i agree with what ice-angel has to say.

maybe we should all live our lives our way? elites should stop looking down on non-elites, and non-elites will naturally respect them as leaders of the society.

not everyone takes academic studies as a piority like them

Nice generalisation there. So all so-called "elites" are nerds, too? I was in the GEP in ACS(I), which pretty much makes me an "elite", and I certainly never placed academic studies as any sort of priority in my life. In fact, few of my classmates and fellow GEP friends did: most of us spent most of our time just trying to skive and have fun.

So hey, I don't mind that you're sticking up for what you perceive to be your fellow man, but there's absolutely no need to go applying stereotypes to everyone.

another narrow-minded post. grah. the gep-ers i know are the most fun-loving ppl around and that's cause a lot of them are naturally smart and can manage their time well. helps that a lot of them come from well to do families (not all, the last princeton undergrad i was friends with stayed in a cheapo hdb flat with not-so-rich parents) but whether or not they think elite is another matter. pigeon-holing is silly.

Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

- Shylock, The Merchant of Venice

Lighten up. She is only referring to a small group of snobbish imperious 'elites', not all elites (-to-be). How can one become a true elite if one is sweating over such trivial stuff as whether elites are nerds or mavericks?

Well either she's talking about a minority of the "elites" being snobbish in which case this article says absolutely nothing at all ("a minority of XXx people are bad. Duh.") or she's talking about a significant proportion in which case it means something, and then it's only proper that the "elite"s are sweating over it because she is sweating over it too.

Whatever, if you wish to sweat. That only reinforces the bad perception of the so-called "elites" or wannabes. True elites rise above petty things because how can they lead if they are that petty. And yes, if you wannabe an elite, you'll have to deal with the expectations.

There's no way to win like this. If they keep quiet everybody will think that whatever is said is true. If they point out that this problem does not exist, then they're being petty. If they don't sweat they're not dealing with expectations. If they do they don't deserve to be elites because true elites don't sweat.

True elites don't have to be seen as winners. They are winners regardless of what people think.

On another note, I do agree with her that some "elites" look down on the not so academically inclined. They are the ones who give the rest a bad name. If you are not one of them bad eggs, you don't have to defend them.

Like I said before, if it's just a few bad eggs then there is no issue at all. If you are complaining, I can only assume that you think that the majority of them look down on others.

The whole point of elites is leadership and it's the nature of leadership that what other people think is important. If they are not leaders, they are not elites. To think that you can be a winner regardless of what people think, that is arrogance.

A few bad eggs with lots of power spells trouble for the people, especially when they think they are always right, look down on the less fortunate, cannot tolerate criticisms, suppress alternative views and abuse their power. Imagine having a WSM clone as PM! This country will be a living hell.

There aren't many true elites around anyway, but many who think they are or claim to be.

Winners are winners because of who they are (people with substance), not what others perceive them to be. The difference is what is intrinsic vs that which is extrinsic and superficial. For instance, I consider humble compassionate millionaire towkays who worked their way up from scratch as elites c.f. spoiled sheltered self-professed elite wannables who brag and flaunt their material status based on their parents'/ancestors' successes. These are the real menace of society.

If there are only a few elites that are the problem, then it's very unlikely that they will have a lot of power. If you have a system that is rotten at the top, that can only happen when most of the people at the top, near the top, and near those who are near the top have a problem.

Because if your "fake elites" are at the top, and the "true elites" don't kick them out then either the "true elites" don't give a shit, in which case they are really fake true elites, or they're "fake elites" who know how to cheat people into thinking they are true elites.

Would you be surprised if true elites can actually be overpowered/ controlled/ kicked out by fake ones?

Would also be interesting to hear your views on why and how one political party practically dominates the government in Singapore for all it's 41 years since independence.

How many other first world countries has the same ruling party for just as long, with father, son, wife, in-laws etc. in as many top positions in the civil/ public service getting out of this world paychecks despite booboos?

Well that obviously means that not only is the system rotten at the top, it is rotten near the top, and also rotten near those who are near the top. Because if there are a sizable number of true elites they would do something about it.

Therefore there is an insufficient number of "true elites" in Singapore.

Therefore what you said about there being only a few bad eggs is not true. Most of them are bad eggs.

Huang, I don't think Wee Shu Min is that hot looking....

I thought the main distinguishing attribute of elites was money, not the ability to form cohesive thoughts.

You gotta have brains to be cunning to get more money. That's why they say the good guys finish last.

again, it's not about elite vs non-elite.

in the hotbed of globalisation, you are nothing if you are not better.

if you are elite, you still have to compete.

if you are non-elite, you still have to compete.

unfortunately, there is so such unicorn as a average paying job with less hours anymore. all companies will find ways to trim costs. That includes cheaper FT. your average salary will be a very attractive salary to a very good programmer in Mumbai. do you see? if you are average, you will be replaced. you have to be the best.

This is the same point that Harro! makes.

So, elite and non-elite must all work hard to STAY RELAVENT.

Well, do you people see Bill Gates as elite or non-elite?

Is it really so important as in where you are told you are? It shouldn't be decided by people who aren't taking the exams or not learning the modules... It should be decided by those that is directly involved, literally involved.

I thought the main distinguishing attribute of elites was money, not the ability to form cohesive thoughts.

That have to depends. Situational based. But there are fractions I don't deny are there cause of riches, not to forget some are true geniues, and the rest are just there.

My papa said, "Life is like an escalator. What goes up must come down, and what comes down must go up. When you are up, there's no need to feel proud, but to feel grateful to God and man for your blessings of success; when you are down, there's no need to feel inferior or depressed for you still have the chance to go up again."

As Vince Lombardi had said, "it's not whether you get knocked down; it's whether you get up again." :-)

Actually, what goes up must come down, that is correct. What comes down may not go up. What comes down have a choice to stay down or goes up actually. If the choice is up, then he must be prepared to come down again some other time. If the choice is stay down, I suppose he can't go any further down right?..

But the part you says, "When you are up, there's no need to feel proud, but to feel grateful to God and man for your blessings of success; when you are down, there's no need to feel inferior or depressed for you still have the chance to go up again." That I have to agree. That's the spirit!

"it's not whether you get knocked down; it's whether you get up again." This quote, unfortunately, I don't agree totally... Actually both (knocking down and getting up) contributes. Like law of physics, the law of force and the oppossing force.

Trackback from Inspirations & Aspirations:

I think one problem with the current debate on elites is that the word means different things to different people......

One definition:
"A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status"

Source: "elite." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 19 Dec. 2006.

Based on this definition, elites do not necessarily have to be leaders or academically inclined. So, it is strange that many only consider our leaders and scholars as elites and look down on those who are not academically inclined. They may not even be intelligent.

Great! For a while there I was thinking that all this usage of the word "elite" was really stupid.

So does your dictionary have a separate section on "true elites" and "fake elites"?

Don't you see? Even if you are geniuse at one thing, you may be an idiot on another... To come back into the topic, you may be an elite at something, but a loser at the others.

Try looking up "true" and "fake" and combine the meanings with "elite". Didn't your teachers teach you that?

Precisely! I tried that, and it seems that your "true elite" does not square with the dictionary definitions that you have just given.

Debatable. I hope you are not arguing for the sake of arguing. Or maybe I have hit a raw nerve. Then perhaps it is not good to carry on the debate because things will get personal and irrational.

So, one last post on this issue. That a person brags about his material wealth and being elite just because his father is rich and influential makes the person a fake one because he essentially DOES NOT HAVE wealth or earned it, but only his father does. It is an 'illusion' or misrepresentation to others that he is. That is not a true elite because as the definition goes, he should have wealth.

Another example. If a person gets into an elite school by pulling strings or because of a flawed system without a level playing field, then he does not have the requisite intelligence. Even those who could get into those schools, they may be academically inclined, but not intelligent because of the system and how it filters based on grades. These are not true elites because they don't have the intelligence. They only appear to have it by virtue of being in a position gotten by some other means not of themselves.

Understand boy? And please, I am talking about everybody in elite schools or wealthy families.

In any case, the initial blog issue is that elites should not look down on others but there are those who do even though they are no better. Being in a privileged position does not mean one deserved it based on one's own merit and therefore there is nothing to be arrogant about or feel superior over others about.

Understand? If you still don't, I am afraid you will have to learn the lessons from going through life itself and figure it out on your own.

Very good. Because until you make your position clear, one could have thought:

1. What you meant by "fake elite" are people who appear to have true status but do not. Your so-called fake elites have true status, so strictly speaking they are true elites, but to you they are fake because they are not deserving, they've not earned it themselves.
2. That you were talking about people serving in a high government post. But you're only talking about an inconsequential thing like what school you go to.
3. That a "true elite" is somebody who is morally good. But now I know that you think that a person like Joseph Stalin is a "true elite" because he earned his position by being born poor and rising up through the communist party ranks.

You have not hit a raw nerve, but I don't like people who use terms sloppily without making clear what they are talking about.

You don't have to worry. Life will teach the "fake elites" these lessons without your help.

Hmmm, I thought intelligent people will be able to figure out what true and fake elites mean just like they will automatically know what a "fake diamond" means without people having to explain everything.

No, I am pointing out that you originally wanted elite to mean "a person who is capable and intelligent." Then you gave a dictionary definition, "a person who has status". So you are fudging the two things together. I'm not the one playing with words here.

Correction:

...I am NOT talking about everybody in elite schools or wealthy families.

Is there any way to make the topic headline a better headline?... I think ultimately, generally, people don't agree with "Elites vs Average Students". How about if change it to "Hardworking vs Lazy Students"? (Believing as long as you work hard enough, you will be on better "grounds") Or, "Higher IQ-inclined vs Higher EQ-inclined"?...

>_< Duh!

Wah, why so serious one? All those labels, thanks to the gahmen.

IQ and EQ are independent of academic achievement and verbal dexterity. One may be "good" with words, but words cannot make the dead pay fines.

From what I see here, it's more like linguistic nit-pickers vs streetsmart survivors.
The former are confused NATO members beating around linguistic bushes, the latter are focused action heroes kicking asses in a merciless world.

Either you guys understand or let it be. I am too dumbfounded to exprain.

Hahaha! Just read in the papers that the Thai central bank had relied mainly on ACADEMIC research to decide on currency controls that nearly crashed the stock market and resulted in the startling policy flip-flop.

Says a lot about the competence of the academically inclined. I hope ours will not be too cocky their academic qualifications and remember to consult those who are more hands on and in the know.

Hmm... Thai central bank wor?... Haiz... How about naming some place people will die to work in that relied mainly on academic? Haiz... People just need to be convinced...

Of course! What those people thinking using academic and scientific method to make decision? We should go back to praying to deities and watching the stars to make our national policy.