|
|
15-12-2008, 01:50 AM
|
|
3626
Wow- Observer, I hope he's okay with you posting such stuff about him up. You're saying that he doesn't engage with the talk about him online, right? Otherwise that statement could be really explosive... so "not ps", she's not talking about that so please don't jump upon that.
Yes I know the SAF interacted with people from a whole spectrum of society- I do my homework well. I don't want to denigrate the sort of ability for army generals to engage with their men, but for me it did seem that at the end of the day, the part of society they were spending a majority of their time with was a very limited cross section of society (18-21 year olds); moreover they usually don't bring most of their personal lives into the borders of the camps, and thus it is difficult to see their true backgrounds.
I've also observed that some army officers develop a superiority complex over the rest of society after years of 'lording' over their men- I'm not entirely confident I'd not be susceptible to it. On the other hand some officers in the police ironically seem more humbled by the sort of work they do, and seem to carry themselves with more humility as they realize how little they can do vis-a-vis the human tragedies of the perpetrators and victims of crime.
Well notps, I guess I'm interacting (NOT engaging- "engaging" sounds condescending wth) superficially online. Its the best I can do sitting half the world away from home...
|
16-12-2008, 12:12 PM
|
|
3641
to not ps:
Not engaging online does not mean not engaging with the public. Do you mean YOUR ENTIRE EXISTENCE is cyber? hahahaha! I didn't know that. But now you don't say....lol!
Virtual identities have no credibility. Want to be taken seriously? Be brave enough to show yourself.
Don't need to say president's scholar. Even I, a nobody, don't take anything virtual with anything beyond half a pinch of salt.
That is why I still will not believe 100% that Daniel here is really Daniel Ong. I may be more convinced now than before the first conversation started, but not 100% convinced. if you say you are completely, 100% sure without a shadow of a doubt, without seeing the person, then you are a fool. Not just a "non PS".
|
16-12-2008, 12:15 PM
|
|
3642
Oh yes, you can have all the fun you like with silly, inconsequential blogs set up by proven political rejects (go read up on who conceived TOC and why) with desperate political aspirations and agendas. All of which written without any accountability, neutrality and credibility. There's always fodder for such mickey mouse propaganda in every soc. Its so stupid that I bet that's why the authorities don't give two hoots about it.
|
16-12-2008, 01:04 PM
|
|
3643
Dear Daniel, what stuff posted about him? All I said is he would not engage talk ABOUT HIM online. I thought it was very clear? I'm glad you seemed to understand from what you said to "not ps" fool, but you seemed a bit befuddled in your starting para to me. It has nothing to do with engaging the public or their interests. He is very passionate about public affairs and improving the lives of people, that's why he signed on to be an army regular.
Jeesuz... you know all the time, I really feel unjust for him and this incident is just one of a string of many that we don't even bother to keep count. Serving an ungrateful lot with all his earnesty, I feel bad for him and would tell him so.
Not engaging talk about him- means even when he surfs the net from gems to filth like the two blogs mentioned above- silly free-of-charge platforms set up by groups of unemployed people with agendas- he takes in the information, processes it and moves on. He may or may not use it for shaping his thoughts and ideas about public policy, depending on how he deems its worthiness.
Not engaging means even as he does this, he does not post "I am who you are talking about".
I thought I made myself plainly clear above, even complete with descriptive analogies about PM and perm sec. So the PM or perm sec does not read random stuff online and post "Hello I am your friendly perm sec in the hood", he does not care about the public?! I can't believe how stupid "not PS" is. He isn't just "not ps" level. I'm one million levels below PS standards and even I find this "confusion" ridiculous.
Not engaging simply means being like all the other 200+ PS, not saying a word and claiming in a post to be the PS on the net. As I said, ONLY you have, if you're not an imposter. On a macro level, you're the only one of 200+ in history. On a micro level, you're the only 1 out of the 5 this year. I still haven't discounted the possibility that you're an imposter, because cos you can't be verified. It's just logic on my part.
As for your insights above, yes i've taken them into account after reading. It's true that their positive impacts is most applied on males aged 18-21. But all Singaporean males have to go through that anytime from 18 to 21, don't they? So it's a rite of passage that all Singapore men identify and have in common with one another. So in effect every male at some point would have been impacted. Even if the impact is concentrated in that age frame. Moreover, it's most efficient, since that's the time when they are raring to begin their lives.
If you have ever commanded full time NS boys, you would know that it's untrue that they don't bring their personal lives into the borders of camp. They do, in varying degrees, with some bringing a whole lot of it.
I do agree that police interact with a wider cross section of society than the armed forces, for example they would interact with women more, whereas army officers hardly.
But my point remains that the police's interaction with the public as investigators, allows them to see what's happening (this much I concede), but their investigative role limits the interaction to be largely officious in nature, and at arm's length emotionally. Army units, especially at platoon and company level which he's done with, allow more emotional and closer ties to be forged. There is a brotherhood camaraderie present in army units that isn't present in police work.
As police officers investigate their charges, they function as observers and processors. Police officers and citizens in the course of police work, are less "on the same side" compared to army commanders and their men behind the same frontline.
Also, do note that defence policies impact the whole nation as well as foreign policies and bilateral ties with other countries whereas home affairs policies have a more domestic focus, which is rightly so because that is its role.
Also, they also impact reservist NS men.
I politely disagree with your generalisation of army generals. And I think I have met many more than you have, to say that I probably have a more accurate viewpoint because of a wider sample size.
Perhaps the army being significantly more regimented than the police has entrenched a stronger sense of tradition and emphasis on rank. It is after all the military, where units are commanded for wars vs the police whose power is over civilians.
You may have met a few generals who are like this, but you have yet to meet enough to say most army generals are like this, and then another step up: you've yet to establish a causal link between the attitudes of those generals you met with the military set-up. Here's something else for you to ponder about causal link which he taught me.
Most PSC civilian ones were in OCS (SAFOS and SPFOS no need to say). Say, we know roughly 7 out of 10 OMS were from OCS. Does this mean that PSC looks for "admitted to OCS" as one of its criteria? To the simple minded like me, that may be one of the first few conclusions. If you find 7 balls out of 10 in a box red, does it mean that the person filling up the box had stipulated the colour red when he asked for the box to be filled with balls (vis a vis a causal link)? Or does it mean that PSC and OCS look for the same qualities, or a large subset of the same qualities when they select candidates.
|
16-12-2008, 02:07 PM
|
|
3644
p65.sg is a much better blog than toc. go read the parliamentary speeches regurgitated by our very engaging and very well paid part-time MPs.
|
16-12-2008, 02:15 PM
|
|
3645
Everyone who's not an idiot knows that both TOC and Wayang Party are agenda driven platforms- one of them was even proven to be started by former PAP rejects LOL. No credibility, qualifications, accountability, consequences, responsibility, neutrality, nothing to lose. All written by unemployed fools with too much time on their hands cos they're jobless and all have nothing to lose. They're the first to be shown the door in a SPH interview. And all sore losers. I bet that's why the government does not give a *.
|
16-12-2008, 02:16 PM
|
|
3646
p65, you didn't know? The people with largest presence on the internet are all stupid. Like you. One even believed that his cyberlife is his entire existence. Was that you?
|
17-12-2008, 05:10 AM
|
|
3658
Observer- we're on the same side. What I meant was whether he knew you were posting on this comments page as his girlfriend- because some of the things may be good and bad for the general image of scholars...
I don't agree at all when you label blogs such as TOC and Wayangparty as silly- you have to admit that there is something in what they are saying, even though I disagree with them most of the time. I know some of the people at TOC and have had the chance to disagree with them; they are immensely intelligent and certainly aren't as unintelligent as you make them out to be. So let's go easy on labelling people such as 'not ps' and all... especially when your diatribe makes fun of them as unemployed (which is very sensitive). I know its weird for me as a junior to say this, but honestly I thought that was a bit harsh.
(Moreover I don't think blogs such as TOC are inconsequential- they are pretty good indicators of how a particular sector of the population feels, and have immense power to influence. Yeah)
Anyway, I don't want to get dragged into a debate about police and army. Both serve the country, both expose the men who serve to society around them. There is no "better", only what suits oneself for a career. To each his own, and after all its about the service, not what service is better because they are all necessary. I apologize for the statements I made about the army- they were personal opinions formed from my experiences, and I'm sorry if I offended you. yeah
Well, if you still think I'm an imposter, I just touched down in SG at midnight tonight and will be available for coffee for the next 3 weeks. I'm not sure whether you're really a PS's girlfriend either- so does that make us equal?
|
28-12-2008, 10:24 PM
|
|
3720
Dear Daniel, i have said nothing that is bad for your image. You can be sure none of the adults can pick, find or excavate anything of the sort. You are still super young and I fully understand the place you are in and how you are bursting with idealism. On the agenda of the unemployed bloggers, you could do your own research and find out the truth yourself. As X-files said, The Truth Is Out There.
Finally, regarding your "concerns" about my response to "not PS", all I can say is a spade is a spade. Also, my views are not representative of the civil service and certainly not of its elites. Afterall, I am only an outsider. PS are not pods you know. They also socialise and have social connections to entities outside of their world of brilliance. Out there with commoners like me.
For all you know, I am someone posing to know a PS in real life cos I am also anonymous operating behind a screen like you! I too, like you can't be verified hahaha!!!
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» 30 Recent Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|