DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Emm... Can only say that the way you guys look at Education will mean more big problems yet solving little...
You see... Never mind. I can only say too idealistic.
-
Many problems have been caused by the past academic and grade-driven education policy.
As a result of such a narrow education policy, the country is suffering from a gradual loss of economic competitiveness to neighbouring and other Asian countries to date.
The lack of emphasis on broad-based education has led to a drop in producing a truly entrepreneurial economy. Entrepreneurs are short in supply
Such narrow education policy which emphasises on academic grades has been achieved at the expense of practical knowledge application or pursuit of capabilities and excellence in every field.
This fact of our lack of economic competitiveness is clearly seen from the quality and ability of our graduates in entering into businesses and starting up their own companies. It can also be verified from the fact that during the last two economic recessions, our many scholars were found totally helpless in rescuing the economy except to blame it on the external factors.
Thus there are many problems with our education system - overemphasising on academic attainments. Dr. Tony Tan has gone on a trip recently to Europe to study their broad-based education policies there. How do they produce capable knowledge applicators in all engineering and technology areas. What happen?
-
Hi Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:Emm... Can only say that the way you guys look at Education will mean more big problems yet solving little...
You see... Never mind. I can only say too idealistic.
so ur back finally. did you see GMS's picture in TNP? he was featured together with Chia Li Tik and another girl.
oh anyway, you make such a broad statement and fail to qualify it. what are the more "big problems" that will be faced if my new [intellectual] Order of Education Act was implemented. or perhaps the problems only exist because you favour autocracy, and refuse to be open t democracy, or in other words, you are autocratic yourself. Have you read CrazyMonkey's thesis? perhaps you might gain a few insights from there.
As for the way i look at education, i believe educaiton should accomodate everybody since everybody is different. As such, the current streaming system doesn't measure up because it segregates people and predetermines their path in life. and of course, the rigidity of it stifles creativity and innovation.
Anyway, what are your practical solutions? I do not see that you have offered any alternative at all.
I agree that there might be a few major problems in the implementation, but these will be short-term problems compared to the long-term gains offered. and these problems would probably arise becasue of rigid mindsets like yours, and not because of any flaws in the law itself. besides, the Act creates Educational Parliament which is there to make decisions about how education should be carried out, so any irregularities should be stamped out by the teachers, if you are afraid of irrationality of the students in student unions. but look at Switzerland, and you will see my point.
Thx.
the pikamaster -
Hi Pikamaster,Originally posted by pikamaster:Hi Elfred,
so ur back finally. did you see GMS's picture in TNP? he was featured together with Chia Li Tik and another girl.
oh anyway, you make such a broad statement and fail to qualify it. what are the more "big problems" that will be faced if my new [intellectual] Order of Education Act was implemented. or perhaps the problems only exist because you favour autocracy, and refuse to be open t democracy, or in other words, you are autocratic yourself. Have you read CrazyMonkey's thesis? perhaps you might gain a few insights from there.
As for the way i look at education, i believe educaiton should accomodate everybody since everybody is different. As such, the current streaming system doesn't measure up because it segregates people and predetermines their path in life. and of course, the rigidity of it stifles creativity and innovation.
Anyway, what are your practical solutions? I do not see that you have offered any alternative at all.
I agree that there might be a few major problems in the implementation, but these will be short-term problems compared to the long-term gains offered. and these problems would probably arise becasue of rigid mindsets like yours, and not because of any flaws in the law itself. besides, the Act creates Educational Parliament which is there to make decisions about how education should be carried out, so any irregularities should be stamped out by the teachers, if you are afraid of irrationality of the students in student unions. but look at Switzerland, and you will see my point.
Thx.
the pikamaster
Emm... I actually been around, saved been having other things recently.
In the current position, I rather not qualify myself too much. But I can tell you that, in Singapore, we have to observe the nature and characteristic of implication of education while compromising to human nature and characteristics, plus a whole bunch of other things.
Plainly, you'd realise that you ain't the first to say such things. But, I doubt it's that simple. The direction must be right, the respective subjects must be handled correctly, the schools must be assigned in such a way that 99% go along the direction, and we must have some sorts of people.
And there's also order of doing things and so on.
Frankly speaking, I'd guarantee what you/Robert and/or thinking in the market is not gonna change much. This is one thing I have decided even if you meet me in YP I'd not qualify. It's simple. It seems that you can't implement something by just throwing in as a few ideas as what most, if not all, believe to be. Firstly, I found that people are still quite unsure of the direction of education.
Besides, we have to recognise the fact that anything we do to education will have to come into relation with the commercial interests. Unless, of course, you wanna let the entire fortune be weighed on the Casino...
Well... unlike in other nations, Singapore's education has to be unique, in a way. And not unlike other nations, this sort of things require talents to think and handle.
That girl in the picture has been, if I am not wrong, a long time WP member. As for Ti Lik and Goh MS, there's no need to build database on them at the meantime cos I doubt they would be making much impact. I am, however, suspecting of some interest of having them to be a training point for PAP candidates. But, you see in such case, winning such weak competitors might make party candidates down on guard the next election. But it'd at least show that party victories are not necessarily due to walkovers.
I am more concern about more casualties, because if Goh MS and Ti Lik are really what they show themselves online to be... I afraid they'd end up Dr Chee-to-be. Political casualty never amuses me. Not even when it comes to Dr Chee, though you should know about my opinion on SDP, via email exchange. Sigh... we really need much more good men and women with much higher (leadership) standards. 
I don't favor autocracy. So many times I repeated.
It seems that Crazy Monkey copied a huge pile of textbooks stuff to me. No offence to Monkey. But you don't need so much texts actually to gain insights. They might appeal to you, but not me, frankly.
$6.6m, I'd give you whatever solution you want. Anything on Education must, however, be modified with the current establishment. I don't wanna know what Switzerland is doing. I can't just assume that if we do what we do and give up everything, hence laying waste to the past factors, and to jump into another hole would make Singapore another Switzerland.
An Education parliament is not necessary. We can't (eg) have that parliament to crush with the main parliament, pointless. Besides, we have Mr Tharman, Mr Chan SS and Mr Hawazi, a total of three posts, to make such difference. Having one more parliament whereby the Education ministry still needs to present their decisions (say) from the Education parliament in the main parliament is just waste of time.
I ain't autocratic, Pikamaster. I definitely listen to you guys, and share my thoughts. But I might seem quite stubborn of certain stance, lest you have a better view to convince me. And believe it, I can be convince, if you views stand solid. -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:Hi Pikamaster,
Emm... I actually been around, saved been having other things recently.
In the current position, I rather not qualify myself too much. But I can tell you that, in Singapore, we have to observe the nature and characteristic of implication of education while compromising to human nature and characteristics, plus a whole bunch of other things.
Plainly, you'd realise that you ain't the first to say such things. But, I doubt it's that simple. The direction must be right, the respective subjects must be handled correctly, the schools must be assigned in such a way that 99% go along the direction, and we must have some sorts of people.
And there's also order of doing things and so on.
Frankly speaking, I'd guarantee what you/Robert and/or thinking in the market is not gonna change much. This is one thing I have decided even if you meet me in YP I'd not qualify. It's simple. It seems that you can't implement something by just throwing in as a few ideas as what most, if not all, believe to be. Firstly, I found that people are still quite unsure of the direction of education.
Besides, we have to recognise the fact that anything we do to education will have to come into relation with the commercial interests. Unless, of course, you wanna let the entire fortune be weighed on the Casino...
Well... unlike in other nations, Singapore's education has to be unique, in a way. And not unlike other nations, this sort of things require talents to think and handle.
That girl in the picture has been, if I am not wrong, a long time WP member. As for Ti Lik and Goh MS, there's no need to build database on them at the meantime cos I doubt they would be making much impact. I am, however, suspecting of some interest of having them to be a training point for PAP candidates. But, you see in such case, winning such weak competitors might make party candidates down on guard the next election. But it'd at least show that party victories are not necessarily due to walkovers.
I am more concern about more casualties, because if Goh MS and Ti Lik are really what they show themselves online to be... I afraid they'd end up Dr Chee-to-be. Political casualty never amuses me. Not even when it comes to Dr Chee, though you should know about my opinion on SDP, via email exchange. Sigh... we really need much more good men and women with much higher (leadership) standards.
I don't favor autocracy. So many times I repeated.
It seems that Crazy Monkey copied a huge pile of textbooks stuff to me. No offence to Monkey. But you don't need so much texts actually to gain insights. They might appeal to you, but not me, frankly.
$6.6m, I'd give you whatever solution you want. Anything on Education must, however, be modified with the current establishment. I don't wanna know what Switzerland is doing. I can't just assume that if we do what we do and give up everything, hence laying waste to the past factors, and to jump into another hole would make Singapore another Switzerland.
An Education parliament is not necessary. We can't (eg) have that parliament to crush with the main parliament, pointless. Besides, we have Mr Tharman, Mr Chan SS and Mr Hawazi, a total of three posts, to make such difference. Having one more parliament whereby the Education ministry still needs to present their decisions (say) from the Education parliament in the main parliament is just waste of time.
I ain't autocratic, Pikamaster. I definitely listen to you guys, and share my thoughts. But I might seem quite stubborn of certain stance, lest you have a better view to convince me. And believe it, I can be convince, if you views stand solid.
1) no comment. (i seldom comment on one-liners, esp. if they are greetings.)
2) what you state is not only unique to Singapore.
3) I have no illusions about the simplicity/ complexity of designing an education system. I have figured out that my [intellectual] Order of Education Act might have at least 150 articles, which makes it about as long as the Constitution, okay, perhaps slightly shorter only. However, I wish to caution you about talking about "direction". The problem with such a pathway is that it gives telescopic vison only; there are multiple paths education has to travel, because of the varied nature of both knowledge and experience. And now in an Information Age, new discoveries in various different fields occur simultaneously, and thus any teaching component of an education system will have to have room for all these discoveries. If it chooses to telescope in one area, say Enginerring, as Robert suggested earlier, then it will be able to be proficient in that area, but only that area, and will lag behind in other fields. Thus, we do not just need "some" sorts of people; we need all sorts of people.
Ashby's First Law of Cybernetics states that for every slave system of a certain complexity, in order to control it appropriately, you need a control system of equal or more complexity; this is also called the law of Requisite Variety. So in the case of the teaching component of education, the system of knowledge dissemination is the control system, and huge quantities of knowledge to be taught is the slave system. because knowledge is so varied, the knowledge dissemination system needs to be equally as varied.
The argument i find most flawed in this paragraph is the one which states that "all the respective subjects must be handled correctly". what is correct? That changes as time goes by, and there is henceforth no guarantee that one method firmly ingrained in one system will remain adequate for the rest of eternity. Look at Singapore, with the China-style Chinese Textbook system; even the govt realizes that that has to change, and henceforth you have modular Chinese. Thus, what we need is a system that is dynamic, so that the only cosntant thing about the system is its capacity to accomodate change. And to do that effectively, we need decentralization, to prevent the Ivory Tower Syndrome, where information gets progressivley summarized to the point where those at the top receive only a broad outline of the situation, and henceforth cannot respond with the requisite variety desired.
4) haha
guess why the Act I'm (intellectually) proposing is called the "Order of Education" Act?
5) like I told you, mine is an intellectual experiment obviously, since our quasi-autocratic and pseudo-democratic government will possibly not want to abandon their precious age-old tenets. ah well...
6) I agree only to a certain extent. Not everything needs to be tailored toward commercial interests. This is exactly waht we have done for the last 40 years, and look at the socia cost incurred from that: unfeeling teachers, teh society that chases after 5Cs, students who commit suicide because they can't face life's pressures, horrendous elitism which the PM still has the cheek to praise, schools denying pupils entry based on arbritrary criteria just in order to allow themselves to obtain Excellence Awards from MOE, "Taupok", certain CCAs being discriminated because they are non-sporty, SPorts School denying entry to excellent sportsmen just becasue their academic grades are good, then lamely giving the excuse that "holistic development'" is wanted, the recent bungle-up of the "O"-Level JAE system, etcetc. So we have a top-notch economy in the world, but do we have a top-notch society? All the examples I provided above are absolutely true; you can go and check news archives of ST, TODAY, TNP, AFP, or the STAR. And no, I am strongly opposed toward the construction of the casino. In fact, even the misguided decision to build teh casino stems from teh weakness of an education system which capitalizes on commercial (economic) interests so much, it degrades other areas.
7) I think you have been partially brainwashed by YP already. The phrase "uniqueness of Singapore" is a subtle piece of propaganda to justify what otherwise cannot be justified, like controls on the press adn the streaming system which My new (intellectual) Order of Education Act shall abolish. in fact, interestingly, if you were to do actual comparison, the uniqueness of our education system pales in comaprison to Norway. So there.
I agree with you here.
9) Don't be too hasty to judge GMS, but I concur with your opinion of Chia Li Tik. Do an email discussion with GMS, and you will find tha this style of discussion will be quite like yours, with a few lapses of course. Hey, even you have lapses.
10) That is always a fear when you have at least a quasi-autocratic government around. That's why after finishing my OEA, I am going to re-work (intellectually) the Defamation Act and the ISA. Anyway, I hope your view of poor leadership is not one-sided. Seriously. PAP claimed most of its victories, if you can even call them that, in walkover constituencies last election, so there is no real consensus that their leadership model is approved by the citizens. And obviously, we have some very inept leaders in govt like Vivian Balakrishnan; just see how he handled the casino issue with his pathetic maturity argument. *sigh* With regards to leadership, I share the same sentiments as you do.
11) Now I find that strange.... what do you favour then if you favour neither democract nor autocracy? there seems to really be nth else. perhaps you could enlighten me?
12) Just read, and scan out the main points. I'm like you; I really don't like chunky stuff either, so I'm reading it little by little. But I did skim through and got a general picture of what Monkey was saying.
13) Switzerland? Don't worry, I am proposing (intellectually) something completely new. It won't exist anywhare else in the world, not even in Switzerland, although it builds upon the Swiss model. But it will be what I would consider integrated thinking-out-of-the-box.
14) Crush? Why should there be one? The point of having EP is to separate out Education from the main government, to achieve a form of administrative decentralization. It is meant to be totally different.
...to be continued -
Elfred,
Yup. But the importance is Singapore is itself unique, see?
1) no comment. (i seldom comment on one-liners, esp. if they are greetings.)
2) what you state is not only unique to Singapore.3) I have no illusions about the simplicity/ complexity of designing an education system. I have figured out that my [intellectual] Order of Education Act might have at least 150 articles, which makes it about as long as the Constitution, okay, perhaps slightly shorter only. However, I wish to caution you about talking about "direction". The problem with such a pathway is that it gives telescopic vison only; there are multiple paths education has to travel, because of the varied nature of both knowledge and experience. And now in an Information Age, new discoveries in various different fields occur simultaneously, and thus any teaching component of an education system will have to have room for all these discoveries. If it chooses to telescope in one area, say Enginerring, as Robert suggested earlier, then it will be able to be proficient in that area, but only that area, and will lag behind in other fields. Thus, we do not just need "some" sorts of people; we need all sorts of people.
Hahahaha... Accordingly, won't it be more logical going by your concern that we make everyone learn everything so as not to lag behind other fields?
If you are telling me you are talking about the relevant fields, or something as such, I'm gonna ask you are you soon the you can know which is relevant and which is not to every single (say) chemist-to-be?Ashby's First Law of Cybernetics states that for every slave system of a certain complexity, in order to control it appropriately, you need a control system of equal or more complexity; this is also called the law of Requisite Variety. So in the case of the teaching component of education, the system of knowledge dissemination is the control system, and huge quantities of knowledge to be taught is the slave system. because knowledge is so varied, the knowledge dissemination system needs to be equally as varied.
I only know that sort of law which focuses on system helps little.
The case of the education system is pretty simple, that in Asia, it has been a screwed system all along. And when foreign interest thinned, rusted screws shown loose.
You see, Pikamaster, we cannot see education as a form of system and yet also wants it to applies flexibly to time and individual. That's a big mistake. Frankly speaking, I don't mind you go ahead and carry on your idea, seriously. Cos after another decade, Singapore'd be screaming with red alert again.
Now, please don't expect qualifying, cos this doesn't need qualifying.The argument i find most flawed in this paragraph is the one which states that "all the respective subjects must be handled correctly". what is correct? That changes as time goes by, and there is henceforth no guarantee that one method firmly ingrained in one system will remain adequate for the rest of eternity. Look at Singapore, with the China-style Chinese Textbook system; even the govt realizes that that has to change, and henceforth you have modular Chinese. Thus, what we need is a system that is dynamic, so that the only cosntant thing about the system is its capacity to accomodate change. And to do that effectively, we need decentralization, to prevent the Ivory Tower Syndrome, where information gets progressivley summarized to the point where those at the top receive only a broad outline of the situation, and henceforth cannot respond with the requisite variety desired.
Alright. Don't mind tell you. I have once suggested a manner to teach Chinese as a subject. It's however, one of the very small minor component, though I have commented the manner cannot be used on English teaching.
Now put it this way, just as subjects and dealing with the entire Education as a whole, it requires very wise thinking in the first place. Your mentioning of what Chinese-style system is merely just emphasizing a copycat-mentality, which is exactly why I can comfortably tell Singapore it's gonna be pretty stuck in such sphere of stuckar-ness.
I need to point out about decentralisation. Look at Britain, isn't it decentralised enough? Look at the standards.
Put it this way, Education is not so simple. But I encourage people to go ahead and try whatever they can think of, to show the problems of the education on these people. Many are talking of thinking out of the box, for eg, but if you really observe, we are really going to get out of many boxes but only to be ignorant of the bigger box.4) haha
I stupid, hahaha... can tell me? guess why the Act I'm (intellectually) proposing is called the "Order of Education" Act?5) like I told you, mine is an intellectual experiment obviously, since our quasi-autocratic and pseudo-democratic government will possibly not want to abandon their precious age-old tenets. ah well...
Well... ... My dear friend, think about it... there are certain experiments we shouldn't try, expecially on what particulars about what system of governments or what autocrats.6) I agree only to a certain extent. Not everything needs to be tailored toward commercial interests. This is exactly waht we have done for the last 40 years, and look at the socia cost incurred from that: unfeeling teachers, teh society that chases after 5Cs, students who commit suicide because they can't face life's pressures, horrendous elitism which the PM still has the cheek to praise, schools denying pupils entry based on arbritrary criteria just in order to allow themselves to obtain Excellence Awards from MOE, "Taupok", certain CCAs being discriminated because they are non-sporty, SPorts School denying entry to excellent sportsmen just becasue their academic grades are good, then lamely giving the excuse that "holistic development'" is wanted, the recent bungle-up of the "O"-Level JAE system, etcetc. So we have a top-notch economy in the world, but do we have a top-notch society? All the examples I provided above are absolutely true; you can go and check news archives of ST, TODAY, TNP, AFP, or the STAR. And no, I am strongly opposed toward the construction of the casino. In fact, even the misguided decision to build teh casino stems from teh weakness of an education system which capitalizes on commercial (economic) interests so much, it degrades other areas.
Emm... Put it this way, a person needs monies so as that of a nation needs to get financed.
If we can offer a good industry, a hook-line, why not?
Yeah... I agree Education shouldn't be all about monies, but that's idealistic. We have too look at the more realistic side of things. Even the Casino. I can't just be too idealistic on national issues, see? Anyway, congrats, you belongs to the majority of the population it so seems on this Casino issue.
The misguided Education is not mainly because it's due to commercial. Put it this way, if we go back a decade, and when Education is not so commercial (say, by doing anyway commercial stint in the matter), do you think the Education system would produce something else?7) I think you have been partially brainwashed by YP already. The phrase "uniqueness of Singapore" is a subtle piece of propaganda to justify what otherwise cannot be justified, like controls on the press adn the streaming system which My new (intellectual) Order of Education Act shall abolish. in fact, interestingly, if you were to do actual comparison, the uniqueness of our education system pales in comaprison to Norway. So there.
If you joined YP, and you do ask around for me (provided you know me) you'd discover that I'm hell thinking alot more different from YP. And least, with the blessing of a core, I can see things with least influence, provided any.
Emm... Actually, I do hope YP would be more politically endowed with great political thinkers. Brainwash also never mind. I'm still diligently digging and looking out. Hopefully, this year'd yield something.
The problem of Goh MS is that he lacks certain important parts of a leader. I can only tell you he's just a layman who can resort only to petty thinkings; if he got the chance to stand for election this time round, I'd show you certain things about him. I agree with you here.
9) Don't be too hasty to judge GMS, but I concur with your opinion of Chia Li Tik. Do an email discussion with GMS, and you will find tha this style of discussion will be quite like yours, with a few lapses of course. Hey, even you have lapses.
Lapses? What lapses?10) That is always a fear when you have at least a quasi-autocratic government around. That's why after finishing my OEA, I am going to re-work (intellectually) the Defamation Act and the ISA. Anyway, I hope your view of poor leadership is not one-sided. Seriously. PAP claimed most of its victories, if you can even call them that, in walkover constituencies last election, so there is no real consensus that their leadership model is approved by the citizens. And obviously, we have some very inept leaders in govt like Vivian Balakrishnan; just see how he handled the casino issue with his pathetic maturity argument. *sigh* With regards to leadership, I share the same sentiments as you do.
Well... no comment.11) Now I find that strange.... what do you favour then if you favour neither democract nor autocracy? there seems to really be nth else. perhaps you could enlighten me?
Chey, I already make clear I only favor good people to solve issues, not systems. You guys never digest postings? This sort of question shouldn't come after so long a whole set of exchanges.12) Just read, and scan out the main points. I'm like you; I really don't like chunky stuff either, so I'm reading it little by little. But I did skim through and got a general picture of what Monkey was saying.
I... the sort who read, but not memorise, but know where to get my stuff quick enough, and know how to figure things out quick enough. You can say I know alot of things when I know little at the same time.
I kinda must tell you that materials he posted can be found in various textbooks (I read over time). If you want, and would pay me, I'd produce even longer (cut and paste) thesis (or whatever you choose to call).
I'm trained to think, not to pass cut and paste exams, so...13) Switzerland? Don't worry, I am proposing (intellectually) something completely new. It won't exist anywhare else in the world, not even in Switzerland, although it builds upon the Swiss model. But it will be what I would consider integrated thinking-out-of-the-box.
Good. I wish you all the luck, Pikamaster. You see, at least if you can, you try. That's hopefully the first step towards something. But hopefully your foundation is right in the first place.14) Crush? Why should there be one? The point of having EP is to separate out Education from the main government, to achieve a form of administrative decentralization. It is meant to be totally different.
Don't need to ask PM. I'd tell you here, it won't work.
You see, for a first, it won't work in a Single party dominance political era. And unless PM kee-siao, how would he purposely let out 40% of the power to other party/parties?
You see, Pikamaster, say, if Mr Tharman claims that X policy in the education parliament is fixed. What will happen is, Mr Tharman, as a minister and MP cannot shy away from question from MPs in main parliament not can parliament bar MPs from asking him. If MPs, representing the people'd to ask in the Education parliament, why not just let Mr Tharman answer in the main parliament... I really don't see your point here.
Or you have something much different?
BTW, don't assume any parliament to exclude MPs, nor including too many of non-elected elements in. There's a simple reason behind.
Hey, see you around. -
As the world progresses to one that is highly competitive based on mass applications and innovations of new and existing knowledge, governments will find it increasingly difficult to absorb information and lead in macro- or micro- applications of knowledge.
The governments that believe to have all or most of the solutions will become ostriches burying heads in the sand refusing to see these changes.
Opening up governance to participative mass applications of knowledge including mundane knowledge is the new direction.
That is why major changes to education is now so important. But we can see that by the days this possibility of opening up in education is being closed up based on the need to produce more elites or regurgitations of past glories. Is that right?
Below is a quote from his announced package to overhaul UN Security Council, from UN Chief Mr. Kofi Annan:
"Specifically, I ask developing countries to improve their governments, uphold the rule of law, combat corruption and adopt an inclusive approach to development," Annan said.
PAST SUCCESS IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE. -
Elfred,
pre) next time, may i request you let me finish writing my post before you reply. Otherwise, you might not get the full pictue of what I am saying.
1) err... that's circular argument.
2) Who do you know are chemists-to-be? Yes, obviously, we need to know what is relevant to the chemists, and yes, the system will accomodate that. But what we also want is for everybody to have a common knowledge base as well, so that they can relate with people of all other cultures while immersed in their niche fields. The new system will give the chance for every profession to achieve top-standard education, in the form of a leveled modular system, something like in a computer game, although of course students are not going to be asked to play one massive computer game.
No, I'm not suggesting that everyone learn everything everything; I admit that si impossible. But at least the system should let everybody commonly keep abreast of latest developments in any field. And if you wish to argue about relevancy again, let us return to the example of our chemist-to-be. In a modern world such as this, our chemist will not just need to know pure chemistry. he would need to have at least a cursory understanding of engineering and biology, economics, IT and obviously mathematics. Why Engineering? Because modern-day chemistry uses machines and to understand how machines work, you need to know basic engineering. WHy biology? Chemicals have an impact on the environment. Why Economics? the chemist needs to make money, duh. Why IT? COmputer software, such as molecular-modelling software is becoming more and more frequent, and is essential in micro-study of chemistry. As for literature and history and geography, these are not essential for the field of chemistry by itself, but are essential in helping the chemist as a person to relate to other people in his social environment. Man is a social creature after all. So as you can see, all areas of knowledge are crucial to a person's development, whatever his/her profession might be.
3) errr... when you say "screaming with red-alert again", do you mean the situation that will exist if my system is implemented or my system is not implemented?
4) Nope, Britain is just as centralized as Singapore; its system is a 300 year-old system. Go read your British history again.
the point of this new system is to get people to be able to think out to teh largest box possible, and henceforth be able to make breakthroughs that will be beneficial for society and beneficial to the state economy.
5) no comment. (pls don't comment on this line; it's unnecessary.)
6) I say "experiment" it will never be implemented under the current establishment mindset, which seeks to defend the merits of an obviously more-failed-than-succeeded streamign system.
Anyway, before you make value judgements like that, consider too that your beloved party is similarly conducting several experiments now too in various areas, especially in the educaiton system.
Society cannot progress if we take a negative attitude toward experimentation.
7) To go back a decade is not enough. Ever since post-war, the education system has been commercial-centric. I belive if education had proceeded in a multifaceted path instead, we would have mroe creativity and a more liberal, progressive, though not immoral, society, and a government that is more ideologically tolerant, sicne of course our education system shaped our current leaders.
Anyway, what are you going to blame if you don't see that commercialism is what ruined education? Are you going to blame inept leadership in MOE? Students? Parents' unrealistic expectations? 'Cos all these were caused by the education system in the first place.
It is idealistic to say that education should be not about money at all, but it is still practical to say that education should not JUST be about money. I mean, that is still one of the slogans (mis)used by the MOE: holistic edcuation. Holistic education is not idealistic; it is practical. Make no mistake. haha. Well, good luck!
btw, which GRC are you working at?
9) I hope I'm different from him, and I hope Robert is too.
Well, I'm sure you can show me things about him even if he does not stand for election, can't you?
When I say lapses, I mean when you are very stubborn, and start resorting to personal attacks, though of course these are far from significant when compared with those from EC or OPINN007 or from CAROLINE or Cannon.
Answer the above question, and I'll give examples of when you lapse.
11) Well then, you didn't make it very clear then. But anyway, an Iranian Professor with quite an extensive set of credentials came to speak at my school today. I asked him whether the current global problems were caused more by the quality of the international systems or of the people managing them. His reply was an integrated one: The core of the global problems rests in lack of understanding between different groups of people, and these are reflected both in the existent international systems and the attitudes/quality of the people running and managing these institutions. Thus, none is more important than the other; both are merely different faces of the same box, if we are to use that analogy.
And that was precisely my argument from the start of this discussion.: Poor people can ruin good systems, but poor systems can ruin good people too. And thus, we must ensure that there are both good systems and good people.
That is the key reason why edcuational system msut be reformed. Because it is this that determines how good the people are, and having a bad system is results in producing a set of people who are inept at running the system, which creates a vicious cycle of prolonging or exacerbating the poor quality of the system. Thus, it is crucial that we must have a good sducation system, one which is truely multifaceted for all participants.
I hope you understand my position now.
Sorry for the earlier misunderstanding.
12) Well, if this is indeed copied-and-pasted (thus violating copyright), it is still useful, as this is other people's thoughts and research resutls.
13) Don't worry, I have been reading up, and ensuring that I have a correct foundation. I'm not just a bull in a china shop, I assure you.
14) see [pre)]. I haven't completed this point yet. Yes, I am proposing something totally different. And I know this will not work in a dominant-party system; why do you think that I spent most of our discussion arguing for a more democratic Singapore?
As I have told you, I am working (intellectually) on a new Constitution as well.
So I mean total revamping of the whole society from ground up, not just the education system alone.
Thx for your prompt reply, but pls don't be too prompt next time.
The pikamaster (who is staying in HC after all) -
Elfred,
????
pre) next time, may i request you let me finish writing my post before you reply. Otherwise, you might not get the full pictue of what I am saying.1) err... that's circular argument.
Is it? Have you ever consider whether it's more relevant of 'it's not unique to Singapore' or 'Singapore itself is unique'? I don't really see why it must be circular, though I understand what you mean.
2) Who do you know are chemists-to-be? Yes, obviously, we need to know what is relevant to the chemists, and yes, the system will accomodate that. But what we also want is for everybody to have a common knowledge base as well, so that they can relate with people of all other cultures while immersed in their niche fields. The new system will give the chance for every profession to achieve top-standard education, in the form of a leveled modular system, something like in a computer game, although of course students are not going to be asked to play one massive computer game.
That's the issue. Who? And obviously, I know you'd touch on the relevance trigger. Now the darken sentence yields why: How the hack is the relevance of common knowledge base? 50%? 99% or 0% or what, and is it possible to determine what you considered not common knowledge base is hence necessarily of no importance or relevance? Take note of your word 'niche' with regards to the discussion.
The rest of your quote hence rendered unimportant.No, I'm not suggesting that everyone learn everything everything; I admit that si impossible. But at least the system should let everybody commonly keep abreast of latest developments in any field. And if you wish to argue about relevancy again, let us return to the example of our chemist-to-be. In a modern world such as this, our chemist will not just need to know pure chemistry. he would need to have at least a cursory understanding of engineering and biology, economics, IT and obviously mathematics. Why Engineering? Because modern-day chemistry uses machines and to understand how machines work, you need to know basic engineering. WHy biology? Chemicals have an impact on the environment. Why Economics? the chemist needs to make money, duh. Why IT? COmputer software, such as molecular-modelling software is becoming more and more frequent, and is essential in micro-study of chemistry. As for literature and history and geography, these are not essential for the field of chemistry by itself, but are essential in helping the chemist as a person to relate to other people in his social environment. Man is a social creature after all. So as you can see, all areas of knowledge are crucial to a person's development, whatever his/her profession might be.
Hahaha... See? So now I ask you, do you mean that if you wanna be an IT professional, you should be wiser to take Chemistry route or some other Xsubject cum IT route? Apparently, if you take the IT route on pure basis, it's not gonna be enough accordingly to your arguement. But here rise one crucial question: (say) If Chemist itself is a necessarily professional field,and IT itself is also a professional (hence necessaily professional) field on its own, and it used to take (eg) 4 years to produce one basic chemist and 3 years to produce one basic IT specialist. How in the hack can I trust you to producea Chemist cum IT specialist in 4 years, plus putting literature, geography and so on in.
There's this game Might & Magic whereby one can be what expert fighter in training over a week or what... But in reality, this is not the case, Pikamaster.
Man is a social creature, but Man is also unique. That's why political thinkers probably have a headache talking to/socialising Einstein, who'd have a headache talking to/socialising business leaders in turn.3) errr... when you say "screaming with red-alert again", do you mean the situation that will exist if my system is implemented or my system is not implemented?
Pardon me, my young friend, you have not get the root of the issue yet. How could you have any system or solution with even barely understand the foundation issue in Singapore's context? Letting you to go ahead of your system is seemingly the only way to show yourself where you're heading into. The good thing is, however, that it won't mess much out of a mess anyway.
I did ask you, if we go back ten years where there is much lesser commercial interest or whatever than now, would we have produced something different? In fact, you are one of the products, Pikamaster. (this is not hostile gesture, just plainly bringing something across.)4) Nope, Britain is just as centralized as Singapore; its system is a 300 year-old system. Go read your British history again.
I suppose you should ask your teacher first.
the point of this new system is to get people to be able to think out to teh largest box possible, and henceforth be able to make breakthroughs that will be beneficial for society and beneficial to the state economy.5) no comment. (pls don't comment on this line; it's unnecessary.)
The party is but a party, Pikamaster. It's still who and who are doing what. Love it, it's still who and who and what deeds, love it not, it's still the same.
6) I say "experiment" it will never be implemented under the current establishment mindset, which seeks to defend the merits of an obviously more-failed-than-succeeded streamign system.
Anyway, before you make value judgements like that, consider too that your beloved party is similarly conducting several experiments now too in various areas, especially in the educaiton system.
But it's not rational to use the incumbent government's action to defend on my concern. My stance also comes from a concern citizen, which is why our discussion still flow. Party or no party, we are still a member of the public.Society cannot progress if we take a negative attitude toward experimentation.
Yes. But, and a big but, a society need not progress with any experiments; and a big and that experiment outcome has little regards to attitude of either direction. If you poke PM in the head with a chopstick, he'd probably die regardless what sort of attitude you got.
And Singapore is not a nation which can take anyohow experiments.
Besides, I doubt any would claim responsibility for thingys gone horrendously sour than many many many who'd claim even the slightest and shortest glimps of credits, all at the expense of the Singaporeans on streets. This is not very amusing to me... ...7) To go back a decade is not enough. Ever since post-war, the education system has been commercial-centric. I belive if education had proceeded in a multifaceted path instead, we would have mroe creativity and a more liberal, progressive, though not immoral, society, and a government that is more ideologically tolerant, sicne of course our education system shaped our current leaders.
Hohoho... Singapore was known as an entrepot trade centre not what study or education hub then. If so, whereby we are moving towards an education hub status, then the past must be less commercial in interest. See?
Ask you something important, do you think there is no need for pre-requisite before we even have a what more tolerant government towards what ideologies? Here lies between ideology and solid thinking.
True. In fact this system is the culprit that blow such problems in Singaporeans, cos it's directly hurting the one resource we got. And you are getting a 8 in it. Alright, kidding lah.
You see, where the magnitudes and similarities would end here, the system is still a system. And what'd a system produce? Systems lor... Online, outside, gosh... I have always (can say so) been talking to educated systems, graded in 1s or 8s, in As or Es... Must admit... quite tough life for me, expectedly.Anyway, what are you going to blame if you don't see that commercialism is what ruined education? Are you going to blame inept leadership in MOE? Students? Parents' unrealistic expectations? 'Cos all these were caused by the education system in the first place.
Honestly, I can't blame the old system for its credits till the mid 80s. But, to my horror, it goes on to produce and (allow, hence to) reinforce itself since. And not hard to expect, our edge gone horrendously since the late 90s, where in fact, commercial rubbish and trash events shoot and junks (and such events) got legitimate. with little or not resistance. When people ain't thinking, you can throw yourself to death and expect people expect you to condemn on your corpse.
In one way, you are right. But I rather see it as problem arising due to the fact that Singapore is damn young and small and real talents to handle events/decisions kinda lag in the push to mass produce paper-talents. Even in China, how many Confucius-s or Sun Tzu would exist among the billions of people in any point of time? Not to consider Singapore is only this small.
It's still the people, not the system. But it's not really wrong here for you to blame the system. After all, throughout history, systems are made to simplistically (or politically speaking: professionally designed) assign and function. And historically, people know system can't be trusted, especially in the long run, but yet systems always are allowed to rust and create (often self-stuckar) problems.
In a tight situation, it's gonna be something entangled with something else. So in this era, in such moments, we can only trust good people.It is idealistic to say that education should be not about money at all, but it is still practical to say that education should not JUST be about money. I mean, that is still one of the slogans (mis)used by the MOE: holistic edcuation. Holistic education is not idealistic; it is practical. Make no mistake.
Well... Your fees need fundings, the schools need funding, the teachers (at least most) can't even travel to the class without paying tribute to MOT, your materials needs monies, and your time is money. In this respect, we have clearly the cost and the ROI part, from holistic to your own self.
In assessing national issue, this is where a real political thinker differentiates himself/herself, there is always this thingy call consequences and this thingy call parameters. Education and Casino are both politcal issues, and the approach test and show what sort of politician one is. And you are covering outside the parameters already.
The fact is, I have to agree with you, it's not just money we want, but the fact is still, we need to be funded and to fund. And holistic what has nothing to do with the issue in concern cos a nation, and hence it's services to the people by the people, is still needing funding. There's nothing to balance here, actually. Though it's nothing big deal to use balance. The answer to Education is pretty straight forward and yet tedious, I must admit.
Well... haha. Well, good luck!
btw, which GRC are you working at?
Which do you think?9) I hope I'm different from him, and I hope Robert is too.
Well... Do you want me to confer you a leader? Hehehe...
Alright... you see, there are certain things that make you a leader, Pikamaster, and certain thingys that make you obviously a follower or what craps. Well, of course, I ain't claiming leaders are saints or what (as MM says) priests-kinda. Forget about what those leadership-camps taught you about what leadership is. Too be a political leader or/and a leader of the people, one of the basic quality is credibility. And credibility is not necessarily fulfilling everything under the sun you said, especially in politics. There are always times for you to say certain things that may not be true at all (eg) in order to motivate or rally.
It pretty simple to feel. I do not really know much about Robert except I am quite sure he isn't that sort who'd make a leader.
Just remember, a leader, basically, has the concerns of his followers and those he'd wanna lead on his mind. And a leader usually have and made real leaders. Which is why when a good leader comes, a number of good leaders tend to appear in the scene and situation prospers.Well, I'm sure you can show me things about him even if he does not stand for election, can't you?
Hahaha... Better let him go election first, then I'd point out to you.When I say lapses, I mean when you are very stubborn, and start resorting to personal attacks, though of course these are far from significant when compared with those from EC or OPINN007 or from CAROLINE or Cannon.
Hahahaha... Personal attacks? Maybe that's your view. But for me, if you point out immediately on where you thought I personal attack you, I'm sure it's more of false alarm or it have to be justified. My 'description', in such cases, don't just come from nothing.Answer the above question, and I'll give examples of when you lapse.
Well, feel free to.11) Well then, you didn't make it very clear then. But anyway, an Iranian Professor with quite an extensive set of credentials came to speak at my school today. I asked him whether the current global problems were caused more by the quality of the international systems or of the people managing them. His reply was an integrated one: The core of the global problems rests in lack of understanding between different groups of people, and these are reflected both in the existent international systems and the attitudes/quality of the people running and managing these institutions. Thus, none is more important than the other; both are merely different faces of the same box, if we are to use that analogy.
I don't think you thinking correct. Plainly: Necessarily Good people and necessarily Good systems seems utopian to me.
And that was precisely my argument from the start of this discussion.: Poor people can ruin good systems, but poor systems can ruin good people too. And thus, we must ensure that there are both good systems and good people.
Didn't you tell the Iranian professor that?
What the professor didn't tell you is that Iran has decades and centuries of exodus and mixing with other people as that those with much lesser time but more hamornious people in Singapore and USA and so on. Since 80s when there are telephones (a hot item way back to 1960~70s) and televisions, the world has at least, since the second world war, half a century in Iran and Iraq to understand.
The core issue that surrounds the world is still interests.
There may be hundreds of systems of governments, and hundreds and thousands of political participants, it all boils down to interests. And I am arguing with you for such case, that it'd have to be good people to take care/handle the (conflict of) interests to resolve global problems.That is the key reason why edcuational system msut be reformed. Because it is this that determines how good the people are, and having a bad system is results in producing a set of people who are inept at running the system, which creates a vicious cycle of prolonging or exacerbating the poor quality of the system. Thus, it is crucial that we must have a good sducation system, one which is truely multifaceted for all participants.
Well, quite true, but isn't it common sense.I hope you understand my position now.
It's a common position: to want a good Education for a good result.Sorry for the earlier misunderstanding.
Emm... If I say this, you're going say I hostile or personal...? From what I gather, you might need more effort to get a foundation... I seriously doubt you'd end up anyway useful accordingly...
12) Well, if this is indeed copied-and-pasted (thus violating copyright), it is still useful, as this is other people's thoughts and research resutls.
13) Don't worry, I have been reading up, and ensuring that I have a correct foundation. I'm not just a bull in a china shop, I assure you. Aiyah... no offence lah...! 14) see [pre)]. I haven't completed this point yet. Yes, I am proposing something totally different. And I know this will not work in a dominant-party system; why do you think that I spent most of our discussion arguing for a more democratic Singapore?
You are not arguing for a democratic Singapore but one Singapore that must die die have at least 50% sitting of non-incumbent, regardless of election outcome... which is more autocratic than democratic, see?As I have told you, I am working (intellectually) on a new Constitution as well.
I'd try to reply as soon as possible, especially if addressed to myself.
So I mean total revamping of the whole society from ground up, not just the education system alone.
Thx for your prompt reply, but pls don't be too prompt next time.
The pikamaster (who is staying in HC after all)
Hey, hope no offence... -
Elfred,
1) My point no. 14 was not complete yet.
2) Any claim of uniqueness, unless substantiated by circumstance or by reality of novelty, is mere propaganda. Singapore itself is not unique in many senses, whatever feature we wish to talk about. In press controls, it is not unique. In having a multiracial society it is not unique, and the list goes on. Even in impressive economic performance it is not unique. The only unique point is perhaps the long legth of dominance by a single party with supposed free and fair elections in place.
3) Like I have said, "everybody". The relevance of the Common Knowledge base is at least 95%, because the economy is after all, going to be a knowledge-based economy. But more than that, we require an educaiton system that will create the proper global citizen out of all people. And we need creativity in every field of work, even in farming. I already explained the relevance of teh various subjects to a person in my previous post.
There is still the existence of niches, because naturally people will want to focus in maximum detail on what they are good at. But the common knowledge base will at least keep them from becoming entrapped in an ivory tower. Like I explained later on in my pevious post (I think), there is a great deal of inter-relatedness in different fields. Because we are trying to train integrated thinkers, we need people who can synthesize information from as many other fields as possible and apply the new knowledge to their particular field if it can be applied, that is the plugin mentality, if you understand what I mean.
I expect you will probably say that most of the information is irrelevant, and I wouldn't argue on that point. But becasue any piece of information in any field could be important to the person's field or life in general, that person needs to at least have a cursory understanding of that field, and that is what the common knowledge base provide. Obviously, sieving skills will be taught too, but the emphasis will be actively sieving the information for oneself, and not acting from pre-sieved information.
4) Of course, if you want to be an IT professional, you should take a route with IT, but also with other stuff like physics or chemistry or biology or education or even law, although the other secondary "plugins" will be learnt at perhaps a lower level than IT.
3 years and 4 years are not absolutes. They are only absolutes under the current context. Under a new context, the time-periods will most likely differ. Anyway, by the time you a re talking about such prolonged courses, you are talking about Unviersity, which will not be covered in OEA, I have decided. Instead, Unviersities will follow independent systems. Creating new higher education institutions, I admit, are not within my current set of abilities. So I shall limit the discussion to education catering to students from 7-18 years of age.
I know about M&M, (i dislike it anyway). Hey, don't take things so literally ok? I was just using an analogy. Of course, education doesn't occur in a week. We are still talking about a 12-year long period anyway.
Using exceptions to justify your case is not valid. Einstein is an exception; In the norm, society influences man more than does he influence himself.
5) I would classify this as a lapse. You are talking down to me here.
I have said previously, ever since self-government in 1959, education has been dictated by the government's commercial interest. So your question is illogical and cannot hence be answered.
6) I've been reading up, and on British news as well. So I know my facts.
7) I don't wish to comment. (don't reply to this statement either; it's unnecessary) Every innovation is an experiment, whose results can only be seen many years later. This is the curse of all social sciences: There is no place in which a controlled experiment can be held, because of the moral issues concerning a person being used as a guinea pig, even for a clone. Every implementation of a new policy is henceforth a political experiment. Predictions can be made, but they always have a margin of error.
henceforth, To say that a society need not have experimentation to progress, is equivalent to saying society need not progress at all.
9) it's all relative. There is certainly more commercial interest now than before, but from the start, there was already a great deal of commercial interest. Your question would only be relevant if in the past there had been no commercial interest at all. Go on, think about it. Hint: Commercial interest is not necessarily related to the educational industry.
Anyway, I don't understand your last paragraph in this section, so please explain what you mean. Because to me it sounds like unqualified rhetoric. ANd please don't invite me again to YP.
10) A static system will rust over time and eventually fall out. But I'll be proposing is a dynamic system, which can reinvent itself to meet new situations. in fact, it will even allow for a replacement by any new law needed in the future. Ya, I suppose it will depend whether the people in it (which is going to be everybody) realize that change is needed. But at least an individual should, and the system will give way for one single individual to make a difference in teh entire system. That's the point of it all.
Because at the end of it all, whether you like it or not, you still need systems to be present, since there would be total anarchy without a system, and even the best people cannot run an improper system.
11) money = commercialisation
money != nominal funding.
wrong. Casino and Education are social issues as well. Consequences exist in concrete reality. Parameters are generated by the human mind, a result of our incipient flaw to judge others.
12) Hoping it was Marine Parade? How do you expect me to know?
13) No, not so far... yet. I have never really gone to MOE-sponsored leadership camps btw.
I prefer taking the transparency definition of credibility. What I hate most are illusions. I only admire national leaders, not politicians. In fact, one of my aims in the design of the new education system is to remove politics as much as possible, and that is partly through the definition of represetnatives as pure representatives without fast power. And since anybody is allowed to propose a law change, the positions are not really important anyway. I want true pure credibility, not merely show.
And I know what a leader needs, but anyway I'll take your advice.
14) What's the diff? he won't know anyway.
15) See paragraph (5).
16) see paragraph (15).
17) Well, you seem to be arguing for necesarily good people.
Yes, I know about the interest issues. but hey, that should be way removed from education and health.
1 You don't seem to have understood this, that's why I explained it.
19) Wrong issue. We are talking about the macro-view. The position I was referring to was the acknowledgement of teh necessity to have good people and good systems.
20) I asked you for advice before, and you haven't been very forthcoming. so...
21) Err... when did we return to talking about election systems. ANd anyway what you saying dun sync with what I was arguing on the need for a free press and else.
22) no, none, dun worry.
the (sincere) pikamaster -
...continuedOriginally posted by Elfred:Don't need to ask PM. I'd tell you here, it won't work.
You see, for a first, it won't work in a Single party dominance political era. And unless PM kee-siao, how would he purposely let out 40% of the power to other party/parties?
You see, Pikamaster, say, if Mr Tharman claims that X policy in the education parliament is fixed. What will happen is, Mr Tharman, as a minister and MP cannot shy away from question from MPs in main parliament not can parliament bar MPs from asking him. If MPs, representing the people'd to ask in the Education parliament, why not just let Mr Tharman answer in the main parliament... I really don't see your point here.
Or you have something much different?
BTW, don't assume any parliament to exclude MPs, nor including too many of non-elected elements in. There's a simple reason behind.
Hey, see you around.
14) Yes, i'm proposing something totally different. EP is meant to be totally detached from the rest of Parliament. The office of Education Minsiter will be a relic and be replaced by an indepedent Office of Educational Coordinator. Independent refers to independent from the government..
The representatives in EP will be elected student and teacher representatives. They will decide and pass all the laws regarding education and Student/Teacher discipline. They will also judge cases of misconduct in schools, fucntioning as juries in that cases.
CDIS will be represented as secretaries of Parliament, adn CDIS will implement all the syllabus decisions.
There will absolutely no MPs, because MPs are totally unnecessary... well, actually we already ahve "MPs" of a different kind.
This will be more representative as students will boviously know better what students need than any adult MP or minister. Logical, isn't it?
All representatives will be elected in btw by their respective peers and colleagues.
thanks.
The pikamaster -
Elfred,
Emm... Can you hence cite one other nation that's similar to Singapore in terms of size and development?
1) My point no. 14 was not complete yet.
2) Any claim of uniqueness, unless substantiated by circumstance or by reality of novelty, is mere propaganda. Singapore itself is not unique in many senses, whatever feature we wish to talk about. In press controls, it is not unique. In having a multiracial society it is not unique, and the list goes on. Even in impressive economic performance it is not unique. The only unique point is perhaps the long legth of dominance by a single party with supposed free and fair elections in place.3) Like I have said, "everybody". The relevance of the Common Knowledge base is at least 95%, because the economy is after all, going to be a knowledge-based economy. But more than that, we require an educaiton system that will create the proper global citizen out of all people. And we need creativity in every field of work, even in farming. I already explained the relevance of teh various subjects to a person in my previous post.
Yeh... I am asking you, what is this least 95%? Emm... pardon me, I don't see really where you have explained the relevance.There is still the existence of niches, because naturally people will want to focus in maximum detail on what they are good at. But the common knowledge base will at least keep them from becoming entrapped in an ivory tower. Like I explained later on in my pevious post (I think), there is a great deal of inter-relatedness in different fields. Because we are trying to train integrated thinkers, we need people who can synthesize information from as many other fields as possible and apply the new knowledge to their particular field if it can be applied, that is the plugin mentality, if you understand what I mean.
Hehehe... Of course the Niche. Now, as I have mentioned, including the Niche will make my questions more impossible to answer.
I think I understand what you mean. But do you realise Want is Want till you realise exactly about that Want.
Nope. Far from dissuading you, I suppose you should try get your thoughts on Education rolling, then perhaps you'd realise what I was trying to say in the first place.I expect you will probably say that most of the information is irrelevant, and I wouldn't argue on that point. But becasue any piece of information in any field could be important to the person's field or life in general, that person needs to at least have a cursory understanding of that field, and that is what the common knowledge base provide. Obviously, sieving skills will be taught too, but the emphasis will be actively sieving the information for oneself, and not acting from pre-sieved information.
What I wanna say is none of the info is relevant till the point you realise it is, see?
Won't you end up with certain subjects or skills, which after one professionally removed the what irrelevance, be irrelevant themselves...? In a big round, it's still knowledge (feeding) and knowledge (feeding). 4) Of course, if you want to be an IT professional, you should take a route with IT, but also with other stuff like physics or chemistry or biology or education or even law, although the other secondary "plugins" will be learnt at perhaps a lower level than IT.
Well, you can't limit that. Cos we can't just trial on someone's life and suddenly discover it'd lead to nowhere when engaging tertiary or some sorta ending phase...
3 years and 4 years are not absolutes. They are only absolutes under the current context. Under a new context, the time-periods will most likely differ. Anyway, by the time you a re talking about such prolonged courses, you are talking about Unviersity, which will not be covered in OEA, I have decided. Instead, Unviersities will follow independent systems. Creating new higher education institutions, I admit, are not within my current set of abilities. So I shall limit the discussion to education catering to students from 7-18 years of age.I know about M&M, (i dislike it anyway). Hey, don't take things so literally ok? I was just using an analogy. Of course, education doesn't occur in a week. We are still talking about a 12-year long period anyway.
No problem.Using exceptions to justify your case is not valid. Einstein is an exception; In the norm, society influences man more than does he influence himself.
Good you realise that. So how now?5) I would classify this as a lapse. You are talking down to me here.
????? Can't comprehend.I have said previously, ever since self-government in 1959, education has been dictated by the government's commercial interest. So your question is illogical and cannot hence be answered.
Emm... Do you agree that Singapore's main resource had been human resource?
If investing in human resource is not for commercial interest, what is logical to you? But so said, how can there be Elfreds and other Asians who are also more or less different? You see, Japan also educate its people for commercial interest, why are Japanese so much more creative and kinda thinking than Singaporeans (eg)?6) I've been reading up, and on British news as well. So I know my facts.
Then do you know how institutions are funded...?7) I don't wish to comment. (don't reply to this statement either; it's unnecessary)
That's another issue my dear Pikamaster. Every innovation is an experiment, whose results can only be seen many years later. This is the curse of all social sciences: There is no place in which a controlled experiment can be held, because of the moral issues concerning a person being used as a guinea pig, even for a clone. Every implementation of a new policy is henceforth a political experiment. Predictions can be made, but they always have a margin of error.
henceforth, To say that a society need not have experimentation to progress, is equivalent to saying society need not progress at all.
Now it doesn't really mean much to you, but if it were to let some Mr Chia-s to experiment (toy) with your savings, properties, girlfriend(s) and life... Perhaps you'd understand better.9) it's all relative. There is certainly more commercial interest now than before, but from the start, there was already a great deal of commercial interest. Your question would only be relevant if in the past there had been no commercial interest at all. Go on, think about it. Hint: Commercial interest is not necessarily related to the educational industry.
I understand what you mean. As you say, there is certain more commercial interest than before. I don't see how it's so hard to understand what I said...
Anyway, I don't understand your last paragraph in this section, so please explain what you mean. Because to me it sounds like unqualified rhetoric. ANd please don't invite me again to YP.
Feel free to repeat that para.10) A static system will rust over time and eventually fall out. But I'll be proposing is a dynamic system, which can reinvent itself to meet new situations. in fact, it will even allow for a replacement by any new law needed in the future. Ya, I suppose it will depend whether the people in it (which is going to be everybody) realize that change is needed. But at least an individual should, and the system will give way for one single individual to make a difference in teh entire system. That's the point of it all.
Will be open for your proposal then.
Because at the end of it all, whether you like it or not, you still need systems to be present, since there would be total anarchy without a system, and even the best people cannot run an improper system.11) money = commercialisation
Hahaha... It's a good yield of your thinking pattern.
money != nominal funding.
wrong. Casino and Education are social issues as well. Consequences exist in concrete reality. Parameters are generated by the human mind, a result of our incipient flaw to judge others.12) Hoping it was Marine Parade? How do you expect me to know?
Then better don't know. Know too much may not be the best thingy in the world. Hehehe... When you need to know, you'd know.13) No, not so far... yet.
Well... I can only give you an example: When a leader motivates someone, he expects to motivate everyone, everyone expects themselves to be motivated, but most won't be actually motivated, but... I have never really gone to MOE-sponsored leadership camps btw.
I prefer taking the transparency definition of credibility. What I hate most are illusions. I only admire national leaders, not politicians. In fact, one of my aims in the design of the new education system is to remove politics as much as possible, and that is partly through the definition of represetnatives as pure representatives without fast power. And since anybody is allowed to propose a law change, the positions are not really important anyway. I want true pure credibility, not merely show.
Removing politics will render the politicians jobless, my dear boy.And I know what a leader needs, but anyway I'll take your advice.
What would you leader needs to be? Can can that sort of leader be expected to garner my (sincere) support? Just curious.14) What's the diff? he won't know anyway.
Sorry. What diff? What who? What know?15) See paragraph (5).
????????
16) see paragraph (15).17) Well, you seem to be arguing for necesarily good people.
Necessarily good people... I only hope I can surround myself with a good team of such people, then that's big show.Yes, I know about the interest issues. but hey, that should be way removed from education and health.
It's for your Iranian professor. But interest is a big concern in Health plus Education issue as well, don't you realise it? 1
???????????? Mind explain. You don't seem to have understood this, that's why I explained it.19) Wrong issue. We are talking about the macro-view. The position I was referring to was the acknowledgement of teh necessity to have good people and good systems.
Macro-view? To me, there's only the choice view or the not-so-choice view. I only trust good people, not good systems. So hopefully no repeated questioning me on this.20) I asked you for advice before, and you haven't been very forthcoming. so...
You want a foundation...? Frankly speaking, I don't suppose you can find good thinkers to lead you, given your age, double the toughness. But as long as you remain talk-able, will post sincerely enough. Though... don't expect super-duper free stuff from me.21) Err... when did we return to talking about election systems. ANd anyway what you saying dun sync with what I was arguing on the need for a free press and else.
Better re-read my post.22) no, none, dun worry.
Good night.
the (sincere) pikamaster -
...continued
It can't... for one, all three Ministers and Permanent secretary are MPs; then the ministry would need to go after Ministry of finance for $$$; and of course, the underlying party is the incumbent, and there are structures in the party itself...
14) Yes, i'm proposing something totally different. EP is meant to be totally detached from the rest of Parliament. The office of Education Minsiter will be a relic and be replaced by an indepedent Office of Educational Coordinator. Independent refers to independent from the government..The representatives in EP will be elected student and teacher representatives. They will decide and pass all the laws regarding education and Student/Teacher discipline. They will also judge cases of misconduct in schools, fucntioning as juries in that cases.
Sorry, dear. I don't think you understand how important is ministry of education in political term...
CDIS will be represented as secretaries of Parliament, adn CDIS will implement all the syllabus decisions.
There will absolutely no MPs, because MPs are totally unnecessary... well, actually we already ahve "MPs" of a different kind.
Yeah... But NCMP or NMPs don't (ain't meant to) hold direct powers... including this.This will be more representative as students will boviously know better what students need than any adult MP or minister. Logical, isn't it?
I doubt the logic applies in this era... It's anti-relevance in the first place...
All representatives will be elected in btw by their respective peers and colleagues.
thanks.
The pikamaster
I'm just been very frank here, Pikamaster. -
Elfred,
I agree that Singapore itself is unique' - so unqiue that its high-profile leaders and talents all fizzled out helplessly throughout the last two prolonged recessions blaming all the problems on structural unemployments and world economic downturns.
Well sooner or later the worse world economy ought to turn around some days. What is unique is that as soon as it does, Singapore's leaders would be doubly quick in claiming victory of past policies without being too concerned with past problems.
Here is a list of past problems uniquely Singapore too since you keep singling out uniqueness factor to the disregard of alternatives of success.
(1) A Tax-and-recover system of governance
(2) Double charge citizens on acquired lands paid for under taxations
(3) Triple Charge on vehicle (Excise, COE and ERP)
(4) Promising a Swiss standard of living that never was.
(5) GRC to encumber free electoral process and changing electoral boundaries
(6) Growth triangle that doesn't grow
(7) Investing of taxpayers' funds in foreign investments to create employments for foreigners without vital accountable disclosures.
( Self-recommendation and self-voting of minsters' pay increases
(9) Mixing up election speeches with civil defamation.
(10) Head-on Competing for business pies against citizens
(11) Tripartised unionism that demand workers' sacrifices to no end.
(12) Corporatisation of essential services to save government costs
(13) Paing World's Highest ministers with hardly any accountable processes.
(14) Inviting debates on major issue but taking of votes in parliament
(15) Educational policy aims at producing graded scholars for political control.
(16) Collapses and accidents without public accountability
(17) Showing of accolades of anything foreigners to no end.
(1 High costs of living affecting business vibrancy and 90% of the people.
(19) Upgrading flats for those who voted for the party in power.
(20) Allowing street rally to foreigners while threatening to jail locals for doing same.
In addition, there is a particular uniqueness in producing cademic and general graduates without relevance to future emconomy - probably for political control purpose.
Over-emphasis in meritocracy has resulted in general neglect in broad-based practical education to nurture future entrepreneurs to create employments.
Yes it may be more difficult to create a ommon knowledge base to make education more flexible to meet future demands in the job markets. But what is so difficult to set direction for practically broadly based education.
Even if it is a difficult move, at least take a look around. Be open minded. You will see many past office workers and middle managers who are trained in general busines administrators or even accountants or lawyers may be fast getting outdated. Many existing awyers are becoming redundant. Nearly all cases of disputes are being referred for settlements. New factories do not need so many generalists as engineers or technologists who are widely trained.
What Singapore of the future needs in large numbers are entrepreneurs of all kinds especially in technological areas. Why? The future businesses are more technological, resource-based, advanced and diversified in regard to engineering and application.
Is clinging on to the past merticracy like a political philosophy any good? What are badly needed are entrepreneurs of the technological and engineering fields. Do we still need so many general professions or academics? If they are why are so many general and academic graduates unemployed, under-employed or taking a long time to seek employment? Is this fact not enough to tell the educationists that producing more academics is a major mistake in education?
Is these past courses called top-standard education?
Whether 50%? 99% or 0% of the existing courses should be taught in common engineering or technological bases may be a difficult question. At least, do not politicise meitocracy and be practical. Set a certain new direction in education and do not become the ostriches of the future, buried in sand and too myopic to see other realities.
Teaching at universities is generally ten years behind actual progress in each field. Application should therefore be the gist of education and not knowledge for knowledge sake. Past success is no guarantee for future performance.
May be the current education establishments or practitioners are too complacent or too afraid to offend their political masters well-known to emphasise their pet view about meritocracy.
Is allowing wide-ranging subjects and interests to be taught in schools anti-meritocracy? Is not broad-based education even more meritocratic? Is that not being more relevant to their cultivating entrepreneurship that counts for their future survival.
Right now education is largely grade or image-driven. The name is good when somebody is produced as a scholars. It is too political too and too narrow. Graduates of the future should tell the difference that they are highly effective in use and employment of technology to renew Singapore political and economic survival. What is wrong with such a broad-based vision?
A good broad-based education should consist of basic engineering management and laws etc with a balance of 50% to be kept flexible to meet market demand. Advanced countries do offer good experiences in broad-bsed education. They are nurturing Entrepreneurs through schools and universities preparing students to stay relevant and alert to what is happening in the market places. Practitioners should come in to offer practical knowledge applications in all areas to prepare students to excel in future business set-ups and starts-up and knowledge applications.
Broad-based education can nurture creativity and a more liberal, analytical thinking in the students as pointed out in another perspective by Pikamaster.
While it is well and good to produce scholars and academics, over-commercialism will ruin education. I agree with Pikamaster too on this observation. Obviously the current meritocracy is too steeped in political control.
Meritocracy of the old emphasising on grades alone is too narrow. In the 80s. it was good to use it as a general slogan to rally the masses to make them supportive of governmet.
Today, with fast accelerating technologies, newer talents of the practical kinds in all fields are badly needed to make the whole economy competitive and vibrant.
If Singapore is going to stay competitive as it was in the 1970s, then talents must be wider in meaning as well as practicality. It certainly should not be limited to grades or paper-talents based on certain subjects.
Especially true in the case of Singapore because it is too small a country to compete on excellence.
Do not hedge the issue or deny problems with the past meritocracy or education policy. It has served well up to a point but after that it has lost out to others.
In a tight situation, we cannot keep believing in general academics but more diversified and adaptable technological education that will prepare students to become technopreneurs of the future. Such technopreneurs then will be the good people you have mentioned.
In the new world, leaders are still important. More likely applications of technologlies will take centre-stage with new leaders not of the same kinds who only talks about ideas and concepts. New leaders should be people who are keenly aware of all nuances of harnessing new ideas and new technologies but sadly only a few of such leaders are being produced in our education system.
MM Lee was a great leaders of ideas and persuasions up to a point. Beyond a certain points, implementation breaks down.
That was the point requiring greater leadership - implementation. Implementation depends greatly on coordination and knowledge application by all. This is not happening very well in areas of entrepreneurship and innovations.
It is too that credibility is an important ingredient but not the only ingredient.
The 20 unsolved problems as posted is one measure of credibility. Because of lack of implementation ability there is a gap in credibility. -
Elfred,
1) What size are you referring to? Population or physical?
For population: Finalnd and New Zealand and Denmark, which are actually better off in development than Singapore.
For physical: none (measuring development as GDP)
2) An exact answer is not possible, since the 95% would differ between different people. In fact, even the actual percentage is dubious; but i guarantee you it is large.
Look again at my post, but anyway I shall repeat:-
History and Geography and Literature: Appreciate other people's customs and culture. When working overseas, very useful.
Music and the arts: same as history and geography.
Languages (English, Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, Hindi, French, German, Japanese etc.): learn how to communicate with overseas colleagues.
Economics: how to survive in a money-centric world.
Mathematics: aids in other subjects.
The Sciences: how to live your daily life properly:-
biology -> proper way to take care of your body
physics -> understanding different forms of movement, so that you do not drive too fast on a rainy day, or heat things for too long, and know where and how to install household appliances etc.
chemistry -> biohazards, flammable stuff ....etc. all forms of home safety.
profession-wise, it really depends on the profession; i gave you the example of the chemist, didn't I?
3) Your key statement is rather vague, but I shall try and understand it the best that I can. I assume you are talking about the problem of unlimited wants. Well, everybody will end up prioritising wants sometime or other, so that should not really be a problem. The point of the system will be to expose students to the large variety of areas so that they can better make an informed choice of what niche to go to.
What the system aims to avoid is the case of an exclusive niche, whereby the student only knows information from his/her own specialist field, and henceforth, during working-life, fails to see impact of a decision s/he makes on another area.
In fact, it is common knowledge that many universities now offer combined degrees and minor degrees. This is to ensure multi-disciplianary training for students, essentially what my new system aims to do. So, in a way, the new system is simply synchronizing the universities with the rest of the system.
The difference is that the new system's multidisciplinary feature will be extended to everybody, not just those with the supposed "ability", as in a meritocratic system such as currently exists here.
I expect the key question would be: can the people cope? Because of the tiered-modular system for extension modules, i.e. as in M&M, that will effectively weed out those who cannot cope, as they will probably not want to proceed with something that is too hard to handle, and thus as we go progressively up the hierarchy of levels, less and less people will end up in those levels, and finally the highest levels will be your so-called professional levels at University, and only those with extreme fanatic passion, or who are extremely able (considering the existence of utilitarians in our society), will pursue these level 13 and above modules. teh benefit though, will be that at least the student would ahve covered the lower levels in this area, so s/he is not very far behind in the basic knowledge; technical knowledge though, he wouldn't know. But at least, when time requires, and believe me it will, this person at least has enough basic knowledge to query an expert and will not be exactly left in the dark, or be misled by experts' lies, eg. like in MOE's case recently. More importantly, a top-down approach from "expert" to "lay(wo)man" will no longer be required, as active engagement is possible, albeit on a limited scale.
So I don't actually see what problem the niche poses. Could you enlighten me?
4) Well, one of the core aspects of the syllabus will be to teach people how to think, so your question is irrelevant.
And as I have proved to you, every area of knowledge is relevant to a person's life.
5) ok, I get your point.
Actually, I was beginning to refer to the administrative structure. Our entire discussion so far has been focused exclusively on the syllabus, but that is but one part of the entire system, albeit a significant one. The new system will also involve new adminsitrative structures such as the Wages Council and the EP (to which the age restriction of 18 yrs applies).
Actually, I believe that this new system for pri. and sec. schools can still meld quite well with the exsiting tertiary institutions.
6) kk.
7) Don't get you here... treating me as an inferior person to you. we are supposed to be having this discussion as equals.
9) yes, I agree. But I don't like the fact that humans are classified only as "resources", and that the sentient aspect is casually disregarded. In fact, much of the courage of the Ruling Party in its decisive policy making has come from treating humans as mere economic units, and that I strongly oppose.
Ya, see how much the reality differs from the official rhetoric of "promoting diversity"?
10) In Summary:
public schools - by Whitehall
Grammar Schools and Unviersities - by themselves and their students.
But let's stop talking about England, ok?
That's what I don't understand about the "unique SIngapore" argument. The users of it often unknowingly contradict themselves when they justify policies by comparing SIngapore to other favourable countries. If Singapore is like those countries eg. England, how can we call it unique?
11) I'm not suggesting toying with anybody... hey, this is a minor personal attack, not jsut against me, but against Mr [Steve} Chia too.
12) sure:-
You see, where the magnitudes and similarities would end here, the system is still a system. Laughing And what'd a system produce? Systems lor... Online, outside, gosh... I have always (can say so) been talking to educated systems, graded in 1s or 8s, in As or Es... Must admit... quite tough life for me, expectedly.
and
Ask you something important, do you think there is no need for pre-requisite before we even have a what more tolerant government towards what ideologies? Here lies between ideology and solid thinking.
13) good to see you are keeping an open mind.
14) thanks.
15) nvm.
16) I really don't know waht to say.
17) Hint: Look through all of Robert's previous posts in this thread, and remove all the economci complaints.
Hint: definitely that kind of leader will garner support from everyone; that's been proved time and time again. There's after all only one thing better than an image: the real thing.
1 "who" refers to Robert, but let's stop talking about him anyway.
19) nvm.
20) no comment.
21) It is a big concern, but should not be the only concern.
22) Your turn to give me the context of the statement.
23) point noted. I was merely telling you my personal view.
24) *sigh*
25) Give me some clue, perhaps?
26) nite to you too. (hey, don't bother replying to thanks and greetings, ok?:evil
the pikamaster -
Elfred,
1) Not really much of a problem. Can have a budget session for EP, where all the various ministers are invited.
Or of course, we can have just financial matters being presented by the Coordinator in main Parliament, having him debate in Parliament over the funds required for education.
EP will function within those financial limits.
As for the issue of the incumbent, I have already acknowledged that while it is around, my new system can never be implemented becasue of its intertia.
For any future discussion thus, may we remove the incumbent from the equation?
Anyway, the OEA does not come alone. It comes as a plugin to a new Constitution, which contains a rather different political structure than the current one. For example, a tricameral legislative, consisting of the House of Miscellaneous, the House of Industry and the House of Education. The House of Education will house EP, the House of Industry will be the version of EP for SEF and NTUC (newly-independent), with some tweaks to account for the dichotomy between workers and employers, even SME employers. The House of the Miscellaneous will consist of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Communication and Commnity Development, The Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Health (regrettably) and the Ministry of the Miscelleaneous and obviously the other MPs. The last will handle events that suddenly pop out of nowhere, like SARS or the Asian Economic Crisis, and other thematic issues, such as developing sports in Singapore. For the former, it will coordinate the other ministries in what needs to be done i.e issue directives. Each House will have its own elections, and will be kept separate from each other, unless expressly necessary to provide intervention.
2) On the contrary. My purpose in doing this is precisely to downgrade the political importance of education. Education, in my opinion, should not be based on government propaganda, like our current SS textbooks, but on objective dissemination of knowledge. Education should be severed completely from the political interests of any party, as only the students' interests and that of the teachers, which interact with the students and provide the medium through which knowledge is thought, should be paramount in any education system.
3) As far as I see it, it is common sense: who knows what the root requires better than the root itself? So I shall have to politely request that you qualify your "anti-relevance" claim. Sorry.
the (partially confused) pikamaster -
So because of democracy can be interpreted differently at working levels such as manner of voting, there exists great possibilities of abuse in interpretations and administration.Originally posted by crazy monkey:Voting systems are methods (algorithms) for groups of people to select one or more options from many, taking into account the individual preferences of the group members. Voting is often seen as the defining feature of democracy, and is best known for its use in elections — but it can also be used to award prizes, to select between different plans of action, or as a means for computer programs to evaluate which solution is best for a complex problem.
A key property of voting systems is that, because they are algorithms, they must be formally defined. Consensus, for example, which is sometimes put forward as a voting system, is more properly a broad way of working with others, analogous to democracy or anarchy (See consensus decision making for disciplined consensus methods and how they relate to voting).
To evolve our own democracy, this fact should be well recognized.
To avoid abuse, democratic frameworks in respect of the main ingredients of democracy, e.g. one man one vote, non-amendment of freedoms of speech or electoral boundaries or voting of individuals as primary methodology of choosing representatives, should be clearly defined in the basic constitutions to avoid gerrymandeering such as GRC, increased election deposits, redrawings of electoral boundaries and controls of speeches or free press.
When such essential or main ingredients are taken care of, there will be rule of law and accountable and workable processes respected by all citizens and all races to assure all of continuing progress. -
Robert,Originally posted by robertteh:So because of democracy can be interpreted differently at working levels such as manner of voting, there exists great possibilities of abuse in interpretations and administration.
To evolve our own democracy, this fact should be well recognized.
To avoid abuse, democratic frameworks in respect of the main ingredients of democracy, e.g. one man one vote, non-amendment of freedoms of speech or electoral boundaries or voting of individuals as primary methodology of choosing representatives, should be clearly defined in the basic constitutions to avoid gerrymandeering such as GRC, increased election deposits, redrawings of electoral boundaries and controls of speeches or free press.
When such essential or main ingredients are taken care of, there will be rule of law and accountable and workable processes respected by all citizens and all races to assure all of continuing progress.
actually on second thought, theoretically, one man unlimited votes is not illogical if you limit him to just one candidate per vote.
the pikamaster -
Originally posted by pikamaster:Robert,
actually on second thought, theoretically, one man unlimited votes is not illogical if you limit him to just one candidate per vote.
the pikamaster
If one man can cast two votes on the basis of his being more senior in age, greater commitments or wisdom whereas another being younger in age can only have one vote as proposed by MM Lee some years ago, it is not equitable. This proposal seems to be another attempt in gerrymandeering the election system to perpetuate one-party rule.Originally posted by pikamaster:Robert,
actually on second thought, theoretically, one man unlimited votes is not illogical if you limit him to just one candidate per vote.
the pikamaster
A system where one casts multiple votes e.g. for purpose of indicating preferences,for different candidates may be possible and equitable as long as others are similarly entitled to exercise multiple votes likewise.
Proportional representation will be more fairly representative of electoral wishes and alternative views in a democracy even though it may result in more distributed representation or less chances of one party winning majority to form a strong government.
However proportional representation's problems are not as great as those created by first-past-the-post voting system as it will not lead to one party totally dominating the election resulting in lop-sided representation and finally arrogance or autocracy. -
as a compromise, first-two-past-the post might be the best. No one dominant party, and there is still a check present.Originally posted by robertteh:If one man can cast two votes on the basis of his being more senior in age, greater commitments or wisdom whereas another being younger in age can only have one vote as proposed by MM Lee some years ago, it is not equitable. This proposal seems to be another attempt in gerrymandeering the election system to perpetuate one-party rule.
A system where one casts multiple votes e.g. for purpose of indicating preferences,for different candidates may be possible and equitable as long as others are similarly entitled to exercise multiple votes likewise.
Proportional representation will be more fairly representative of electoral wishes and alternative views in a democracy even though it may result in more distributed representation or less chances of one party winning majority to form a strong government.
However proportional representation's problems are not as great as those created by first-past-the-post voting system as it will not lead to one party totally dominating the election resulting in lop-sided representation and finally arrogance or autocracy. -
Originally posted by pikamaster:as a compromise, first-two-past-the post might be the best. No one dominant party, and there is still a check present.
First-two-past-the-post is better than first-past-the-post. This will encourage more people to come forward to stand for election. The two votes essentially will result in a strong party being returned to govern with some other voted in to serve as a check.Originally posted by pikamaster:as a compromise, first-two-past-the post might be the best. No one dominant party, and there is still a check present.
It will be a win-win voting system where the dominant party will be returned without freak elections due to fear of oppositions not being able to get in under due to one-party domination. Secondly minor parties stand a better chance to get some candidates in to serve the purpose of check without all the elaborative and pretentious nominated or non-constituent MPs. -
Elfred,
Isn't it obviously unique.
1) What size are you referring to? Population or physical?
For population: Finalnd and New Zealand and Denmark, which are actually better off in development than Singapore.
For physical: none (measuring development as GDP)2) An exact answer is not possible, since the 95% would differ between different people. In fact, even the actual percentage is dubious; but i guarantee you it is large.
That's why I wish you all the best, cos if you never do, how to know what I am talking about? I kinda aware your lack in the fundamental understanding in this issue. Well... ... It's for you to see fit, Pikamaster.
Look again at my post, but anyway I shall repeat:-
History and Geography and Literature: Appreciate other people's customs and culture. When working overseas, very useful.
Music and the arts: same as history and geography.
Languages (English, Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, Hindi, French, German, Japanese etc.): learn how to communicate with overseas colleagues.
Economics: how to survive in a money-centric world.
Mathematics: aids in other subjects.
The Sciences: how to live your daily life properly:-
biology -> proper way to take care of your body
physics -> understanding different forms of movement, so that you do not drive too fast on a rainy day, or heat things for too long, and know where and how to install household appliances etc.
chemistry -> biohazards, flammable stuff ....etc. all forms of home safety.
profession-wise, it really depends on the profession; i gave you the example of the chemist, didn't I?3) Your key statement is rather vague, but I shall try and understand it the best that I can. I assume you are talking about the problem of unlimited wants. Well, everybody will end up prioritising wants sometime or other, so that should not really be a problem. The point of the system will be to expose students to the large variety of areas so that they can better make an informed choice of what niche to go to.
Not really vague... though, that's the way it has to be.
Nope. Wants may be unlimited, but if you think, you'd realise that some wants are definite and some ain't. What I hope is for you to think accordingly to this line, concentrate on the wants that is necessary, and stop straying off. Unlike personal issues, national policies mostly got only one shot.What the system aims to avoid is the case of an exclusive niche, whereby the student only knows information from his/her own specialist field, and henceforth, during working-life, fails to see impact of a decision s/he makes on another area.
I think you order is upside-down. It's not exclusive niche that niche is exclusive... niche itself is exclusive, and somehow, when you talk about education in Singapore, we can't assume industries share across the board, cos the next coy is gonna wanna craft some niche which means big monies and large pay. Even thinkers are themselves niche.
Even Pepsi and Coka have niche...In fact, it is common knowledge that many universities now offer combined degrees and minor degrees. This is to ensure multi-disciplianary training for students, essentially what my new system aims to do. So, in a way, the new system is simply synchronizing the universities with the rest of the system.
In order to realise come out with certain improved systems (if that must be so), being too focused on systems have kinda derailed you. And I frankly tell you, I know that, and guarantee a backlash from the public if you were the Education minister for that matter.
You see... forget it.The difference is that the new system's multidisciplinary feature will be extended to everybody, not just those with the supposed "ability", as in a meritocratic system such as currently exists here.
Nope, Pikamaster, the key question is what about the rest? You are making Education yet still another one-sided game where results guarantee nothing absolute.
I expect the key question would be: can the people cope? Because of the tiered-modular system for extension modules, i.e. as in M&M, that will effectively weed out those who cannot cope, as they will probably not want to proceed with something that is too hard to handle, and thus as we go progressively up the hierarchy of levels, less and less people will end up in those levels, and finally the highest levels will be your so-called professional levels at University, and only those with extreme fanatic passion, or who are extremely able (considering the existence of utilitarians in our society), will pursue these level 13 and above modules. teh benefit though, will be that at least the student would ahve covered the lower levels in this area, so s/he is not very far behind in the basic knowledge; technical knowledge though, he wouldn't know. But at least, when time requires, and believe me it will, this person at least has enough basic knowledge to query an expert and will not be exactly left in the dark, or be misled by experts' lies, eg. like in MOE's case recently. More importantly, a top-down approach from "expert" to "lay(wo)man" will no longer be required, as active engagement is possible, albeit on a limited scale.
There will be moderations, or averagings, and winners and losers will still be produced, somehow... to cope. See?So I don't actually see what problem the niche poses. Could you enlighten me?
Since you ask. The problem is (eg) when you yourself spent an entire life doing a chemisty doctorate, ended up that niche is outdated (eg), what'd you be? When there is no niche, people will try to creat one, but when you have niche, people will try to erase that niche and create another...
That's not Education; at least, nothing much'd change. You are still swimming round and round in the pool, stuckar. See?4) Well, one of the core aspects of the syllabus will be to teach people how to think, so your question is irrelevant.
Hahahahaha... I doubt so, dear Pikamaster.And as I have proved to you, every area of knowledge is relevant to a person's life.
Actually, for the matter, you have proven nothing, dear friend. Or your proof has little relevance in the manner of improvement. One of the reasons is (eg) because what you mentioned is actually not unknown for centuries. It's as if I'd prove to you that to make that good dish you'd need tomato and carrot. See?5) ok, I get your point.
Hope so.Actually, I was beginning to refer to the administrative structure. Our entire discussion so far has been focused exclusively on the syllabus, but that is but one part of the entire system, albeit a significant one. The new system will also involve new adminsitrative structures such as the Wages Council and the EP (to which the age restriction of 18 yrs applies).
Well... ... ...
Actually, I believe that this new system for pri. and sec. schools can still meld quite well with the exsiting tertiary institutions.6) kk.
Hehehehe...7) Don't get you here...
Very simple. If it doesn't hit you, it's very hard for you to understand certain things.
Don't mistaken me post. I protest hor... Hehehe... treating me as an inferior person to you. we are supposed to be having this discussion as equals.
No need to be over sensitive.9) yes, I agree. But I don't like the fact that humans are classified only as "resources", and that the sentient aspect is casually disregarded. In fact, much of the courage of the Ruling Party in its decisive policy making has come from treating humans as mere economic units, and that I strongly oppose.
Bo-bian. Like it or not, talents are scarce resources for every sector. And talents who'd contribute is even more scarce. Only that Singapore, where we don't have much significant natural resources, it stands out better.
There's a difference between a snob and a leader. But human resources in proper hands, as with other resources, makes a differences. So let's not jump to conclusion that it's wrong to bring in the concept of economic units, in your sense.
BTW, I object the choice of word 'courage' used.Ya, see how much the reality differs from the official rhetoric of "promoting diversity"?
You see... it's already unique in the way Singaporean don't think, generally.
10) In Summary:
public schools - by Whitehall
Grammar Schools and Unviersities - by themselves and their students.
But let's stop talking about England, ok?
That's what I don't understand about the "unique SIngapore" argument. The users of it often unknowingly contradict themselves when they justify policies by comparing SIngapore to other favourable countries. If Singapore is like those countries eg. England, how can we call it unique?
Using yourself as eg. How can you have score so well in the system and can't understand basic things about uniqueness? To me, that's outright unique. No offence, Pikamaster. But I have to be truthful here.11) I'm not suggesting toying with anybody... hey, this is a minor personal attack, not jsut against me, but against Mr [Steve} Chia too.
Can't comprehend.12) sure:-
???????????????????
You see, where the magnitudes and similarities would end here, the system is still a system. Laughing And what'd a system produce? Systems lor... Online, outside, gosh... I have always (can say so) been talking to educated systems, graded in 1s or 8s, in As or Es... Must admit... quite tough life for me, expectedly.
and
Ask you something important, do you think there is no need for pre-requisite before we even have a what more tolerant government towards what ideologies? Here lies between ideology and solid thinking.13) good to see you are keeping an open mind.
Now... many many many people have been praying to images... Jesus, the real thingy, has been... well, you know. No religious insults here, it's a open story.
14) thanks.
15) nvm.
16) I really don't know waht to say.
17) Hint: Look through all of Robert's previous posts in this thread, and remove all the economci complaints.
Hint: definitely that kind of leader will garner support from everyone; that's been proved time and time again. There's after all only one thing better than an image: the real thing.
So, what sort of leader is leader to you?1
Checking back... can't comprehend... What context of what statement? "who" refers to Robert, but let's stop talking about him anyway.
19) nvm.
20) no comment.
21) It is a big concern, but should not be the only concern.
22) Your turn to give me the context of the statement.23) point noted. I was merely telling you my personal view.
24) *sigh*
25) Give me some clue, perhaps? : Such as?26) nite to you too. (hey, don't bother replying to thanks and greetings, ok?:evil
??? You too.
the pikamaster -
Elfred,
Hahaha... And why not the PM has a PM parliament too? Where all the MPs are invited... I hope you ain't missing the point...
1) Not really much of a problem. Can have a budget session for EP, where all the various ministers are invited.Or of course, we can have just financial matters being presented by the Coordinator in main Parliament, having him debate in Parliament over the funds required for education.
Aiyah... You don't understand politics and governance...
EP will function within those financial limits.
As for the issue of the incumbent, I have already acknowledged that while it is around, my new system can never be implemented becasue of its intertia. take a bet, want or not? Even if opposition comes to power, it'd still end up pretty pointless.For any future discussion thus, may we remove the incumbent from the equation?
If you may assume a government-less (aka unrealistic) era, of course. But that'd be meaningless discussion... as if discussing how Alice can travel back to the past in Wonderland. Expect not so serious reply from me, if so.Anyway, the OEA does not come alone. It comes as a plugin to a new Constitution, which contains a rather different political structure than the current one. For example, a tricameral legislative, consisting of the House of Miscellaneous, the House of Industry and the House of Education. The House of Education will house EP, the House of Industry will be the version of EP for SEF and NTUC (newly-independent), with some tweaks to account for the dichotomy between workers and employers, even SME employers. The House of the Miscellaneous will consist of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Communication and Commnity Development, The Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Health (regrettably) and the Ministry of the Miscelleaneous and obviously the other MPs. The last will handle events that suddenly pop out of nowhere, like SARS or the Asian Economic Crisis, and other thematic issues, such as developing sports in Singapore. For the former, it will coordinate the other ministries in what needs to be done i.e issue directives. Each House will have its own elections-(1), and will be kept separate from each other, unless expressly necessary to provide intervention-(2).
(1) It's possible. Though not likely. Unless the eras of the Neutrals comes about.
(2) You're killing efficiency and effectiveness. I quote you one law: The people will not be taxed for another 200 years, provided expressly necessarily so. And every year, we'd still have tax issues...
Singapore is too small to have Tricameral legislation. The critical point is, our talents (in terms of leaders) are scarce. If we can't ensure a house of Gods with enough Gods, then something will happen... Can you understand this point?2) On the contrary. My purpose in doing this is precisely to downgrade the political importance of education. Education, in my opinion, should not be based on government propaganda, like our current SS textbooks, but on objective dissemination of knowledge. Education should be severed completely from the political interests of any party, as only the students' interests and that of the teachers, which interact with the students and provide the medium through which knowledge is thought, should be paramount in any education system.
Well... in order not to spur too much misintepreted comments, I'd hold my comments here. But I'd leave you with this:
Any incumbent, with their own political inclination, henceforth will believe strongly in certain direction. If there would to lead, a choice hence would be made that would be based on such inclination (choice of political direction, till rebelled or disposed off or self-changed).3) As far as I see it, it is common sense: who knows what the root requires better than the root itself? So I shall have to politely request that you qualify your "anti-relevance" claim. Sorry.
Very simple, Pikamaster, do you think your teachers understand what you and your classmates need? And will that appeals to the principles? Can the (a portion) teachers and students to be empowered on such basis that principles hence have little purpose... not to say political leaders. Between the interests of each level of students and teachers, can such parliament ensures that the (say) Pri 1 students know how to safe-guard their necessary interest in face of (eg) Uni-lecturer representative... 'if Pri 1~5 students support higher fundings to Unis lecturers, I'd support motion for more holidays and toys...'
the (partially confused) pikamaster Alright, that's a joke.
And of course... who are you to ensure that this portion of students and teachers really know better than (eg) Education ministers and the Permanent Secretary?
Not to say, political powers will never be agreeable to that for that'd mean surrendering an important powers to (risky) randomity.
And critically speaking, are kids and educators necessarily to be politicians in general in such parliament you propose? See?
It's totally anti-relevance... Do I need to qualify? -
Elfred,
1) Actually, the point is - I don't really care if Singapore is unique or not. Uniqueness in size is extremely trivial if you want to look at the large picture. Uniqueness in development cannot really be used to justify policies crafted for the future.
In fact, Uniqueness is actually a very propagandic argument i.e. one that is more rhetoric than substance. And more dangerously, it can become a kind of wall to shield ourselves from teh outside world, the same way that papal infailiability doctrine has becoem a fortress for the Roman Catholic Church (and btw, I'm Roman Catholic myself) , such that even now the Vatican uses it as front against protests against conservatism in the Church. And that seems to be exactly what Singapore is doing. Our alleged "uniqueness" has become a horrid veneer which the government uses as a fortress against "attacks" on its authority from the outside, whether local or foreign. Increasingly, the govenrment's arguments utilizing this "uniqueness" element have become flawed, because they fail to provide any other evidence other than this for that.
"Uniqueness" is an argument with much emotional appeal, but like any other emotional appeal, it lacks rational thought.
2) You try to elevate yourself on a pedestal and look down to me from there, but as far as I see, you still haven't given me a proper explanation for which I can use to debunk my own arguments. You call me naiive and ignorant, but doesn't teh fact that you haven't yet responded with a proper set of explanation that I can understand (since I appear to be very lost) show that you too, are somewhat ignorant yourself?
And I shall make it clear, your position isn't enhanced by requests from you to ask me to meet you at YP.
3) What is necessity? Who decides what is necessary?
Necessity is defined as the want of a majority in any grouping. Since each grouping might be in a different situation, thus situation affects necessity. For eg, a neighbourhood school might need computers but an independent school would not sicne it already has them.
The more crucial question is: who decides what is necessary? That is always the stickler point in this kind of debate, and even in moral debates, like that over euthanasia.
I believe that a person would know his needs more than anyone else around him, even his parents, if he were given all the information about his situation. In fact, I aim to make transparency one of the key features of the system I'm designing. But of course, there are certain basic needs everyone must have: education, food, water, shelter. And that will of course be provided. And these are the basic kind of necessities I suppose.
I notice that our discussion/debate/argument has moved on to contend over the type of education a person needs, particularly the scope. The scope, as I have explained earlier, will be determined by students' decision. The issue of definitive wants and non-definitive wants will self-resolve. Non-definitive wants are wants that exist okeonly temporarily, fading off for wahtever reason there is. In line with following the student's passion, the student will be allowed to drop courses s/he is not interested in, or courses that s/he used to have interest, but lost interest in, later. So, non-definitive wants will be accomodated.
Saying that "Vagueness is the way it has to be" conveys the impression that you don't really know so much about the subject matter.
4) I have told you - I'm not using loaded connotations of any word, merely using the neutral manner.
Industries do not share everything across the board, not externally at least. But at the same time, they do not share nothing at all, thus there are always stuff like joint projects between different companies, or sponsorships or something like that. For example, Software doesn't seem to ahve much to do with F&B, but why then is Microsoft a stakeholder and sponsor of Coke?
Also, in an extremely interdependent world such as ours, firms increasingly have to consider more bottomlines than just one, like eg. a chemical firm has to know the environmental effects of it products. An educational firm needs to know the impact of its decisions on society i.e. what kind of people it is nurturing eg. A Northern Irish educational agency will have to ensure that its educaitonal layout does not bolster religious intolerance.
Anyway, education is not just about preparing people for a career, it's also about training them for life.
5) So what do you think are the other aspects that I have neglected? Facilities? People? All these interact with the systems. We need good initial people to run good systems, to ensure that the systems are good. But we need to produce good people from good systems too, so that the quality of the systems can be maintained, thus the system itself which is being run has to be good too.
How have I been derailed? qualify the statement please.
6) The rest? Yes, I anticipated that question.
The scenario is this currently: a student needs to get good grades in his PSLE in order to get into the SPorts School or a good Secondary School. Because favours (like integrated programmes and facilities and teachers) are given to good schools, the other schools lose out, and so only the top school students gain tremendously. What results is that at the next weeding-out-session, thsoe from the "top schools" come up top again, and sometimes we shouldn't even consider that. Since those who do extremely badly in Secondary School are forced by the system into a specific "Normal" stream, where opportunities are reduced, and not solely in the academic field, but in other stuff such as field trips etc., there is a reason for them to feel inferior and therefore the term "losers" comes out. For example, they cannot go to the Sports School even if they are very good at sports, because the School tries to achieve "holistic development" despite the niche it has claimed for itself. So these "Normal" students have become discriminated by a system that compromises them on many opportunities that they may want because, adn solely because, of their assumed academic disability. Despite the fantastic ads put out by ITEC, even from a cursory glance at its website, you can see that it only gives courses in "technical skills" and "service skills"; clearly these do not offer very good job prospects. And the students would no doubt feel cheated (unless they are brainwashed YP pple), since they see the other better opportunities offered to their neighbours in polys or JCs. And of course, the meritocratic society is such that it awards the best jobs to those who are most academically qualified, and show, in your sense of definition, credible social aptitude. SO thus, we see the weakness.
In my system: Every course is possible as a choice to the student, so everyone has equal footing. The student cannot blame anybody else except himself/herself if s/he does not take up a course s/he likes. In the sense, there is no such thing as "CMI" people, sicne everyone will be able to find something s/he can make it at, and achieve the best at it, whether it is art, sports, life science, econs or wahtever there is. Even if that person is just good at technical skills, at least he knows he is doing this because this is what s/he is truely good at, and not because this was the last option available to him/her. And no, I do not look down on technical skills. Everyone will have their won niche which they can find and like, so they do not have to involuntarily condition themselves into a line they dislike, and end up to be grumpy pple like some pple around these forums.
That there are "winners" and "losers" is merely a social mindset. Tell me, is Thomas Edison a winner or a loser? In our educational terms, frankly, he is a loser.
In otehr words, there is a win-win situation for everybody, becasue everybody can find a satisfying job.
6) hmmm...
There's that suggestion that you can go and retrain, or better still, take a double degree or triple degree or something. You'll only be left with no option if you do not have grounding in the other subject areas. But that will be what the system I'm proposing gives. so the job mobility will be greater in my new system.
the neutral definition I am using for "niche" is the biological one: a role and a position for the organism [person] in a system. I'm not including any factor of uniqueness within the defintion, as you see. So the only way a niche can become outdated is if that occupation becomes a vanishing trade.
But the point is, we will always need chemists, physicists, engineers, and the like. Even if we have a fully roboticized society, we still need engineers to run the robots and direct them what to do, or to improve on the design of robots, and their functionality for certain jobs. Not that that is so likely to happen in the next century, though we must keep an open mind. Life Sciences might die out, or dot-com may crash, but still it does not mean that biologists and IT specialists are not needed.
The only real danger comes when you get an ivory-tower graduate who knows nothing but the knowledge in his field. But the precise architecture of my system aims to prevent that, so there.
And if you wish to say that I didn't understand you, please provide qualification i.e. what you actually meant in plain English.
7) Ok... I shall make it clearer... the system will aim, through the environment it provides, to nurture people that can think in every field. Please re-think.
9) Well, if I don't get it, it's becasue you have not explained it properly enough and completely enough.
10) ???
11) Wrong. If it doesn't hit me, means that you don't understand what you claim to know fully, and hence are unable to explain to me. A great test of understanding is the ability to explain your understanding to other people who don't share the same understanding.
12) ok point taken, but perhaps you have to be a little more sensitive to waht you are writing, or sayign for the matter.
13) Don't take my words out of context, please. I don't object to the bringing in of the concept of economic units per se, but I object to bringing it in as the overriding principle, and forgetting the humanity of the people involved as a result.
14) *sigh*... another minor personal attack...
15) My turn to ask you to think more carefully. Haha, in the same manner that you used to criticize me in the last section: It is truely unique that someone who can advise on systems theory cannot understand basic social interactions...
16) You can't explain your own text, and you expect me to understand them?
17) Be careful where you take your religious argument...we all treat our deities seriously.
My leader is someone who:
-looks out for the interests of others
-is amicable and approachable
-mixes well with those he leads, instead of sealing himself up in an ivory tower.
-in sincere in the true sense i.e. does what he promises to do and admits his weaknesses
-helps those he leads to resolve their conflict, without imposing his own view on them. Not imposing means not forcing them into a course of action with a "leader knows best" attitude
1 I number my psections for a reason, go back through each post and you'll eventually find the statement.
19) Since you're supposed to know what you're talking about, you're supposed to explain what to mean to me since I don't understand you.
20) no reply, I reminded you.
gd nite.
the pikamaster. -
Elfred,
[a reply to your last post abt Educational Parliament]
1) Well, ok, I agree my this suggestion wasn't very intelligent, that's why I provided the other suggestion: that the Coordinator, who will be an adult btw, will represent EP in budget sessions in the House of the Miscellaneous, to obtain the general finances for EP. He will be granted an automatic seat in the Misc House. But that shall be his only interaction.
The Coordinator's basic fucntion is to mediate and ensure discipline in the House. He will be aided by the House Guard.
Education is not equal to one person please; it's an entire system.
2) Not if it is part of the Constitution, which obviously it shall be. the Constitution is the highest law. Nobody can violate it, or amend it, under the new provisions of the Permanent Law Act .
The Coordinator will be actively involved in the Budget Debate, having to account for the funds he requires against the other (adult) MPs.
And you should not speculate about what will ahppen when the oppo coems into power, because they are not in power yet.
3) I'm not assuming a government-less era. I told you to remove the incumbent from the equation becasue you seem to have the habit of attempting to stall our discussion by saying that the Ruling Party won't do this and won't do that, so I'm an idealist. So I'm telling you, assume a compliant government, a government that is formed under the New System I'm proposing.
Obviously, this education system I'm proposing won't work under the Old System.
4)
[1] An independent elections commission, not an ELD, will monitor and manage all elections, including the hiring of campaign managers. So that each House will have its own Elections will be a fact.
[2] the most familiar argument, I must say. You're just missing one point: Taxes are still controlled by the House of the Miscellaneous, which controls most things anyway. The prevention of Houses from combining together is to improve effectiveness, rather than to kill it. It is to ensure that the leaders of teh Three Houses are kept separate and are not unduly influenced in any way prejudicial to the people they are representing. EP will function like IP; Misc will function as Parliament fucntions now. Like I believe, education and politics should not mix, just as wage-determination and politics should not mix. Healthcare and politics (such as anti-homosexual tendencies) should not mix either, but unfrotunately it's very hard to construct representation for hospital patients, sicne you can't really have a leader for patients, not in any sense I can think of anyway. The primary reason for the existence of government is to provide security for its citizens, so that's what is given to the House of the Miscellaneous. EP will be purely representative: feedback from students is directly reported by the EP reps. And it will still be efficient; there are many levels which these information pass through, adn each level will deal with stuff it can deal with: the class with class stuff, the council with campus-specific stuff. So only the stuff which these cannot deal with will be returned to the top-level EP. And since there is decentralisation, things can be dealt with more efficiently. the School of Languages will deal with syllabuses regarding its subjects, and so on; the deans will handle their sub-deans, who will handle the teachers. It is very effective in that sense. Likewise, Estate Management deals with all the non-syllabus stuff, adn teh Coordinator deals with Finance.
Sim Wong Hoo once said: in Singapore, talents are scarce only because SIngaporeans do not recognize talent. Anyway, we don't really need talent in EP, apart from the Deans, since it is purely representative.
5) Precisely why we need to have Education separate from political machinations of adults - to prevent such oblique directions from influencing policies in undesirable ways. The issue of Economic Relevance will be solved by having the University Deans on the Council of Deans as rapporteurs and advisors to EP in general, in the sense that they will tell EP all the current trends, and most likely if teh students don't respond, the teachers will favourably. So there.
6) The following people are not included in EP: P 1-3 kids and Uni students. Like I said, EP will not provide representation to Uni Students. Since each university is unique in inclination, each will have its own quasi-EP made up of the Student Union/Society and the Lecturers' Union.
I believe that teachers may know what a student needs, but they can never know the need better than the student himself/herself. An easy example: a student cosntantly fails tests, so a teacher creates remedial; unfortunately, what the student requires is psychological counselling, becasue s/he is in a state of nervous breakdown and depression; yes, she needs academic help, but not so much as emotional help. But the ignorant teacher does not understand. So teh poor student gets remedial after remedial until she jmps and kills herself out of frustration that nobody understands her. And then, at coroner's inquiry, teacher says: Well, she should have told me. But the prob is teh teacher failed to see the most crucial sign of all in the first place.
And as I told you already, there will no longer be any more Ministry of Education!
why would they know better? because they are down on the ground experiencing it all, that's why! Isn't that common sense??? Now, that's an example of unique non-thinking. the reps still ahve their normal fucntions: student union reps still study and the teacher union reps still teach. SO tehy ahve the experience and probably can understand the situation better than a Minister who sits in an air-conditioned room reading reports, with perm-sec, and only coming out occasionally to pilot-test some new policy, without staying to observe the long-term results.
I don't intend the kids and teachers tob e politicians; I intend them to be leaders. Don't you understand this point????
So I still don't see why it is anti-relevant.
Kindly Qualify.
the (confused) pikamaster