The Hubris of a GEP student at RJC
-
You sound surprised.Originally posted by NewAge:WTF.
First day living in Singapore?
-
So which is worst emphasising a class divide or religion divide? Well dont forget to add in the fact that shes an MP daughter and a scholar who shld be well aware of such thingsOriginally posted by anonymouscoward:No lah, this is a different case. Instead of insulting a religion or a particular race, his daughter is only insulting everyone else who is not in their elite class.
Hmm... wonder which has a larger audience.
Beside, when you insult a race/religion, it is seditious as you turn one race/religion against another. How can the weak and useless normal Singaporean turn against the elite class? Therefore, not seditious lor. -
Says a lot about the cookie-cutter education system, doesn't it?Originally posted by NewAge:Well dont forget to add in the fact that shes an MP daughter and a scholar who shld be well aware of such things -
Well i remember equality being mention in the pledge. Shit!!!! I am being brainwashOriginally posted by charlize:You sound surprised.
First day living in Singapore? -
Before I say anything, i must say pardon my typing or grammar. I'm very sleepy now but I feel I must comment.
She is born more affluent, with powerful background. Good prestigious school.
What about the others? Those born poor, living in rented flats, low educated parents, no money to pay daily expenses, those less fortunate? She forgotten they existed? She thinks everyone is like her?
Speaking of education, the sad thing is the sheer over emphasism on formal official examination results coupled with the ridigity of the school admission systems. What do exam results show? That one is proficient in the subjects tested. But what does it not show? The other intangible qualities, like passion, talent and other achievements. These talents are hidden behind a facade of exam results that institutions oly scratch the surface of a thick brick wall. Looking beyond the results would make them discover that there are more to a student than official exam results. I had been a victim of such. Infortunately in Sg, paper qualifications matters. In everything from govt job, govt-related agency jobs, private sector jobs, getting into schools, or even getting respect. This is the sad case now, with strong competition from other fellow schoolmates and influx for foreign talent. So I she's right at the top, looking across the bright horizon while some people are at the base of the mountain, deep inside the valley. The higher you are the harder you fall, and more drastic the consequences if you are proud, arrogant and apathetic.
Elite?
In material senses, might be. But moral and personality? I don't think so.
People are surviving on $30 or so a day here. And then there are those earning millions or with very stable job (eg MPs, CEOs). Let her spend a month exchanging lives with a family of say 3 children with the sole breadwinner earning say $30 a day, parents with low education doing odd job. The hard life. See how she thinks after a month.
Our forefathers came from different lands, seeking better life. Working the hard life, and brought our grandparents, parents who finally brought us up. Without the hard labour, you'll never have success.
Stable job is hard to find. Stable job with good stable income even harder.
I can't comment further. -
-deleted-
-
She is just 17
I think the harsh responses to a 17 year old's personal opinion, while understandable, is unjustified. All of us are guilty of thinking and doing certain actions at that age that we will be ashamed of doing now.
I don't think there is a need to bring politics or her father into this issue or use it as easy game to dismiss the brighter students in our country.
I also wouldn't term her comments 'elitist'. They seem more to me lacking in maturity, which if you have read the GP essay of any JC student her age, would be a common occurance.
Those of us who are able to present a better argument should do so in a calm manner. I think someone bright will yield to a better argument but not insults.
My only concern is that there are some who agree with her. As such, I will like to point out exactly why her opinion lacks sufficient sophistication and knowledge to be taken seriously. There are many problems with her train of thought but for my purposes, I shall just highlight two remarks she makes to make my point:
Remark 1:
"I think the main reason for its lack of publication was that his incensed diatribe was written in pathetic little scraps that passed off as sentences, with poor spelling and no grammar. derek, derek, derek darling, how can you expect to have an iron ricebowl or a solid future if you cannot spell?"
Why it is flawed:
It is now accepted by academics that having a standard form of communication is unhelpful to promoting understanding among individuals and cultural groups, or to the exchange of information.
Had Ms Wee been aware of this fact, she would have known that the onus is less on the individual to meet certain standards of communication but for all types of communication to be understood at the discussion table. To put it simply, Ms Wee will lose out on a lot of information if she only read material written in perfect English. An enlightened approach to understanding someone requires that one sieves through the incoherent elements to find meaning.
Remark 2:
"it's the same everywhere. yes discrimination exists, and it is sad, but most of the time if people would prefer hiring other people over you, it's because they're better. it's so sad when people like old derek lament the kind of world that singapore will be if we make it so uncertain. go be friggin communist, if uncertainty of success offends you so much - you will certainly be poor and miserable. unless you are an arm-twisting commie bully, which, given your whiny middle-class undereducated penchant, i doubt."
Why it is flawed:
Ms Wee does not define what it means to be 'better'. This is extremely important because critics of the government's liberal foreign employment policy feel that foreigners are better only in terms of cost. This is not an ideal situation for all parties involved, because it creates a 'cut-throat' employment market. It erodes a citizen's sense of nationalism and does nothing for the self-esteem of the majority of foreign workers to know the only reason why they are here is because they are cheaper. Quality char kway teow takes a longer time to prepare and requires a chef with decades of skill. The quality of char kway teow has gone downhill precisely because they are too many hawkers serving it up instantly and so-called cheaply (notice how the ingredients and portions seem to shrink with each year?) Ms Wee appears unaware of the downsides to a capitalist market.
Ms Wee's approach to discrimination is uninspiring. Had feminists taken her 'get on with it' approach to discrimation, she would not be in the elevated position she is in today. In fact, she would be in the kitchen.
There is no doubt that younger workers can work for longer hours and cheaper pay than older workers. This is indeed the way that companies are hiring today but it is hardly the way to go. Ms Wee fails to appreciate that an individual's life cannot be completely dictated by the whims and fancies of capitalisim. We cannot allow companies to continue their age discrimation as it will have dire consequences on the fabric of society. We value family, leisure time and putting in an honest day's work, not working to see who will drop first.
Lastly, by suggesting that Mr Derek Wee should be a communist, she has shown that she is uninformed on communism. It is taken very seriously by academics as a moving political theory that is ideal but unfortunately very difficult, if not impossible to implement.
Communism still provides a guiding light to an enlightened way that humans can govern themselves. Ms Wee would be surprised to know that Sweden, which boosts one of the most stable political systems of the world, has a strong element of communism in it: there is no private property.
The overriding problem with Ms Wee's comments is a failure to appreciate that "Just because this is the way that things are, does not mean it is the way that things ought to be."
Her unwillingness to question the status quo lacks courage, but is certainly forgivable in one so young.
[U]Daddy to the rescue?[/U] Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Wee Siew Kim's remarks:
I think if you cut through the insensitivity of the language, her basic point is reasonable, that is, that a well-educated university graduate who works for a multinational company should not be bemoaning about the Government and get on with the challenges in life.
Nonetheless, I have counselled her to learn from it. Some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it.
Why it is flawed:
An immatured JC student is one thing but an MP who advises citizens to 'get on' with the challenges of life instead of helping them to deal with it, particularly when some of these challenges are in fact, injustices, is alarming. I do not think a 35 year old graduate or anyone else for that matter, will find the advice of an 18 year old JC student very helpful. MP Wee needs to re-visit his recommendations.
Questions should be asked if a culture of accepting all elements of a status quo, even those that are unjust, is pervasive and if so, to what extent, the government must take responsibility. -
Well and good, PIM, but IMHO you're missing the forest for the trees here. It's not just the individual premises of the argument that are fallacious, it's the overall argument that fails even the most liberal measure of cogency, because she doesn't just disregard Derek Wee's point of view, she pooh-poohs it and trivialises what is a real issue for many Singaporeans.
Developmental researchers such as Jean Piaget have asserted that by the age of seven, a normally-developing child should have developed the capacity to adopt other people's perspectives instead of being egocentric.
Young Miss Wee is more than ten years past that developmental milestone - she's obviously a retard, or if the integrity of the education is to be believed in, she is at the very least an idiot savant.
As an extension of that point, the young cow is so damn thick that nothing short of the harshest response will even register as a blip on her radar. -
Look everyone, as it's been said countless times, she's just throwing a fit and a hissy one at that. After all the anger we feel, what does it boil down to?
Just ignore the little kid. She's not even in our league. -
Originally posted by politicsinmotion:
I can smell 'elitism' when someone post a reply to you that starts with 'please learn to use proper English...blah..blah..blah...'
[b]She is just 17
I think the harsh responses to a 17 year old's personal opinion, while understandable, is unjustified. All of us are guilty of thinking and doing certain actions at that age that we will be ashamed of doing now.
I don't think there is a need to bring politics or her father into this issue or use it as easy game to dismiss the brighter students in our country.
I also wouldn't term her comments 'elitist'. They seem more to me lacking in maturity, which if you have read the GP essay of any JC student her age, would be a common occurance.
Those of us who are able to present a better argument should do so in a calm manner. I think someone bright will yield to a better argument but not insults.
My only concern is that there are some who agree with her. As such, I will like to point out exactly why her opinion lacks sufficient sophistication and knowledge to be taken seriously. There are many problems with her train of thought but for my purposes, I shall just highlight two remarks she makes to make my point:
Remark 1:
"I think the main reason for its lack of publication was that his incensed diatribe was written in pathetic little scraps that passed off as sentences, with poor spelling and no grammar. derek, derek, derek darling, how can you expect to have an iron ricebowl or a solid future if you cannot spell?"
Why it is flawed:
It is now accepted by academics that having a standard form of communication is unhelpful to promoting understanding among individuals and cultural groups, or to the exchange of information.
Had Ms Wee been aware of this fact, she would have known that the onus is less on the individual to meet certain standards of communication but for all types of communication to be understood at the discussion table. To put it simply, Ms Wee will lose out on a lot of information if she only read material written in perfect English. An enlightened approach to understanding someone requires that one sieves through the incoherent elements to find meaning.
Remark 2:
"it's the same everywhere. yes discrimination exists, and it is sad, but most of the time if people would prefer hiring other people over you, it's because they're better. it's so sad when people like old derek lament the kind of world that singapore will be if we make it so uncertain. go be friggin communist, if uncertainty of success offends you so much - you will certainly be poor and miserable. unless you are an arm-twisting commie bully, which, given your whiny middle-class undereducated penchant, i doubt."
Why it is flawed:
Ms Wee does not define what it means to be 'better'. This is extremely important because critics of the government's liberal foreign employment policy feel that foreigners are better only in terms of cost. This is not an ideal situation for all parties involved, because it creates a 'cut-throat' employment market. It erodes a citizen's sense of nationalism and does nothing for the self-esteem of the majority of foreign workers to know the only reason why they are here is because they are cheaper. Quality char kway teow takes a longer time to prepare and requires a chef with decades of skill. The quality of char kway teow has gone downhill precisely because they are too many hawkers serving it up instantly and so-called cheaply (notice how the ingredients and portions seem to shrink with each year?) Ms Wee appears unaware of the downsides to a capitalist market.
Ms Wee's approach to discrimination is uninspiring. Had feminists taken her 'get on with it' approach to discrimation, she would not be in the elevated position she is in today. In fact, she would be in the kitchen.
There is no doubt that younger workers can work for longer hours and cheaper pay than older workers. This is indeed the way that companies are hiring today but it is hardly the way to go. Ms Wee fails to appreciate that an individual's life cannot be completely dictated by the whims and fancies of capitalisim. We cannot allow companies to continue their age discrimation as it will have dire consequences on the fabric of society. We value family, leisure time and putting in an honest day's work, not working to see who will drop first.
Lastly, by suggesting that Mr Derek Wee should be a communist, she has shown that she is uninformed on communism. It is taken very seriously by academics as a moving political theory that is ideal but unfortunately very difficult, if not impossible to implement.
Communism still provides a guiding light to an enlightened way that humans can govern themselves. Ms Wee would be surprised to know that Sweden, which boosts one of the most stable political systems of the world, has a strong element of communism in it: there is no private property.
The overriding problem with Ms Wee's comments is a failure to appreciate that "Just because this is the way that things are, does not mean it is the way that things ought to be."
Her unwillingness to question the status quo lacks courage, but is certainly forgivable in one so young.
[U]Daddy to the rescue?[/U] Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Wee Siew Kim's remarks:
I think if you cut through the insensitivity of the language, her basic point is reasonable, that is, that a well-educated university graduate who works for a multinational company should not be bemoaning about the Government and get on with the challenges in life.
Nonetheless, I have counselled her to learn from it. Some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it.
Why it is flawed:
An immatured JC student is one thing but an MP who advises citizens to 'get on' with the challenges of life instead of helping them to deal with it, particularly when some of these challenges are in fact, injustices, is alarming. I do not think a 35 year old graduate or anyone else for that matter, will find the advice of an 18 year old JC student very helpful. MP Wee needs to re-visit his recommendations.
Questions should be asked if a culture of accepting all elements of a status quo, even those that are unjust, is pervasive and if so, to what extent, the government must take responsibility.
[/b] -
Yea. Let's focus on the real evil - her old man.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Look everyone, as it's been said countless times, she's just throwing a fit and a hissy one at that. After all the anger we feel, what does it boil down to?
Just ignore the little kid. She's not even in our league. -
yea, lets stop giving her all the undeserved attentionOriginally posted by LazerLordz:Look everyone, as it's been said countless times, she's just throwing a fit and a hissy one at that. After all the anger we feel, what does it boil down to?
Just ignore the little kid. She's not even in our league.
-
There's a bigger world out there. He is just a cog in the machinery.Originally posted by anonymouscoward:Yea. Let's focus on the real evil - her old man. -
Yes but you cannot get rid of the engine unless you remove the surrounding bolts and nutsOriginally posted by LazerLordz:There's a bigger world out there. He is just a cog in the machinery. -
After reading the ST article blowing her remarks 'sky-high', i cannot help but realise a couple of interesting issues:
Wee Siew Kim made several comments concerning his daughter's remarks. Among them was the fact that while her 'basic point' was correct, her delivery was insensitive.
It seemed to me like the father was still trying to justify her daughter's comments despite being seriously condemned by the general netizen community and public. While he was not obliged to offer an apology on her behalf, there was no need to continue to impose on the issue.
Furthermore, his follow-up comments over people who cannot take 'blunt' criticism was belligerent to say the least. It was literally implying that the comments she made were RIGHT, and then people who 'can't take the heat' should 'stay out of the kitchen'.
Sounds like we all know who Wee Shu Min takes after - father or mother.
Instead of taking a leaf out of Winston Hodge's diplomacy, his remarks merely escalate the belief that those ruling elite will forever be entrenched in their 'elitist' mindset, incapable of experiencing the difficulties of the average norm.
Contrary to Wee Siew Kim's claim, not only will the lesson be lost, it will inculcate a continued arrogance and 'infallible' streak that has plagued the ruling elite, and their children will be no better off.
Till now, we still have not seen a sincere apology of any kind towards Derek Wee. I don't expect there will ever be. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
I am beginning to wonder if the PM is communicating with his MPs. If the MP can say such things in the press totally contrary to what the PM has been trying to do, something does not seem to add up.
After reading the ST article blowing her remarks 'sky-high', i cannot help but realise a couple of interesting issues:
Wee Siew Kim made several comments concerning his daughter's remarks. Among them was the fact that while her [b]'basic point' was correct, her delivery was insensitive.
It seemed to me like the father was still trying to justify her daughter's comments despite being seriously condemned by the general netizen community and public. While he was not obliged to offer an apology on her behalf, there was no need to continue to impose on the issue.
Furthermore, his follow-up comments over people who cannot take 'blunt' criticism was belligerent to say the least. It was literally implying that the comments she made were RIGHT, and then people who 'can't take the heat' should 'stay out of the kitchen'.
Sounds like we all know who Wee Shu Min takes after - father or mother.
Instead of taking a leaf out of Winston Hodge's diplomacy, his remarks merely escalate the belief that those ruling elite will forever be entrenched in their 'elitist' mindset, incapable of experiencing the difficulties of the average norm.
Contrary to Wee Siew Kim's claim, not only will the lesson be lost, it will inculcate a continued arrogance and 'infallible' streak that has plagued the ruling elite, and their children will be no better off.
Till now, we still have not seen a sincere apology of any kind towards Derek Wee. I don't expect there will ever be. [/b] -
When Daddy's gone, how will Junior fare?
then again, we should be very concerned... -
Hehe u evil guyOriginally posted by LazerLordz:When Daddy's gone, how will Junior fare?
then again, we should be very concerned... -
Originally posted by politicsinmotion:
Well isn't she 18? By learning how to write GP essays one will learn to look at things in different perspective. If she is 18 she is an adult. Well, if she is 17 she has long been taught to be responsible for her action. She shld learn frm missqi; put yr face to what u said. Till know she still believes that her views are right. Her dad supported her. Her apology was for the harsh insensitive language she used. Aren't the languages used in sgforums harsh and sarcastic but u dont see apology threads everywhere. Her views are wrong and unsupported and her ideas are crook. What she said opposes the general trend. Well, if she can proof then her views are right i believe that no one will be flaming her.
[b]She is just 17
[/b] -
Ironically, if she were to come out and substantiate, or even attempt to do so, people might give her a modicum of respect for sticking to her stand, no matter how ill-conceived that stand might be.Originally posted by NewAge:Well isn't she 18? By learning how to write GP essays one will learn to look at things in different perspective. If she is 18 she is an adult. Well, if she is 17 she has long been taught to be responsible for her action. She shld learn frm missqi; put yr face to what u said. Till know she still believes that her views are right. Her dad supported her. Her apology was for the harsh insensitive language she used. Aren't the languages used in sgforums harsh and sarcastic but u dont see apology threads everywhere. Her views are wrong and unsupported and her ideas are crook. What she said opposes the general trend. Well, if she can proof then her views are right i believe that no one will be flaming her.
Using her father as a shield, be it willingly or not, gives her detractors more ammunition. The difference between the MIW and the rest of us, is that they are reactionary and we are progressive.They are clearly not content-creators and trendsetters, and that is very clear. -
Evil? Nah, just circumspect and realistic.Originally posted by NewAge:Hehe u evil guy -
Maybe next year at nus, you might be in the same class as her.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Evil? Nah, just circumspect and realistic.
Taking the same course.
Buddies in the same project. -
This whole issue made me think that Singapore has taken meritocracy too far and misunderstood its role in Singapore.
It seems that those who succeed in our meritocratic society are deemed to be rightly rewarded for their effort or talent; those who fail are justly undeserving for sympathy for their lack of effort and talent. How we view the poor, the less talented, the less successful Singaporean is coloured by this misguided understanding of meritocracy.
A few years ago, during the recession, some students from an elite JC participated in a dialogue with union leaders and caused a furore with his remarks. Apparently, the student said something to the effect that workers who lost their jobs and were unemployed were simply too lazy or unwilling to upgrade their skills. A union leader took umbrage at these remarks. Some observers later pointed out that the student had misunderstood what it meant for Singapore to call itself a meritocratic society. -
Like I already said, her failure to achieve developmental milestones highlights her arrested development. Then again, a big fish in a small fish bowl always grows up stunted.Originally posted by NewAge:Well isn't she 18? By learning how to write GP essays one will learn to look at things in different perspective. If she is 18 she is an adult. Well, if she is 17 she has long been taught to be responsible for her action. She shld learn frm missqi; put yr face to what u said. Till know she still believes that her views are right. Her dad supported her. Her apology was for the harsh insensitive language she used. Aren't the languages used in sgforums harsh and sarcastic but u dont see apology threads everywhere. Her views are wrong and unsupported and her ideas are crook. What she said opposes the general trend. Well, if she can proof then her views are right i believe that no one will be flaming her. -
I thought this saga was calming down a few days ago....until it was reported in ST
my blog suddenly got so many visitor