Olympics troubles are about resisting big bullies
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
For the record, the richest population in Tibet before the Chinese takeover was a tiny handful of elite Tibetan monks who owned most of the land and the people. Yes, the people....these so-called religious lamas owned agricultural slaves or nongnu, as well as low-ranking lamas, who were no better than slaves.
You forgot to mention the Tibetan nobles who have lots of serfs! Now, it's the Han people who have lots of money in their bank accounts but normal Tibetans can't even make it to universities and obtain a high ranking post in the Chinese Central Government. -
The world has so many bullies.
How to stop all of them?
How?
-
don know history?---don talk!
-
Originally posted by peerlessyx:
don know history?---don talk!
...because you love fifi.
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
You forgot to mention the Tibetan nobles who have lots of serfs! Now, it's the Han people who have lots of money in their bank accounts but normal Tibetans can't even make it to universities and obtain a high ranking post in the Chinese Central Government.It is the basic tenet of meritocracy that the best jobs and the highest pay go to the one with the best skills. Many tibetans lose out because they do not value education as highly as the Han Chinese. It is in the interest of the elite lamas to convince the people that a religious education is more important. Despite that, more tibetans are educated than ever before and the economy of tibet has imrpocved tremendously. The Chinese government has also put in millions to improve the infrastructure in Tibet. What has the lamas done over the hundreds of years they have been in power?
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
It is the basic tenet of meritocracy that the best jobs and the highest pay go to the one with the best skills.
so what happens when a government allows people with LOUSIER skills to take over the people with the better skills just because they are cheaper? not meritocracy anymore right?
-
US Air Force planned nuclear strike on China over Taiwan: report
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
so what happens when a government allows people with LOUSIER skills to take over the people with the better skills just because they are cheaper? not meritocracy anymore right?
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
so what happens when a government allows people with LOUSIER skills to take over the people with the better skills just because they are cheaper? not meritocracy anymore right?
Don't you even pause to think why the bosses would employ cheaper workers with lousier skills? Perhaps because the 'lousier skilles' of the cheaper workers are sufficient for the job to be done? Perhaps the cheaper workers can pick up their skills and be on par in a short time? Meritocracy is about people who are best value for money. It is about those with the best skills at the lowest cost who can bring the greatest value to your business.
In any case, this argument does not hold in tibet, where the better qualified workers are the Han Chinese who have re-located to Tibet. Over there, the foreign workers have the better skills.
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Don't you even pause to think why the bosses would employ cheaper workers with lousier skills? Perhaps because the 'lousier skilles' of the cheaper workers are sufficient for the job to be done? Perhaps the cheaper workers can pick up their skills and be on par in a short time? Meritocracy is about people who are best value for money. It is about those with the best skills at the lowest cost who can bring the greatest value to your business.
In any case, this argument does not hold in tibet, where the better qualified workers are the Han Chinese who have re-located to Tibet. Over there, the foreign workers have the better skills.
u missed my point COMPLETELY u mushroom..
"Perhaps the cheaper workers can pick up their skills and be on par in a short time?" so u admit that the cheaper workers are still lousier what rite?
and why I say you missed my point? coz obviously Im referring to what your "survival of the fittest" comments in the singapore threads, fungus..
if u say survival of the fittest, den why do u hire the ones with the lousier skills IN THE HOPE THAT they will be better? you said for urself, "Meritocracy is about people who are best value for money. It is about those with the best skills at the lowest cost who can bring the greatest value to your business" NOT "Meritocracy is about people who you HOPE are best value for money. It is about those with the best skills IN THE FUTURE at the lowest cost who you HOPE can bring the greatest value to your business"
if today you are hiring someone who is SIGNIFICANTLY better and cheaper, i LL nothing to say, but thats clearly NOT happening.. so screw ur meritocracy..
and i shall not reply anymore to ur retarded viewpoints.. duno whether stupidity is contagious or not..
-
this is damn funny
u missed my point COMPLETELY u mushroom..
-
FREE TIBET = PRC's Tibet
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
u missed my point COMPLETELY u mushroom..
"Perhaps the cheaper workers can pick up their skills and be on par in a short time?" so u admit that the cheaper workers are still lousier what rite?
and why I say you missed my point? coz obviously Im referring to what your "survival of the fittest" comments in the singapore threads, fungus..
if u say survival of the fittest, den why do u hire the ones with the lousier skills IN THE HOPE THAT they will be better? you said for urself, "Meritocracy is about people who are best value for money. It is about those with the best skills at the lowest cost who can bring the greatest value to your business" NOT "Meritocracy is about people who you HOPE are best value for money. It is about those with the best skills IN THE FUTURE at the lowest cost who you HOPE can bring the greatest value to your business"
if today you are hiring someone who is SIGNIFICANTLY better and cheaper, i LL nothing to say, but thats clearly NOT happening.. so screw ur meritocracy..
and i shall not reply anymore to ur retarded viewpoints.. duno whether stupidity is contagious or not..
Because companies don't want to spend more money? By your logic, we need a person to have a degree before they can sweep the floor?
And pay more money to the sweeper just because he is a degree holder?
If a cheaper worker can learn the skills faster than a more expensive worker, who should the company hire?
Because if a person is overqualified, it destroys the idea of meritocracy. -
Originally posted by ray245:
Because companies don't want to spend more money? By your logic, we need a person to have a degree before they can sweep the floor?
And pay more money to the sweeper just because he is a degree holder?
If a cheaper worker can learn the skills faster than a more expensive worker, who should the company hire?
Because if a person is overqualified, it destroys the idea of meritocracy.u have a sweeper who happens to be a degree holder.. u pay him the price that u deem a sweeper should get regardless of his qualification.. right or wrong?
den he works at that price.. u happy, he happy..
den now ah tiong comes in.. he says 'hey, i can be sweeper too.. but u dunid to pay me a sweeper's pay, u pay me lesser than that can liao..'
den now u see this ah tiong cheaper, u gian.. u fire the degree holder, but then.. ur ah tiong duno how to empty the dustpan, duno where to sweep, duno how to use the broom, end up u haf to sweep for him..but what's ur defense for hiring him? cheaper and willing to learn?
now where is ur meritocracy?
why not today, u hire a completely illiterate ah tiong to be a nuclear power plant engineer and u tell ppl "he's cheaper and he will learn"?
in the 1st place, when the degree holder came for the job application to be a sweeper, he ask for 3k/mth, u give him? no right? duh right? u give him a sweeper's pay right? so anything lower than that? what do u call that? value for money? or simply greed and to put it nicely, "cut cost"?
and where did u even infer that "by my logic", we need someone to be degree holder to be sweeper?
if today an olvl qualification sweeper is replaced by a CHEAPER degree holder to be a sweeper, good! why no good? meritocracy what..someone better than u is cheaper than u leh.. that is value for money leh.. but are how many of the ah tiongs replacing the sgreans today are better? they are just cheaper, not better, how do u even justify ur value for money? again HOPING that they can learn faster rite? hope only right? "hope" that is fueled by the fact that they are cheaper right?
-
there is really so much cost you can cut before ur business get effected.
-
The Singapore journalists call it “pragmatic”, censoring themselves out of a better word like “dishonorable”.
QUOTE
“Boycott Olympics at a cost: MM
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew underscored his pragmatic outlook when he stressed that that it would not be wise to provoke China in the way some..” UNQUOTE -
Who hijacked this thread?