The Hubris of a GEP student at RJC
-
Btw, the ghost of your past will always come back to haunt you when you least expects it.
To Ms Wee if you're reading this; someday, what you said in your blog will come back and when it does, I hope you've learned some humility. -
Yes of course there're people who were poor and succeeded. There're even more examples of rich people who had connections and succeeded.Originally posted by rmyfrm:What is the definition of success my friend?
"The rich get richer and the poor gets screwed" - this statement gives rise to two plausible suggestions - both of which bear reference to a time period.
1) The man who is rich, gets richer, and the man who is poor, gets poorer.
With this definition, you have to ask, why? Is it because the rich man is just more capable, luckier or etc. etc. - This can't be helped, and yes indeed, the world should not work this way, but still ..
2) The son of the rich man, gets richer, and the son of the poor man, gets poorer.
With this definition, you have to ask again, why? The answer becomes apparent. This has nothing to do with luck, capability or such.
This has purely got to do with effort. The poor man's son HAS NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, deprived of a chance and opportunity to receive an education in Singapore. Considering that he is already at the bottom, the poor man's son has only one way to go, and that is up. If he does well in school, there is no reason why he should be deprived of work.
Sure, nobody is born equal - but I sure don't buy that argument that somebody is stupid simply because he is born that way. Everyone receives the same education - depending on the amount of effort put in, results will vary. Intellectual capability can be cultivated. Nobody is stupid simply because their "brian was partially d.o.a.".
If the poor man's son out-does his father. Then the poor has not gotten poorer - and I know many people like that. People who have gone way beyond what their parents ever achieved.
If the poor man's son does not out do his father - he has obviously not worked hard enough despite the fact he has been given reasonable opportunity and access to an unbiased, unrestricted and undiscriminating education system.
We all have to work for what we want.
The fact of life still remains. It's quite a huge feat to jump right out of your social class in just one generation.
Your view is ideal but not reflective of reality. How about parents who can't afford to send their kids to extra-lessons to gain that little bit of extra edge? Where do you think that RJC gal got to learn her French? All these add in.
Now, think of the poor. Do you think you can study in a cramped 3-bedroom HDB flat where you have to share with 5 other sibings? Do you think you can afford to hire tutors when you're falling behind in a subject? Do you think it's easy when you have to help out your parents after school?
Yes, meritocracy is an ideal system but it's still flawed. We still need to look out for those who might be weaker. -
Before i see the picture i thought of spanking here. But after seeing it hell no.
A government job is not limited to purely economic growth. Part of it is to take care of the people who are not as well off or relativly deprive. Obviously the government is not doing well in terms of income ensuring equality. There is also virtualy no safety net for the people when they besome unemploy or to prevent them from being exploited. Singapore does not have any minimum wage rate policy or any regarding how much a employer has to pay in order to retrench an employee. Even an 18 yr old like me worries abt such thing. Being fed with a silver spoon spare her from such troubles.
How i envy her for coming from a prestigious family. Well they say u gain some u lose some. Luckily not all RJC lad are so shortsighted -
Indeed your views are well grounded and justified.Originally posted by kaister:Yes of course there're people who were poor and succeeded. There're even more examples of rich people who had connections and succeeded.
The fact of life still remains. It's quite a huge feat to jump right out of your social class in just one generation.
Your view is ideal but not reflective of reality. How about parents who can't afford to send their kids to extra-lessons to gain that little bit of extra edge? Where do you think that RJC gal got to learn her French? All these add in.
Now, think of the poor. Do you think you can study in a cramped 3-bedroom HDB flat where you have to share with 5 other sibings? Do you think you can afford to hire tutors when you're falling behind in a subject? Do you think it's easy when you have to help out your parents after school?
Yes, meritocracy is an ideal system but it's still flawed. We still need to look out for those who might be weaker.
Note though that our education system as I have stated is unbiased, undiscriminating and relatively fair - and I know many who have never had tuition, or for that matter, any assistance more than the norm would have received, and yet gone on to do ridiculously well. The govt. has done more than enough for Singaporeans, with regards to providing them with the foundations necessary for any successful career.
With some luck and appropriate opportunities, even modest back-office staff can become "high flyers".
Indeed, connections do help, but it's not as though there are THAT many privileged people to deprive the majority that makes the norm of any reasonable and possible chance of success.
At the end of the day, it still boils down to what you want, and how hard you are willing to work to achieve that.
EDIT: You know that french thing, it might be, but I dare not confirm, the result of the third language program .. I don't know if it's still around, but they used to offer it to some students .. As I recall, one could pursue German, Japanese or French. -
X2Originally posted by ctstalin:god is fair
-
posted
-
You're right on the third language thingy...Originally posted by rmyfrm:Indeed your views are well grounded and justified.
Note though that our education system as I have stated is unbiased, undiscriminating and relatively fair - and I know many who have never had tuition, or for that matter, any assistance more than the norm would have received, and yet gone on to do ridiculously well. The govt. has done more than enough for Singaporeans, with regards to providing them with the foundations necessary for any successful career.
With some luck and appropriate opportunities, even modest back-office staff can become "high flyers".
Indeed, connections do help, but it's not as though there are THAT many privileged people to deprive the majority that makes the norm of any reasonable and possible chance of success.
At the end of the day, it still boils down to what you want, and how hard you are willing to work to achieve that.
EDIT: You know that french thing, it might be, but I dare not confirm, the result of the third language program .. I don't know if it's still around, but they used to offer it to some students .. As I recall, one could pursue German, Japanese or French. Left school too long to remember anything about it.
The education system is fair but the condition by which our society works is not.
You based your views on a simplistic ideal that those who work hard and are smart will get what they want. Unfortunately that only applies to the cream of the crop. Less than a few dozens each year and many of which are those with connections. Majority who were not able to secure a scholarship are doomed to slave their life away for some companies.
Has the government done more than enough to provide a foundation for all? Take a look at the previously implemented EM3 system and you'll see. Some Singaporeans are condemned and branded to fail right from the start. I've not known any eduation system in the world that does this type of segregation.
The current education aims to produce workforce to support the industry that Singapore is currently promoting. Once that policy changes (remember from IT to biomed?), many people will get screwed.
Unfortunately, it's these "white horses" that become our policy makers in the future. Policies that affect the majority of Singaporeans, allowing Singaporeans to lose their jobs if they can't keep up.
I know life's not fair and so aren't the government's policies -
what a screwed up girl. who the fuck's her father?
not to mention she's fugly.. very. -
“Note though that our education system as I have stated is unbiased, undiscriminating and relatively fair”Originally posted by rmyfrm:Indeed your views are well grounded and justified.
Note though that our education system as I have stated is unbiased, undiscriminating and relatively fair - and I know many who have never had tuition, or for that matter, any assistance more than the norm would have received, and yet gone on to do ridiculously well. The govt. has done more than enough for Singaporeans, with regards to providing them with the foundations necessary for any successful career.
.
I wouldnt agree that SingaporeÂ’s system is unbiased and gives everyone and equal footing.
Take for example, the “O” levels. Admission is based on English, Maths and Science and 2-3 more subjects depending on where you decide to go. From my observation, one form of discrimination that has been separating the rich and rest has been the subject English. I have seen many middle class kids do well, but they do not score well in English because they speak Chinese at home. While most of them can converse fluently, they do not score as well as those students from an English background. Imagine if the “O” level admission made Chinese a compulsory criteria, don’t you think the balance of students getting into top colleges would change significantly?
For those parents who have been through the system, they are able to better guide their kids to beat the system again. For example they may be more attuned to streaming at different stages, while the working class parents are not well educated nor is well aware how to prepare their children for education.
I wanted to point the myth of a system that is totally unbiased.
Unfairness always exist in the world, as long as its relatively fairer than most countries, it should be good enough. But we shouldnÂ’t stop improving the system making more chances for the less privileged. -
Indeed unfairness always exists.Originally posted by kilua:“Note though that our education system as I have stated is unbiased, undiscriminating and relatively fair”
I wouldnt agree that SingaporeÂ’s system is unbiased and gives everyone and equal footing.
Take for example, the “O” levels. Admission is based on English, Maths and Science and 2-3 more subjects depending on where you decide to go. From my observation, one form of discrimination that has been separating the rich and rest has been the subject English. I have seen many middle class kids do well, but they do not score well in English because they speak Chinese at home. While most of them can converse fluently, they do not score as well as those students from an English background. Imagine if the “O” level admission made Chinese a compulsory criteria, don’t you think the balance of students getting into college would change significantly?
For those parents who have been through the system, they are able to better guide their kids to beat the system again. For example they may be more attuned to streaming at different stages, while the working class parents are not well educated nor is well aware how to prepare their children for education.
I wanted to point the myth of a system that is totally fair.
Unfairness always exist in the world, as long as its relatively fairer than most countries, it should be good enough. But we shouldnÂ’t stop improving the system making more chances for the less privileged.
I find the education system very fair. It prepares most for the harsh reality that is the working world. Indeed, college admissions would change dramatically if certain subjects were made compulsory - however, the education system should not revolve around the individual, but the standard that is required to propel the nation into global success.
I disagree with a multitude of government policies - especially regarding employment and FT. However, with regards to education, because of the mouldability of young Singaporeans, and the fact that uniformity and consistency has always been a foremost issue behind multiple legislative policies, I feel that the education system is one of the Singapore's greatest strengths. No doubt, we produce a hell load of annoying elitists, but truth is, those that survive the tribulations and demands of the education system generally go on to do relatively well because the education system effectively prepares many to enter the workforce. -
I think people like her should be humbled by some misfortune someday.
She can spout this kind of rubbish because she has little contact with students from other non-elite class.
I know this student from this XXX secondary school, the principal merge two classes because of a lack of resources and the class became a class size than is larger than 40. There are usually disruptive students that makes the teacher give up and unable to teach. So even if some of the students work hard, they will be unable to hear the teacher. From what i heard, the teacher cries regulary during the class. -
Reflecting back on what she said on her blog. It is suddenly obvious why our govt isn't proactively solving the country's social and economical problems for the lower income. And when they do try, reactively, they fail miserably at it.
It is simply because they do not understand the issue. They may know and possibly able to articulate the problem to a certain extend but they have not a clue what the problem is.
I was talking to a customer yesterday and had the finance operations conference in to help resolve the customer issue. Despite several explaination and the finance people best attempt, they could not understand a sales issue. You have to be in it, done it/live if before you know what it is and how to tackle it.
We need more ministers who is like one of us.
BTW, Anyone knows who her old man is? They always say that to know what's wrong with a child, all you have to do is to look at the parents. -
Her blog is closed. Don't worry, the Internet kep several archives; somewhere, somehow. You can delete your blog, maybe even convince your friends to delete their's but you can never delete the memory off all the servers in the Internet.
Here's an example -
Q.What do you look for in a guy/girl? this is quite difficult actually. someone i can get along with, someone i won't feel slightly sorry for when i look at him, someone who makes me laugh, someone who has a brain, someone who can speak english, someone who loves ME
i don't think the list is exhaustible hahah..and i suppose many many yrs down the road, someone with a lot of cash and someone my parents like..
You're gonna have a tough time looking for a mate.
Ms Wee, I bet you're reading this. Mark my words, the ghost will come back to haunt you someday. Be afraid, be really afraid. -
her old man is Wee Siew Kim of AMK GRC (strong mandate wor dun play play) according to sammyboy's ppl
still can catch some part of her blog from google cache
-
Aiyo.. our dear PM's constituency again? Wonder if our dear elitist-convert PM is aware that there's another elitist in his GRC who's breeding other elitists.Originally posted by ctstalin:her old man is Wee Siew Kim of AMK GRC (strong mandate wor dun play play) according to sammyboy's ppl
still can catch some part of her blog from google cache -
Flowers in the clean rooms die young!!!!
But as their dogs also die young!!! 10 yrs max!!! -
Originally posted by anonymouscoward:
Hanor.
Her blog is closed. Don't worry, the Internet kep several archives; somewhere, somehow. You can delete your blog, maybe even convince your friends to delete their's but you can never delete the memory off all the servers in the Internet.
Here's an example -
Q.What do you look for in a guy/girl? this is quite difficult actually. someone i can get along with, [b]someone i won't feel slightly sorry for when i look at him, someone who makes me laugh, someone who has a brain, someone who can speak english, someone who loves ME i don't think the list is exhaustible hahah..and i suppose many many yrs down the road, someone with a lot of cash and someone my parents like..
You're gonna have a tough time looking for a mate.
Ms Wee, I bet you're reading this. Mark my words, the ghost will come back to haunt you someday. Be afraid, be really afraid.[/b]
Wait one day when she has finished her graduate studies and looking for a job, lo and behold the potential boss interviewing her will go, Hey, aren't you the girl who posted THAT blog a few years back?
But then seeing how connected she is, she will probably still get the job. -
oops...i saw a response by Ms Wee on my friend's blog: go http://weikiatblog.blogspot.com and look under the post Looking Back Home dated Thursday, October 19, 2006
tat is wat she had to sayshu-min says
dear wei kiat,
i apologise if i have distressed you with my tendency to rant. while i will not dispute some of the points you make in response to what i have written, i would like to bring to your attention the fact that the post in question was never meant to be a cogent response to the specific points raised in derek wee's article. it is, quite obviously, a rant in the heat of the moment. in addition, i don't believe that my blog has the wide readership of derek wee's, or even your own, and my intention was more to vent my own frustrations than public denouncement.
i'd also like to clarify my use of the word "elite". while i understand how misinterpretation may have arose, i intended to use it in irony, as a label that people assume i enjoy, and not one that i take particular pleasure in.
finally, i admit that i was harsher than i should have been, although the the crux of my belief in self-improvement and self-determination has not changed. once again, i apologise if my words have unintentionally offended you - i was under the rather naive impression that nobody reads my blog
10/19/2006 11:45 PM -
Wow she really knows how to apologize like an elite. Her apology is like a LKY's apology. Her "i apologise if i have distressed you" sounds like LKY.Originally posted by ctstalin:shu-min says
dear wei kiat,
i apologise if i have distressed you with my tendency to rant. while i will not dispute some of the points you make in response to what i have written, i would like to bring to your attention the fact that the post in question was never meant to be a cogent response to the specific points raised in derek wee's article. it is, quite obviously, a rant in the heat of the moment. in addition, i don't believe that my blog has the wide readership of derek wee's, or even your own, and my intention was more to vent my own frustrations than public denouncement.
i'd also like to clarify my use of the word "elite". while i understand how misinterpretation may have arose, i intended to use it in irony, as a label that people assume i enjoy, and not one that i take particular pleasure in.
finally, i admit that i was harsher than i should have been, although the the crux of my belief in self-improvement and self-determination has not changed. once again, i apologise if my words have unintentionally offended you - i was under the rather naive impression that nobody reads my blog Smile
10/19/2006 11:45 PM
i guess her attitudes maybe influence by people around her. I wont be surprised if people around her think the same. They are probably more politically savvy than her and will only make such comments in private. -
The response from the RJC student is highly robust but rather petulant, clearly stemming from youthful inexperience.
They say you never know the problem until you experience it. Like taking public transport, you will never feel the pinch of a 'minor' price hike unless you are a regular. How could high-paying ministers possibly comprehend the dissent of the people by driving to work daily?
That is basically the downside of her argument. Coming from a well-to-do home, having food on the table and going to elite schools, she hasn't yet endured the hardships of fighting for a rice bowl, nor humbly writing in for job interviews and not getting picked.
To her credit, she did admit to that; so really the question is why she would suddenly go on a tirade of lambasting Derek Wee over a couple of general comments that have been the earful of every govt minister on a daily basis?
Complaints to level the playing field, more opportunities for the people and changing the presiding 'elitist' mindset is not new, and Derek Wee is hardly the first person to enlighten us on this fact.
With such a blossoming start to her teritiary education, she is likely to have that 'red carpet' treatment for her future career. Thus before actually interacting with 'middle class whiners', she shouldn't take it upon herself to pass sweeping remarks that do nothing other than to serve their own ego. True, in any society, democracy and communism, there will also be a certain proportion of dissenters; communism works for the poor masses, true democracy champions capitalism and meritocracy.
While each has its merits, the trick is to manoeuvre so that you can find that niche for yourself. Complaining because others have done better than yourself will only serve to ignore your own weaknesses and eventually compound your own self-inflicted misery.
Put it simply, if we as a people spend less time complaining about the things to which we already have the answers, then the focus on REAL problems can be adequately addressed. -
Can we get forum_dude to send her a PM?
-
you can write very well. i am impressed!!!Originally posted by BillyBong:The response from the RJC student is highly robust but rather petulant, clearly stemming from youthful inexperience.
They say you never know the problem until you experience it. Like taking public transport, you will never feel the pinch of a 'minor' price hike unless you are a regular. How could high-paying ministers possibly comprehend the dissent of the people by driving to work daily?
That is basically the downside of her argument. Coming from a well-to-do home, having food on the table and going to elite schools, she hasn't yet endured the hardships of fighting for a rice bowl, nor humbly writing in for job interviews and not getting picked.
To her credit, she did admit to that; so really the question is why she would suddenly go on a tirade of lambasting Derek Wee over a couple of general comments that have been the earful of every govt minister on a daily basis?
Complaints to level the playing field, more opportunities for the people and changing the presiding 'elitist' mindset is not new, and Derek Wee is hardly the first person to enlighten us on this fact.
With such a blossoming start to her teritiary education, she is likely to have that 'red carpet' treatment for her future career. Thus before actually interacting with 'middle class whiners', she shouldn't take it upon herself to pass sweeping remarks that do nothing other than to serve their own ego. True, in any society, democracy and communism, there will also be a certain proportion of dissenters; communism works for the poor masses, true democracy champions capitalism and meritocracy.
While each has its merits, the trick is to manoeuvre so that you can find that niche for yourself. Complaining because others have done better than yourself will only serve to ignore your own weaknesses and eventually compound your own self-inflicted misery.
Put it simply, if we as a people spend less time complaining about the things to which we already have the answers, then the focus on REAL problems can be adequately addressed. -
If she really wrote that, it really shows that her writing skill is definitely an 'A'. Her English is fantastic, without a shadow of a doubt. However, it does not show any depth in her thinking.
Good English does not equate to superior intellect. Talking and writing in good English might make one sound intelligent, but the person might not be really intelligent. She just sounds like an Ang Moh air-head whose command of English is very good, but lack the intellect. Hopefully, she will not be at the helm of any organisation. Otherwise, people below her will suffer.
God bless Singapore! -
Originally posted by packjust:
Correction. Being able to write in good English does not mean you can write well.
If she really wrote that, it really shows that her writing skill is definitely an 'A'. Her English is fantastic, without a shadow of a doubt. However, it does not show any depth in her thinking.
[b]Good English does not equate to superior intellect. Talking and writing in good English might make one sound intelligent, but the person might not be really intelligent. She just sounds like an Ang Moh air-head whose command of English is very good, but lack the intellect. Hopefully, she will not be at the helm of any organisation. Otherwise, people below her will suffer.
God bless Singapore![/b] -
The education system, is fair on the fundamental promise that it is a standardized exam. As such, that's the only real suitable adjective.Originally posted by kilua:“Note though that our education system as I have stated is unbiased, undiscriminating and relatively fair”
I wouldnt agree that SingaporeÂ’s system is unbiased and gives everyone and equal footing.
Take for example, the “O” levels. Admission is based on English, Maths and Science and 2-3 more subjects depending on where you decide to go. From my observation, one form of discrimination that has been separating the rich and rest has been the subject English. I have seen many middle class kids do well, but they do not score well in English because they speak Chinese at home. While most of them can converse fluently, they do not score as well as those students from an English background. Imagine if the “O” level admission made Chinese a compulsory criteria, don’t you think the balance of students getting into top colleges would change significantly?
For those parents who have been through the system, they are able to better guide their kids to beat the system again. For example they may be more attuned to streaming at different stages, while the working class parents are not well educated nor is well aware how to prepare their children for education.
I wanted to point the myth of a system that is totally unbiased.
Unfairness always exist in the world, as long as its relatively fairer than most countries, it should be good enough. But we shouldnÂ’t stop improving the system making more chances for the less privileged.
Unfortunately, not everybody is suited for this manner of academic rigor, which I think is what you're describing. At the risk fo sounding like that RJC girl, I say it's just bad luck. *BUT*, there is nothing preventing you from overcoming these obstacles.
I don't think it can be made any fairer without turning communist.
===
I agree with both of them actually. Their points are not mutually exlusive; except that derek wee's letter does seem complacent in light of the points the wee girl raised.
===
and i'm not above pointing out, she's fat and she's got big boobs.