Do we want to encourage mindless risk taking?
-
Do we want to encourage mindless risk taking?
THE Remaking Singapore Committee made many recommendations. One which made headlines in newspapers and on all major TV news bulletins was that Singaporeans have to be encouraged to take risks. Bungee jumping was cited as the first risk-taking activity which would be allowed.
It does not take a rocket scientist or Nobel-laureate economist to know that there is a vast difference between calculated risk taking, balancing the dangers and the gains of a particular risky endeavour and the totally mindless risk taking involved in bungee jumping.
The former kind of risk-taking behaviour is what we want to encourage. Only if we have enough of such men and women will we be able to compete with the rest of the world as venture capitalists, scientists, etc.
On the other hand, risk taking just for the adrenaline surge (which in itself can kill), or to boast that 'I dared to do it', which involves no skill, physical fitness, nor intellectual ability to weigh the pros and cons, will produce shallow bravado at best and encourage the gambling mentality at worst.
If we allow bungee jumping, we might as well legalise motor racing in Singapore. At present, the thrill seekers choose to do so in the middle of the night on public roads, creating a danger to others who do not choose to be risk takers.
I am a risk taker myself, but one who carefully studies the risks before undertaking an endeavour. Before going on a hike, I study the terrain and weather, calculate the hours of daylight and assess my fitness level and I balance these against the scenery, the physical challenge and the peace of getting away from humanity.
In short, I strongly support encouraging calculated risk taking, but I am against mindless risk taking.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR LEE WEI LING
This was taken from the Straits Times Forum, 25 July 2003 :
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,4386,201411,00.html? -
It is amazing that for someone, who has lived in a cloistered and cocoon world, she has seen herself fit to comment on the activities of others.
Where is the spirit of adventurism, daring, vision, experimentation, out-of-box experience ?
Little wonder that there are some born with the gusto to enjoy life to fullest, and there are some who prefer to live a mundane life in a cloistered world. -
Ah, Atobe, it looks like we might just have another debate on our hands here!
This post will be short because I am just heading off to the office. In a nutshell, except for the bit about motor racing (she obviously lacks an appreciation of the finer points of racing), I agree with her.
I personally prefer to use slightly different terminology. Rather than different types of risk-taking, I would prefer to make a distinction between risk-taking and recklessness. The difference between the two lies in the presence of a specified objective.
Taking an example from my NS days, I never got much of a kick out of parachuting. For me it was simply a means of getting from A to B (pardon the pun, Atobe), much like stepping off a three-tonner. On the other hand, I loved the BTEC exercises because it allowed me to play around with tactical risks.
As an example of such a risk, I was part of a four-man recce team in an exercise against 1 Guards. Crossing a track, a Land Rover came tearing around a corner and we were caught out in the open. The lot of us dived behind a bush and as it turns out, there were two Land Rovers, with a total of eleven Guardsmen. I suggested that we split my team into two pairs ten metres apart, and we laid down the heaviest cover fire that we could while yelling back and forth and making it sound like we were of platoon strength. The gamble paid off – the Guardsmen did not dare go round the bush, and by the time they called for artillery on our position, we were actually almost a kilometer away and pissing ourselves laughing. Through the binoculars, we could see the Guardsmen wandering around the bush, scratching their heads and wondering how we cleared a platoon out so fast.
As Lee described, there was an intellectual component to the risk taken there – the Guards could have called our bluff and charged through the bush. However, my calculations proved to be correct, and I was absolutely chuffed that things worked out so well.
Lee is correct in saying that the adrenalin rush alone is not enough. Somebody could go bungee jumping every weekend, but from Monday till Friday in the office, they could also be timid and follow orders rather than trying out new ideas, because the old methods are tried and tested and therefore safe. The key element here is the willingness to take a fresh look at things and to dare to question conventional wisdom. -
i think today's Today showed that mindless risk taking is not for the younger generation who showed the chalatan CSJ that they are not politically apathetic nor ignorant...
basically, CSJ kena "buah" by a teenager (and personally, i think he deserves it) -
Bear, I take it that CSJ is Chee Soon Juan? He is something of an embarrassment to the psychological community. What, exactly, happened?
-
stolen from todayonline.com
Teenagers show Dr Chee their mettle at SDP forum on democracy
Monday • July 28, 2003
— Lee Ching Wern
DOMESTIC politics bores them. They live comfortable lives, avoiding disruptive risks. They can't see beyond their examination grades.
All these easy stereotypes about Singapore's younger generation appeared to be thrown out of the window when some 30 teenagers turned up to listen to opposition voices at the Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) International Youth Conference for Democracy over the weekend.
Many lugged backpacks and files. Some were as young as 14. And most were driven not by a particular political leaning but by a curiosity about politics and a belief in democracy.
And very soon, it became clear that Singapore's next generation could well be more politically aware than previously thought — and it will also speak its mind.
"After what you did at the last elections, I'm not very impressed," a 17-year-old junior college student bluntly told SDP's Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan.
She had taken the mike to remark on Dr Chee's comment during the last elections that Singapore had allegedly loaned Indonesia $17 billion — a statement that embroiled him in a defamation suit.
Oblivious to the high-powered foreign delegates and the obvious annoyance of the SDP cadres, Miss Chua Ruo Mei continued: "I thought politicians would at least be level-headed enough to find out their facts clearly enough before saying something in public.
"As young people, we are willing to take risks but only for causes we think are worthy. But there are no viable alternatives. So, I don't think opposition groups in Singapore can accuse young Singaporeans of being apathetic."
This touched a raw nerve.
SDP chairman Ling How Doong stood up and said: "I think it's very unbecoming of the young lady to launch a personal attack on Dr Chee. Firstly, the matter has not been settled yet and is in court Â…"
Then he added: "I suspect the speaker is living a very comfortable life. Those who speak up for their rights are those who have experienced hardship Â… I hope her fortune will continue."
Ms Chua was neither fazed nor intimidated. And she had laid bare her credentials earlier, when she announced: "I'm an advocate of freedom of speech, and I'm not pro-Government. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here."
Dr Chee later tried to smooth the situation by telling Ms Chua: "I thank you for your criticism and I do not for one minute take offence at your comment.
"Much as I disagree with you, I will fight for your rights to say what you think. The problem with the PAP is that when they disagree with me, they don't give me the right to respond."
Delegates were shown tapes of Dr Chee being led away by the police after his attempt to speak at the Istana on May Day last year.
The teenagers watched in fascination, but not all of them were convinced.
"They accuse the PAP of propaganda. But, to me, this is propaganda too," said National University of Singapore student Raj Thomas.
Still, they appreciated the chance to listen to alternative viewpoints.
After all, they had found out about the conference on their own initiative, mostly from the Internet.
"There are very few chances for us to hear different viewpoints about democracy in Singapore," said Haresh Paramesvaran, 15, who said such issues are not discussed much in school. "It's been a very worthwhile experience for me to see what the foreigners and opposition had to say."
The foreign speakers, consisting of politicians and activists from over 10 countries, largely stuck to talking about their own countries.
One offshoot was the creation of a Sweden-Singapore Initiative for Democracy, in which the SDP will join hands with three Swedish political parties and focus on issues like human rights and the electoral system in Singapore. The Swedish parties helped sponsor the weekend conference too.
One common question that intrigued the youngsters was why the PAP Government — known for its strong stand against external interference in Singapore's domestic politics — allowed this conference to be held in the first place.
Dr Chee's take: The Government would have looked "undemocratic" if it had not allowed the conference to go ahead.Originally posted by Gedanken:Bear, I take it that CSJ is Chee Soon Juan? He is something of an embarrassment to the psychological community. What, exactly, happened? -
Originally posted by Atobe:
As a participant in legal motorsports (i.e. on closed circuits) and not illegal street racing, I think what she is saying is very unfair. What does she mean by "we might as well legalise motor racing in Singapore."? She makes it sound as if it is a bad thing. Motorsports is afterall a sport no less compared to soccer. Participants have to be fit to withstand the long hours of racing, having to stay on the mental edge for the whole race, is no easy task, both psychologically and physically. Anyone who do not believe this, simply go and try out go-karting. A go-kart is the simplest form of motorsports, but try driving one for 10 minutes and u can see how much u are sweating already by the end of 10 minutes... and that is just moderate driving. Come down to jurong where our only go-kart circuit is located, look at ANY of the pro drivers after we finish a 30 lap practice pushing at tenth tenths, and see how wet with our own sweat we are.
[b]Do we want to encourage mindless risk taking?
If we allow bungee jumping, we might as well legalise motor racing in Singapore. At present, the thrill seekers choose to do so in the middle of the night on public roads, creating a danger to others who do not choose to be risk takers.
I am a risk taker myself, but one who carefully studies the risks before undertaking an endeavour. Before going on a hike, I study the terrain and weather, calculate the hours of daylight and assess my fitness level and I balance these against the scenery, the physical challenge and the peace of getting away from humanity.
In short, I strongly support encouraging calculated risk taking, but I am against mindless risk taking.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR LEE WEI LING
This was taken from the Straits Times Forum, 25 July 2003 :
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,4386,201411,00.html?
[/b]
I do not see her rationale for speaking against motorsports like a bad thing. Afterall, like she said if we legalise motorsports it would encourage more people who choose to race on the streest to race on the circuits instead, surely that is a good thing. Granted we cannot wipe out all illegal racing but then again, promoting football here doesn't erradicate people playing soccer in the void decks of HDB blocks. I agree with her totally about how thrill seekers who race on the streets pose an unneccessary danger to other innocent road users. I can tell you this attitude is shared by many of my peers on the track. This is the difference between people who are in the professional racing circle and the ones in the illegal racing circle. If we can legalise motorsport, wouldn't it be encouraging more people to "go-pro" and basically learn to have a correct view of how racing should be conducted? I peronsally used to think street racing was cool but after joining the pro-racing circle I found it to be a very enriching and educational experience. We learn a lot of things from rules and regulations to racing etiquette and being resposible for my own life and that of others. We emphasise heavily on responsible racing and i believe that it has also taught us about more gracious driving on the roads and about when risks should be taken and when they should not, and this has helped me to realise that street racing is not something we should be doing.
The 3rd point is that she claims that "I am a risk taker myself, but one who carefully studies the risks before undertaking an endeavour." If she can feel this way, then there is no basis for her to be against motorsports. Does she think that any one of us who race professionally do not know of the risks we are taking? We all know very well the risks of our very fringe sport(in Singapore. Internationally it is one of the biggest sports there is TV viewership-wise, F1 viewership alone is 3rd behind the olympics(1st) and world cup(2nd but while these 2 are once in 4 years events, F1 has the 3rd highest TV viewership 16 times a year!) and we choose to take the risks because we have studied the risks and have decided that we are able to accept it as, just as she calculates the risks against the gains, so do we. And we go a step further by ensuring that the most stringent safety measures are strictly adhered to.
Our safety equipment is one of the most comprehensive of any sports. Helmet must be approved by a recognised safety board such as SNELL. Our suits are FIA/CIK approved. So are our gloves, racing boots, and even the underwear. Rib protectors, neck protectors, must all be FIA/CIK certified. In fact, many of us make sure we go beyond the minimum standards required. For example, our gloves must be FIA/CIK approved but not fire-proof for go-karts, but many of us use Nomex gloves. I personally switched to nomex gloves because i believe in getting the best protection for what we choose to do. My helmet is SNELL K95 approved but many people i know are using SNELL 2000 standard helmets. Our suits need to be minimum Level 1 suits but there are a lot of people wearing level 2 or even 3 suits. And that is not to say that level 1 suits are no good. Take a look at the thickness of my Sparco level 1 suit and u will see what i mean. As for the undergarments, I wear nomex undergarments as i believe that since my suit is only level 1 then i should have some fire protection. I think that such a attitude of no compromise towards safety is a positive thing. From this i have learned that no matter what i want to do i should always have the proper equipment for it. And in having a strong view of safety, I feel that while i am taking a calculated risk, it is not a mindless one as ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR LEE WEI LING has suggested.
I hope that she can see my point and not be biased against any one sport. Sportpeople are all taking calculated risks and for all the hardships we endure, I think it is manifestly unfair to suggest any one sports is just "mindless risk taking". There are different levels of calculated risk taking and i hope that while she is not on a higher level of risk taking, she will not view others higher up on the risk scale as foolish mindless risk takers just because they are above her own limits of "calculated-risk" defination. -
No offense ar, can you use more paragraphs? XD
Anyone know where these SDP talks take place? Pretty interesting it seems. -
yes, it'd be interesting to hear bear say "our government isn't the best, but our opposition is worst." again, and infront of a larger audience.Originally posted by Stevenson101:No offense ar, can you use more paragraphs? XD
Anyone know where these SDP talks take place? Pretty interesting it seems. -
i, for 1, am looking forward to bungee jumping. it's been something i've always wanted to try for the past 8 years but had not been given a chance to try. due mainly to me having been myopic for the past 21 years of my life.
but what i would really like to try would be sky diving.
anyone knows where i may go about learning to jump out of an aeroplane at insane heights locally? -
yes, it'd be interesting to hear bear say "our government isn't the best, but our opposition is worst." again, and infront of a larger audience.
What you talking about? =.=a -
told.. many times...Originally posted by nismoS132:yes, it'd be interesting to hear bear say "our government isn't the best, but our opposition is worst." again, and infront of a larger audience.
-
its all a matter of packaging and presentation. come on. im sure more pple are happy or neutral about this allowing of bungee jumping than pple who are upset - if u dun like it just dun go for it, theres no need to deprive the rest of the population as well.
if PM did not link allowing bungee jumping wif risk taking this article would not have a basis. he chose to link it this way, and there you have it.
singaporeans are real hard to please huh? dun haf also complain. haf also complain.
-
Hi Gendaken, great to have you following up this topic, which I thought was sinking down into the pile of political sensitive topics that never seem to draw any kind of interest – for very obvious reasons.
Is there any formula in making “decisions to take calculated risks” ?
Any form of human actions are always loaded with risks, with the quantum of risk being the X-factor that require a corresponding Y-factor to balance out the equation for a decision to arrived at ?
This quality of judgment is subjected to individual "upbringing", perspective, innate qualities, propensity towards adventure, risk taking, challenges and oneÂ’s persistence in any endeavors - ("shades of genetics" at work ?).
While you may perceive some activities to be recklessness, someone else may see it as adventure or even a routine - (as a Commando will treat parachuting as his daily task).
While parachuting may allow someone to get from A to B, it requires the courage in a person to jump off the plane, despite the odds of accidents happening.
Adrenalin rush ? This will hardly occur for anyone that has gone through parachute jumping and accepting it as part of another human functions of eating, sleeping, walking, running, and the likes of it - (repeat: the Commando's job again).
Calculated risks in parachute jumping ?
No matter how one prepares for a jump, and the odds calculated against any accidents occurring, accidents do happen.
How does one come up with any formula to determine what constitute “Calculated Risks” and what constitute “Recklessness” ?
Even the most mundane of human activities will have an element of risks. Bar Top dancing was supposedly able to cause death ! "Calculated Risk" or "Recklessness" to have allowed it ?
For an adult, eating a fish constitute no less risk of being choked by a bone than a child attempting to independently finish a whole fish; yet the risks of being choked by a bone, is almost equally good for both the adult as well as the child.
Gambling carry as much calculated risks of winning or losing oneÂ’s bet; as it is also with the decisions to make a calculated risk in investing at the Stock Exchange, or in a Business Investment.
Your good fortune with your experience in dealing with the Guardsmen, in an exercise scenario, carries with it a description of a decision based on immediacy, quick assessment of the situation, and an instinctive survival decision that must be made in response.
Was there any contemplation of calculated risks that cross one’s mind under such stressed circumstances of instinctive survival reaction – as one would have a stream of choices running across one’s eye, the pro’s and con’s, the do’s and don’ts before you arrived at the decision that you made ? I hardly think so.
It would have been instinctive, based on your training, your intelligent assessment of the situation with a sense of immediacy, your instinctive mature thought process to survive, and the decision made was the best in reaction to the situation that has confronted you.
Was that a calculated risks taken, or "positive recklessness" in a decision that must be made - be it a good or bad decision is better than "No Decision" ?
You and your team were fortunate to have got out of this exercise in one piece; as had there been a leader of your caliber on the side of the Guardsmen, you will probably have met your match.
Is there such a situation as “taking calculated risks” ?
Crossing the road ? A platoon live firing event ? NASA flight to the Moon ?
All these varying life events (from the mundane to the astronomical) carry risks of varying degrees.
Can one calculate the risks of failure, of accidental death, of being maimed ? How does one factor the risks ? How does one weigh and calculate the degree of risks of each daily activities or human undertakings before performing the task or activity ?
Is Lee correct that someone, who has the propensity to have adrenalin rush in bungee jumping every weekend, will be timid and unwilling to try out new ideas from Monday to Fridays in the Office ?
Hardly, I think, as those who dare to Live Life to the FULLEST will NOT be those who do not question conventional wisdom; and are hardly those types who WILL NOT take a fresh look at and challenge long held views. -
Hi “Bear”, have you ever wondered how regrettable it is again, that it is a Newspaper belonging to a GLC - the Singapore Media – and “controlled” or under “heavy influence” by the Government that is conducting its usual activities, in belittling a supposedly insignificant Political Threat to the future Heir to the Political Throne.
If Dr Chee Soon Juan is of no political consequence to the future Heir to the Political Throne in Singapore Politics, why is there so much heavy investment made to destroy a supposedly insignificant political figure ?
CSJ must have pushed some right buttons to receive the kind of destructive reactions from the Ruling Political Party that is abusing the entire Government machinery to suppress a supposedly insignifcant Political Opponent.
Has anyone wondered at the difference in the Youth being daring enough to participate by asking CSJ questions; while a few months back, the same Paper – as was also raised in the sgForum – criticized the Students from the Tertiary Institutions for the wasted opportunity to direct questions to the DPM in a Forum held at one of the Tertiary Institutions ?
As if the perception - of more democracy being practiced by the Opposition, compared with the ever Condescending Views from our Political Leadership - is not obvious enough, that one can be drawn to the over blown publicity to ridicule a supposedly insignificant Opposition personality.
It is with surprise on my part that LKY had always criticized Foreign Newspapers for inserting Editorial comments into the reporting of NEWS, and mixing news reports with Personal Opinions that influence Public Opinions concerning Singapore Politics.
Yet such practices are unashamedly carried out in Singapore by GLC linked Press, and in judicious volumes on articles concerning the Opposition – with the personal Editorial Opinions inserted into the news item with undisguised effort to influence Public Opinions.
The fact that it took an Opposition Party to make this event happen – Youth Conference for Democracy – was not specifically headlined; while the disrespectful behavior of a teenager humiliating a Public Figure (even at a much maligned person from the Opposition) seems to be fitting quality to be featured as the Headline.
Does this signal the correctness of future youthful display towards all Politicians ?
Will LKY or GCT or the Heir accept such forthright and outspoken behavior from the Youth ?
Will there be no OB Markers to be placed ?
Will the bar to such political participation be lifted from the Public, that presently require any citizen to make political criticism to join a Political Party ?
Dr Chee had correctly stated that “the Singapore Government will certainly looked ‘undemocratic if it had not allowed the conference to go ahead”.
Certainly not when there are such stellar groups of participants from so many different countries that are definitely First World materials, which our Singapore Political Leaders claim we are part of.
How can a First World Country such as Singapore deny the right to other First World citizens from holding such a conference in Singapore ? -
this part....
have you ever thought he was just plain destructive?
maybe i have been unfair? it was a gut feel thing in the beginning... i saw him before PAP started their crap against him... everything about him screamed out to me: HE'S LYING! DO NOT TRUST HIM! HE IS NOT SINCERE!
in such things, i have trusted my gut feel...
FYI, i feel the same thing about lau lee's son... but i digress
whatever the PAP has done to CSJ, he has, in my opinion, brought about upon himself... an honest gentleman would not have had anything the power could have pinned on him.. i mean, hey! look at LTK and CST.. they're still around and they are IN PARLIAMENT!
politically, he's insignificant because the people in singapore do not trust him...
but outside, where he can be used (and he has shown himself very pleased to be used) as a battering ram against singapore (not just the PAP but against our very country), he is more than insignificant....
but that is my opinion.. and in a free country, i am allowed that...Originally posted by Atobe:CSJ must have pushed some right buttons to receive the kind of destructive reactions from the Ruling Political Party that is abusing the entire Government machinery to suppress a supposedly insignifcant Political Opponent. -
If one look back at the political events between Dr Chee Soon Juan and the PAP, I believe it started with his locking horns on the subject of the "Cost of Living" in Singapore - in which BG George Yeo dismantled the poorly prepared SDP case in TV land.Originally posted by the Bear:this part....
have you ever thought he was just plain destructive?
maybe i have been unfair? it was a gut feel thing in the beginning... i saw him before PAP started their crap against him... everything about him screamed out to me: HE'S LYING! DO NOT TRUST HIM! HE IS NOT SINCERE!
in such things, i have trusted my gut feel...
FYI, i feel the same thing about lau lee's son... but i digress
whatever the PAP has done to CSJ, he has, in my opinion, brought about upon himself... an honest gentleman would not have had anything the power could have pinned on him.. i mean, hey! look at LTK and CST.. they're still around and they are IN PARLIAMENT!
politically, he's insignificant because the people in singapore do not trust him...
but outside, where he can be used (and he has shown himself very pleased to be used) as a battering ram against singapore (not just the PAP but against our very country), he is more than insignificant....
but that is my opinion.. and in a free country, i am allowed that...
The fact remains that everyone in Singapore IS feeling the pressure on the "Cost of Living" but somehow no one seems able to put the finger on the issue.
Even as recently as two days ago, our LKY proudly announced that Cost of Living did not exceed 1%; despite all the increases in the fares of Public Transport, to the Utility Charges, Hospital Charges, Fixed Telephone Lines, Petrol, and with Essential Grocery Items more expensive in Singapore then in neighboring countries.
This Cost of Living did not exceed 1% despite the fact that salary and wages have been shrunk by ten to twenty percent since early 2002.
Dr Chee Soon Juan seems to be the most willing Opposition Figure to take on "HOT" issues that highlight the weaknesses of the Government; while LTK and CST seems to be like "pets in the House" for the amusement of the Members of the esteemed House.
The fact that Dr Chee was able to take over the seat from SDP from Mr Chiam See Tong would certainly have announced that he had the backing of the Central Committee over Mr Chiam.
Did it not dawn on Singaporeans that the Leadership change in SDP was not done by armed coup de'tat - Philippine or Myanmar style - AND that the Central Committee and the Members of SDP approve of this change ? Yet the PAP and the GLC linked Newspapers portrayed Dr Chee to be a young upstart kid, ungraciously kicking everyone's favorite Opposition Founder of the SDP. No one bothered to look deeper into the internal politics of SDP that led to Mr Chiam's exit from the Party that he founded.
It was also lost to all Singaporeans that only in the SDP can this democratic process be effected - the PAP isolate the general members into an impotent role, with all decision making roles in the hands of the Central Committee (no such thing as a no confidence motion). The new party - SPP - formed by Mr Chiam has followed the PAP constitution.
Surprisingly, with the same SDP Constitution prevailing, its Central Committee and general membership have not taken any action to oust Dr Chee - for his supposedly "poor" performance in politics.
The fact that PAP favorite Opposition Member nearly lost his destined role in Parliament certainly irked the Ruling Party, which saw it fit to ABUSE the government machinery to work against Dr Chee.
You see in Dr Chee as a dishonest man ? Insincere ? Dangerous ?
How did you form such conclusions ? Has he in anyway cheated you - beyond unseating everyone's favorite Opposition Member ? Or perhaps cheating our hope of him winning a much publicized debate in debunking the Government's claim of low Cost of Living ?
Surely your opinion - besides basing on gut feeling - could be further fine tuned by listening to contents of the issues raised by the SDP ?
With the tremendous disadvantage in terms of capable supporters, research staff, and material resource, it is not too difficult to imagine the uphill tasks of any Opposition who dare to challenge the Ruling Party in championing the People's Causes.
This is where the ground is being fought. For better or for worse, support should be given to one dare to persevere against all odds - sacrificing family fortune and swallowing the ire of the family for the sake of Public Interests. -
i told you it was a gut feel.. there are things he brought up that should be brought it.. i gotta give him that...
HOWEVER,
the way he brought things up merely turned them into crap! his inept handling, his sheer dishonesty (look, he was totally dismantled everytime he brought up "his figures") and the way he tries to get publicity, good or bad (usually bad due to his incompetence)
so, the issues he brings up turn into crap.. everyone thinks he's bringing up non-issues for his own publicity... and even if it was an important issue (they usually are) turns into a pile of rubbish as his stupidity and idiocy grabs ALL the headlines... the issues are forgotten...
i told you, it was a gut feel... however, this gut feel has been proven right in this case, more than once...
here, is a dishonest man, using issues which are important to gain some kind of publicity (i question everything about him) and by that, the issues are tainted because if anyone brings them up, he's going to jump on and "side" with the person... and that person WILL BE TAINTED with the slime that is CSJ...
oh, FYI, CST's ouster from his own party? i see it as a betrayal by CSJ, backstabbing his way to the top of the heap... to be a big fish in his pond... i guess many see it that way.. i bet CST does...
oh, and CST works FOR HIS PEOPLE... something most politicians have forgotten.. don't call him a pet just because he seems mild-mannered... he gets things done FOR HIS PEOPLE... and that is more than i can say for almost all the idiots in parliament...Originally posted by Atobe:How did you form such conclusions ? Has he in anyway cheated you - beyond unseating everyone's favorite Opposition Member ? Or perhaps cheating our hope of him winning a much publicized debate in debunking the Government's claim of low Cost of Living ?
Surely your opinion - besides basing on gut feeling - could be further fine tuned by listening to contents of the issues raised by the SDP ? -
It is sad but true. Everyone has this same feeling.Originally posted by the Bear:i told you it was a gut feel.. there are things he brought up that should be brought it.. i gotta give him that...
HOWEVER,
the way he brought things up merely turned them into crap! his inept handling, his sheer dishonesty (look, he was totally dismantled everytime he brought up "his figures") and the way he tries to get publicity, good or bad (usually bad due to his incompetence)
so, the issues he brings up turn into crap.. everyone thinks he's bringing up non-issues for his own publicity... and even if it was an important issue (they usually are) turns into a pile of rubbish as his stupidity and idiocy grabs ALL the headlines... the issues are forgotten...
i told you, it was a gut feel... however, this gut feel has been proven right in this case, more than once...
here, is a dishonest man, using issues which are important to gain some kind of publicity (i question everything about him) and by that, the issues are tainted because if anyone brings them up, he's going to jump on and "side" with the person... and that person WILL BE TAINTED with the slime that is CSJ...
oh, FYI, CST's ouster from his own party? i see it as a betrayal by CSJ, backstabbing his way to the top of the heap... to be a big fish in his pond... i guess many see it that way.. i bet CST does...
oh, and CST works FOR HIS PEOPLE... something most politicians have forgotten.. don't call him a pet just because he seems mild-mannered... he gets things done FOR HIS PEOPLE... and that is more than i can say for almost all the idiots in parliament...
The disappointment being further worsen by the non-stop efforts by the Government to use the propaganda machinery to drive home the image of CSJ "back stabbing" everyone's favorite Opposition Member in the person of CST.
From what you have written, you depended very much on the information and headlines of the Government controlled press, who are manipulated by the Experts in Mass Media Psychology.
Our needs for compassion, our needs for redress to satisfy our disappointments and anger, our needs for a sense of security are all constantly manipulated by the GLC linked Newspapers that print out articles from straw polls that are constantly taken from Singaporeans on "all issues of the day".
It is unfortunate that Dr Chee climb to his present day position was seen to be a back stabbing ungrateful climb; but the fact that he was invited into SDP, and was the ONLY qualified Doctor in Medicine that dare to step into Politics at that time failed to fall on any ears.
Not all can be doctors. Not everyone can be a natural Politicians.
If Politicians are a "questionable honesty", the fact that Dr Chee fail to be good at Politics would probably disqualify him from being one.
How does that make him to be dishonest person ?
Should one judge another so harshly ?
Despite your gut feeling towards the heir apparent - (and there are as many with the same gut feeling) - many opportunities remain extended to him even when he has made some glorious errors of judgement that has been expertly covered.
Why is the same not extended to Dr Chee, who entered Politics just about the same time as the heir apparent ? -
I did bungee jumping before. I don't consider it a calculated risk. It was quite mindless.
-
Hi, Atobe, my apologies for taking so long to respond - the people at the office actually expected me to do some work today!
Anyway, it is always a pleasure to engage in some proper debate. It is all too easy to add one-liners to a topic or to go off-topic altogether, something that I am often guilty of myself!
Is there any formula in making the decision to take a calculated risk? Well, if I were to take a stab at defining a formula, it would be something like:
Decision index = (Utility of risk X Likelihood of success) / Cost of risk
where the decision index would be some level at which one decides to take a risk, while the utility of the risk is the value of the result if things go right. The cost of the risk is the loss in the result when things do not pay off and also the amount of lost effort in taking the risk.
Of course, the values placed with any of the elements of the equation are subjective. A person may have a tendency to overestimate the cost of the risk or underestimate the likelihood of success. The key is really to get Singaporeans to make their estimations more realistic - the acknowledgement of "kiasuism" in Singaporeans is an indicator of their skewed estimations in this respect.
The unfortunate situation is that Singaporeans are generally not brought up to be risk-takers. At school we are brought up to shut up and listen. In the very first lesson I taught at secondary school, I started off by firing questions at my students, in order to gauge their progress within the syllabus. I swear that when the questions stopped, I could hear a pin drop. At that point I laid down the law in my class - if I asked a question, my students were to take a stab at giving an answer. As long as some reasoning could be provided for the answers, no answer was to be labelled as stupid, by the other students or by myself. Within a week I had my students actively engaging in the lessons, but then other teachers came along and attempted to instruct me to keep my classes silent. I am afraid that my response to them was not very polite.
The convention in teaching is that students are expected to be quiet and listen, and only do something when they are instructed to do so. This policy tends to follow them much through their lives, and they have the initiative trained out of them. Getting back to the topic, the key here is that initiative always involves an element of risk, because it deviates from the tried and tested. I find it entirely feasible that our "kiasuism" is a reaction to the way we live our lives according to tight restrictions. After all, it is only human to try to get what one wants by all means necessary if what we want is normally disallowed. Singaporeans may therefore be no less of a risk-taking people than any other, and the difference is only that we do it in petty, annoying and dysfunctional ways.
But again I digress - sincere apologies.
The key point in Lee's article is that if one is going to take a risk, there needs to be a point to it. To put it flippantly, with parachuting, it is a way of getting from A to B. With bungee jumping, however, you never quite get to B.
As an extension to the above point, one would need to know when to take a risk, and equally if not more importantly, when not to take a risk. If I could get a battalion to their objective safely and quickly enough by road, why would I want to risk a parachute deployment?
Apparently this post is too long, so I shall have to split it. -
Now where was I? Ah, yes...
Probably one of the most important things that I learnt from the Commandos is when to switch off. When we were not required to do our thing, we were absolute sloths ( I remember being almost two hours ahead of schedule for a LRRP deployment once - we stopped in the middle of a pile of dense vegetation, laid down a groundsheet and had a few games of blackjack ). More importantly, we learned never to take unnecessary risks - there would be enough time for risk-taking when the action started.
Admittedly, one risk I took that did not pay off was upon enlistment. I was not a particularly enthusiastic enlistee, and going into the vocational interview, I had a rather stern-looking sergeant ask me, "So, do you want to go into Commandos?". Hoping to show him an attitude that he would disapprove of, I asked him if I had a choice and when he said no, I said, "So what the f*** are you asking me for?". I only found out to my chagrin over the next two and a half years that this was exactly the attitude they were looking for.
Once again dragging myself back to the topic, I will try to address your question of how one comes up with a formula to determine what constitutes calculated risks and what constitutes recklessness.
I think that there are two key differences between risk-taking and recklessness. First, there is the amount of preparation involved. I had no real problem with parachuting because the ground training over two weeks more than made sure we knew the drill and that we checked and double-checked everything. I would be leery of taking a civilian course where the training is covered over the space of a few hours, and where the safety procedures and preparation are, in my opinion at least, inadequate.
The other difference lies in the reason for taking the risk. If there is no reason to take a risk, it does become something of an indulgence. Coming back to Lee's reference to motor sports, the best comeback I can provide to that is to quote three-time Formula 1 world champion Sir Jack Brabham: "I never drive any faster than it takes to win a race.". If you already comfortably leading a race, why push the car so hard that you could end up breaking something and losing the race? On the other hand, if you are lagging behind, you may as well push it and see what happens.
There is a third factor which is something of an interaction between the first two - how much of a risk do you take? The masochist in me loves being in a tight corner, because I can then play it like I have nothing to lose because, well, I have nothing to lose. However, if the situation is comfortable, I tend to avoid shifting the pieces that are already in place - there is no point in wrecking things when I have no need to. To take a risk for the simple sake of it, to get an adrenaline rush, is the opposite end of the scale to "kiasuism"; one approach is as mindless as the other, and both equally lack function.
To tie all of this back to the topic of Remaking Singapore, the problem here is that in Singaporean society, you are expected to not rock the boat - yes sir, no sir, three bags full is the way to go, and independent thought tends to get you marked as a loose cannon on deck. Obnoxious, recalcitrant gits like yours truly generally persist on doing things their own way, but speaking from experience, that does not make life easy for them in Singapore. When they decide that they have had enough and find greener pastures, where their ability to come up with fresh ideas is encouraged, the government labels them quitters. The sad reality is that Singapore is set up to drive away the people best equipped to take the country into the league into which its economy has grown.
On the other hand, we would not be well served by the knee jerk reaction of tying to go to the other end of the scale. That is like plunging a freezing man into boiling water. Certainly, Singaporeans need to be less timid than they are presently, but going back to the equation I cited above, if one were to consider taking a risk, a few questions need to be asked:
1. What stands to be lost if the risk was not taken?
2. What stands to be lost if the risk is taken?
3. How do 1 and 2 weigh up against each other?
4. What proportion of the risk is controllable?
5. What backup measures are there should things not go according to plan?
If the loss is greater when the risk is not taken, and if there are measures already in place to control the situation if things go wrong, by all means go ahead and take the risk. But if there is no point to it, i.e. the answer to 1 is of too low a value, taking the risk would not be the smartest thing to do.
In the situation against the Guardsmen, the recommended course of action in training, if you remember your BMT, would have been either to execute an ambush drill or to fall back in leapfrogging pairs. Because we were outnumbered almost three to one, either course of action would not have had good results for us - in the case of falling back in pairs, we would have effectively been outnumbered five to one. My calculation at the time was that they saw four of us and could not know how many had gone behind the bush ahead of us. From my experiences with Guardsmen (this was my third exercise against them), I expected them to know the drill as well as I did, which meant that doing the tried and tested was something they would likely have been ready for. Again from my experience, the drawback of the Guardsmen was that they rarely deviated from the drill, and I was prepared to take the risk that the Guards' leader would not think as I did. Upon these considerations, I decided to propose this plan to my team, and it worked. It therefore fit the definition of a calculated risk.
A true calculated risk will most likely not match the average person's definition of a risk. The philosophy behind taking a calculated risk is to ensure that the cards are stacked firmly in your favour. Gather as much knowledge of the situation as you can and work out the process so clearly that you can see it happening. Fortune does not so much favour the bold as it does the bold and prepared. A calculated risk is not a question of going, "If I do this, then this will happen, and then this will happen.". Instead, it would be more like "If I do this, these two things might happen. In case of the first event, I can do this, and in case of the second event, I can do that", and so on and so forth, following a branching structure that covers all possible contingencies.
In the case of parachuting, the sequence would be, "If I look up and see a fully open canopy, everything is fine and I can prepare for a landing. However, if I look up and see a partially open canopy, I cover my reserve, pull the ripcord, grab the reserve canopy and throw it out in front of me as far as I can so that it does not get tangled in the main canopy. On the other hand, if I see no canopy at all, I just pull the ripcord. If nothing works, I grab my ankles, pull my legs up to my chest and kiss my precious ass goodbye.".
Well, you get the idea - cover all contingencies before you decide to do something where the outcome is not given. That is a calculated risk. -
"As young people, we are willing to take risks but only for causes we think are worthy. But there are no viable alternatives." Fantastic. . . I agree totally absolute, expresses my view PERFECTLY.
PAP sux, but the opposition sux worse
I still believe, like I said somewhere else previously:
An opposition political party that wants to succeed in Singapore must consist of members who have built up their own lives well AND already be known to the public outside of Politics.
The opposition politician can be a well-known leader in the business sector or a wel-known leader of an NGO or other organisation, but he has to be known OUTSIDE politics. But he or she alone will not gain the confidence of the masses. He or she must be surrounded by men or women of equal calibre AND good public credentials.
A party of such people will have the confidence of the people. Contesting during elections must be carried out as the current opposition parties are doing. Limit themselves to a few constituencies. Singaporeans may not like the PAP, but the confidence of the masses still lie in the PAP and the opposition party must respect that. By competing only in selected few constituencies, voters are assured that the PAP remains in power and will be more willing to elect an opposition party politician or politicians.
Assoc. Prof. Lee Wei LIng herself comes from a sheltered environment and thus may fail to realise that some people do have unique or different hobbies and take part in more adventurous activities on a regular basis simply because it is their passion. I feel that risk taking begins with activities that involve risk. Prof. Lee has failed to consider bungee jumping enthusiasts, and instead only chosen to look at 1-off bungee jumpers. While there are risk, it is certainly not a mindless risk, especially for enthusiast.
A willingness to take risks for the sake of one's passion is very important to me.
I agree with her that only calculated risks are worth taking. But I disagree that anything can ever be a mindless risk. Whether a risk is a mindless one or not is relative to the person taking the risk. If a bungee jumper has decided that the fun, thrill and excitement of bunjee jumping is worth him taking the risk, then that is a calculated risk. If a businessman decides to open a shop in China because everyone else is doing the same, that is NOT a calculated risk.
An example of how our beliefs and passion justify our taking of risks is commandos who don the red beret because they believe that what they are fighting for is worth defending. However, if a person becomes a commando only because it looks and sounds cool to be one, then that is not a risk that is justified nor calculated.
my two cents -
Hmm - some good points here.
Originally posted by laser51088:
The advantage of the PAP over the opposition is that it has had a demonstrated record of being right more often than it has been wrong. As the Bear has pointed out, the infighting between Chee and Chiam has done their party no good. Why would we trust a party that cannot even sort out their own problems, much less that of the nation at large?
An opposition political party that wants to succeed in Singapore must consist of members who have built up their own lives well AND already be known to the public outside of Politics.
The opposition politician can be a well-known leader in the business sector or a wel-known leader of an NGO or other organisation, but he has to be known OUTSIDE politics. But he or she alone will not gain the confidence of the masses. He or she must be surrounded by men or women of equal calibre AND good public credentials.
A party of such people will have the confidence of the people. Contesting during elections must be carried out as the current opposition parties are doing. Limit themselves to a few constituencies. Singaporeans may not like the PAP, but the confidence of the masses still lie in the PAP and the opposition party must respect that. By competing only in selected few constituencies, voters are assured that the PAP remains in power and will be more willing to elect an opposition party politician or politicians.Assoc. Prof. Lee Wei LIng herself comes from a sheltered environment and thus may fail to realise that some people do have unique or different hobbies and take part in more adventurous activities on a regular basis simply because it is their passion. I feel that risk taking begins with activities that involve risk. Prof. Lee has failed to consider bungee jumping enthusiasts, and instead only chosen to look at 1-off bungee jumpers. While there are risk, it is certainly not a mindless risk, especially for enthusiast.
Perhaps "mindless risk" is a bit of a misnomer. Nonetheless, I have outlined the problems with the taking of risks for its own sake in my reply to Atobe.
A willingness to take risks for the sake of one's passion is very important to me.
I agree with her that only calculated risks are worth taking. But I disagree that anything can ever be a mindless risk. Whether a risk is a mindless one or not is relative to the person taking the risk.An example of how our beliefs and passion justify our taking of risks is commandos who don the red beret because they believe that what they are fighting for is worth defending. However, if a person becomes a commando only because it looks and sounds cool to be one, then that is not a risk that is justified nor calculated.
That seems a bit black-and-white. I fit into neither of those categories. I treasured my time wearing that beret because a) I was allowed to delight in the mischief that I had hitherto been castigated for at school, b) I was given the leeway to do the job in the best manner that I personally saw fit and c) we were treated as professionals in the most true sense of the word.
My two cents, in the vain hope that it holds its value better than the rupiah or the ringgit. -
Hi Gendaken, it is difficult to stay connected when yanked out of the comfort of our environment to some remote island living out of a container cabin. My apologies for disconnecting the flow which you have so nicely created.
You are quite a colorful character, commando trained psychologist, with a background in teaching too; little wonder that our SAF has been reputed to be a bunch of motivated “new kids on the block” – especially with guys like you around.
Have you ever considered entering the Political arena ?
After placing my post, the thoughts of how I will respond to my piece – if it had been placed by someone else – I realized that one could actually come up with a formula in calculating the risk of one’s action. You certainly have put it quite nicely.
However, reflecting on this formula, I asked if anyone would actually run through such a process of evaluation before taking any decision towards any action.
Some actions are second nature and contain as much risks, and accidents do happen when one take for granted the actions in performing daily chores and become careless.
Will this careless action be seen as “reckless action”, or simply inattention ?
When in an urgent emergency or pressing situation that is confronting anyone, will one also take the leisurely pace of reviewing the “formula” to evaluate the risks ?
In most cases, when time permit a deliberate decision, as when one decide on switching career, or embarking on a new enterprise, I believe that this evaluation process will follow the manner in which you have illustrated.
Bungee jumping can be seen as a Sport, as much as BMX bicycles competitions, motor cross racing, in-line skate stunts, boxing, wrestling, surf boarding, scuba diving, or any other form of sports that involves the human body to any kind of possible injury or death when events turned awry.
By being involved in such sports, does it determine one of reckless action for failing to meet the minimum standards of objectivity ?
What about the human endeavor in sailing across the oceans alone, and challenging mother nature in the open sea ?
If we follow Associate Prof Lee Wei LingÂ’s line of thought, the very idea of sailing across the oceans alone, in a small sailing craft will be mindless recklessness.
The torturous period of loneliness, or the dangers of sailing into a rough storm, will hardly give anyone an experience of an adrenalin rush.
It is little wonder that in Singapore, there are little individual or team efforts in any form of risk taking – whether in the area of sports, adventure, or enterprise.
At least not until the team effort to conquer Mount Everest, and the successful walk to the North Pole by a Singaporean (ex-Malaysian Citizen).
Could this be due to the general attitude of Singaporeans to be cautious, and most of us carry a view that most activities are dangerous, and hence to participate in it will be stupidly reckless ?
So, why try ? Better to watch others, then ourselves die while trying.
Could this explain for the Singapore Authorities playing the role of “nanny” to prevent Singaporeans from injuring ourselves ?
So it is better to prevent the gathering in Public in any numbers larger then Two Persons (so ban public gathering without license), ban any sports activities that will injure the Participants (so ban BMX stunt competition), ban Bar Top Dancing so as to prevent sudden deaths from any possible outcome.
With over protective guiding hands, Singaporeans have always been made to feel secure that the correct decisions will ALWAYS be made for them by a supposedly benevolent One-Party Ruled State.
After more then 38 years of a “nanny” State Environment, suddenly now, with the pressures of new economic reality, Singaporeans are now “pushed” to be risks takers; to venture beyond our shores, to be adventurous, to “think out of the box”.
Sadly, many remain averse to this idea, afraid of a new environment of unfamiliar joblessness, unprepared for retrenchment as one near the vulnerable age of 40 plus.
This general Singaporean attitude of “kiasi-ism” is largely a result of 38 years of the Government’s own “kiasi-ism” of a population turning against them; hence their need to control almost every aspect of Singaporean Life.
It is unfortunate, but we do not need the likes of Assoc Prof Lee to put her two cents worth with her contribution concerning mindless risk takings.
While all risks need not be taken mindlessly, one has at times to step into the unknown in a “mindless” manner – as Indianna Jones did when he took one step into a chasm, only to reveal a bridge, that allowed him to cross.
At times, one has to trust in one's own instinct and experiences.