Pilot or Stewardess?
-
Well, if you want to simplify it like that, then let me simplify it this way.
If the pilot and all the first class passengers have parachutes, then I can understand why the passengers in economy class would want a co-pilot from economy class without a parachute.
And if the pilot keeps telling the passengers in economy class that they are not entitled to caviar and champagne when the cabin has depressurized somewhat and what they want are oxygen masks just like the ones in first class, I imagine they have good reasons to be unhappy with the pilot. All the more so if the reason for not lowering the oxygen masks in economy class is just to save a few bucks.
And all the talk about how pretty the stewardess is completely misses the point. -
3Boys:
Yes. No feel for ground as in not free to do groundwork or meet the pple.. that is ok... But no empathy and no \"feeling\" is not quite acceptable ar..
So you accept some 'elite' type intellectuals, who may be technically excellent, but maybe have no feel for the ground, are a necessity in g'ment?
What will you do to prevent the debate about whether a person is fit for service in government from ALWAYS degenerating into whether someone is too smart or too clever, or from an 'elite' background, and therefore unelectable?
Actually, elite is not an issue.. the issue is lack of empathy..
And the debate is never about being \"elite\", but whether this elite can feel for the pple.
I guess it is not very nice of an elite to comment like everyone have cars, his has 2 that kind of thing (not sure of the background, just read it in some forum).. that is too detached from reality..
Surely an MP must be aware of what is happening in the country even thou he is too busy to meet the pple personally..? how can it be that everyone have cars..??
Actually.. an elite who feels for the pple is Highly desirable.. just that all too often, pple came cross elites with no empathy.. that's why some blanket disregard all elites..
Personally, That \"Get out of my elite uncaring face\" comment from an ex-MP's offspring and whose act is condone by the MP leaves a bitter after taste that doesn't seems to go away.... -
It’s a simple enough analogy and it make perfect sense and easily understood. But what did people do? Debate meaningfully? Last thing on their mind and now we have airline, airline executive, ground crew and so on. Why not introduce travel agents, ticketing agents, hotel representatives into the mix?
-
limlim:
Definitely agree.
Personally, That \"Get out of my elite uncaring face\" comment from an ex-MP's offspring and whose act is condone by the MP leaves a bitter after taste that doesn't seems to go away.... -
HVR:
It's a simple enough analogy and it make perfect sense and easily understood. But what did people do? Debate meaningfully? Last thing on their mind and now we have airline, airline executive, ground crew and so on. Why not introduce travel agents, ticketing agents, hotel representatives into the mix?
Our pirate does debate very sensibly most times, I don't think he's trying to be cheeky here, just doesn't like my analogy....... -
3Boys:
Our pirate does debate very sensibly most times, I don't think he's trying to be cheeky here, just doesn't like my analogy.......
-
pirate:
You want to discuss airlines, go here --> http://www.flyertalk.com/3Boys:
Our pirate does debate very sensibly most times, I don't think he's trying to be cheeky here, just doesn't like my analogy.......
-
Can I clarify what \"people-oriented\" means in the context of this thread? If you're saying do leaders need to be populist and pander to the demands of voters, of course not. They have to listen and make the call on whether the demands are justified.
However, if \"people-oriented\" refers to being able to interact and work with people from all walks of life, then definitely leaders need to be people-oriented, especially the leaders of a country. Whether they are MPs, or they eventually become Ministers, all of them are in leadership positions and should be able to connect with the ground. Forgive me for saying this, I think it's strange to say that it's okay for a leader to lose touch with the people whom he's trying to lead. Then who is he leading, may I know? Why should the people listen to him? Let's not defend the PAP for the sake of defending them.... :siam:
Barack Obama, incidentally, has excellent people skills. He has his critics too, but I don't think anyone can accuse him of not being \"people-oriented\". -
Mdm Koh:
Actually, according to some reports, a lot of folk on Capitol Hill find him aloof and non-communicative. He is better at communicating with the masses, that's for sure. And being communicative does not equate to being people oriented, or being able to work with people for that matter.Can I clarify what \"people-oriented\" means in the context of this thread? If you're saying do leaders need to be populist and pander to the demands of voters, of course not. They have to listen and make the call on whether the demands are justified.
However, if \"people-oriented\" refers to being able to interact and work with people from all walks of life, then definitely leaders need to be people-oriented, especially the leader of a country. Err... let's not defend the PAP for the sake of defending them?
Barack Obama, incidentally, has excellent people skills. He has his critics too, but I don't think anyone can accuse him of not being \"people-oriented\".
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/01/obama_great_communicator
Bill Clinton, on the other hand..... -
3Boys:
Okay.... so Obama's just talkative but he's not able to work well with others.
Actually a lot of folk on Capitol Hill find him aloof and non-communicative. He is better at communicating with the masses, that's for sure. And being communicative does not equate to being people oriented, or being able to work with people for that matter.Mdm Koh:
Can I clarify what \"people-oriented\" means in the context of this thread? If you're saying do leaders need to be populist and pander to the demands of voters, of course not. They have to listen and make the call on whether the demands are justified.
However, if \"people-oriented\" refers to being able to interact and work with people from all walks of life, then definitely leaders need to be people-oriented, especially the leader of a country. Err... let's not defend the PAP for the sake of defending them?
Barack Obama, incidentally, has excellent people skills. He has his critics too, but I don't think anyone can accuse him of not being \"people-oriented\".
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/01/obama_great_communicator
Bill Clinton, on the other hand.....
Like I said, he has his critics but that's :offtopic:
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login