LKY labels Burmese junta as dumb
-
it is true, with participation from chinese only can the country progressOriginally posted by countdracula:any takers for a wager to see how long before malaysia reacts to lky? in the interview he screwed malaysia for being stupid to sideline non-malays...... -
Hindsight is always 20/20
Anyways, the sg policy is to not to give us anything to help us become full, strong and creative. The whole system is setup to keep us in a constant stage of working to get that next meal, never be strong enough to vote them out, too busy earning that next dollar to finance that inflated public housing and cost of living, and like a rat, always running the wheel to make the fat cats richer. -
The whole system is setup to keep us in a constant stage of working to get that next meal, never be strong enough to vote them out, too busy earning that next dollar to finance that inflated public housing and cost of living, and like a rat, always running the wheel to make the fat cats richer.
This is simplified, but correct.
I quite despise the society that PAP has created and influenced in Singapore where people are always rushing from one place to the next with a growing sense of insecurity. -
what do you suggest can be changed for us to walk slower ?Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:This is simplified, but correct.
I quite despise the society that PAP has created and influenced in Singapore where people are always rushing from one place to the next with a growing sense of insecurity. -
what do you suggest can be changed for us to walk slower ?
I think we should start from young.
Reform the current education system(primary and secondary) to place less emphasis on academic achievements.
End the current "bilingual" language policy that produces people who have no good grasp either of english or their "mother tongue". -
What is wrong with "bilingual" language? The more language you learn the merrier isn't it? What made you so sure that those ppl whom cant master 2 language properly can master one? Beside, ppl all over the world learn about 2 or more language. Even the British learn a 2nd language during their early schooling days.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:End the current "bilingual" language policy that produces people who have no good grasp either of english or their "mother tongue". -
What is wrong with "bilingual" language?
There is nothing wrong whatsoever in learning more than one language.
The problem, comes in how the language education policy is implemented in the Singapore education system.
In Singapore, a child is taught two languages at a young age starting in kindergarten or primary school.
Now the teaching process of two languages is not equal.
Firstly the other subjects, mathematics, sciences etc are taught in english.
The mother tongue is relegated to a "secondary" position.
Thus a child will be more exposed to working with the english language rather than other languages.
Due to this uneven approach in teaching languages, we have the situation today in Singapore where the ability to use the mother tongue as a working language is on the decline in all ethnic groups.
Secondly, the process of learning two languages at the same time from primary school to secondary school has some bad effects on the quality and standards of mastering the language.
This results in the so-called "Singlish"-- a direct result of the education language policy in Singapore. Throw in two languages to a 5 year old child to learn and you quite naturally get rojak.
The MOE has launched several "speak good english" and "speak mandarin" campaigns, but they should realise that it is the education system itself that produces such problems in lower standards of using languages.
There are of course other reasons for why Singapore would want to teach language in this way. Reasons that are political in nature. -
I don't see anything wrong with using a single language as a medium of instruction. Many countries do that.
-
is it wise to criticise the leaders directly?
-
I don't see anything wrong with using a single language as a medium of instruction.
But in the Singapore context, my view is that it has led to a decline in standards of the mother tongue. -
Its actually what you speak at home and your mentality that affects you the most. We cannot blame Singlish on the education system.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:There is nothing wrong whatsoever in learning more than one language.
The problem, comes in how the language education policy is implemented in the Singapore education system.
In Singapore, a child is taught two languages at a young age starting in kindergarten or primary school.
Now the teaching process of two languages is not equal.
Firstly the other subjects, mathematics, sciences etc are taught in english.
The mother tongue is relegated to a "secondary" position.
Thus a child will be more exposed to working with the english language rather than other languages.
Due to this uneven approach in teaching languages, we have the situation today in Singapore where the ability to use the mother tongue as a working language is on the decline in all ethnic groups.
Secondly, the process of learning two languages at the same time from primary school to secondary school has some bad effects on the quality and standards of mastering the language.
This results in the so-called "Singlish"-- a direct result of the education language policy in Singapore. Throw in two languages to a 5 year old child to learn and you quite naturally get rojak.
The MOE has launched several "speak good english" and "speak mandarin" campaigns, but they should realise that it is the education system itself that produces such problems in lower standards of using languages.
There are of course other reasons for why Singapore would want to teach language in this way. Reasons that are political in nature. -
I think that what and how things are being taught to you in school during those schooling years is a more important factor.
Its actually what you speak at home and your mentality that affects you the most. We cannot blame Singlish on the education system.
This can be seen in standards of mother tongue by our parents under the older education system, when there was a separate english and chinese systems.
I think Goh Meng Seng can tell us more. -
Well suppose what you say is correct and suppose we were to choose just to learn a single language, then what should it be ?Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I think that what and how things are being taught to you in school during those schooling years is a more important factor.
This can be seen in standards of mother tongue by our parents under the older education system, when there was a separate english and chinese systems.
I think Goh Meng Seng can tell us more. -
A more serious problem was to prevent the breeding of analytical minds in the 1970s. Students were asked to shun political science, philosophy and sociology and go for more useful subjects. Other ‘thinking subjects’ were also bottled up.
So it is not strange that todayÂ’s top talents, even with the fanciful streaming system to separate them from the normal ones were nowhere near the brilliance of the old guards who were educated during the colonial days. -
At least here you've got to give LKY some credit for speaking bluntly.
The junta is nothing more than that. -
For all his bluntness, he has again exposed himself as a hypocrite, as well as throwing Singapore investments in Myanmar into basket.Originally posted by LazerLordz:At least here you've got to give LKY some credit for speaking bluntly.
The junta is nothing more than that.
As much as he will criticise the Myanmar Military junta as being inept at managing the economy, what was he thinking to suggest that the SAF should intervene in Singapore's political process - if ever an Alternative Political Party was to put the present Ruling Party into the shadow, and in the process access the National Reserves ?
As usual, the Old Man is at his best when using his characteristic double standards. -
The standard of humanities education in SG is still in the dumps compared to AU. THey have a wider range of humanities courses on offer.Originally posted by googoomuck:A more serious problem was to prevent the breeding of analytical minds in the 1970s. Students were asked to shun political science, philosophy and sociology and go for more useful subjects. Other ‘thinking subjects’ were also bottled up.
So it is not strange that todayÂ’s top talents, even with the fanciful streaming system to separate them from the normal ones were nowhere near the brilliance of the old guards who were educated during the colonial days. -
Double standards or not, it is something significant when it comes out from his mouth.Originally posted by Atobe:For all his bluntness, he has again exposed himself as a hypocrite, as well as throwing Singapore investments in Myanmar into basket.
As much as he will criticise the Myanmar Military junta as being inept at managing the economy, what was he thinking to suggest that the SAF should intervene in Singapore's political process - if ever an Alternative Political Party was to put the present Ruling Party into the shadow, and in the process access the National Reserves ?
As usual, the Old Man is at his best when using his characteristic double standards.
Do note the audience it was meant for. The words were told to Tom Plate in an interview.
It's about consumption. Branding Singapore. -
dude , u know what you nick means??????????????????Originally posted by iveco:Ah well, he still hasn't forgotten his dream of having the Dewan Negara in KL under his control, has he? -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
Branding Singapore ?
Double standards or not, it is something significant when it comes out from his mouth.
Do note the audience it was meant for. The words were told to Tom Plate in an interview.
It's about consumption. Branding Singapore.
Putting Singapore in a better light, while turning the spotlight onto the blemishes that others have failed to conceal in this moment of their crisis - certainly does alot of help in 'Branding Singapore'. -
Hhhmmm....MM Lee seems to have forgotten that we also like to put former military men in charge of the economy or into positions of economic power...take former CDF, LG Ng Yat Chung for example, who is now a director at Temasek Holdings....
-
I don't see any relevant experience between military and finiancial, another so called meritocracy again?Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Hhhmmm....MM Lee seems to have forgotten that we also like to put former military men in charge of the economy or into positions of economic power...take former CDF, LG Ng Yat Chung for example, who is now a director at Temasek Holdings.... -
These are rather dumb generals when it comes to the economy...How they can so mismanage the economy and reach this stage when the country has so many natural resources? -LKY
Singapore has lost the sand imports from indonesia few months ago, we do not know what LKY want Singapore to lose this time for wanting to gain attention of the world media? -
I believe singapore is like a bubble waiting to burst.
The question is when. -
I think it is necessary for a "leader" to be able to express clearly and explain position and state clearly Asean position if it is chairing the leadership from Asean.Originally posted by mistyblue:Hindsight is always 20/20
Anyways, the sg policy is to not to give us anything to help us become full, strong and creative. The whole system is setup to keep us in a constant stage of working to get that next meal, never be strong enough to vote them out, too busy earning that next dollar to finance that inflated public housing and cost of living, and like a rat, always running the wheel to make the fat cats richer.
While i understand it is not a SG position to stick out its neck on the chopping board. but it is necessary to communicate internationally our moral position. There are politically correct statement to be made that you don't go wrong on international television. After all if you are going to seat infront of global TV and be a leader. "Leader leads" People watch and follow.