:: Tossed Salad and Scramble Eggs ::

:: Saturday, May 28, 2005 ::

Question: What do Lim Lai Cheng and Lee Phui Mun have in common?

Apart from being JC principals (although the latter has retired), the both of them have Friendster accounts. I was highly amused that Lai Cheng has a Friendster account with the 481 'friends' on her list being TJC students, the other extra 1 happens to be Phui Mun.

My amusement wasn't to the point of being shocked. Actually, this is quite typical of our managerial, corporate-styled Mrs Lim as we'd known her to be. After all, she did fox-fly down to the assembly ground for the media when I was in J1. The account is, by all attemps, very professional, especially her bid to show a very charismatic 'Tony-Blair-lets-lead-the-people-power' photograph. I think the New Paper should do a report on this one.

What I found interesting was that her 482 'friends' did not comprise of any other JC principles except for Phui Mun. Phui Mun? Yes, Lee Phui Mun, former VJC principle who 'still holds the reigns of VJ even after she has passed her time' (quoted by a certain student of the school). One cannot help but find it very difficult not to sense the underlying implicit political connotations of having Phui Mun there as a 'friend'.

So lets contrast. Phui Mun's accounts has only 2 'friends' - Lai Cheng and a mass VJC affliate account, with no testimonials; Lai Cheng, in stark contrast, has 482 'friends' and a few testimonials to reflect the 'people's approval'. If this was a voting scheme, then Lai Cheng would have won by a landslide. As for the slogans on the icons, Lai Cheng has a very patriotic 'I love TJC' and a profile expressing her 'Passion, Purpose and Drive' for 'College, for Nation'. Phui Mun on the other hand, has the same icon slogan with the additional 'no one can take VJ away from me'. Her profile is perhaps one of the eeriest I've seen and as I read on, Joel's (Lim) VS-VJ conspiracy theories seem all the more realistic. One can only suspect that if the account is truly authentic, then Phui Mun must have had a family history of being close associates of the Stalinist Soviet Union regime.

The authencity of Phui Mun's account can be called to question. I was only half believing what I read, but I will leave it to the reader's discretion as to whether the words were actually from the horse's mouth. Considering that she was a 'friend' of the VJ mass account, it could be plausible that someone has been up to some mischief, but given that Lai Cheng has also added her on to her list, this could mean two things. Either Phui Mun's account is authentic and that the both of them are close associates (a bleak truth) or by JC politics, Lai Cheng is setting a contrast. After all, every political campaign must have its sense of rivalry.



In other news, Mr Huam has a good critical perspective on University Rankings. Eh, sorry haven't reply to your mail, will do so after my papers.

:: Stuffy 5/28/2005 03:29:00 PM [+] ::
...

And heres to Oliver and his vodka...


'We drink one another's health and spoil our own.' - Jerome K. Jerome

Cheers mate, I found this out of a quote book about The Joy of Food and Drink and I got it off for a pound.

:: Stuffy 5/19/2005 06:31:00 PM [+] ::
...

Bureacracy: Response

Pardon my incoherence, I have excuses for it but they are the least bit important. But, nevertheless, let me clarify myself.

*I am under the assumption that bureaucratic elites are utility maximisers and will not put any isue on the political agenda which is against their interest.
*The notion of pluralism is in reference to the bureaucracy(as titled), not civil society. In part, this is my fault because I used the word 'regime' which is misleading.
*'Those who agree with the existing form of governance would be those who have benefited from the system, and as all individuals are utility maximisers, we seek to maintain our own status quo. But there is a large majority which do not benefit.' This is in reference to civil society.
*My question was: How is policy constrained by bureacracy?
My answer was socialization which causes information to be interpreted in a single line of thought or idealogy, thus hindering creativity. Hence I asked if it was possible to ever have
'Would alternative strands of political values or ‘way-of-doing-things’ provide a better option, is it even possible to provide alternative strands of political values in a bureaucracy?'
My answer was no, because elites have their own political agenda which they will not let anything get in the way of their interest hence, they will not let certain issues in civil society get onto the political agenda simply because they have the power to do so.

The last two paragraphs were incoherent. I didn't develope it well enough because I wasn't about to write a 2000 essay. But in essence, those who agree with the existing bureaucracy are those who have benefited from it, while those who disagree have not. (Continue) Those who benefit from it grow in strength and strive to maintain their dominance. Those who do not benefit fall back politically challenged. If this is the case, an obvious 'social cleavage' will follow. ( I do base this on several assumptions, although you may argue with me that this line of thought may not follow in a meritocratic society)

Dear BH, you said that disatisfaction with the bureaucracy was a result of 'the lack of transparency'. Agreed. But I see transparency as a secondary issue to utility. The main reason why we want transparency is to ensure that the government(or their bureaucracies) will be accountable for their actions. Why would we want them to be held accountable? This is obvious. We want to ensure that they are doing their job, that is, to benefit society. Hence, our primary objective is still to maximise our utility.

Political apathy could be used to blame civil society for not raising their demands. Agree, and I do thank you for raising this. But I have a question. Does political apathy mean the willingness to follow whatever the government offers because after weighing the cost and benefit of raising political demands, civil society (in reference to those who do not yet benefit from the government) sees that there is nothing they can do because it is nearly impossible to change the political culture of the government's bureaucracy and thus move certain issues up onto the political agenda?

I know its not fair to leave you tagging on such a small space and marginalising your freedom of speech. If you've felt I've done a great injustice to the hypothetical regime, by all means, email me: vapourize@excite.com and we will pick this up.

Steph

:: Stuffy 5/18/2005 12:43:00 PM [+] ::
...

On Bureaucracy

The term ‘draconian regime’ might sound a little far fetch and somewhat rude to the likes of every citizen of that country. I’ve personally never liked that term, neither am I an enthusiast for answering chewing gum related questions. I never understood why those Westphalian democratic peace loving countries always thought that this ‘draconian regime’ was an iron hand apart from the fact that it caned Michael Faye, banned chewing gum, shoved Nick Leeson in jail (surprisingly without canning), and practices ( or has been accused of practicing) nepotism.

Because of diplomacy, it has never really been explicitly said that the nature of that country’s bureaucracy condemns it to being a little more than dictatorial. Its officials and ministers are from a particular social and education background and it has been that way since its independence. As every political science textbook would have you know, the concept of socialization into a particular political culture proves relevant in explaining how this typifies a bureaucracy. These values play a part in socializing officials in line with bureaucratic goals and objectives. This then reinforces organizational control and regulation which only rewards conformist behavior.

How then is policy constrained by bureaucratic behavior? Theoretically, newly elected politicians may be provided with limited policy options, which explain why policy changes have always been incremental and developing in a gradual way consistent with orthodox mainstream policies. What then for a regime which elects its politicians based on the core basic values of a sole political party? How this form of government implements its policies is subjected to one’s good opinion of whether it is the best available decision possible. But let me play the devils advocate.

As mentioned before, its officials are chosen from a particular social background and this is probably justified through the need for a strong government based on cohesion of values and beliefs. Question: Would alternative strands of political values or ‘way-of-doing-things’ provide a better option?

Those who agree with the existing form of governance would be those who have benefited from the system, and as all individuals are utility maximisers, we seek to maintain our own status quo. But there is a large majority which do not benefit. There are issues which need to be addressed and yet do not find themselves on the political agenda simply because this regime lacks pluralism. What creates further doubt that we would ever be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel is the bleak fact that new officials will still continue to be chosen and socialized into the orthodox political culture (the means of which are highly obvious).

I do not arguing for revolutionary change. Although this regime is based on meritocracy, it is still more capitalist than it is socialist and this perpetuates the interest of the dominant class more than it takes into account the social ills of the less-heard-of.

* I have predictions as to the response half of which I will probably not be surprised at. But this was good practice for next weeks politics paper.

:: Stuffy 5/14/2005 06:45:00 PM [+] ::
...

Drinking coffee over Diana Krall and Frank Sinatra

The title doesn't have any relevance to the post, I'm just listening to my collection, wishing I had an espresso shot, wishing I could do a proper foxtrot.

I moved again because my next door trance-music neighbour annoyed me bad. In British sense, he is just 'thick' (stupid). After three warnings, his thickness grew out of proportion, so I had to move. The accomodation lady saw me for the fifth time and my intuition tells me that she thinks I'm a reclusive noise-intolerant nut. Now I can't see Jacky and Alan, I can't talk to Reish and Bear can't play with Mukul.

:: Stuffy 5/09/2005 01:18:00 PM [+] ::
...