Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Surely it's just as dangerous to rely on passion no?We live on a ball of limited resources, and there is a need for these "scholarly nerds" in order to make sense and properly identify problems before they occur.
I don't, of course regard our precious ministers as being capable of doing that. When you reach that level of power, kissing ass is more important than being able to understand hard Maths. The research is done by those below you, and all you need is to approve it.
I certainly don't see our government's methods of identifying talents as being valid in a rapid changing ( and in my opinion going to radically change) world.
But i certainly would not dismiss the valuable insights the "scholarly nerds" could give. Passion can sometimes arise from being ignorant of how doing one thing does not neccessarily lead to another. 8 years of George Bush Jr and Dick Cheney should have taught us that.
Firstly, how does George Bush Jr and Dick Cheney feature in the Singapore Talent discussion ?
Both did not even display any passion for "leading" the country and could not even kiss the 'baby's arse' with any sincerity - as both had their individual agenda when pushing themselves for their seats in the White House.
George Bush Jr was able to get into the White House by some dubious cliff hanger results in Florida that defeated Al Gore.
Are you wholly convinced with the worn out reasoning of "limited natural resources" and "limited talent pool" that has been depended on for the last 52 years to justify the exclusion of others from political office ?
What is 'Talent" that can be determined by some scholarly qualification to be in the political leadership ?
Without passion - should anyone be expected to perform and give of oneself to the tasks of leading the Country ?
Do the scholars holding their present leadership positions in Government display any sincere passion in their roles of serving Singaporeans and society ?
Or are they not another like any other employee hand picked into their posts to perform given tasks at some predetermined remuneration ?
Without the passion - can there be any drive to serve ?
Our understanding of "passion" has been skewed by the ugly passion shown by the Singapore MM LKY in his ugly display of political passion to hold on to power.
Originally posted by Atobe:
Firstly, how does George Bush Jr and Dick Cheney feature in the Singapore Talent discussion ?Both did not even display any passion for "leading" the country and could not even kiss the 'baby's arse' with any sincerity - as both had their individual agenda when pushing themselves for their seats in the White House.
George Bush Jr was able to get into the White House by some dubious cliff hanger results in Florida that defeated Al Gore.
Are you wholly convinced with the worn out reasoning of "limited natural resources" and "limited talent pool" that has been depended on for the last 52 years to justify the exclusion of others from political office ?
What is 'Talent" that can be determined by some scholarly qualification to be in the political leadership ?
Without passion - should anyone be expected to perform and give of oneself to the tasks of leading the Country ?
Do the scholars holding their present leadership positions in Government display any sincere passion in their roles of serving Singaporeans and society ?
Or are they not another like any other employee hand picked into their posts to perform given tasks at some predetermined remuneration ?
Without the passion - can there be any drive to serve ?
Our understanding of "passion" has been skewed by the ugly passion shown by the Singapore MM LKY in his ugly display of political passion to hold on to power.
Did you think the people that voted for Bush Jr did not believed he was passionate for his country? How about the people who volunteered for his campaign activities?
We can say Bush Jr and Dick Cheney were idiots with in retrospect, after how they screwed up so badly in Bush Jr's 8 years term. Only with hindsight, did the Americans realised what Bush Jr said was best for America were screwing them up.
Even after how he screwed up his 1st term, enough people still voted for him for the cliff hanger with Al Gore to happen.
I feature them because passion is a subjective thing. When someone is passionate about doing something does not mean that it is feasible. 10 men could give you 10 different opinions on what direction they feel Singapore should go for.
Fact remains we do have limited natural resources. Talent pools is subjective, what constitutes as talent in city and in the farmlands is different.
But I have no disagreement with you here. I do disagree with what the PAP defines as talents.
But what i want to see is "scholars" still having some say in the political leadership, not cheapen their contribution to the country . I want engineers and scientists in the government, not just people who can deliver good speeches.
I see the possible other end of the spectrum of what you want to pursue.
Was Hitler not a passionate speaker? Did he not want what is good for his country? He does not touch alcohol or smokes, was an artist and frowned upon debachery. He would have no problems winning votes.
My understand of passion is from what i understand of history. It can be just as potent a poison as being blindly focused on scholarly achievements and cold hard numbers.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Did you think the people that voted for Bush Jr did not believed he was passionate for his country? How about the people who volunteered for his campaign activities?
We can say Bush Jr and Dick Cheney were idiots with in retrospect, after how they screwed up so badly in Bush Jr's 8 years term. Only with hindsight, did the Americans realised what Bush Jr said was best for America were screwing them up.
Even after how he screwed up his 1st term, enough people still voted for him for the cliff hanger with Al Gore to happen.
I feature them because passion is a subjective thing. When someone is passionate about doing something does not mean that it is feasible. 10 men could give you 10 different opinions on what direction they feel Singapore should go for.
Fact remains we do have limited natural resources. Talent pools is subjective, what constitutes as talent in city and in the farmlands is different.
But I have no disagreement with you here. I do disagree with what the PAP defines as talents.
But what i want to see is "scholars" still having some say in the political leadership, not cheapen their contribution to the country . I want engineers and scientists in the government, not just people who can deliver good speeches.
I see the possible other end of the spectrum of what you want to pursue.
Was Hitler not a passionate speaker? Did he not want what is good for his country? He does not touch alcohol or smokes, was an artist and frowned upon debachery. He would have no problems winning votes.
My understand of passion is from what i understand of history. It can be just as potent a poison as being blindly focused on scholarly achievements and cold hard numbers.
You are of course looking at the negative side of "Passion" in political leadership.
As much as there are negative examples of "Passion" there are also POSITIVE examples in political leadership - one of which we are all familiar in Singapore.
Unfortunately, most passionate leaders stayed too long and become corrupted by their own success and believe that they are infallible.
"Talent" is "Talent" - in good or bad forms - talent is subjective only in the "quality", "intensity" or "volume" in different persons.
Skills - trained or naturally gifted - can only help the person in performing a task, it will still require passion to propel oneself to higher levels of human aspirations.
Whether a scientist or engineer or business person make it as a political leader will depend very much on the character of the person in being able serving the Public.
Some are cut out better in academia and even when forced into the public spotlight to serve - will fail miserably, as there are some who are simply contented in their present status quo and prefer to insulate themselves from all others.
While a hawker may not have the qualification, but will have the street-smart sixth sense of finding the best way to survive, and when backed up by a team of trained advisers whom he can gather and galvanised into a Team, should we stop and prevent such a person from holding public office ?
Why should the Singapore political system make it exclusive for scholarly talent, if the Talent Pool is supposed to be limited as it is ?
If you refer to US politics as a point in discussion, there were quite a few Presidents who were not academically inclined but have proven themselves far better than the skewed passions of George Bush Jr and Dick Cheney - (which as I had stated in my previous response that each have their own agenda for holding public office).
Ronald Reagan was a Movie Star who became President and whose passionate positive spirit drove the US into prosperity during his term, and knocked the wind out of Soviet Russia drive to dominate the World with their Communist ideology.
Passion = Drive = Commitment = Leadership
For 52 years, Singapore has known only one type of politics - the LKY-PAP type.
We should not allow our disgust with the skewed PAP political ideology to affect other options that are driven by the Positive Elements of what the PAP has corrupted.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Did you think the people that voted for Bush Jr did not believed he was passionate for his country? How about the people who volunteered for his campaign activities?
We can say Bush Jr and Dick Cheney were idiots with in retrospect, after how they screwed up so badly in Bush Jr's 8 years term. Only with hindsight, did the Americans realised what Bush Jr said was best for America were screwing them up.
Even after how he screwed up his 1st term, enough people still voted for him for the cliff hanger with Al Gore to happen.
I feature them because passion is a subjective thing. When someone is passionate about doing something does not mean that it is feasible. 10 men could give you 10 different opinions on what direction they feel Singapore should go for.
Fact remains we do have limited natural resources. Talent pools is subjective, what constitutes as talent in city and in the farmlands is different.
But I have no disagreement with you here. I do disagree with what the PAP defines as talents.
But what i want to see is "scholars" still having some say in the political leadership, not cheapen their contribution to the country . I want engineers and scientists in the government, not just people who can deliver good speeches.
I see the possible other end of the spectrum of what you want to pursue.
Was Hitler not a passionate speaker? Did he not want what is good for his country? He does not touch alcohol or smokes, was an artist and frowned upon debachery. He would have no problems winning votes.
My understand of passion is from what i understand of history. It can be just as potent a poison as being blindly focused on scholarly achievements and cold hard numbers.
To sort out your muddle with 'passion', do allow me to qoute one forumner's wise words which explains 'passion' best here:-
"The first article of faith is: human life has value. Once you stop believing in that, then you are capable of any evil." - by Cram 10th Jun 09. Cultural revolution Mao...Chit Chat.
For any political leader to succeed, is the need for him to understand the qoute above. And from there, will solutions to elevate the lives of those whom he seeks to lead will begin to formulate, take shape and progress seen.
It does not take a rocket scientist, an engineer, or an artist to comprehend the value of human lives. Even a roadsweeper understands it, which is why he continues to perform his job and did not give up and become a useless member of society by committing suicide.
But a roadsweeper obviously may not be able to lead even a constituency, let alone a nation, for there are complexities in governance which even present well educated Harvard Grads are not prepared for in our ever changing world.
The buck ultimately stops with him. Make a wrong choice and his followers will be doomed. It is not the fault of the less well educated for their lack in education. There are many more social reasons than just pure 'laziness' as most presumed.
Thus, it is the responsibility of the well educated to lead, as a team, to create opportunities for the less well educated to level up in life, instead of just selfishly leading their own ivory tower life. There is a debt of honour to be paid for a civilised society to thrive, grow and mature, to make our country a better place for everyone or at least a significant majority.
Unfortunately, the 'skewering' of politics being presently observed is the belief that the value of human life had been twisted towards along the lines of Utilitarianism - only the best and most useful survive and are courted, the rest to fend for themselves or free to die out.
The value of human life is total, absolute and for every individual human, not just applicable to the best. No one, not even the down and out, must be left out and must be helped to rise in life. Such is the egalitarian 'Passion' that is needed in a politcian that seeks to be a leader of our lives.
Passion and Talent are interdependent and neither is sufficient on its own.
Citing the example mentioned by Atobe, surely passionate hawkers would be able to lead a nation if he's set out to do it, but is he trustworthy? Will you entrust the entire nation into his hands? (And that is why in your argument you mentioned 'a team of trained advisors', because he alone does not have the garnering power) Btw, I see 'a team of trained advisors' to be the equivalent of 'scholarly nerds'.
Everyone needs to prove his or her worth in society, and sadly, paper qualifications are the few, if not the only yardstick to measure this 'value' of a person. You may be the most passionate person, but if you don't have the talent, then there's no point.
There are so many people out there dreaming of becoming President, but how many can make it? Firstly, they may not have the passion and drive to fulfill their dreams, and secondly, their lack of knowledge (as referred to by being a 'scholarly nerd') stands in their way.
A talented person would not hold out at the job for long if there's no passion. That person would ultimately be ousted by the people if he or she does not do the job well.
Talent + Passion = Leader
Talent only Leader = Heartless Leader
Passion only Leader = Brainless Leader
Originally posted by TTT203:Passion and Talent are interdependent and neither is sufficient on its own.
Citing the example mentioned by Atobe, surely passionate hawkers would be able to lead a nation if he's set out to do it, but is he trustworthy? Will you entrust the entire nation into his hands? (And that is why in your argument you mentioned 'a team of trained advisors', because he alone does not have the garnering power) Btw, I see 'a team of trained advisors' to be the equivalent of 'scholarly nerds'.
Everyone needs to prove his or her worth in society, and sadly, paper qualifications are the few, if not the only yardstick to measure this 'value' of a person. You may be the most passionate person, but if you don't have the talent, then there's no point.
There are so many people out there dreaming of becoming President, but how many can make it? Firstly, they may not have the passion and drive to fulfill their dreams, and secondly, their lack of knowledge (as referred to by being a 'scholarly nerd') stands in their way.
A talented person would not hold out at the job for long if there's no passion. That person would ultimately be ousted by the people if he or she does not do the job well.
Talent + Passion = Leader
Talent only Leader = Heartless Leader
Passion only Leader = Brainless Leader
There are a lots of different between leadership talent and management talent, leadership is something that people look on you to guide them, management talent is putting authority into good use and able to delegate people. He who rule by authority is not a leader, he who lead by example and passion with no expectation of any return is a true leader.
Talking about talent, singapore definition of talent is a total mix up lots...massage gals graduate from Shanghai massager school is also a top talent here, Giving birth to a son and register him as a citizens is also a talent..etc etc
cant be bother to waste my time reading such bunch of rubbish articles.
if ti is not going to happen in the next 30 years, why bother?
Originally posted by reyes:cant be bother to waste my time reading such bunch of rubbish articles.
if ti is not going to happen in the next 30 years, why bother?
I hope that you are not too stupid to realise that this thread is not talking about a financial crisis in China "not going to happen in the next 30 years".
The policies that the China despots are making with regards to the internationalizing of the Yuan will bring about such an event sooner rather than later depending on how fast the despots do it.
I hope that you are not too stupid to realise that this thread is not talking about a financial crisis in China "not going to happen in the next 30 years".
The policies that the China despots are making with regards to the internationalizing of the Yuan will bring about such an event sooner rather than later depending on how fast the despots do it.
i am not sure whether any of the chinese official had massacre any of your past relatives before that you keep calling them despots.
by the way, you parents wouldnt be too happy for you to start calling ppl stupid knowing their own son is probably the front runner for the title.
anyway, your consipiracy theory is really hard hard to believe.
Originally posted by angel7030:
There are a lots of different between leadership talent and management talent, leadership is something that people look on you to guide them, management talent is putting authority into good use and able to delegate people. He who rule by authority is not a leader, he who lead by example and passion with no expectation of any return is a true leader.
Talking about talent, singapore definition of talent is a total mix up lots...massage gals graduate from Shanghai massager school is also a top talent here, Giving birth to a son and register him as a citizens is also a talent..etc etc
Who is an economic 'Talent'?
Just because one has a N level cert, or O level cert, or A level cert, or Uni degree, or Phd, it does not make him a talent. Some who obtain such certification would wave the paper in the air and declare themselves as 'Talent' but more often than not, are simply passive passengers on the ride of real talents.
A Talent is just simply someone who can analyze a problem critically, and come up with practical solutions to solve it in the shortest time possible.
It takes experience for one to became a talent in our ancient past, for only in making mistakes will one know where the errors were made and to be avoided, thus elders were often revered. But with the introduction of education, it was hoped that the elders experience can be passed on to the new generations, to shorten the time frame in experiencing problems.
Unfortunately, most youngsters seldom take the advice of their elders, and bang their heads on the wall instead to learn. It is only a few that are matured enough to truly believe in what was taught, and to apply it, that made them became valuable to society. Such people are the true talents, in whatever field they work in, from the cleaning industry to leadership of nations.
Originally posted by reyes:i am not sure whether any of the chinese official had massacre any of your past relatives before that you keep calling them despots.
by the way, you parents wouldnt be too happy for you to start calling ppl stupid knowing their own son is probably the front runner for the title.
anyway, your consipiracy theory is really hard hard to believe.
Wow you are really really stupid aren't you?
What conspiracy theory are you talking about? A conspiracy theory in your delusional head?
The communists that think only they have the right to rule are not despots? hahaha idiot.
well, communist have fought their way to rule china. and you call them despots? does anyone call you a bitch when you are a lawful kid of your parents?
any theory that cannot be proven or yet to be proven are conspiracy theory. go ahead and prove it. show us!
Originally posted by reyes:well, communist have fought their way to rule china. and you call them despots? does anyone call you a bitch when you are a lawful kid of your parents?
any theory that cannot be proven or yet to be proven are conspiracy theory. go ahead and prove it. show us!
Fought the way to rule is one thing...
And If they are despot or not is another thing...
Originally posted by sgN00b:Fought the way to rule is one thing...
And If they are despot or not is another thing...
That idiot have fallacies in his head without knowing it.
Originally posted by reyes:well, communist have fought their way to rule china. and you call them despots? does anyone call you a bitch when you are a lawful kid of your parents?
any theory that cannot be proven or yet to be proven are conspiracy theory. go ahead and prove it. show us!
So which theory did I expound that needs to be proven, according to you? Idiot!
Originally posted by Atobe:
You are of course looking at the negative side of "Passion" in political leadership.
As much as there are negative examples of "Passion" there are also POSITIVE examples in political leadership - one of which we are all familiar in Singapore.
Unfortunately, most passionate leaders stayed too long and become corrupted by their own success and believe that they are infallible.
"Talent" is "Talent" - in good or bad forms - talent is subjective only in the "quality", "intensity" or "volume" in different persons.
Skills - trained or naturally gifted - can only help the person in performing a task, it will still require passion to propel oneself to higher levels of human aspirations.
Whether a scientist or engineer or business person make it as a political leader will depend very much on the character of the person in being able serving the Public.
Some are cut out better in academia and even when forced into the public spotlight to serve - will fail miserably, as there are some who are simply contented in their present status quo and prefer to insulate themselves from all others.
While a hawker may not have the qualification, but will have the street-smart sixth sense of finding the best way to survive, and when backed up by a team of trained advisers whom he can gather and galvanised into a Team, should we stop and prevent such a person from holding public office ?
Why should the Singapore political system make it exclusive for scholarly talent, if the Talent Pool is supposed to be limited as it is ?
If you refer to US politics as a point in discussion, there were quite a few Presidents who were not academically inclined but have proven themselves far better than the skewed passions of George Bush Jr and Dick Cheney - (which as I had stated in my previous response that each have their own agenda for holding public office).
Ronald Reagan was a Movie Star who became President and whose passionate positive spirit drove the US into prosperity during his term, and knocked the wind out of Soviet Russia drive to dominate the World with their Communist ideology.
Passion = Drive = Commitment = Leadership
For 52 years, Singapore has known only one type of politics - the LKY-PAP type.
We should not allow our disgust with the skewed PAP political ideology to affect other options that are driven by the Positive Elements of what the PAP has corrupted.
I could also say you are looking too much at the positive side of "Passion" in political leadership.
We are both looking at the same thing, but reaching different conclusions to it based on difference of experience, upbringing and knowledge. Both are valid, neither is wrong. If you want your democracy this basis has to be established.
If the hawker could prove himself then yes your logic is correct. However, Passion to do good for the country is subjective, and there is a difference between what is good for the short term for the country and what is good for the long term.
While the hawker may not neccessarily make bad decisions, the odds are stacked against him making good short term decisions and bad long term decisions because he is not knowledgeable about history and its precedents.
I am glad you chose Ronald Reagan as an example because i was reading up on him.
Yes, during Ronald Reagan's Era taxes were down. But he also ran up the national debt from 700 billion to 3 trillion. Essentially, the prosperity of today is paid by the children of tomorrow.
That to me is unacceptable. The job of the current generation is to leave something better for the next generation to inherit, not to burden them with debts. I don't care what fancy economic theories the Yales, Harvard and MIT boys think of, that is plain wrong.
That's is precisely my distrust of the academically less inclined. The tendancy for quick results and ignoring the long term implications.
You hail Ronald Reagan for his accomplishments but i find nothing worthy of getting my children to pay for my enjoyments. That's praising the grasshopper and saying the ants are stupid.
I certainly do not view LKY as a hero or visionary. I accept him as a human, he had some nice ideas and they're twisted and corrupted because the world changed and the ideas did not. That is the way of all things.
Democracy promises many great possibilities, but it can also promise great acts of stupidity. The wise are often badly outnumbered by the fools and fools have often thought themselves wise.
Idealism of Democracy implies Faith, and Faith denies evidence.
Originally posted by xtreyier:Who is an economic 'Talent'?
Just because one has a N level cert, or O level cert, or A level cert, or Uni degree, or Phd, it does not make him a talent. Some who obtain such certification would wave the paper in the air and declare themselves as 'Talent' but more often than not, are simply passive passengers on the ride of real talents.
A Talent is just simply someone who can analyze a problem critically, and come up with practical solutions to solve it in the shortest time possible.
It takes experience for one to became a talent in our ancient past, for only in making mistakes will one know where the errors were made and to be avoided, thus elders were often revered. But with the introduction of education, it was hoped that the elders experience can be passed on to the new generations, to shorten the time frame in experiencing problems.
Unfortunately, most youngsters seldom take the advice of their elders, and bang their heads on the wall instead to learn. It is only a few that are matured enough to truly believe in what was taught, and to apply it, that made them became valuable to society. Such people are the true talents, in whatever field they work in, from the cleaning industry to leadership of nations.
i agreed with the first half but not necessary the 2nd half.
If Bill Gate chose to finish college what do u think "Window" looks like today? or do we have "Window" at all?
If Bill Gate were to finish college he would be busy preparing exam. Rather than pursuing on his interest. of course we all can said well he could do part time.
i don't think he was particularly worried that he would not please his parent, or not getting a degree when he chose to pursue his passion fulltime.
i just think that we need to review what we learned and how it was taught.
Sorry didn't think it was related to the topics.
Regarding Bill Gates, you do not need a college degree to be able to write software. Therefore whether you need education or not to succeed depends on what it is that you want to do. An entrepreuneur can also employ the people with the right education.
What is so great about the USA is that even a college drop out like Bill Gates can get the funding to develop Microsoft.
Over here, the cursed despot and his cronies take all the disposable income of the people, on the one hand, and they channel what they take into their own pockets and pockets of their cronies, and use it to feed their gambling addiction through Temasek and GIC.
Whatever little they give to fund entreprenuers, they fund their cronies and asslicking running dogs and/or they mindlessly demand paper qualifications (meaning Bill Gates would have failed to qualify).
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I could also say you are looking too much at the positive side of "Passion" in political leadership.We are both looking at the same thing, but reaching different conclusions to it based on difference of experience, upbringing and knowledge. Both are valid, neither is wrong. If you want your democracy this basis has to be established.
If the hawker could prove himself then yes your logic is correct. However, Passion to do good for the country is subjective, and there is a difference between what is good for the short term for the country and what is good for the long term.
While the hawker may not neccessarily make bad decisions, the odds are stacked against him making good short term decisions and bad long term decisions because he is not knowledgeable about history and its precedents.
I am glad you chose Ronald Reagan as an example because i was reading up on him.
Yes, during Ronald Reagan's Era taxes were down. But he also ran up the national debt from 700 billion to 3 trillion. Essentially, the prosperity of today is paid by the children of tomorrow.
That to me is unacceptable. The job of the current generation is to leave something better for the next generation to inherit, not to burden them with debts. I don't care what fancy economic theories the Yales, Harvard and MIT boys think of, that is plain wrong.
That's is precisely my distrust of the academically less inclined. The tendancy for quick results and ignoring the long term implications.
You hail Ronald Reagan for his accomplishments but i find nothing worthy of getting my children to pay for my enjoyments. That's praising the grasshopper and saying the ants are stupid.
I certainly do not view LKY as a hero or visionary. I accept him as a human, he had some nice ideas and they're twisted and corrupted because the world changed and the ideas did not. That is the way of all things.
Democracy promises many great possibilities, but it can also promise great acts of stupidity. The wise are often badly outnumbered by the fools and fools have often thought themselves wise.
Idealism of Democracy implies Faith, and Faith denies evidence.
In Life, we have to have faith in the positive side otherwise it will be sheer misery.
What is the premise of anyone's FAITH in something ?
FAITH has to have a beginning - can it deny evidence ?
If one's position cannot be changed by evidence, what does it make a person insisting to depend on his faith ?
Where will "blind faith" lead an intelligent person, let alone an uneducated one ?
This is the folly of a closed minded society, in which everyone is expected to have faith in the Great Leader.
This is the embodiment in your statement - "I certainly do not view LKY as a hero or visionary. I accept him as a human, he had some nice ideas and they're twisted and corrupted because the world changed and the ideas did not."
He had blind faith in his own ideas, and in his own relevance - where did that kind of faith bring Singapore ?
Ronald Reagan served a purpose in his two terms in the USA, it provided a foundation from which Bill Clinton was subsequently able to bring USA forward.
It did not take the USA generations to recover from the debt that was a consequence of Ronald Reagan's ideas and policies.
Times changed, and the US democratic process threw up a Bill Clinton who stayed for two terms and brought the US Treasury into the Black again.
The USA will recover from the deliquencies of George W Bush and Dick Cheney, as the creativity, productivity, and industrial strength of the USA is from the hardworking energy of immigrants from all over the world seeking a new beginning.
Singapore before LKY was a mix of migrant people - mostly without education, and they build Singapore to be the Jewel in the Crown's possession that rival Hongkong with a longer and more established history.
With the limited talent that Singapore is suppose to have, should we limit ourselves only to the educated to provide leadership ?
The educated should not be deceived by their own conceit, even as much as they realised their dependence on those lesser than themselves.
That is the problem with LKY who continue to believe in his own conceited supreme ability - that only himself and those whom he select can lead Singapore forward - even as much as he depend on ordinary Singaporeans to stay in power.
"If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their interests."
- Mr Lee Kuan Yew, 1962
This is the danger that Singaporeans have to face - individuals who outlived their relevance, and who are unaware of their own station in Life.
YEKATERINBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Leaders of emerging world powers discussed reducing reliance on the United States, as well as boosting security and trade, at two summits on Tuesday hosted by Russia but excluding the West.
The range of topics on the agenda and the line-up of presidents attending showed the growing economic and political power of the world's emerging nations, including India and China, and their desire to forge new levers of influence.
Host president Dmitry Medvedev of Russia hailed the Urals city of Yekaterinburg as "the epicenter of world politics." The need for major developing world nations to meet in new formats was "obvious," he said.
The so-called BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China called for reform of international financial institutions, sweeping changes to the United Nations to give a bigger role to Brazil and India and a "stable and predictable" currency system.
Notice how, based on reports in the news so far, only the despots of China are stupidly trying to internationalize their currency, the Yuan, in the effort to reduce the dominance of the US$? The others, India, Russia, Brazil are just "giving support" to the Chinese despots for their suicide attempt.
I don't see it as likely for China or US to collaspe. Maybe for US a lost era will come and China will catch up. But once US does sth crazy that makes usd$ worthless, no doubt China will take an important hit, but China only holds like 1+ tril of us debt.
Serious consequences that should keep US rationale with their money supply:
USD will not be the world reserve -- officially. All countries that deal with US will suffer terribly due to world trade, and considering US's status in the world trade. Countries will rise from the rubble, most probably the BRIC. But then again, it depends on how the survivors maintain the public's confidence in their currency.
Now it really sounds like doomsday prediction!!
So which theory did I expound that needs to be proven, according to you? Idiot
your fucking heading." the great collapse of china".
got it?
next time please dotn use cronies nick to justify your own supporters.
i bet there isnt any
haha poor thing.
Originally posted by reyes:your fucking heading." the great collapse of china".
got it?
That is a prediction base on historical example of the Asian financial crisis....
I see you are too stupid to tell the difference between an economic forecast and a "conspiracy" theory...
Originally posted by reyes:next time please dotn use cronies nick to justify your own supporters.
i bet there isnt any
haha poor thing.
hahaha... that is a stupid conspiracy theory....