HOW TO DO IT AGAIN
-
In the 1960s, Singapore had struggled and achieved independence.
People supported its government for its ability to create jobs and provide affordable housing and essential services.
By 1970s, talents and pro-foreign investment policies became the bywords of governance which were auto-piloted into 1980s and 1990s. Are MNCs still attracted to set up their businesses here ? Did anyone ask whether these pro-foreign policies might stifle our own domestic growth? How to overcome disadvantages or make policies really work?
The fact remains that many old policies are deeply entrenched in our system and none among our 2nd tier leaders are able to change them. We might still remember the great pains suffered by many as foreigners pulled out in large numbers during the Asian Financial Crisis and recent recessions. Unworkable past policies should be re-examined in today environment because:-
(1) The general population is more educated. It is more important to nurture in-house talents or practical knowledge application to create resilience and self-reliance.
(2) Numerous government Talents were found incapable at solving our high cost and unemployment problems.
(3) Foreign investments are no longer attracted by tax incentives or S-passes alone. We need to target at our own domestic growth and self-reliance. Yet at every budget we have only limited solutions based on past policy approach.
On the other hand, China has become competitive with an emerging educated workforce prepared to work harder at a lower reward. India had re-made its economy to into one offering job-searching export services, Singapore must ask : HOW TO DO IT AGAIN.
While other Asian economies are forging ahead, ours in Singapore appeared to persist in flogging the dead horse of pro-talent policy at the expense of our domestic sector. At the rate we are going, we may end up protecting the existing vested interests and create a narrow and elitist society. Ordinary people, the true talents are marginalized and constrained by high costs. There is a lack of entrepreneurship in re-vitalizing the lack-lustre economy.
HOW TO DO IT AGAIN. On the eve of national day, (8/8/2004) Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng was reported on TV as saying: "The new leadership will look into getting more younger people to go into politics as 58% of the population are young. Unless the young are interested in politics, Singapore may run short of people of right calibre...The young should not be afraid that politics are dirty and shy away of taking part."
This is not the first time ministers are talking about getting the young to join politics. Why such calls were not getting the right response. If there is no actions taken to address fundamental issues, such calls will remain empty talks. Try to promote in-house talents and practical knowledge application instead of constant re-training or getting more foreigners and foreign companies. Existing knowledge acquired by citizens are vast and should be turned to use and application in the first instance. Justifications and presentations will not work and the young will surely know better than what were proposed so far.
Truly open up and liberalize to show that forthright and honest letters written to the press about high costs and unemployment will be published. Match words with action in promoting entrepreneurial ideas from the masses. Involvement of young should not merely be justifications or presentations gimmick. Let's do it for real then the young will really see true change.
Establish a two-way (feedback presently is only one-way) communication for genuine interaction with the masses to prevent elites from indulging in self-justifications and presentations.
Lower costs of living or doing business, and prevent massive worksite accidents and power failures. The only way to match words with actions is to establish core activities to be carried out ministry by ministry in accountable and doable work processes to facilitate mass participation and practical knowledge application as stated in HOW TO DO IT. Just do it.
-
Orwell's Law of Language. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.
George Orwell was thinking of political discourse in particular when he wrote these lines, as evidenced by the title that he gave to the essay in which they appear "Politics and the English Language" ( 1946 ).
Orwell suggested six rules to improve one's writing :
1 Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2 Never used a long word when a short one will do.
3 If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4 Never use the passive when you can use the active.
5 Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6 Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. -
To: tspg,
George Orwell's laws on English look fine to me.
It is good to mind one's English,
The preacher of Orwell's laws should be sincere himself.
For example, the preacher on non-flamming [one "m" will do] should not be spreading flames himself to be more sincere in his preaching. By the way is "flame" a metaphor according to Orwell and should avoided in this instance. On this score, Orwell might well stand to be corrected by other equally eminent authorities who favor the use of metaphor to add the extra creativity to writing.
Any private agenda on the part of the preacher? -
I don't understand why can't use simple English like anybody else. Instead you like to use greek and beat around the bush. And why the need to edit your post all the time ?
-
wonder if the ang mo kia see this or not???Originally posted by tspg:Orwell's Law of Language. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.
George Orwell was thinking of political discourse in particular when he wrote these lines, as evidenced by the title that he gave to the essay in which they appear "Politics and the English Language" ( 1946 ).
Orwell suggested six rules to improve one's writing :
1 Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2 Never used a long word when a short one will do.
3 If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4 Never use the passive when you can use the active.
5 Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6 Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
whahahahaha
from the tok lor correspondence
-
There are two types of flamming. The malicious and insulting type akin to a public lynching, I strongly opposed.Originally posted by robertteh:To: tspg,
George Orwell's laws on English look fine to me.
It is good to mind one's English,
The preacher of Orwell's laws should be sincere himself.
For example, the preacher on non-flamming [one "m" will do] should not be spreading flames himself to be more sincere in his preaching. By the way is "flame" a metaphor according to Orwell and should avoided in this instance. On this score, Orwell might well stand to be corrected by other equally eminent authorities who favor the use of metaphor to add the extra creativity to writing.
Any private agenda on the part of the preacher?
A more kinder flamming approach that exerts public pressure on the offending member with deviant and extremist views, I fully support and will take part. -
like the style croco adopts???Originally posted by tspg:There are two types of flamming. The malicious and insulting type akin to a public lynching, I strongly opposed.
A more kinder flamming approach that exerts public pressure on the offending member with deviant and extremist views, I fully support and will take part.
*scans for potential pple to flame*
*throws a deathening glance at ditzy and his lover*
-
To:tspg,
I have replied to your unsolicitated post aimed at starting a flame.
I notice that as you are only an electronic emission, I won't bother further about what you said.
Let the moderator decides what is rubbish or offensive stuff. If there is something more constructive to say, I shall try to answer to queries. But please do not try to be an ang mor kia and presume that you had written Orwell English as ultimately whether one writes well or not is always up to others to judge. As for editing post, you have contradicted yourself by amending your posts yourself. So don't shoot off your mouth as I don't think my post is targeted at any one in particular and don't feel that irritated by what you read. You could choose not to read them - so I don't understand why you are following me around. Judge not others lest you be judged yourself. Fair Reply? -
I find the constant editing quite irritating as well. If you are just making a normal edit, that is fine. But if you are editing your post with the purpose of bumping up the post, then that sounds like an abuse of a deficiency in the forum design. Just my personal view.
-
national day...no war, peace
-
So I am not the only one to notice that. Everytime his post appear in newest topic I though he has added something new but it just the same old stuff.Originally posted by Qitai:I find the constant editing quite irritating as well. If you are just making a normal edit, that is fine. But if you are editing your post with the purpose of bumping up the post, then that sounds like an abuse of a deficiency in the forum design. Just my personal view.
-
There is no need for anyone here as assumed to bump up post. I am a new comer and honestly did not bother to post for that purpose.
Purpose of editing in my case was to refine the views and presentations because there are something important to convey. Anything wrong? Only those who were guilty conscious will snoop around others to try to start a flame or say things like this - called abuse by him at the same time. I do not need to go around doing that sort of things and will stop further posting after I have made my point. Do not act so weird !!! -
Don't really know much about robertteh. But from reading his post, he is quite objective. For editing of post, there is a need if he needs to clarify with certain points. I think he is doing this in case some of you misunderstood what he is trying to convey. Well i don't think he edits posts just to increase post count.
If he wants to increase post count, he can just start a flame thread like someone (i will not mention who) and start the party. Easy and need not think so much.
Of course, being banned is another problem. -
You dun need big words to carry across a big idea. Thats the point of my first post. If somebody wants to think otherwise, I cant help it.Originally posted by sans-culotte:Don't really know much about robertteh. But from reading his post, he is quite objective. For editing of post, there is a need if he needs to clarify with certain points. I think he is doing this in case some of you misunderstood what he is trying to convey. Well i don't think he edits posts just to increase post count.
If he wants to increase post count, he can just start a flame thread like someone (i will not mention who) and start the party. Easy and need not think so much.
Of course, being banned is another problem. -
I don't get what you mean by 'big words' in this sense. Had read his article, still can understand what he is trying to say. Maybe he is more comfortable to write like this. Then how you gonna expect him to tell us his ideas? Everyone has a different way of writing and expressing their views. As long the idea is there, why bother with so much about 'big words' or 'small words'?Originally posted by tspg:You dun need big words to carry across a big idea. Thats the point of my first post. If somebody wants to think otherwise, I cant help it. -
To: tspg,
The purpose of this forum will be served if all forumites can be collective and share a common purpose - to convey our life and work problems objectively across to the authority to benefit ourselves and others.
However they will not achieve this purpose if we are to let the small petty issues like english, or what have you get in the way.
I don't think I have used big words as described by tspg. Even if I have I will try to improve my future posting. So, don't feel offended by my postings if they ever contain big words. I just want to correct certain incorrect assumptions.
To sans-culote,
Thank you for your contributions to our forumites common objective. -
Just a recommendation since most of his postings have no replys or people taking part. I had no intention of flamming him. If he has to react so adversery to my criticism I will keep my mouth shut in the future.Originally posted by sans-culotte:I don't get what you mean by 'big words' in this sense. Had read his article, still can understand what he is trying to say. Maybe he is more comfortable to write like this. Then how you gonna expect him to tell us his ideas? Everyone has a different way of writing and expressing their views. As long the idea is there, why bother with so much about 'big words' or 'small words'? -
Not all people make a new thread just to expect replies. Some people make a thread just to share with us his ideas or views. Read or reply is up to personal choice. Personally i have read some of his other threads and i also did not reply. I did not reply not because i can't understand what he said. The reason is most of his posts are quite objective and also convey what i am thinking so i think there is no need to post something just to say a few words like " I totally agreed what u said".Originally posted by tspg:Just a recommendation since most of his postings have no replys or people taking part. I had no intention of flamming him. If he has to react so adversery to my criticism I will keep my mouth shut in the future.
Secondly, i know you do not have the intention of flamming him. Is just that you need not to tell him about his usage of words in public. You can PM him right?? -
Ok ok anyway I have decided to keep quiet in future.Originally posted by sans-culotte:Not all people make a new thread just to expect replies. Some people make a thread just to share with us his ideas or views. Read or reply is up to personal choice. Personally i have read some of his other threads and i also did not reply. I did not reply not because i can't understand what he said. The reason is most of his posts are quite objective and also convey what i am thinking so i think there is no need to post something just to say a few words like " I totally agreed what u said".
Secondly, i know you do not have the intention of flamming him. Is just that you need not to tell him about his usage of words in public. You can PM him right?? 