The man who dragged my country out of its colonial days by its neck, shook up the system totally and forged a modern, prosperous nation by sheer force of personality has passed on.
I mourn his passing, he was my hero when I grew up(still is), and I'm proud to be a Singaporean. Without his leadership and firm hand, I think our little island nation would have at worst, imploded due to racial violence followed by being bullied by its far larger neighbours, and at best, trudged along as a nation mired in mediocrity.
And yet now, I live in one of the safest nations in the world, the economy has for decades been booming, corruption is almost virtually unknown, meritocracy is the word of the day, the city is clean and green, political freedom is balanced sensibly, our foreign affairs are harmonious.
Maybe some people would not appreciate it, and think it a "boring, strict, ordered, structured" place to live, but to me, that translates to safety and stability. I've lived and visited a host of other nations, and there's no where else like home. Singapore isn't a liberal democracy held to be the shining mythical paragon that every nation is supposed to reach politically, but in her own way, she's a mighty fine place.
You'd think that no one in their right mind would want to live in a "atriarchal, state dominated" country, but I sure do. The great man had to clamp down hard politically and socially, but what he did was absolutely right. We had just been granted independence by the British, were experiencing awful racial tension, were in a region that was a hotbed of Communist activity, had zero natural resources apart from being a great port location and were surrounded by larger neighbours that did not look kindly upon us.
Yet we made it. From mudflats to metropolis, within a generation. And I thank him and the group of talented, steadfast, progressive men he gathered around him for that. He gave his entire life to saving, improving and protecting his country -I have shed some tears in the past week over his death.
its a nice post to remember the man. but there is 1 thing i do not like in the text. and that is:
meritocracy is the word of the day
meritocracy sounds nice and fair. but it has a nasty sting in the back.
if you really believe that all the rewards and money go to the people that deserve it. then you also believe that the people at the bottom of society deserve to be there aswel.. in a world where you have been told that you have all possibilities to become anything you want. but where in fact only a few people actually can get what they want. then that makes you feel like a loser. it is not strange that suicide increases fast as soon as a country joins this "modern world"...
Well, meritocracy should benefit those who are suitable in their various fields, regardless of their family background, ethnicity, religion, etc. I certainly don't feel that a meritocratic society should have all its rewards go to people at the bottom, because that will defeat the point of the idea.
It's not an unproven fact that successful people tend to have children who are successful, due either to upbringing; Their home environment is geared towards an emphasis on education and the values that will help such kids succeed, or they have the factor of genetics (though that is disputable). I remember reading a recent article in The Economist on the trend of American children, and they noted it as well.
However, I don't think such children should be sidelined and shunt to oneside just because they're not from the less fortunate tiers of society. That would go wholly in the face of all that meritocracy stands for! It is however, increasingly likely that power, prestige, better jobs and opportunities would then get concentrated in the hands of the few over time.
What we can do is to boost the chances and opportunities that children from the bottom get. Singapore, fortunately, has plans to ameliorate that situation, such as affirmative action, improving the education overall (so no one can complain of starting at a poorer position), etc. We have also recently capped private funding from alumni of private institutions, which enabled such schools to build much higher quality facilities and enact more ambitious programmes than government funded schools. That being said, such a situation whereby we place too much emphasis on one side of society would not be fair as well.
Ultimately though, having a functioning meritocracy might in the long run mean having to lose out a little on the egalitarian front. We cannot for one, influence all the factors that come into play, such as richer parents being able to hire private tutors. But that's not necessarily something to be eschewed and despised.
I lived there for a year, all I can say is that it was an amazing experience. God bless his soul.
Wish my country didn't stray from it's path to greatness. If you didn't know, the Philippines had some doing in Singapore's growth. I'm not saying we were the reasons though, Lee Kuan Yew truly was a great leader, and I can see it.
Thanks for sharing the video @partydevil! Though admittedly some of my views do not align wholly with parts of it. Everyone should have an equal chance at success, but nobody should automatically be promised that success. That's the beauty of a hypothetical meritocracy. Luck or accident as stated in the video, will continue to play a definite part in a person's future, but these are factors that we cannot plausibly iron out.
I think the key point in the video that can be taken away isn't that meritocracy is flawed, but that we should define success on our own terms, and not based on what the rest of society pressures us to (Though socially deemed success shouldn't be taken as a false barometer completely.). It's a problem in Singapore, and the dam is going to burst one day because we're very much caught up in a materialistic rat race - one of the fundamental grumbles here is that we've always aimed to fulfil our materialistic, but not emotional needs. It's another issue that has popped up in the wake of Mr Lee's death, as his fast paced nation building certainly did contribute to a lack of attention to other measurements of personal success.
But again, material success isn't a bad way of pegging oneself, because they undeniably do bring us happiness. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still think material success can't be completely ignored if we are to enjoy life! Nor does it make its pursuers any more shallow and emotionless if they can also balance that with emotional fulfillment.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still think material success can't be completely ignored if we are to enjoy life! Nor does it make its pursuers any more shallow and emotionless if they can also balance that with emotional fulfillment.
I agree. Lonely elderly people having a computer, tablet or smartphone get to communicate with other people online so it kind of compensate a little.
My wife asked me what I wanted for my birthday and after thinking about it, I realized I didn't need anything because I'm happy with what I have.
I have a roof over my head, a vehicle for moving, enough money to pay my bills, eat and spend a little bit on entertainment, that's all I need.
If the members of the US government actually cared about the country, they wouldn't be ruining it.
The problem is that each member truly believes in their philosophies--believes that what they think and do is for the good of the nation. I don't think a single one of the members of Congress are inherently malevolent towards the US. Hell, if one were, then McCarthy was right post-mortem! The other, more significant problem, is that we can't accurately determine if a member of Congress is inherently evil because quite a few bend a knee to several primary lobbyists, like the Koch Brothers, who ARE actually evil. So if we want to answer this conundrum as accurate as possible, we need to ban money in politics, or at least no SuperPACs and Lobbyism.
I don't significantly know Lee Kuan Yew, but what I do know is that he was very, very influential, and it happened that his influence was for the better; a true diamond in the rough amongst politicians!
Well I don't know how is to lose your idol, but I know how is it to lose some heroes of your countrie and it is always tragic. So I am sad for your lose.
Thanks for sharing the video @partydevil! Though admittedly some of my views do not align wholly with parts of it. Everyone should have an equal chance at success, but nobody should automatically be promised that success. That's the beauty of a hypothetical meritocracy. Luck or accident as stated in the video, will continue to play a definite part in a person's future, but these are factors that we cannot plausibly iron out.
Really well put, Nico. Though I disagree with what you said originally about meritocracy, that last paragraph sounds really good. I agree that nobody should automatically be promised success, and everyone should have an equal chance at success aswell. But I disagree with the fact that in meritocracy, EVERYONE at the bottom is there because they've done it to themselves. So many things can affect people's lives, and we shouldn't be the judges of them. Another thing, the most important thing I'm about to say: My respects go out to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. From my knowledge of him (I did my own research on him), he sounds like a great man who did his best for his country and his people.
The other, more significant problem, is that we can't accurately determine if a member of Congress is inherently evil because quite a few bend a knee to several primary lobbyists, like the Koch Brothers, who ARE actually evil.
Everyone should have an equal chance at success, but nobody should automatically be promised that success.
but the thing is that people do promise other people success if they do they right thing. parents for example will never tell their child they will become a drag for society. teacher will always say that you will have success if you learn their stuff and be good. when you tell people about your failures then they will try to speak to right be giving examples of how you can become successful again. it looks like with this many opportunities that you can't fail. but most of the people fail in getting the success they have been promised from a early age. because everybody has the same opportunities to get that success. doesn't mean that everybody can make it that far.
That's the beauty of a hypothetical meritocracy
is singapore a meritocracy or a "hypothetical meritocracy"?
i mean.. meritocracy is always hypothetical but is it seen as hypothetical in singapore or is it seen as truth/rule/fact like in the usa and europe for example. it's a important difference in view on it i guess...
(Though socially deemed success shouldn't be taken as a false barometer completely.)
if that is where you find your success then it surely should be taken into account. it's not false happiness.
a lack of attention to other measurements of personal success.
for me emotional needs are far more important then materialistic needs. emotional needs have a much longer effect then materialistic needs.
But again, material success isn't a bad way of pegging oneself, because they undeniably do bring us happiness.
if you can afford it. and if your oke with the fact that it only last for a month or so. =)
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still think material success can't be completely ignored if we are to enjoy life!
completely ignored, no. but pursuing materialistic success... it doesn't sound right to me. stuff can't replace deeper emotions. it can make you forget about your emotions for a while. but ultimately you will be back at the same level of happiness as you had before you had the stuff.
Nor does it make its pursuers any more shallow and emotionless if they can also balance that with emotional fulfillment.
if...
it's hard enough to get success 1 way or the other, being successful in both is even harder.
we should define success on our own terms
exactly. and if your terms turn out to be materialistic and it works for you.. then who am i to judge your happiness? (who am i to judge that anyway?)
I think the system is currently still fair in Singapore, but we will have to observe it in the years to come. It was more or less an even playing field during our independence era, since most people, aside from the old colonial elite, started together from the bottom When education was first streamlined by the government, I think the opportunities for all were to be had, and those people who had the extra drive, talent, diligence, seized that chance, no matter what their background was.
Today, after two generations has passed, the system has been coming under some strain, since a true self-made middle class has already coalesced and formed. And these people will generally try their best to set their children on the paths to success, be it by fostering an environment of study from young, or increased home tutoring apart from normal schooling. There's nothing inherently wrong about that,all parents should rightfully try and provide the best for their children. But therein springs forth a problem - it's usually the more successful parents who have the time and money to provide such extra edges for their children. And just like almost every other developed nation, our professional "elite", has started ossifying around such groups. Parents who have gone to university tend to raise children who want to, and most likely will make it there.
The government is trying to rectify this, opening up more universities, setting the tone that it's not just studious, exam smart people who can make it in life by promoting sports and the arts, etc. Is it enough? We're still trying to figure it out, since it's too early to tell!
One thing though, we're still very much geared towards meritocratic ideals - We start sorting children out based on national exams and scores from a young age. It determines which school you go to, and inevitably, the top schools would have better facilities, teachers, etc. Which puts alot of unhealthy pressure on them, but it also means that one can't just enter top schools based on wealth, connection, or non-academic factors.
it's usually the more successful parents who have the time and money to provide such extra edges for their children.
and imagine that this kid will not make the success that they promised him by giving him the extra edge. and that some other kid without the edge does get what that 1st kid saw as success. that is the nasty sting in meritocracies back. your edge doesn't matter so much as it feels like. luck, charisma and talent are often a bigger edge then education in that matter. making a lot of people feel bad about their choices to learn for professional success instead of emotional success and just do what you like to do, making up your own success.
We start sorting children out based on national exams and scores from a young age. It determines which school you go to, and inevitably, the top schools would have better facilities, teachers, etc. Which puts alot of unhealthy pressure on them,
the same kinda counts for this. by sorting out the "elite" kids from the "common" kids. you tell the "elite" kids that they will be successful. cause they are already better then the "common" kids. you promise them a certain level of success and when they don't make it, is depression just around the corner.
