Elfred,
[a reply to your post about EP]
1) Ok. I shall withhold comments till later.
2) ok, point taken.
3) Sim WF came from HC, you know. 
Right, I shall agree that the core issue is how to handle talent.
But what is "handle"? This word is vague.
Typically, (inform me if I am wrong), "handle" means : "identify",
"identify/accomodate" and "promote". I'm not giving an ideal
situation; I'm giving something which is understood as the norm as
practical. We definitely need a method to identify the talents so
that we can allow them to be harnessed effectively and
independently, so that geniuses such as Mr Sim and Einstein are not
shunned out of mainstream society. And when we ahve that method, we
need a framework in which to implement it in. And the thing I am
telling you is, once you ahve a method and a framework, you have a
rudiimentary system. Therefore, to handle talent, as you put it,
wes till need a system.
But anyway, You accuse me of being a product of the system. Guess
what? The same accusation could be thrown back at you. Laughably,
you have just proven yourself not to be a talent, since I don't
think you can be in the same category as LKY, Einstein or SWF, or
at least SWF. The quote I gave you was one SWF was using to say
that Singaporeans are all talents, it's just tt none are treating
themselves as so. And I know why he thinks that: 'cos anyboady can
become an entrepreneur. The biggest hurdle to entrepreneurship is
not lack of talent or lack of resources; teh biggest hurdle is the
fear factor SWF mentioned and its accompanying inferiority complex.
Or are you now going to say that he is not a thinking person?
Your precise definition and perception of talent comes from the
system you claim you yourself are dissociated from. That idea of
talent being a group of people isolated from the rest of society,
having certain techniques or features that nobody else possesses.
THis is elitist thinking, and this sort of elitist thinking
unfortunately stems from the root of our education system.
Mind you, I DO think, and this is what I have surmised, no ofeence
please:
you are somebody who has been brought up in an elitist system down
here. The system here is called meritocratic, but I think you
rightfully managed to imply that meritocracy is but a guise, since
clearly the system is not properly identifyinh talent like Mr Sim,
albeit you approached it from the incorrect side.
You have tried to break free of the system, which is commendable in
itself. People like Mr Sim broke away from the system already; I
guess it is simpler for them since they were rejected. I, too, have
more or less dissevered myself from the system itself. I can assure
you, wahtever I think of, that has been said in my previous posts
don't at all come at all from anyhting the system says, that is,
what the teachers teach in the Core Curriculum, what I like calling
the "Truth Core", which is a core of half-truths and fabricated
facts. My dissociation comes from a personal feeling of
estrangement and disillusionment, which I do not wish to discuss in
further detail, since those are sensitive personal issues. But what
I take note of, observe if you like, are people's feelings and
attitudes, even the teachers' towards waht s/he is teaching. And my
classmates' too. And of course I listen intentently to their
experience. THinking doesn't come from thin air. You need something
to think about.
But coming back to the issue, talent is not something that is
either there or not there. it is something that needs to be
nurtured. Think about it - There are the talents of Marie Curie and
Karl Marx, who studied at universities. There is the talent of
Plato, who was tutored under Socrates.
What I recognize, like Einstein does, is that everything is
relative to a common set of Fundamental Laws, and everything rests
on a spectrum. There is no certainty apart from the certainty that
there is no certainty. So for every skill, there is a proficiency
spectrum. People whom you call "Talent", and whom btw, sry to
deflate your ego, the system calls "Talent" too, are those who
start off with a certain inborn level of proficiency in that
particular skill. But like the story of teh Tortoise and the Hare,
it is possible for tortoises in this sense to catch up with the
hare. They might need to put in more effort than the hare, but if
they are willing to work hard and expend time, they can still beat
or at least catch up with the hare as the hare advances. Talent is
not an absolute have or have-not. All you need is the right
environment, and you can develop any talent you want.
The reason why the perception of talent as a unique group exists is
due to the fact, that we are pummelled, from an early age, to
accept that only those at the top are those with ability and
talent, which I am glad to say you have managed to throw
away.
Unfortunately, you have substituted it with what American acclaimed
political writer Alan Toffler (of whose works both me and Robert
read) calls the "Messiah Complex", only in a different sense from
what he refers to in his book. Since you have removed the academic
qualification that is used as the justification in the System, you
replace it with some sort of "Invisible Hand" theory, which
purports that talent exist, therefore they are, adn they do not fit
inside any system. That, may I inform you, was the same type of
crisis early Christians faced. Saints exist, they beleived, and
they do not fit into the Roman Social System, so anyone who is a
Christian cannot be a Roman. This was only partially resolved when
Christianity became the State Religion. Even up till present
though, Roman Catholic Church still has problems grappling with
that issue.
The Messiah Complex does not help in secular matters either; in
fact, that gives rise to irrestrained idealism or, as in your case,
passive cynicism.
So look at things wiht a more open mind, please.
But I'm glad that you were transparent in sharing this fact.
4) see my above reply.
I don't suppose I'd comment on Education.
But about me brought up in this system... Hahahaha... I very much
doubt so. 
5) But Politicians cannot make noise if the Constitution does
not allow them to, especially a Constitution that is permanent,
subject to will of the public. SO your point is irrelevant.
As for politicking, it only occurs when there is a clear chance of
someone gaining an advantage. After all, it's useless trying to
fight for a (political) position unless you gain certain
privileges. Certain stuff, like Teachers' wages and school fees,
will only be decided by one side of Parliament, sicne the otehr
side might have undue interests that would conflict with the
democratic running.
Ultimately, because the decision panel is independent of teh main
discussive body, logic states that politicking will not occur,
since there is no benefit to be gained from politicking.
Never mind if you don't understand now. It shall definitely be
clearer when I present you my (intellectual) law.
Hmm... rules are rules, my dear friend. Constitution may even
put a stop on the surface to certain thingy, but that doesn't mean
nothing goes on. You have to realise one thingy, constitution don't
stop politics, constitution (however) raise politics.
6) Interest shouldn't be a problem in this case, because the
issue of schools is definitely of interest to students, teachers,
and parents alike. In fact, I mean to use this system as a way of
curing political apathy in the young.
My friend, we are not talking about the toy industry here; we are
talking about the environment of kids in the school, and becasue a
group of kids will enrol in the same schoo, they will have the same
experience, so their interests will be the same.
Anyway, I wish to remind you that the whole nation will study based
on the same syllabus, and so tt is a common interests. Anyway, all
kids would want toys (10-19 yrs), just different sorts. And anyway,
seriously, what you say seems to refer more to 4 yr-olds and 5
yr-olds than 10 yr-olds. With puberty comes maturity.
It's up to you. Maybe someday, we could discuss it again. Maybe
your thinking may change by then.
7) I'll reserve comment.
I don't think much of Modeus either.
Put it this way... you ain't the only ones. But his friends, of which for some interest,
are trying to promote him online. Hahahaha... Promoting everything
that's irrelevent to his political craps. Gosh...
When can Singapore have more true talents and not craps...?
Nope, I'm not calling you a bootlicker. I don't do such
name-calling.
Ya, you think you know what I'm thinking more than I think I know
what you are thinking, 'cos some of your explanations, even if they
are plain, perhaps have the main points hidden in mumble-jumble of
detail, such that I can't understand what you're saying.
So try and make your posts as plain as mine, pls Sir?
Actually, there are a couple of books on Education by some
locals here and there, if you care to check, most are merely
touching the surface and... regretfully, most of them yield the
systematic syndromn. The one which doesn't actually don't
understand the situation, ie.
9) If we were talking about uniqueness, then the Education
System will be an example. It is unique in that it has the most
possibly fatal positive feedback loop possibility.
If it is bad, then the future pple behind it will be bad, and then
it will become worse, and the distant future pple running it will
become worse. The thing is, the Education System is what determines
the quality of the people running all the systems in society,
including itself. And as it deterioriates, so will those people
running the system, and in turn so will the system itself.
Education is acknowledged as the foundation of society. Without it,
nothing can flourish.
You are hence right in recognizing the futility of our crappy
system. The problem with our system is that it is a tight system
that lacks requisite variety to deal with all the different kinds
of people in it, thus resulting in that it cannot handle talent
when talent arrives, and cannot utilize the talent which can help
it improve. Look at the resistance to reforms in the Streaming
System, for eg. But if the system can include a self-checking
mechanism tt enables all the requisite variety of information to
filter through, then it can succeed in transforming itself, or
rather utilizing the thinkers to transform itself. Like everything
else in SIngapore, Education is too authoritarian; as a result, it
constantly resists steps in reform, which results in its
deterioration.
The Problem with Education is complexity. It needs to deal with the
academic and economic knowledge, as well as the social
relationships. the fault of our current system is that it fails to
note the social relationships, by simply ignoring the entire
matter, and relegating students to mere economic units.
Unsurprisingly, social relationships are the best way to engender
change, especially healthy social relationships. Sadly, teh
Minister, perm-sec and all teh officers choose most of the time to
hole themselves out in their offices, poring through data analyses,
which are grossly poor ways of formulating social
relationships.
When there are good social relationships, people will be more able
to communicate and be more open to each other, thus opening more
chances to recognize true talent, rather than spend time, like what
most countrymen do now, grouching about teh state of affairs and
the uncaringness of officials, whilst officials on their part
grouch abt the insensibilities of the populace.
what we need to do is replace rigidity with informality.
What is COE anyway? Can you tell me where to get it? I would like
to read it.
I have told you where you can get COE, saved that where you get
from would mean whom would assist in your reading. Just that.
Actually, systems are authoritarian itselfs. Else, how'd one expect
systems to be? Systems are blind.
10) Inserting a mechanism to lock things up is violating the
principle of transparency.
The nation is not progressing, not because it is relying on a
system, but because it is relying on the wrong system. After all,
you have to admit, this system brought us progress between 1965 and
1980.
Wearing underwears violates transparency too.
Alright, that's kidding. It's at least there for good minds to
read. I'd have to do it cos I'd have to make sure the right
mentality got the right stuff, or least, what results won't be
disasterous.
Not true. It's because we are short of the right people doing the
right thingy. As I have illustrate, you put Einstein as the
commander of the Cannon squad and Napoleon to do atomic bombs, you
can just comment both are useless, then.
My focus on 1965 to 1980 is obviously the designers of the system,
or better, the applier of the tool: system. But the right designers
don't necessary bring about the right system, yet the right people
will be able to do the systems. But most importantly, it's the
system that's been done, not the people been done by the system. So
don't miss my point and put the focus in the wrong places.
11) I was just giving an analogy.
Actually, I would take it as Jamie Han's failure to convince LKY?
LKY was a visionary; unfortunately he is no longer one. Even he
recognizes that: this is why he is giving the younger leaders a
chance. But he is old, and a little stubborn too; he is fixed in
the past, and henceforth does not see into the future,or rather,
even when he sees into the future, he sees it from the eyes of the
past instead of the eyes of the present. Jamie Han, from my
perspective, was merely advocating progress which LKY doesn't
recognize as such, not because he has some mysterious unique mystic
insight or revelation that tells him as such, but becasue as an old
man, he is highly resistant to change. So no, The Jamie-Han-LKY
exchange does not show that LKY is a jerk or failure, but neither
does it show that Jamie Han is a jerk or failure himself.
Besides, what they were having was not a lesson; it was
unfortuantely a debate, where LKY was pushing his view as
forcefully as possible, and han was perhaps doing the same.
In either case, neither side accepts the info, see? 
12) They must understand what they are following.
ya, you are right in saying that it's not always true that the guy
who follows will in any chance understand the guy who leads,but I'm
talking about what should be, not what is. The follower must have a
reason for following any leader after all.
If the followers allow the leader to decide the path for them, he
can, but without that express approval, he should not just force
anything down his followers' throats.
The followers have a right to know what is happening to them, and
what is going to happen to them, and to disagree with the leader.
And those rights are only honoured when there is
transparency.
A leader must also accede to contributions made by the followers;
in jargon we call it feedback and volunteerism.
So no, it's a pre-requisite that is not circumstantially
determined.
Emm... There is of course a way to lead, my dear Pikamaster. Ok.
Compare to Goh MS and Ti Lik, and compare them to MM.
In my view, both Goh and Chia has nothing much to offer, and while
Goh focus on gaining popularity (It's simple rationale, election
means votes, votes mean people. Crap, but that's still rationale)
and Ti Lik focus on what sub-standard lawyers normally do:
one-sided pushing.
Now, both ain't really leaders, and in the long run, they won't
stay. But they ain't as transparent as MM himself.
Who would you stay with, if you are a political talent? Probably
none.
Who would you vote for if these are the only choices? MM.
Can you understand certain things of leadership from here?
13) I have told you time-and-time-again, I am NOT in any
circumstance going to join YP, although some of my friends might,
where then I might decide to use them as mediums...hmmm...
YP, I suspect is insiduous at indoctrination.
well, have a nice day, gtg sleep now.
the pikamaster
It's ok. As mentioned in YPForum, I may stay on, without card
and/or without YP anything, doing MPS, till maybe I have to leave
in one way or another. I'm mulling over the idea of opening a
political cafe in Johore, on neutral grounds. But that plan has a
couple of concerns and ideas to iron out.
Maybe we can talk years later, without needing to join any P at
all. If I have to migrate, I'd probably
pass the proposal to someone else.
Actually, you don't have to join YP. As long as info or issues I
deem release-able, and you are (in nick) talk-able, we'd talk
online. Doesn't even care if you are who you really are.
You take care.
