Visited the exhibition at Nat Library about two greatly respected founding fathers of Singapore - Tan Kah Kee and Lee Kong Chian.
They are amazingly generous towards giving back to the society, these made them respected by the community and their influence kept growing. They particularly gave to education.
Tan Kah Kee story - Son asks him to buy something (a gadget or what at that time); refused. School asks for a donation to repair the toilets, he gave $200. That is a huge amount at that time, because even the wealthier people gave $10 at most and the poorer folks gave 20 cents to $1.
There was once his business went into a downturn and he decided to sell his business, at a condition that they continue to give to education and finance the schools. The people who bought his business tried to persuade him to stop financing the schools until the business start to recover. He refused. He said his life is to give back to society and if he can't give to education, he find it pointless to have business. That's amazingly selfless kind of thinking. Although he is very wealthy, he lived very very modestly, almost stingily. He was a little too sacificial, and he left nothing for his children.
A quote from him:"What must not be spent, not even a single cent should be spent for it. What must be spent must be spent, even tens of thousands of it!" (in Chinese)
Lee Kong Chian - the son-in-law of Tan, also gave generously and continued the efforts of Tan.
What I admired about both of them is that they never really do anything for themselves, yet the more wealth they have, the more they gave. They did not just give 10% of their wealth or calculate but their giving is generous. How many of the rich people today are as generous? In Singapore currently? But I know Bill Gates and Warren Buffett's great generoisity.
In the Chinese community at that time, Tan and Lee rose greatly in influence and leadership because they work for the benefit of the people and the society. People supported them as they know they are working for people and not to seek some benefits. They see education as something that will prosper and give the people a good life in the future and they were utmost generous for the progress of it.
I think great leaders love people. Great leaders look after and care for people. That's greatness. Like King David, he has a shepherd's heart. He looked at the Israelites as sheeps that need to be cared for. No matter how many people are we taking care of in church now, whether 1 or 20 or 100 or thousands, this must never change! If it changes, God will not be pleased...
When we truly take good care of God's sheep, anointing, influence and leadership come by God's grace. That's also why we must teach people God's Word and make sure everyone receive it.
We gotta spend on things that lasts more, rather than in just on entertainment for ourselves, which is meaningless at times...
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Monday, July 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Bond Breaking & Giving
If you've seen a old man, the age of your grandfather, picking up the waste mails and flyers on the void deck, how would you feel? Or what would you do???
----------------------------------------------------------------
To a newspaper article recently... Its about scholarship bonds. One on bond breakers and the other on giving out scholarships to the more needy groups.
On bond breakers, why is there bond breakers? Why is there people who were not so willing to come back to Singapore to serve the nation? One of the example featured was Mr Wee(now in Google USA) who emailed back and said something like he thinks his role in life is to serve the world than just Singapore itself. I think some of the really smart and talented group of people might choose to remain overseas instead of coming back to serve their bonds is because of a thing called Vision. Bonds given out here are mostly trying to induce a sense of gratefulness to the country and letting you have a stable and good ricebowl. We'd say you are there because of the country and you ought to come back as an obligation. But just like Mr Wee, he might want to do something for the world rather than just for Singapore itself.
Furthermore, after reading about the Law Society (on the same day's papers) wanting to be given more leeway for lawyers and members of the society to debate/discuss about laws instead of just serving the purpose of the Law ministry, I feel there's a correlation between the want for change and the reason for remaining overseas, of perhaps some bond breakers. If they are really so smart and talented, do they think that Singapore is a place where they can effect change and fully utilise their gifts? Would they rather put their intellect into places where they are FREE to effect change and do anything they want? I'm just asking; is our system too stiff for that?
-is our society just pushing for things only favourable to the policymakers?
-is our emphasis on education and jobs holistic?
-is our systems in organisations or public services too stiff for any major change or overhaul (if needed)?
-what is the view of our scholars of our society in this 21st century?
-do people think S'pore is too good and too "hierarchical" for them to add any more value?
Also, scholars who have went overseas probably have experienced the difference of liberty and freedom of speech/expression, that they find more restricting here. Furthermore, Singapore is rather westernized and influenced by the western world, though we still consider ourselves according to our local ethnicity, we are more open to western ideas (much more than our Asian counterparts that we forgot that we are in Asia!). Few people who stay in overseas long enough will match the difference in freedom, society shape-up, overseas and locally, with the reason that we are an Asian society and is more conservative. People will always think "why can't we be as free as them?" This is a factor we might consider in the perception of society for those educated abroad.
As for personal reasons, I think vision is the thing that make or break the bonds (scholarship bonds). Are they people who wants to change things? Are they people who want to effect change in the management levels or systems that they find non beneficial? Is the overall perception of the bond-giving org open to change? Are we opening our doors wide for ideas? Perhaps the conservatism spirit might be linked to stiffen creativity or just let things remain "traditionally in organisations". This will deter young blooded people full of drives who wants to "change the world" from coming back instead, to a world that they view will recognise their niche and fullest potential.
Now on giving out scholarships, I really think Mr Philip Yeo did the right thing by giving the scholarships to those who come from a more needy family, if given both students attain the same grades. Afterall, the newspaper states that the "majority" of Public Service Commission (PSC)scholarship holders live in landed property.
Scholarships is a way, and should be a platform where the smarts compete based on academic achievements and aptitude for learning, regardless of background. We shouldn't give scholarships to those who don't need (as much), or else in this way, the ones that always rise up are the richer ones who can afford and they come back and hold the posts that previous elite seniors left, the cycle just keeps going on. There ought to be more chances and a tweak of our meritocracy that allows the people from the bottom 20%(in income) that are outstanding to rise up. There is outstanding ones from the lower income, but they might be in any way, disadvantaged in getting the scholarships. That 'ship' has sailed to somewhere richer and more familiar.
We should see that the number of people who got prestigious scholarships in the future, not just from elite families, but it should be on par with the underprivileged. There may be more outstanding ones from the elite groups not getting scholarships, for those who are more underpriviliged to get that chance. That, in my view, should be the result and objective of a meritocratic society. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------
To a newspaper article recently... Its about scholarship bonds. One on bond breakers and the other on giving out scholarships to the more needy groups.
On bond breakers, why is there bond breakers? Why is there people who were not so willing to come back to Singapore to serve the nation? One of the example featured was Mr Wee(now in Google USA) who emailed back and said something like he thinks his role in life is to serve the world than just Singapore itself. I think some of the really smart and talented group of people might choose to remain overseas instead of coming back to serve their bonds is because of a thing called Vision. Bonds given out here are mostly trying to induce a sense of gratefulness to the country and letting you have a stable and good ricebowl. We'd say you are there because of the country and you ought to come back as an obligation. But just like Mr Wee, he might want to do something for the world rather than just for Singapore itself.
Furthermore, after reading about the Law Society (on the same day's papers) wanting to be given more leeway for lawyers and members of the society to debate/discuss about laws instead of just serving the purpose of the Law ministry, I feel there's a correlation between the want for change and the reason for remaining overseas, of perhaps some bond breakers. If they are really so smart and talented, do they think that Singapore is a place where they can effect change and fully utilise their gifts? Would they rather put their intellect into places where they are FREE to effect change and do anything they want? I'm just asking; is our system too stiff for that?
-is our society just pushing for things only favourable to the policymakers?
-is our emphasis on education and jobs holistic?
-is our systems in organisations or public services too stiff for any major change or overhaul (if needed)?
-what is the view of our scholars of our society in this 21st century?
-do people think S'pore is too good and too "hierarchical" for them to add any more value?
Also, scholars who have went overseas probably have experienced the difference of liberty and freedom of speech/expression, that they find more restricting here. Furthermore, Singapore is rather westernized and influenced by the western world, though we still consider ourselves according to our local ethnicity, we are more open to western ideas (much more than our Asian counterparts that we forgot that we are in Asia!). Few people who stay in overseas long enough will match the difference in freedom, society shape-up, overseas and locally, with the reason that we are an Asian society and is more conservative. People will always think "why can't we be as free as them?" This is a factor we might consider in the perception of society for those educated abroad.
As for personal reasons, I think vision is the thing that make or break the bonds (scholarship bonds). Are they people who wants to change things? Are they people who want to effect change in the management levels or systems that they find non beneficial? Is the overall perception of the bond-giving org open to change? Are we opening our doors wide for ideas? Perhaps the conservatism spirit might be linked to stiffen creativity or just let things remain "traditionally in organisations". This will deter young blooded people full of drives who wants to "change the world" from coming back instead, to a world that they view will recognise their niche and fullest potential.
Now on giving out scholarships, I really think Mr Philip Yeo did the right thing by giving the scholarships to those who come from a more needy family, if given both students attain the same grades. Afterall, the newspaper states that the "majority" of Public Service Commission (PSC)scholarship holders live in landed property.
Scholarships is a way, and should be a platform where the smarts compete based on academic achievements and aptitude for learning, regardless of background. We shouldn't give scholarships to those who don't need (as much), or else in this way, the ones that always rise up are the richer ones who can afford and they come back and hold the posts that previous elite seniors left, the cycle just keeps going on. There ought to be more chances and a tweak of our meritocracy that allows the people from the bottom 20%(in income) that are outstanding to rise up. There is outstanding ones from the lower income, but they might be in any way, disadvantaged in getting the scholarships. That 'ship' has sailed to somewhere richer and more familiar.
We should see that the number of people who got prestigious scholarships in the future, not just from elite families, but it should be on par with the underprivileged. There may be more outstanding ones from the elite groups not getting scholarships, for those who are more underpriviliged to get that chance. That, in my view, should be the result and objective of a meritocratic society. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
