PM must headhunt for 4th generation of leaders b4 next GE
-
Exactly. Just look at the young Lee, it is not time yet they let these young ones join them so in the meanwhile they recruit new members. Just like what is said of GCT filling the post of PM in the midst of them getting LHL ready for the position of PM. It is all show, wayang.Originally posted by maurizio13:I think headhunt is a misnomer, they already have a heir to the throne, they know it, we the people know it too.
So who they kidding with headhunt?
If it's just another seat warmer to dispel gossips about dynastic succession, all they need to do is find another puppet to stand in before the next coronation, I certainly won't call looking for a puppet to stand in as "headhunting".
NB how hard is it to find a puppet? -
give me 10k salary, i will submit to them, even be a dogOriginally posted by qlqq9:PAP wants people who will submit to them. -
They lacked of candidates?
-
I agree with them on the importance of self-renewal. It is important for the survival of the country (and of course, the party).
Take a look at ancient China. Emperors usually have multiple sons -> numerous choices for the post of successor. Good emperors were also trained from young. This sorts of formed the process of self-renewal (within the imperial family) such that the dynasty can go on. Once the self-renewal goes haywire, the dynasty begins its downfall. Furthermore, China's successful dynasties has annual imperial exams to select the best brains as its ministers, a further process of self renewal.
In this sense, PAP does realise from history this importance. However, whether any 'talent' attracted is put to the right use depends on the management capability of the government. Also, for a minister to hold more than a portfolio at the same time... is that a right use of talent?
As for working above the age of 60... This is an issued raised to address the problem of aging population. It seems to me that they are taking a quick way out again by raising the retirement age. Yes, it is a good short-term solution, but definitely not a long term solution... We cannot raise the retirement age indefinitely... (55->62->65->67)... Foreign talent is to me a rather good initiative, but the best solution would still be to raise the birth rates, which is a project that has not really succeeded for a very long time. Our PAP is paid world class salaries. They should be able to come out with world class solutions to address this possible future labour shortage rather than raise the retirement age -
I see you've done a pretty good job at reinforcing the notion that this fascist regime functions on the basis whereby the party and state are indistinguishable entities.Originally posted by eagle:I agree with them on the importance of self-renewal. It is important for the survival of the country (and of course, the party).
Take a look at ancient China. Emperors usually have multiple sons -> numerous choices for the post of successor. Good emperors were also trained from young. This sorts of formed the process of self-renewal (within the imperial family) such that the dynasty can go on. Once the self-renewal goes haywire, the dynasty begins its downfall. Furthermore, China's successful dynasties has annual imperial exams to select the best brains as its ministers, a further process of self renewal.
In this sense, PAP does realise from history this importance. However, whether any 'talent' attracted is put to the right use depends on the management capability of the government. Also, for a minister to hold more than a portfolio at the same time... is that a right use of talent?
On that basis, self-renewal isn't an issue so much for the survival of the country as it is for the regime. After all, even the most stoic advocate of dynasties would have little trouble realising the present efforts are nothing more than futile and desperate attempts at peppering the cracks of the regime and prolonging its survival. -
I was expecting someone to draw parallels between these... Self renewal does not mean it is important only for the incumbent; it is equally important for the survival of the opposition (as WP has claimed they started doing so) and for the survival of large corporations. We definitely need people who are capable to run the country, be it the incumbent or the opposition.Originally posted by walesa:I see you've done a pretty good job at reinforcing the notion that this fascist regime functions on the basis whereby the party and state are indistinguishable entities.
On that basis, self-renewal isn't an issue so much for the survival of the country as it is for the regime. After all, even the most stoic advocate of dynasties would have little trouble realising the present efforts are nothing more than futile and desperate attempts at peppering the cracks of the regime and prolonging its survival. -
The answer is ''NO'' - and this explains why the search must begin now - as those who are in it, are in it for the money....Originally posted by robertteh:Was the last batch of MPs that successful that we must now find another batch in order not to lose the steam.
Was the last batch engaged in fighting for citizens' needs and aspirations and does that batch understand such needs at all.
Was the last batch successful in lowering the costs of living or doing business and creating the real economic competitiveness for all citizens?
If 3rd generation of leaders found could not help what is the use of finding the 4th generation of leaders who again may only be interested to get in for their own careers advancements and nothing was being changed.
Could these guys earn as much if they were back in their career ? -
What is the difference? With LKY still in the top, the only thing that changed is the syncopants that would continue licking his feet, and perhaps the methodology of licking.Originally posted by eagle:I was expecting someone to draw parallels between these... Self renewal does not mean it is important only for the incumbent; it is equally important for the survival of the opposition (as WP has claimed they started doing so) and for the survival of large corporations. We definitely need people who are capable to run the country, be it the incumbent or the opposition. -
As a matter of fact, I don't see any parallels between the incumbents and the opposition simply because this system is tailor-made for the fascists. Self-renewal is, by and large, hardly a problem than confronts the political landscape of the free world for most of these countries have got functional political institutions in place to sustain a natural self-renewal process without the need to artificially induce such a process.Originally posted by eagle:I was expecting someone to draw parallels between these... Self renewal does not mean it is important only for the incumbent; it is equally important for the survival of the opposition (as WP has claimed they started doing so) and for the survival of large corporations. We definitely need people who are capable to run the country, be it the incumbent or the opposition.
Taking examples from afar (consider any part of the free world), you wouldn't see a scenario where any particular party or individual is so firmly entrenched in power you could be forgiven for thinking the planet would stop revolving in its absence, would you? In truth, the players (both the incumbents and politicians, notwithstanding most are coalition governments) of such political arena are pretty much just instruments sustaining the very institutions which they have been tasked to oversee. For dictatorships and regimes run by despots, however, it's pretty much the reverse - you see mindless gnomes manipulating the very institutions they've been tasked to oversee instead of sustaining them. Surely, it's not rocket science to figure self-renewal for the formal is effectively the antithesis of the latter?
That said, how self-renewal in this particular instance could be regarded as a due process for a country's survival is beyond me - if anything, it just reinforces the notion self-renewal is but a quintessential process for regime survival in the case of despots and tyrants. Then again, how long could this self-renewal really last?
In essence, the brand of self-renewal the despot is referring to for his beloved regime bears an uncanny semblance to the economic woes confronting various communist regimes in the 20th Century when they converted a state-planned to a market economy. This obviously begs the question : were the economic woes experienced by such regimes really flaws stemming from economic theories in a free economy (as they claimed)? Or were such problems a pragmatic and inevitable realisation of their inability to pepper the cracks which had surfaced (and had been ignored) long before? If there's indeed a parallel between these instances (ie.the economic woes confronting those communist regimes adopting a market economy and this regime's problem with self-renewal) one could infer, it would perhaps lie very much in the eventual destiny of these regimes.
-
Call it regime, despot, tyrant, incumbent... Self-renewal is still vital... I'm not talking about the means in which PAP executes 'self-renewal', but rather, the importance of the process.
Cellularly, our body renews itself for repair and replacement of dead/old cells. In the society, the next generation is the renewal of the previous generation. In corporations, renewal is a process in which newer workers replace retired workers and newer CEOs take over retired CEOs. This is of course extended to the governance of the country. Nature dictates that renewal will be a process essential for survival.
It's a fact that people do get old... people do die... No one can ever manage something forever... Renewal will thus ensure survival, the survival of the spirit, the management. True, it does 'prolong' the PAP's lifespan as the government of Singapore. However, one cannot ignore the importance of it as the basic means of existence. Many managements/dynasties do fall because of the failure to properly raise or search for the next successor. -
Are you sure? Or did they fall due to reasons beyond their failure to search for a successor?Originally posted by eagle:Many managements/dynasties do fall because of the failure to properly raise or search for the next successor. -
In order to run a company or a country successfully, there is a need to constantly renewing itself. Now what is this renewal or renewal process?Originally posted by maurizio13:I think headhunt is a misnomer, they already have a heir to the throne, they know it, we the people know it too.
So who they kidding with headhunt?
If it's just another seat warmer to dispel gossips about dynastic succession, all they need to do is find another puppet to stand in before the next coronation, I certainly won't call looking for a puppet to stand in as "headhunting". A puppet is certainly not a head, it's only a vessel controlled by the puppet master.
NB how hard is it to find a puppet?
Will it renew by getting their better-endowed team workers out of the way just to avoid managing with openness, accountability or embracing the opinions of better counsel?
Certain conditions surely have to be brought about to support renewal process.
In the present state where the renewal is aimed at finding more sycophants, is it supporting renewal to arrive at a better team?
Bringing about the necessary conditions at work at all level may be more important than headhunting for the sake of headhunting. What kind of people will come into the picture to be headhunted if the better quality people needed are not at all interested to appear within the horizon of inviters in the first place because they don't see prospect for being in the team or their contributions being rated.
So what is the difference if there is renewal as of now by inviting obviously people out to get a good career for themselves, getting million dollar salaries etc. -
An incapable successor incur the wrath of the people, who will rise to overthrow. Off hand, I can only remember the downfall of the Tang dynasty.Originally posted by walesa:Are you sure? Or did they fall due to reasons beyond their failure to search for a successor?
A good successor will ensure happiness, and off hand, I can remember only Kang Xi emperor of the Qing dynasty.
The examples I raised may be of ancient China dynasties, but it definitely applies to the corporations too. There may be other reasons for the failure, but a good successor will ensure that the effects of these 'reasons' will be minimal. -
It's quite obvious your cellular definition of self-renewal is quite irrelevant to this particular context where you're addressing something less scientific and less clearly-defined.Originally posted by eagle:Call it regime, despot, tyrant, incumbent... Self-renewal is still vital... I'm not talking about the means in which PAP executes 'self-renewal', but rather, the importance of the process.
Cellularly, our body renews itself for repair and replacement of dead/old cells. In the society, the next generation is the renewal of the previous generation. In corporations, renewal is a process in which newer workers replace retired workers and newer CEOs take over retired CEOs. This is of course extended to the governance of the country. Nature dictates that renewal will be a process essential for survival.
It's a fact that people do get old... people do die... No one can ever manage something forever...
As a matter of fact, while you may not have realised, self-renewal isn't so much something that takes on the same meaning exhaustively in every context applicable as you would naively claim ( "Call it regime, despot, tyrant, incumbent... Self-renewal is still vital" ).
Just think a little and extrapolate further. Isn't the American political leadership self-renewed every 4 years? That said, is there really a need in the American society to invoke a brand of self-renewal remotely close to this regime's desperate attempts at prolonging its survival? So, contrasting the two instances, are the two versions of self-renewals still the same product of your all-encompassing definition?
As I'd mentioned above, are you for a moment suggesting political self-renewal in the North Korean context means the same as the American context?Originally posted by eagle:An incapable successor incur the wrath of the people, who will rise to overthrow. Off hand, I can only remember the downfall of the Tang dynasty.
A good successor will ensure happiness, and off hand, I can remember only Kang Xi emperor of the Qing dynasty.
The examples I raised may be of ancient China dynasties, but it definitely applies to the corporations too. There may be other reasons for the failure, but a good successor will ensure that the effects of these 'reasons' will be minimal.
Are you realistically expecting self-renewal of tyranny to result in the expansion of your civil liberties and personal freedom? Or would it be more prudent to expect another lot of despots whose roles are pretty much peripheral bar enhancing the status quo? Is that sort of self-renewal really necessary for the survival of the country as you claim? If what you claim holds, I presume the planet must be unsustainable in the absence of dictatorships.
Moreover, isn't there a tinge of self-contradiction in your analogy? Just because a good successor ensures "more happiness" than the predecessor (and that's relative comparison), it doesn't necessarily mean those governed by the emperors in question are remotely happy to begin with, is it? For, throughout history, was it not the fact that monarchy yields a brand of rule that effectively disregards the interests of the governed masses that result in the disintegration of empires (this would even extend to the European colonies)? That, in essence, is what brings empires to their knees - if all a good successor does is alleviate the woes of a flawed system and prolonging the flaw, why the need to self-renew and prolong a fallacy to begin with? -
Originally posted by walesa:It's quite obvious your cellular definition of self-renewal is quite irrelevant to this particular context where you're addressing something less scientific and less clearly-defined.
As a matter of fact, while you may not have realised, self-renewal isn't so much something that takes on the same meaning exhaustively in every context applicable as you would naively claim ( "Call it regime, despot, tyrant, incumbent... Self-renewal is still vital" ).
Just think a little and extrapolate further. Isn't the American political leadership self-renewed every 4 years? That said, is there really a need in the American society to invoke a brand of self-renewal remotely close to this regime's desperate attempts at prolonging its survival? So, contrasting the two instances, are the two versions of self-renewals still the same product of your all-encompassing definition?
Are you realistically expecting self-renewal of tyranny to result in the expansion of your civil liberties and personal freedom? Or would it be more prudent to expect another lot of despots whose roles are pretty much peripheral bar enhancing the status quo? Is that sort of self-renewal really necessary for the survival of the country as you claim? If what you claim holds, I presume the planet must be unsustainable in the absence of dictatorships.Originally posted by walesa:As I'd mentioned above, are you for a moment suggesting political self-renewal in the North Korean context means the same as the American context?
Erm.... While I'm talking about the importance of the process of self-renewal, you are comparing the PAP's style vs the American version. I had earlier mentioned that I'm not talking about the means in which PAP executes 'self-renewal', but rather, the importance of the process. You have conveniently ignored this statement.
Your mind is already a little too anti-PAP such that you are not able to see my point objectively.
if all a good successor does is alleviate the woes of a flawed system and prolonging the flawOriginally posted by walesa:Moreover, isn't there a tinge of self-contradiction in your analogy? Just because a good successor ensures "more happiness" than the predecessor (and that's relative comparison), it doesn't necessarily mean those governed by the emperors in question are remotely happy to begin with, is it? For, throughout history, was it not the fact that monarchy yields a brand of rule that effectively disregards the interests of the governed masses that result in the disintegration of empires (this would even extend to the European colonies)? That, in essence, is what brings empires to their knees - if all a good successor does is alleviate the woes of a flawed system and prolonging the flaw, why the need to self-renew and prolong a fallacy to begin with?
Please explain the bolded statement. Thanks.
-
If anything, it's your objectivity that is clouded because you've obviously missed the point and choose to assume political innuendoes hidden in my words.Originally posted by eagle:Erm.... While I'm talking about the importance of the process of self-renewal, you are comparing the PAP's style vs the American version. I had earlier mentioned that I'm not talking about the means in which PAP executes 'self-renewal', but rather, the importance of the process. You have conveniently ignored this statement.
Your mind is already a little too anti-PAP such that you are not able to see my point objectively.
The bottomline is that your suggestion that self-renewal is important for the survival of this country is flawed - it isn't quintessential for the country's survival, it's only quintessential for regime survival. Period.
Suffice to say, I'm not that sure some of the examples you cited can even be remotely classed as self-renewal to begin with for they warrant more being categorised as unintended circumstances of events.
Go over the example you cited on how able successors bring happiness to oppressed masses. Just apply my statement to the eventual destiny of the dynasties you cited.Originally posted by eagle:Please explain the bolded statement. Thanks. -
"Isn't the American political leadership self-renewed every 4 years?"Originally posted by walesa:If anything, it's your objectivity that is clouded because you've obviously missed the point and choose to assume political innuendoes hidden in my words.
The bottomline is that your suggestion that self-renewal is important for the survival of this country is flawed - it isn't quintessential for the country's survival, it's only quintessential for regime survival. Period.
Suffice to say, I'm not that sure some of the examples you cited can even be remotely classed as self-renewal to begin with for they warrant more being categorised as unintended circumstances of events.
"is there really a need in the American society to invoke a brand of self-renewal remotely close to this regime's desperate attempts at prolonging its survival"
" So, contrasting the two instances, are the two versions of self-renewals still the same product of your all-encompassing definition? "
Isn't this an example of how you acknowledged that self-renewal is a required process, by raising the example of America and North Korea? And by further indirectly referring to the incumbent as tyranny and despots, are you sure you aren't trying to suggest that the PAP is merely doing self-renewal for the sake of extending its hold on its 'tyranny'? That self-renewal is flawed just because it is done by the PAP?
Erm... Let's talk about the Tang dynasty, about the example of EmperorOriginally posted by walesa:Go over the example you cited on how able successors bring happiness to oppressed masses. Just apply my statement to the eventual destiny of the dynasties you cited.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Dynasty
"Taizong set out to solve internal problems within the government which had constantly plagued past dynasties." -> an example of how a good successor will sort out problems
We can also see that the Tang draws students from imperial examinations -> ensuring the process of renewal of officers.
Did the people feel oppressed? No history sources show that. Yet instead, good successors ensured the welfare of their people.
Decline? An Lushan's rebellion... Why did it happen? The emperor's incompetence. This is a good example of the importance of good successors!
"cellular definition of self-renewal is quite irrelevant to this particular context where you're addressing something less scientific and less clearly-defined. "
No comments if you don't buy the cellular argument. I will also assume you would not buy the Tang dynasty raised above. So I shall raise other examples now.
Have a look at this book "A Strategic Approach to Corporate Governance" by Adrian H T Davies. It raises examples of Texas Instruments, Unipart, Equitable Life as companies who understood the importance of self renewal. The book even raised the example of Japan, who is undergoing self-renewal through different processes. In the book, one of the processes of self renewal is understanding the potential need for new competencies and resources. This is what I'm emphasizing on.
Self renewal is indeed important not only for survival of the country, but too the future of the country. "it isn't quintessential for the country's survival, it's only quintessential for regime survival" is a extremely finite and simplified view of self-renewal. True, you may claim that it prolongs the 'tyranny' and grip of the 'despots'. This is because you had purely viewed self-renewal within a restricted area (within the PAP); self-renewal extends to all sectors of the society, including corporates, government, opposition, and most importantly, both myself and yourself!
btw, personal talk here... you know german right?
Where and how long did you learn it? -
what is the problem? didn't the chief justice said greed works most of the time?Originally posted by qlqq9:PM must headhunt for 4th generation of leaders before next GE: MM Lee
By Dominique Loh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 17 August 2007 2232 hrs
PM must headhunt for 4th generation of leaders before next GE: MM Lee
SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his team need to headhunt for candidates in their 30s and 40s to be the fourth generation of leaders before the next general elections.
This is according to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who was speaking at a National Day Dinner in Tanjong Pagar on Friday night.
Mr Lee said to become effective ministers, the new Members of Parliament and Ministers of State will need two terms to mature.
The Minister Mentor added that the current leadership is vigorous enough to herald at least a decade of political stability, economic growth and social progress.
Mr Lee said: "We must have MPs and ministers who calculate long term not just for the next election, but for the election after that and for the next generation. In other words, we must have people of integrity and every five years, one quarter at least of the MPs should come from a fresh batch that comes as the new generation emerges. That's how we're self renewed at every level."
CNA/ch -
Let's first assess the abovementioned. Is your assessment even remotely accurate? Are you for a moment suggesting self-renewal in any other fasion bar the method adopted by the despots would result in an inevitable demise of the country? So has this country failed to survive while it has lasted through colonialism with the British, imperialism with the Japanese and fascism with the incumbents? Or rather, is the brand of self-renewal you so agree with merely important to the survival of the regime?Originally posted by eagle:I agree with them on the importance of self-renewal. It is important for the survival of the country (and of course, the party).
It's blatantly evident you've either failed to comprehend my words in its entirety or have simply been incapacitated to do so. I suppose you'd have little trouble coming to terms with the fact that the brand of self-renewal this regime (in fact, all despotic regimes possess a similar modus operandi) engages in is pretty much a self-induced one. Taking the American instance, do you see the need for the Democrats or the GOP embarking on a brand of self-aggrandizement self-renewal process to recruit "capable people" to sustain their respective parties? Or do most of their members actually register on their own free will and ultimately, the ablest candidates prosper through their own merits instead of having sycophants rubber-stamped by their respective parties?Originally posted by eagle:Isn't this an example of how you acknowledged that self-renewal is a required process, by raising the example of America and North Korea? And by further indirectly referring to the incumbent as tyranny and despots, are you sure you aren't trying to suggest that the PAP is merely doing self-renewal for the sake of extending its hold on its 'tyranny'? That self-renewal is flawed just because it is done by the PAP?
In short, what you see in the American model is hardly self-induced renewal, is it? If anything, its a brand of personnel renewal brought about by an institution which facilitates the renewal process without the need to induce a self-renewal process.
I think you haven't fully understood the context of what you'd queried earlier. Let's take your argument further and consider the Soviet Union.Originally posted by eagle:Erm... Let's talk about the Tang dynasty, about the example of Emperor
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Dynasty
"Taizong set out to solve internal problems within the government which had constantly plagued past dynasties." -> an example of how a good successor will sort out problems
We can also see that the Tang draws students from imperial examinations -> ensuring the process of renewal of officers.
Did the people feel oppressed? No history sources show that. Yet instead, good successors ensured the welfare of their people.
Decline? An Lushan's rebellion... Why did it happen? The emperor's incompetence. This is a good example of the importance of good successors!
"cellular definition of self-renewal is quite irrelevant to this particular context where you're addressing something less scientific and less clearly-defined. "
In theory, if your argument that a good successor who ensures the welfare of its people would yield a happier citizenry more willing to comply with the regime, Gorbachev shouldn't have had the honour of being the man under whom the Soviet Union decimated, should it? After all, wasn't he the most liberal Soviet leader and under whom the Soviets had their interests extremely well looked after?
Would you then like to explain how the USSR crumbled under Gorbachev's charge, yet had remained intact when it had more ruthless and intolerant leaders (well, just about everyone from Stalin to Brezhnev)? So the pertinent question is : Do despotic regimes get overthrown because of "incapable successors" as you claim? Or are there more influential underlying reasons that give rise to the eventual demise of such despotic regimes? I guess you'll have your answer to that if you evaluated the destinies of autocratic regimes more thoroughly.
Well, that's precisely where we differ. What good is it for something unsustainable to self-renew and prolong a problem which wouldn't be rid of itself through self-renewal?Originally posted by eagle:"it isn't quintessential for the country's survival, it's only quintessential for regime survival" is a extremely finite and simplified view of self-renewal. True, you may claim that it prolongs the 'tyranny' and grip of the 'despots'. This is because you had purely viewed self-renewal within a restricted area (within the PAP); self-renewal extends to all sectors of the society, including corporates, government, opposition, and most importantly, both myself and yourself!
Now, as an electrical engineer, you should understand this analogy (I shall assume you're familiar with the concepts of modulation). If you were tasked with using a particular device (whose properties you can't alter) to modulate a signal with a pre-determined bandwidth to obtain a given modulation index, would you still persist on using this device if you know full well it's impractical and virtually impossible, within reasonable limits, to obtain the desired modulation index with the given device? In essence, for you to suggest the present brand of self-renewal (at least, the brand adopted by the despots which you regard as being important to the survival of the country) being important to the country's (instead of the regime) survival would pretty much be comparable to having an engineer who insists on using a device to obtain a modulation index he knows to be impractical and realistically impossible.
In essence, fixing a problem within another in a flawed system isn't going to sort out that system, is it? It's not rocket science then that such a brand of self-renewal is indeed not very prudent.
I replied to that sometime ago in another thread on languages...Originally posted by eagle:btw, personal talk here... you know german right? Where and how long did you learn it? I can't remember where I started learning it actually, although I picked it up somewhere in school but wasn't that proficient in it until I was at college in the US. Even then, I only really got well-versed with the language when I used it regularly while working in Switzerland, so my German might smack of chinks of Swiss-German. 
How about you? -
Originally posted by walesa:Let's first assess the abovementioned. Is your assessment even remotely accurate? Are you for a moment suggesting self-renewal in any other fasion bar the method adopted by the despots would result in an inevitable demise of the country? So has this country failed to survive while it has lasted through colonialism with the British, imperialism with the Japanese and fascism with the incumbents? Or rather, is the brand of self-renewal you so agree with merely important to the survival of the regime?
Here it is. Whether the system we are talking about is flawed is open to debate.Originally posted by walesa:Well, that's precisely where we differ. What good is it for something unsustainable to self-renew and prolong a problem which wouldn't be rid of itself through self-renewal?
Now, as an electrical engineer, you should understand this analogy (I shall assume you're familiar with the concepts of modulation). Wink If you were tasked with using a particular device (whose properties you can't alter) to modulate a signal with a pre-determined bandwidth to obtain a given modulation index, would you still persist on using this device if you know full well it's impractical and virtually impossible, within reasonable limits, to obtain the desired modulation index with the given device? In essence, for you to suggest the present brand of self-renewal (at least, the brand adopted by the despots which you regard as being important to the survival of the country) being important to the country's (instead of the regime) survival would pretty much be comparable to having an engineer who insists on using a device to obtain a modulation index he knows to be impractical and realistically impossible.
In essence, fixing a problem within another in a flawed system isn't going to sort out that system, is it? It's not rocket science then that such a brand of self-renewal is indeed not very prudent.
I know where our difference lies. I believe you are still discussing on the 'brand' of self-renewal, while I have pointed out to you earlier that I'm not. There are many 'brands' and 'means' of self-renewal, of which, the goals are almost equal => to have a capable successor. It may be, in your words, self-induced like the PAP, or people coming on their free will. Much as I have talked about the importance of self-renewal as a process, you persisted in countering with PAP's brand of self-renewal, and your illusion that it is not required for survival. There was no mention of any disadvantages of self-renewal as a process, but rather, as inferred from your argument, the point that it is not required for survival, which I strongly disagree. By merely basing your arguments on PAP's brand of self-renewal, aren't you purely viewing self-renewal within a restricted area? Self-renewal gives you new competencies which are definitely vital for the future of the country, be it self-induced or by willing participants.Originally posted by walesa:It's blatantly evident you've either failed to comprehend my words in its entirety or have simply been incapacitated to do so. I suppose you'd have little trouble coming to terms with the fact that the brand of self-renewal this regime (in fact, all despotic regimes possess a similar modus operandi) engages in is pretty much a self-induced one. Taking the American instance, do you see the need for the Democrats or the GOP embarking on a brand of self-aggrandizement self-renewal process to recruit "capable people" to sustain their respective parties? Or do most of their members actually register on their own free will and ultimately, the ablest candidates prosper through their own merits instead of having sycophants rubber-stamped by their respective parties?
In short, what you see in the American model is hardly self-induced renewal, is it? If anything, its a brand of personnel renewal brought about by an institution which facilitates the renewal process without the need to induce a self-renewal process.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_GorbachevOriginally posted by walesa:I think you haven't fully understood the context of what you'd queried earlier. Let's take your argument further and consider the Soviet Union.
In theory, if your argument that a good successor who ensures the welfare of its people would yield a happier citizenry more willing to comply with the regime, Gorbachev shouldn't have had the honour of being the man under whom the Soviet Union decimated, should it? After all, wasn't he the most liberal Soviet leader and under whom the Soviets had their interests extremely well looked after?
Would you then like to explain how the USSR crumbled under Gorbachev's charge, yet had remained intact when it had more ruthless and intolerant leaders (well, just about everyone from Stalin to Brezhnev)? So the pertinent question is : Do despotic regimes get overthrown because of "incapable successors" as you claim? Or are there more influential underlying reasons that give rise to the eventual demise of such despotic regimes? I guess you'll have your answer to that if you evaluated the destinies of autocratic regimes more thoroughly.
"While Gorbachev's political initiatives were positive for freedom and democracy in the Soviet Union and its Eastern bloc allies, the economic policy of his government gradually brought the country close to disaster. By the end of the 1980s, severe shortages of basic food supplies (meat, sugar) led to the reintroduction of the war-time system of distribution using food cards that limited each citizen to a certain amount of product per month. Compared to 1985, the state deficit grew from 0 to 109 billion rubles; gold funds decreased from 2,000 to 200 tons; and external debt grew from 0 to 120 billion dollars."
It is clear here that his policies were for the good of the people, yet brought economic disaster to his country, which finally result in the physical suffering of the people! Isn't this called 'incapable'?
I only learned German for 2 yrs for student exchangeOriginally posted by walesa:I replied to that sometime ago in another thread on languages... I can't remember where I started learning it actually, although I picked it up somewhere in school but wasn't that proficient in it until I was at college in the US. Even then, I only really got well-versed with the language when I used it regularly while working in Switzerland, so my German might smack of chinks of Swiss-German. How about you? Hmmm... Maybe I can ask you for help when I need it in my current module -
LKY wants to ensure PAP survives for another 100 years or more.
-
If it wasn't, it'd be known as an irrefutable truth. I mean, you don't dispute with facts (like insisting a dead man to be alive), do you?Originally posted by eagle:Here it is. Whether the system we are talking about is flawed is open to debate.
It isn't so much where our difference lies that has sparked this discourse - it's your inability to defend what I challenged in your initial argument that self-renewal (as preached by this regime) is quintessential to the survival of the country that has yielded this civil discourse. If anything and lest you're disillusioned and unable to comprehend what you'd failed to address, I'm saying the brand of self-renewal which you regard to be vital for the country's survival is a fallacy (which you're obviously entitled to disagree; after all, even lunatics are entitled to think their conduct is an acceptable norm) for ultimately, it sustains the regime above all else. If you need any evidence to call on to see how the country has survived various methods of leadership renewal, just look to the colonial era under the British and imperialism under Japanese occupation.Originally posted by eagle:I know where our difference lies. I believe you are still discussing on the 'brand' of self-renewal, while I have pointed out to you earlier that I'm not. There are many 'brands' and 'means' of self-renewal, of which, the goals are almost equal => to have a capable successor. It may be, in your words, self-induced like the PAP, or people coming on their free will. Much as I have talked about the importance of self-renewal as a process, you persisted in countering with PAP's brand of self-renewal, and your illusion that it is not required for survival. There was no mention of any disadvantages of self-renewal as a process, but rather, as inferred from your argument, the point that it is not required for survival, which I strongly disagree. By merely basing your arguments on PAP's brand of self-renewal, aren't you purely viewing self-renewal within a restricted area? Self-renewal gives you new competencies which are definitely vital for the future of the country, be it self-induced or by willing participants.Originally posted by eagle:from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev
"While Gorbachev's political initiatives were positive for freedom and democracy in the Soviet Union and its Eastern bloc allies, the economic policy of his government gradually brought the country close to disaster. By the end of the 1980s, severe shortages of basic food supplies (meat, sugar) led to the reintroduction of the war-time system of distribution using food cards that limited each citizen to a certain amount of product per month. Compared to 1985, the state deficit grew from 0 to 109 billion rubles; gold funds decreased from 2,000 to 200 tons; and external debt grew from 0 to 120 billion dollars."
It is clear here that his policies were for the good of the people, yet brought economic disaster to his country, which finally result in the physical suffering of the people! Isn't this called 'incapable'?
So how much have you learnt?
An incapable successor incur the wrath of the people, who will rise to overthrow. Off hand, I can only remember the downfall of the Tang dynasty.
A good successor will ensure happiness, and off hand, I can remember only Kang Xi emperor of the Qing dynasty. [/quote]
Were Gorbachev's policies not grounded on the principle of improving his people's lives? The very example you cited just exposes a critical flaw you obviously haven't addressed.
As a matter of fact, food shortages in the 1930's under Stalin were far more dire than it had been under Gorbachev in the 1980's. On that account, would it not be reasonable to say Gorbachev actually did more for the masses (in your words, making them "happier" ) than Stalin had done? Taking your argument at face value, surely it's not hard to see Gorbachev had actually brought more happiness and had been more capable at addressing the interests of the masses than Stalin.
After all, it was you who said "An incapable successor incur the wrath of the people, who will rise to overthrow." By all accounts, surely Stalin would have been more incapable than Gorbachev! So how then was Stalin able to sustain the regime with brute force, but not Gorbachev?
[quote]Originally posted by eagle:I only learned German for 2 yrs for student exchange Hmmm... Maybe I can ask you for help when I need it in my current module Proficient enough to sustain a conversation or able to understand some media in German?
I'm not sure if I'm that much more proficient than you...