DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Dear Forumers,
Today's newspaper published on 31.5.2005 a report headlined: "Is there political space in Singapore?: It is there" and concluded with a question: "should the people tell what they want"
Such a headline seems to suggest that there is sufficient political space but it is the people who do not know what they want.
By placing obstacles against oppositions such as GRC and the electoral boundary redrawings, it is more than obvious that the government is not going to change anything like granting any true political space.
Therefore if Today wants to report the truths, it should stop playing game and simply tell the truth - that the obstacles against election of opposition candidates should be removed as suggested in the "7 points of true democracy" posted in this thread.
This kind of justification press reporting smacks of hypocrisy like what Comedian Jack Neo has jokingly told his audience recently over a TV Interview in London when asked about the state of freedom in Singapore.
He said to laughers : "Oh, there is freedom of speech, See I am still here. The government has to tell people to speak up, say something say something".
Now Today's reporting simply repeats what Jack Neo has joked about: "Yes, please Speak up and say something, (Without mentioning that those who speak up were simply not listened to or ignored) and "tell us what changes you want".
The state-controlled newspapers up till now do not help to report the truths. They are causing further problems and delays to solutions to many problems by all kinds of gibberish justifications and hypocrisy.
Today should evaluate its journalism policy, practise accuracy and cover all the views and suggestions given here on changes to political process, and better protections of citizens' rights.
However I will not be surprised with Today's follow-up on this topic "Is there political space?" to portray a case of people as whiners and wimpers without telling the fact that people have in fact made many good suggestions which were to this day ignored. This kind of reporting is full of hypocrisy as anyone can see it.
I wrote to the editor and invited him to read the many suggestions given to the Feedback Unit or Sgforums on changes government can make to solve the many problems complained of by Singaporeans.
By now Today's editor should have read the many views and suggestions e.g. current high costs of living, double-charging on land, triple charging on vehicle, wrongful raising of university fees and bus fare when government or transport company is in surpluses.
He should have read the suggestion to bring back the democratic frameworks and restore people's basic right to elect their representatives as posted in the "7 points of true democracy" under this thread.
If the editor is up to the truths, he certainly should have responded by now - 4 days later. Normally a forum letter is published the next working day.
He could help to correct the wrongful assumption that there is sufficiency of political space but there is no articulateness in people's views on what they want?
From the odd silence over the past 3 days or more, it does look like Today will not print my letter to the editor or look into suggestions or views of forumers given here or to the feedback unit.
Unless I am wrong as Today need more report truths as they see them. I am staying hopeful that Today is still a more objective Singaporean newspaper.
I hope the silence will be broken and suggestions on political or policy changes from the people will be published truthfully by our newspapers.
Until then the newspapers will be justifications and hypocrisy that people are given the political freedoms but they being whiners or wimpers do not know what they want as reflected in Today's slanted headlined report as published on 31.5.2005.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.animations.com
-
qqq
-
HOW TO DECENTRALIZE TOP-DOWN TO ACCOUNTABLE TEAMWORK PROCESSES
According to Mark Twain: “The secret of getting ahead is to get started. The secret of getting started is breaking your complex and overwhelming tasks into small manageable tasks and then starting on the first one.”
It is in the human nature to be self-centred and manage their tasks in an ad hoc manner. Many people would go about tasks based on undefined conceptual or presumed self-ability, leadership quality without being concerned with accountability or implementation work processes or teamworks.
Self-centredness has been identified as the primary cause of malpractices by the Asian Financial Crisis and the mammoth corporate shenanigans in the aftermath.
Today despite the many corporate malpractices as unveiled by Enron or World-com collapses management practices remain self-serving and conceptual. Too university management courses are teaching conceptual ad hoc and self-centred management approaches: e.g. Neurological systems, Management-by-objective, Taylorism, FAYOL, Standard Operating Procedures (ISO), Organization theory etc. Most of these concepts are too centred on personal abilities, abstract and cannot be applied to actual work performance to attain results.
Today, the fast-paced globalised knowledge-based environment has made it increasingly difficult for a few men at the helm to oversee every major decision or their implementation. The abilities of a few are too slow and inept to adapt and reach to changes in all fields from human psychological motivation to technological renewals and upgrading. Problems get bogged down or locked in while everyone will be pretending all is well with policies or decisions when inefficiencies are affecting all in slow attrition.
On the other hand, it is increasingly proven that complex problems are performed in established work processes with coordination and knowledge application by all staff as demonstrated in many computerized business applications. Everyone is capable of leading, being motivated and appy knowledge irrespective of the level of management not just the top management personnel.
Leadership and talent or its allied meritocracy are simply too self-serving and individualistic to produce such process-organizational efficiency or economic competitiveness.
Therfore all the conceptual general management are insufficient to produce competitiveness and are making no difference to material results except for look-good public relation.
Such general conceptual management concentrate on decision making often at the expense of implementational coordination corrections and adaptation and teamwork.
Results on the other hand will not be realized until everyone in the whole team is just as capable in making good decision and implementing them with coordination and knowledge application.
Hence traditional approach in management fails to delegate or empower the team and consequently unable to meet with the demands of changing conditions or technological environment in the new age.
Newer management approach will have to increase implementation emphasis by establishing follow-through process steps such as : (1) Study of Ideas, (2) Enquiry, (3) Securing Contracts and (4) Contract Administration (Operations).
The first three steps are macro-level decision steps while the last step, namely contract administration (esablished often in project management core activities) which will allow proper follow-through of tasks in structured departments to coordinate all functional departments as follows:-
]1.(General) 2.(Human Resource) 3.(Revenue) 4.(Accounts) 5.(Marketing) 6.(Services-outsourced activities) 7.(Facility) 8.(Enforcement) 9. (Production) 10.(Compliance).
Although the functional departments names vary in practice there is no reason not to structure them functionally along the above-stated lines for all individual businesses for the purpose of maintaining integrity of process and follow-through departmental delegation and two-way communication, coordination and knowledge application the major part of process management.
Whether a business is governmental or non-governmental, overall functional departments are as a whole functionally the same as stated in the foregoing from the point of attaining follow-through organizational efficiency or economic competitiveness.
CORE ACTIVITIES AND PARAMETERS
Complex tasks can now be clearly structured and performed by all departments with in-built coordination, consistency and focus (primary factor of success) to realize economic competitiveness.
A typical department can be set up for processing in attainable work processes thus:-
1. Department Report (defining 3-4 core activities)
2. Assign 2-3 quality-time-cost parameters to each core activity.
3. Process detailed tasks derived from each core activity sequentially in time-based knowledge-application work forms.
Monitoring of tasks and reporting systems are now self-regulated by generated quantifiable assessments:-: "1" for non-compliance of parameter, "2" for compliance and "3" for excellence.
TRACKING OF PERFORMANCE THROUGH CALL CENTER
With tasks so standardized the organization is on the way to establishing a call center to oversee tasks to attain coordination and knowledge application by all in a two-way communication.
Variances or "1s' as communication to the call-centre are self-corrected by all departments.
Level 1: Management Report (call centre)
Level 2- Department reports – oversee operations giving variance feedbacks.
Level 3 - Work forms - sequential knowledge application.
FINAL GOAL - ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY
Government services hence can be decentralised in integrated parameter-defined accountable work processes while producing information, feedbacks and results to citizens. DonÂ’t wait until it is too late ?
-
DECENTRALISED WORK PROCESSES ARE ACCOUNTABLE AND RESULT-ORIENTED
By planning out government services in attainable work processes, for the whole team of civil servants to implement tasks, all ideas, policies and decisions can then be accountably identified and made known to staff on how and when they will be implemented.
Many conceptual policies like meritocracy, pro-foreign investments strategy etc can then be implemented with objective parameters to prevent excessiveness to affect growth of practical entreprpeneurship or stifling of local businesses.
Such parameters are easily introduced within work processes and be integrated within them for efficient overseeing and implementation by all ministries and departments to benefit the citizens.
By adopting an objective approach to managing government services, we can easily avoid all kinds of self-centred individualism and neurotics of praising about one's own leadership, talents. A new goal of government can be imparted to the whole government aimed at organizational efficiency. The government can avoid over-emphasising indvidualism which cannot oversee tasks serve the country better but cause more confusions.
Instead remonstrating all kinds of conceptual ideas, policies and decisions they will then be well established in accountable processes what can be carried out easily by the team. It is only through efficient implementation not good ideas alone that efficiency and results can be delivered to lower costs and upgrade the economy. Now it is too diverse and lacking direction with many good policies not followed through for years as posed in ther 20 problems of autocracy. Teamwork processes will empower all departments and workers to strive to reach their own best yet pull in the same direction through objective and well-integrated feedback-generating implementation processes known to all for greater monitoring and self-corrections.
The whole of government services will then be upgraded to become open, accountable to citizens not hidden behind the unaccountable mental facade of a few men who in any event cannot have enough time to attend to many matters spoken about.
The whole government services will then be result-oriented beside being objective and supported by all. Try it as it has worked in proven OSP work processes: Decntralised work processes are Accountable and Result-oriented. -
Now after making S$14 billions from the people who compliantly allowed them to price the HDB flats at monopolised above-market prices, (land already paid by people) people are left with concrete and mortar worth 50-60 % of original value not to mention the bank interests to be paid.
Then the government is able to publicise to the whole world and claim that under the exceptional leadership, (only see one ability : to tax double or triple big-ticket items like HDB flat or vehicle ownership) they have achieved surpluses and that Singaporeans (without mentioning 90% of people badly indebted by HDB high-priced mortgages) have reached the First world Swiss standard of living.
All policies will be made on assumption that Singaporeans are rich irrespective of the fact that the GDP growth figures were contributed by GLCs, Big businesses and foreign investements. Whether the local businesses are dying and people are heavily indebted by HDB is not their concern.
The domestic sector of economy caved in under such incessant pro-government one-way policies at the expense of people's jobs, and livelihood. Our surplus monies will be invested in easy way to build the government companies to produce jobs for foreigners in India and China. Singaporean unemployed is not a concern to them.
Under this kind of self-centred government, all data, facts and information are presented to suit their preferred arguments, how do we progress from here?
There is no use to give feedback as all the past policies which produce high costs and continuing fee increases remain the same. Take me on if you can that is their attitude. In the meantime, to make their continuing high-cost pro-government policies acceptable they have to come up with some look-good youth-revival or political openness programs.
Look at the past few months' practices, what do we see? I notice that fees and costs will continue to be driven up and despite promising openness, ideas to lower costs have been rejected time and again.
So look-good policies will continue to camouflage every past policy and all promotion of openness has been an eye-wash and hog-wash to date with no change.
People who cannot pay the over-priced HDB mortgage will simply have to be driven out to the street as seen on TV in one reported case of re-possession by HDB last night on channel news asia.
It is clear to me that the government is controlled by the few leaders of the past belief that they alone have done it their way and will not accept anything else. It is clearly signalled that the only way to change is to challenge them by vote and prove them wrong through the votes.
Until such condition, it is my belief that People should not be naive to believe in anything the leaders are saying through the younger leaders. It is no use. The younger leaders were powerless and are able to present only good shows and reports without their own agenda to change anything.
People will do better to recognize the political situation we are now facing and grow up politically. They should stay cohesive as a people and stay focus on change, or else they are going to pay and pay until they drop dead. The old leaders are not interested in change. They are telling the people with good ideas or ability - get us out if you can.
The reality is: Who will blink first !!!
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.clip-art.com
-
Robert,Originally posted by robertteh:Dear Forumers,
Today's newspaper published on 31.5.2005 a report headlined: "Is there political space in Singapore?: It is there" and concluded with a question: "should the people tell what they want"
Such a headline seems to suggest that there is sufficient political space but it is the people who do not know what they want.
By placing obstacles against oppositions such as GRC and the electoral boundary redrawings, it is more than obvious that the government is not going to change anything like granting any true political space.
Therefore if Today wants to report the truths, it should stop playing game and simply tell the truth - that the obstacles against election of opposition candidates should be removed as suggested in the "7 points of true democracy" posted in this thread.
This kind of justification press reporting smacks of hypocrisy like what Comedian Jack Neo has jokingly told his audience recently over a TV Interview in London when asked about the state of freedom in Singapore.
He said to laughers : "Oh, there is freedom of speech, See I am still here. The government has to tell people to speak up, say something say something".
Now Today's reporting simply repeats what Jack Neo has joked about: "Yes, please Speak up and say something, (Without mentioning that those who speak up were simply not listened to or ignored) and "tell us what changes you want".
The state-controlled newspapers up till now do not help to report the truths. They are causing further problems and delays to solutions to many problems by all kinds of gibberish justifications and hypocrisy.
Today should evaluate its journalism policy, practise accuracy and cover all the views and suggestions given here on changes to political process, and better protections of citizens' rights.
However I will not be surprised with Today's follow-up on this topic "Is there political space?" to portray a case of people as whiners and wimpers without telling the fact that people have in fact made many good suggestions which were to this day ignored. This kind of reporting is full of hypocrisy as anyone can see it.
I wrote to the editor and invited him to read the many suggestions given to the Feedback Unit or Sgforums on changes government can make to solve the many problems complained of by Singaporeans.
By now Today's editor should have read the many views and suggestions e.g. current high costs of living, double-charging on land, triple charging on vehicle, wrongful raising of university fees and bus fare when government or transport company is in surpluses.
He should have read the suggestion to bring back the democratic frameworks and restore people's basic right to elect their representatives as posted in the "7 points of true democracy" under this thread.
If the editor is up to the truths, he certainly should have responded by now - 4 days later. Normally a forum letter is published the next working day.
He could help to correct the wrongful assumption that there is sufficiency of political space but there is no articulateness in people's views on what they want?
From the odd silence over the past 3 days or more, it does look like Today will not print my letter to the editor or look into suggestions or views of forumers given here or to the feedback unit.
Unless I am wrong as Today need more report truths as they see them. I am staying hopeful that Today is still a more objective Singaporean newspaper.
I hope the silence will be broken and suggestions on political or policy changes from the people will be published truthfully by our newspapers.
Until then the newspapers will be justifications and hypocrisy that people are given the political freedoms but they being whiners or wimpers do not know what they want as reflected in Today's slanted headlined report as published on 31.5.2005.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.animations.com
TODAY is at least trying to be more objective, and it IS much more objective than ST. But of course, as you have stated, all media in our country is bound by tight laws which restrict what journalists can report. And obviously both SPH and MediaCorp will try tob end news to support the govt, especially opinions. The News is fact, i think i.e. ST and TODAY's "accurate and reliable reporting", but it definitely is a watered down version of the facts, at least for local news. Even RSF concedes tt foreign news reporting in local newspapers is very accurate.
the pikamaster (on holidays in Adelaide) -
To a large degree quality of people will determine quality of government or leaders.Originally posted by pikamaster:Robert,
TODAY is at least trying to be more objective, and it IS much more objective than ST. But of course, as you have stated, all media in our country is bound by tight laws which restrict what journalists can report. And obviously both SPH and MediaCorp will try tob end news to support the govt, especially opinions. The News is fact, i think i.e. ST and TODAY's "accurate and reliable reporting", but it definitely is a watered down version of the facts, at least for local news. Even RSF concedes tt foreign news reporting in local newspapers is very accurate.
the pikamaster (on holidays in Adelaide)
People have only themselves to blame if they have no opinion on the current apathetic press freedom or depolitisation of the whole population. As a result of such a couldn't-care attitude, it is to be expected that they will be treated by the government with disdain without respect for their opinions or views.
Thus over time the governing elites become over-bold and dare to put through many policies that squeezed them dry and subjected themselves to all inconveience, discriminations and exploitations to no end. They cannot even speak their minds or do the right things now except to tolerate and do nothing. Suffering in silence seems to be the rule of the game. The people who will speak up like Catherine Lim will look odd in any event as people even shunt her or dissociate from her views.
If people cannot air their views or make suggestions in any objective manner what would you expect of such a people. Everyhting happening is colored by a sycophant press.
If they do not have even have the right to know the truths, facts, news or information, how will they ever have hope, expectations or aspirations at all. How could there be vibrancy when the press is carrying on justification or pretentious reporting in a sycophant manner.
Without even understanding what is happening through objective press reporting, will the governing elites will just ignore the people and carry on hardline wrongful policy for control sake sacrificing citizens' benefits.
With the press carrying on pretentious and wrongful reporting help bring about change or correct all the self-interests and what were wrong. The sheer arrogance is the order of the game. Elites will cleverly judge to themselves that people are powerless and will adopt the attitude of challenging the people - take us on if you can and do not bother about serving the people or being pro-people in its governance.
I expect that the press control will continue to promote a governance that are full of problems but all problems hidden or covered up. Government will look good and there nothing wrongs will ever be reported. This kind of press will favor those journalists who will curry favor and try to report justifications of all kinds to rise in position or whatever reason to stay in good book of authority.
Just imagine, when people cannot even have access to facts, information or truths, what mindset change will such a people or government ever hope to achieve. The whole cocoon will put them in a state of hibernation instead of urgency to solve any problem.
Can there be a miracle to produce one-man or one-leader ountry who from some hidden abiltiy will help us to overcome high costs and become a competitive or creative nation.
I will say that without the basic freedoms of expressions or news being restoredd all the people can do is to complain and they will be forever doomed to be a servile nation fit to be taken over by dictatorship to benefit only the elites and their underlings.
The first change to save the nation should be to remove all pretentious reporting, and restore all freedoms back to the people without which all talks about improvements, upgradings, change or competitivenes
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.iconfun.com
-
Again the government is resorting to using statistics and state-controlled informational flow to justify their look-good way of managing the country and economy in the latest announcement on Singapore's presumably improved housing and transportation standards!!!
Singapore's system of government is full of self-justifications and contrite. It is a system where the leaders rely on the state-controlled news and information to put out systematically information to show they are doing a great job in this or that.
That kind of system clearly is one-way, pretentious and aimed at excusing their civil service of actual performance. As long as the leaders succeed in showing and claiming or contending their management with artfully contrived staitistics, figures and information, there will be nothing people can do except to listen and obey. It is a very self-centred top-down management model constantly easing pressure for civil servants allowing them to lower their guards. It is an uncompetitive system of running an economy or country!!!
An open system is one where government is willing to listen to all and allow people to put forward feedbacks without all kinds of statistics to deny them of access.
Civil servants should pull up their socks and be fully trained and managed to produce results to achieved all goals, policies and bottomlines irrespective of such pretentious news and information'
In other words, do not use news and information to create complacency or allow civil servants to justify their existing way of doing things.
GDP, job-creations, budget surpluses are all devices used to cloud over real and genuine performance to excuse civil servants of dynamism and change.
Think about this state of jusfitication and statistical management which have brought us poor performance and lack of competitiveness in the past. Real change and growing up are obviously not being pursued with coordination and knowledge application.
Without coordination and knowledge application, the whole civil service will be full of statistics to justify look-good approach in performance.
This lack of coordination is a problem identified by Dr. Tony Tan recently but what has he done to pursuade and sell his ideas across to the cabinet and make change? -
Man is as great as his virtue. The day our leaders started to promote themselves in the name of meritocracy and pushes for their high pays and rewards, there is no more virtue or value in our system. Some people call this pragmatism by another nice-sounding name. To me self-ness and self-centredness are what our system is promoting - everyone is for himself when leaders started to promote themselves and their own kinds.
When man loses his virtue, there will be gerrymandeering, justifications, oppressions, repressions and suppresions to get artifical respects by sheer forceful taking of attention and respect.
Which phase is Singapore society in now? The rich and elites take all they can leaving the rest to fend for themselves. Is there any more altruism, love-thy-neighbour goodwill and care for fellow-beings? Is there any humility or virtues preached by confucius?
So if someone asks me why are Singaporeans so kiasu or kiasee, with many of them behaving in very selfish way, I will tell him that answers lie in the word "virtue". -
MM Lee said to Abdullah Badawi, the Malaysian PM: "You got to pay your ministers high salaries to avoid corruption"
Badawi replied: "In Malaysia, we believe in integrity" (Implication : Malaysian ministers have integrity what about Singapore ministers?}
So far MM Lee has not given any reply to Badawi's rebuff. I believe MM Lee is lost for words in this instance. Perhaps like the man often said, : let history be the judge ...in this case history will probably be called upon to judge whether integrity is more crucial than moneyism - MM Lee's pincipal theory of modern-day government. -
ermm...Originally posted by robertteh:MM Lee said to Abdullah Badawi, the Malaysian PM: "You got to pay your ministers high salaries to avoid corruption"
Badawi replied: "In Malaysia, we believe in integrity" (Implication : Malaysian ministers have integrity what about Singapore ministers?}
So far MM Lee has not given any reply to Badawi's rebuff. I believe MM Lee is lost for words in this instance. Perhaps like the man often said, : let history be the judge ...in this case history will probably be called upon to judge whether integrity is more crucial than moneyism - MM Lee's pincipal theory of modern-day government.
Robert,
don't you rrealize that you're the only oen still active in this thread? -
Pikamaster,
Hehehe, let's spread some political astuteness and consciousness around.
Citizens have been generally depoliticised by the past autocratic system. Now Singapore is sorely short of political talents.
Hopefully all citizens have now realized the need to become politically more aware of what is happening around them like the Koreans and Japanese.
To be political evolving, there is a need to understand that without an interest in politics, citizens will lose out and be taken for granted by whoever the politicians of the day. They have to understand how politics impact their career, lives and future wellbeing. I only see political decline in our place with no one interested in being active citizens or politics.
People should ask for accountability and civic participation and be more matured in their political leaning, -
To: Forumers (posted to FU on 29.6.2005)
I can understand the sadness and melancholy of many whose views and suggestions given to FU are not getting through or implemented after so many months of postings.
Citizens are getting to see the real face of our elites. They are interested in their own kinds or celebrities who will better serve their cause. Why waste time with struggling thomases or nobodies. If it is tsunami attracting political or international acclaim so be it?
Youths can be conveniently used for promotion of a cause subject to certain conditions...they have to be somewhere high-up academically or celebrity worthy.
Why take calculated risk or be involved in actions or implementations anyway? The elites are at the top shielded by the middle rungs who naturally have to take the raps for non-performance.
Why listen to the hoi polloi as doing so is like admitting that they are less than elites or talents.
So Singapore will be sold and told in books and media as a successful (except for occasional recession years or honest mistakes) story - right or wrong of policies and whether ordinary people are earning third-world wages or not is another story.
Keep control levels up so that there will be less accountability or corporate governance problems. See no evils and hear no evils - that is the best policy. True democracy, forget it and tell the media to write more horror stories about democracy failurs and everybody will believe in autocracy and leadership. Repetitions and reiterations is the way - "my way".
GRC, electoral boundary gerrymandeering have brought the bounties so forget about trying to free up election processes to allow proportional representation or two-votes election system.
Never mind about the contradiction about first-world-high costs versus third-world wages, or the asset enhancement or growth triangle fiascos or pro-foreign shortsightedness.
Never mind about any thorny issues as it is unlike masters to listen to opinions or views. It is best to continue stone-walling by means of modern-day management techniques - justifications and presentations by way of suitably skewed statistics.
Concern, jollying or public relations cost very little. There will be no loss of face by showing concern - corporate governance is another matter.
Everything done will continue to be based on long-established meritocracy to allow elites to enjoy the world's highest self-approved pays equated to bosses' own self-reward schemes. Who will create jobs or are really talented to create jobs is another matter.
Singapore has good growth now based on surpluses and GDP now so some goodies can be given to heartlanders or the suffering SMEs. Very soon everything will be alright again.
The loud complaints about fee or fare increases will be another passing phase. The majority of population will learn how to tolerate GRC-cornered election walkovers again.
Under the above-stated circumstances will we solve the 20 problems with autocracy e.g. high cost and using of taxpayers monies to compete against them for the same pies.
Will the elites truly believe in economic competitiveness after so many years of practising stonewalling of feedbacks and suggesions?
Will the media be freed up to give a true accountability to problems solving or decisions process?
Why should there be solutions to problems when justifications and good reports are so much easier to handle. After all the citizens seem to believe in good media reports and are believe everything said again that everything in good shape and doing fine.
The citizens can be told in the next round of unemployments that the problems are caused by limited business opportunities or structural unemployments or China or India.
The only way for elites to survive is to give good pays to ministers (never mind about integrity matter spoken of by Premier Badawi) to make them take the orders or be compliant. Tell the press good stories so that the whole population will be able to take all the suffering from extreme hardship.
The past policies have been to create government surpluses, hardships of people not of great concern. All problems can be solved by look-good policies once in a while during speeches. Throw in some talks about talents or needs for foreign investments all will be taken care of in the next round.
What is creativity, entrepreneurship? Never mind about non-elitist entrepreneurs who create many jobs, just keep talking about scholars and their abilities and everybody will believe scholars are more critical to economic competitiveness.
The truth to the elites is that the rich will give them what they want and need. So the rich should not be impeded so that the government will fill up the talents' coffers.
The truths about problems will wait for a while. Who will tell them? I notice your many interesting posts trying to provide solutions to problems in your own ways.
We as non-elites or hoi polloi will have to know our stations. We should not ovcr-reach the elites who are the real talents and leaders who deserve no less. So we may be behaving a bit like LeeDynasty in letting off steams to prevent clogging up the blood vessels or bursting of cortex.
I am happy that there are some who continue their slogging to get to the truths. These people shall have my highest respects. I hope too that they will continue to do their part to tell the truths. -
*sigh*
-
To a forumer (as posted at : http://www.findSingapore.net/forum
With the general tendency to form committees to look into this or that problem, the government is indirectly telling the civil servants (Permanent Secretaries are paid hundreds of thousands p.a. higher than ministers ' salaries in developed countries) that "not to worry, committees will be formed to find reasons or scapegoats to answer to problems".
Committees are headless and inhuman. They exist to look into problems in Singapore when such problems should have been solved by highly paid civil servants in the first place.
No wonder heads at MOM or MTI are regularly saved from non-performance or mistakes by various committees who after all the recommendations would be excusing the principal officers like permanent secretaries or ministers of failures or mediocre performance.
Who will be answerable to non-performance next after intervention by committees? The whole accountability system is gone. Committee members are headless and no one is answerable for implementations. Are we producing a more efficient leadership management system by all these committees which to me is an eye-wash.
That is why committees cannot work e.g. economic re-structuring and remaking Singapore recommendations failed to turn around the mediocre state of technological progressions in our economy when countries like Korea, Taiwan and Japan are miles ahead in applying knowledge and management excellence. Only our dinosaur leaders believe more of the leadership and talents stories which failed to produce upgrading or economic restructuring.
The ministers and top civil servants should perform and be held accountable and responsible for any failures, fiascos or mediocre performance. -
Singapore leaders have publicized to the whole world of their abilities to build a first world's economy in the third world region. They have forecast their abilities to reach the Swiss standard of living by 2010.
Before being misled by their further egoistic boastful talks let us review our GDP standings as published by the Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database according to a source in April 2005
Rank Country 2005 GDP (nominal) per capita
US dollars
1 Luxembourg 77,595
2 Norway 61,852
3 Switzerland 52,879
4 Iceland 52,063
5 Republic of Ireland 50,303
6 Denmark 49,182
7 Sweden 42,392
8 United States 41,917
9 Qatar 39,607
10 Austria 39,292
11 Finland 39,098
12 Netherlands 38,320
13 United Kingdom 38,098
14 Belgium 37,730
15 Japan 37,566
16 France 35,727
17 Germany 35,075
18 Canada 34,028
19 Australia 33,629
20 Italy 31,874
21 Spain 27,074
22 Singapore 26,481
The low ranking is despite the fact that Singapore's economy is majority foreign-owned. Its own domestic business sector is in negative growth struggling from high costs. The majority of its citizens (90%) are getting third-world wages, so much so that a ministerial committee is formed in June 2005 to look into the workers' low-wage problem.
By the amount of mortgage debts, Singaporeans are the most indebted people in the whole world.
Can our ministers really claim that we are a first-world country? Are 60 % of our citizens getting anywhere near the published 26,000 pa wage.
But what is quite certain is that 60-90 % of citizens have to struggle to pay the first-world costs in housing, medical, utilities and transport etc. despite getting low wages.
So on what basis do our leaders say we are first world country or getting near to the boasted Swiss standard of living. -
Any country like HongKong, Korea, Japan and Taiwan where people are the masters and the politicians are the servants will outperform countries where the government is dominated by only a few men at the helm.
Besides the danger of abuses of power, moneyism, nepotism, corruptions (legally taking is worse than occasional covert corruptions as the whole amounts of taking can be very huge} the greater number of people and NGOs taking part in deliberating and carrying the tasks of running a country is far more talented and effective than closed-door decisions or controls by autocrats and their cronies.
HongKong and Korea are progressing along nicely now as they are governed by mass participation process. They will prosper and outperform our system given to too much self-ness and egotism.
Collective mass participations by a whole team sustained by people's widest support through accountable processes will bring about greatest good to the greatest number of people. -
All Forumers,
Singapore leaders have for the past forty years been promoting meritocracy, talents and their presumptuous leadership.
Based on such conceptual leadership claims and assumptions they have rewarded themselves the world-highest salaries and life-long annuities in the name of meritocracy, retaining talents or avoiding corruptions.
People returned them to power elections after elections recently not for true performance but gerrymandeering of electoral process etc like GRC or electoral boundary redrawing and election-time goodies which in many countries would be challenged as vote-buying.
Be it as it may, during the leadership transition, it is only right that people should ask : why are the local businesses not doing well or why the double-charging on land charges (HDB flats) and continuing corporatization (government relinguishing their traditional services) and why the market-level fees despite all the taxes being paid (S$500,000 - $800,000 per family thru HDB and COEs) and why the government is competing against the citizens who supported them with taxes for limited business opportunities with its people.
People are asking for more competitive and accountable governance.
Our leaders have not fulfilled their promises made in the last election to create jobs and the ordinary people's wages are dropping to third-world level while costs are driven up to that of the first-world.
Have talents or leadership so frequently emphasised really benefited ordinary citizens or only the talents themselves.
Is it right morally or ethically to have self-rewarded themselve against people's objections the world's highest government servants' or ministers' salaries from 1980s?
All we know is that from the 1980s we have suffered many economic downturns with leaders failing to revive or restructure the economy and exonerating their proclaimed talents from talented performance.
After the Asian Financial crisis, the economy has been heading south while our leaders were constantly giving excuses making "U turns" about their so-called talents or meritocracy presumptuousness saying that they cannot do anything due to external market conditions or our being short of entrepreneurs or talents.
If indeed they are the great leaders or talents as proclaimed they should not give any excuses and should be humble to serve as servants.
There seems to be all the "U" turns against Sim Wong Hoo's NUTS advice and resorting to excuses and justifications to avoid responsibilities to lower costs and save jobs etc.
Under the new leadership of LHL, people were invited to give feedbacks and to participate in his idea of building an all-inclusive society.
Sad to say, despite all the feedbacks the past policies remain largely unchanged months after much talking about change under the new administration.
90% of the population had their wages drastically reduced since the last recessions and bursting of the government's failed asset enhancement policy.
EDB has failed to attract top talents and scholars for developing the needed high technology to restructure the economy to compete with Korea or Taiwan.
Instead many attempts were made to push the problem to the alleged bond breakers or calling top scholars as mediocres in researches by the world standard.
The top civil servants and ministers have failed to add value such as creating self-resilience or nurturing of local talents and practical entrepreneurs.
Looking back at our past 40 years or so, it is very clear that except for the first 20 years or so, when Singapore has achieved basic industrialization the economy has been losing direction after Dr. Goh Keng Swee has left the scene.
What went wrong? There has to be frank discussions to find the root causes not resort to justifications or meritocracy talks that failed to upgrade the economic competitiveness.
We have been losing out in many areas due to track-minded pursuit of academic talents or paper chase that benefit only the few scholars themselves. The scholars could have been nurtured and groomed to fire up technological start-ups, value-adding or attainments of all kinds of business hubs strategy from the 1980s.
Our leaders were only seen as helplessly defending past policies which no longer work or work as well as before.
It may be difficult to find another Bill Gate or Sim Wong Hoo, but since our leaders and top civil servants were claimed and paid as the best, what is wrong with citizens like Jamie asking our leaders not to be arrogant and account for lacklustre economic structuring or upgrading.
By the 1980s, Singapore essentially manages it economy using pro-foreign investment incentives (not to locals) irrespective of the fact our other countries are offering better and better similar incentives.
Our leaders were too slow or defensive and cannot see competitions like in the PSA and SIA cases until the situation is disasterously too late.
By the 1980s and 1990s, old pro-foreign investments economic policies have failed to work or backfired. Many MNCs and foreign companies in the last two recessions were deserting Singapore by droves especially since the Asian Financial crisis.
After Dr. Goh, we were seen to be short of a high-calibre ministers adept in proactive actions and result-oriented management.
New ministers and scholars were given the chances from the 1980s after failed to come up with really good and practical economic master strategy to preempt and overcome foreseeable problems even taking China and India into the equation.
They have lost valuable time so far due to egotism and clinging on past policies which failed to work now to meet the third-wave challenges.
Hence, today, Singapore is losing behind Korea, Taiwan not to mention Japan and a number of European countries like Finland, Switzerland and Denmark.
Despite being resourceless and small, many European countries who practise open and accountable governing processes have benefited consistently from competitive mass participation in practical knowledge application.
Singapore is now still managing on old conceptual meritocracy or leaderships which were seen helpless throughout the recessions to make the necessary changes and upgrading.
It is time to facilitate the performances of all economic activities by coming up with good supportive policies to promote and nurture mass practical knowledge application from schooling all the way to university. Talents and leaderships approaches are the lowest denominators in competitiveness. In the new age, government should go for creating technological start-ups and broad-based education giving all opportunities to develop practical bests not academic bests.
So I would propose to balance the existing dogmatic pro-foreign investment policies and pro-academics policies with a set of new policies which will seriously facilitate the whole business community to work out changes to empower all workers in practical knowledge application.
Education policy should not remain as in the past to emphasise on a few academic talents. Singapore should learn how despite small population base Finland and Switzerland introduced and benefited from their broad-based education system which lay strong entrepreneurship foundation for the whole population from young and throughout schooling.
Singapore must create the conditions for economic success as found in Finland, Switzerland and Denmark in a broad way involving all.
Sadly the leaders have failed and continued to fail to recognize their policy shortcomings.
Now that it has been admitted through all the feedbacks that our talents or top scholars do not deliver as expected of them, let's be more humble like the Koreans or Taiwanese.
Let there be practical new-age technological start-ups, new discoveries or inventions to take our economy higher. We should stop flogging the proverbial academic or talent dead horse.
If we cannot get the highly promoted scholars and top leaders to create a technologically advanced new economy then we should re-examine all the old policy assumptions and not keep rehashing them as practised currently under LHL administration in the name of meritocracy or attracting foreign investments.
Sad to say, I do not see any effective strategy consistently implemented to bring about new technological excellence and so far all the hubs and growth triangles have failed to meet the targets.
We do not need heros whether among ministers or within EDB to talk down on our highly educated new workforce or treat them like demi-gods. What we need is teamwork and taking of proactive steps to consistently upgrade to be technologically advanced nation.
This is the new and worthwhile challenge for the new administration. There has to be total re-examination of all past policies that don't work. We need to chart out new strategies to create technological start-ups.
If clueless ministers cannot deliver the goals to make our economy as Korea and Taiwan have done, then we really need to find foreign ministers to deliver what Dr. Goh Keng Swee has done once.
Our top civil servant like Mr. Yeo should stay as humble servant and not make claim that he had succeeded in this or that as a swallow does not make a summer.
The same old policy that once worked does not necessarily work again in the future. He must not keep putting up with excuses about the male bond breakers and call them whiners or whimpers as they who are not solely at fault. Ladies do not necessarily make better scholars like what he has proclaimed.
At this moment we are seeing a lot of hot air with the same characterically self-centred leadership style of the past.
Like Diana Ser says, let's get real.
RECOMMENDATION:
THE ONLY WAY TO SURVIVE FOR SINGAPORE IS TO UPGRADE TO FIRST-WORLD ADVANCED TECHNOLOGICAL ECONOMY. ONLY BY PRACTISING THE 7 POINTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AS POSTED WILL THE GOVERNMENT BE ABLE TO EMPOWER THE MASSES TO CHIP IN WITH TOTAL PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE IN ALL FIELDS NO MATTER HOW HUMBLE.
ONLY THROUGH MAJOR CHANGES TO OLD TAX-AND-RECOVER OR MERITOCRACY POLICIES WILL THE PEOPLE BE MOTIVATED TO REVIVE VIBRANCY AND INCREASE OUR ENTREPRENEURS TO CREATE JOBS.
LEADERS AND SCHOLARS DID NOT SAVE THE COUNTRY DURING RECESSIONS AND HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR ABILITY TO UPGRADE THE ECONOMY BY THEIR CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES LIKE KOREANS OR TAIWANESE HAVE DONE.
ALL THE MINISTERS AND TOP CIVIL SERVANTS HAVE TO GET DOWN TO ACTIONS AND GET REAL. -
(posted to Feedback Unit on 7.7.2005)
As posted to the Feedback Panel previously, an active citizenry will serve as a check on corporate governance of a country.
It will be good to open this topic for feedbacks with more attention given to invite objective and socially and politically active citizens to join to contribute to critical review of problems and challenges.
Through such active citizens there can be genuine, objective and competitive ideas and greater check-and-balances, competitive decisions and implementation in the governance of a country by the leaders.
Of course it will take time for our politicians to understand, grow and become mature to accept the role of active citizens as the ultimate asset to support a more self-enlightened system of corporate governance. -
i agree with you totally.Originally posted by robertteh:The current democracy framework as provided in the constitution is too general and uncertain, liable to amendments or tweaking to suit the narrow private agendas of any political parties in power e.g. depolitisation, co-option and machination.
It is essential to overhaul the current constitution to incorporate safeguards to prevent any abuses or gerrymandeering of any kinds by any political party in power.
The following basic democratic rights of citizens should be incorporated with proper safeguards to overcome existing problems:-
(1) One Man One Vote, or one Man two votes (one for constitutuency representation and one for election of 20 percents of total candidates to offer as shadow cabinet or act as practical checks and balances on actions of party in power)
(2) Protection of citizens against prosecution for political participation.
(3) Basic rights of citizens are enshrined in the constitution.
(4) Rule of law, fairness and equity and upholding of election or constitutional rights of citizens.
(5) Establishment of a low-cost independent sub-court open to observers from UN agencies to oversee election process and political participation by citizens.
e.g. To look into amendment of election process and giving out of pre-election goodies etc.
(6) Investigation by an idependent sub-court of reported conflict of interests
e.g. To look into comparison logic or appropriateness in equating elected representatives' pays and perks to highest in private sector or the world and self-voting of ministers' pay or other benefits.
(7) Non prosecution of political opponents
(e.g. Speeches made during the 60-day pre-election campaigning should be protected suitably from indictment or impeachment of any kinds subject to interpretations and oversight by independent sub-court according to provisions of the constitution laws or citizens' basic rights.)
Only by guaranteeing the rights of citizens' political participations will we be in a position to build an all-inclusive cosmopolitan society attractive to all citizens and outside talents and encouraging growth of investments and competitiveness in the economy.
Basic principles and guidelines should be enshrined in the constitution of independent administration of governance and justice according to Rule of law, fairness and equity.
Basic principles and guidelines alone are not sufficient to prevent abuse. It is critical to establish an independent low-cost sub-court open to observers from UN agencies to oversea fair and equitable election process or political participation by any citizens.
e.g. To look into propriety or legitimacy of giving out of pre-election goodies by the incumbent government etc.
Independent investigation by an independent sub-court has the power to look into conflict of interests e.g. self-recommendation and -voting of proposals for salaries and perks for MPs, Ministers etc or equating elected representatives' pays and perks to highest in private sector or the world.
It is critical to ensure Non-prosecution of political opponents or public debunking of political views through the state-controlled media or under the pretext of OB markers or exposing the personal lives of citizens to serve the private political agendas of any parties without the sanction by independent subcourt.
Citizens should be assured of their rights to speak up against any wrong doings of government without running the risk of prosecution under the general defamation laws except with a certification of prima facie by an independent low-cost sub-court set up to protect citizens' basic rights as stated in item 2 & 3.
Only when the constitution is properly safeguarded against current wrong doings and gerrymandeering will the citizens be able to come forward to serve the country irrespective of belief, cult, race or religion.
It will not serve the interest of anyone to keep to the current status quo. It is time to speak up on the part of all citizens on what they want and their rights of political participations.
(amended on 25.5.2005 to incorporate views of forumers e.g. pikamaster etc)
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.imbuddy.net
bear in mind this, singapore needed a strong leader.LKY provided for that.
Insurgents abound in the early years, u need to rule like a dictator to wipe out these threats to ensure peace and stability.
the constitution is open to manipulation by the ruling political party becos the ruling party wants to ensure that growth and stability which may be lost if another party comes into power. fortunately, the ruling party has been able to ensure growth and stability.
however, singaporerans are more concious now. like you robertteh. like you say, we need to bring changes to the constitution.
changes not just to bring true democracy. that would be too short sighted and simplistic. becos even true democracy is open to manipulation. look at the USA. so we need something better than just plain democracy. or an updated improved version of it. -
Even though democracy is not perfect, other political systems are even more prone to abuses, malpractices, oppressions, genocites, injustices...Originally posted by dryver:i agree with you totally.
bear in mind this, singapore needed a strong leader.LKY provided for that.
Insurgents abound in the early years, u need to rule like a dictator to wipe out these threats to ensure peace and stability.
the constitution is open to manipulation by the ruling political party becos the ruling party wants to ensure that growth and stability which may be lost if another party comes into power. fortunately, the ruling party has been able to ensure growth and stability.
however, singaporerans are more concious now. like you robertteh. like you say, we need to bring changes to the constitution.
changes not just to bring true democracy. that would be too short sighted and simplistic. becos even true democracy is open to manipulation. look at the USA. so we need something better than just plain democracy. or an updated improved version of it.
What we need at this point to assess our strengths and weaknesses and try to build on our strengths and evolve to a politcal system worth maintaining for our future survival.
I agree that even with adoption of accountable democratic framework incorporating the 7 points of accountability e.g. non-prosecution of political opponents in the name of defamation, etc, we are still not able to prevent future abuses and malpractices.
Without safeguards, I shudder to think of our future when the unaccountable way of governance might get worse. We do not know the quality of our future leaders and without checks and balances they might decide to let the high costs of living go out of control or introduce only policies that benefit the elites even more not to mention our multi-billions investments and funds at their easy disposals.
However since other systems such as autocracy, totalitarianism, theocracy, socialism or communism have fared worse in history and as there is hardly any alternative better than democracy, we should try to build on our current democratic foundation and incrementally improve upon it to prevent any future possible abuses or manipulations that serve one-party or elites' interests.
Because the possible abuses under any other political systems would be worse, we should build on our current administrative, judiciary and legislative framework and proceed to put in relevant safeguard over time towards attaining our own form of practical democracy. -
point taken ,thanks for the feedback. how are you working towards achieving this,personally? i mean,other than posting in this forum?Originally posted by robertteh:Even though democracy is not perfect, other political systems are even more prone to abuses, malpractices, oppressions, genocites, injustices...
What we need at this point to assess our strengths and weaknesses and try to build on our strengths and evolve to a politcal system worth maintaining for our future survival.
I agree that even with adoption of accountable democratic framework incorporating the 7 points of accountability e.g. non-prosecution of political opponents in the name of defamation, etc, we are still not able to prevent future abuses and malpractices.
Without safeguards, I shudder to think of our future when the unaccountable way of governance might get worse. We do not know the quality of our future leaders and without checks and balances they might decide to let the high costs of living go out of control or introduce only policies that benefit the elites even more not to mention our multi-billions investments and funds at their easy disposals.
However since other systems such as autocracy, totalitarianism, theocracy, socialism or communism have fared worse in history and as there is hardly any alternative better than democracy, we should try to build on our current democratic foundation and incrementally improve upon it to prevent any future possible abuses or manipulations that serve one-party or elites' interests.
Because the possible abuses under any other political systems would be worse, we should build on our current administrative, judiciary and legislative framework and proceed to put in relevant safeguard over time towards attaining our own form of practical democracy. -
To: A reply to forumer (As posted to Feedback Unit on 9.7.2005)
Just like in teaching, the real world of business does not operate in the opaque or conceptual realm.
Rhetorics are not equated to excellence or competitivenes.
I just watched Professor Mak Yuen Teen (NUS) and Jamie Allen (President of Asia Corporate Governance Association) talking about corporate governance standards over the Channel News Asia yesterday (8.7.05).
I have tried to catch the new ideas or thinking and how in the opinions of experts from all over the world corporate governance can be practised in reality.
Prof Mak emphasised on the needs for companies to practise high standards of accountability in the running of companies such as role of independent directors, ethical standards to be observed, disclosures of material information, blah blah.
Jamie Allen was asked by Melvin Yong (News Reporter) about the difference between corporate governance practices between USA/UK and Asian companies.
Jamie pointed out the essential difference as attributable to the more diverse ownership of companies in the west and more family oriented ones in Asia. To him, it will take time for Asian companies to reach for more independent corporate governance as many family-oriented businesses in Asia largely still rely on those whom they are comfortable with to be independent directors to scrutinise their corporate governance.
I keep straining to hear more about the HOW and implementation aspects of corporate governance from these two experts but regretably I cannot hear any parts of presentations as being practical or hands-on or being capable of implementation in practise by all ranks of staff.
The teaching advices or policies given so far from our top down management system today, is largely the same as these gentlemen experts' approaches - setting final goals and standards and identifying disclosures of this or that.
Similar approaches are found in all the education policies ranging from broad-brush meritocracy and talent scouting but apart from this there is nothing seen of the implementation part.
Conceptual corporate standards setting or engagements of independent directors will continue to be looking good presentations.
Conceptual foreign investment incentive schemes will continue to look good and reasonable in the media but how to involve all in practical knowledge application or carrying out the ultimate goals is another matter altogether with no one paying particular interests or attention.
After the experts or leaders have finished talking and announcements all will depend on chances that someone will be found to implement policies or concepts at the work level where all tasks will be performed to meet the finesse spoken of.
Actual teaching or imparting of knowledge and implementation of policies and corporate governance begins and ends with the actual processing of a piece of work in an user-friendly follow-through coordinated manner with knowledge application happening all at the same time.
Steps or processes should have in the first place be set in such a processing or follow-through manner as computerized application have done all the time to make corporate governance criteria fulfilled as tasks are performed.
Imparting knowledge in teaching is a much wider art and skill than the spotting of talented students. The whole population should be involved in such imparting and turning all knowledge in all fields to practical transformation to passion and nurturing practical knowledge applicators type of entrepreneurs.
Psychology and EQ have a stronger part to play overall but our educators seem to be narrowly dealing with spotting examination-smart final products which constrain the final practical knowledge application by the whole population.
I find that therefore as long as we have corporate governance set up as pure standards or desirables at the top or from the political governance viewpoint, as observed from the above-mentioned experts' presentation, Singapore corporate governance will continue to look good only but not actually practised excellently.
The same thing is happening to meritocracy, leadership and talent rhetorics. No change on the ground. People are not becoming more entrepreneurial or competitive in works or businesses. Hot air only and nothing much will be accomplished in another ten years. -
dryver,Originally posted by dryver:point taken ,thanks for the feedback. how are you working towards achieving this,personally? i mean,other than posting in this forum?
from what I knew, Robert told me he was kind of starting a Citizens' Policy Research Initiative (CiPRI). I have no idea however how successful that has been in the quarter of a year since he first told me about his plan.
For me, I am kind of - whenever I'm free from schoolwork or other school-related commitments - writing out a new constitution and set of constitutional laws. For the moment, I'm considering these to be merely academic - i.e. not for practical use, sicne you-know-who still runs the scene, but sometime in the future... maybe... some kind of org or sth, or maybe reforming CiPRI or sth else?
Only time will tell. I'm still young, just registered for the FIRST time for NS.
Cheers,
the pikamaster
P.S.: Please do not flame pple in other threads...
P.P.S.: actually, i'm conceptualizing the idea of a Citizens' (Research) Initiative of sorts, made up of 3 branches: Citizens' Political Initiative , Citizens' Educational Initiative, Citizens' Social Initiative (CPI, CEI, CSI). CPI could be made into a party to contest GE, but CSI and CEI would remain purely in the academic realm.
P.P.P.S.: My (purely-academic) rewrite postulates an improvement to the ENTIRE system of democracy, in order to make it in certain areas, more representative, and in others more inclusive and decentralized. In fact, it invloves splitting the unicameral Executive and Legislative into a tricameral Executive and Legislative, with Education occupying one of the Houses entirely on its own. However, I'm now trying to think of a way of accounting for the problem of student discipline in granting student councils/ student unions/ prefectorial boards a portion of executive power in enforcing order; Not every school offence can be sent to teh police to be dealt with. Stuff like for eg, should students be allowed to dye their hair (my guess is that in a really representative student body, the final vote would be yes, although maybe a very close one), i.e. stuff which liberal students' opinions would clash with those of their conservative elders. What if, for eg, the prefectorial board of chinese-educated schools decided that students in the school no longer have to bow to teachers, but a very old-fashioned principal/ discipline in-charge still insisted on holding that rule? THat would be a question that I am trying to address, the issue of how to decide the precedence of students' or teachers' opinion, to rpevent both overarching conservativism on teh teachers' side, and extremist anarchism on the students' side.
Guess tt's getting long, so I shall leave here... -
Hello Pikamaster,
A young boy still schooling yet showing such passions to upgrade and improve our current political system.
To survive as a nation, we need a hundred flowers blooming in our garden and what a wonderful sight it will be to see a beautiful garden than the desert which we may be currently creating.
On a more serious note, please post your proposed new constitution, education, and economic ideas in concise point-form versions for general information and comments here.
I am sure you will get good feedbacks to heighten the practicality of your proposals. Whether the government is or is not keen is another matter. The important criterion in today's world is the people factor.