Meritocracy is generally good, but when it is combined with the competitive, pro-business approach that creates the following negative outcomes:

> exploits the weaker members of society
> creates a highly stressful life
> leads to low birth rate
> creates uncertainty
> creates wide disparity of income

I will write more about it in a separate article.

Why do you think the meritocratic approach (which is impartial about race, language, religion, family background etc) is bad?

Meritocracy is not bad but it is far from adequate as a social philosophy in a society where the income gap is ever widening.

The one big flaw about meritocracy is that it fails to realize that every member of society have a different starting line in life. And studies have shown that the family background have a huge influence on the academic achievement and outcome of students.

One child has the means to have quality pre-school education and the parents do so because they are educated and well-off relatively. On the other hand, blue collar parents may not have the means or even idea of getting quality pre-school education for their child. Who is likely to enjoy a better edge when they enter the school system? Your guess will be as good as mine. Meritocracy doesn’t consider all these stuff.

> I believe that people should be informed or educated about an alternative approach, other than the competitive, meritocratic, pro-business approach adopted by the PAP. Life is not just business.

Why do you think the meritocratic approach (which is impartial about race, language, religion, family background etc) is bad?

Could you write an article about it the future?

Thank you.

I understand your wish to have more freedeom to express your views. It’s okay. I don’t think that yyou will be barred from TOC, as many stronger views have been allowed through.

The exact quote is “We’ll find a way to have more voices inside the assembly, but not at the risk of voting in a Division 2 or 3 Government” (MM Lee)

At face value, the quote says nothing about whether the economy will collapse if oppositions are voted in. The quote has the additional qualification of “Division 2 or 3″, i.e. weaker.

I definitely agree that there is an arrogant and negative connotation that oppositions are weak.

However, the poll does not give readers who think that a weak opposition could ruin the economy (which does not mean that all oppositions are weak) an option to vote.

The closest option is number 1, which degrades the reader to a person who merely selects that option just because MM Lee says so.

The poll is quoted below:
“Do you think Singapore’s economy will subside in 3 years if we vote in the Opposition to Government, as claimed by MM Lee?
* Yes, if MM Lee says it, it must be right.
* No, Singaporeans are resilient enought to weather even a bad government
* Singaporeans won’t be dumb enough to vote in a bad party to government”

I totally agree the 3 principles you have mentioned and also with your definition of judgmental as “saying another person view is ‘wrong’”. By judgmental views, I do not mean expressing views which are different from the PAP or the majority.

My main concern is under-representation and under-participation.

1. My 1st suggestion arises because harsh remarks (personal attacks, attacks on another person’s view, judgmental remarks) may have deterred more people from participating in discussions.

2. My 2nd suggestion arises because by allowing readers to start discussion topics (like many other online forums) more issues can be covered too.

There are many free open-source transparent online forums. If there is interest, I believe many readers would be willing to help do some search.

Thank you for clarifying. You are a respectable man of great influence and we have to respect your rights to operate in certain strict parameters.

However not all people, especially common lay people, have the luxury of a mentality to exercise strict restrain given their very own social standing and positions in life. Usually, this gets manifested in their behind-the-keyboard comments which are genuine but may sound “inappropriately” aggessive at times.

I sincerely feel that the parameters currently operated by TOC are already strict enough yet acceptable allowing the kind of precious space available to people wanting to comment on their true feelings on national issues.

Here is what I mean:

> I avoid personal attack
> I present my view without attacking another person’s view
> I do not try to say that another person view is “wrong” (who am I to make this judgement)?

Gerald, why not you set up your website and create your own rules – and provide a link here.

Language itself is beautiful and whether comments / posts are terms as impolite or judgmental remarks is itself a matter of interpretation (e.g judgemental ?) Since when one is not being judgemental when taking certain action. That also includes your above post suggesting / influencing change.

TOC is popular in its own right as it has worked hard to create for itself certain special attraction & characteristics – judging from some respectable people coming into this site and leaving comments.

There are definitely many platforms outside TOC which caters to sterile & non-judgemental comments / messages which are to your liking. However, TOC has given people the kind of special space where they can voice out their views / opinions truly in their hearts, perhaps not in the same grain as you would like to see.

May I suggest:
1. Removing comments that contain impolite or judgmental remarks.
2. Allowing readers to start discussion topics like in an any online forum.

He asked for my opinion about the future of Singapore. Will there be greater diversity of views? Will there be check and balance? Can there be a Singapore, other than the PAP? Is there any point to encourage more people to stand up as an alternative against the PAP?

It was difficult for me to give my views constructively. It is one thing to oppose the current PAP policies, but one has to be convinced about the alternative.

I shared with him, the following aspirations:
1. A fairer society
2. A fairer deal for the weaker members of society (who are now exploited)
3. A role for the public sector to balance the private sector
4. People in the public sector does not need to be paid like the private sector
5. More active regulation to prevent the excesses of the private sector
6. A better distribution of powers, like the US political system.

I believe that people should be informed or educated about an alternative approach, other than the competitive, meritocratic, pro-business approach adopted by the PAP. Life is not just business. It is more than business.

I hope TOC will continue to understand that not all netizens can be prim nd proper in the way they put their message across. TOC has been reasonable in moderating comments and should not be made to feel guilty. At least I respect the fact that you guys are doing some introspection.

Only Mr. Tan Kin Lian expressed the optimistic side. I am even wondering that had someone posted his message instead, would the author be bashed.

There are labels such as “Megalomaniac” and “Sedated”, harsh words like “bloody lot”, and blanket judgments like “incompetent” and “hollow”.

If most discussion are zealous attacks on people, this forum not only becomes a waste of effort from people like Mr. Tan, but also casts a negative image on its contributors.

Are there also readers in the background who feel the same as me?

Each netizen has his/her own style when posting comments or rebuttals and TOC has been up to the mark in moderating comments. I believe we are doing just fine……..even when TOC staff took a few days break , all comments were civil.
Nobody took advantage of the situation.

I express my views clearly on many social and economic issues. Many of my views are are not “middle ground”.

I can express my views without attacking other people, or passing judgement on other people. I respect other peoples views, if they are honest views.

I encourage people to express their views using their real names, so that the views can be more credible. I do not like people attacking other people under the “cloak of anonymity”.

I had to face a situation where the person attacking me anonymously was not expressing his personal view, but was paid by other people to attack me. This is how bad the situation can become under “freedom through anonymity”.

I believe that we have to be positive and optimistic in making change. It may take a long time, but it is likely to produce better outcome, than a negative approach.

I welcome peole to visit my blog and website:

http://www.tankinlian.blogspot.com
http://www.tankinlian.com
http://www.singaporepublictransport.blogspot.com

Mr Tan, I detect you are optimistic, trying to stand the middle ground, non-adversary etc. Please let me know if I am wrong, yea.

The MSM was, and is controlled. So there is NO Way to allow the internet be controlled ( I dont know how this can be done honestly). And we have to pay 80cts to read controlled info (only info related to, and affecting Sgp).

Of course, we need to be non-judgemental etc and agree somewhat with what you mentioned.

But , a BIG but, … ‘hoping’ you said – you wait long long.

Lets be realistic (as opposed to optimistic and hopeful) – realistic of this statement often times quoted “we have a system that works” for them and tweaked by them, not because of you and me…

So much for anonymity on the Internet. Why is there a need to know who we are when we type? Does typing with a fake name make an argument less valid?