiding principles enacted under law to ensure company ethics and social regard. Any dissent by company policy-makers can be reported to MOM for immediate investigation.
In real world experience, give the employee a yard and he'll ask for a mile. You open the flood gates and you're drowning yourself. Give workers a bigger piece of the pie than they deserve and that's what will happen. -
BillyBong,
1) What I'm doing to NTUC i.e. sacking its head and reviewing leadership policy is what I would do to STU as well. EMs will be eelcted union heads, so supposedly they would act in the interests of both the students and the teachers, who will elect them.
2) For the issue of delinquency, we are leaving the police to deal with it, as they are most equipped; rmb the de-centralizaing of Homes? The word "juveneile anarchy" is misplaced. As you would see, countries like Switzerland have middle-school student unions, and these countries are not what you can call anarchic.
In pri. sch, the unions will be co-managed by a teacher and the older seniors. Actually, you would call it Level 4 to Level 6 since the schools will be k-12 schools i.e. pri+sec+JC/Poly/ITE in one combination. and anyway, at each union meeting, there will be 2 police officers standing guard to intervene in the case of any lapse in diplomatic discipline on the part of teachers or students, so there is no fear of anarchy then. ANd don't forget, the older students will be present as well. Union meetings will not discriminate based on age; that violates the new Constitution.
3) The irony is the communalism uniforms generate in the absence of a defined function. Nurses won't end up with communalism because their uniform carries the implication that they are meant to work for the doctors and the patients - there is an occupational determinant. In the case of school uniforms, there is no such occupational determinant as the uniform doesn't symbolize the task a student needs to do. Instead, a school uniform usually acts as a symbol of a "glorious history" or "chivalrous character", giving it a rather communalistic purpose. For example, Rafflesians will look down on ACSians simply for the fact that the ACSians wear the uniform of ACS. I myself have been a Rafflesian, and you will notice the lengths to which RI boys will take to avoid ACS (I) guys. At best, they will start slandering the ACS (I) guys behind their backs. I do remember once going for a sports match where my friend was playing on the ACS(I) team. ACS against RI. Probably it was utterly insignificant, but anyway I made one comment to egg him on. One of my senior noticed it and sidelined me for "being a traitor". Obviously, something about this situation is quite wrong, eh? The formation of small cliques and clans eg. Raffles Family breeds communalism and arrogance, whcih leads to a breakdown in communciation with those outside that select group. My friend observed that in RJC, the RI boys would form their own cliques, excluding the guys from other schools. Likewise, the RGS girls would form their own cliques and exlcude the other guys and girls. I don't think that this is very good in promoting social harmony, even within the school itself.
As for in the larger community, recent events highlight the problem of elitism. In 2003, on an online forum, somebody lambasted and RG girl for hanging out with a guy from a neighbourhood school. Immediately, there was a flood of replies, and most shockingly, they were divided into three camps; I went to view the thread myself. Camp 1 sided this person and used reasons such as lack of smarts, inability to communicate effectively because the guy would be "stupid" and, very nastily, that the guy was simply plucking at straws to exit social quagmire. Camp 2 blasted this person for lack of maturity, rudeness and aloofness, arrogance and bemoaned the spread of elitism in SIngapore. Camp 3 sympathised with the young couple involved, but recommended that they separate as society just "would not accept this kind of union". I have no idea what happened to the subjects of thsi whole incident. but, clearly, elitism is not a desirable outcome. And it is generated by the school uniform mostly.
Having everybody wear their own clothes allows them to express themselves freely first of all, under certain elementary decency restrictions, and secondly, blinds them to differences in school of origin, allowing students from different schools to gel more effectively together, and thus the end result is a more united nation. In fact, I believe that such a plainclothes policy leads to a greater understanding and appreciation among peers. Besides, schools in Australia with uniforms and those without don't really show much difference in lack of discipline resulting from discord.
Even with the school uniform, racial and religious harmony is still not achieved. The school uniform does not prevent jokes made about Indians, does not prevent minority groups from sitting together in clusters or else. So, on ground level, the harmony doesn't really exist in the presence of school uniforms.
4) USA banned abortion until Roe vs. Wade in 1978.
5) Ironically, the socially conservative nature of society should actually validate an anti-abortion law. If you mean politically conservative, then rmb that one of the key asssumptions we are making in this discussion is that I am PM and I run the government; I am Big Brother.
6) You are making a dangerous assumption here. What justifies the statement that murderers are unrepentant? I was watching an episode of Ophrah where Winfrey visited a maximum-security prison in Texas. She interviewed three murderers, and all three showed regret for the crime they had committed, wishing that it had never happened. (Note: Texas retains the Death Penalty.) "hard-core" is a cultural construct; in reality, most drug peddlars are addicts themselves and most addicts are compelled to take drugs again due to depression resulting from social stigma. Which is why my proposed Constitution includes under means of division "past history" adn protects against such discrimination. If we give these people a real second chance, they will turn out the better. It takes a heart, not a whip, to reform a person. I advise you to surf the website of Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, an assocaition set up by a group of families of murder victims who are strongly abolitionist. One of the members' relations died in September 11th, and yet that member remains abolitionist.
7) A deterrent, or a possible miscarriage of justice? That's the question with regard to drug-trafficking, or what is assumed to be as such. Does a person who has had drugs smuggled into his/her bag at an airport, due to perhaps a minor oversight, deserve to hang for the ignominious crime of "trafficking"? Is a certain carried amount of drugs truely determinate of a motive to traffick? What about addicts whose addiction is so strong that their drug consumption is no longer rational? That has been proved to be true by medical professionals. The fact is that the criminal law against drug-trafficking does not take account of all these factors, and more. Thus, there are many convictions which could be potentially miscarriages of justice, but cannot be investigated since the so-called perpetrators are now dead, for eg. mental cases, and so on. The usual medical term for that is depression with a suicidal tendency, and usually merits counselling and in severe cases, psychiatric treatment. Why does the question of finance even come in? medical treatment for the working-class should be subsidized heavily by a responsible Ministry of Health.
9) In court, criminals can be pardoned for a crime if they can be proved mentally ill or in a poor state of mental health at the time of the crime. Depression with a suicidal tendency certainly reflects a poor mental state; in such a condition, do you think that the patient has the ability to make a truely-informed decision. And anyway, it is usually family members who pull the plug, and choose to, not the patients themselves. And doctors place pressure on them to do so, since it is the doctor which possesses the most information about teh patient's condition. In this way, it is actually the doctor's decision to pull the plug on the patient, although indirectly, so how does the nature of euthanasia defer from the nature of abortion in which the mother/father/doctor decides to kill the child?
10) I wonder then, why someone like Durai exists in a firm like NKF? If you note the complaints in the newspapers, you would realize tha the amount of dissenting firms is great. Firms, after all, aim to maximize profits or revenue, and would try in all possible ways to circumvent the ethical regulations.
SEF, anyway, is present in IP to check the employees' demands and CASE can act as a independent adjudicator. Also, the Ministers of Trade and Industry and Foreign Affairs will provide the data which will show out which requests are ridiculous. NTUC would probably still want to maintain its reputation, so it wouldn't make excessive bargains which would render it a laughing stock.
Economics also tells you that the power of a labour monopoly like NTUC and the power of a labour monopsony like SEF will cancel themselves out naturally.
Anyway, industrial peace has been maintained in Switzerland and Scandinavia, despite the fact that both places have trade unions.
11) And what is the slice of the pie that the workers deserve? in a morally just world, theirs should be the biggest, since they actually do the most work; CEOs just sit around and absorb funds and start flying first-class airflights and attending brothels etc.
Regards,
the pikamaster -
1) What I'm doing to NTUC i.e. sacking its head and reviewing leadership policy is what I would do to STU as well. EMs will be eelcted union heads, so supposedly they would act in the interests of both the students and the teachers, who will elect them.
Just so it's food for thought while you sit through your maths lecture...you seem to have a very idealistic thought pattern: if they dun make it sack the lot...do you know how tedious it was to select and put them there in the first place?
2) For the issue of delinquency, we are leaving the police to deal with it, as they are most equipped; rmb the de-centralizaing of Homes? The word "juveneile anarchy" is misplaced. As you would see, countries like Switzerland have middle-school student unions, and these countries are not what you can call anarchic.
In pri. sch,
...to be continued
(sry, it's math now)
Is it misplaced?
You haven't tweaked the system to see how it will respond but you are so sure that a mentorship programme between JC/ Polys to sec schs will be the answer to autonomy?
The self-admin system of Swiss schools are different in that they grow up in an environment which is constantly asking questions of themselves. A system in a country where the govt encourages criticism and open debate. A country where there is racial HARMONY, not racial TOLERANCE. A country where basic things like traffic rules are tweaked to cater to the rights and safety of cyclists (yes they even have road lanes for bicycles), motorbikes and veh above 1000cc. A country where the people are so eloquent and warm that they sincerely welcome visitors and treat each other like family.
But we're not talking abt switzerland, the envy of every nation in the world including our SM, who boasted that we would eventually reach their standard of living.
We're talking abt SG, where the gahmen insists on MOE to look after everything and police to handle naughty kids with pea shooters. Development of a country's culture cannot take place overnight. The swiss took decades to reach their current status. Progress is painful and gradual.
What do you think will happen if you decided to snap fingers tmr and give students full autonomy?
Sure, top rung schs like River Valley and RI will manage...but what about mayflower and jurong sec?
Does your suggestion cater to all? -
To change or Not To Change - all those Heads of present Government Agencies, Departments, GLCs and all affiliated organisations linked to the present Government a.k.a the Ruling Party.
The present Government a.k.a the Ruling Party has passed legislations that makes it illegal to sack and, hence, has entrenched the positions of the Heads of the Civil Service, the Chief Justice (Supreme and High Court Judges ?) , the Attorney General (all Public Prosecutors ?), Commissioner of Police (all Police Heads of Depts ?), Chief of Defense Forces, CEOs of GIC, Temasek, CPF, Monetary Board, Treasury, and all Government Agencies and GLCs.
With the politicizing of these appointments by the Ruling Party a.k.a the present Government, will those who hold these positions act against the interest of any incoming Government formed by other Political Party - and hence, acting against the WILL of Singaporeans who elect the other Political Party into Government, and having thrown out the present Ruling Party ?
It will be necessary to change all these appointments, who are political appointees, and unless those who hold these positions act in the interests of Singaporeans, and abide by the results of the Elections, there will not be any necessity for change.
Does Singapore have a neutral system that allow a smooth transition of power between political parties ?
Certainly not, as it has been a ONE Party Rule for the last FORTY YEARS, and the present Ruling Party has not done anything to create institutions that can withstand the passage of time for any POSSIBLE FUTURE change of Political Party that form the next Government.
This has raised concern for any disruptive or destructive outcome, if ever such an event is to take place, and the present Ruling Party must be made responsible for such and any destructive eventualities - as it has created a system that believe it will be around perpetually, and have not prepared the organisation for change.
The Singapore 'MATRIX' will disintegrate despite all the best intent and effort to preserve the status quo. -
History filled with examples of men who thought they have created systems (with built-in safeguards) to last perpetually. Only to witness how fragile & easy the whole system crumbled through time. The Law of Cause and Effect still apply and no one is immune to natural law. Cracks in the system are becoming more obvious and people's mind are waking up & questioning the status quo. And history showed how events turned out otherwise despite man's best efforts to control or influence it. Let's watch and learn...
-
I thoroughly enjoyed reading some of J. Richard Gott's books and his "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time". I would like to introduce everyone to the Copernicus Principle as I think it can be used as a probable tool for a country's timeline and its futurological implications from the minutest of examination to international resonance and affinities.
Firstly, let me give you the 95% confidence interval of the time for e.g. before a fourty-year old party has to give way: Are you ready for this? [I have omitted details of calculations.]
### Between 1 year to 1560 years ###
According to the Principle for this example: It predicts with 95% confidence that the party could be on its way out between 1 year to 1560 years. It could fall after just 1 year or survive for slightly more than a thousand years.
Another way of using this Principle is telling you that if you decide you want to increase its minimum length of existence, it must continue to exist for many many years more [explanation upon request]. To exact this through, things will have to done, necessary things for necessary sake - survival.
Of course, this is purely a mathematical hypothesis, academic. The principle has been used for other 'non-special' events with cruel accuracy, like the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Some people may use this sort of futurology to actually bring about the realisation of that event. Some people brush it off as meaningless.
Ever seen the show 'Paycheck'?
"If you tell someone their future, they have no future". But then, "If you know your future, you can change it if you don't fancy it". A complete conundrum. if you think it through carefully you will reach the same conclusion that I have.
Like what's been discussed here, changing the future is only for the Lion-Hearteds'. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
BillyBong,
[b]
1) What I'm doing to NTUC i.e. sacking its head and reviewing leadership policy is what I would do to STU as well. EMs will be eelcted union heads, so supposedly they would act in the interests of both the students and the teachers, who will elect them.
Just so it's food for thought while you sit through your maths lecture...you seem to have a very idealistic thought pattern: if they dun make it sack the lot...do you know how tedious it was to select and put them there in the first place?
2) For the issue of delinquency, we are leaving the police to deal with it, as they are most equipped; rmb the de-centralizaing of Homes? The word "juveneile anarchy" is misplaced. As you would see, countries like Switzerland have middle-school student unions, and these countries are not what you can call anarchic.
In pri. sch,
...to be continued
(sry, it's math now)
Is it misplaced?
You haven't tweaked the system to see how it will respond but you are so sure that a mentorship programme between JC/ Polys to sec schs will be the answer to autonomy?
The self-admin system of Swiss schools are different in that they grow up in an environment which is constantly asking questions of themselves. A system in a country where the govt encourages criticism and open debate. A country where there is racial HARMONY, not racial TOLERANCE. A country where basic things like traffic rules are tweaked to cater to the rights and safety of cyclists (yes they even have road lanes for bicycles), motorbikes and veh above 1000cc. A country where the people are so eloquent and warm that they sincerely welcome visitors and treat each other like family.
But we're not talking abt switzerland, the envy of every nation in the world including our SM, who boasted that we would eventually reach their standard of living.
We're talking abt SG, where the gahmen insists on MOE to look after everything and police to handle naughty kids with pea shooters. Development of a country's culture cannot take place overnight. The swiss took decades to reach their current status. Progress is painful and gradual.
What do you think will happen if you decided to snap fingers tmr and give students full autonomy?
Sure, top rung schs like River Valley and RI will manage...but what about mayflower and jurong sec?
Does your suggestion cater to all? [/b]
next time kindly wait until I've finished my post before replying, 'cos u may miss the larger picture.
But anyway,
1)Idon't think so.
2) I haven't exactly got the chance to tweak the system to my liking, have I? (FYI, I'm *still* a student), but obviously such a system will be implemented in steps, not all at one go. And second, you need to think in terms of a new social organization, not the existing one. The actual plan of implementation will involve merging some schools, creating new feeder schools, and creating new links between schools. Jurong Sec.sch, for eg, would be merged with JJC and Jurong West Pri. We will have complete K-12 co-ed schools, rather than the current 3 sets of schools (we are not including unis as a group). But anyway, the main form of implementation would be to begin with maximum teacher supervision, which reduces as years go by, such that student leaders older than 15 are totally independent. Anyway, we shouldn't underestimate the influence older children have on younger children. Younger children would want to emulate their older counterparts, and would probably accept advice from them voluntarily.
3) I understand the situation of Switzerland perfectly. I've done my research.
5) The point, I stress, is that the structure will be implemented gradually, taking probably abt 10 yrs to implement (a typical term of governmental office under the New Constitution). It will come in tandem with the changes in the organization of CDIS and the syllabus. I understand the issue of disorientation that might occur if we let go too fast ie. the culture problem and all that, so basically we will train teachers in steps, starting from teaching the new p1 syllabus, revamping the NIE curricula as we go along. For the students, the autonomy will be granted first to the JC/Poly/ITE students and the NUSSU SMUSU and NTUSU. I think uni students should be mature enough to self-govern. The new p1 batch will be initiated into a new environment which their seniors will not have had any experience of, except maybe in bits and pieces, because theirs will be an environemnt where active discussion and questioning is promoted, the system of the Swiss. it will be very long to provide the exact details in this post, so try and use your imagination. By the time they reach the age of 10, they will have had known no other environment within the school, and without too, because obviously a government under me would abolish the Defamation Act and provide full protection of Freedom of Expression. So these kids will not have been exposed to any other social form, except through their parents' and seniors' stories, but these will fade away gradually in a generation's time.
Progress should be gradual, but it need not be painful if the right methods are used. In fact, this is aimed to produce increased harmony and bonding, as students in a k-12 school under this system would have grown up together literally, eating in the same canteens even if not attending the same classes under the same teachers. And the syllabus scope is designed to offer opportunities to discover social connections, and thus form a more racially and religiously cohesive societies, not forgetting the (invisible) moral guidance provided by CIRMA through counselling and Religious Education classes.
More importantly, these children will grow up with the right mindset, and the right attitudes toward each other, develop healthy relationships, and hopefully that develops into a healthier future family life. Family is the basic unit of society; strong interpersonal bonds are the foundation of a cohesive family. So hopefully, we'll have an increase in birth rate, less marital breakdowns, thus killing a flock of birds with one stone. Education, after all, is more than an industry. it's a whole life-support system in itself.
Autonomy is given to the students when they start to want, and that want is taken to be associated with the acceptance of the responsibility of shouldering it.
But - I think I'll elaborate in future posts - the student organization will be divided up into legislative and executive sections as well. the legislative section will be a pure mechanism as far as it can be.
7) Ya, I do beleive my suggestion caters to all.
cheers,
the (optimistic) pikamaster -
Is this thread dead?
-
Hey Pika, I think its bec there are too many words and no picture... really tiring to read some of the posts that are very long.Originally posted by pikamaster:Is this thread dead? -
I think its time to redesign the system! Since people cannot accept the system, we do not wish to lose the entire crops!!!
-
Lets take a poll.
After going through all the above discussion, do you think Singapore will be any different politically and in relation to the above points discussed, in 2006 and in 2010? -
all the strategy and ways... but MTV is just gonna kill us all. We can never beat globalisation. But good point in the above .
-
It's good to hear that the 'studying population' takes a keen interest in political decision-making at govt level. However, the way you have put your points across tends to portray an impression of 'big and complex words' and not really a sure idea on how to execute them.Originally posted by pikamaster:7) Ya, I do beleive my suggestion caters to all.
At the same time, just to burst your optimistic bubble, it definitely DOES NOT cater to all given the maturity gap even at sec sch levels. To highlight one example, the 'institution plan' pioneered by Hwa Chong, Raffles and several other schools is the first experiment to free sec schs from the requirements of 'O'levels. We are slowly breaking the need for GCE certification and venturing into our own standards.
However, these projects are at the 'testing' phase. MOE and the nation is watching to see if the first batch of 16 year-olds who bypassed 'O' levels can cope with the added pressure and new challenges. So far, only the sports level has reaped immediate dividends.
There is also the question of further segregation of the 'elite', those who can adapt well and excel in the new format, and those who can't. Back in the beginning, it was the JC path which was deemed the better of the two, the other being Poly. But like many govt policies, it was a misguided and misconceived notion. Even now, the govt seeks to repair the damage they created by actively promoting ITEs and Polytechnics.
In retrospect, your plans are just like any other, require tweaking and adjustments before you can fully implement and extend it to the masses.
But do keep those ideas coming. -
My point precisely! duh, wad do u think I'm suggesting???Originally posted by ndsef:I think its time to redesign the system! Since people cannot accept the system, we do not wish to lose the entire crops!!! 
-
BillyBong,Originally posted by BillyBong:It's good to hear that the 'studying population' takes a keen interest in political decision-making at govt level. However, the way you have put your points across tends to portray an impression of 'big and complex words' and not really a sure idea on how to execute them.
At the same time, just to burst your optimistic bubble, it definitely DOES NOT cater to all given the maturity gap even at sec sch levels. To highlight one example, the 'institution plan' pioneered by Hwa Chong, Raffles and several other schools is the first experiment to free sec schs from the requirements of 'O'levels. We are slowly breaking the need for GCE certification and venturing into our own standards.
However, these projects are at the 'testing' phase. MOE and the nation is watching to see if the first batch of 16 year-olds who bypassed 'O' levels can cope with the added pressure and new challenges. So far, only the sports level has reaped immediate dividends.
There is also the question of further segregation of the 'elite', those who can adapt well and excel in the new format, and those who can't. Back in the beginning, it was the JC path which was deemed the better of the two, the other being Poly. But like many govt policies, it was a misguided and misconceived notion. Even now, the govt seeks to repair the damage they created by actively promoting ITEs and Polytechnics.
In retrospect, your plans are just like any other, require tweaking and adjustments before you can fully implement and extend it to the masses.
But do keep those ideas coming.
Thx for your reply. I shall address your points:
1) I am still working out the concrete details, although I do have some in mind already. Naturally, to spell out the details in exactness would take too long. Anyway, what I was hoping was that ppl in this forum could perhaps provide me with some .... err... improvements? One head can't think of all the great ideas.
2) The question is: why are you so convinced that there IS a maturity gap? I think your perception of a maturity gap is due to social stigma more than it is due to objective fact.
2&3) You present the Integrated Programme (IP) - tt is the correct term for "institution programmes" - in even rosier terms than I described the maturity of sec. sch. students in. You present IP as the idealized solution to the woes faced by the GCE exams. The thing is, IP merely scraps one GCE paper (excluding IB, which runs totally differently), so it merely translocates the stress of the system to JC 1, where the student would suddenly find he has to catch up with all the "simpler" stuff that the "comprehensive and deep" IP curriculum has ommitted. And even in sec. sch., the stress level is compounded by the increased number of subjects and their enhanced complexities as the IP schools try to compete each other out of comprehensiveness. The Rafflesians call RI/RJC's IP by one striking term which will surely make you think hard: Really Painful Programme.
Apart from that, there is that danger that these projects will remain "in testing" forever, confined to only the pioneer schools, so the benefits, if any, will not be transmuted to teh otehr schools in the nation. After all, given these schools' independent, and increasingly corporate status, are they going to be willing to share their "product innovations", farcial though they are, with other schools?
The problem with the system is the denigrading of polys and the existence of ITEs. Which is why my proposed main policy line suggests merging ITES with Polys, and p'raps with JCs. The govt invested so much time in its building of meritocracy that it failed, and even refused, to recognize the problem of elitism. And elitism might be the social ill, more than casino gambling or prosititution, that may finally lead to the Ruling Party's downfall.
And anyway, I think u missed out one crucial point. I said that the implementation of my proposed education system would begin with primary one pupils, not with any other levels. So the system - in theory - would grow along with these first group of p1 pupils. The system includes subject combinations, curricular assessment systems, teaching and learning environment, and syllabus. The reorganization of CDIS will follow in tandem. So basically - in theory at least, though I think probably in practice too - the problem of adaptability wouldn't surface, because this first batch of Integrated-Curriculum-21 (I think I shall call it that in mockery of Singapore 21) students will all be uniform in term of educational class and belong to different school campuses, rather than to neghbourhood and elite schools. EP and the 3 Schools will ensure that curriculum organization is uniform throughout the nation. The old system will be allowed to die a natural death. The IC21 students will NOT be exposed to the streaming system, so the currently existing class-social-stigma stereotypes will fade in this batch. And hopefully, they will resist the mindsets of their seniors and parents who have lived through the system. Because IC21 will give all students an equal opportunity regardless of family background, economic or otherwise, there will be no adaptability problem. And of course, p1 students have nothing to adapt from, since they haven't even come into contact with the system yet (Streaming honestly begins at p4), so they should be versatile enough. Based on that premise, most students within the same learning level should have an equal level of maturity. Remember, IC21 has NO social class distinctions built in, like the streaming system has. And ya, did I mention that The School Ranking System would be abolished as well? It is totally unnecessary in IC21.
4) I agree, so can u help? But at least, I have a totally different main line worked out. But I do believe that my plan can work in theory, at least; don't u agree?
Regards,
the (hopeful) pikamaster -
2) The question is: why are you so convinced that there IS a maturity gap? I think your perception of a maturity gap is due to social stigma more than it is due to objective fact.
The cause is indeed social stigma, that and many other things. Liken it to adults throwing lavish parties when they reach the preconceived and magical number of 21. What makes birthdays at the age of 21 so special? Absolutely nothing.
Just some psychological booster that makes teens believe they have finally reached adulthood.
Likewise the maturity gap i mentioned is based on this mistaken impression that below the age of 16, one cannot really dive into effective independence; some form of mental barrier must be broken on a wider scale first. During my years as a scout in sec sch, i observed that several individuals possessed very developed though-patterns and (dare i say it) wisdom. They exhibited immense patience and leadership abilities at an early age.
Sadly, most of these abilities were intrinsic and extremely rare among students that age. If one can comprehend these skills, translate that into some form of teaching and develop them in a youth, then yes, your suggestion towards self-government may succeed.
2&3) You present the Integrated Programme (IP) - tt is the correct term for "institution programmes" - in even rosier terms than I described the maturity of sec. sch. students in. You present IP as the idealized solution to the woes faced by the GCE exams. The thing is, IP merely scraps one GCE paper (excluding IB, which runs totally differently), so it merely translocates the stress of the system to JC 1, where the student would suddenly find he has to catch up with all the "simpler" stuff that the "comprehensive and deep" IP curriculum has ommitted. And even in sec. sch., the stress level is compounded by the increased number of subjects and their enhanced complexities as the IP schools try to compete each other out of comprehensiveness. The Rafflesians call RI/RJC's IP by one striking term which will surely make you think hard: Really Painful Programme.
I presented IP as an example, not as an ideal solution. It is in fact far from ideal, as it is still little more than a science experimental. As i understand, most schools now give students the option to study the minimum number of subjects instead of piling an impossible syllabus unto them. The 'subject drop' policy in many JCs, while admitedly a somewhat forced culture then, may have been the right move, especially for students who cannot cope.
And anyway, I think u missed out one crucial point. I said that the implementation of my proposed education system would begin with primary one pupils, not with any other levels. So the system - in theory - would grow along with these first group of p1 pupils. The system includes subject combinations, curricular assessment systems, teaching and learning environment, and syllabus. The reorganization of CDIS will follow in tandem. So basically - in theory at least, though I think probably in practice too - the problem of adaptability wouldn't surface, because this first batch of Integrated-Curriculum-21 (I think I shall call it that in mockery of Singapore 21) students will all be uniform in term of educational class and belong to different school campuses, rather than to neghbourhood and elite schools. EP and the 3 Schools will ensure that curriculum organization is uniform throughout the nation. The old system will be allowed to die a natural death. The IC21 students will NOT be exposed to the streaming system, so the currently existing class-social-stigma stereotypes will fade in this batch. And hopefully, they will resist the mindsets of their seniors and parents who have lived through the system. Because IC21 will give all students an equal opportunity regardless of family background, economic or otherwise, there will be no adaptability problem. And of course, p1 students have nothing to adapt from, since they haven't even come into contact with the system yet (Streaming honestly begins at p4), so they should be versatile enough. Based on that premise, most students within the same learning level should have an equal level of maturity. Remember, IC21 has NO social class distinctions built in, like the streaming system has. And ya, did I mention that The School Ranking System would be abolished as well? It is totally unnecessary in IC21.
Starting at an early age is indeed the ideal platform. But can they truly comprehend politics and self-government at an age where the preference is to play 'police and thief'? It might be a better choice to develop talent at sec school when students benefit from a certain age maturity and then work backwards till one can achieve it at a younger age. A gradual nudge in the right direction may be better than an attempt to inject a nuclear powerplant into a gear system of a tricycle. -
BillyBong,
good to see that u ...err.. revived the thread. I was seriously wondering if it had died a premature death.
1) I'm afraid u blatantly contradicted urself here. First of all, u agreed tt thinking abt sec. sch. students as immature is social stigma, and then u went abt attempting to prove tt sec. sch. students are in fact immature, and then settled for a compromise between these two. So exactly what is ur perception fo the maturity of sec. sch. students? Can you pls clarify?
2) I perceive that the "subject drop" policy was implemented to save the schools' faces, but anyway... in RP, if u dun do well, ur kicked out of RI, or so I heard from the ex-HM, who is now ... errr... the Director of Schools. But anyway the existence of the "subject-drop" policy is a symptom of the failure of the education system to provide a holistic balance. No subject is ever difficult; there are only students' perceptions tt the subjects are difficult.
3) One, maturity is associated with experience and emotional status, not with age, which is why the new Constitution I'll propose broadens age discrimination to include the young: children, students, teens. maturity is also relative. So no, an older person is not necessarily more mature than a younger person, if the adequate experience quota is not met.
What they like to play is not related in any way to their level of maturity. Haha, there are counsellors who play video games; Rafflesians play soccer and catching too.
You are right in saying that a gradual nudge is required. And that will be provided, from p1 to p3. Even at p4, like I said, the teachers will be there to provide guidance. But I must stress, Guidance not Advice or Commands. The teachers, along with the seniors (rmb the k-12 school concept?) , will assist the younger children in engaging constructively in discussions and debate. Of course, that is for the mature system, tt is when IC21 is at least 10 yrs old (which incidentally will be the newly-marked duration of a government term of office).
I assume you are concerned about the initial implementation. For the initial implementations, officials from ELAS and counsellors or psychologists will supervise the new student body to ensure its smooth functioning. Perhaps, as a safeguard against any inexpereince and ignorance the p4-p6 students might have, the right of collective bargaining - ie. threatening school strikes and boycotts - should be approved of to these students by their over-13 seniors (Sec sch/JC/Poly/ITEC) . I hope you judge 13 yrs as a mature age. But then, just rmb that we are talking abt this at a time when it has not yet been implemented. When it begins to be implemented, more optimistic discoveries might be made, because as I hope you have realized, the pilot batch for IC21 will encounter different intellectual and social development from their seniors, so they might mature sooner.
yep, tt's all in a nutshell. But I would appreciate any suggested improvements from you.
the pikamaster
P.S.: I tried to post this up ast night, but couldn't access the site, so i'm posting it now. -
[quote]Originally posted by pikamaster:
1) I'm afraid u blatantly contradicted urself here. First of all, u agreed tt thinking abt sec. sch. students as immature is social stigma, and then u went abt attempting to prove tt sec. sch. students are in fact immature, and then settled for a compromise between these two. So exactly what is ur perception fo the maturity of sec. sch. students? Can you pls clarify?
Nope.
That is a misconception. I was addressing the fact that social stigma placed us here in the first place. As a conservative society, our own social circles shun talk of a push towards broadening our own early development, prefering to sit back and let more experieced 'adults' decide on our behalf. But it is partially this cause that students generalise maturity at the >16 age group.
And to ensure clarity, i would feel safer to say that views on immature sec schs are not a blanket comment against the entire under 16 population. My previous post already admitted to a small proportion of potentials standing out among the crowd. The main barrier is the fact that students at that age have little or no interest in (or are simply not exposed to) school administrative issues, let alone national interests.
More should be done to include political science at an earlier stage. Introducing literature is simply not good enough. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
BillyBong,
[quote]Originally posted by pikamaster:
[b]
1) I'm afraid u blatantly contradicted urself here. First of all, u agreed tt thinking abt sec. sch. students as immature is social stigma, and then u went abt attempting to prove tt sec. sch. students are in fact immature, and then settled for a compromise between these two. So exactly what is ur perception fo the maturity of sec. sch. students? Can you pls clarify?
Nope.
That is a misconception. I was addressing the fact that social stigma placed us here in the first place. As a conservative society, our own social circles shun talk of a push towards broadening our own early development, prefering to sit back and let more experieced 'adults' decide on our behalf. But it is partially this cause that students generalise maturity at the >16 age group.
And to ensure clarity, i would feel safer to say that views on immature sec schs are not a blanket comment against the entire under 16 population. My previous post already admitted to a small proportion of potentials standing out among the crowd. The main barrier is the fact that students at that age have little or no interest in (or are simply not exposed to) school administrative issues, let alone national interests.
More should be done to include political science at an earlier stage. Introducing literature is simply not good enough.
[/b]
1) ...
2) I c what u mean. sry for the misunderstanding. But what do u mean by 'generalise maturity', just to clarify n make sure i dun misinterpret again.
3) Hmm... so now the qn is on how to set up EP? I believe strongly that the lack of interest is merely apparent, just like the general apathy in Singapore. The apathy stems from a feeling of powerlessness, and hence is not genuine; it's not like students dislike the issues, I think, although some of them may dislike the administration. So I think empowerment is the solution.
4) Ironically, Political Science does not deal with intra-school politics; I believe even office politics comes unofficially under sociology? I think that enhancing the history syllabus would be more appropriate. Btw, under IC21, SHK would be handling political science. Of course, we have to tread carefully; Does school adminsitration or participation in decision-making, even over finances, require knowledge of marxism or international relations??? The latter, abit perhaps, but even then...
Regards,
the pikamaster -
this thread dead again?