Elfred,
1) Actually, the point is - I don't really care if Singapore is
unique or not. Uniqueness in size is extremely trivial if you want
to look at the large picture. Uniqueness in development cannot
really be used to justify policies crafted for the future.
In fact, Uniqueness is actually a very propagandic argument i.e.
one that is more rhetoric than substance. And more dangerously, it
can become a kind of wall to shield ourselves from teh outside
world, the same way that papal infailiability doctrine has becoem a
fortress for the Roman Catholic Church (and btw, I'm Roman Catholic
myself) , such that even now the Vatican uses it as front against
protests against conservatism in the Church. And that seems to be
exactly what Singapore is doing. Our alleged "uniqueness" has
become a horrid veneer which the government uses as a fortress
against "attacks" on its authority from the outside, whether local
or foreign. Increasingly, the govenrment's arguments utilizing this
"uniqueness" element have become flawed, because they fail to
provide any other evidence other than this for that.
"Uniqueness" is an argument with much emotional appeal, but like
any other emotional appeal, it lacks rational thought.
Well, if you insist on that, what'd I have to say? 
2) You try to elevate yourself on a pedestal and look down to me
from there, but as far as I see, you still haven't given me a
proper explanation for which I can use to debunk my own arguments.
You call me naiive and ignorant, but doesn't teh fact that you
haven't yet responded with a proper set of explanation that I can
understand (since I appear to be very lost) show that you too, are
somewhat ignorant yourself?
And I shall make it clear, your position isn't enhanced by requests
from you to ask me to meet you at YP.
You sound as if I am trying you offer you something or debunk
you. Nope, I obviously suggest you go ahead and try your ideas,
Pikamaster. What proper explanation would you want, Pikamaster?
You see, Pikamaster, not that I have not tried to explain, but you
have kinda miss or prefer to look at things in another way. If you
insist on being so, it's up to you.
Me? Yup, I may be ignorant. It doesn't matter.
3) What is necessity? Who decides what is necessary?
Necessity is defined as the want of a majority in any grouping.
Since each grouping might be in a different situation, thus
situation affects necessity. For eg, a neighbourhood school might
need computers but an independent school would not sicne it already
has them.
The more crucial question is: who decides what is necessary? That
is always the stickler point in this kind of debate, and even in
moral debates, like that over euthanasia.
I believe that a person would know his needs more than anyone else
around him, even his parents, if he were given all the information
about his situation. In fact, I aim to make transparency one of the
key features of the system I'm designing. But of course, there are
certain basic needs everyone must have: education, food, water,
shelter. And that will of course be provided. And these are the
basic kind of necessities I suppose.
I notice that our discussion/debate/argument has moved on to
contend over the type of education a person needs, particularly the
scope. The scope, as I have explained earlier, will be determined
by students' decision. The issue of definitive wants and
non-definitive wants will self-resolve. Non-definitive wants are
wants that exist okeonly temporarily, fading off for wahtever
reason there is. In line with following the student's passion, the
student will be allowed to drop courses s/he is not interested in,
or courses that s/he used to have interest, but lost interest in,
later. So, non-definitive wants will be accomodated.
Saying that "Vagueness is the way it has to be" conveys the
impression that you don't really know so much about the subject
matter. 
No comment. So do as you see fit then.
4) I have told you - I'm not using loaded connotations of any
word, merely using the neutral manner.
Industries do not share everything across the board, not externally
at least. But at the same time, they do not share nothing at all,
thus there are always stuff like joint projects between different
companies, or sponsorships or something like that. For example,
Software doesn't seem to ahve much to do with F&B, but why then
is Microsoft a stakeholder and sponsor of Coke?
Also, in an extremely interdependent world such as ours, firms
increasingly have to consider more bottomlines than just one, like
eg. a chemical firm has to know the environmental effects of it
products. An educational firm needs to know the impact of its
decisions on society i.e. what kind of people it is nurturing eg. A
Northern Irish educational agency will have to ensure that its
educaitonal layout does not bolster religious intolerance.
Anyway, education is not just about preparing people for a career,
it's also about training them for life.
Well...
5) So what do you think are the other aspects that I have
neglected? Facilities? People? All these interact with the systems.
We need good initial people to run good systems, to ensure that the
systems are good. But we need to produce good people from good
systems too, so that the quality of the systems can be maintained,
thus the system itself which is being run has to be good too.
How have I been derailed? qualify the statement please.
I decided that it's not really workable for such exchange. Very
simple, Pikamaster, your thinking is carrying too much stint of
the local Education system.
Well, what can I say but go and try, and re-read our exchange.
You'd find little has changed.
6) The rest? Yes, I anticipated that question.
The scenario is this currently: a student needs to get good grades
in his PSLE in order to get into the SPorts School or a good
Secondary School. Because favours (like integrated programmes and
facilities and teachers) are given to good schools, the other
schools lose out, and so only the top school students gain
tremendously. What results is that at the next weeding-out-session,
thsoe from the "top schools" come up top again, and sometimes we
shouldn't even consider that. Since those who do extremely badly in
Secondary School are forced by the system into a specific "Normal"
stream, where opportunities are reduced, and not solely in the
academic field, but in other stuff such as field trips etc., there
is a reason for them to feel inferior and therefore the term
"losers" comes out. For example, they cannot go to the Sports
School even if they are very good at sports, because the School
tries to achieve "holistic development" despite the niche it has
claimed for itself. So these "Normal" students have become
discriminated by a system that compromises them on many
opportunities that they may want because, adn solely because, of
their assumed academic disability. Despite the fantastic ads put
out by ITEC, even from a cursory glance at its website, you can see
that it only gives courses in "technical skills" and "service
skills"; clearly these do not offer very good job prospects. And
the students would no doubt feel cheated (unless they are
brainwashed YP pple), since they see the other better opportunities
offered to their neighbours in polys or JCs. And of course, the
meritocratic society is such that it awards the best jobs to those
who are most academically qualified, and show, in your sense of
definition, credible social aptitude. SO thus, we see the
weakness.
In my system: Every course is possible as a choice to the student,
so everyone has equal footing. The student cannot blame anybody
else except himself/herself if s/he does not take up a course s/he
likes. In the sense, there is no such thing as "CMI" people, sicne
everyone will be able to find something s/he can make it at, and
achieve the best at it, whether it is art, sports, life science,
econs or wahtever there is. Even if that person is just good at
technical skills, at least he knows he is doing this because this
is what s/he is truely good at, and not because this was the last
option available to him/her. And no, I do not look down on
technical skills. Everyone will have their won niche which they can
find and like, so they do not have to involuntarily condition
themselves into a line they dislike, and end up to be grumpy pple
like some pple around these forums.
That there are "winners" and "losers" is merely a social mindset.
Tell me, is Thomas Edison a winner or a loser? In our educational
terms, frankly, he is a loser.
In otehr words, there is a win-win situation for everybody, becasue
everybody can find a satisfying job.
Sigh...
Winners and losers are not merely what social mindsets. In fact,
this mindset itself is a nothing about merely. You have underestimated too
much too far. If you don't join YP, it's your choice. Don't expect
me to be too enlightening here.
6) hmmm...
There's that suggestion that you can go and retrain, or better
still, take a double degree or triple degree or something. You'll
only be left with no option if you do not have grounding in the
other subject areas. But that will be what the system I'm proposing
gives. so the job mobility will be greater in my new system.
the neutral definition I am using for "niche" is the biological
one: a role and a position for the organism [person] in a system.
I'm not including any factor of uniqueness within the defintion, as
you see. So the only way a niche can become outdated is if that
occupation becomes a vanishing trade.
But the point is, we will always need chemists, physicists,
engineers, and the like. Even if we have a fully roboticized
society, we still need engineers to run the robots and direct them
what to do, or to improve on the design of robots, and their
functionality for certain jobs. Not that that is so likely to
happen in the next century, though we must keep an open mind. Life
Sciences might die out, or dot-com may crash, but still it does not
mean that biologists and IT specialists are not needed.
The only real danger comes when you get an ivory-tower graduate who
knows nothing but the knowledge in his field. But the precise
architecture of my system aims to prevent that, so there.
And if you wish to say that I didn't understand you, please provide
qualification i.e. what you actually meant in plain English.
Too simple... you're really assuming this Education thingy is
some kinda production line. You see, there's a whole lot of issues
you missed out. It isn't so simple as '...doesn't mean that X Y Z
are not needed...'. 
Do you know that Singapore itself can also be a vanishing trade?
7) Ok... I shall make it clearer... the system will aim, through
the environment it provides, to nurture people that can think in
every field.
Please re-think.
9) Well, if I don't get it, it's becasue you have not explained it
properly enough and completely enough.
1st, systems don't think. What it produces seldom think because
of systems. Actually the more you get successful due to systems,
the more you don't think. But systems will make you have that
illusion you're thinking.
2nd, I will never explained directly. If you ever read COE, you'd find that it's so hard to
understand the more you are successful in the system. All you'd see
is seas of words and some simple ideas (of what you think it is).
If you can't think, reading my book will make you more and more
confused.
10) ???
11) Wrong. If it doesn't hit me, means that you don't understand
what you claim to know fully, and hence are unable to explain to
me. A great test of understanding is the ability to explain your
understanding to other people who don't share the same
understanding.
That's what you assume.
Do you know how much time and people takes to understand what
Einstein is thinking, for example? He'd have his own way of
explaining, but not necessaily you'd understand fully. So Einstein
don't understand what he claims cos he can't make you understand,
or due to some reasons, keep to himself?
When MM was talking 'bout Malaysian Malaysia, instead of gaining
recognition, he got hatred and misunderstanding, instigated or for
what purpose. Was he an idiot? Or he didn't know what he was
talking back then...?
12) ok point taken, but perhaps you have to be a little more
sensitive to waht you are writing, or sayign for the
matter.
Have to be very objective. Actually, this sort of discussion on
(eg) policies is itself very sensitive. Observe I'm rather more
relaxed than you are, cos I put focus on discussion, and you put
focus on other aspects... ...
Mr Tharman is so described as an eloquent person, and we still have
Dr Ong. That shows what sort of thingy politics can be. And why I
keep my distance.
13) Don't take my words out of context, please. I don't object
to the bringing in of the concept of economic units per se, but I
object to bringing it in as the overriding principle, and
forgetting the humanity of the people involved as a result.
Emm... you miss my point.
14) *sigh*... another minor personal attack...
Minor? If I were to personal attack, it's nothing 'bout minor or
major. Have you ever wonder why should I be personal with you to reckon an attack
you claimed?
Maybe what you want is diplomatic reply... Then I am not the one
you should be discussing with. 
15) My turn to ask you to think more carefully. Haha, in the
same manner that you used to criticize me in the last section: It
is truely unique that someone who can advise on systems theory
cannot understand basic social interactions...
Social interaction... Hahaha... Why not make everyone also take
wine course, dancing course to advance to Romance course and
'know-how-to-seduce-and-sex' course?
You see, my dear Pikamaster, I can only laugh. What else?
16) You can't explain your own text, and you expect me to
understand them?
As I have started in this exchange on Education, I ain't gonna
explain.
17) Be careful where you take your religious argument...we all
treat our deities seriously.
My leader is someone who:
-looks out for the interests of others
-is amicable and approachable
-mixes well with those he leads, instead of sealing himself up in
an ivory tower.
-in sincere in the true sense i.e. does what he promises to do and
admits his weaknesses
-helps those he leads to resolve their conflict, without imposing
his own view on them. Not imposing means not forcing them into a
course of action with a "leader knows best" attitude
You are looking for perfect modern daddy, not leader.
1 I number my psections for a reason, go back through
each post and you'll eventually find the statement.
Emm... You really think I am the sort of who have so much
patience on such things...?
19) Since you're supposed to know what you're talking about,
you're supposed to explain what to mean to me since I don't
understand you.
Do you have $6.6m...?
20) no reply, I reminded you.
gd nite.
the pikamaster.
It's courtesy, Pikamaster. Not reply. No need to worry.
Have a nice day.
