fuzzy logic or suka suka principle

according to a forumer in the today paper, he supports fuzzy logic in the moe. his reasons, scholars must be allowed to take any course they like as long as they have a passion in the subject. or when a talented person has a strong passion, he should be allowed to do anything he wants. sounds very familiar isn't? spending public money to satisfy one's own fancy? my view is that if it is your own money, go ahead, splurge on anything. who cares. you can make yourself the happiest person in taking a course in sexology too, if that is where your passion lies. in the case referred to by the forumer, leong szehian, he was uncomfortable that A star scholars were told to buck up and score good grades to prepare them for r and d jobs on their return. and isn't this is what the students were told before accepting the scholarship? they knew why they were sent for their studies. there is a specific objective. why are people advocating or negating on their undertakings after signing on the dotted line? is it because they are talented and can do whatever they want, without any principles or ethics? in the first place, do not accept the scholarship if you have no intention of fulfilling it. it is a breach of faith. unethical and unacceptable. it is not your father's money that you are spending. but in the pursuit of fuzzy logic, to a point it is acceptable. for some special talents, fuzziness is good as they can then go wild with their exceptionable talents and perhaps discover a new theory. fuzzy logic is not for the ordinary men in the street. fuzziness is inborn among the ordinary men. they have no logic to start with and many things they do are fuzzy in a natural way. but i believe the moe's fuzziness is a managed fuzziness, intended fuzziness at a different plane. and certain organisations may specifically allocate funds to scholars under such a programme. but it cannot be fuzzy logic throughout the whole nation, at random. everyone suka suka do anything they want. imagine every administrator in public service applies the suka suka principle, or fuzzy logic, what will happen?

fuzzy logic and the moe

for many years we have refined our education system to be one of the best in the world. and when we are just starting to get the recognition we deserved, we are starting to dismantle it. the danger of what we are doing now will only tell in 20 or 30 years down the road as is being experienced in malaysia. we have to be very careful while we toil around with education policies. we need flexibilities and fuzziness. but these should be reserved for the fuzzy students, a small group that cannot fit into the general system because they are either too good or too poor academically. what are we having now? integrated programmes, no o level exam, independent schools, international baccalaureate, nus system, excluding the rest at the lower levels. in the 50s nd 60s, our education system was just a formal school system that caters for all. then this was changed and improved. we went through streamings and specialisations. now we are returning to the free for all system. do what you like fuzziness, in a way like the good old days. mix the good with the bad, make sportsmen into bright students and bright students into sportsmen. make all rounders. turn all the elite or academically brilliant students into average students? let them be a bit of everything. so so in studies and so so in sports. life if fun. do not put them under too much pressure. experiment is the key, try everything. we are trying with our future generations. if we are not careful, we will also experiment with the future of the nation. we will turn out too many fuzzy students with fuzzy thinking and fuzzy leaders.

nkf: review mission, roles and objectives

it is highly recommended that the new nkf review its mission and roles and reset the objectives of the various departments in the organisation. once the mission and roles of the new nkf is clearly defined, it will be in a better position to address its current problems and chart its course for the future. things it need to address: what is its mission? is it the primary provider of kidney dialysis treatment? is it responsible for educating the public on kidney diseases? does it have other roles? how much must it retain in the reserve or how much of donations must be put into reserves? how much should it shoulder? should it keep on expanding? what is its role vis a vis the govt? how much to subsidise? is it a charity or profit making organisation? is it a govt medical outfit or to support the role of govt in kidney diseases? should its staff policies be similar to a profit making organisation? how much to raise and how much subsidies to ask from the govt? what to do if the patients just cannot afford to pay? there are many things that nkf must take a second look and readjust its bearings.

chiam see tong too old, can't do much

this issue will be raised in the coming elections and have been in the papers several times. it is in the today paper again. chiam's, at 70, is considered too old. by who's standard? singaporeans better prepare themselves to work to 70 or 80 or till they die. retirement is only for those who have made it financially in life. funny thing is that those who have made it will also refuse to retire. so lets all work till we die. 70 is never too old. life begins at 55. the other argument against chiam is that he cannot do much. what he cannot do much is the redevelopment of the estate and upgrading, which everyone knows, is due to his purse string. he does not have the resources that even a non mp has. cannot blame him. and i think everyone understands this point. harping on this could backfire. people want to see fair play, level playing field. everyone is a tax payer and they want to see their tax money being distributed equitably to benefit everyone, without strings attached. no one will be happy if they are perceived to have their arms twisted. but if you are on the other side of chiam, all these are seen at political tactics, part of the game, nothing about being fair or unfair. the winners called the shot. and there will always be people who share this view as there will be people who share the other view. the election result will tell which group has more supporters. so far it has been proven that the people who wants to see fair play and do not mind chiam being 70 years young are still in the majority. and the only tactics applied to win over more supporters from chiam are mainly two. chiam is old and ineffective. chiam cannot give out goodies. but would the people see chiam contributing in other areas, like defending their interests in parliament, as more important? there will also be people who like to support the underdogs, especially when they are decent, honest and sincere.

ncss: appoint whistle blowers

benedict cheong of ncss suggested that organisations set up channels for whistle blowers or appoint officers to take charge of this function. the underlying belief is that the organisations will look after its own problems when there are complaints. from the experience of the nkf, there were many complaints internally and externally. none works. but it does not mean that all these recommendatios will not work. it will work if people want them to work. having these in the old nkf will definitely not work. and the reasons are obvious. you need a few good men to want to right the wrongs. but if everyone that can right the wrongs are the cause of the wrongs, nothing will work. any complaints will be buried or the complainants may even be punished or victimised. but if there are a few good men around, then all the wrongs would not have happened. or if they did, would be righted before they grew to such proportion. the issue now is how to recognise and bring in some good men. and also how the govt network of checks and balances will work.