DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY

last SG · 2004-09-06T21:30:40+00:00

Hello BadzMaro, Thanks for the suggestion. I am only giving my views as a citizen as encouraged by PM Lee so that if there are mistakes in the past they wil...

suntze SG

Hi, Robertteh,

Thks for clarification; OK now I understand that your point is about white vs blue collar education and training. Very Happy Nevertheless, I believe there is still some confusion in terminology between blue collar and white collar vocations. Mr. Green Conventionally, blue collar work is regarded as being shop-floor work whereas white collar work is considered to be desk top or administrative jobs.

Further, it may not be reasonable to assume that blue collar types are more likely to be entrepreneurial. On the contrary, it would be fair IMO to say that those likely to strike out into business would usually have some tertiary education. Wink

In future scenario, as Spore move towards being a service economy, more ppl will be needed for white collar work in marketing, service, design, research, procurement, finance, IT, etc. In what eventually remains of the manufacturing sector, there will be less large scale production as we move towards highly automated, innovation and niche products. The requirement for blue collar production workers will reduce whilst that of white collar workers carrying out promotion, design and development and administrative work will increase.

Your point about Spore gov policy favouring non-engineering vs engineering education in our tertiary institutions is also IMO, not substantiated. If you consider the number of engineering student places offered in our polytechnics and universities, it will become obvious that this is not the case.

One should also bear in mind that it is the preference of Sporeans by choice to move away from engineering to other forms of specialization. I'm informed that one problem facing the engineering faculties is the declining quality of students going into their faculties. This is a development due largely to economic forces rather than as a deliberate policy of gov due to the shift towards a service economy.

I accept your point in general about the need for more entrepreneurs to drive the economy of the future. However, I believe, market forces will dictate what industries will flourish in the future; and these are not likely to be in traditional engineering. The correct strategy IMO is not to put our bets into particular industries (our gov tends to do this). Far better to train our students to be more innovative, flexible and adaptable with less rote learning and memory work; students should be graded accordingly. Also, it is not to say that specialization at institutions of higher learning is no longer necessary. Simply put, it may be better for students in general to be trained in wider breadths rather than in greater depths (with the exception of those going into research). My 2 cents worth Wink

robertteh SG

[quote]Originally posted by suntze:
Hi, Robertteh,

QUOTE: Thks for clarification; OK now I understand that your point is about white vs blue collar education and training. Nevertheless, I believe there is still some confusion in terminology between blue collar and white collar vocations. Conventionally, blue collar work is regarded as being shop-floor work whereas white collar work is considered to be desk top or administrative jobs.

Further, it may not be reasonable to assume that blue collar types are more likely to be entrepreneurial. On the contrary, it would be fair IMO to say that those likely to strike out into business would usually have some tertiary education. UNQUOTE

REPLY: I use the term blue collar to refer generally to people working in the manufacturing and production sectors earning Singapore export dollars where the future in my opinion of our economic wellbeing really lie.

Traditionally, Singapore as an entrepot or service centre tends to produce university graduates like accountants, lawyers, professionals to serve the basic needs of a country. In future, our economic competitiveness may not lie in these areas. So it will make sense for us to de-emphasise on producing general and academic graduates and upgrade to in-depth technological training to produce workers to serve the future industries.

The reason why I say that our future entrepreneurs will tend to come from practical knowledge applications is firstly: technologies are often knowledge-based and hands-on. Students being prepared in Polys and ITEs and to a certain extent certain university technological courses tend to be exposed to interact with applications of knowledge in making of products and services. By virtue of such training they are more likely to be oriented to start off their own businesses. By comparison, graduates from the general academic faculties in the universities are prepared to manage and administer rather than hands-on applications of particular technologies.

The conclusion is obvious: if we are to prepare more students to be well versed and trained in technology and knowledge application they will be trained to become our future technopreneurs.

QUOTE: In future scenario, as Spore move towards being a service economy, more ppl will be needed for white collar work in marketing, service, design, research, procurement, finance, IT, etc. In what eventually remains of the manufacturing sector, there will be less large scale production as we move towards highly automated, innovation and niche products. The requirement for blue collar production workers will reduce whilst that of white collar workers carrying out promotion, design and development and administrative work will increase. UNQUOTE

REPLY: I agree with you that white collar or university general academics do go into business. But I feel that through broad-based practical education, we can produce more graduates to become our future technopreneurs who are the real talents we need in large number to build a more competitive future economy.

QUOTE: Your point about Spore gov policy favouring non-engineering vs engineering education in our tertiary institutions is also IMO, not substantiated. If you consider the number of engineering student places offered in our polytechnics and universities, it will become obvious that this is not the case.

One should also bear in mind that it is the preference of Sporeans by choice to move away from engineering to other forms of specialization. I'm informed that one problem facing the engineering faculties is the declining quality of students going into their faculties. This is a development due largely to economic forces rather than as a deliberate policy of gov due to the shift towards a service economy. UNQUOTE

REPLY: It may be true that the quality of engineering students has dropped or economic forces are largely the criteria determining our success or failure in endeavors. It is precisely because of uncertainties due to market forces that there is a critical need to produce future graduates more adept in practical knowledge application to suit the need of the future taking into account new and accelerating technological developments in various fields. When education policy is re-adjusted suitably to correct the current lop-sided emphasis to produce generalists by creating a better recognition and rewards of vocational and professional technological areas the quality of students in engineering will naturally go up. It is related to government's policies of recruitments, university entrance criteria and manpower structure in the civil service as well.

QUOTE: I accept your point in general about the need for more entrepreneurs to drive the economy of the future. However, I believe, market forces will dictate what industries will flourish in the future; and these are not likely to be in traditional engineering. The correct strategy IMO is not to put our bets into particular industries (our gov tends to do this). Far better to train our students to be more innovative, flexible and adaptable with less rote learning and memory work; students should be graded accordingly. Also, it is not to say that specialization at institutions of higher learning is no longer necessary. Simply put, it may be better for students in general to be trained in wider breadths rather than in greater depths (with the exception of those going into research). My 2 cents worth UNQUOTE

REPLY : If to be general is better and more competitive than to be in-depth, than our general academics will be our saviours in creating more jobs and making Singapore more vibrant and competitive. I am not sure after many years of producing top-notch scholars whether we have indeed achieved the desired objective. I hope nevertheless our future education will emphasise on knowledge application and innovation to prepare students to be the future technopreneurs who are the true talents in my view for the economy. If we do not do this re-adjustment fast enough we will then have to continue to rely on foreign engineers and technopreneurs to create jobs and investments.

Laughing

pikamaster SG

robert,

I feel that specialisation is what is defeating us right now. For creativity to function, it needs breadth in addition to depth. Specialisation prevents such depth from occuring, as it results in telescopic vision. (Guess why Tharman can't handle IT systems... or the education system for the matter...) Therefore, we need more generalists to better apply creative skills, so that true solutions can emerge for pressing problems.

the pikamaster (who is deep in thinking)

robertteh SG

Unfortunately without engineering or technology, many academic graduates cannot apply technology. A graduate in accountancy or business adminstration do not know enough about technology and are not trained enough to apply business concepts in them. We now have many academic graduates in various discipline who cannot get rightful employments or are under-employed.

Technology changes very fast in various fields. Those not trained in them cannot do anything as they might not understand the finer points of technology. By technology or engineering I do not mean over-specialising them to become narrow and inflexible. Our engineers and technologists can be trained more broadly inclusive of management knowledge.

The move to excel in engineering or technology does not mean that we do not need generalists or academics for the general economy. It is just that Singapore's past policy has tilted towards over-producing generalist or academics leading to unemployments of many highly educated graduates.

If we train our general industrial engineers with wider and adaptable all-round syllables to prepare them to become techno-managers and technopreneurs, it may be better and more competitive than to produce more accountants and business graduates more suitable for non-technology environment. In my view the future lies in technology and engineering and to meet challenges, past education policy has to be adjusted to produce more technopreneurs and engineering managers and not the great number of academics and generalist graduates. Laughing

robertteh SG

A quote from Today's Newspaper:

By Valerie Law: "Entrepreneurship combats structural unemployment" (Today 18.3.2005)

"Singaporeans should consider entrepreneurship as a career option, as 50% of all white collar workers will be retrenched in the next five years, said Mr. Andy Ong, chief executive officer of the Entrepreneurship Resource Centre (ERC) which provides training and funding for budding entrepreneurs.

These frightening statistics come from management guru Tom Peters, author of "In search of Excellence".

In an economic restructuring the middle management has to go. Why? Because they are not high enough to call the shots and not low enough to do the actual work.."

So think future, think engineering and technology to become entrepreneurs as direct and hands-on skills will help to conceive and launch products or services. It is the way to stay employable. Laughing

robertteh SG

THE CULTURE OF DEMOCRACY
QUOTE:A Civic Culture
Democracy is more than the sum of its institutions. A healthy democracy depends in large part on the development of a democratic civic culture. Culture in this sense, points out Diane Ravitch, does not refer to art, literature, or music, but to "the behaviors, practices, and norms that define the ability of a people to govern themselves.

REPLY: Democracy as established over the past four decades is a political system consisting in essence certain predictable accountable check-and-balance processes e.g. electing good people, freedoms to participate in election, and functional divisions of government into legislative, executive and judiciary to lead the masses to progress based on the premise or precept of governance of the people, by the people and for the people.

The quality of democracy referred to i.e. whether it works well or it will lead to better social and cultural norms and behaviours of the people is another matter. If people in a democracy do not have opinions, are simple-minded, complacent or easily hook-winked by pre-election goodies, pretentiousness, justifications or denials of high costs and other problems, then there is not much future with such a country whether or not democracy is practised.

QUOTE: "A totalitarian political system," she writes, "encourages a culture of passivity and apathy. The regime seeks to mold an obedient and docile citizenry. By contrast, the civic culture of a democratic society is shaped by the freely chosen activities of individuals and groups. Citizens in a free society pursue their interests, exercise their rights, and take responsibility for their own lives. They make their own decisions about where they will work, what kind of work they will do, where they will live, whether to join a political party, what to read, and so on. These are personal decisions, not political decisions." UNQUOTE

REPLY: A totalitarian regime is self-centred and not people-centred. There is "no governance of the people, by the people or for the people" to begin with. Because of self-centredness decisions will be made mostly not necessarily to benefit the masses not to benefit the leaders and confederates in powers. It is as simple as this.

If totalitarian regime does anything good, it will be like a lottery or highly exceptional. Once in a while history might throw up a benevolent dictator who will take control but is willing to sacrifice his own power or wellbeing for the good of countrymen.

Deng Xiao Peng was such an exception. He was in a position to assume supreme leadership, take power into his own hand and stubbornly claim credit and authority to tower over others and become an autocrat. But he was benevolent and recognize that for the good of China he ought to democratize succession. Mendela did the same. Such leaders were Great Leaders.

QUOTE:Literature, art, drama, and film--the artistic expression of a society's culture--also exist independently of government. A democratic society may support or otherwise encourage artists and writers, but it does not set artistic standards, pass judgment on the worth of artistic endeavors, or censor artistic expression. Artists are not employees or servants of the state. The primary contribution of a democracy to art is freedom--to create, to experiment, to explore the world of the human mind and spirit. UNQUOTE

REPLY: Quality of democracy can improve all time. Where people are truly free and democracy is practised with accountable checks and balances and institutions are in place to lead the whole country to greater vibrancy and resilience, arts literature, drama and artistic expressions mentioned will flower. Without a supportive environment people will struggle to live and have no disposition to practise arts, or finer things in life.

Democracy has often been mixed up with quality of governance. The former is a structure of decentralised processes for accouintable political governance. The latter is the final results of sustained good corporate political governance. The western democracy framework that has been established today ensures free and fair election and accountable check-and-balance governance but does not guarantee quality governance.

But as a system, so far it is the best, better of all the political systems as Winston Churchull has put it as compared others like dictatorship, autocracy, totalitarian and theocratic or other highly ideological systems. Success ? Records of success: democratic countries enjoyed progress, stability, fairness, equity, justice and technological and scientific advances over the past four decades as compared with other systems. Autocratic governments have no match for such records. They have to go along with democracy and try to give the appearance of such to sustain power hold. Some elements of mass participative governance will be good but in the long run, truly democratic processes will be sustainable. Laughing

pikamaster SG

hmmm.... i guess that's called reducing hierarchy... Mr. Green

anyway, I'm currently working on my [intellectual] Order of Education Act. It has the following sections:

Section 1: Preliminary
Section2: General Organization
Section 3: Structure and Functions of Educational Parliament
-> Chapter 1: the National Student Union Congress (NSUC)
-> Chapter 2:the Singapore Teachers' Union (STU)
->Chapter 3: Instructions for parliamentary proceedings
->Chapter 4: Parliament in Court Format
-> Chapter 5: Types of Laws passed by Parliament
Section 4: Student Bodies
-> Chapter 1: The Students' Council
-> Chapter 2: The Class Executive Committee
-> Chapter 3: the Student Interest Groups (SIGS) / [CCA Groups]
Section 5: Estate Management
-> Chapter 1: the Estate Manager
-> Chapter 2: Interactions with other groups
-> Chapter 3: Finance
Section 6: The Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore.
-> Chapter 1: the Council of Deans
-> Chapter 2: Structure of CDIS

robertteh SG

The Third Wave economy if we are at all serious to be part of the big global village will require re-programming our laws and regulations to accommodate diversities in the ways individual citizens engage themselves in education, social, cultural activities, arts, family norm and the new ways of work and livings.

Take diversities and individualism into considerations in your proposed re-programming of constitutions, education order and regulations to facilitate growth and nurturing of creativity and entrepreneurship by the total legal and governing environment now hardly scratched on or catered for in the existing laws and regulations. Empowerment holds to key to success in future governance.

An example of greater diversities at work e.g. amendments to Land Titles (Strata) Act were found to be necessary recently to keep up with trends in Australia in encouraging formation of sub-management committees to manage and maintain individual component areas within mega- and mixed commercial/residential/industrial developments.

All existing models of many company and NGOs set-ups are too narrow and constrictive to nurturing creative and entrepreneurial management.

It will be necessary to de-massify all ways of doing business and regulating risks or wrongs in society to permit flairs and creativity in pursuing of creativity. The way the internet- and mobie-telecom communication is altering the quality and pace of our education, works and lives is revolutionary and there are many more ways of obtaining information and conducting daily lives and works now. This is the direction to take in the Third Wave. Laughing

pikamaster SG

Robert,
I fully agree. One of the problems I'm encountering however, is that many diversities are cumbersome to implement formally. They have to be implemented informally. The Law can only achieve so much.

The New Education System is to be defined as a "talentocracy" rather than a "meritocracy". That is because there will be streaming of people by talent and interest. if there is indeed enough diversity, then all areas will be filled.

Basically, the New Order[, as in my intellectual experiment, don't forget it is still intellectual only; *sigh*] would be structured in a plugin set manner, where you have a basic tier upon which you can build. My idea is that for a KBE you need a common base of knowledge for everybody, so that shall be covered through a 12-year course (polys, JCs, and ITECs will be synchronized) in a subject called Integrated Studies, which will be defined in section 6 under CDIS functions. Then students will choose other subjects to study in addition to IS: Literature, Mathematics, Geography, German, Latin, Philosophy, etc. IS itself will be based on history, a complete history of the world. Other subject content will be plugged into the relevant areas on the IS skeleton. What is needed will be taught as additional standard curriculum, like P.E. and CME; other than that everything else will be optional. Students who wish to pursue their interests can choose the various Literary Exploration Texts (LETs) or Textual Studies (TSs). Each will focus on an important document in history, like the Communist Manifesto or the Wealth of Nations, or even the Third Wave Wink . in the case of LETs, it will be stories or poetry like the Marriage of Heaven and Hell, the Odyssey etc. Of course, Students can always form their own interest groups or SIGS, with the aid of expertise, if necessary.

Educational Parliament will make its own laws regarding syllabi taught, Assessment Rubric, facilities required etc. That way diversity should be accomodated. the general format of the syllabus will do away with textbooks, and encourage more integrated mannerisms of studying things. Language lessons will promote creativity; IS lessons will provoke discussion; Writing will be a plugin by itself and LET lessons shall be augmented with personal response exercises. the NIE syllabus will also be amended to teach teachers more social skills in handling of pupils and the theories of creative development. SInce teachers ought to be creative too, I guess Teachers' handbooks should be kept summary.

Ya well, that's all, I guess. Thx for reading.

So have you finished reading the book anyway?

the pikamaster (waiting for 22nd Mar)

robertteh SG

The key to diversities is empowerment. Legislations should be more open to embrace greater choices and possibilities while setting new directions for growths.

Talentocracy should embrace practical knowledge application to allow innovations to growth so that each student can pursue his or her inclination or interests in simple and mundane knowledge like cooking, football, entertainments, arts and casino management etc.

Multi-level feeders are extended from practical businesses to interrelate with schools' curricula and practical broad-based teaching in class. Personal career goals are aligned to learning and work processes. To excel for self becomes synonymous with education and work goals. When one pursues excellence for self, he is doing so for education and works at the same time. Integration and interaction between knowledge application for self or work are established within the same sets of logically knowledge-application work processes.

Vibrancy and resilience are ingrained in every citizens because as long as he or she pursues knowledge applicaiton, it will help him grow in making both career, education and work all at the same time.There will be emancipation of self or self-ness to allow growth of group synergy or organizational efficiency to reach economic competitiveness. Laughing

Elfred SG

Emm... Can only say that the way you guys look at Education will mean more big problems yet solving little... Mr. Green

You see... Never mind. I can only say too idealistic. Rolling Eyes

robertteh SG

Many problems have been caused by the past academic and grade-driven education policy.

As a result of such a narrow education policy, the country is suffering from a gradual loss of economic competitiveness to neighbouring and other Asian countries to date.

The lack of emphasis on broad-based education has led to a drop in producing a truly entrepreneurial economy. Entrepreneurs are short in supply

Such narrow education policy which emphasises on academic grades has been achieved at the expense of practical knowledge application or pursuit of capabilities and excellence in every field.

This fact of our lack of economic competitiveness is clearly seen from the quality and ability of our graduates in entering into businesses and starting up their own companies. It can also be verified from the fact that during the last two economic recessions, our many scholars were found totally helpless in rescuing the economy except to blame it on the external factors.

Thus there are many problems with our education system - overemphasising on academic attainments. Dr. Tony Tan has gone on a trip recently to Europe to study their broad-based education policies there. How do they produce capable knowledge applicators in all engineering and technology areas. What happen? Laughing

pikamaster SG

Hi Elfred,
so ur back finally. did you see GMS's picture in TNP? he was featured together with Chia Li Tik and another girl.

oh anyway, you make such a broad statement and fail to qualify it. what are the more "big problems" that will be faced if my new [intellectual] Order of Education Act was implemented. or perhaps the problems only exist because you favour autocracy, and refuse to be open t democracy, or in other words, you are autocratic yourself. Have you read CrazyMonkey's thesis? perhaps you might gain a few insights from there.

As for the way i look at education, i believe educaiton should accomodate everybody since everybody is different. As such, the current streaming system doesn't measure up because it segregates people and predetermines their path in life. and of course, the rigidity of it stifles creativity and innovation.

Anyway, what are your practical solutions? I do not see that you have offered any alternative at all.

I agree that there might be a few major problems in the implementation, but these will be short-term problems compared to the long-term gains offered. and these problems would probably arise becasue of rigid mindsets like yours, and not because of any flaws in the law itself. besides, the Act creates Educational Parliament which is there to make decisions about how education should be carried out, so any irregularities should be stamped out by the teachers, if you are afraid of irrationality of the students in student unions. but look at Switzerland, and you will see my point.

Thx.

the pikamaster

Elfred SG

Hi Pikamaster,

Emm... I actually been around, saved been having other things recently. Laughing

In the current position, I rather not qualify myself too much. But I can tell you that, in Singapore, we have to observe the nature and characteristic of implication of education while compromising to human nature and characteristics, plus a whole bunch of other things.

Plainly, you'd realise that you ain't the first to say such things. But, I doubt it's that simple. The direction must be right, the respective subjects must be handled correctly, the schools must be assigned in such a way that 99% go along the direction, and we must have some sorts of people.

And there's also order of doing things and so on.

Frankly speaking, I'd guarantee what you/Robert and/or thinking in the market is not gonna change much. Laughing This is one thing I have decided even if you meet me in YP I'd not qualify. It's simple. It seems that you can't implement something by just throwing in as a few ideas as what most, if not all, believe to be. Firstly, I found that people are still quite unsure of the direction of education.

Besides, we have to recognise the fact that anything we do to education will have to come into relation with the commercial interests. Unless, of course, you wanna let the entire fortune be weighed on the Casino... Laughing

Well... unlike in other nations, Singapore's education has to be unique, in a way. And not unlike other nations, this sort of things require talents to think and handle.

That girl in the picture has been, if I am not wrong, a long time WP member. As for Ti Lik and Goh MS, there's no need to build database on them at the meantime cos I doubt they would be making much impact. I am, however, suspecting of some interest of having them to be a training point for PAP candidates. But, you see in such case, winning such weak competitors might make party candidates down on guard the next election. But it'd at least show that party victories are not necessarily due to walkovers.

I am more concern about more casualties, because if Goh MS and Ti Lik are really what they show themselves online to be... I afraid they'd end up Dr Chee-to-be. Rolling Eyes Political casualty never amuses me. Not even when it comes to Dr Chee, though you should know about my opinion on SDP, via email exchange. Sigh... we really need much more good men and women with much higher (leadership) standards. Neutral

I don't favor autocracy. So many times I repeated. Rolling Eyes

It seems that Crazy Monkey copied a huge pile of textbooks stuff to me. No offence to Monkey. But you don't need so much texts actually to gain insights. They might appeal to you, but not me, frankly.

$6.6m, I'd give you whatever solution you want. Anything on Education must, however, be modified with the current establishment. I don't wanna know what Switzerland is doing. I can't just assume that if we do what we do and give up everything, hence laying waste to the past factors, and to jump into another hole would make Singapore another Switzerland.

An Education parliament is not necessary. We can't (eg) have that parliament to crush with the main parliament, pointless. Besides, we have Mr Tharman, Mr Chan SS and Mr Hawazi, a total of three posts, to make such difference. Having one more parliament whereby the Education ministry still needs to present their decisions (say) from the Education parliament in the main parliament is just waste of time.

I ain't autocratic, Pikamaster. I definitely listen to you guys, and share my thoughts. But I might seem quite stubborn of certain stance, lest you have a better view to convince me. And believe it, I can be convince, if you views stand solid. Laughing

pikamaster SG

Elfred,

1) no comment. (i seldom comment on one-liners, esp. if they are greetings.)

2) what you state is not only unique to Singapore.

3) I have no illusions about the simplicity/ complexity of designing an education system. I have figured out that my [intellectual] Order of Education Act might have at least 150 articles, which makes it about as long as the Constitution, okay, perhaps slightly shorter only. However, I wish to caution you about talking about "direction". The problem with such a pathway is that it gives telescopic vison only; there are multiple paths education has to travel, because of the varied nature of both knowledge and experience. And now in an Information Age, new discoveries in various different fields occur simultaneously, and thus any teaching component of an education system will have to have room for all these discoveries. If it chooses to telescope in one area, say Enginerring, as Robert suggested earlier, then it will be able to be proficient in that area, but only that area, and will lag behind in other fields. Thus, we do not just need "some" sorts of people; we need all sorts of people.

Ashby's First Law of Cybernetics states that for every slave system of a certain complexity, in order to control it appropriately, you need a control system of equal or more complexity; this is also called the law of Requisite Variety. So in the case of the teaching component of education, the system of knowledge dissemination is the control system, and huge quantities of knowledge to be taught is the slave system. because knowledge is so varied, the knowledge dissemination system needs to be equally as varied.

The argument i find most flawed in this paragraph is the one which states that "all the respective subjects must be handled correctly". what is correct? That changes as time goes by, and there is henceforth no guarantee that one method firmly ingrained in one system will remain adequate for the rest of eternity. Look at Singapore, with the China-style Chinese Textbook system; even the govt realizes that that has to change, and henceforth you have modular Chinese. Thus, what we need is a system that is dynamic, so that the only cosntant thing about the system is its capacity to accomodate change. And to do that effectively, we need decentralization, to prevent the Ivory Tower Syndrome, where information gets progressivley summarized to the point where those at the top receive only a broad outline of the situation, and henceforth cannot respond with the requisite variety desired.

4) haha Very Happy guess why the Act I'm (intellectually) proposing is called the "Order of Education" Act?

5) like I told you, mine is an intellectual experiment obviously, since our quasi-autocratic and pseudo-democratic government will possibly not want to abandon their precious age-old tenets. ah well...

6) I agree only to a certain extent. Not everything needs to be tailored toward commercial interests. This is exactly waht we have done for the last 40 years, and look at the socia cost incurred from that: unfeeling teachers, teh society that chases after 5Cs, students who commit suicide because they can't face life's pressures, horrendous elitism which the PM still has the cheek to praise, schools denying pupils entry based on arbritrary criteria just in order to allow themselves to obtain Excellence Awards from MOE, "Taupok", certain CCAs being discriminated because they are non-sporty, SPorts School denying entry to excellent sportsmen just becasue their academic grades are good, then lamely giving the excuse that "holistic development'" is wanted, the recent bungle-up of the "O"-Level JAE system, etcetc. So we have a top-notch economy in the world, but do we have a top-notch society? All the examples I provided above are absolutely true; you can go and check news archives of ST, TODAY, TNP, AFP, or the STAR. And no, I am strongly opposed toward the construction of the casino. In fact, even the misguided decision to build teh casino stems from teh weakness of an education system which capitalizes on commercial (economic) interests so much, it degrades other areas.

7) I think you have been partially brainwashed by YP already. The phrase "uniqueness of Singapore" is a subtle piece of propaganda to justify what otherwise cannot be justified, like controls on the press adn the streaming system which My new (intellectual) Order of Education Act shall abolish. in fact, interestingly, if you were to do actual comparison, the uniqueness of our education system pales in comaprison to Norway. So there. Laughing

Cool I agree with you here.

9) Don't be too hasty to judge GMS, but I concur with your opinion of Chia Li Tik. Do an email discussion with GMS, and you will find tha this style of discussion will be quite like yours, with a few lapses of course. Hey, even you have lapses. Wink

10) That is always a fear when you have at least a quasi-autocratic government around. That's why after finishing my OEA, I am going to re-work (intellectually) the Defamation Act and the ISA. Anyway, I hope your view of poor leadership is not one-sided. Seriously. PAP claimed most of its victories, if you can even call them that, in walkover constituencies last election, so there is no real consensus that their leadership model is approved by the citizens. And obviously, we have some very inept leaders in govt like Vivian Balakrishnan; just see how he handled the casino issue with his pathetic maturity argument. *sigh* With regards to leadership, I share the same sentiments as you do.

11) Now I find that strange.... what do you favour then if you favour neither democract nor autocracy? there seems to really be nth else. perhaps you could enlighten me? Question

12) Just read, and scan out the main points. I'm like you; I really don't like chunky stuff either, so I'm reading it little by little. But I did skim through and got a general picture of what Monkey was saying.

13) Switzerland? Don't worry, I am proposing (intellectually) something completely new. It won't exist anywhare else in the world, not even in Switzerland, although it builds upon the Swiss model. But it will be what I would consider integrated thinking-out-of-the-box.

14) Crush? Why should there be one? The point of having EP is to separate out Education from the main government, to achieve a form of administrative decentralization. It is meant to be totally different.

...to be continued

Elfred SG

Elfred,

1) no comment. (i seldom comment on one-liners, esp. if they are greetings.)

2) what you state is not only unique to Singapore.

Yup. But the importance is Singapore is itself unique, see? Laughing

3) I have no illusions about the simplicity/ complexity of designing an education system. I have figured out that my [intellectual] Order of Education Act might have at least 150 articles, which makes it about as long as the Constitution, okay, perhaps slightly shorter only. However, I wish to caution you about talking about "direction". The problem with such a pathway is that it gives telescopic vison only; there are multiple paths education has to travel, because of the varied nature of both knowledge and experience. And now in an Information Age, new discoveries in various different fields occur simultaneously, and thus any teaching component of an education system will have to have room for all these discoveries. If it chooses to telescope in one area, say Enginerring, as Robert suggested earlier, then it will be able to be proficient in that area, but only that area, and will lag behind in other fields. Thus, we do not just need "some" sorts of people; we need all sorts of people.

Hahahaha... Accordingly, won't it be more logical going by your concern that we make everyone learn everything so as not to lag behind other fields?

If you are telling me you are talking about the relevant fields, or something as such, I'm gonna ask you are you soon the you can know which is relevant and which is not to every single (say) chemist-to-be?

Ashby's First Law of Cybernetics states that for every slave system of a certain complexity, in order to control it appropriately, you need a control system of equal or more complexity; this is also called the law of Requisite Variety. So in the case of the teaching component of education, the system of knowledge dissemination is the control system, and huge quantities of knowledge to be taught is the slave system. because knowledge is so varied, the knowledge dissemination system needs to be equally as varied.

I only know that sort of law which focuses on system helps little.

The case of the education system is pretty simple, that in Asia, it has been a screwed system all along. And when foreign interest thinned, rusted screws shown loose.

You see, Pikamaster, we cannot see education as a form of system and yet also wants it to applies flexibly to time and individual. That's a big mistake. Laughing Frankly speaking, I don't mind you go ahead and carry on your idea, seriously. Cos after another decade, Singapore'd be screaming with red alert again. Mr. Green

Now, please don't expect qualifying, cos this doesn't need qualifying.

The argument i find most flawed in this paragraph is the one which states that "all the respective subjects must be handled correctly". what is correct? That changes as time goes by, and there is henceforth no guarantee that one method firmly ingrained in one system will remain adequate for the rest of eternity. Look at Singapore, with the China-style Chinese Textbook system; even the govt realizes that that has to change, and henceforth you have modular Chinese. Thus, what we need is a system that is dynamic, so that the only cosntant thing about the system is its capacity to accomodate change. And to do that effectively, we need decentralization, to prevent the Ivory Tower Syndrome, where information gets progressivley summarized to the point where those at the top receive only a broad outline of the situation, and henceforth cannot respond with the requisite variety desired.

Alright. Don't mind tell you. I have once suggested a manner to teach Chinese as a subject. It's however, one of the very small minor component, though I have commented the manner cannot be used on English teaching.

Now put it this way, just as subjects and dealing with the entire Education as a whole, it requires very wise thinking in the first place. Your mentioning of what Chinese-style system is merely just emphasizing a copycat-mentality, which is exactly why I can comfortably tell Singapore it's gonna be pretty stuck in such sphere of stuckar-ness.

I need to point out about decentralisation. Look at Britain, isn't it decentralised enough? Look at the standards. Laughing

Put it this way, Education is not so simple. But I encourage people to go ahead and try whatever they can think of, to show the problems of the education on these people. Many are talking of thinking out of the box, for eg, but if you really observe, we are really going to get out of many boxes but only to be ignorant of the bigger box. Laughing

4) haha Very Happy guess why the Act I'm (intellectually) proposing is called the "Order of Education" Act?

I stupid, hahaha... can tell me?

5) like I told you, mine is an intellectual experiment obviously, since our quasi-autocratic and pseudo-democratic government will possibly not want to abandon their precious age-old tenets. ah well...

Well... ... My dear friend, think about it... there are certain experiments we shouldn't try, expecially on what particulars about what system of governments or what autocrats.

6) I agree only to a certain extent. Not everything needs to be tailored toward commercial interests. This is exactly waht we have done for the last 40 years, and look at the socia cost incurred from that: unfeeling teachers, teh society that chases after 5Cs, students who commit suicide because they can't face life's pressures, horrendous elitism which the PM still has the cheek to praise, schools denying pupils entry based on arbritrary criteria just in order to allow themselves to obtain Excellence Awards from MOE, "Taupok", certain CCAs being discriminated because they are non-sporty, SPorts School denying entry to excellent sportsmen just becasue their academic grades are good, then lamely giving the excuse that "holistic development'" is wanted, the recent bungle-up of the "O"-Level JAE system, etcetc. So we have a top-notch economy in the world, but do we have a top-notch society? All the examples I provided above are absolutely true; you can go and check news archives of ST, TODAY, TNP, AFP, or the STAR. And no, I am strongly opposed toward the construction of the casino. In fact, even the misguided decision to build teh casino stems from teh weakness of an education system which capitalizes on commercial (economic) interests so much, it degrades other areas.

Emm... Put it this way, a person needs monies so as that of a nation needs to get financed.

If we can offer a good industry, a hook-line, why not?

Yeah... I agree Education shouldn't be all about monies, but that's idealistic. We have too look at the more realistic side of things. Even the Casino. I can't just be too idealistic on national issues, see? Anyway, congrats, you belongs to the majority of the population it so seems on this Casino issue.

The misguided Education is not mainly because it's due to commercial. Put it this way, if we go back a decade, and when Education is not so commercial (say, by doing anyway commercial stint in the matter), do you think the Education system would produce something else?

7) I think you have been partially brainwashed by YP already. The phrase "uniqueness of Singapore" is a subtle piece of propaganda to justify what otherwise cannot be justified, like controls on the press adn the streaming system which My new (intellectual) Order of Education Act shall abolish. in fact, interestingly, if you were to do actual comparison, the uniqueness of our education system pales in comaprison to Norway. So there. Laughing

If you joined YP, and you do ask around for me (provided you know me) you'd discover that I'm hell thinking alot more different from YP. And least, with the blessing of a core, I can see things with least influence, provided any.

Emm... Actually, I do hope YP would be more politically endowed with great political thinkers. Brainwash also never mind. Laughing I'm still diligently digging and looking out. Hopefully, this year'd yield something.

Cool I agree with you here.

9) Don't be too hasty to judge GMS, but I concur with your opinion of Chia Li Tik. Do an email discussion with GMS, and you will find tha this style of discussion will be quite like yours, with a few lapses of course. Hey, even you have lapses. Wink

The problem of Goh MS is that he lacks certain important parts of a leader. I can only tell you he's just a layman who can resort only to petty thinkings; if he got the chance to stand for election this time round, I'd show you certain things about him. Laughing

Lapses? What lapses?

10) That is always a fear when you have at least a quasi-autocratic government around. That's why after finishing my OEA, I am going to re-work (intellectually) the Defamation Act and the ISA. Anyway, I hope your view of poor leadership is not one-sided. Seriously. PAP claimed most of its victories, if you can even call them that, in walkover constituencies last election, so there is no real consensus that their leadership model is approved by the citizens. And obviously, we have some very inept leaders in govt like Vivian Balakrishnan; just see how he handled the casino issue with his pathetic maturity argument. *sigh* With regards to leadership, I share the same sentiments as you do.

Well... no comment.

11) Now I find that strange.... what do you favour then if you favour neither democract nor autocracy? there seems to really be nth else. perhaps you could enlighten me? Question

Chey, I already make clear I only favor good people to solve issues, not systems. You guys never digest postings? Laughing This sort of question shouldn't come after so long a whole set of exchanges.

12) Just read, and scan out the main points. I'm like you; I really don't like chunky stuff either, so I'm reading it little by little. But I did skim through and got a general picture of what Monkey was saying.

I... the sort who read, but not memorise, but know where to get my stuff quick enough, and know how to figure things out quick enough. You can say I know alot of things when I know little at the same time. Laughing

I kinda must tell you that materials he posted can be found in various textbooks (I read over time). If you want, and would pay me, I'd produce even longer (cut and paste) thesis (or whatever you choose to call).

I'm trained to think, not to pass cut and paste exams, so... Rolling Eyes

13) Switzerland? Don't worry, I am proposing (intellectually) something completely new. It won't exist anywhare else in the world, not even in Switzerland, although it builds upon the Swiss model. But it will be what I would consider integrated thinking-out-of-the-box.

Good. I wish you all the luck, Pikamaster. You see, at least if you can, you try. That's hopefully the first step towards something. But hopefully your foundation is right in the first place. Mr. Green

14) Crush? Why should there be one? The point of having EP is to separate out Education from the main government, to achieve a form of administrative decentralization. It is meant to be totally different.

Don't need to ask PM. I'd tell you here, it won't work.

You see, for a first, it won't work in a Single party dominance political era. And unless PM kee-siao, how would he purposely let out 40% of the power to other party/parties?

You see, Pikamaster, say, if Mr Tharman claims that X policy in the education parliament is fixed. What will happen is, Mr Tharman, as a minister and MP cannot shy away from question from MPs in main parliament not can parliament bar MPs from asking him. If MPs, representing the people'd to ask in the Education parliament, why not just let Mr Tharman answer in the main parliament... I really don't see your point here.

Or you have something much different?

BTW, don't assume any parliament to exclude MPs, nor including too many of non-elected elements in. There's a simple reason behind.

Hey, see you around.

robertteh SG

As the world progresses to one that is highly competitive based on mass applications and innovations of new and existing knowledge, governments will find it increasingly difficult to absorb information and lead in macro- or micro- applications of knowledge.

The governments that believe to have all or most of the solutions will become ostriches burying heads in the sand refusing to see these changes.

Opening up governance to participative mass applications of knowledge including mundane knowledge is the new direction.

That is why major changes to education is now so important. But we can see that by the days this possibility of opening up in education is being closed up based on the need to produce more elites or regurgitations of past glories. Is that right?

Below is a quote from his announced package to overhaul UN Security Council, from UN Chief Mr. Kofi Annan:

"Specifically, I ask developing countries to improve their governments, uphold the rule of law, combat corruption and adopt an inclusive approach to development," Annan said.

PAST SUCCESS IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE.

pikamaster SG

Elfred,

pre) next time, may i request you let me finish writing my post before you reply. Otherwise, you might not get the full pictue of what I am saying.

1) err... that's circular argument.

2) Who do you know are chemists-to-be? Yes, obviously, we need to know what is relevant to the chemists, and yes, the system will accomodate that. But what we also want is for everybody to have a common knowledge base as well, so that they can relate with people of all other cultures while immersed in their niche fields. The new system will give the chance for every profession to achieve top-standard education, in the form of a leveled modular system, something like in a computer game, although of course students are not going to be asked to play one massive computer game. Wink

No, I'm not suggesting that everyone learn everything everything; I admit that si impossible. But at least the system should let everybody commonly keep abreast of latest developments in any field. And if you wish to argue about relevancy again, let us return to the example of our chemist-to-be. In a modern world such as this, our chemist will not just need to know pure chemistry. he would need to have at least a cursory understanding of engineering and biology, economics, IT and obviously mathematics. Why Engineering? Because modern-day chemistry uses machines and to understand how machines work, you need to know basic engineering. WHy biology? Chemicals have an impact on the environment. Why Economics? the chemist needs to make money, duh. Why IT? COmputer software, such as molecular-modelling software is becoming more and more frequent, and is essential in micro-study of chemistry. As for literature and history and geography, these are not essential for the field of chemistry by itself, but are essential in helping the chemist as a person to relate to other people in his social environment. Man is a social creature after all. So as you can see, all areas of knowledge are crucial to a person's development, whatever his/her profession might be.

3) errr... when you say "screaming with red-alert again", do you mean the situation that will exist if my system is implemented or my system is not implemented?

4) Nope, Britain is just as centralized as Singapore; its system is a 300 year-old system. Go read your British history again.

the point of this new system is to get people to be able to think out to teh largest box possible, and henceforth be able to make breakthroughs that will be beneficial for society and beneficial to the state economy.

5) no comment. (pls don't comment on this line; it's unnecessary.)

6) I say "experiment" it will never be implemented under the current establishment mindset, which seeks to defend the merits of an obviously more-failed-than-succeeded streamign system.

Anyway, before you make value judgements like that, consider too that your beloved party is similarly conducting several experiments now too in various areas, especially in the educaiton system.

Society cannot progress if we take a negative attitude toward experimentation.

7) To go back a decade is not enough. Ever since post-war, the education system has been commercial-centric. I belive if education had proceeded in a multifaceted path instead, we would have mroe creativity and a more liberal, progressive, though not immoral, society, and a government that is more ideologically tolerant, sicne of course our education system shaped our current leaders.

Anyway, what are you going to blame if you don't see that commercialism is what ruined education? Are you going to blame inept leadership in MOE? Students? Parents' unrealistic expectations? 'Cos all these were caused by the education system in the first place.

It is idealistic to say that education should be not about money at all, but it is still practical to say that education should not JUST be about money. I mean, that is still one of the slogans (mis)used by the MOE: holistic edcuation. Holistic education is not idealistic; it is practical. Make no mistake.

Cool haha. Very Happy Well, good luck!

btw, which GRC are you working at?

9) I hope I'm different from him, and I hope Robert is too. Neutral

Well, I'm sure you can show me things about him even if he does not stand for election, can't you? Wink

When I say lapses, I mean when you are very stubborn, and start resorting to personal attacks, though of course these are far from significant when compared with those from EC or OPINN007 or from CAROLINE or Cannon.

Answer the above question, and I'll give examples of when you lapse.

11) Well then, you didn't make it very clear then. But anyway, an Iranian Professor with quite an extensive set of credentials came to speak at my school today. I asked him whether the current global problems were caused more by the quality of the international systems or of the people managing them. His reply was an integrated one: The core of the global problems rests in lack of understanding between different groups of people, and these are reflected both in the existent international systems and the attitudes/quality of the people running and managing these institutions. Thus, none is more important than the other; both are merely different faces of the same box, if we are to use that analogy.

And that was precisely my argument from the start of this discussion.: Poor people can ruin good systems, but poor systems can ruin good people too. And thus, we must ensure that there are both good systems and good people.

That is the key reason why edcuational system msut be reformed. Because it is this that determines how good the people are, and having a bad system is results in producing a set of people who are inept at running the system, which creates a vicious cycle of prolonging or exacerbating the poor quality of the system. Thus, it is crucial that we must have a good sducation system, one which is truely multifaceted for all participants.

I hope you understand my position now.

Sorry for the earlier misunderstanding. Embarassed

12) Well, if this is indeed copied-and-pasted (thus violating copyright), it is still useful, as this is other people's thoughts and research resutls.

13) Don't worry, I have been reading up, and ensuring that I have a correct foundation. I'm not just a bull in a china shop, I assure you. Very Happy

14) see [pre)]. I haven't completed this point yet. Yes, I am proposing something totally different. And I know this will not work in a dominant-party system; why do you think that I spent most of our discussion arguing for a more democratic Singapore?

As I have told you, I am working (intellectually) on a new Constitution as well.
So I mean total revamping of the whole society from ground up, not just the education system alone.

Thx for your prompt reply, but pls don't be too prompt next time. Wink Very Happy

The pikamaster (who is staying in HC after all)

Elfred SG

Elfred,

pre) next time, may i request you let me finish writing my post before you reply. Otherwise, you might not get the full pictue of what I am saying.

????

1) err... that's circular argument.

Is it? Have you ever consider whether it's more relevant of 'it's not unique to Singapore' or 'Singapore itself is unique'? I don't really see why it must be circular, though I understand what you mean. Smile

2) Who do you know are chemists-to-be? Yes, obviously, we need to know what is relevant to the chemists, and yes, the system will accomodate that. But what we also want is for everybody to have a common knowledge base as well, so that they can relate with people of all other cultures while immersed in their niche fields. The new system will give the chance for every profession to achieve top-standard education, in the form of a leveled modular system, something like in a computer game, although of course students are not going to be asked to play one massive computer game. Wink

That's the issue. Who? And obviously, I know you'd touch on the relevance trigger. Now the darken sentence yields why: How the hack is the relevance of common knowledge base? 50%? 99% or 0% or what, and is it possible to determine what you considered not common knowledge base is hence necessarily of no importance or relevance? Take note of your word 'niche' with regards to the discussion. Laughing

The rest of your quote hence rendered unimportant.

No, I'm not suggesting that everyone learn everything everything; I admit that si impossible. But at least the system should let everybody commonly keep abreast of latest developments in any field. And if you wish to argue about relevancy again, let us return to the example of our chemist-to-be. In a modern world such as this, our chemist will not just need to know pure chemistry. he would need to have at least a cursory understanding of engineering and biology, economics, IT and obviously mathematics. Why Engineering? Because modern-day chemistry uses machines and to understand how machines work, you need to know basic engineering. WHy biology? Chemicals have an impact on the environment. Why Economics? the chemist needs to make money, duh. Why IT? COmputer software, such as molecular-modelling software is becoming more and more frequent, and is essential in micro-study of chemistry. As for literature and history and geography, these are not essential for the field of chemistry by itself, but are essential in helping the chemist as a person to relate to other people in his social environment. Man is a social creature after all. So as you can see, all areas of knowledge are crucial to a person's development, whatever his/her profession might be.

Hahaha... See? So now I ask you, do you mean that if you wanna be an IT professional, you should be wiser to take Chemistry route or some other Xsubject cum IT route? Apparently, if you take the IT route on pure basis, it's not gonna be enough accordingly to your arguement. But here rise one crucial question: (say) If Chemist itself is a necessarily professional field,and IT itself is also a professional (hence necessaily professional) field on its own, and it used to take (eg) 4 years to produce one basic chemist and 3 years to produce one basic IT specialist. How in the hack can I trust you to producea Chemist cum IT specialist in 4 years, plus putting literature, geography and so on in.

There's this game Might & Magic whereby one can be what expert fighter in training over a week or what... But in reality, this is not the case, Pikamaster.

Man is a social creature, but Man is also unique. That's why political thinkers probably have a headache talking to/socialising Einstein, who'd have a headache talking to/socialising business leaders in turn. Laughing

3) errr... when you say "screaming with red-alert again", do you mean the situation that will exist if my system is implemented or my system is not implemented?

Pardon me, my young friend, you have not get the root of the issue yet. How could you have any system or solution with even barely understand the foundation issue in Singapore's context? Letting you to go ahead of your system is seemingly the only way to show yourself where you're heading into. The good thing is, however, that it won't mess much out of a mess anyway.

I did ask you, if we go back ten years where there is much lesser commercial interest or whatever than now, would we have produced something different? In fact, you are one of the products, Pikamaster. Laughing (this is not hostile gesture, just plainly bringing something across.)

4) Nope, Britain is just as centralized as Singapore; its system is a 300 year-old system. Go read your British history again.

the point of this new system is to get people to be able to think out to teh largest box possible, and henceforth be able to make breakthroughs that will be beneficial for society and beneficial to the state economy.

I suppose you should ask your teacher first.

5) no comment. (pls don't comment on this line; it's unnecessary.)

6) I say "experiment" it will never be implemented under the current establishment mindset, which seeks to defend the merits of an obviously more-failed-than-succeeded streamign system.

Anyway, before you make value judgements like that, consider too that your beloved party is similarly conducting several experiments now too in various areas, especially in the educaiton system.

The party is but a party, Pikamaster. It's still who and who are doing what. Love it, it's still who and who and what deeds, love it not, it's still the same.

But it's not rational to use the incumbent government's action to defend on my concern. Smile My stance also comes from a concern citizen, which is why our discussion still flow. Mr. Green Party or no party, we are still a member of the public.

Society cannot progress if we take a negative attitude toward experimentation.

Yes. But, and a big but, a society need not progress with any experiments; and a big and that experiment outcome has little regards to attitude of either direction. If you poke PM in the head with a chopstick, he'd probably die regardless what sort of attitude you got.

And Singapore is not a nation which can take anyohow experiments. Rolling Eyes

Besides, I doubt any would claim responsibility for thingys gone horrendously sour than many many many who'd claim even the slightest and shortest glimps of credits, all at the expense of the Singaporeans on streets. This is not very amusing to me... ...

7) To go back a decade is not enough. Ever since post-war, the education system has been commercial-centric. I belive if education had proceeded in a multifaceted path instead, we would have mroe creativity and a more liberal, progressive, though not immoral, society, and a government that is more ideologically tolerant, sicne of course our education system shaped our current leaders.

Hohoho... Singapore was known as an entrepot trade centre not what study or education hub then. If so, whereby we are moving towards an education hub status, then the past must be less commercial in interest. See?

Ask you something important, do you think there is no need for pre-requisite before we even have a what more tolerant government towards what ideologies? Here lies between ideology and solid thinking.

True. In fact this system is the culprit that blow such problems in Singaporeans, cos it's directly hurting the one resource we got. And you are getting a 8 in it. Laughing Alright, kidding lah.

You see, where the magnitudes and similarities would end here, the system is still a system. And what'd a system produce? Systems lor... Online, outside, gosh... I have always (can say so) been talking to educated systems, graded in 1s or 8s, in As or Es... Must admit... quite tough life for me, expectedly.

Anyway, what are you going to blame if you don't see that commercialism is what ruined education? Are you going to blame inept leadership in MOE? Students? Parents' unrealistic expectations? 'Cos all these were caused by the education system in the first place.

Honestly, I can't blame the old system for its credits till the mid 80s. But, to my horror, it goes on to produce and (allow, hence to) reinforce itself since. And not hard to expect, our edge gone horrendously since the late 90s, where in fact, commercial rubbish and trash events shoot and junks (and such events) got legitimate. with little or not resistance. When people ain't thinking, you can throw yourself to death and expect people expect you to condemn on your corpse.

In one way, you are right. But I rather see it as problem arising due to the fact that Singapore is damn young and small and real talents to handle events/decisions kinda lag in the push to mass produce paper-talents. Even in China, how many Confucius-s or Sun Tzu would exist among the billions of people in any point of time? Not to consider Singapore is only this small.

It's still the people, not the system. But it's not really wrong here for you to blame the system. After all, throughout history, systems are made to simplistically (or politically speaking: professionally designed) assign and function. And historically, people know system can't be trusted, especially in the long run, but yet systems always are allowed to rust and create (often self-stuckar) problems.

In a tight situation, it's gonna be something entangled with something else. So in this era, in such moments, we can only trust good people.

It is idealistic to say that education should be not about money at all, but it is still practical to say that education should not JUST be about money. I mean, that is still one of the slogans (mis)used by the MOE: holistic edcuation. Holistic education is not idealistic; it is practical. Make no mistake.

Well... Your fees need fundings, the schools need funding, the teachers (at least most) can't even travel to the class without paying tribute to MOT, your materials needs monies, and your time is money. In this respect, we have clearly the cost and the ROI part, from holistic Laughing to your own self.

In assessing national issue, this is where a real political thinker differentiates himself/herself, there is always this thingy call consequences and this thingy call parameters. Education and Casino are both politcal issues, and the approach test and show what sort of politician one is. And you are covering outside the parameters already. Laughing

The fact is, I have to agree with you, it's not just money we want, but the fact is still, we need to be funded and to fund. And holistic what has nothing to do with the issue in concern cos a nation, and hence it's services to the people by the people, is still needing funding. There's nothing to balance here, actually. Though it's nothing big deal to use balance. The answer to Education is pretty straight forward and yet tedious, I must admit.

Cool haha. Very Happy Well, good luck!

btw, which GRC are you working at?

Well...

Which do you think? Rolling Eyes

9) I hope I'm different from him, and I hope Robert is too. Neutral

Well... Do you want me to confer you a leader? Hehehe...

Alright... you see, there are certain things that make you a leader, Pikamaster, and certain thingys that make you obviously a follower or what craps. Well, of course, I ain't claiming leaders are saints or what (as MM says) priests-kinda. Forget about what those leadership-camps taught you about what leadership is. Too be a political leader or/and a leader of the people, one of the basic quality is credibility. And credibility is not necessarily fulfilling everything under the sun you said, especially in politics. There are always times for you to say certain things that may not be true at all (eg) in order to motivate or rally.

It pretty simple to feel. I do not really know much about Robert except I am quite sure he isn't that sort who'd make a leader.

Just remember, a leader, basically, has the concerns of his followers and those he'd wanna lead on his mind. And a leader usually have and made real leaders. Which is why when a good leader comes, a number of good leaders tend to appear in the scene and situation prospers.

Well, I'm sure you can show me things about him even if he does not stand for election, can't you? Wink

Hahaha... Better let him go election first, then I'd point out to you. Laughing

When I say lapses, I mean when you are very stubborn, and start resorting to personal attacks, though of course these are far from significant when compared with those from EC or OPINN007 or from CAROLINE or Cannon.

Hahahaha... Personal attacks? Maybe that's your view. But for me, if you point out immediately on where you thought I personal attack you, I'm sure it's more of false alarm or it have to be justified. My 'description', in such cases, don't just come from nothing.

Answer the above question, and I'll give examples of when you lapse.

Well, feel free to.

11) Well then, you didn't make it very clear then. But anyway, an Iranian Professor with quite an extensive set of credentials came to speak at my school today. I asked him whether the current global problems were caused more by the quality of the international systems or of the people managing them. His reply was an integrated one: The core of the global problems rests in lack of understanding between different groups of people, and these are reflected both in the existent international systems and the attitudes/quality of the people running and managing these institutions. Thus, none is more important than the other; both are merely different faces of the same box, if we are to use that analogy.

And that was precisely my argument from the start of this discussion.: Poor people can ruin good systems, but poor systems can ruin good people too. And thus, we must ensure that there are both good systems and good people.

I don't think you thinking correct. Plainly: Necessarily Good people and necessarily Good systems seems utopian to me.

Didn't you tell the Iranian professor that?

What the professor didn't tell you is that Iran has decades and centuries of exodus and mixing with other people as that those with much lesser time but more hamornious people in Singapore and USA and so on. Since 80s when there are telephones (a hot item way back to 1960~70s) and televisions, the world has at least, since the second world war, half a century in Iran and Iraq to understand.

The core issue that surrounds the world is still interests.

There may be hundreds of systems of governments, and hundreds and thousands of political participants, it all boils down to interests. And I am arguing with you for such case, that it'd have to be good people to take care/handle the (conflict of) interests to resolve global problems. Laughing

That is the key reason why edcuational system msut be reformed. Because it is this that determines how good the people are, and having a bad system is results in producing a set of people who are inept at running the system, which creates a vicious cycle of prolonging or exacerbating the poor quality of the system. Thus, it is crucial that we must have a good sducation system, one which is truely multifaceted for all participants.

Well, quite true, but isn't it common sense. Mr. Green

I hope you understand my position now.

It's a common position: to want a good Education for a good result.

Sorry for the earlier misunderstanding. Embarassed

12) Well, if this is indeed copied-and-pasted (thus violating copyright), it is still useful, as this is other people's thoughts and research resutls.

13) Don't worry, I have been reading up, and ensuring that I have a correct foundation. I'm not just a bull in a china shop, I assure you. Very Happy

Emm... If I say this, you're going say I hostile or personal...? From what I gather, you might need more effort to get a foundation... I seriously doubt you'd end up anyway useful accordingly... Rolling Eyes Aiyah... no offence lah...! Laughing

14) see [pre)]. I haven't completed this point yet. Yes, I am proposing something totally different. And I know this will not work in a dominant-party system; why do you think that I spent most of our discussion arguing for a more democratic Singapore?

You are not arguing for a democratic Singapore but one Singapore that must die die have at least 50% sitting of non-incumbent, regardless of election outcome... which is more autocratic than democratic, see?

As I have told you, I am working (intellectually) on a new Constitution as well.
So I mean total revamping of the whole society from ground up, not just the education system alone.

Thx for your prompt reply, but pls don't be too prompt next time. Wink Very Happy

The pikamaster (who is staying in HC after all)

I'd try to reply as soon as possible, especially if addressed to myself.

Hey, hope no offence...

pikamaster SG

Elfred,

1) My point no. 14 was not complete yet.

2) Any claim of uniqueness, unless substantiated by circumstance or by reality of novelty, is mere propaganda. Singapore itself is not unique in many senses, whatever feature we wish to talk about. In press controls, it is not unique. In having a multiracial society it is not unique, and the list goes on. Even in impressive economic performance it is not unique. The only unique point is perhaps the long legth of dominance by a single party with supposed free and fair elections in place.

3) Like I have said, "everybody". The relevance of the Common Knowledge base is at least 95%, because the economy is after all, going to be a knowledge-based economy. But more than that, we require an educaiton system that will create the proper global citizen out of all people. And we need creativity in every field of work, even in farming. I already explained the relevance of teh various subjects to a person in my previous post.

There is still the existence of niches, because naturally people will want to focus in maximum detail on what they are good at. But the common knowledge base will at least keep them from becoming entrapped in an ivory tower. Like I explained later on in my pevious post (I think), there is a great deal of inter-relatedness in different fields. Because we are trying to train integrated thinkers, we need people who can synthesize information from as many other fields as possible and apply the new knowledge to their particular field if it can be applied, that is the plugin mentality, if you understand what I mean.

I expect you will probably say that most of the information is irrelevant, and I wouldn't argue on that point. But becasue any piece of information in any field could be important to the person's field or life in general, that person needs to at least have a cursory understanding of that field, and that is what the common knowledge base provide. Obviously, sieving skills will be taught too, but the emphasis will be actively sieving the information for oneself, and not acting from pre-sieved information.

4) Of course, if you want to be an IT professional, you should take a route with IT, but also with other stuff like physics or chemistry or biology or education or even law, although the other secondary "plugins" will be learnt at perhaps a lower level than IT.

3 years and 4 years are not absolutes. They are only absolutes under the current context. Under a new context, the time-periods will most likely differ. Anyway, by the time you a re talking about such prolonged courses, you are talking about Unviersity, which will not be covered in OEA, I have decided. Instead, Unviersities will follow independent systems. Creating new higher education institutions, I admit, are not within my current set of abilities. So I shall limit the discussion to education catering to students from 7-18 years of age.

I know about M&M, (i dislike it anyway). Hey, don't take things so literally ok? I was just using an analogy. Of course, education doesn't occur in a week. We are still talking about a 12-year long period anyway.

Using exceptions to justify your case is not valid. Einstein is an exception; In the norm, society influences man more than does he influence himself.

5) I would classify this as a lapse. You are talking down to me here.

I have said previously, ever since self-government in 1959, education has been dictated by the government's commercial interest. So your question is illogical and cannot hence be answered.

6) I've been reading up, and on British news as well. So I know my facts.

7) I don't wish to comment. (don't reply to this statement either; it's unnecessary)

Cool Every innovation is an experiment, whose results can only be seen many years later. This is the curse of all social sciences: There is no place in which a controlled experiment can be held, because of the moral issues concerning a person being used as a guinea pig, even for a clone. Wink Every implementation of a new policy is henceforth a political experiment. Predictions can be made, but they always have a margin of error.

henceforth, To say that a society need not have experimentation to progress, is equivalent to saying society need not progress at all.

9) it's all relative. There is certainly more commercial interest now than before, but from the start, there was already a great deal of commercial interest. Your question would only be relevant if in the past there had been no commercial interest at all. Go on, think about it. Hint: Commercial interest is not necessarily related to the educational industry.

Anyway, I don't understand your last paragraph in this section, so please explain what you mean. Because to me it sounds like unqualified rhetoric. ANd please don't invite me again to YP.

10) A static system will rust over time and eventually fall out. But I'll be proposing is a dynamic system, which can reinvent itself to meet new situations. in fact, it will even allow for a replacement by any new law needed in the future. Ya, I suppose it will depend whether the people in it (which is going to be everybody) realize that change is needed. But at least an individual should, and the system will give way for one single individual to make a difference in teh entire system. That's the point of it all.

Because at the end of it all, whether you like it or not, you still need systems to be present, since there would be total anarchy without a system, and even the best people cannot run an improper system.

11) money = commercialisation

money != nominal funding.

wrong. Casino and Education are social issues as well. Consequences exist in concrete reality. Parameters are generated by the human mind, a result of our incipient flaw to judge others.

12) Hoping it was Marine Parade? How do you expect me to know?

13) No, not so far... yet. Very Happy I have never really gone to MOE-sponsored leadership camps btw.

I prefer taking the transparency definition of credibility. What I hate most are illusions. I only admire national leaders, not politicians. In fact, one of my aims in the design of the new education system is to remove politics as much as possible, and that is partly through the definition of represetnatives as pure representatives without fast power. And since anybody is allowed to propose a law change, the positions are not really important anyway. I want true pure credibility, not merely show.

And I know what a leader needs, but anyway I'll take your advice.

14) What's the diff? he won't know anyway.

15) See paragraph (5).

16) see paragraph (15).

17) Well, you seem to be arguing for necesarily good people.

Yes, I know about the interest issues. but hey, that should be way removed from education and health. Exclamation

1 Cool You don't seem to have understood this, that's why I explained it.

19) Wrong issue. We are talking about the macro-view. The position I was referring to was the acknowledgement of teh necessity to have good people and good systems.

20) I asked you for advice before, and you haven't been very forthcoming. so...

21) Err... when did we return to talking about election systems. ANd anyway what you saying dun sync with what I was arguing on the need for a free press and else. Confused

22) no, none, dun worry. Very Happy

the (sincere) pikamaster

« Previous Page Next Page »