DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
If I were to have both that skills and techno know-how, why in the hack would I stop the police to investigate the White Elephants?
Hello all forumnites,
[b]New Leadership and Process Management
Very often, people would about leaderships, talents or other recipes or factors of success in running a business or a country.
At one time, people readily worshipped their leaders' eloquence, or personality etc that appealed to their base instincts. Is this kind of leadership what we need today in nation building?
How do we get our leaders to translate goals, objectives and all kinds of look-good policies into actions and processes to deliver results with objective performance, reliability, justice, empathy with the poor and needy, the underdogs or socially handicapped or better serve the social and economic wellbeing of all.
Chances are that leaders today are still mostly rhetorical, and conceptual offering good-looking policies and assumptions rather than the ability to deliver results and economic competitiveness.
Given the continuously fast-changing technological and knowledge-based environment of today, it will be foolhardy to rely on concepts about talents or assumptions in governing of a country.
In the new age, leaders should be people possessing implementation abilities and special knowledge and skills in applying technologies to fuel growth. Practical knowledge applications will thrive and lead the world in the future.
Hence, they should act as facilitator of follow-through performance, objective and accountable corporate governance, leveling up of populations to gain competitive advantages to seize opportunities at practical applications of knowledge by all in every field.
They should mobilise people to achieve progress through implementation processes and go beyond revenue collections and enforcements of regulations and controls or provisions of basic services in security, medical or other utility needs of the early ages.
Effective leadership today should consist of the following criteria:-
(1) Translate goals and objectives and policies and assumptions into implementation processes to empower all in transforming widest fields of knowledge to create technology start-ups and jobs to bring about value-adding competitiveness.
(2) Collective leadership or governance to avoid narrow top-down conceptual look-good management by a few erudite elites or individuals.
Process management will avoid bias, prejudices of individuals, presentations, public relations, rhetorical abilities or emotive personality appeal.
Collective process management should aim at translating all goals, objectives, ideas or policies into real implementation capabilities from planning to execution, applying knowledge with total coordination to benefit whole society. Implementational efficiency and creativity must be part of the new ability to lead and rule.
The government must oversee the implementation of all knowledge applications from an holistic economic master plan, to realize technologicial start-ups and value-add all economic activities to stay competitive.
The modern governments should nurture an environment to grow more entrepreneurs and technological start-ups and create jobs. Government should be about creating higher paying jobs to sustain people's expected standards of living.
Very often, sad to say, many governments are only overly concerned with their own equations of success and protecting their own interests which are not consonent with the majoirity's interests or wellbeings.
It will not be enough to govern a country based on collecting maximum taxes, saving or privatising government expenses and creating government surpluses. Without empowering the workers and employees to participate in practical knowledge application, the economic pie is unlikely to grow.
Modern governments should practise holistic good corporate governance and dispense with self-centred policies of the past and should open up to facilitate building up of capabilities and competitiveness through practical knowledge application.
Only by practising collective good corporate governance as described will governments solve problems diverse problems in a more holistic manner.
All decisions will then carried out by means of committed people-centred implementation processes without hindrances from all the media hype, justfications and look-good presentations and defensiveness.
(Read more: http://www.managefranchise.blogspot.com
http://www.ospforohsopolite.blogspot.com
http://www.easymanager.blogspot.com[/b]
All of you should wonder whether it's the persons deciding on how the skills to be utilised or the persons with alot of skills more important.
We can have a very fanciful tool, but it'd gather dust and dirt over time doing totally nothing to but maintain its existence. What is the f^^^ use of this?
Or one can vote in a Satan and the tools into the parliament. It's the same as the knife saying: It can hurt either way, depending on who's behind it.
What's behind a leader, Robert? -
Look-good white elephants are in the large numbers now. The leaders do not know how to stop more white elephants from being born now because they lack the support of quality-time-cost accountable corporate governance.
The latest Marina or Orchard projects if not properly managed under hands-on economic master plan by very competitive minds, they may end up as the 7 wonders or white elephants. -
Sunday Times Sep 11, 2005
(By Kwan Weng Kin "Assassins" Give Koizumi the Edge)
QUOTE: "A squad of assasins handpicked by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to run against rebels who opposed his postal reform is expected to help put his LDP on track to victory in today's election.."
Since the incumbent PAP has failed to solve many problems (read 20 major problems of government as posted on page 11 in this thread earlier), it shuold consider the alternative of not creating all the controls and gerrymandering or walkovers or demolishing political participants by personal defamation suits but by creatively as LDP is doing allowing alternative like encouraging or supporting independent candidates to replace some ineffective talk-only candidates of their own.
Such a system will signal to the people a change to let people have better choices. After all, as long as the incumbent party has dominated the election processes and assured itself of return to power why not allow some alternatives or new blood who definitely can contribute to robust debates and good accountable corporate governance.
The "assassins" to provide voters with a choice - one an incumbent while another "alternative" unobjectionable voice of people - might be a wrong name but definitely it will offer a very good and creative electoral strategy for a party which has been dominating the politics without reliefs to suffering masses and suppressed views. PAP should look at such an alternative of supporting objective and unobjectionable people in standing in coming election. -
hmmm... when the law permits...Originally posted by Elfred:And when would you think you'd be old enough?
Just because MM started PAP when he's 31yo and you have to enter politics at 31yo???
What experience do you need, when you'd never have before you ever have any.
When the situation is ripe, you go.
-
oxford mushroom,Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Don't be too pessimistic. I think Singapore today is quite different from what it was at the last election. Structural unemployment is a bigger problem than before, costs have gone up despite a diminishing pay packet and despite all the promises of higher property value following upgrading, not many wealthy people have resulted from this anyway. Add to these the NKF saga, the Nicoll Highway collapse and talk about elitisim.....this government has alienated alot of people, including those who support most of their policies.
The opposition parties will gain seats if they can be united for once and plan their election strategy so that the most promising candidate is offered at each constituency instead of diluting votes for the opposition. But they have to be credible...we cannot have opposition party candidates turning up in slippers and who cannot give a rational argument about policies.
the problem with the opposition is tt it is consistently barking up the wrong tree. the SDA especially makes itself a laughing stock when it keeps calling for more democracy; practically, I think, pple have decided tt the SDA are nothing more than a bunch of ineffective clowns. the WP is still bz nursing its dream of a welfare state with minimum wages, free confrontational trade unions etc., unaware that 19th century mechanisms will not work in a 21st-century knowledge-based economy, and tt especially in Singapore, confrontational tactics will doom us because we have sold our soul to the MNCs, as famous UK economist Galbraith put it. (btw. Galbraith actually made DIRECT reference to Singapore; I'm not just using a generic expression here...)
the platform the oppo should have should be based on 2 key issues: the structural employment problem u mentioned and education.
The structural employment issue is good 'cos it hits out at the economic prowess of the govt. Using this issue would probably be more effective after LKY leaves the scene for good, though.
Education is a much older issue, but yet it ties up to modernity well. for eg, in the NKF saga, you can point to the failure of CME that produces such men like Durai. For Nicoll Highway, blame tt the education system doesn't teach skills adequately. Elitism is the best candidate to use when attacking education, since you can directly link the streaming system to the production of social elitism...
(if one wishes to argue the insignificance of education as a issue for an electoral platform, one should look at Norway: their key election issue is the state of national kindergartens.:mrgreen
But sadly, the oppo are not changing their tone much... If they wake up, we might have a good contest yet...
the (hopeful) pikamaster -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:I actually share MM's view on elitism... saved that my version of political elitism and his ain't quite the same.
Basically, to govern, you really need a type of people. Not just those all boiled up with hot gas in the bellies and for the sake of election.
In order to govern, one has to have some basis for wisdom. Scholars and such branded personnels are usually the pests of past regimes who unwittedly contribute to both downfall and destruction of a regime.
It's not what the western educated call it the people who can come up with policies... Policies... they are never perfect and utimately if it's still the man behind, it's still the man itself which is the factor. Which is why people such as Durai could have lasted so long, even under challenged.
Leaders have the responsibilities to lead the society. People with huge know-hows ain't necessarily the people with the ability to educate the people and influence them in the right manner. Which is why an over-stayed system can never be removed instead of having the system removing required political elements.
ur weird. I thought you were the one proposing a parliament of neutrals?
1) If your definition and his are totally different (which, from what I see seems to be true), then the use of the same term is immaterial.
2) I agree with this point.
Somehow, I don't think CSJ would make a good leader, but we might never know until we try. At any rate, many famous political leaders were "all boiled up"...
3) true. But scholars, in many cases, were also those who conducted the reforms, and brought down despotic regimes in the good sense i.e. they are not the ones who were making the regimes inert.
4) Your grammar baffles me here, but I think I can differ. What if there are many people who contributed to a policy? Durai is not a very good example to use for your point, I believe. Durai "bribed" his board and staff with bonuses smaller than his but still significant (i got insider info). He lasted long not because of his "Farsighted" policies, but because of his underhand politicking.
5) True, but i don't get ur last phrase: political elements?
At the same time, however, you should realize that we do need people with a certain level of knowledge; we can't have a total ignoramus running the country. Yet, fortunately, I believe that every Singaporean has at least the basic knowledge required; the rest can be learnt on-the-job. All we need are people with enough guts, I should think.
the (thoughtful) pikamaster -
That shows how much more necessity for Neutronic politics to be brought to more thinking people.Originally posted by pikamaster:Elfred,
ur weird. I thought you were the one proposing a parliament of neutrals?
1) If your definition and his are totally different (which, from what I see seems to be true), then the use of the same term is immaterial.
2) I agree with this point. Somehow, I don't think CSJ would make a good leader, but we might never know until we try. At any rate, many famous political leaders were "all boiled up"...
3) true. But scholars, in many cases, were also those who conducted the reforms, and brought down despotic regimes in the good sense i.e. they are not the ones who were making the regimes inert.
4) Your grammar baffles me here, but I think I can differ. What if there are many people who contributed to a policy? Durai is not a very good example to use for your point, I believe. Durai "bribed" his board and staff with bonuses smaller than his but still significant (i got insider info). He lasted long not because of his "Farsighted" policies, but because of his underhand politicking.
5) True, but i don't get ur last phrase: political elements? At the same time, however, you should realize that we do need people with a certain level of knowledge; we can't have a total ignoramus running the country. Yet, fortunately, I believe that every Singaporean has at least the basic knowledge required; the rest can be learnt on-the-job. All we need are people with enough guts, I should think.
the (thoughtful) pikamaster
Do you seriously think that Neutronic Politics is a JaBaLan politics aiming to create Rojak politicians...?
Here is the issue, Pikamaster, will you find those who'd wield the knowledge, or let knowledge wield the people? See?
Underhand politicking is only underhand when uncovered... The issue is, will knowledge of the underhand player stopped him to engage in underhand politicking?
We cannot be fixed in rigid belief that scholars brought reforms... When a peasant brought some reform and labelled it Pea-ism, this peasant is himself a scholar in Pea-ism. The point you got to realise is, there is no such thing as a model that who and who will definitely come out with what and what. Otherwise, Soundblaster should be created by Mr Philip Yeo, not Mr Sim WF.
Durai is not a very good example because you have not realise beyond Durai's issue. Mdm Goh stood with him down the end, and probably still is. Why is that so, Pikamaster?
Boiled up in great thinking, not in great ego. I am the one who brought about Neutronic Politics in the first place, and until now, nobody should know me from cyberspace. That's a basic difference, Pikamaster. There's a difference between a committed paladin in a battle and a kee-siao hooligan in a parang fight... -
The law might deny you from standing the election, but it cannot deny you as a politician, Pikamaster.Originally posted by pikamaster:hmmm... when the law permits...
Where the Qing Dynasty will never legalise election, what would you do?
Wait another 500 years...? -
(Reply to a forumer as posted at FU on 12.9.05)
Take it easy, size 10 1/2. I am aware of your frustrations but cannot really help you relieve them as I am just a size 6.
About your various scorns about our leaders playing high-profile international role causing unnecessary offenses to others without really helping our cause, that is the result of our leaders wearing bigger hats than their our heads.
So when they are acting big and getting snubbed in the same overbearing arrogance experienced by its own domestic audiences of course there will be occasional demonstrations in Indonesia and Malaysia against our leaders outside and snides and scorns among their own citizens at home.
The best talents do not need to resort to exterior arrogance whether at home, or abroad.
That is why in earlier posts, I have given my opinion that our leaders should conduct people-to-people country relations to improve our standing with neighbours and be more humble with people. The greatest enemy very often is not others but self - due to arrogance that backfires . -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:The law might deny you from standing the election, but it cannot deny you as a politician, Pikamaster.
Where the Qing Dynasty will never legalise election, what would you do?
Wait another 500 years...?
1) no, i dun think it can, but most paradoxically I am the absolute hater of politics who wants to be a national leader. (note: its paradoxical, not oxymoronic. Reason that out for yourself.)
2 & 3) The mice will play when the cat is away... have you ever watched Disney's An American Tail whose themesong happens to be somewhere out there? oh n btw, it's just a couple of decades more, still enough time to wait...
the (thunderstruck) pikamaster -
I kinda lament the way people are thinking about politics nowadays... It might the environment which such thinking of politics is blurred with interests...Originally posted by pikamaster:Elfred,
1) no, i dun think it can, but most paradoxically I am the absolute hater of politics who wants to be a national leader. (note: its paradoxical, not oxymoronic. Reason that out for yourself.)
2 & 3) The mice will play when the cat is away... have you ever watched Disney's An American Tail whose themesong happens to be somewhere out there? oh n btw, it's just a couple of decades more, still enough time to wait...
the (thunderstruck) pikamaster
-
hmmm.... is tt some reference to me, or just a general comment?Originally posted by Elfred:I kinda lament the way people are thinking about politics nowadays... It might the environment which such thinking of politics is blurred with interests... 
-
Nay, just my personal observation in the current setting.Originally posted by pikamaster:hmmm.... is tt some reference to me, or just a general comment?
No matter how you want to do, a leapard is still spots all over.
No matter how the world hated you, you are LKY means you are LKY.
No matter what really does happen... if you are meant to be a politician, you are.
And...
No matter the religion for what qualities of a politician favorable to governance... there can only be one quality.
The world is ever newer... but thinking may not really have changed or improve in term of mentality and attitude.
Many many centuries before now, most people are ignorant.
Many many centuries now, with the info explosion, how many thinkers do we really have incomparison.
Not really much difference, I'd say. -
The best talented candidate, to your surprise, can be arrogant or seem arrogant or quietly arrogant, but is still the best talent candidate for politics.Originally posted by robertteh:(Reply to a forumer as posted at FU on 12.9.05)
Take it easy, size 10 1/2. I am aware of your frustrations but cannot really help you relieve them as I am just a size 6.
About your various scorns about our leaders playing high-profile international role causing unnecessary offenses to others without really helping our cause, that is the result of our leaders wearing bigger hats than their our heads.
So when they are acting big and getting snubbed in the same overbearing arrogance experienced by its own domestic audiences of course there will be occasional demonstrations in Indonesia and Malaysia against our leaders outside and snides and scorns among their own citizens at home.
The best talents do not need to resort to exterior arrogance whether at home, or abroad.
That is why in earlier posts, I have given my opinion that our leaders should conduct people-to-people country relations to improve our standing with neighbours and be more humble with people. The greatest enemy very often is not others but self - due to arrogance that backfires .
History showed many, infamously... For his time, Kong Ming would be consider a great boaster, so arrogant for your taste that there is no way he'd probably be talking to you... Not because he's arrogant, but because you are rejecting him.
He was described as telling the rest of the talented friends including (would be) great advisors to lords he would be the only one who can be chief minister... and others could only be runners.
Would you bother to visit him once to seek his help? -
Hello Elfred,
If past policies led to high costs, class divisions what should the government do?
Surely it should listen and try ways and means to correct past policies and not allow the same policies to go overboard with more excessive price increases or stubborn look-good presentations of statistics and GDP that all are well.
If the leaders continue their stubbornness don't you think this kind of attitude is not only arrogance or power-play or something worse.
No wonder people are naturally unhappy and disgruntled and try to put up resistance to further arrogant price increases and impositions.
If leaders are not arrogant about their presumed abilities or talents that what are they trying to prove. Surely the easiest and simplest will be to change or make some due acknowledgement of problems.
If the leaders continue to use the media to portray a nothing-is-wrong appearance, and everything is well and their leadership and talents are intact then I think that is pure arrogance about their own abilities.
It is time to change like Koisumi. Identify the high costs and class divisions issue for election and get people to decide whether the leaders have been right in what they did on these two issues.
Only then can we say that leaders are not arrogant or engaged in legalistic power-play.
Government is charging excessively for all kinds of public services, and people tried to ask for mercy or change, but so far it is not listening and trying to justify its leadership and talents. Is this attitude not arrogance? -
What has all the arrogance to do with doing all the supposedly wrong things in politics...? That's one thing you gotta serious think about.Originally posted by robertteh:Hello Elfred,
If past policies led to high costs, class divisions what should the government do?
Surely it should listen and try ways and means to correct past policies and not allow the same policies to go overboard with more excessive price increases or stubborn look-good presentations of statistics and GDP that all are well.
If the leaders continue their stubbornness don't you think this kind of attitude is not only arrogance or power-play or something worse.
No wonder people are naturally unhappy and disgruntled and try to put up resistance to further arrogant price increases and impositions.
If leaders are not arrogant about their presumed abilities or talents that what are they trying to prove. Surely the easiest and simplest will be to change or make some due acknowledgement of problems.
If the leaders continue to use the media to portray a nothing-is-wrong appearance, and everything is well and their leadership and talents are intact then I think that is pure arrogance about their own abilities.
It is time to change like Koisumi. Identify the high costs and class divisions issue for election and get people to decide whether the leaders have been right in what they did on these two issues.
Only then can we say that leaders are not arrogant or engaged in legalistic power-play.
Government is charging excessively for all kinds of public services, and people tried to ask for mercy or change, but so far it is not listening and trying to justify its leadership and talents. Is this attitude not arrogance?
In a way, does it mean not arrogant means there is no doing all the supposedly wrong things?
Koizumi san... now finding him kinda respectable for a leader who'd eventually be able to extract himself as he sees fit is someone at least with a leadership quality... the will of politics. Hopefully, something really happens that he be made to stay in Japanese leadership. To the other end, leaders who struggle to the last piece of despicable acts to stay in power or to get into power is such... great disgust in my personal opinion.
Hi Robert... I seriously don't mind good men and women in powers who'd do the right things even if they are the most arrogant XOs mankind could get...
Now what's my criteria in choosing leader/s...? Well, arrogance doesn't seem to matter, nor qualification nor background nor...
See you again... -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:Nay, just my personal observation in the current setting.
No matter how you want to do, a leapard is still spots all over.
No matter how the world hated you, you are LKY means you are LKY.
No matter what really does happen... if you are meant to be a politician, you are.
And...
No matter the religion for what qualities of a politician favorable to governance... there can only be one quality.
The world is ever newer... but thinking may not really have changed or improve in term of mentality and attitude.
Many many centuries before now, most people are ignorant.
Many many centuries now, with the info explosion, how many thinkers do we really have incomparison.
Not really much difference, I'd say.
you may like to better paragraph your post...
1) a general comment then?
2) ???
3 & 4) You need to justify these statements. As far as I see, these are circular statements, and tautologies at that. btw, if the world hated you, your actions would not be very effective due to lack of support. So even if you had the best ideas, they would not come into effect because nobody would want to implement them. This is not the 1950s and 1960s.
6) err... what is the relevance of religion?
7 - 10) I guess it's really hard to tell that one, because many thinkers may not express their thoughts due to fear of repression.
the (confused) pikamaster -
To me, Arrogance is an aloof state of mind that regards other's ideas as unworthy while regarding one's own ideas as the best.Originally posted by Elfred:What has all the arrogance to do with doing all the supposedly wrong things in politics...? That's one thing you gotta serious think about.In a way, does it mean not arrogant means there is no doing all the supposedly wrong things?
No, that is not what I mean. Non-arrogance does not mean not doing the wrong thing. Check my clarification as stated in the foregoing again.Koizumi san... now finding him kinda respectable for a leader who'd eventually be able to extract himself as he sees fit is someone at least with a leadership quality... the will of politics. Hopefully, something really happens that he be made to stay in Japanese leadership. To the other end, leaders who struggle to the last piece of despicable acts to stay in power or to get into power is such... great disgust in my personal opinion.
Koizumi does not impose on his political oppositions. He faces them squarely in the real arena without resorting to gerrymandering of electoral process. He like Deng Xiao Peng, Mahathir has shown greatness by stepping aside and letting the larger interest of the country take precedence over self.Hi Robert... I seriously don't mind good men and women in powers who'd do the right things even if they are the most arrogant XOs mankind could get...
Like what pikamaster has said in the previous post, if one is arrogant and meets with hates what is the point of being talented or full of abilities when one's policies are simply not supported or implemented by the people willingly.
Now what's my criteria in choosing leader/s...? Well, arrogance doesn't seem to matter, nor qualification nor background nor...
See you again... -
Although not hate... Zhuge intially had no support from many if not all but from Liu Bei. By vote, Liu's camp would never have someone who'd make the history.Originally posted by robertteh:Like what pikamaster has said in the previous post, if one is arrogant and meets with hates what is the point of being talented or full of abilities when one's policies are simply not supported or implemented by the people willingly.
The leader of the first guards, MM Lee, was hated by UMNO and the Tunku thought he was very arrogant. By vote, MM led PAP eventually got rejected in Malaysia.
Modern examples or historical exampls, Robert and Pikamaster, is that in politics and governance, if you are good in governance you'd probably steady yourself in politics.
If one wonders if those arrogant ever got started when such (mostly blind or layman) people perceive them so, that's over-worrying. In fact, the only problem is whether you are or seem arrogant or not to others:
1. Many people don't have the ability to draw fair or/and quality judgment;
2. People should be worrying on other things than arrogance, but so said, (1) is a problem.
Do you really think arrogance is a problem? It'd always be a problem just as jealousy and such, as long as the people's quality remains... lousy.
Besides, what averages see will never be in tune most of the time with what the worst or the best sees. Should we let averages lead the best or vice versa. Please take some time to think over before replying.
Thanks. -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:Although not hate... Zhuge intially had no support from many if not all but from Liu Bei. By vote, Liu's camp would never have someone who'd make the history.
The leader of the first guards, MM Lee, was hated by UMNO and the Tunku thought he was very arrogant. By vote, MM led PAP eventually got rejected in Malaysia.
Modern examples or historical exampls, Robert and Pikamaster, is that in politics and governance, if you are good in governance you'd probably steady yourself in politics.
If one wonders if those arrogant ever got started when such (mostly blind or layman) people perceive them so, that's over-worrying. In fact, the only problem is whether you are or seem arrogant or not to others:
1. Many people don't have the ability to draw fair or/and quality judgment;
2. People should be worrying on other things than arrogance, but so said, (1) is a problem.
Do you really think arrogance is a problem? It'd always be a problem just as jealousy and such, as long as the people's quality remains... lousy.
Besides, what averages see will never be in tune most of the time with what the worst or the best sees. Should we let averages lead the best or vice versa. Please take some time to think over before replying.
Thanks.
1) Liu and Zhuge are legendary figures, not necessarily historical figures. And plus, the social conditions of the Time of the Warring States are totally different from the conditions no: In the past, Monarchs had either the Divine Right or the Mandate of Heaven, which are non-existent in politcs today. So you can't compare Liu with the modern politician anyway; the former had the existent support because of his Mandate to rule; the latter needs to cultivate support in order to legitimise his rule. Why do you think the MIW get so jittery whenever they lose seats in GE or by-elections?
2) ok ... and so??? Besides, MM is actually quite arrogant, and the issue of Merger and Separation is still murky.
3) Excuse me, what is "good in governance"? Do you consider Durai to be good in governance?
4) erpz
5) This is a never-ending debate. Please don't include this point. Btw, did you consider that people cannot judge themselves well either under normal circumstances i.e. if they are not forced to do honest self-reflections? It is after all natural for us to want to think good of ourselves; in fact it is a psychological protection system inbuilt into every human: the Freudian Ego.
6) Life is not just about utility, my dear utilitarian. Arrogance may affect job performance as well; go and reason it out for yourself. (hint: start from the backward bending supply curve of labour in economics.)
7) Now, that's a very condescending way of looking at things.
Why should there be averages? If the best are the truely the best, they should be able to make averages to the same quality as themselves. Besides, this statement itself is arrogant.
Regards,
the pikamaster (who is busily prepping fro promos) -
Although MM Lee has been instrumental in fighting for Singapore independence and industrialised the island state initially, he has not really succeeded in building up the country's entrepreneurship or economic competitiveness for Singapore since the 1970s.Originally posted by Elfred:Although not hate... Zhuge intially had no support from many if not all but from Liu Bei. By vote, Liu's camp would never have someone who'd make the history.
The leader of the first guards, MM Lee, was hated by UMNO and the Tunku thought he was very arrogant. By vote, MM led PAP eventually got rejected in Malaysia.
A great leader should selflessly work to fulfill the wellbeing of his people as his duty, and facilitate and sustain their enterepreneurship and competitiveness in the modern world to lead them to compete in knowledge-based environment.
Unfortunately since the 1970s, he has worked towards rewarding the leaders and elites of public servants and has been practising a system of voraciously taxing and recovering all costs of government creating hardship to the people.
He practised the non-welfare system of government which is not a bad policy but he allowed it to be auto-piloted to excess charging people for housing and everything to full market value and privatising or farming out traditional government services to stinge on government services.
An average household now pays $500,000 - $800,000 over the 35-year working life and ageing citizens are consequently deprived of their retirements struggling in their advanced years when senior citizens in other countries are enjoying their fruits of life.
Despite all the presumptuous claims about leadership and talents there was hardly any objective and accountable good corporate governance to date as witnessed in the NKF case.
Had he presented his case and arguments with plain logical rationale to his people, he would not have made so many enemies or created so much hates.
Zhuge incidentally was a brilliant strategist who was able to employ limited resources against all odds to achieve great military and management success.
Zhuge used the strengths of his people to great advantages and turn adversities into opportunity to achieve much for his legendary pursuit. No matter how difficult were the circumstances and the odds, he sought to win over the support of his people based on good rationale and strategies, planning and logics and won the respect and admiration of his subordinates with great success.
In our case, all leaders sought to use their legalistic power to the fullest to tax and raise fees to create surpluses claiming success for such surpluses and voting their own handsome rewards and highest bonuses as typified by the NKF way of governance although majority of ordinary people are experiencing much hardship.
Anti-welare and meritocracy policies were auto-piloted to excess resulting in loss of practical entrepreneurship and economic competitiveness. Many unpopular education and language policies were rammed down on the people despite hurting the people wellbeing, unpopularity and hardships.
Our leaders did not exercise rationale judgment but only use their legalistic controls and regulations. This form of harsh autocratic governance has stifled entrepreneurship and creativity not only in education, but job creations and economic development.
The result is: today Singapore is losing its past economic competitiveness in term of per capita earning from 8th to 22nd. Yet despite all these problems, there is hardly any improvements until NKF raised the genuine issues.
Do you call this kind of legalistic controls and regulations or taxing and recovering costs successful government? You can choose to worship such autocratic leadership irrespective of feedbacks on people's struggles and problems. But the fact remains that such autocratic top-down management is now unsuitable for running a knowledge-based society and it is old-fashion and unimaginative management.
Please refer to the past postings to read the 20 major policy errors and problems with such top-down autocracy.
If only MM Lee was less conceptual and more down to earth to understand what is good and people-centred management, or was willing to learn from Zhuge he could have saved the economy and avoided so many problems with his oppositions. He needs not have created so many problems by being more proactive and taking timely actions before economy drifted and entrepreneurs migrated in large numbers.
He could have achieved real success by employing Zhuge great rationality, objectivity and good corporate governance.
Singapore despite all the claims made by our leaders through clever creative accounting and statistics is badly short of strategies and the economy is entirely at the mercy of external cirucmstance without any true strategies at work since the 1970s.Modern examples or historical exampls, Robert and Pikamaster, is that in politics and governance, if you are good in governance you'd probably steady yourself in politics.
If MM Lee indeed has realised the 20 problems and proactively taken actions, he could have created much better value-adding economy by the 1980s. Singapore has lost out too much due to wrong elitist top-heavey education and economic planning. The economy has retrograded so much in terms of our domestic SME performance which today is at the worse shape.
If one wonders if those arrogant ever got started when such (mostly blind or layman) people perceive them so, that's over-worrying. In fact, the only problem is whether you are or seem arrogant or not to others:
1. Many people don't have the ability to draw fair or/and quality judgment;
2. People should be worrying on other things than arrogance, but so said, (1) is a problem.
Do you really think arrogance is a problem? It'd always be a problem just as jealousy and such, as long as the people's quality remains... lousy.
Besides, what averages see will never be in tune most of the time with what the worst or the best sees. Should we let averages lead the best or vice versa. Please take some time to think over before replying.
Thanks.
What Singapore really needs badly are great strategist who could see more creative ways of running the economy motivating the people and implement the right mix of policies to put right the moribund economy again. -
From the recent devleopment at Sg, we can see that there are several "incidents" that pointed out our hidden weaknesses:
1) Citiraya scandals that involved many high position Sg executives in many MNCs. This also exposed the weakness of our banking sector control mechanisms. The CAO incident further proven the point. All our honesty image had gone down the drain after so many years of effort. There is simply too little transparency in our system.
2) Poor education system. Now Sg media finally bring the spot light to the young singaporean. The new generation singaporean are really too open in sex but too poorly educated in protecting themselves. They only care for having fun; in the end many young boy & gals had kenna STD liao.
Just look at the young kids around your neighbourhood, how many of your young neighbours bother to say "hello" to u. This gen of Singaporean too self centred (or "performance oriented" in gov word), they do not usually see the importance of "Guan Xi". Worst of all, the school kids nowadays are more daring, sometimes even dare to challenge their teachers to one-on-one duel. Female students made false report on their teachers molesting them!!
3) NKF case. I agreed that Mr Durrai should get a decent pay for running NKF. But not to the extend that drawing $600K yearly payout, with golden tap in personal toilet. It is sad to learnt now that NKF actually spend more than 40% of the budget on staff pay-roll, rather than supporting the needy.
4) Our most talented young grads are more interested to get involved in the working out the stock trading options, rather than working hard to set-up a successful business in IT or life science. We can see alot of dynamic young people in Taiwan, HK and Korea, involving setting up new business ventures at high tech sectors such as IT, Chip Design, Life Science. Thus, this explain how come Singapore is losing her competitive edge in attracting new FDI in manufacturing sector. -
In hundreds or thousands' time, MM himself would be legendary.Originally posted by pikamaster:Elfred,
1) Liu and Zhuge are legendary figures, not necessarily historical figures. And plus, the social conditions of the Time of the Warring States are totally different from the conditions no: In the past, Monarchs had either the Divine Right or the Mandate of Heaven, which are non-existent in politcs today. So you can't compare Liu with the modern politician anyway; the former had the existent support because of his Mandate to rule; the latter needs to cultivate support in order to legitimise his rule. Why do you think the MIW get so jittery whenever they lose seats in GE or by-elections?
2) ok ... and so??? Besides, MM is actually quite arrogant, and the issue of Merger and Separation is still murky.
3) Excuse me, what is "good in governance"? Do you consider Durai to be good in governance?
4) erpz
5) This is a never-ending debate. Please don't include this point. Btw, did you consider that people cannot judge themselves well either under normal circumstances i.e. if they are not forced to do honest self-reflections? It is after all natural for us to want to think good of ourselves; in fact it is a psychological protection system inbuilt into every human: the Freudian Ego.
6) Life is not just about utility, my dear utilitarian. Arrogance may affect job performance as well; go and reason it out for yourself. (hint: start from the backward bending supply curve of labour in economics.)
7) Now, that's a very condescending way of looking at things. Why should there be averages? If the best are the truely the best, they should be able to make averages to the same quality as themselves. Besides, this statement itself is arrogant.
Regards,
the pikamaster (who is busily prepping fro promos)
Probably some people who picked up my talk-cock thousands of years later would make me legendary too. -
He isn't god... technically. And a man has done for what of his time best fitted him...Originally posted by robertteh:If MM Lee indeed has realised the 20 problems and proactively taken actions, he could have created much better value-adding economy by the 1980s. Singapore has lost out too much due to wrong elitist top-heavey education and economic planning. The economy has retrograded so much in terms of our domestic SME performance which today is at the worse shape.
What Singapore really needs badly are great strategist who could see more creative ways of running the economy motivating the people and implement the right mix of policies to put right the moribund economy again.
20 problems... well... -
So the young just looks at what the leaders do every day from the media - dog-eat-dog society with elites taking all the rewards and talking down on people while problems are pushed away with excuses not solutions by all the look-good rhetorics without solutions.Originally posted by archon1234:From the recent devleopment at Sg, we can see that there are several "incidents" that pointed out our hidden weaknesses:
1) Citiraya scandals that involved many high position Sg executives in many MNCs. This also exposed the weakness of our banking sector control mechanisms. The CAO incident further proven the point. All our honesty image had gone down the drain after so many years of effort. There is simply too little transparency in our system.
2) Poor education system. Now Sg media finally bring the spot light to the young singaporean. The new generation singaporean are really too open in sex but too poorly educated in protecting themselves. They only care for having fun; in the end many young boy & gals had kenna STD liao. [/quote]
A system that tries to promote elites has got all the elites getting themselves into troubles from insider trading to CBT in one instance after another. Obviously in promoting elitism or meritocracy the leaders have forgotten something very important than elites and intellect - morality and EQ, the primary factor of success among top Fortune 500 companies.
The most important criterion for Singapore is therefore not elites, scholars or meritocracy. It is corporate accountability, level-playing field, equal opportunities, broad-based education, practical knowledge applications by all and setting of personal example among the leaders so that everyone in society will contribute in a more acceptable manner and not to gain benefits and private enrichments.
NKF is just the tip of the iceberg. If all care to look there will be more abuses and malpractices than just Citiraya and CAO you mentioned.
Has many years of meritocracy or leadership imparted the right value despite all the hype about leadership and talents of our elites and those in charge ? It will be noticed that once the ministers and elites are out of office, and not given the networking opportunities, not many of them have become successful in creating jobs or business ventures to prove their abilities. It is usually the lesser mortals and ordinary people with passions that help the economy and not the elites.[b]Just look at the young kids around your neighbourhood, how many of your young neighbours bother to say "hello" to u. This gen of Singaporean too self centred (or "performance oriented" in gov word), they do not usually see the importance of "Guan Xi". Worst of all, the school kids nowadays are more daring, sometimes even dare to challenge their teachers to one-on-one duel. Female students made false report on their teachers molesting them!!
What will the young learn the right way then ? Will they learn to say hello and be humble to serve the people. Will they care for humility and service to the nation or care for the poor and needy?
[quote]3) NKF case. I agreed that Mr Durrai should get a decent pay for running NKF. But not to the extend that drawing $600K yearly payout, with golden tap in personal toilet. It is sad to learnt now that NKF actually spend more than 40% of the budget on staff pay-roll, rather than supporting the needy.
4) Our most talented young grads are more interested to get involved in the working out the stock trading options, rather than working hard to set-up a successful business in IT or life science. We can see alot of dynamic young people in Taiwan, HK and Korea, involving setting up new business ventures at high tech sectors such as IT, Chip Design, Life Science. Thus, this explain how come Singapore is losing her competitive edge in attracting new FDI in manufacturing sector.
The elites are promoted to absurdity without contributions to economic competitiveness or creating jobs. All they did are to continue to tax and recover costs under fallacious policies about reserve and talents. These are the real lessons learned from the NKF.
Because of malpractices and potential crimes, there is no alternative but to conduct public inquiry. They waited until problems surface and become uncontrollable before taking actions in so many cases? The simple solutions is to be proactive and put in the right ministers who are problems solvers to crack at all the problems and dig up all the worms.