Singapore Expats Forum

Is it a "MUST" to have at least a degree in singapore?

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Fri, 03 Sep 2010 3:06 am

JR8 wrote:I refuse to believe in this bull.

If you are a friend and come to my home... look at my home.

If you trip on the edge of any frayed carpet well hard bloody luck, look where you are going fool. I'll help you up.

If you want to sue me!... well then F you! I'll knock you down and push your head under the frayed carpet you m*****F*****!

Common sense is not obviated by a few people being utter morons


Actually I think the laws have been designed for the business of insurance just like banks are designed to make money they are all cash cows whether we like it or not! The same with car insurance and i agree with your reply, though if you are over 40 mind the blood vessels unless you have good medical cover, read the small print (anger is not covered) :lol:

User avatar
QRM
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1831
Joined: Mon, 17 Oct 2005
Location: Nassim hill

Postby QRM » Fri, 03 Sep 2010 8:37 am

Thats why you end up with all the daft warning notices, "Warning objects closer than they may appear" "This coffee/apple pie is hot"

I read recently a Woman suing a man who rescued her from a burning car. By tugging her out of the car, he broke her back so shes wheel chair bound.

Its all getting daft, like KSL said its a cash cow for the insurance firms. HSBC is offering Golfing insurance, in case our sliced ball kills a fellow golfer.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Fri, 03 Sep 2010 9:28 am

QRM wrote:Thats why you end up with all the daft warning notices, "Warning objects closer than they may appear" "This coffee/apple pie is hot"

I read recently a Woman suing a man who rescued her from a burning car. By tugging her out of the car, he broke her back so shes wheel chair bound.

Its all getting daft, like KSL said its a cash cow for the insurance firms. HSBC is offering Golfing insurance, in case our sliced ball kills a fellow golfer.


like that woman who sued google because google maps gave her directions to had her needed to cross a highway. because it didn't tell her to "stop. look. listen," she didn't. bloody idjit.

sharpz
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon, 23 Aug 2010
Location: Singapore

Postby sharpz » Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:30 am

JR8 wrote:
sharpz wrote: But I still provide because it is my duty as a son. I'm a social contract believer myself.

...
Well if you are able to raise 10-15 kids with appropriately and zero negligence, I'm pretty sure you can expect warm fuzzy retirement and houseful of grandchildren attending your funeral.

But that's not quite the gist of the asian's traditional culture though. Parents raised their kids without expecting any return and kids payback despite they know parents don't want anything from them. Risk and reward doesn't really applies here. I still recall the moment my parents told me they're can RIP during my graduation lol..

Well, I do admit it's a dying tradition but I would gladly embrace its beauty and keep it alive.




You write 'Duty', 'social contract', and 'payback', but then you say 'Parents raised their kids without expecting any return'.

Something isn't adding up here!

p.s. when did this 'contract' get signed, in the womb? ;)



"Social Contract Theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society." - Taken from http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

My interpretation - unwritten contract/obligation that go beyond the written contract (i.e. law) that an individually is takes up voluntarily.

Simple example, common understanding is that parents is liable to take care of the basic needs of their kids till the kids can reasonably take care of their own, any negligence by the parents leading to the death of a kid would most probably see themselves prosecuted in court, right? So all parents just need to do give minimal basic care and make sure the kids don't die. But in reality parents opt to give their kids best food, best education etc etc. I'm not saying it's right to spoil kids but point here is parents went beyond what's required by the written contract, which is essentially fulfilling the social contract with their kid.

Vice versa, kid's unwritten Duty is to take care of their parents although it's not required by law, which includes Paying back their part of the social contract not only on materially but also emotionally. You might not expect your kids to take care of you when you're in your nappies, but it is always nice if your kids come around every weekend with grandkids.

I really love this concept and choose to believe that world is a better place if everyone fulfil their own social contract. It's a naive dream, but at least i live my life my way ;)

p.s. you can't sign social contract cuz it wasn't written at the first place. it's just a moral obligation an idiot (i get this alot from people around me) believes he owed to the stakeholders around him.
"I rather fail spectacularly than to succeed minimally." - Lex Luthor

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Postby JR8 » Fri, 03 Sep 2010 3:09 pm

QRM wrote:Thats why you end up with all the daft warning notices, "Warning objects closer than they may appear" "This coffee/apple pie is hot"

I read recently a Woman suing a man who rescued her from a burning car. By tugging her out of the car, he broke her back so shes wheel chair bound.

Its all getting daft, like KSL said its a cash cow for the insurance firms. HSBC is offering Golfing insurance, in case our sliced ball kills a fellow golfer.



...Or the diver dragged unconscious from the water and given CPR (i.e. she was effectively dead), they managed to restart her heart and she recovered, only to sue her rescuer for breaking a few of her ribs.

User avatar
QRM
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1831
Joined: Mon, 17 Oct 2005
Location: Nassim hill

Postby QRM » Fri, 03 Sep 2010 3:51 pm

JR8 wrote:
QRM wrote:Thats why you end up with all the daft warning notices, "Warning objects closer than they may appear" "This coffee/apple pie is hot"

I read recently a Woman suing a man who rescued her from a burning car. By tugging her out of the car, he broke her back so shes wheel chair bound.

Its all getting daft, like KSL said its a cash cow for the insurance firms. HSBC is offering Golfing insurance, in case our sliced ball kills a fellow golfer.



...Or the diver dragged unconscious from the water and given CPR (i.e. she was effectively dead), they managed to restart her heart and she recovered, only to sue her rescuer for breaking a few of her ribs.


Thats one reason why some building do not have CPR equipment, if someone uses it incorrectly or its not functioning properly, the victims family can sue the building owners. If they dont have it (not a legal requirement )then they can just shrug their shoulder if the guy croaks in the lift lobby.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Postby JR8 » Fri, 03 Sep 2010 4:48 pm

sharpz wrote:"Social Contract Theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society." - Taken from http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

My interpretation - unwritten contract/obligation that go beyond the written contract (i.e. law) that an individually is takes up voluntarily.

Simple example, common understanding is that parents is liable to take care of the basic needs of their kids till the kids can reasonably take care of their own, any negligence by the parents leading to the death of a kid would most probably see themselves prosecuted in court, right? So all parents just need to do give minimal basic care and make sure the kids don't die. But in reality parents opt to give their kids best food, best education etc etc. I'm not saying it's right to spoil kids but point here is parents went beyond what's required by the written contract, which is essentially fulfilling the social contract with their kid.

Vice versa, kid's unwritten Duty is to take care of their parents although it's not required by law, which includes Paying back their part of the social contract not only on materially but also emotionally. You might not expect your kids to take care of you when you're in your nappies, but it is always nice if your kids come around every weekend with grandkids.

I really love this concept and choose to believe that world is a better place if everyone fulfil their own social contract. It's a naive dream, but at least i live my life my way ;)

p.s. you can't sign social contract cuz it wasn't written at the first place. it's just a moral obligation an idiot (i get this alot from people around me) believes he owed to the stakeholders around him.



Interesting link, thanks.

Sometimes parents don't go beyond 'half starving their children to death'. Are those children under the same social contract as those who got sent to Harvard and Oxford? How might a child guage where they fall on that scale?

Do you still need to pay your parents even if they already have money coming out of their ears?

Why do you think this social contract (i.e. paying for parents) does not exist in 1st world countries?

sharpz
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon, 23 Aug 2010
Location: Singapore

Postby sharpz » Mon, 06 Sep 2010 3:40 am

Your welcome. Sorry for late posting though, was quite occupied lately.

JR8 wrote:Sometimes parents don't go beyond 'half starving their children to death'. Are those children under the same social contract as those who got sent to Harvard and Oxford? How might a child guage where they fall on that scale?


It really depends on why the parents starve their children in the first place. The better gauge would be the extent the parents is willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of their kids. If the parents starve their kids due to resource limitations and had to do so in order for the family to survive as a whole, then I don't think there's any dilemma here. In fact, most probably the parents would put aside more food to the kids than themselves. Or perhaps it's part of the parents plan to accelerate their kids independence? The same concept applies to education too. Social contract would differ accordingly to the families' wealth.

But of course the underlying assumption here is reasonably normal and functional families. I'm sure most of us heard about Austrian Incest Nightmare.

JR8 wrote:Do you still need to pay your parents even if they already have money coming out of their ears?


I'd just pay my parents in form of cash and investments regardless their income generating capabilities. Given the hardship they went through raising me up, the pinch i feel now is close to nothing. However it does affect the mixture of my repayment though (i.e. less cash and more long term investments).

JR8 wrote:Why do you think this social contract (i.e. paying for parents) does not exist in 1st world countries?


I wouldn't say social contract does not exist in 1st world countries, probably minimal because people would focus on meeting their basic needs before they can pursue higher moral stage/conscience. Kohlberg's stages of moral development explained it brilliantly but I would not go heavy on it here. Try Wikipedia :)
"I rather fail spectacularly than to succeed minimally." - Lex Luthor

Oxo
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri, 15 Oct 2010

Postby Oxo » Mon, 18 Oct 2010 9:56 pm

Plavt wrote:Even here in the UK it is puzzling how somebody who leaves University with a degree in electronics more often than not doesn't know how a fridge works as one example.
If you haven’t figured out how a fridge works Engineering might not be for you...along with voting and driving, please abstain. Engineering is after all the endeavour of applying of simple scientific principles to make money, lots and lots of money.
sharpz wrote:Great example: A group of rich Asian friends of mine who got so bored in life they went and experimented how much cash it takes to generate sufficient heat to cook a bowl of instant noodle. And they got the result: approximately RMB 16K worth of RMB 100 notes.
Should have looked it up in Perry’s handbook, fools. Also they could have burned one note and scaled the experimental results, 24 carat diamond tipped plonkers.

Any problem I can solve now I could have solved before doing a degree with trial and error. Now I can solve the same problems with a pencil, paper...and Perry’s.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34782
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 1:59 am

OOooohhhhhhh! Foreign Talent! :roll: :P

User avatar
Plavt
Director
Director
Posts: 4291
Joined: Wed, 18 May 2005
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Plavt » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 6:18 am

Oxo wrote:
Plavt wrote:Even here in the UK it is puzzling how somebody who leaves University with a degree in electronics more often than not doesn't know how a fridge works as one example.
If you haven’t figured out how a fridge works Engineering might not be for you...along with voting and driving, please abstain. Engineering is after all the endeavour of applying of simple scientific principles to make money, lots and lots of money.


Be a damned good idea if you actually read what I wrote! The reference is to those who take degrees in electronics and scenario I outlined common. By the way I don't have a degree and have never studied electronics in my life. :roll:

frankspore
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu, 21 Oct 2010

Postby frankspore » Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:18 pm

The only people who say "a degree is useless" are those without one.

carlsum1986
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun, 06 Jun 2010
Location: Bangkok

Postby carlsum1986 » Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:59 am

frankspore wrote:The only people who say "a degree is useless" are those without one.


try telling that to bill gates and company

frankspore
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu, 21 Oct 2010

Postby frankspore » Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:57 am

carlsum1986 wrote:
frankspore wrote:The only people who say "a degree is useless" are those without one.


try telling that to bill gates and company


See what I mean?

carlsum1986
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun, 06 Jun 2010
Location: Bangkok

Postby carlsum1986 » Fri, 22 Oct 2010 1:22 pm

frankspore wrote:
carlsum1986 wrote:
frankspore wrote:The only people who say "a degree is useless" are those without one.


try telling that to bill gates and company


See what I mean?


I bet you are some kid or a very frustrated individual sitting behind the screen and just trying to be too clever on the forum.... :lol:


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests