DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
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 -
Elfred,
Well, if you insist on that, what'd I have to say?
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?
You sound as if I am trying you offer you something or debunk you. Nope, I obviously suggest you go ahead and try your ideas, Pikamaster. What proper explanation would you want, Pikamaster?
And I shall make it clear, your position isn't enhanced by requests from you to ask me to meet you at YP.
You see, Pikamaster, not that I have not tried to explain, but you have kinda miss or prefer to look at things in another way. If you insist on being so, it's up to you.
Me? Yup, I may be ignorant. It doesn't matter.3) What is necessity? Who decides what is necessary?
No comment. So do as you see fit then.
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.
Well...
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.
I decided that it's not really workable for such exchange. Very simple, Pikamaster, your thinking is carrying too much stint of the local Education system.
How have I been derailed? qualify the statement please.
Well, what can I say but go and try, and re-read our exchange. You'd find little has changed.6) The rest? Yes, I anticipated that question.
Sigh...
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.
Winners and losers are not merely what social mindsets. In fact, this mindset itself is a nothing about merely. You have underestimated too much too far. If you don't join YP, it's your choice. Don't expect me to be too enlightening here.6) hmmm...
Too simple... you're really assuming this Education thingy is some kinda production line. You see, there's a whole lot of issues you missed out. It isn't so simple as '...doesn't mean that X Y Z are not needed...'.
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.
Do you know that Singapore itself can also be a vanishing trade?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.
1st, systems don't think. What it produces seldom think because of systems. Actually the more you get successful due to systems, the more you don't think. But systems will make you have that illusion you're thinking.
Please re-think.
9) Well, if I don't get it, it's becasue you have not explained it properly enough and completely enough.
2nd, I will never explained directly. If you ever read COE, you'd find that it's so hard to understand the more you are successful in the system. All you'd see is seas of words and some simple ideas (of what you think it is). If you can't think, reading my book will make you more and more confused. 10) ???
That's what you assume.
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.
Do you know how much time and people takes to understand what Einstein is thinking, for example? He'd have his own way of explaining, but not necessaily you'd understand fully. So Einstein don't understand what he claims cos he can't make you understand, or due to some reasons, keep to himself?
When MM was talking 'bout Malaysian Malaysia, instead of gaining recognition, he got hatred and misunderstanding, instigated or for what purpose. Was he an idiot? Or he didn't know what he was talking back then...?12) ok point taken, but perhaps you have to be a little more sensitive to waht you are writing, or sayign for the matter.
Have to be very objective. Actually, this sort of discussion on (eg) policies is itself very sensitive. Observe I'm rather more relaxed than you are, cos I put focus on discussion, and you put focus on other aspects... ...
Mr Tharman is so described as an eloquent person, and we still have Dr Ong. That shows what sort of thingy politics can be. And why I keep my distance.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.
Emm... you miss my point.14) *sigh*... another minor personal attack...
Minor? If I were to personal attack, it's nothing 'bout minor or major. Have you ever wonder why should I be personal with you to reckon an attack you claimed?
Maybe what you want is diplomatic reply... Then I am not the one you should be discussing with.
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...
Social interaction... Hahaha... Why not make everyone also take wine course, dancing course to advance to Romance course and 'know-how-to-seduce-and-sex' course?
You see, my dear Pikamaster, I can only laugh. What else?16) You can't explain your own text, and you expect me to understand them?
As I have started in this exchange on Education, I ain't gonna explain.17) Be careful where you take your religious argument...we all treat our deities seriously.
You are looking for perfect modern daddy, not leader.
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" attitude1
Emm... You really think I am the sort of who have so much patience on such things...? 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.
Do you have $6.6m...?20) no reply, I reminded you.
It's courtesy, Pikamaster. Not reply. No need to worry.
gd nite.
the pikamaster.
Have a nice day. -
Elfred,
A coordinator... would still be some sort of politician. If your intention is let the root decides, and coordinator would be require, it defeats the purpose.
[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.
Anyway, it's up to you.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 .
You missed my point. Aiyah... Forget it.
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.
Umm... If you have stated in email about your political inclination is true, Pikamaster, you'd need someone like myself to assist you, desperately.
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.
What Mr Sim said is quite true. I am gonna add something. The nation doesn't improve because of focus on economic or chasing what trend, it's because of talents (that Singapore won't recognise).
[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.
We're getting weaker and weaker because of this.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.
Gosh... you really think it's possible...? Hehehe...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.
It's gonna be another misrepresented problematic parliament... no offence.
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
Let's just say, I can't agree with you.
I suppose I can't help you. Cos what I do, I dislike qualify this qualify that. You either let me help you do it, or not.
When next time you have a party of your own, maybe you'd understand certain thingy. -
-
Elfred,
[for the main discussion]
1) no comment. (and no need tor eply to this statement pls)
2) If i have missed anything, I'm asking you to point out what I have missed.
3) no comment.
4) you have anything to say, please say it.
5) I am confused... If nothing much has changed, then how can you say that I have been "derailed", which I presume to mean have gone off-track? That is a blatant contradiction in itself.
Little has changed, because you are as stubborn as you were when we first started.
6) "winner" and "loser" concepts are social mindsets, because these are loaded terms. If you go and read swiss blogs or otherwise, there is never mention or complaint of being discriminated or being a loser, unlike that which you commonly find on Singaporean discussion boards, whether as lamentations or furious gripes.
Fine, if you say that I am underestimating things, then just give me an example as to how "winners" and "losers" are not merely a social mindset.
And meanwhile, I'll still be thinking...
7) omg! The problem is not that I have not considered the other issues of education at all, the prob is that you choose to focus the discussion on the syllabus and economic impacts, so I am merely engaging you on the focus you set.
In fact, I shall congratulate you for identifying the major shortfall in our current education system: the fact that it is formatted exactly in the format of a production line, with "quality control" implemented at various stages.
But you are right to say that education is not just a production line; true, it's not merely an industry; just like agriculture, it is a culture, it is a life, hencefoth the saying "school is your second home". So a pure regimanted system is not good enough. We need a fruitful and friendly environment to nurture srudents as well.
Singapore being a vanishing trade? hmmm... Singapore is for one, a community, a nation, not a trade. But as long as we keep economically relevant, as Robert and a few others of your Party bigwigs say in rhetoric, we shall not vanish. i beg to differ. If it is a micro-managed spoonfeeding system, it won't produce thinking people, although it will produce obedient subordinates. But if it is a macro-managed system, that has a certain dynamic character, then of course it will create people who think. After all, those who amend the systems have to be thinkers in some sense, don't they? If they are not, how did they think up the amendments in the first place?
Anyway, let me ask you, what is your definition of thinking?
What is COE? Certificate of Entitlement? Nope, I'm too young to obtain that? Your Book? Tell me where it's selling, and I'll go and read it. Perhaps it might allow me to understand your line fo thought better.
I wish to say that I can think. You are the one who has not been thinking. You have been replying me with all the has-nots, but w/o the haves. In other words, u haven't given me concrete examples to prove that my case doesn't stand.
9) MM and Einstein are 2 completely different pple. Don't confuse them.
pple understood what MM was saying, what he meant; they just didn't like what he was trying to promote with "Malaysian Malaysia".
Who are we to judge on waht Einstein can or cannot do, since we did not know him personally? I am sure that anybody with an open mind who was willing to stay with Einstein as long as it took, would finally be able to understand him, since Einstein was a very patient man. In fact, go read Einstein's theory of Relativity online- the original transcript published by him - and it's actually very understandable, after you read it a few times.
The problem here is therefore, not that pple cannot understand Einstein, but because they refuse to understand him.
I really recommend you go and read his paper on the theory of Relativity at bartleby.com
10) I am putting my focus on the discussion, i ahve been constantly discussing with you upon the need for a revamp fo teh education system and about systems and people in general.
11) Then explain it again. Write an essay like Monkey if you need to. I'll be willing to read it.
12) I'm not looking for a patronizing reply, but I'm looking for one tt focuses solely on the points of the discussion, and doesn't use those to try and pre-judge what kind of person I am. I want solid rebuttals, not stuff like "you don't know enough" which is unqualified.
13) Now what you are sayign is totally, utterly, irrelevant to whatever I was saying or replying to - and you accuse me of being derailed. *sigh*
14) taken.
15) Isn't a daddy a leader too? What defines a leader in your opinion? Someone who can be ruthless like Mussolini or Hitler?
12) It was not so much initially; you only needed to look back one post, but since you procrastinated... anyway, let's just forget about that statement. But I may remind you, you asked me to do the same a number of posts ago, which I did. And I'm impatient too, you know.
13) I'm aghast at your greed.
have a nice day. *sigh*
the (dissappointed) pikamaster (who wished for a more point-ful discussion) -
Elfred,
[a reply to your alst post regardign EP]
1) There must always be channels and mediums through which information is passed. In EP's case, the medium, or the "Gatekeeper" between EP and the House of the Miscellaneous is the coordinator. S/he does not decide, as you imply, but rather forwards the decisions made by the root to the Misc, and fights for the root's case as given to him. As in, before the Budget Debate, EP will meet and forecast what money they will need, with the help of economic analysts. EP will extract what is wanted from the Student populace, and the reps in EP will merely forward that in EP "debate". the "debaters" will come with observers, who will offer their views. But in the end, an indepednent committee of students and teachers who are not involved in the proceedings, will make the decision by voting. students and teachers in the committee will of coruse select before hand whoa re their substututes, and then the information will be chanelled to teh substitutes. Or even better, we have a Council of uni students who make the decision according to the points they beieve to be persuasive, and each voter votes independently; no voter-committee meeting.
Don't worry, OEA will finalize that point.
2) no, let's not forget it. Repeat your point and explain to me where I misunderstood it...
3) ok, I'm waiting for lesson#1. But please, I have a request: tell me what I should be and should do, not just what I should not be and should not do.
4)Agree with you. OMG, if we agree on the same basic principle, then y can't we agree on the specifics?
Yes, we need talent, but how are we going to achieve talent or identify talent? Are we going to try and do so by chance? I am simply trying to tell ypu, unless we have a procedure to follow, we'll be stuck without talent. And any procedure requires a system in which to function; In fact, the definition of a system is precisely a set of procedures by which to follow. And thus, we need a good procedure to produce good talent.
Look at Finland. Nokia was started by university students who were graduates, not school dropouts. Which proves that a good education system can produce talent.
How else to select or producetalent, let me ask you?
5) At least shielded from politicking. Yes, it's possible, because there are going to be very stringent rules of conduct, and these shall be enfoeced by no toehr institiution but the police, or as they shall be called, the House Guard.
Power play is the last thing wanted in Educational Parliament.
6) No offence taken.
Why will it be a misrepresented Parliament? you really think that adults know more about the kids or teens than the teens and kids themselves? Why then are there so many communciation breakdowns between generations today?
How is it misrepresented and problematic? Explain.
I want to have a true and genuine discussion; I want an open discussion, not one where you are trying to evade every single question by taking on an air of superiority.
I'm not asking you to qualify your stand for the sake of appeasing some sadistic curiosity of mine. I really want to understand what you are thinking, and what you feel [about the issue], and what makes you think the way you do.
This is merely to facilitate a better understanding so I can engage with you on the core stuff, isntead of spending time pruning the crown of the tree in an attempt to find the worm in the sap. If you clearly relate to me the core of your thinking regarding this issue, then perhaps we can engage more properly, and we can start handling the real deep misunderstandings that we seem to be having about each others' positions.
I am speaking the above paragraph with utter sincerity. I really want to have a proper discussion/debate/lesson with you, and not a degenerate flaming competiiton like I ended up having with EC when he consigned himself to thinking I was an absolute idiot.
Honestly, I am having trouble engaging with you because you are not, to me, listing out your core arguments in plain sight, the way I have listed out mine to you for your scrutiny, which you ahve attacked many times without producing the concrete basis for your attack. No offence, but you seem to be hiding behind a mask of supposed wisdom more and more, and in fact it's becoming a wall. And walls are inimical to healthy conversation between any two parties. Walls are tehr eason why our nation does not make progress in terms of politics; our politicians scramble behind walls of "uniqueness", "Asian Values", "sensitivity", "social disharmony" to justify policies that are out of date or decisions that are irrelevant to the situation.
So I wish you to be more transparent please, so that I don't have to repeat this post again. If you want to be a good teacher, a good teacher has to be able to explain his student's mistakes in a way that the student will understand and not repeat them. The teacher has failed the student if teh student still repeats the same mistake, over and over again, which is precisely what you are implying I am doing. Sadly, I don't understand your comments on my mistake. Yet, when I want you to explain, you either clsoe up, or ask me to refer to your previous explanations again, although obviously I don't understand those explanations, so they are of no use to me.
Oh, and btw, I consider transparency to be the requirement of a good leader. A good leader should not be one who hogs the limelight of "Finding the way" by himself always. This is not a leader; this is a dictator. His followers must understand the way in which he is going; he msut connect with them properly.
Hope there are no misgivings.
the (sincere) pikamaster (who wants to engage in a fruitful discussion which ends up in a benefit for myself and for you)
P.S.: most unfortuantely, we seem to be ending up in a debate, with neither side yielding his position. A debate where we are trying to push for the other to accept our POV, without even clarifying our own POV. Each of us, in other words, is trying to outlast the other, and this is not aiding discussion adn pushing it forward. yes, I'll admit, I lapsed certain times too. So can be please rewind and resume our discussion on a proper, objective, fact-based note? I really want this discussion to yield truth, and not poor feeling on either side. I'm becoming increasingly disenchanted, I'm telling you frankly.Evasiveness really does not help discussion. -
Elfred,
What'd I suppose to say?
[for the main discussion]
1) no comment. (and no need tor eply to this statement pls)
2) If i have missed anything, I'm asking you to point out what I have missed.
3) no comment.
4) you have anything to say, please say it.5) I am confused... If nothing much has changed, then how can you say that I have been "derailed", which I presume to mean have gone off-track? That is a blatant contradiction in itself.
When the goal is to improve, and it's actually going nowhere, I consider derailed.
Little has changed, because you are as stubborn as you were when we first started. Something as such. Nothing contradicting.
Say, you claim you wanna replace the pipes which don't work, you can't when if you (eg) add something you'd be able to. You are derailed from your goal of replacing.6) "winner" and "loser" concepts are social mindsets, because these are loaded terms. If you go and read swiss blogs or otherwise, there is never mention or complaint of being discriminated or being a loser, unlike that which you commonly find on Singaporean discussion boards, whether as lamentations or furious gripes.
Forget it. You see, Pikamaster, when someone wanna go to HC JC, he simply needs to take a bus. But taking a bus as itself is not necessarily mean that the bus will definitely come on time, the rain won't come to soak the engines, some drivers won't vomit and the bus crushed, you miss the bus due to your return to take your forgotten wallet, the school went on fire... bla bla bla.
Fine, if you say that I am underestimating things, then just give me an example as to how "winners" and "losers" are not merely a social mindset.
And meanwhile, I'll still be thinking...
That's not how one think on national issues and policies, Pikamaster.7) omg! The problem is not that I have not considered the other issues of education at all, the prob is that you choose to focus the discussion on the syllabus and economic impacts, so I am merely engaging you on the focus you set.
Actually, I see that you are sincere so I have (though refrain from commenting too much) replied you discussing certain things you think.
In fact, I shall congratulate you for identifying the major shortfall in our current education system: the fact that it is formatted exactly in the format of a production line, with "quality control" implemented at various stages.
But you are right to say that education is not just a production line; true, it's not merely an industry; just like agriculture, it is a culture, it is a life, hencefoth the saying "school is your second home". So a pure regimanted system is not good enough. We need a fruitful and friendly environment to nurture srudents as well.
Singapore being a vanishing trade? hmmm... Singapore is for one, a community, a nation, not a trade. But as long as we keep economically relevant, as Robert and a few others of your Party bigwigs say in rhetoric, we shall not vanish.
Nope. We are vanishing, dear Pikamaster. Only that very few people are aware of it. You see, if we go the Robert way, no offence Robert, we'd be in big trouble. Economically, we need talents to drive the nation for economic push. You see both Malaysia and Singapore were on economic pursue back then, one headed by a Doctor one by a Lawyer. The reason why Singapore stood out is due to talents, not just going for the book values.
The bubbles on property and stock (know that I was so upset such out of control events'd happen) which boost what economic factors do little to prevent Malaysia asking monies from Singapore, and do little to prevent Singapore stuck in a high cost high unemployment situation.
The previous preach on economic pursue to stablise politics is only true in a way, but situation has changed. The entire nature o the game has changed fundamentally. 2002 since to 2004, we have tried report good results, calls on recoveries and high numbers, but the grounds ain't as warm as before. You see, beyond a certain point in economic pursue, and that influences also changed certain factors, political nature changed. They inter-influencing and certain pillars are already under threat.
As I mentioned a couple of time, till 1998 when our economic numbers peaked, the voting trend goes the other way... Why is that so? Should economic numbers go up, support for the incumbent should max up as well? See?
Not true, Pikamaster. China is a macro-managed system whereby even destrict authorities were holding huge powers/independence. What do we see? Thinking talents? i beg to differ. If it is a micro-managed spoonfeeding system, it won't produce thinking people, although it will produce obedient subordinates. But if it is a macro-managed system, that has a certain dynamic character, then of course it will create people who think. After all, those who amend the systems have to be thinkers in some sense, don't they? If they are not, how did they think up the amendments in the first place?Anyway, let me ask you, what is your definition of thinking?
The definition of thinking is not to answer such question. See? In a way, you can't define thinking, you can define thinking, it's still thinking. But what sort of thinking? A monkey trained to pick the right numbers on an arithmetic instruction thinks. A person who produce the right answers on the same question thinks too. Can we define the thinking in such case the same? What is COE? Certificate of Entitlement? Nope, I'm too young to obtain that? Your Book? Tell me where it's selling, and I'll go and read it. Perhaps it might allow me to understand your line fo thought better.
That book, and other materials, are reserved for my children, of which they will be taught the basic foundation to be able digest. I don't mind selling you a copy, except that... Hehehehe... Would be interested to know the results of your reading. If you join YP, you could get it from me, get it from boss, or (since it's written for MM's birthday before I left for China) you can borrow it from him.
I suppose after reading COE, you'd realise I don't elevate myself as you put it, and it could bring you some insights into the thinking on Education (such as, why it won't work, why it'd end up there, and so on) and the mentality of some management in relation to politics (which explains why [eg] I comment on your EP and Robert's thinking on democracy and so on, which I see it futile.).
Something is planted to make the reader/s (eg) lose focus. You see, if one cannot even get focused in the first place, one'd definitely have to be blocked somehow, regardless how the final section is to lead. People such as Ti Lik, Corn, Mosh, Modeus and so on will be blocked.I wish to say that I can think. You are the one who has not been thinking. You have been replying me with all the has-nots, but w/o the haves. In other words, u haven't given me concrete examples to prove that my case doesn't stand.
Emm... There is a weather expert, and a farmer told him he'd do his farm in that area and the farmer has done everything he possibly can, but the expert tells him that the farm could be flooded soon that the farmer should think of (eg) irrigation first... The farmer told the weather expert to qualify and so on... The expert tells the farmer to go and ask heaven... ...
It's not just telling you the have-nots, dear Pikamaster. Not everyone can just come in at the right place and tell you the have-nots, as if he already knows the results. At least, you don't need to waste time doing the have-nots. See? I said this, because you took the effort.9) MM and Einstein are 2 completely different pple. Don't confuse them.
Hahahaha... Alright, Pikamaster, why not you go to the newspaper stall nearest to you, pay him $500 to understand Einstein. He wants to understand Einstein, would he be really able to understand? Increase your reward to $5000. Would you think he'd definitely understand, no matter how hard he wanted (due to your $5000).
pple understood what MM was saying, what he meant; they just didn't like what he was trying to promote with "Malaysian Malaysia".
Who are we to judge on waht Einstein can or cannot do, since we did not know him personally? I am sure that anybody with an open mind who was willing to stay with Einstein as long as it took, would finally be able to understand him, since Einstein was a very patient man. In fact, go read Einstein's theory of Relativity online- the original transcript published by him - and it's actually very understandable, after you read it a few times.
The problem here is therefore, not that pple cannot understand Einstein, but because they refuse to understand him.
You see, this is something on logic. Pity the Education system is anti-logic... which is the headache. MM himself expressed surprise over remarks of the foreign students... I'd be surprised if MM is really surprised.I really recommend you go and read his paper on the theory of Relativity at bartleby.com
If got time, I'd. Thanks for the concern.10) I am putting my focus on the discussion, i ahve been constantly discussing with you upon the need for a revamp fo teh education system and about systems and people in general.
(Yawn... wife chasing me to turn in.) Simply, you can't. You don't have to read COE, I'd throw you something off-hand:
If you have your what revamped system and that old system stays, assuming. Which system would people choose...? (one of the underlying theme and concepts of COE, lied hidden)
I'd tell you, if you go by your approach, people would at best be indifference. You actually done nothing much more than to fill one hole and dig another...
Never mind. Just assume I'm talking rubbish.11) Then explain it again. Write an essay like Monkey if you need to. I'll be willing to read it.
I'm not him, dear Pikamaster.12) I'm not looking for a patronizing reply, but I'm looking for one tt focuses solely on the points of the discussion, and doesn't use those to try and pre-judge what kind of person I am. I want solid rebuttals, not stuff like "you don't know enough" which is unqualified.
Quite focused, actually. In actual fact, if you think carefully, I'd have saved you alot of time trying to pull you, subtlely, back to some track of thoughts.13) Now what you are sayign is totally, utterly, irrelevant to whatever I was saying or replying to - and you accuse me of being derailed. *sigh*
Emm... some people say that (a chinese saying) in order to rule a nation wisely, you need to govern your household well... (I planned to illustrate it in my story in YPforum later, just that the story has not come to that part yet.)
14) taken.
15) Isn't a daddy a leader too? What defines a leader in your opinion? Someone who can be ruthless like Mussolini or Hitler?
Now, that's bullsh!ts.
There laws for the nation, and rules for the household. There are certain things as a result why you can't just assume, hence certain requirements holds; and that leader can be equate/similar to some sort of perfect daddy, no matter how close the (eg) pretence or image would be projected.
To illustrate, my version of a leader includes:
1. The ability to govern handling conflicts well;
2. Politically wise;
3. Flexible and allocate and assign in great fashion (probably due to 2.);
4. A clear set of direction;
5. Political will and prudent.
6. Etc.
On other aspects such as this:
1. A leader will be able walk with great men-to-be, and create as many true leaders around him. Cos only by surrounding humself with (eg) political talents can his era be consolidated and fulfilling, and minor rubbish such as office politics and craps be minimised and such energy properly rechannelled to good use.
Can you at least feel what difference your leader and mine type of leader are, and how each's type will impact on the nation?12) It was not so much initially; you only needed to look back one post, but since you procrastinated... anyway, let's just forget about that statement. But I may remind you, you asked me to do the same a number of posts ago, which I did. And I'm impatient too, you know.
If so, never mind then.13) I'm aghast at your greed.
It's not greed, Pikamaster. It's just proper attitude.
have a nice day. *sigh*
the (dissappointed) pikamaster (who wished for a more point-ful discussion)
Some people sell porks. Some people sell their paper qualifications. Some people sell their planes.
When there are something of tremendous value that in such a snobbish world, people would label you as a fool to offer freely, because after which you are (understandingly) still a junk. Know that whatever offered, require a cost or inputs and/or luck that's not that's not to be taken for granted.
As you said what Mr Sim said, Singapore doesn't recognise talents. Then we'd have to let the papers support the nation. It's not some charity that people will be grateful, my boy. No system in history will be thanksful. No system in history pushes nation to prosper. Dump what democracy or autocracy out of the picture first, it's always the talents that decide fate, and the system, if needs be.
You'd have to realise this point first, before you have your own party later on after your school. You can't rely on hoo-haas nor papers to do much. Because ultimately, to invent atomic bombs, you'd first need Einstein aboard; to organise a lethal cannon squad, you'd first need Napoleon abroad... and don't expect them to function when you switch their positions, nor expect them to come by without good reasons.
Very few good things drop from heaven. If it does, you'd have to reach for it and keep it, even if it's to break the doors, jump the windows or what.
People cursed and jumped when times were bad, but opposition did not grow much... they can't draw talents, see?
Mr Sim is not going to give away his soundblaster for nothing, Pikamaster. People won't thank him. Singaporeans will still consider him nothing compare a what degree holding high flyer. And he could only get help from outside Singapore. One of those things he received for his effort is ...hey! You are crazy... And this crazy man Singapore won't help becomes Singapore legend and pride, a global name. It's not greed.
This is Singapore. Well-known for the attitude on talents. It'd stay this way till change. Your remark may not be appropriate.
In any case, just assume I talk rubbish. Thanks for the discussion, hence.
I don't think I'd find who I'd be looking for in this year. This city is too small, and the environment is not right. But maybe... got miracle.
Though, know I am one of those (you) who curse this system... but I literally boycott it in some way, unlike those who curse alongside. If you know it's sh!t, why volunteerily chase after it...? To each's own.
You take care. -
Elfred,
That's not quite possible, as mentioned earlier. Since we can't click on this issue, whereby I'd obviously and openly say nothing much, this reply should be the last in this exchange.
[a reply to your alst post regardign EP]
1) There must always be channels and mediums through which information is passed. In EP's case, the medium, or the "Gatekeeper" between EP and the House of the Miscellaneous is the coordinator. S/he does not decide, as you imply, but rather forwards the decisions made by the root to the Misc, and fights for the root's case as given to him. As in, before the Budget Debate, EP will meet and forecast what money they will need, with the help of economic analysts. EP will extract what is wanted from the Student populace, and the reps in EP will merely forward that in EP "debate". the "debaters" will come with observers, who will offer their views. But in the end, an indepednent committee of students and teachers who are not involved in the proceedings, will make the decision by voting. students and teachers in the committee will of coruse select before hand whoa re their substututes, and then the information will be chanelled to teh substitutes. Or even better, we have a Council of uni students who make the decision according to the points they beieve to be persuasive, and each voter votes independently; no voter-committee meeting.
Don't worry, OEA will finalize that point.
2) no, let's not forget it. Repeat your point and explain to me where I misunderstood it...
3) ok, I'm waiting for lesson#1. But please, I have a request: tell me what I should be and should do, not just what I should not be and should not do.4)Agree with you. OMG, if we agree on the same basic principle, then y can't we agree on the specifics?
OK. Very simple, in Romance of Three Kingdoms, Zhuge and Wei Yan both wanna take Wei. But their shared principle in waging war obviously didn't mean they'd agree on the specifics. See? This question is not appropriate.Yes, we need talent, but how are we going to achieve talent or identify talent? Are we going to try and do so by chance? I am simply trying to tell ypu, unless we have a procedure to follow, we'll be stuck without talent. And any procedure requires a system in which to function; In fact, the definition of a system is precisely a set of procedures by which to follow. And thus, we need a good procedure to produce good talent.
It's rather pretty simple, Pikamaster. But the issue is not identify talents, it's how to handle talents.
Then in your ideal situation, whereby I definitely don't fulfill your system when I definitely sort of boycotted it, I'm much lousier than you and I'm not a talent.
And of course, there is one God in YPForum, the infamous Modeus who claimed to excel and so on, he'd be talent (eg) you'd need. Hahahahahahaha...
Very simple, Pikamaster, unless we have a proceedure that'd definitely return true, then you can claim this production of talents thingy. But, as I said, there is no such sure-win system nations can follow. And in reality, rules and proceedures usually end up stuckar in time changes that requires talents to override it. Which is why you have Singapore. MM and his batch sets the rules (eg) on religions and races, on your chances to get into education and so on. In their time, they set the rules, not rules set them. See?
Hence, where'd you expect talents to come from? Systems? No, my dear.
No good proceedure can guarantee production of what good talents. Because the fundamental is Singapore is not a dominant in the world. Mr Sim WF is not a product of system/proceedure. He's a lucky victim, which makes his story so heroic. His talent doesn't come due to the system, else all who go through what he went through within the system would be Mr Sim WF-s already.
The '...unless we have a proceedure to follow...' also implies you'd have a political issue over such belief/thinking.Look at Finland. Nokia was started by university students who were graduates, not school dropouts. Which proves that a good education system can produce talent.
Read my above reply. But you ain't the first one asking this sort of question.
How else to select or produce talent, let me ask you?5) At least shielded from politicking. Yes, it's possible, because there are going to be very stringent rules of conduct, and these shall be enfoeced by no toehr institiution but the police, or as they shall be called, the House Guard.
When there are rules, there are politicking... in general. The more stringent, the more the impact and magnitude possible.
Power play is the last thing wanted in Educational Parliament.
If the police comes in, the politicians comes in on eithers. Politicians control the police (eg) by controlling the rules. And politicians make noise over the acts of the police. Someday, maybe you'd realise it. It's not that simple, Pikamaster.6) No offence taken.
Too easy, dear friend. You'd ask your teacher about it.
Why will it be a misrepresented Parliament? you really think that adults know more about the kids or teens than the teens and kids themselves? Why then are there so many communciation breakdowns between generations today?
How is it misrepresented and problematic? Explain.
You see, it's very hard to ever make a balanced or well represented parliament for the matter. And where there is real power, very hard to remove cos lousy elements won't just say '...I'm crap, I'd leave...', and if there are no real powers, the good ones won't even bother. This is just one aspect of whatever gathering of representatives. Over time, if craps don't happen, I'd treat you copi.
Communication is not only breakdown between generations. When I'd discuss national issues with folks of my age, it might happen that (eg) they ain't be interested in such topic or they just hug on to certain line of thinking such as '...how the hack we gonna ensure talents are talents without cert...'.
You see... it might appeal to kids more when it comes to more toys investment in class and holidays than their older counterparts when the kids themselves would one day become. Not so simple.I want to have a true and genuine discussion; I want an open discussion, not one where you are trying to evade every single question by taking on an air of superiority.
There is no air of superiority, Pikamaster. It's just plainly pointing out certain things when I perceive I might try to point out that you have a chance to understand. I'm, technically speaking, not evading, but obviously reluctant to say too much.
But know that my comments, however that you may perceive, are true and genuine as far as I am concern. Hidding what has little need to hide only makes oneself too stuck to proceed. I'm taking it as plainly as possible, even if anyone is expected to twist things or miss the points. So be sure that thee is nothing of what superiority here. You scored 8, not me. Would that make me more inferior, it's ok.I'm not asking you to qualify your stand for the sake of appeasing some sadistic curiosity of mine. I really want to understand what you are thinking, and what you feel [about the issue], and what makes you think the way you do.
Alright. How should I put it... You see, using this to illustrate again. Some hoo-haa folks claim I what bootlick what MM. Now, I have never talked to him or he've never in his whole life explained a single curiousity of mine or whatsoever and purposely show me his thinking or what qualify anything to me (not to say I ever have a chance to bootlick... hahahahah... forums...are full of funny people.). How in the hack would I have mock his replies to that funny God (Modeus) and others, when I obviously didn't gotta see the session (of Jamie Han) when I did the mock-replies.
You see, what'd you think if I were you? How'd it be so fast that Elfred can sort of waylay your line of thoughts and make myself kinda evade here evade there... If a ball comes to you, to evade, you'd need to know where it comes from. Our exchanges are quit equal in times. But I obviously know more of what you're thinking than you know what I'm thinking...
Emm... I won't see the necessity to qualify myself in this case, you see. It'd kinda be more of trying to think of how to appease your understanding if any of these qualifying would work well for you. And there's little need to do so. Just assume I'm doing a system check for your ideal system, how? This is merely to facilitate a better understanding so I can engage with you on the core stuff, isntead of spending time pruning the crown of the tree in an attempt to find the worm in the sap. If you clearly relate to me the core of your thinking regarding this issue, then perhaps we can engage more properly, and we can start handling the real deep misunderstandings that we seem to be having about each others' positions.
Hahahaha... Emptycage... don't worry about him.
I am speaking the above paragraph with utter sincerity. I really want to have a proper discussion/debate/lesson with you, and not a degenerate flaming competiiton like I ended up having with EC when he consigned himself to thinking I was an absolute idiot.
Alright, as a simple reward for your proposed sincerity, I'd tell you something. How much you understand is, however, not my problem.
You see... when we are talking about Education, most Singaporeans will start automatically attach a word System to it. But what is the d@mned thingy about a system? Somebody in this forum ever said it's still people behind the system, which I applauded, abeit to a certain extent. Because in Singapore, it's not only people who are behind the system. But to deal with a whole chunk of problem in the system, we'd definitely need talents.
It's, however, not likely the people succeeding from the crappy system who'd be able to even make any difference. Hence, the system is already reinforcing itself but denying any other talented effort to remove it, no matter how it works against what it's intended to.
The first thingy you'd have to realise is that you probably have first wake up from the entire thingy of which the system is pounding on and justifying itself. Which is what none of you can. And realise that we cannot afford the cost of this system as other nations could.
The system produces what will infest the other vitalities of the environment and quickly reinforce itself. It's replicating; and our compact environment allows it to fully ensure it quickly overrides all but itself without reaction time. Any challenges from what it overrides will be quite futile.
On talents, and the system.
From COE, you'd realise whatever talents from the system we have are actually meant to be inferior. The system is never more perfect than the God who creates man. Hehehehe... Alright, (eg) in Singapore's context, it ends up that the talents it produces is to support the system's existence and not the nation. Whereby, come on, the paper talents should generally cost lesser than what return obtainable. That'd necessaily mean our ROI on Education goes down and down and down to a point that the people will wanna remove this system, in vain. Cos it'd project itself as the only viable way to its products.Honestly, I am having trouble engaging with you because you are not, to me, listing out your core arguments in plain sight, the way I have listed out mine to you for your scrutiny, which you ahve attacked many times without producing the concrete basis for your attack. No offence, but you seem to be hiding behind a mask of supposed wisdom more and more, and in fact it's becoming a wall. And walls are inimical to healthy conversation between any two parties. Walls are tehr eason why our nation does not make progress in terms of politics; our politicians scramble behind walls of "uniqueness", "Asian Values", "sensitivity", "social disharmony" to justify policies that are out of date or decisions that are irrelevant to the situation.
It's not a healthy thought, Pikamaster. What you are doing is not the way. Listing out what? I have nothing to list out in exchange, see?
One thing is correct, I have built that wall, just as I have installed a mechanism in COE to lock things up. You can sense its there, just as the system would, but you can't reach it.
I beg a difference from your saying. The nation is not progressing where it should have been, because it's relying religiously on a system, instead of talents, to push it through. Technically, hehehe... there are no walls. The systems are very open. You score 8, who cares whether you think Singapore is Finland or USA or whatever, it's open to you. See? What wall?So I wish you to be more transparent please, so that I don't have to repeat this post again. If you want to be a good teacher, a good teacher has to be able to explain his student's mistakes in a way that the student will understand and not repeat them. The teacher has failed the student if teh student still repeats the same mistake, over and over again, which is precisely what you are implying I am doing. Sadly, I don't understand your comments on my mistake. Yet, when I want you to explain, you either clsoe up, or ask me to refer to your previous explanations again, although obviously I don't understand those explanations, so they are of no use to me.
Forget it. MOE has rejected me application, I suppose systematically. There's no need to even try educating what Singaporeans.
Not true. The teacher has necessarily not failed if the students repeat the same mistake in such environment, in such issue. Take MM vs Jamie Han as an example. MM's unable to convince Jamie Han doesn't mean LKY is a jerk or a failure. See? It's not necessarily means that the teacher will necessarily be bad, but when you end up ina certain situation or even a certain (incompatible) people, it's bonkers. Which is why my effort is hoping to search for some sort of people, not to preach in the forums. I clearly recognise this sort of thingy. There are just students who won't be able to absorb, there just systems which will block you from reaching the people. See?
Which is why this environment is not where I'd prosper. If I'd have to have any meagre chance of prospering the way Mr Sim WF could, I'd have to re-plant myself somehow elsewhere, after which I prospered, maybe can decide to follow Mr Sim who didn't migrate or just ensure my kids won't have my problems out there. See? A casino is coming. And we are still talking about finding a place here... isn't that funny, Pikamaster?
Anyway, there is no need to understand my explanation. Best is you got a chance to try it out, then you'd realise. And you should have discovered that I don't think you are what idiot. I don't waste so much time keying for idiots so regularly, and so nicely.Oh, and btw, I consider transparency to be the requirement of a good leader. A good leader should not be one who hogs the limelight of "Finding the way" by himself always. This is not a leader; this is a dictator. His followers must understand the way in which he is going; he msut connect with them properly.
Emm... It's quite dependent on situation. His followers must know they are following the right guy, but 'must understand' is not necessary.
It's not always true that the guy who follows will in any chance understand the guy who leads; cos it is quite true that in most followers don't necessarily understands even themselves and hence follows. So how must followers understand their leaders necessarily? See?Hope there are no misgivings.
Hahaha... That's what you think. Cos I'd let you outlast me. Not that I have any misgivings, which... come on, why the hack should I be offended when you are trying. Yeah, I sense such agitation over my hasty and frank expressions, but I see you hold pretty well.
the (sincere) pikamaster (who wants to engage in a fruitful discussion which ends up in a benefit for myself and for you)
P.S.: most unfortuantely, we seem to be ending up in a debate, with neither side yielding his position. A debate where we are trying to push for the other to accept our POV, without even clarifying our own POV. Each of us, in other words, is trying to outlast the other, and this is not aiding discussion adn pushing it forward. yes, I'll admit, I lapsed certain times too. So can be please rewind and resume our discussion on a proper, objective, fact-based note? I really want this discussion to yield truth, and not poor feeling on either side. I'm becoming increasingly disenchanted, I'm telling you frankly.Evasiveness really does not help discussion.u
I suppose it's best we have a proper meet up (when you join YP, eventually) and we try go through it. But still, I'm still reserve on my entire thinking on Education. A glimpse would be alright, anymore is not quite necessary.
I don't understand... I am not pushing you to accept me what POV. As I have mentioned, just assume it's a system check service FOC from me.
No worry. Unless you are obviously personal, such as such chaps, it's not me policy to attack for the sake of attack.
I gotta rush. You have a great day. -
Elfred,
[a reply to your post about EP]
1) Ok. I shall withhold comments till later.
2) ok, point taken.
3) Sim WF came from HC, you know.
Right, I shall agree that the core issue is how to handle talent. But what is "handle"? This word is vague.
Typically, (inform me if I am wrong), "handle" means : "identify", "identify/accomodate" and "promote". I'm not giving an ideal situation; I'm giving something which is understood as the norm as practical. We definitely need a method to identify the talents so that we can allow them to be harnessed effectively and independently, so that geniuses such as Mr Sim and Einstein are not shunned out of mainstream society. And when we ahve that method, we need a framework in which to implement it in. And the thing I am telling you is, once you ahve a method and a framework, you have a rudiimentary system. Therefore, to handle talent, as you put it, wes till need a system.
But anyway, You accuse me of being a product of the system. Guess what? The same accusation could be thrown back at you. Laughably, you have just proven yourself not to be a talent, since I don't think you can be in the same category as LKY, Einstein or SWF, or at least SWF. The quote I gave you was one SWF was using to say that Singaporeans are all talents, it's just tt none are treating themselves as so. And I know why he thinks that: 'cos anyboady can become an entrepreneur. The biggest hurdle to entrepreneurship is not lack of talent or lack of resources; teh biggest hurdle is the fear factor SWF mentioned and its accompanying inferiority complex. Or are you now going to say that he is not a thinking person?
Your precise definition and perception of talent comes from the system you claim you yourself are dissociated from. That idea of talent being a group of people isolated from the rest of society, having certain techniques or features that nobody else possesses. THis is elitist thinking, and this sort of elitist thinking unfortunately stems from the root of our education system.
Mind you, I DO think, and this is what I have surmised, no ofeence please:
you are somebody who has been brought up in an elitist system down here. The system here is called meritocratic, but I think you rightfully managed to imply that meritocracy is but a guise, since clearly the system is not properly identifyinh talent like Mr Sim, albeit you approached it from the incorrect side.
You have tried to break free of the system, which is commendable in itself. People like Mr Sim broke away from the system already; I guess it is simpler for them since they were rejected. I, too, have more or less dissevered myself from the system itself. I can assure you, wahtever I think of, that has been said in my previous posts don't at all come at all from anyhting the system says, that is, what the teachers teach in the Core Curriculum, what I like calling the "Truth Core", which is a core of half-truths and fabricated facts. My dissociation comes from a personal feeling of estrangement and disillusionment, which I do not wish to discuss in further detail, since those are sensitive personal issues. But what I take note of, observe if you like, are people's feelings and attitudes, even the teachers' towards waht s/he is teaching. And my classmates' too. And of course I listen intentently to their experience. THinking doesn't come from thin air. You need something to think about.
But coming back to the issue, talent is not something that is either there or not there. it is something that needs to be nurtured. Think about it - There are the talents of Marie Curie and Karl Marx, who studied at universities. There is the talent of Plato, who was tutored under Socrates.
What I recognize, like Einstein does, is that everything is relative to a common set of Fundamental Laws, and everything rests on a spectrum. There is no certainty apart from the certainty that there is no certainty. So for every skill, there is a proficiency spectrum. People whom you call "Talent", and whom btw, sry to deflate your ego, the system calls "Talent" too, are those who start off with a certain inborn level of proficiency in that particular skill. But like the story of teh Tortoise and the Hare, it is possible for tortoises in this sense to catch up with the hare. They might need to put in more effort than the hare, but if they are willing to work hard and expend time, they can still beat or at least catch up with the hare as the hare advances. Talent is not an absolute have or have-not. All you need is the right environment, and you can develop any talent you want.
The reason why the perception of talent as a unique group exists is due to the fact, that we are pummelled, from an early age, to accept that only those at the top are those with ability and talent, which I am glad to say you have managed to throw away.
Unfortunately, you have substituted it with what American acclaimed political writer Alan Toffler (of whose works both me and Robert read) calls the "Messiah Complex", only in a different sense from what he refers to in his book. Since you have removed the academic qualification that is used as the justification in the System, you replace it with some sort of "Invisible Hand" theory, which purports that talent exist, therefore they are, adn they do not fit inside any system. That, may I inform you, was the same type of crisis early Christians faced. Saints exist, they beleived, and they do not fit into the Roman Social System, so anyone who is a Christian cannot be a Roman. This was only partially resolved when Christianity became the State Religion. Even up till present though, Roman Catholic Church still has problems grappling with that issue.
The Messiah Complex does not help in secular matters either; in fact, that gives rise to irrestrained idealism or, as in your case, passive cynicism.
So look at things wiht a more open mind, please.
But I'm glad that you were transparent in sharing this fact.
4) see my above reply.
5) But Politicians cannot make noise if the Constitution does not allow them to, especially a Constitution that is permanent, subject to will of the public. SO your point is irrelevant.
As for politicking, it only occurs when there is a clear chance of someone gaining an advantage. After all, it's useless trying to fight for a (political) position unless you gain certain privileges. Certain stuff, like Teachers' wages and school fees, will only be decided by one side of Parliament, sicne the otehr side might have undue interests that would conflict with the democratic running.
Ultimately, because the decision panel is independent of teh main discussive body, logic states that politicking will not occur, since there is no benefit to be gained from politicking.
Never mind if you don't understand now. It shall definitely be clearer when I present you my (intellectual) law.
6) Interest shouldn't be a problem in this case, because the issue of schools is definitely of interest to students, teachers, and parents alike. In fact, I mean to use this system as a way of curing political apathy in the young.
My friend, we are not talking about the toy industry here; we are talking about the environment of kids in the school, and becasue a group of kids will enrol in the same schoo, they will have the same experience, so their interests will be the same.
Anyway, I wish to remind you that the whole nation will study based on the same syllabus, and so tt is a common interests. Anyway, all kids would want toys (10-19 yrs), just different sorts. And anyway, seriously, what you say seems to refer more to 4 yr-olds and 5 yr-olds than 10 yr-olds. With puberty comes maturity.
7) I'll reserve comment. I don't think much of Modeus either.
Nope, I'm not calling you a bootlicker. I don't do such name-calling.
Ya, you think you know what I'm thinking more than I think I know what you are thinking, 'cos some of your explanations, even if they are plain, perhaps have the main points hidden in mumble-jumble of detail, such that I can't understand what you're saying.
So try and make your posts as plain as mine, pls Sir?
9) If we were talking about uniqueness, then the Education System will be an example. It is unique in that it has the most possibly fatal positive feedback loop possibility.
If it is bad, then the future pple behind it will be bad, and then it will become worse, and the distant future pple running it will become worse. The thing is, the Education System is what determines the quality of the people running all the systems in society, including itself. And as it deterioriates, so will those people running the system, and in turn so will the system itself.
Education is acknowledged as the foundation of society. Without it, nothing can flourish.
You are hence right in recognizing the futility of our crappy system. The problem with our system is that it is a tight system that lacks requisite variety to deal with all the different kinds of people in it, thus resulting in that it cannot handle talent when talent arrives, and cannot utilize the talent which can help it improve. Look at the resistance to reforms in the Streaming System, for eg. But if the system can include a self-checking mechanism tt enables all the requisite variety of information to filter through, then it can succeed in transforming itself, or rather utilizing the thinkers to transform itself. Like everything else in SIngapore, Education is too authoritarian; as a result, it constantly resists steps in reform, which results in its deterioration.
The Problem with Education is complexity. It needs to deal with the academic and economic knowledge, as well as the social relationships. the fault of our current system is that it fails to note the social relationships, by simply ignoring the entire matter, and relegating students to mere economic units. Unsurprisingly, social relationships are the best way to engender change, especially healthy social relationships. Sadly, teh Minister, perm-sec and all teh officers choose most of the time to hole themselves out in their offices, poring through data analyses, which are grossly poor ways of formulating social relationships.
When there are good social relationships, people will be more able to communicate and be more open to each other, thus opening more chances to recognize true talent, rather than spend time, like what most countrymen do now, grouching about teh state of affairs and the uncaringness of officials, whilst officials on their part grouch abt the insensibilities of the populace.
what we need to do is replace rigidity with informality.
What is COE anyway? Can you tell me where to get it? I would like to read it.
10) Inserting a mechanism to lock things up is violating the principle of transparency.
The nation is not progressing, not because it is relying on a system, but because it is relying on the wrong system. After all, you have to admit, this system brought us progress between 1965 and 1980.
11) I was just giving an analogy.
Actually, I would take it as Jamie Han's failure to convince LKY? LKY was a visionary; unfortunately he is no longer one. Even he recognizes that: this is why he is giving the younger leaders a chance. But he is old, and a little stubborn too; he is fixed in the past, and henceforth does not see into the future,or rather, even when he sees into the future, he sees it from the eyes of the past instead of the eyes of the present. Jamie Han, from my perspective, was merely advocating progress which LKY doesn't recognize as such, not because he has some mysterious unique mystic insight or revelation that tells him as such, but becasue as an old man, he is highly resistant to change. So no, The Jamie-Han-LKY exchange does not show that LKY is a jerk or failure, but neither does it show that Jamie Han is a jerk or failure himself.
Besides, what they were having was not a lesson; it was unfortuantely a debate, where LKY was pushing his view as forcefully as possible, and han was perhaps doing the same.
12) They must understand what they are following.
ya, you are right in saying that it's not always true that the guy who follows will in any chance understand the guy who leads,but I'm talking about what should be, not what is. The follower must have a reason for following any leader after all.
If the followers allow the leader to decide the path for them, he can, but without that express approval, he should not just force anything down his followers' throats.
The followers have a right to know what is happening to them, and what is going to happen to them, and to disagree with the leader. And those rights are only honoured when there is transparency.
A leader must also accede to contributions made by the followers; in jargon we call it feedback and volunteerism.
So no, it's a pre-requisite that is not circumstantially determined.
13) I have told you time-and-time-again, I am NOT in any circumstance going to join YP, although some of my friends might, where then I might decide to use them as mediums...hmmm...
YP, I suspect is insiduous at indoctrination.
well, have a nice day, gtg sleep now.
the pikamaster -
Elfred,
I don't suppose I'd comment on Education.
[a reply to your post about EP]
1) Ok. I shall withhold comments till later.
2) ok, point taken.
3) Sim WF came from HC, you know.
Right, I shall agree that the core issue is how to handle talent. But what is "handle"? This word is vague.
Typically, (inform me if I am wrong), "handle" means : "identify", "identify/accomodate" and "promote". I'm not giving an ideal situation; I'm giving something which is understood as the norm as practical. We definitely need a method to identify the talents so that we can allow them to be harnessed effectively and independently, so that geniuses such as Mr Sim and Einstein are not shunned out of mainstream society. And when we ahve that method, we need a framework in which to implement it in. And the thing I am telling you is, once you ahve a method and a framework, you have a rudiimentary system. Therefore, to handle talent, as you put it, wes till need a system.
But anyway, You accuse me of being a product of the system. Guess what? The same accusation could be thrown back at you. Laughably, you have just proven yourself not to be a talent, since I don't think you can be in the same category as LKY, Einstein or SWF, or at least SWF. The quote I gave you was one SWF was using to say that Singaporeans are all talents, it's just tt none are treating themselves as so. And I know why he thinks that: 'cos anyboady can become an entrepreneur. The biggest hurdle to entrepreneurship is not lack of talent or lack of resources; teh biggest hurdle is the fear factor SWF mentioned and its accompanying inferiority complex. Or are you now going to say that he is not a thinking person?
Your precise definition and perception of talent comes from the system you claim you yourself are dissociated from. That idea of talent being a group of people isolated from the rest of society, having certain techniques or features that nobody else possesses. THis is elitist thinking, and this sort of elitist thinking unfortunately stems from the root of our education system.
Mind you, I DO think, and this is what I have surmised, no ofeence please:
you are somebody who has been brought up in an elitist system down here. The system here is called meritocratic, but I think you rightfully managed to imply that meritocracy is but a guise, since clearly the system is not properly identifyinh talent like Mr Sim, albeit you approached it from the incorrect side.
You have tried to break free of the system, which is commendable in itself. People like Mr Sim broke away from the system already; I guess it is simpler for them since they were rejected. I, too, have more or less dissevered myself from the system itself. I can assure you, wahtever I think of, that has been said in my previous posts don't at all come at all from anyhting the system says, that is, what the teachers teach in the Core Curriculum, what I like calling the "Truth Core", which is a core of half-truths and fabricated facts. My dissociation comes from a personal feeling of estrangement and disillusionment, which I do not wish to discuss in further detail, since those are sensitive personal issues. But what I take note of, observe if you like, are people's feelings and attitudes, even the teachers' towards waht s/he is teaching. And my classmates' too. And of course I listen intentently to their experience. THinking doesn't come from thin air. You need something to think about.
But coming back to the issue, talent is not something that is either there or not there. it is something that needs to be nurtured. Think about it - There are the talents of Marie Curie and Karl Marx, who studied at universities. There is the talent of Plato, who was tutored under Socrates.
What I recognize, like Einstein does, is that everything is relative to a common set of Fundamental Laws, and everything rests on a spectrum. There is no certainty apart from the certainty that there is no certainty. So for every skill, there is a proficiency spectrum. People whom you call "Talent", and whom btw, sry to deflate your ego, the system calls "Talent" too, are those who start off with a certain inborn level of proficiency in that particular skill. But like the story of teh Tortoise and the Hare, it is possible for tortoises in this sense to catch up with the hare. They might need to put in more effort than the hare, but if they are willing to work hard and expend time, they can still beat or at least catch up with the hare as the hare advances. Talent is not an absolute have or have-not. All you need is the right environment, and you can develop any talent you want.
The reason why the perception of talent as a unique group exists is due to the fact, that we are pummelled, from an early age, to accept that only those at the top are those with ability and talent, which I am glad to say you have managed to throw away.
Unfortunately, you have substituted it with what American acclaimed political writer Alan Toffler (of whose works both me and Robert read) calls the "Messiah Complex", only in a different sense from what he refers to in his book. Since you have removed the academic qualification that is used as the justification in the System, you replace it with some sort of "Invisible Hand" theory, which purports that talent exist, therefore they are, adn they do not fit inside any system. That, may I inform you, was the same type of crisis early Christians faced. Saints exist, they beleived, and they do not fit into the Roman Social System, so anyone who is a Christian cannot be a Roman. This was only partially resolved when Christianity became the State Religion. Even up till present though, Roman Catholic Church still has problems grappling with that issue.
The Messiah Complex does not help in secular matters either; in fact, that gives rise to irrestrained idealism or, as in your case, passive cynicism.
So look at things wiht a more open mind, please.
But I'm glad that you were transparent in sharing this fact.
4) see my above reply.
But about me brought up in this system... Hahahaha... I very much doubt so.5) But Politicians cannot make noise if the Constitution does not allow them to, especially a Constitution that is permanent, subject to will of the public. SO your point is irrelevant.
Hmm... rules are rules, my dear friend. Constitution may even put a stop on the surface to certain thingy, but that doesn't mean nothing goes on. You have to realise one thingy, constitution don't stop politics, constitution (however) raise politics.
As for politicking, it only occurs when there is a clear chance of someone gaining an advantage. After all, it's useless trying to fight for a (political) position unless you gain certain privileges. Certain stuff, like Teachers' wages and school fees, will only be decided by one side of Parliament, sicne the otehr side might have undue interests that would conflict with the democratic running.
Ultimately, because the decision panel is independent of teh main discussive body, logic states that politicking will not occur, since there is no benefit to be gained from politicking.
Never mind if you don't understand now. It shall definitely be clearer when I present you my (intellectual) law.6) Interest shouldn't be a problem in this case, because the issue of schools is definitely of interest to students, teachers, and parents alike. In fact, I mean to use this system as a way of curing political apathy in the young.
It's up to you. Maybe someday, we could discuss it again. Maybe your thinking may change by then.
My friend, we are not talking about the toy industry here; we are talking about the environment of kids in the school, and becasue a group of kids will enrol in the same schoo, they will have the same experience, so their interests will be the same.
Anyway, I wish to remind you that the whole nation will study based on the same syllabus, and so tt is a common interests. Anyway, all kids would want toys (10-19 yrs), just different sorts. And anyway, seriously, what you say seems to refer more to 4 yr-olds and 5 yr-olds than 10 yr-olds. With puberty comes maturity.7) I'll reserve comment.
Put it this way... you ain't the only ones. But his friends, of which for some interest, are trying to promote him online. Hahahaha... Promoting everything that's irrelevent to his political craps. I don't think much of Modeus either. Gosh...
When can Singapore have more true talents and not craps...?Nope, I'm not calling you a bootlicker. I don't do such name-calling.
Actually, there are a couple of books on Education by some locals here and there, if you care to check, most are merely touching the surface and... regretfully, most of them yield the systematic syndromn. The one which doesn't actually don't understand the situation, ie.
Ya, you think you know what I'm thinking more than I think I know what you are thinking, 'cos some of your explanations, even if they are plain, perhaps have the main points hidden in mumble-jumble of detail, such that I can't understand what you're saying.
So try and make your posts as plain as mine, pls Sir?9) If we were talking about uniqueness, then the Education System will be an example. It is unique in that it has the most possibly fatal positive feedback loop possibility.
I have told you where you can get COE, saved that where you get from would mean whom would assist in your reading. Just that.
If it is bad, then the future pple behind it will be bad, and then it will become worse, and the distant future pple running it will become worse. The thing is, the Education System is what determines the quality of the people running all the systems in society, including itself. And as it deterioriates, so will those people running the system, and in turn so will the system itself.
Education is acknowledged as the foundation of society. Without it, nothing can flourish.
You are hence right in recognizing the futility of our crappy system. The problem with our system is that it is a tight system that lacks requisite variety to deal with all the different kinds of people in it, thus resulting in that it cannot handle talent when talent arrives, and cannot utilize the talent which can help it improve. Look at the resistance to reforms in the Streaming System, for eg. But if the system can include a self-checking mechanism tt enables all the requisite variety of information to filter through, then it can succeed in transforming itself, or rather utilizing the thinkers to transform itself. Like everything else in SIngapore, Education is too authoritarian; as a result, it constantly resists steps in reform, which results in its deterioration.
The Problem with Education is complexity. It needs to deal with the academic and economic knowledge, as well as the social relationships. the fault of our current system is that it fails to note the social relationships, by simply ignoring the entire matter, and relegating students to mere economic units. Unsurprisingly, social relationships are the best way to engender change, especially healthy social relationships. Sadly, teh Minister, perm-sec and all teh officers choose most of the time to hole themselves out in their offices, poring through data analyses, which are grossly poor ways of formulating social relationships.
When there are good social relationships, people will be more able to communicate and be more open to each other, thus opening more chances to recognize true talent, rather than spend time, like what most countrymen do now, grouching about teh state of affairs and the uncaringness of officials, whilst officials on their part grouch abt the insensibilities of the populace.
what we need to do is replace rigidity with informality.
What is COE anyway? Can you tell me where to get it? I would like to read it.
Actually, systems are authoritarian itselfs. Else, how'd one expect systems to be? Systems are blind.10) Inserting a mechanism to lock things up is violating the principle of transparency.
Wearing underwears violates transparency too.
The nation is not progressing, not because it is relying on a system, but because it is relying on the wrong system. After all, you have to admit, this system brought us progress between 1965 and 1980.
Alright, that's kidding. It's at least there for good minds to read. I'd have to do it cos I'd have to make sure the right mentality got the right stuff, or least, what results won't be disasterous.
Not true. It's because we are short of the right people doing the right thingy. As I have illustrate, you put Einstein as the commander of the Cannon squad and Napoleon to do atomic bombs, you can just comment both are useless, then.
My focus on 1965 to 1980 is obviously the designers of the system, or better, the applier of the tool: system. But the right designers don't necessary bring about the right system, yet the right people will be able to do the systems. But most importantly, it's the system that's been done, not the people been done by the system. So don't miss my point and put the focus in the wrong places.
11) I was just giving an analogy.
In either case, neither side accepts the info, see?
Actually, I would take it as Jamie Han's failure to convince LKY? LKY was a visionary; unfortunately he is no longer one. Even he recognizes that: this is why he is giving the younger leaders a chance. But he is old, and a little stubborn too; he is fixed in the past, and henceforth does not see into the future,or rather, even when he sees into the future, he sees it from the eyes of the past instead of the eyes of the present. Jamie Han, from my perspective, was merely advocating progress which LKY doesn't recognize as such, not because he has some mysterious unique mystic insight or revelation that tells him as such, but becasue as an old man, he is highly resistant to change. So no, The Jamie-Han-LKY exchange does not show that LKY is a jerk or failure, but neither does it show that Jamie Han is a jerk or failure himself.
Besides, what they were having was not a lesson; it was unfortuantely a debate, where LKY was pushing his view as forcefully as possible, and han was perhaps doing the same.
12) They must understand what they are following.
Emm... There is of course a way to lead, my dear Pikamaster. Ok. Compare to Goh MS and Ti Lik, and compare them to MM.
ya, you are right in saying that it's not always true that the guy who follows will in any chance understand the guy who leads,but I'm talking about what should be, not what is. The follower must have a reason for following any leader after all.
If the followers allow the leader to decide the path for them, he can, but without that express approval, he should not just force anything down his followers' throats.
The followers have a right to know what is happening to them, and what is going to happen to them, and to disagree with the leader. And those rights are only honoured when there is transparency.
A leader must also accede to contributions made by the followers; in jargon we call it feedback and volunteerism.
So no, it's a pre-requisite that is not circumstantially determined.
In my view, both Goh and Chia has nothing much to offer, and while Goh focus on gaining popularity (It's simple rationale, election means votes, votes mean people. Crap, but that's still rationale) and Ti Lik focus on what sub-standard lawyers normally do: one-sided pushing.
Now, both ain't really leaders, and in the long run, they won't stay. But they ain't as transparent as MM himself.
Who would you stay with, if you are a political talent? Probably none.
Who would you vote for if these are the only choices? MM.
Can you understand certain things of leadership from here?13) I have told you time-and-time-again, I am NOT in any circumstance going to join YP, although some of my friends might, where then I might decide to use them as mediums...hmmm...
It's ok. As mentioned in YPForum, I may stay on, without card and/or without YP anything, doing MPS, till maybe I have to leave in one way or another. I'm mulling over the idea of opening a political cafe in Johore, on neutral grounds. But that plan has a couple of concerns and ideas to iron out.
YP, I suspect is insiduous at indoctrination.
well, have a nice day, gtg sleep now.
the pikamaster
Maybe we can talk years later, without needing to join any P at all. If I have to migrate, I'd probably pass the proposal to someone else.
Actually, you don't have to join YP. As long as info or issues I deem release-able, and you are (in nick) talk-able, we'd talk online. Doesn't even care if you are who you really are.
You take care. -
Hello all politically inclined forumers,
The future of a country lies in self-renewal. There are many ways Singapore can renew itself.
Singapore has established itself as a Island state with some degree of success by the 1970s or so.
After 1970s, it has been a long and mostly fumbling downhill. From the 1980s, it was the middle and lower income who have to suffer the high costs due to high direct and indirect taxes and recovery of costs of services.
Singapore has not succeeded as a genuine vibrant economy. It has become over-dependent on foreign investors and the government sector is tifling the growth of its own domestic economy. The local economic sector is languishing from high costs and many of the SMEs and local businesses cannot survive.
People have become poorer due to bursting of the asset bubble. CPF savings meant for retirements were mostly wiped out. Wages have come down and CPF cut. Many foreigners are given preferences to take over jobs from the locals.
The constant manipulations of political participation process has totally stuffed the country of any political talents. The GRC election system and electoral boundary redrawings has totally killed off all political participation by the citizens.
Therefore it is now critical for the citizens to take stock of the current political manipulation and the system that taxes to the hilt and yet recovers all costs to full market prices.
The 7 points of democracy has been put together as a practical platform to assure citizens of political participation in a more level field, equity, rule of law and accountable and transparent governance.
There is nothing wrong with democracy but through political manipulations, democracy has been made to look like a problem to frighten citizens of demand for open and accountable participation.
The state-controled media is singing the tune of the establishment with political justifications and presentations to make all government policies and decisions look good and cover up all shortcomings.
It is the people will now decide whether they want to continue to live with such a system of government - to stuff the people of political rights, and participation and at the end only to benefit the rich and the top echelons or elites. To do anything at all, people as a whole must decide whether they want to live in such a control system or do they want to move forward with greater democracy with people exercising their rights so that they will not become brainwashed or joining ruling party for the sake of personal benefits.
Decide on using your vote and do not get confused by the gerrymandeering or little immaterial benefits and go for change. -
Haha,Originally posted by robertteh:Hello all politically inclined forumers,
The future of a country lies in self-renewal.
There are many ways Singapore can renew itself.
The past 39 years or so saw Singapore establishing itself as a Island state with some degree of success by the 1970s or so.
After that it has been a long and difficult climb. Most of the time it has been fumbling and downhill. The climb from the 1980s has been at the expense of the middle and lower income groups. The only credits that can be given so far from the 1980s onward have been the sheer ability of the leaders to tax and recover and nothing much.
Singapore has not established itself as an entrepreneurial or creative nation. Its own domestic business sector is languishing from high costs and cannot survive. People have suffered from high debts mostly due to bursting of asset bubble. CPF savings meant for retirements were mostly wiped out. Wages have come down and CPF cut. Many are unemployed and foreigners are given preferences to take over jobs from the locals.
The 20 persistent problems of autocracy as posted were not solved and appear to be unsolvable. The alternative political talents were driven to extinction and there is hardly any viable political talents left due to harsh election gerrymandeering from GRC to electoral boundary redrawings. The current political apathy among the educated elites were entirely the creation of the ruling party.
Therefore it is critical to change and evolve the existing political system. Many views have been posted including very lengthy political discourses and thesis. There is no viable alternative political system to democracy. The 7 points of democracy has been captured to make them easy. Just go for the 7 points and get politicians to understand the need to be practical and continue to strive for equal playing field, equity, rule of law and accountable and transparent governance as provided by these 7 points of true and practical democracy.
There is nothing wrong with democracy as a political system except that it has to be modified to make sure that it will not become a strangled autocracy where people totally have no say due to various gerrymandeering of its electoral process and rule of law. More important is the people. They must not be confused by all the justifications and media presentations that tend to cover up shortcomings of existing gerrymandeering called talents, leaderships or elites. By resolved and firm and insist on going forward with demoracy and on people's rights provided thereunder to elect the right people anyone who are not controlled or brainwashed or joining ruling party for the sake of personal benefits.
Decide on using your vote to change for the better tomorrown and do not get confused by the gerrymandeering or little immaterial benefits and go for change. 
you could write a manifesto with this.
But I need to warn you, some of your statements are too over-conclusive. The problems of autocracy, for example, may be solvable, but we just haven't come up with the solution yet. Democracy does have certain weaknesses like efficiency as mentioned in CrazyMonkey's thesis or Control by Popularity instead of Ability, as Elfred has pointed out, and thus it is not right to say that there is nothing wrong with democracy as a political system. But in the end, it is cost-benefit analysis which favours Democracy over autocracy.
Beyond that, i agree with you.
thx.
the pikamaster (who just lost council elections in HC) -
Hello Pikamaster,
Elfred did not establish anything like you mentioned to my mind. I have repled to his various comments of advantages of other systems of government and found at the end that his reference to finding of good people is not a system.
I am not so sure if Crazymonkey has established any points against democracy (the USA/UK model) either. If there exists a more advanced, progressive and equitable political system like democracy these gentlemen would have identified them but so far Elfred and Crazymonkey have not done so.
So it is clear to me that no other political system or system of government can offer the advantages rivaling those offered by democracy.
The nearest rival system like Socialism and Communism have weaken over time. Monarch has mostly been modified by now to more democratic forms. Autocracy and totalitarianism have lost their favor.
The truly democratic countries like USA, UK and EU are faring much better as compared with non-democratic countries all over the world as under such system of government the civic participation of people have brought about increased standards of living, advances in science and technologies and economic competitiveness and social cohesions.
If anyone wants to say anything adverse about democracy it is necessary to look at the big picture first before there can be reasonable comparison. So without such comparison when Elfred goes about saying the democracy is no good full of inefficiency or whatnot, his arguments do not necessarily establish that democracy is undesirable. If there is any points in his arguments, it is the fact that democracy is not perfect. It can be bent and manipulated to serve the purpose of the party in power. Finding of good people can be better done in a democratic system than one largely by chance as posted by him
So I would maintain that it is important to compare apple to apple when any comparison is to be made. Many have forgotten that we have started out as a democracy but it is now becoming autocratic and a closed system. Speeches and information are controlled. Rights to vote have been sidelined by GRC and electoral boundary redrawing etc. It is necessary to evolve our system of pseudo-democracy to true democracy incorporating the 7 points posted so as to bring back the right ingredients to succeed in a democracy.
We have to iron out wrinkles and pockets of problems at working levels of democracy to prevent manipulation and powerplay within the system.
If there is no basis of comparison nothing can be established as there is no proper objective views about democracy. -
Hi Robert and Pika,
So... is PAP an Autocracy leh or Democracy leh?
Because of democracy, Mr Suharto had enjoyed a straight 7 terms of power.
Dr Mahathir's cronical last not very short too, in fact, UMNO is still there though GoLongan Ka(r)ya (Longan Kaya??? ) has become a political taboo in Indonesia (touch it, die).
Taiwan was fighting since Sun's time till kena-ed chase by Communist into Taiwan for democracy. Since Jiang Jie Shi's time, it was no lesser mess than the then warlocks and the situation isn't any better than Mao's time when piles of piles of bodies die due to starvation, and subsequently the huge corruption and rubbish that is replaced by Ming Jin party, toying with China, scheming with Singapore (and dragging us in).
Democracy...
I rather believe if Mr Chen Shui Bian is a talented leader that Taiwan will strengthen than to believe its democracy can solve its problems against communist (party) China. See? Is communist party in China better than democracy in Taiwan since it's obvious China which don't fly the flag of democracy but communist has bloated times over Taiwan?
But why in the hack was the same communist party be heading in the era of a very much weakened (weaker and weaker) China, (eg) with the steel mass-production thingy?
So let's not say democracy changes the fate of Taiwan cos Ming Jin party took over, cos over the straits, China is still in communist party's hands in the ups and downs.
Is hence democracy the so call best mode of system? Yet China is catching up and overshooting many of the nations what hailing democracy.
Hehehe... so Robert... if you really wanna make such distinct definition on the best system, which is PAP? You wanna solve the autocracy PAP in your view which comes about and exist due to democracy with democracy?
Maybe you'd claim that PAP has many walkovers. But, dear friend, even if contested, will (say) SDP surely win? It's still democracy. People's gotta vote when they gotta.
Again, what I still am saying is... don't trust system religiously.
Yeah... many people have, unthinkingly, proudly boast of our good, marvelous system. If the system is so good, why need People? Why need PAP? Why need WP or SDP or what party? Any donkey can be in power cos there...! There we have the gold-sent system.
Why do I need you?
But the truth is... system is not definitely gonna give you what prosperity than the promise it's definitely made to offer. It's as if believing facts and figures and you won't make many wrongs. But that's the biggest error to be made. Cos neither man nor system are gods.
So I am satisfied believing good people to do good things, not what systems or Gods. There's no best system to get good people or remove lousy people, cos black cat white cat, cat which catch mices is good cat. Democratic removal or selection, rebellions, natural take over, promotions bla bla bla. No best fixed way, or system. Only good people. Cos there's no such thingy as best, nor perfect.
Best man only occur in wedding ceremony, and that's just a title, not a specie. -
[quote]Originally posted by Elfred:
Hi Robert and Pika,
So... is PAP an Autocracy leh or Democracy leh?
Because of democracy, Mr Suharto had enjoyed a straight 7 terms of power.
Dr Mahathir's cronical last not very short too, in fact, UMNO is still there though GoLongan Ka(r)ya (Longan Kaya??? ) has become a political taboo in Indonesia (touch it, die).
Taiwan was fighting since Sun's time till kena-ed chase by Communist into Taiwan for democracy. Since Jiang Jie Shi's time, it was no lesser mess than the then warlocks and the situation isn't any better than Mao's time when piles of piles of bodies die due to starvation, and subsequently the huge corruption and rubbish that is replaced by Ming Jin party, toying with China, scheming with Singapore (and dragging us in).
Democracy...
[b]I rather believe if Mr Chen Shui Bian is a talented leader that Taiwan will strengthen than to believe its democracy can solve its problems against communist (party) China. See? Is communist party in China better than democracy in Taiwan since it's obvious China which don't fly the flag of democracy but communist has bloated times over Taiwan?
But why in the hack was the same communist party be heading in the era of a very much weakened (weaker and weaker) China, (eg) with the steel mass-production thingy?
So let's not say democracy changes the fate of Taiwan cos Ming Jin party took over, cos over the straits, China is still in communist party's hands in the ups and downs.
Is hence democracy the so call best mode of system? Yet China is catching up and overshooting many of the nations what hailing democracy.
Hehehe... so Robert... if you really wanna make such distinct definition on the best system, which is PAP? You wanna solve the autocracy PAP in your view which comes about and exist due to democracy with democracy?
Maybe you'd claim that PAP has many walkovers. But, dear friend, even if contested, will (say) SDP surely win? It's still democracy. People's gotta vote when they gotta.
China and Taiwan are opening up and democratising their governance as far as all can see. Mainland Chinese are enjoying more freedoms of speech and expression now compared with before. If you are claiming that it is practising autocracy and is succeeding as an autocracy think again. They are doing the reverse of autocracy now although it will take time for it to eventually democratise. Therefore it is not borne out by fact that China has succeeded as an autocracy. At least it does not have to confine speakers to a speaker corner or control the newspapers the way we do. They don't sue citizens for standing for election. It is not correct to assume too that Mahathir has succeeded as an autocracy. Mahathir has openly admitted that democracy is still the best political system in a speech delivered to the Management University of Singapore in 2004. Have Suharto practised democracy during the 7 terms he was in power in Indonesia. You have ascribed to Indonesia as a democratic country during Suharto and therefore claimed failure of democracy in Indonesia. Go and check your facts again. Indonesia has not practised democracy during the whole period. It has some sorts of election of president that is all but there was no practice of all other features of democracy during Suharto in respect of decisions of government which was run on president's edicts. So let me correct your wrong assumptions about Mahathir and Suharto.
From the above-stated facts it should be clear to you that your assumption that China has successfully pursued autocracy or what-have-you or that autocracy has been successful in China or Taiwan is a wrong assumption. For one thing, if autocracy has succeeded in China why is it moderning and democratising.
Again, what I still am saying is... don't trust system religiously.
Reply: Of course every system needs men to run it. So when you keep saying that our system is a system based on chance occurrence of good men or good fortune of finding good men, it does not prove anything - whether autocracy is a good system, chance finding of good men will continue.
What we have been looking at here: is autocracy a better system than democracy based on established USA/UK model to provide objective and good corporate governance.
Since autocracy up to this point in our discussion is explainable by finding of good men it is therefore clearly not a system or sustainable system. Therefore what you have earlier admitted is correct. It is merely self-centredness or chance occurrence.
Democracy has been well established over the past four centuries. Many more countries are following democracy even China a traditional communist country. Democracy offers a good objective and accountable governance that can be sustained not autocracy or system based on a few good men.
In our case the claim so far made by protagonists of autocracy is that it has succeeded. If autocracy is so sure that it can sustain itself effectively, why not just run everything by edicts.
The principal problem with autocracy is that good men too have private agendas and self-interests. How are the good men to be completely trusted to ensure that they will not govern to benefit themselves or their followers or cronies ? So when you claim that systems are not perfect men are worse, don't you see? A momentary self-interests in any decision may ruin the whole country and undo any good works under an autocracy.
The fact our autocracy has to be couched somewhat in democratic westminister style of election and legislative processes shows clearly that by it is not capable of standing on its own right. Good people are needed to run the system but under autocracy, it cannot find enough good people to run complex modern-day knowledge-based economy at all levels. We are now badly short of entrepreneurs to keep it going and competitive in this new knowledge-based world.
Yeah... many people have, unthinkingly, proudly boast of our good, marvelous system. If the system is so good, why need People? Why need PAP? Why need WP or SDP or what party? Any donkey can be in power cos there...! There we have the gold-sent system.
Reply: Your definition of success of our system of pseudo-democracy or autocracy is weak and unsubstantiated. We may want to boast to the outside world that we are clean and corruption free but we are over-paying the whole governing elitism resulting in a high-cost problem weighing heavily on the people. People are going through a hard time with lower standard of living due to dropping wages and bursting of assets. Look again at the 20 problems of autocracy as posted to think again whether our leaders can justifiably claim that we have succeeded as a country. I would agree that it has succeeded at one time up to 1970s. Since then the economy has been becoming very uncompetitive and people are suffering from high costs and lower wages.
The government can claim whatever success it still can command purely because it has been able to run a tax-and-recover system of governance. People are struggling to keep maintaining the high costs of the governance. The convoluted self-justified picture painted on the canvas of controlled media is certainly not a success.
But the truth is... system is not definitely gonna give you what prosperity than the promise it's definitely made to offer. It's as if believing facts and figures and you won't make many wrongs. But that's the biggest error to be made. Cos neither man nor system are gods.
REPLY: In the same vein, if system is no god neither is man god. This is a superfluous statement.
So I am satisfied believing good people to do good things, not what systems or Gods. There's no best system to get good people or remove lousy people, cos black cat white cat, cat which catch mices is good cat. Democratic removal or selection, rebellions, natural take over, promotions bla bla bla. No best fixed way, or system. Only good people. Cos there's no such thingy as best, nor perfect.
REPLY: Of course we know why you and the incumbent are self-satisfied with the present system of autocracy. It is so obvious that I do not have to give any reason.
Best man only occur in wedding ceremony, and that's just a title, not a specie.
Good luck or good fortune has nothing to do with good corporate governance or political system. Autocracy has no right of place among political system. If it is a chance occurrence as you have admitted earlier then you cannot recommend it to be something we should rely on for evolving or self-renewal. If is doubtful autocracy will survive in a knoweledge-based new world where everything happens very fast due to accelerating advancements of technology.
Under such conditions, a few good men at the top is insufficient as such a new world economy needs the applications of knowledge and new technology by the masses and practically every citizen. Any country that cannot succeed in motivating and unleashing the talents of people as a whole simply cannot catch up.
Our autocratic system is one that is based on taxing citizens at the highest market value for housing and vehicle ownership and utilities etc with corporatization to the highest possible fees and charges to recover all government costs. Such a pay-and-pay governance have resulted in government running up good surpluses which it claim to be primary factor of succcess.
People are suffering from high costs of living and the domestor business sector are languishing from loss of competitiveness. Bankruptcies are now at the highest in history. There is still an absence of truly competitive and entrepreneurial economic master plan to take the economy to the next level. Real leadership abilities have to be satisfying to the people not the media or self-justifications. The lack of true ability to handle the economy was clearly reflected in the general helplessness during the last two decades.
Please get real for once and not utter good presentations or justifications. -
well, we're not a full-fledged democracy, not that no one doesn't know this for a fact..i guess what could be appropriate for our system is to define it as a semi-authoritarian state.. i mean most states in the international arena have "free" elections but they are still primarily cloaked in their stricter regimes..
i guess the issue in singapore is that of a catch-22 situation...on one hand, paternalism has made us "un-creative", politically apathetic, and incapable of taking initiatives without the government's approval..then again, another faction would argue that had this system not been put in place, we would not have achieved the success and prosperity we enjoy today..
then again, from whose perspective is this "success" and "prosperity" being defined? essentially, it's really up to us to decide which stand we want to take though it would not lead us to a seemingly desirable solution..
fatalistic, but well, c'est la vie. -
Aryaan,Originally posted by Aryaan:well, we're not a full-fledged democracy, not that no one doesn't know this for a fact..i guess what could be appropriate for our system is to define it as a semi-authoritarian state.. i mean most states in the international arena have "free" elections but they are still primarily cloaked in their stricter regimes..
i guess the issue in singapore is that of a catch-22 situation...on one hand, paternalism has made us "un-creative", politically apathetic, and incapable of taking initiatives without the government's approval..then again, another faction would argue that had this system not been put in place, we would not have achieved the success and prosperity we enjoy today..
then again, from whose perspective is this "success" and "prosperity" being defined? essentially, it's really up to us to decide which stand we want to take though it would not lead us to a seemingly desirable solution..
fatalistic, but well, c'est la vie.
this is a nice summing up of our current situation. However, our situation is not a catch-22 situation. A good past does not necessarily beget a good future. paternalism made us the economic success we are today, as a whole country. But we need to move out of paternalism as we step into the 21st century, and there is a clear exit door out of this system or mode of doing stuff. The Big Question is: what is the house or place or road we go to after leaving through the Door to Paternalism?
the (contemplative) pikamaster -
Elfred,
[to your reply regarding EP - well, supposed to be regarding it anyway]
1) Well, what were you brought up in then? Or perhaps you were brought up in Europe or elsewhere in Asia?
2) Yes, I do know the maxim "rules are made to be broken". Ok, I'm calling it a constitution, but I have realized, as I started writing it, as there were many tacit rules, customs and traditions if you like (not ethnic and religious ones) that needed to be established first, and the procedures for their establishment fall within a certain grey area which Law can do very little to reach. So the law is meant to provide a framework in which these kind of traditions and rules of engagement (not formal ones) can be established as a subtender of an informal network. The end result, the network, in strict technical sense would be considered a system, but in the terms that we (more often you than I) have been using in this discussion, the network will not be a formal rigid bureaucratic system that you have raised intense criticism about. Indeed, bureaucracy is usually self-defeating. But the inherent characteristic of a network is of its extensibility, what I call the plugin capability. It can integrate new things fast. We don't need to look far for examples. Treat this forum as some kind of network. At certain times, though not always, the forum here receives news faster apparently than the main media outlets. SPH disseminates news slower than all the independent news forums throughout the net. Editorials you can receive on the online NYT at 5.00 pm on Monday, if they are used, will only appear at 6.00 am on Tuesday's Straits Times. Of course, everybody knows that the media in Singapore is merely one large bureaucracy.
The new (intellectual) Act is meant not so much to regulate and restrain, which would result in politicking as you ahve suggested, but to provide a basis upon which preliminary informal structures can be built. Remember, the atmosphere within any school is mainly informal. Yes, there is the formal interaction of the teachers teaching the students, and perhaps of prefectorial boards or student councils issuing directives. But at the lowest level, the classrooms, there is a large amount of informality. Teachers can joke and chat with students, and get to know them better. Students can interact with each other and perform peer pressure for favours to be bequeathed, at the same time making friends. of course, friendship is significantly built upon fulfilment of requests. These informal networks are built out of the individual's desire to assimilate into his/her peer group, (so that homework can be copied easily) as well as the desire to maintain a certain level of independence: obviously friends will agree to give each other some privacy in certain matters. What EP, and by extension the news edcuational framework I'm proposing, aims to do is to build upon these ties and links and more importantly link up all these networks, which are currently disseparate even within a single school, into one large network to facilitate interaction between students, and henceforth cementing of better ties, which would no doubt bolster harmony. As seen from posts at the various political dsicussion forums , and even school discussion boards like TJC's, and from feedback to the papers and to the online feedback unit, we can see that forced collective events (such as CIP) and the streaming system engendered by the bureaucracy of MOE is not very effective in bolstering such social harmony. In fact, the latter seems to have resulted in the growth of a highly elitist class, which despite the romantic notions of the Ministry, is clearly not beneficial for society in the social sense. In teh former, students from the same school, and in fact, from the same class or CCA group trend to band together, by tacit agreement or by their schools' logistical decisions. This is not very good in bolstering informal networks, which are the fastest manner in which information can be spread nowadays, especially with the incidence of SMS's and emails.
Thus, in that spirit, I think I'll rename EP to EC - the Educational Conference or Convention, which will be much more of a dialogue body than a debative body.
Futher down the level, there will be stuff like the Monthly General Assembly of the School, presided over, though not controlled by, the Estate Manager, replacement to the HM and DHM, who is complemented by the Representatives of Knowledge.
Lowest down, there will be the IEGCs - Integrated Education Group Committees, student committees which fucntion at classroom level, with the normal monitor, secretary and treasurer, though each has different processes of selection: monitor by weighted voting, secretary by random selection, and treasurer by standard majority. But ya, classroom decisions will still naturally be held in discussive format, since there is always implicit peer pressure within a school environment. This peer pressure will counteract forces of politics, which would mainly be student politics of popularity. Besides, there won't be practical influence by the IEGC on decision-making, except as like any other student.
3) ??? don't see any relation to the quote.
4) indeed, indeed.
5) ok...but...
6) Well, COE can't be the proper full name of your book right? I ahve friends in YP; if you tell me the name of the book, I will ask them to get it for me, then I can read it and comment on it.
authoritarian implies an attitude, and only thinking sentient beings can have attitudes, and thus can be good or evil. A system is like fire, entities which does not naturally possess any attitudes. And again,I am promoting a network, not a hierarchy.
7) Who are you to decide what is the right mentality and have the right stuff? How can you be so confident that you are not the one witht eh worng mentality and wrong stuff.
Pride comes before a fall.
Oh, and I'm not implying anything, merely asking questions that's all.
The issue on systems: *sigh* The Education System is unique in the entire social make-up as it participates in the nurture, if not performs it thereof, of those people who will be running the entire social system in the future, including the educational system. The education system selects "talent" and propels them into the control centers.So of course, there is no good talent, but this is due to a poor selection function in the educational system. The System has been done by people, but these people have been selected to be incorporated into the running of the System by the System itself. That is the complexity of edcuation's relationship with the rest of society. true.
9) Hmmm...don't Great-standard lawyers do great-standard one-side pushing as well? I mean, even MM doesn't really look at both sides when he says sth in parliament.
10) oh well...cya too.
the pikamaster(who failed to get into HC student Council) -
Hi Elfred and Pikamaster,
Since the rulers have used talents and elites as their regular trump cards to give an impression of good leadership and success, let's us check up on what constitute and who are the real elites or talents in Singapore and the brave new world:-
(AS POSTED AT www.findsingapore.net/phpbb)
Talents? Go check EDB/MOM/ROC/MTI who are entrepreneurs and latest technopreneurs. Who are the ones who registered patents and started businesses and create jobs. These are the true talents.
The towkays and tycoons will laugh the teech off when you go and tell them the talents are the ones with high professional qualifications, highest degrees and a lot of paper qualifications.
Do a national survey and don't just presume who are the talents. Invariably they will be someone who are the underdogs with skills or experiences and prepared to work on these skills that they possess and turn them into something.
Talents are those with some practical skills or knowledge and know how to apply them to improve works and products not those who keep trying to study.
Singaporeans have been duped into believing the rulers and their like are talents for ease of governance or political purpose.
Profile of talents: non-graduates, non-qualified people who got something up the sleeve. Last two serious recessions saw all the scholars and paper talents keeping low-profile and helpless. Many suggestions were given in feedback sessions to use empty lands and resources to benefit job creations but our scholars and paper talents did not get the message at all.
Now world economy recovers a little quickly so many of the paper talents are showing color again. What a fake society!!!
_________________ -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:Hi Robert and Pika,
So... is PAP an Autocracy leh or Democracy leh?
Because of democracy, Mr Suharto had enjoyed a straight 7 terms of power.
Dr Mahathir's cronical last not very short too, in fact, UMNO is still there though GoLongan Ka(r)ya (Longan Kaya??? ) has become a political taboo in Indonesia (touch it, die).
Taiwan was fighting since Sun's time till kena-ed chase by Communist into Taiwan for democracy. Since Jiang Jie Shi's time, it was no lesser mess than the then warlocks and the situation isn't any better than Mao's time when piles of piles of bodies die due to starvation, and subsequently the huge corruption and rubbish that is replaced by Ming Jin party, toying with China, scheming with Singapore (and dragging us in).
Democracy...
I rather believe if Mr Chen Shui Bian is a talented leader that Taiwan will strengthen than to believe its democracy can solve its problems against communist (party) China. See? Is communist party in China better than democracy in Taiwan since it's obvious China which don't fly the flag of democracy but communist has bloated times over Taiwan?
But why in the hack was the same communist party be heading in the era of a very much weakened (weaker and weaker) China, (eg) with the steel mass-production thingy?
So let's not say democracy changes the fate of Taiwan cos Ming Jin party took over, cos over the straits, China is still in communist party's hands in the ups and downs.
Is hence democracy the so call best mode of system? Yet China is catching up and overshooting many of the nations what hailing democracy.
Hehehe... so Robert... if you really wanna make such distinct definition on the best system, which is PAP? You wanna solve the autocracy PAP in your view which comes about and exist due to democracy with democracy?
Maybe you'd claim that PAP has many walkovers. But, dear friend, even if contested, will (say) SDP surely win? It's still democracy. People's gotta vote when they gotta.
Again, what I still am saying is... don't trust system religiously.
Yeah... many people have, unthinkingly, proudly boast of our good, marvelous system. If the system is so good, why need People? Why need PAP? Why need WP or SDP or what party? Any donkey can be in power cos there...! There we have the gold-sent system.
Why do I need you?
But the truth is... system is not definitely gonna give you what prosperity than the promise it's definitely made to offer. It's as if believing facts and figures and you won't make many wrongs. But that's the biggest error to be made. Cos neither man nor system are gods.
So I am satisfied believing good people to do good things, not what systems or Gods. There's no best system to get good people or remove lousy people, cos black cat white cat, cat which catch mices is good cat. Democratic removal or selection, rebellions, natural take over, promotions bla bla bla. No best fixed way, or system. Only good people. Cos there's no such thingy as best, nor perfect.
Best man only occur in wedding ceremony, and that's just a title, not a specie.
1) neither. It is a pseudo-democracy, somewhere in-between, though closer to the side of autocracy.
2) Democracy? I thought Suharto came to power in a military coup???
3) Yo, who said that Malaysia was a democracy? Singapore and Malaysia and Indonesia are similar in many aspects politically. None fo the three are true democracies in the way Philiippines or UK is.
4) It is very frustrating that people who treat democracy as anarchy always cannot see beyond the same few examples. Oh, and your depiction of Taiwan isn't very accurate either. My Taiwanese friend told me that Jiang Jie Shi's tiem and the time that his son ruled in Taiwan through elections was a good time for Taiwan; in fact, Taiwan was very close to, if not in, the Five Dragons of Asia, Singapore was one too, in case you forgot. The havoc only actually started recently when CSB came to power. It was not perpetually there since 1950s. She lived and grew up in Taiwan; she should know. And oh well, actually she is one of my mother's friends.
5&6) no comment.
7) I thought you are smart enough to know? ...
9) lol. What is "overshooting" and "catching up" to you? China is catching up in economy, yes, but is it catching up socially? Look at wealth disparity; look at poor rural people; look at the mining accidents and poor provisions for workers' welfare in factories; of course, low literacy rate; Look at how CCP handled SARS. China is not catching up in ALOT of things, and in fact economic success which is overwhelming might just be its downfall. Guess why they are trying to curb inflation.
10) i'll leave Robert to answer this; actually I think he already has.
11) Who knows? People vote because they want to, not because they "gotta".
12) Well then, don't trust people too religiously either. To be good, we need both satisfactory people and satisfactory system; no aiming for ideals here.
13) haha...actually Elfred, I just realized that both of us, in our earlier discussion, forgot one thing: People are part of the System too. if they are running the procedures of the system, they are part of the system since they are the inputs to the system; A system consistes of inputs, processes and outputs.
So I'll throw back at you: System? why need system? Why do pple like LKY and Jefferson and Qin Shi Huang spend so much time to create systems which are bound to fail anyway, if what you say is true? We can just dump one set of people in no particular order and one good leader together in a mish-mash and expect success in whatever terms we wish to put forth... after-all, we have the god-sent leader.
Or put it another way: The last Emperor of China came up with the wonderful Hundred Days of Reform Plan to modernize China; he was a visionary indeed, who managed to see what needed to be done. in other words, he possessed all the qualities of a leader you have mentioned. he had the political courage, foresight, flexibility etc., but Yet the Plan couldn't be implemented successfully. The Monarchical System postulated that the Empress Dowager had teh most power to reject regualtions in the system, as she was the one who gave birth to the Dragon or Son of Heaven. And unfortuantely, the Empress wasn't a Good leader; she alcked all the qualities her son ahd, and hencedforth rejcted all the plans for reform wholesale. If the Emperor had managed to implement the plan w/o resistance, China would be better off and the Qing Dyanasty probably would have survived till today. The Emperor had the political will; he still implemented a significant deal of reforms despite opposition from the Dowager, but the Dowager exercised her power given by the System to hamper the reform process, such that in the end many reforms were half-complete or twisted into something else entirely. So you see, having a good leader in a system that blocks him from leading is definitely not equivalent to success.
14&15) Right, statistics are not all the story. But I have refrained from giving statistics; what I've been telling you are down-to-earth situations.
16) Don't you catch your own irony? By using "good" in the context you're using it in, you have been consistently implying that the people you are having as leaders are perfect. But in the same way, as I did above, I can turn your statement against you though modified slightly:-
There is no best person to get good people or bad people or good systems or bad systems; black cat or white cat, as long as it catches the mouse, it is a good cat. Regardless of academic qualification or lack thereof, regardless of race, language, religion, age, gender, sexuality, level of experience, supposed creativity and thinking ability, regardless of personal background or lack thereof, regardless of wealth and popularity, as long as a person can identify and solve problems and come up with proper procedures of prevention that work in practice and fulfill the aim(s) s/he has, s/he is a good leader, cos black cat white cat, any cat that catches mice is a good cat. Cos there's no such thingy as best, nor perfect.
17) Indeed, indeed. That is something for you to remember. 'Cos the only constant in this world is change. There is no person that can be a good leader universally for all eras, just like there are no systems that can be perpetually effective successes. Everything must change in time. Good people do not always stay good forever; like everything, including systems, they decay. Look at LKY. From the fiery visionary progressive in 1959 arguing for social change, he has deteriorated into the conservative fighting for the status quo in 2005. Thus, good leaders select good leaders to surround them only when they are in their prime. After the prime, you get people like Tharman and Raymond Lim and Vivian Balakrishnan coming up as "potential leaders", people who don't know the true way to connect with others, and thus only seek to maintain the status quo.
Cheers.
the pikamaster -
One word for you to keep in mind, Robert: complexity. The Profile of Talent, not just here, but elsewhere throughout the world, is diverse. It is made up of both those with high paper qualifications and those with low paper qualifications.Originally posted by robertteh:Hi Elfred and Pikamaster,
Since the rulers have used talents and elites as their regular trump cards to give an impression of good leadership and success, let's us check up on what constitute and who are the real elites or talents in Singapore and the brave new world:-
(AS POSTED AT www.findsingapore.net/phpbb)
Talents? Go check EDB/MOM/ROC/MTI who are entrepreneurs and latest technopreneurs. Who are the ones who registered patents and started businesses and create jobs. These are the true talents.
The towkays and tycoons will laugh the teech off when you go and tell them the talents are the ones with high professional qualifications, highest degrees and a lot of paper qualifications.
Do a national survey and don't just presume who are the talents. Invariably they will be someone who are the underdogs with skills or experiences and prepared to work on these skills that they possess and turn them into something.
Talents are those with some practical skills or knowledge and know how to apply them to improve works and products not those who keep trying to study.
Singaporeans have been duped into believing the rulers and their like are talents for ease of governance or political purpose.
Profile of talents: non-graduates, non-qualified people who got something up the sleeve. Last two serious recessions saw all the scholars and paper talents keeping low-profile and helpless. Many suggestions were given in feedback sessions to use empty lands and resources to benefit job creations but our scholars and paper talents did not get the message at all.
Now world economy recovers a little quickly so many of the paper talents are showing color again. What a fake society!!!
_________________
Because laughably, if I were to follow your definition of talent, then I'm fated not to be a talent. And I'd rather keep my options open...
Talents are more accurately people who harness their talents properly and fully.
adios! i need to sleep now.
the pikamaster (who is still pro-democracy although not elected to serve in HC Student Council) -
Originally posted by robertteh:
Wait wait, Robert.
[quote]Originally posted by Elfred:
[b]Hi Robert and Pika,
So... is PAP an Autocracy leh or Democracy leh?
Because of democracy, Mr Suharto had enjoyed a straight 7 terms of power.
Dr Mahathir's cronical last not very short too, in fact, UMNO is still there though GoLongan Ka(r)ya (Longan Kaya??? ) has become a political taboo in Indonesia (touch it, die).
Taiwan was fighting since Sun's time till kena-ed chase by Communist into Taiwan for democracy. Since Jiang Jie Shi's time, it was no lesser mess than the then warlocks and the situation isn't any better than Mao's time when piles of piles of bodies die due to starvation, and subsequently the huge corruption and rubbish that is replaced by Ming Jin party, toying with China, scheming with Singapore (and dragging us in).
Democracy...
[b]I rather believe if Mr Chen Shui Bian is a talented leader that Taiwan will strengthen than to believe its democracy can solve its problems against communist (party) China. See? Is communist party in China better than democracy in Taiwan since it's obvious China which don't fly the flag of democracy but communist has bloated times over Taiwan?
But why in the hack was the same communist party be heading in the era of a very much weakened (weaker and weaker) China, (eg) with the steel mass-production thingy?
So let's not say democracy changes the fate of Taiwan cos Ming Jin party took over, cos over the straits, China is still in communist party's hands in the ups and downs.
Is hence democracy the so call best mode of system? Yet China is catching up and overshooting many of the nations what hailing democracy.
Hehehe... so Robert... if you really wanna make such distinct definition on the best system, which is PAP? You wanna solve the autocracy PAP in your view which comes about and exist due to democracy with democracy?
Maybe you'd claim that PAP has many walkovers. But, dear friend, even if contested, will (say) SDP surely win? It's still democracy. People's gotta vote when they gotta.
China and Taiwan are opening up and democratising their governance as far as all can see. Mainland Chinese are enjoying more freedoms of speech and expression now compared with before. If you are claiming that it is practising autocracy and is succeeding as an autocracy think again. They are doing the reverse of autocracy now although it will take time for it to eventually democratise. Therefore it is not borne out by fact that China has succeeded as an autocracy. At least it does not have to confine speakers to a speaker corner or control the newspapers the way we do. They don't sue citizens for standing for election. It is not correct to assume too that Mahathir has succeeded as an autocracy. Mahathir has openly admitted that democracy is still the best political system in a speech delivered to the Management University of Singapore in 2004. Have Suharto practised democracy during the 7 terms he was in power in Indonesia. You have ascribed to Indonesia as a democratic country during Suharto and therefore claimed failure of democracy in Indonesia. Go and check your facts again. Indonesia has not practised democracy during the whole period. It has some sorts of election of president that is all but there was no practice of all other features of democracy during Suharto in respect of decisions of government which was run on president's edicts. So let me correct your wrong assumptions about Mahathir and Suharto.
From the above-stated facts it should be clear to you that your assumption that China has successfully pursued autocracy or what-have-you or that autocracy has been successful in China or Taiwan is a wrong assumption. For one thing, if autocracy has succeeded in China why is it moderning and democratising.
Again, what I still am saying is... don't trust system religiously.
Reply: Of course every system needs men to run it. So when you keep saying that our system is a system based on chance occurrence of good men or good fortune of finding good men, it does not prove anything - whether autocracy is a good system, chance finding of good men will continue.
What we have been looking at here: is autocracy a better system than democracy based on established USA/UK model to provide objective and good corporate governance.
Since autocracy up to this point in our discussion is explainable by finding of good men it is therefore clearly not a system or sustainable system. Therefore what you have earlier admitted is correct. It is merely self-centredness or chance occurrence.
Democracy has been well established over the past four centuries. Many more countries are following democracy even China a traditional communist country. Democracy offers a good objective and accountable governance that can be sustained not autocracy or system based on a few good men.
In our case the claim so far made by protagonists of autocracy is that it has succeeded. If autocracy is so sure that it can sustain itself effectively, why not just run everything by edicts.
The principal problem with autocracy is that good men too have private agendas and self-interests. How are the good men to be completely trusted to ensure that they will not govern to benefit themselves or their followers or cronies ? So when you claim that systems are not perfect men are worse, don't you see? A momentary self-interests in any decision may ruin the whole country and undo any good works under an autocracy.
The fact our autocracy has to be couched somewhat in democratic westminister style of election and legislative processes shows clearly that by it is not capable of standing on its own right. Good people are needed to run the system but under autocracy, it cannot find enough good people to run complex modern-day knowledge-based economy at all levels. We are now badly short of entrepreneurs to keep it going and competitive in this new knowledge-based world.
Yeah... many people have, unthinkingly, proudly boast of our good, marvelous system. If the system is so good, why need People? Why need PAP? Why need WP or SDP or what party? Any donkey can be in power cos there...! There we have the gold-sent system.
Reply: Your definition of success of our system of pseudo-democracy or autocracy is weak and unsubstantiated. We may want to boast to the outside world that we are clean and corruption free but we are over-paying the whole governing elitism resulting in a high-cost problem weighing heavily on the people. People are going through a hard time with lower standard of living due to dropping wages and bursting of assets. Look again at the 20 problems of autocracy as posted to think again whether our leaders can justifiably claim that we have succeeded as a country. I would agree that it has succeeded at one time up to 1970s. Since then the economy has been becoming very uncompetitive and people are suffering from high costs and lower wages.
The government can claim whatever success it still can command purely because it has been able to run a tax-and-recover system of governance. People are struggling to keep maintaining the high costs of the governance. The convoluted self-justified picture painted on the canvas of controlled media is certainly not a success.
But the truth is... system is not definitely gonna give you what prosperity than the promise it's definitely made to offer. It's as if believing facts and figures and you won't make many wrongs. But that's the biggest error to be made. Cos neither man nor system are gods.
REPLY: In the same vein, if system is no god neither is man god. This is a superfluous statement.
So I am satisfied believing good people to do good things, not what systems or Gods. There's no best system to get good people or remove lousy people, cos black cat white cat, cat which catch mices is good cat. Democratic removal or selection, rebellions, natural take over, promotions bla bla bla. No best fixed way, or system. Only good people. Cos there's no such thingy as best, nor perfect.
REPLY: Of course we know why you and the incumbent are self-satisfied with the present system of autocracy. It is so obvious that I do not have to give any reason.
Best man only occur in wedding ceremony, and that's just a title, not a specie.
Good luck or good fortune has nothing to do with good corporate governance or political system. Autocracy has no right of place among political system. If it is a chance occurrence as you have admitted earlier then you cannot recommend it to be something we should rely on for evolving or self-renewal. If is doubtful autocracy will survive in a knoweledge-based new world where everything happens very fast due to accelerating advancements of technology.
Under such conditions, a few good men at the top is insufficient as such a new world economy needs the applications of knowledge and new technology by the masses and practically every citizen. Any country that cannot succeed in motivating and unleashing the talents of people as a whole simply cannot catch up.
Our autocratic system is one that is based on taxing citizens at the highest market value for housing and vehicle ownership and utilities etc with corporatization to the highest possible fees and charges to recover all government costs. Such a pay-and-pay governance have resulted in government running up good surpluses which it claim to be primary factor of succcess.
People are suffering from high costs of living and the domestor business sector are languishing from loss of competitiveness. Bankruptcies are now at the highest in history. There is still an absence of truly competitive and entrepreneurial economic master plan to take the economy to the next level. Real leadership abilities have to be satisfying to the people not the media or self-justifications. The lack of true ability to handle the economy was clearly reflected in the general helplessness during the last two decades.
Please get real for once and not utter good presentations or justifications. [/b] Hang on a moment.
Do you know what is democracy, actually?
You mean China is opening up, hence it's (at least) going to what democracy??? ??? ???
(I shan't touch the rest...) -
Originally posted by robertteh:
The context of the darkened parts exist is controversial.
Hi Elfred and Pikamaster,
Since the rulers have used talents and elites as their regular trump cards to give an impression of good leadership and success, let's us check up on what constitute and who are the real elites or talents in Singapore and the brave new world:-
(AS POSTED AT www.findsingapore.net/phpbb)
Talents? Go check EDB/MOM/ROC/MTI who are entrepreneurs and latest technopreneurs. Who are the ones who registered patents and started businesses and create jobs. These are the true talents.
The towkays and tycoons will laugh the teech off when you go and tell them the talents are the ones with high professional qualifications, highest degrees and a lot of paper qualifications.
Do a national survey and don't just presume who are the talents. Invariably they will be someone who are the underdogs with skills or experiences and prepared to work on these skills that they possess and turn them into something.
Talents are those with some practical skills or knowledge and know how to apply them to improve works and products not those who keep trying to study.
Singaporeans have been duped into believing the rulers and their like are talents for ease of governance or political purpose.
Profile of talents: non-graduates, non-qualified people who got something up the sleeve. Last two serious recessions saw all the scholars and paper talents keeping low-profile and helpless. Many suggestions were given in feedback sessions to use empty lands and resources to benefit job creations but our scholars and paper talents did not get the message at all.
Now world economy recovers a little quickly so many of the paper talents are showing color again. What a fake society!!!
_________________
Whereby a political organisation is claimed to (as you indicated) flash their talents, your real talents ain't relevant, it so seems.
Or are you expecting a Doctor to operate Autocad and Engineer to operate on a patient...? -
Elfred,
So what it's pseudo or liberal democracy...? Hehehehe...
1) neither. It is a pseudo-democracy, somewhere in-between, though closer to the side of autocracy.
Closer side to autocracy? Like how? By the way, exactly which sphere I have laid are you drawing your conclusion from? China (as Robert was shooting at)?2) Democracy? I thought Suharto came to power in a military coup???
That's what you thought. Many people said many things. But surely, he didn't have seven coups for seven terms.3) Yo, who said that Malaysia was a democracy? Singapore and Malaysia and Indonesia are similar in many aspects politically. None fo the three are true democracies in the way Philiippines or UK is.
Hahahaha... Wait wait wait... You know (eg) the Third way is not exactly the same as the 3rd way, just as the state and nation is not exactly the same.
What Malaysia was not democracy? You mean before Mahathir or post-Mahathir??? Do you know what is 'democracy' in the first place?4) It is very frustrating that people who treat democracy as anarchy always cannot see beyond the same few examples. Oh, and your depiction of Taiwan isn't very accurate either. My Taiwanese friend told me that Jiang Jie Shi's tiem and the time that his son ruled in Taiwan through elections was a good time for Taiwan; in fact, Taiwan was very close to, if not in, the Five Dragons of Asia, Singapore was one too, in case you forgot. The havoc only actually started recently when CSB came to power. It was not perpetually there since 1950s. She lived and grew up in Taiwan; she should know. And oh well, actually she is one of my mother's friends.
???
Don't just listen to your Taiwan friend, Pikamaster. And please stay focus of what I am talking about. 5&6) no comment.
???
7) I thought you are smart enough to know?
Are you preferring them to stay the way they were 30years back? ...
9) lol. What is "overshooting" and "catching up" to you? China is catching up in economy, yes, but is it catching up socially? Look at wealth disparity; look at poor rural people; look at the mining accidents and poor provisions for workers' welfare in factories; of course, low literacy rate; Look at how CCP handled SARS. China is not catching up in ALOT of things, and in fact economic success which is overwhelming might just be its downfall. Guess why they are trying to curb inflation.10) i'll leave Robert to answer this; actually I think he already has.
Nay. I didn't forget. Which is, if you re-read again, I did mentioned something as 'system doing people or people doing system'. It seems people, not only you, don't digest beyond reading.
11) Who knows? People vote because they want to, not because they "gotta".
12) Well then, don't trust people too religiously either. To be good, we need both satisfactory people and satisfactory system; no aiming for ideals here.
13) haha...actually Elfred, I just realized that both of us, in our earlier discussion, forgot one thing: People are part of the System too. if they are running the procedures of the system, they are part of the system since they are the inputs to the system; A system consistes of inputs, processes and outputs. No offence.So I'll throw back at you: System? why need system? Why do pple like LKY and Jefferson and Qin Shi Huang spend so much time to create systems which are bound to fail anyway, if what you say is true? We can just dump one set of people in no particular order and one good leader together in a mish-mash and expect success in whatever terms we wish to put forth... after-all, we have the god-sent leader.
No need to throw back what question. MM's system, people are talking about it now. Qi Shi Huang, his system never last his empire beyond his second generation. Jefferson (if you are refering to the 1st US Secretary of State), I don't think he is a good example, he's more of/associated with ideology than a stuckar system.
I never say we should dump what set of people and one good leader. And expect success. I suppose you miss the point.Or put it another way: The last Emperor of China came up with the wonderful Hundred Days of Reform Plan to modernize China; he was a visionary indeed, who managed to see what needed to be done. in other words, he possessed all the qualities of a leader you have mentioned. he had the political courage, foresight, flexibility etc., but Yet the Plan couldn't be implemented successfully. The Monarchical System postulated that the Empress Dowager had teh most power to reject regualtions in the system, as she was the one who gave birth to the Dragon or Son of Heaven. And unfortuantely, the Empress wasn't a Good leader; she alcked all the qualities her son ahd, and hencedforth rejcted all the plans for reform wholesale. If the Emperor had managed to implement the plan w/o resistance, China would be better off and the Qing Dyanasty probably would have survived till today. The Emperor had the political will; he still implemented a significant deal of reforms despite opposition from the Dowager, but the Dowager exercised her power given by the System to hamper the reform process, such that in the end many reforms were half-complete or twisted into something else entirely. So you see, having a good leader in a system that blocks him from leading is definitely not equivalent to success.
Wait a minute, Pikamaster. You seem to mix puppet and leader in this instance... (???)
Besides, don't defocus on the issue, System vs Good People.
In that time, the system is itself a whole huge load/burden on good people. It only serves my point.14&15) Right, statistics are not all the story. But I have refrained from giving statistics; what I've been telling you are down-to-earth situations.
Emm... I suggest, sincerely and no mischief, you get help on history.16) Don't you catch your own irony? By using "good" in the context you're using it in, you have been consistently implying that the people you are having as leaders are perfect.
I never said there are perfect man or woman, you have missed the point again. In fact, I have said, just, that best man is a title, not a specie. But in the same way, as I did above, I can turn your statement against you though modified slightly:-
There is no best person to get good people or bad people or good systems or bad systems; black cat or white cat, as long as it catches the mouse, it is a good cat. Regardless of academic qualification or lack thereof, regardless of race, language, religion, age, gender, sexuality, level of experience, supposed creativity and thinking ability, regardless of personal background or lack thereof, regardless of wealth and popularity, as long as a person can identify and solve problems and come up with proper procedures of prevention that work in practice and fulfill the aim(s) s/he has, s/he is a good leader, cos black cat white cat, any cat that catches mice is a good cat. Cos there's no such thingy as best, nor perfect.
Wait wait wait, Pikamaster, you have exhibit a too unstable foundation and totally miss the points. Discussion cannot go on with total misunderstanding.17) Indeed, indeed. That is something for you to remember. 'Cos the only constant in this world is change. There is no person that can be a good leader universally for all eras, just like there are no systems that can be perpetually effective successes. Everything must change in time. Good people do not always stay good forever; like everything, including systems, they decay. Look at LKY. From the fiery visionary progressive in 1959 arguing for social change, he has deteriorated into the conservative fighting for the status quo in 2005. Thus, good leaders select good leaders to surround them only when they are in their prime. After the prime, you get people like Tharman and Raymond Lim and Vivian Balakrishnan coming up as "potential leaders", people who don't know the true way to connect with others, and thus only seek to maintain the status quo.
True. The one constant is change. That's the basic principle of Chaotic Righteous people as myself. But the way you get your conclusion is quite chaotic itself... Which is not Chaotic Righteous... Whatever.
Cheers.
the pikamaster
Emm... No comment, for good reasons, on the names mentioned.
Gosh... Where did you guys get your thinking on politics one??? -
Elfred,
[on our third discussion thus far]
1) A pseudo-democracy is a country with a facade of democratic structures eg. the ballot box, courtrooms, a press that does not contain working govt officials in uniform etc., but operates in practice like an autocracy i.e. Govt owns most of the press, has overly strict libel laws that crush opposition, practices gerrymandering to a high degree, has former Security officials in the press, has a large economic stake in the press, judges and high corporate/press officials which have clientage or kinship with the government. A liberal democracy is a true democracy, that is one w/o the shadowy mechanisms of a pseudo-democracy.
2) One coup is enough for him to sieze power and rewrite the Constitution to give him a dictatorship. It was enough for him to crush the press and kill off thugs using personal militia not part of the standard Security Forces. And Militia is always a feature of autocracy.
3) Malaysia was not a democracy either pre-Mahattir or post-Mahattir; it still isn't a true democracy. Yes, i do know what democracy is, or I wouldn't dare to have such a discussion with you, and I can tell you, democracy is far more than just the ballot box or parliamentary elections using e-voting machines. I suggest you read up more on democracy.
4) I trust more pple who ar on the ground, like my Taiwanese friend. Because local media is extremely biased, and only focus on scenes of violence which is almost never what the entire protest or demonstration contains. Episodes of violence are sporadic and isolated; they are not in any way related to the general protesting mass.
Anyway, I am staying focused on the discussion. You gave your example of Taiwan, and I came up with evidence to counter your example.
5) nvm.
6) In a way, China is still largely socially similar to 30 yrs back; The only thing improved in China, as I said, is its economy.
7) ok..
Well, to me, no offence pls, it seems that you have been idolizing leaders a bit too much, and totally disregarding the improtance of systems.
So what is your point then? Can you summarize it again for my benefit?
9) Hmmm... do you know what a puppet is? A puppet doesn't defy orders. The Emperor did, so he is not a puppet.
I'm not defocusing. I'm simply saying, as I have always been: Systems and Good People are both essential to the functioning of any society.
You are arguing: Good People are more important than Systems in the Functioning of society?
Get my stand now?
10) hmmm.... which historical fact of mine is inaccurate?
11) Right, I got that point. But it seemed to contradict what you seemd to imply earlier, that's all.
Fine, in what way is my foundation unstable and in what way do I show "total misunderstanding"? If I show total misunderstanding, it shows that your explanations thus far have been unclear. And I have been, for teh alst few posts at least, consistently begging you to provide clear explanations haven't I? Gosh, do you really think you are like Einstein?
I am always willing to learn, but only if you tell me what I need to learn when I can't see that on my own.
12) Haha...Don't you think Einstein's thinking is chaotic too?
So, what is "chaotic righteous"? (pls answer with "'Chaotic Righteous' refers to...")
I don't know where Robert got his thinking on politics from, but for me:-
1) Mills' The Power Elite
2) Alan Tofflers' the Third Wave
3) personal observations and experiences and listening to grown-ups' conversation
4) currently reading the Political Context of Urban Education
5) Amnesty International
6) Reporteres Sans Frontieres
7) The Bible Sintercom
9) SGForums
10) the International Herald Tribune
11) the New York Times
12) Thinking and self-reflection...
13) History Encyclopaedia
14) Albert Eisntein's Special Theory of Relativity
15) Systems Theory
16) Amaryta Sen's Asian Values and Human Rights
Let me ask you: where did you get your thinking on politics from?
btw, "for good reason" is no good reason.
thx.
The pikamaster (who is sad)