Days of Reflection for Man Who Defined Singapore

“SO, when is the last leaf falling?” asked Lee Kuan Yew, the man who made Singapore in his own stern and unsentimental image, nearing his 87th birthday and contemplating age, infirmity and loss.
“I can feel the gradual decline of energy and vitality,” said Mr. Lee, whose “Singapore model” of economic growth and tight social control made him one of the most influential political figures of Asia. “And I mean generally, every year, when you know you are not on the same level as last year. But that’s life.”
In a long, unusually reflective interview last week, he talked about the aches and pains of age and the solace of meditation, about his struggle to build a thriving nation on this resource-poor island, and his concern that the next generation might take his achievements for granted and let them slip away.
He was dressed informally in a windbreaker and running shoes in his big, bright office, still sharp of mind but visibly older and a little stooped, no longer in day-to-day control but, for as long as he lives, the dominant figure of the nation he created.
But in these final years, he said, his life has been darkened by the illness of his wife and companion of 61 years, bedridden and mute after a series of strokes.
“I try to busy myself,” he said, “but from time to time in idle moments, my mind goes back to the happy days we were up and about together.” Agnostic and pragmatic in his approach to life, he spoke with something like envy of people who find strength and solace in religion. “How do I comfort myself?” he asked. “Well, I say, ‘Life is just like that.’ ”
“What is next, I do not know,” he said. “Nobody has ever come back.”
The prime minister of Singapore from its founding in 1965 until he stepped aside in 1990, Mr. Lee built what he called “a first-world oasis in a third-world region” — praised for the efficiency and incorruptibility of his rule but accused by human rights groups of limiting political freedoms and intimidating opponents through libel suits.
His title now is minister mentor, a powerful presence within the current government led by his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The question that hovers over Singapore today is how long and in what form his model may endure once he is gone.
Always physically vigorous, Mr. Lee combats the decline of age with a regimen of swimming, cycling and massage and, perhaps more important, an hour-by-hour daily schedule of meetings, speeches and conferences both in Singapore and overseas. “I know if I rest, I’ll slide downhill fast,” he said. When, after an hour, talk shifted from introspection to geopolitics, the years seemed to slip away and he grew vigorous and forceful, his worldview still wide ranging, detailed and commanding.
And yet, he said, he sometimes takes an oblique look at these struggles against age and sees what he calls “the absurdity of it.”
“I’m reaching 87, trying to keep fit, presenting a vigorous figure, and it’s an effort, and is it worth the effort?” he said. “I laugh at myself trying to keep a bold front. It’s become my habit. I just carry on.”
HIS most difficult moments come at the end of each day, he said, as he sits by the bedside of his wife, Kwa Geok Choo, 89, who has been unable to move or speak for more than two years. She had been by his side, a confidante and counselor, since they were law students in London.
“She understands when I talk to her, which I do every night,” he said. “She keeps awake for me; I tell her about my day’s work, read her favorite poems.” He opened a big spreadsheet to show his reading list, books by Jane Austen, Rudyard Kipling and Lewis Carroll as well as the sonnets of Shakespeare.
Lately, he said, he had been looking at Christian marriage vows and was drawn to the words: “To love, to hold and to cherish, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse till death do us part.”
“I told her, ‘I would try and keep you company for as long as I can.’ That’s life. She understood.” But he also said: “I’m not sure who’s going first, whether she or me.”
At night, hearing the sounds of his wife’s discomfort in the next room, he said, he calms himself with 20 minutes of meditation, reciting a mantra he was taught by a Christian friend: “Ma-Ra-Na-Tha.”
The phrase, which is Aramaic, comes at the end of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, and can be translated in several ways. Mr. Lee said that he was told it means “Come to me, O Lord Jesus,” and that although he is not a believer, he finds the sounds soothing. 

“The problem is to keep the monkey mind from running off into all kinds of thoughts,” he said. “A certain tranquillity settles over you. The day’s pressures and worries are pushed out. Then there’s less problem sleeping.”
He brushed aside the words of a prominent Singaporean writer and social critic, Catherine Lim, who described him as having “an authoritarian, no-nonsense manner that has little use for sentiment.”
“She’s a novelist!” he cried. “Therefore, she simplifies a person’s character,” making what he called a “graphic caricature of me.” “But is anybody that simple or simplistic?”
The stress of his wife’s illness is constant, he said, harder on him than stresses he faced for years in the political arena. But repeatedly, in looking back over his life, he returns to his moment of greatest anguish, the expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965, when he wept in public.
That trauma presented him with the challenge that has defined his life, the creation and development of a stable and prosperous nation, always on guard against conflict within its mixed population of Chinese, Malays and Indians.
“We don’t have the ingredients of a nation, the elementary factors,” he said three years ago in an interview with the International Herald Tribune, “a homogeneous population, common language, common culture and common destiny.”
Younger people worry him, with their demands for more political openness and a free exchange of ideas, secure in their well-being in modern Singapore. “They have come to believe that this is a natural state of affairs, and they can take liberties with it,” he said. “They think you can put it on auto-pilot. I know that is never so.”
The kind of open political combat they demand would inevitably open the door to race-based politics, he said, and “our society will be ripped apart.”
A political street fighter, by his own account, he has often taken on his opponents through ruinous libel suits.
He defended the suits as necessary to protect his good name, and he dismissed criticisms by Western reporters who “hop in and hop out” of Singapore as “absolute rubbish.”
In any case, it is not these reporters or the obituaries they may write that will offer the final verdict on his actions, he said, but future scholars who will study them in the context of their day.
“I’m not saying that everything I did was right,” he said, “but everything I did was for an honorable purpose. I had to do some nasty things, locking fellows up without trial.”
And although the leaves are already falling from the tree, he said, the Lee Kuan Yew story may not be over yet.
He quoted a Chinese proverb: Do not judge a man until his coffin is closed.
“Close the coffin, then decide,” he said. “Then you assess him. I may still do something foolish before the lid is closed on me.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/asia/11lee.html?pagewanted=2

Chris Gardner - PASSION IS EVERYTHING

From Homeless to Multimillionaire

Chris Gardner, the man whose rags-to-riches story inspired the movie The Pursuit of Happyness, explains how he harnessed his passion to turn his life around

By Carmine Gallo

It's not every day you get the chance to pick the brain of a man whose real-life rags-to-riches story was turned into a Hollywood movie starring one of America's top actors. But the other day I had the opportunity to spend time with Chris Gardner, subject of the 2006 movie The Pursuit of Happyness, in which Gardner was played by Will Smith.

While attending an unpaid internship program at Dean Witter Reynolds in 1981, Gardner spent a year on the streets with his two-year-old son. They took refuge at night in a church shelter or the bathroom of a BART subway station in Oakland, Calif. Nobody at work knew. Gardner eventually won a position as a stockbroker at Dean Witter. Two years later he left for Bear Stearns (BSC), where he became a top earner. In 1987, he founded his own brokerage firm, Gardner Rich,in Chicago. Today, Gardner is a multimillionaire, a motivational speaker, a philanthropist, and an international businessman who is about to launch a private equity fund that will invest solely in South Africa. His partner in the fund? Nelson Mandela. Not bad for a guy who, six years before founding his own brokerage firm, was "fighting, scratching, and crawling my way out of the gutter with a baby on my back."

"PASSION IS EVERYTHING"
Gardner is a magnificent speaker and has an engaging personality—qualities all business professionals would crave. But what's behind his success? What is the one thing—the one secret—that helped him change his life? "It's passion," he told me. "Passion is everything. In fact, you've got to be borderline fanatical about what you do." Gardner says he was fortunate to find something he truly loved, something where he couldn't wait for the sun to rise so he could do it again. His advice to entrepreneurs and those seeking a career change? "Be bold enough to find the one thing that you are passionate about. It might not be what you were trained to do. But be bold enough to do the one thing. Nobody needs to dig it but you."

Gardner wanted to be "world-class at something." For him, that something was being a stockbroker. For you, finding something you are passionate about will make the difference in how engaging you become as a communicator and as a leader. If you love what you do, you'll eagerly share the story behind it with boundless enthusiasm.

Passion is not teachable. As a communications coach, I can help clients craft and deliver a powerful story, but I can't create passion. But it's passion that separates the electrifying presenters from the average ones. I'm absolutely convinced of it. As a former television journalist, I've interviewed thousands of spokespeople and personally coached hundreds of others in my current profession. Donald Trump once said: "Without passion, you have no energy—and without energy, you have nothing." Your listeners want to be in the presence of someone with energy, a person who greets people with a smile and an abundance of enthusiasm. Passion is not something you necessarily verbalize, but it shows. When Gardner walked into Dean Witter after having slept in a subway station the night before, he only wanted to leave one impression on his co-workers. "All they needed to know is that I would light it up day after day. Passion is not something you have to talk about. People feel it. They see it just as clearly as the color of your eyes, baby."

COFFEE AND COMMITMENT
I have spent the last several years interviewing inspiring leaders, and I can say without hesitation that passion is the No. 1 quality that sets them apart. In many ways, my talk with Gardner reminds me of a conversation I once had with Starbucks (SBUX) Chairman Howard Schultz. Like Gardner, Schultz used the word "passion" throughout our entire conversation. But remarkably, the word "coffee" was rarely spoken. You see, for Schultz, coffee is not his passion. Instead, Schultz says, he is passionate about creating a workplace that "treats people with dignity and respect;" a workplace environment that his father never had the opportunity to experience. The coffee product offers the means to help Schultz fulfill his passion. In much the same way, stock trading and commissions offered Gardner the means to fulfill his passion, which was to give his son something he never had—a father.

Passion is the foundation of effective communication. Dig deep to discover your core purpose, your true passion. Once you connect to it, use it as fuel to build a rapport with your audience—recruiters, managers, employees, etc. Your presentations, pitches, speeches, and all forms of business communication will be more engaging than ever. Nearly everyone has room to increase what I call the "passion quotient"—the level of passion you exhibit as a speaker. The higher your passion quotient, the more likely you are to connect with people. Chris Gardner's passion fueled his determination in the face of overwhelming odds and obstacles. Take the time to imagine where harnessing your passion can take you.

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2007/sb20070723_608918.htm

How Much Would You Sell 10 Years of Your Life For?

For some strange reason, I was taking a shower when this philosophical question popped in my head and got me really thinking. So, I decided to talk about it in this post.

How much would you sell 10 years of your life for? If someone came and offered you the chance to sell 10 years of your life, what price would you ask for it.

For example, if you asked for $1 million, you will get the cash RIGHT NOW and lose 10 years of your life. So, if you were 20 years old today, you would immediately fast forward to 30. If you were 30 today, you would immediately go to 40. So on and so forth.

What price would you ask for? Think about it. You are not allowed to say 'not for sale' or 'priceless'. You must think of a price.

When I asked most of my friends, they gave huge amounts of money. One of my friends said, ' $10 million for 10 years of my life'. So, if we put so much value on the time of our life, are we treasuring
it?

For example, for my friend, $10 million for 10 years equates to $1 million a year, which equates to $2,739 per day. This equates to $114 per hour or $1.90 per minute. Do the math for YOUR OWN answer.

I bet it would be pretty high as well.

So, question is, are you living each hour as if it were WORTH $114? I am not saying that you must spend every hour making money. What I am saying is whether you are getting the very most out of the precious minutes and hours of your life?

Are you enjoying the journey of your life, allowing yourself to be happy or do you keep getting upset over small things? Are you loving the people around you and allowing them to love you back?
Are you treasuring each hour of your life and living it to the fullest or constantly procrastinating or doing things later?

Whether you like it or -- you have to SELL! If you think about it, you are forced to sell the 10 years of your life (and more), whether you like it or not.

Every day that passes in your life, you have just sold it. You are never going to get it back. Every hour that passes in your life, you are never going to get back.

When people attend my 4 day seminars, I tell them that the money they spent can always be made back. What cannot be made back is the 4 days of their life that they have exchanged for coming. So, they have to make the very best use of it.

So, before you go about living this new day, think of the price you have put on it and get your money's worth!

Adam Khoo

(Copied from email)

The Objective of Education Is Learning, Not Teaching

In their book, Turning Learning Right Side Up: Putting Education Back on Track, authors Russell L. Ackoff and Daniel Greenberg point out that today's education system is seriously flawed -- it focuses on teaching rather than learning. "Why should children -- or adults -- be asked to do something computers and related equipment can do much better than they can?" the authors ask in the following excerpt from the book. "Why doesn't education focus on what humans can do better than the machines and instruments they create?"

"Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth learning can be taught."

-- Oscar Wilde

Traditional education focuses on teaching, not learning. It incorrectly assumes that for every ounce of teaching there is an ounce of learning by those who are taught. However, most of what we learn before, during, and after attending schools is learned without its being taught to us. A child learns such fundamental things as how to walk, talk, eat, dress, and so on without being taught these things. Adults learn most of what they use at work or at leisure while at work or leisure. Most of what is taught in classroom settings is forgotten, and much or what is remembered is irrelevant.

In most schools, memorization is mistaken for learning. Most of what is remembered is remembered only for a short time, but then is quickly forgotten. (How many remember how to take a square root or ever have a need to?) Furthermore, even young children are aware of the fact that most of what is expected of them in school can better be done by computers, recording machines, cameras, and so on. They are treated as poor surrogates for such machines and instruments. Why should children -- or adults, for that matter -- be asked to do something computers and related equipment can do much better than they can? Why doesn't education focus on what humans can do better than the machines and instruments they create?

When those who have taught others are asked who in the classes learned most, virtually all of them say, "The teacher." It is apparent to those who have taught that teaching is a better way to learn than being taught. Teaching enables the teacher to discover what one thinks about the subject being taught. Schools are upside down: Students should be teaching and faculty learning.

After lecturing to undergraduates at a major university, I was accosted by a student who had attended the lecture. After some complimentary remarks, he asked, "How long ago did you teach your first class?"

I responded, "In September of 1941."

"Wow!" The student said. "You mean to say you have been teaching for more than 60 years?"

"Yes."

"When did you last teach a course in a subject that existed when you were a student?"

This difficult question required some thought. After a pause, I said, "September of 1951."

"Wow! You mean to say that everything you have taught in more than 50 years was not taught to you; you had to learn on your own?"

"Right."

"You must be a pretty good learner."

I modestly agreed.

The student then said, "What a shame you're not that good a teacher."

The student had it right; what most faculty members are good at, if anything, is learning rather than teaching. Recall that in the one-room schoolhouse, students taught students. The teacher served as a guide and a resource but not as one who force-fed content into students' minds.

Ways of Learning

There are many different ways of learning; teaching is only one of them. We learn a great deal on our own, in independent study or play. We learn a great deal interacting with others informally -- sharing what we are learning with others and vice versa. We learn a great deal by doing, through trial and error. Long before there were schools as we know them, there was apprenticeship -- learning how to do something by trying it under the guidance of one who knows how. For example, one can learn more architecture by having to design and build one's own house than by taking any number of courses on the subject. When physicians are asked whether they leaned more in classes or during their internship, without exception they answer, "Internship."

In the educational process, students should be offered a wide variety of ways to learn, among which they could choose or with which they could experiment. They do not have to learn different things the same way. They should learn at a very early stage of "schooling" that learning how to learn is largely their responsibility -- with the help they seek but that is not imposed on them.

The objective of education is learning, not teaching.

There are two ways that teaching is a powerful tool of learning. Let's abandon for the moment the loaded word teaching, which is unfortunately all too closely linked to the notion of "talking at" or "lecturing," and use instead the rather awkward phrase explaining something to someone else who wants to find out about it. One aspect of explaining something is getting yourself up to snuff on whatever it is that you are trying to explain. I can't very well explain to you how Newton accounted for planetary motion if I haven't boned up on my Newtonian mechanics first. This is a problem we all face all the time, when we are expected to explain something. (Wife asks, "How do we get to Valley Forge from home?" And husband, who does not want to admit he has no idea at all, excuses himself to go to the bathroom; he quickly Googles Mapquest to find out.) This is one sense in which the one who explains learns the most, because the person to whom the explanation is made can afford to forget the explanation promptly in most cases; but the explainers will find it sticking in their minds a lot longer, because they struggled to gain an understanding in the first place in a form clear enough to explain.

The second aspect of explaining something that leaves the explainer more enriched, and with a much deeper understanding of the subject, is this: To satisfy the person being addressed, to the point where that person can nod his head and say, "Ah, yes, now I understand!" explainers must not only get the matter to fit comfortably into their own worldview, into their own personal frame of reference for understanding the world around them, they also have to figure out how to link their frame of reference to the worldview of the person receiving the explanation, so that the explanation can make sense to that person, too. This involves an intense effort on the part of the explainer to get into the other person's mind, so to speak, and that exercise is at the heart of learning in general. For, by practicing repeatedly how to create links between my mind and another's, I am reaching the very core of the art of learning from the ambient culture. Without that skill, I can only learn from direct experience; with that skill, I can learn from the experience of the whole world. Thus, whenever I struggle to explain something to someone else, and succeed in doing so, I am advancing my ability to learn from others, too.

Learning through Explanation

This aspect of learning through explanation has been overlooked by most commentators. And that is a shame, because both aspects of learning are what makes the age mixing that takes place in the world at large such a valuable educational tool. Younger kids are always seeking answers from older kids -- sometimes just slightly older kids (the seven-year old tapping the presumed life wisdom of the so-much-more-experienced nine year old), often much older kids. The older kids love it, and their abilities are exercised mightily in these interactions. They have to figure out what it is that they understand about the question being raised, and they have to figure out how to make their understanding comprehensible to the younger kids. The same process occurs over and over again in the world at large; this is why it is so important to keep communities multi-aged, and why it is so destructive to learning, and to the development of culture in general, to segregate certain ages (children, old people) from others.

What went on in the one-room schoolhouse is much like what I have been talking about. In fact, I am not sure that the adult teacher in the one-room schoolhouse was always viewed as the best authority on any given subject! Long ago, I had an experience that illustrates that point perfectly. When our oldest son was eight years old, he hung around (and virtually worshiped) a very brilliant 13-year-old named Ernie, who loved science. Our son was curious about everything in the world. One day he asked me to explain some physical phenomenon that lay within the realm of what we have come to call "physics"; being a former professor of physics, I was considered a reasonable person to ask. So, I gave him an answer -- the "right" answer, the one he would have found in books. He was greatly annoyed. "That's not right!" he shouted, and when I expressed surprise at his response, and asked him why he would say so, his answer was immediate: "Ernie said so and so, which is totally different, and Ernie knows." It was an enlightening and delightful experience for me. It was clear that his faith in Ernie had been developed over a long time, from long experience with Ernie's unfailing ability to build a bridge between their minds -- perhaps more successfully, at least in certain areas, than I had been.

One might wonder how on earth learning came to be seen primarily a result of teaching. Until quite recently, the world's great teachers were understood to be people who had something fresh to say about something to people who were interested in hearing their message. Moses, Socrates, Aristotle, Jesus -- these were people who had original insights, and people came from far and wide to find out what those insights were. One can see most clearly in Plato's dialogues that people did not come to Socrates to "learn philosophy," but rather to hear Socrates' version of philosophy (and his wicked and witty attacks on other people's versions), just as they went to other philosophers to hear (and learn) their versions. In other words, teaching was understood as public exposure of an individual's perspective, which anyone could take or leave, depending on whether they cared about it.

No one in his right mind thought that the only way you could become a philosopher was by taking a course from one of those guys. On the contrary, you were expected to come up with your own original worldview if you aspired to the title of philosopher. This was true of any and every aspect of knowledge; you figured out how to learn it, and you exposed yourself to people who were willing to make their understanding public if you thought it could be a worthwhile part of your endeavor. That is the basis for the formation of universities in the Middle Ages -- places where thinkers were willing to spend their time making their thoughts public. The only ones who got to stay were the ones whom other people ("students") found relevant enough to their own personal quests to make listening to them worthwhile.

By the way, this attitude toward teaching has not disappeared. When quantum theory was being developed in the second quarter of the twentieth century, aspiring atomic physicists traveled to the various places where different theorists were developing their thoughts, often in radically different directions. Students traveled to Bohr's institute to find out how he viewed quantum theory, then to Heisenberg, to Einstein, to Schrodinger, to Dirac, and so on. What was true of physics was equally true of art, architecture...you name it. It is still true today. One does not go to Pei to learn "architecture"; one goes to learn how he does it -- that is, to see him "teach" by telling and showing you his approach. Schools should enable people to go where they want to go, not where others want them to.

Malaise of Mass Education

The trouble began when mass education was introduced. It was necessary

• To decide what skills and knowledge everyone has to have to be a productive citizen of a developed country in the industrial age

• To make sure the way this information is defined and standardized, to fit into the standardization required by the industrial culture

• To develop the means of describing and communicating the standardized information (textbooks, curricula)

• To train people to comprehend the standardized material and master the means of transmitting it (teacher training, pedagogy)

• To create places where the trainees (children) and the trainers (unfortunately called teachers, which gives them a status they do not deserve) can meet -- so-called schools (again a term stolen from a much different milieu, endowing these new institutions with a dignity they also do not deserve)

• And, to provide the coercive backing necessary to carry out this major cultural and social upheaval

In keeping with all historic attempts to revolutionize the social order, the elite leaders who formulated the strategy, and those who implemented it, perverted the language, using terms that had attracted a great deal of respect in new ways that turned their meanings upside down, but helped make the new order palatable to a public that didn't quite catch on. Every word -- teacher, student, school, discipline, and so on -- took on meanings diametrically opposed to what they had originally meant.

Consider this one example from my recent experience. I attended a conference of school counselors, where the latest ideas in the realm of student counseling were being presented. I went to a session on the development of self-discipline and responsibility, wondering what these concepts mean to people embedded in traditional schooling. To me, self-discipline means the ability to pursue one's goals without outside coercion; responsibility means taking appropriate action on one's own initiative, without being goaded by others. To the people presenting the session, both concepts had to do solely with the child's ability to do his or her assigned class work. They explained that a guidance counselor's proper function was to get students to understand that responsible behavior meant doing their homework in a timely and effective manner, as prescribed, and self-discipline meant the determination to get that homework done. George Orwell was winking in the back of the room.

Today, there are two worlds that use the word education with opposite meanings: one world consists of the schools and colleges (and even graduate schools) of our education complex, in which standardization prevails. In that world, an industrial training mega-structure strives to turn out identical replicas of a product called "people educated for the twenty-first century"; the second is the world of information, knowledge, and wisdom, in which the realpopulation of the world resides when not incarcerated in schools. In that world, learning takes place like it always did, and teaching consists of imparting one's wisdom, among other things, to voluntary listeners.

http://knowledge-stage.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2032&specialid=80

The beauty of Goldman - Big Profits, Big Questions

AT its nadir last November, Goldman Sachs’s share price closed at $52, nearly 80 percent below its high of around $250. By then, many of its chief competitors — Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and UBS — were dead or shadows of their former selves. Even Morgan Stanley, long considered Goldman’s archrival, had nearly died. But somehow, less than five months later, on the heels of a surprisingly profitable first quarter of fiscal 2009, Goldman Sachs is once again riding high, with its stock closing Tuesday at $115 a share

The question many Wall Streeters are asking is just how Goldman once again snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Many point to Goldman’s expert manipulation of the levers of power in Washington. Since Robert Rubin, its former chairman, joined the Clinton administration in 1993, first as the director of the National Economic Council and then as Treasury secretary, the firm has come to be known, as a headline in this newspaper last October put it, as “Government Sachs.”

How can one ignore, the conspiracy-minded say, the crucial role that Henry Paulson, who followed Mr. Rubin to the top at both Goldman and Treasury, played in the decisions to shutter Bear Stearns, to force Lehman Brothers to file for bankruptcy and to insist that Bank of America buy Merrill Lynch at an inflated price? David Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, acknowledged in a conference call yesterday the important role the changed competitive landscape had on Goldman’s unexpected first-quarter profit of $1.8 billion: “Many of our traditional competitors have retreated from the marketplace, either due to financial distress, mergers or shift in strategic priorities.”

But he was largely mum on American International Group, which, Goldman’s critics insist, is the canvas upon which the bank and its alumni have painted their great masterpiece of self-interest. A few days after Mr. Paulson refused to save Lehman Brothers last September — at a cost of a mere $45 billion or so — he came to A.I.G.’s rescue, to the tune of $170 billion and rising. Then he decided to install Edward Liddy — a former Goldman Sachs board member — as A.I.G.’s chief executive. Goldman has since received some $13 billion in cash, collateral and other payouts from A.I.G. — that is, from taxpayers.

Why kill Lehman and save A.I.G.? The theory, we now know, was that the government felt it needed to save the firms, including Goldman Sachs, that had insured many of their risky ventures through the insurer. Indeed, had Mr. Paulson decided not to save A.I.G., its counterparties would have suffered serious losses. Lehman’s creditors will be lucky to get back pennies on the dollar.

In a conference call he held last month, Mr. Viniar made the shocking claim that Goldman “had no material exposure to A.I.G.” because the firm had “collateral and market hedges in order to protect ourselves.” If so, then why did Goldman need the government’s help in the first place? During yesterday’s conference call, Guy Moszkowski, an analyst from Merrill Lynch, asked Mr. Viniar what role the $13 billion Goldman has collected from A.I.G. had on its first-quarter showing. But Mr. Viniar would have none of it: Profits “related to A.I.G. in the first quarter rounded to zero.” Hmm, how then did Goldman make so much money if that multibillion-dollar gift from you and me had nothing to do with it?

Part of the answer lies in a little sleight of hand. One consequence of Goldman’s becoming a bank holding company last year was that it had to switch its fiscal year to the calendar year. Previously, Goldman’s fiscal year had ended on Nov. 30. Now it ends Dec. 31.

As a result, December 2008 was not included in Goldman’s rosy first-quarter 2009 numbers. In that month, Goldman lost a little more than $1 billion, after a $1 billion writedown related to “non-investment-grade credit origination activities” and a further $625 million related to commercial real estate loans and securities. All told, in the last seven months, Goldman has lost $1.5 billion. But that number didn’t come up on Monday. How convenient.

Which leaves us with the real reason Goldman has cleaned up this year: the huge misfortunes of its major competitors. Those other firms have disappeared or have become severely wounded, and as a result have more or less been sitting on their collective hands since the collapse of Lehman last September.

As part of its busy day on Monday, Goldman also announced it was raising $5 billion of equity capital and that it intended to pay back the $10 billion from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program that Mr. Paulson forced on the bank last October. Being free of the TARP yoke will give Goldman yet another competitive advantage: the ability to pay its own top talent and new recruits whatever it wants without government scrutiny.

This is significant, since it is unlikely any of Goldman’s remaining competitors will be able to make a similar move anytime soon. There is a reason Bill Gates once said Microsoft’s biggest competitor was Goldman Sachs. “It’s all about I.Q.,” Mr. Gates said. “You win with I.Q. Our only competition for I.Q. is the top investment banks.” And then there was one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/opinion/15cohan.html

A Prisoner Driven by A Dream

I would like to share a very special letter that I received a few months ago. It is a very special letter because it was sent to me by Mohamad Ali, who is currently serving time at the Tanah Merah prison in Singapore.

In the letter he writes that has read my books (‘Secrets of Self Made Millionaires’, ‘Master Your Mind, Design Your Destiny’ and ‘Secrets of Millionaire Investors’) from the prison library. Incidentally, I found out from another inmate that there is a 3 month waiting list for my books (esp. I Am Gifted, So Are You!) in the prison. So recently, I donated a a couple of books to the prison department. My trainers also had the chance to go to the Singapore Prison Schools to teach the inmates NLP and to give them the skills to achieve good results for their ‘O’ Levels.

In the letter, Mohamad Ali says that he has been extremely inspired by what he has read and it has given him a strong sense of purpose to rebuild his life once he is released. He has set his goal to attend the Patterns of Excellence Programme and Wealth Academy. When he gets out. I am deeply touched by what I read. I wish Mohamed Ali all the best and look forward to meeting him when he is released.

http://www.adam-khoo.com/193/a-prisoner-driven-by-a-dream/

NGUYỄN TRẦN BẠT - Tôi không dám nghĩ mình là thầy của bất kỳ ai

Đang ngồi ghế quyền chủ nhiệm một bộ môn nghiên cứu khoa học tại Viện Khoa học Công nghệ Giao thông Vận tải, đâu là lý do khiến ông rời bỏ môi trường nhà nước vào năm 1984 - thời điểm trước khi đất nước tiến hành đổi mới?

- Sai lầm lớn nhất của chúng ta là không có môi trường bên ngoài Nhà nước. Nói một cách chữ nghĩa là không có xã hội dân sự. Khi nào mà ánh sáng của Nhà nước phủ lên mọi ngõ ngách của đời sống thì xã hội không thể phát triển một cách bình thản được. Cần phải có những khu vực không có sự hiện diện của Nhà nước. Nhà nước luôn luôn phải tự vấn rằng liệu sự có mặt của mình tại một khu vực nào đó, vào một thời điểm nào đó có cần thiết hay không. Nhận ra lúc mình không cần thiết là một biểu hiện của sự thông thái. Cũng giống như một người cha thấy con trai mình đang ôm bạn gái thì phải biết tránh đi.

Có thể nói, từ một nhà nghiên cứu khoa học cầu đường dân sự, rồi chuyển sang kinh doanh là vì tôi không muốn chịu khổ nhưng lại không có khả năng tham nhũng.

Để tham nhũng được cũng cần phải có những điều kiện?

- Khi rời khỏi khu vực công, tôi là một quan chức tương đương cấp vụ. Nếu ở lại, tiếp tục phấn đấu thì có thể tôi cũng sẽ có điều kiện nào đó để làm quan chẳng hạn. Tôi nghĩ rằng khi làm quan chức, nếu không biết tận dụng lợi thế của mình thì sẽ rất nghèo. Cũng bởi cái nghèo mà tôi đã mất con gái đầu lòng. Con gái tôi bị bệnh bạch cầu. Giá một ca phẫu thuật ở nước ngoài lúc đó khoảng 30 ngàn USD - một khoản tiền mà có nằm mơ tôi cũng không nghĩ đến. Tôi không cam chịu nghèo nên tôi phải tìm ra bên ngoài để làm kinh doanh. Nhưng với tư cách là một người đã từng làm khoa học, tôi không muốn làm kinh doanh thông thường như mua đi bán lại, mua đắt bán rẻ vì nó không phải là ưu thế mà tôi có, nên tôi kinh doanh các dịch vụ có chất lượng khoa học, đó là nghiên cứu về vấn đề chuyển giao công nghệ, cung cấp các dịch vụ luật sư đảm bảo chất lượng hợp lý cho các hành vi kinh doanh. Tất cả những dịch vụ ấy, trong một chừng mực nào đó đều đòi hỏi vốn hiểu biết và sự nghiên cứu. Tôi đã bắt đầu nghiên cứu xây dựng loại hình công ty như thế từ năm 1984 và đến năm 1987 khi đất nước mở cửa, đổi mới thì tôi lập công ty Investip, thuộc Bộ Khoa học Công nghệ. Tuy nhiên, vì muốn hoạt động tư nhân và muốn rành mạch trong quan hệ với nhà nước nên năm 1991, tôi tách ra và thành lập InvestConsult Group.

Năm 1987, chúng ta chưa có Luật Doanh nghiệp. Việc ông lập công ty phải chăng là một sự mạo hiểm?

- Trước khi mở công ty, tôi đã dành ra khoảng mười năm để nghiên cứu về nó. Việc mở công ty bây giờ là chuyện bình thường, nhưng vào thời điểm những năm 1980, công ty là một khái niệm hoàn toàn mới mẻ đối với người Việt. Vào những năm ấy, những giáo trình về kinh tế học phi xã hội chủ nghĩa ở Việt Nam rất hiếm, không được lưu hành phổ biến, công khai. Ví dụ giáo trình Kinh tế học của giáo sư Paul Adam Samuelson, được cơ quan kinh tế của Bộ Ngoại giao dịch và chỉ được lưu hành trong một vài cơ quan và trường đại học có liên quan đến kinh tế. Các bạn biết rằng, truyền bá những kiến thức kinh tế học phi xã hội chủ nghĩa vào thời điểm ấy đòi hỏi phải có một sự dũng cảm ghê gớm và nó cũng vượt quá khả năng hiểu biết của người Việt vào thời điểm ấy.

Dám tiếp cận những tài liệu đó cũng có thể được xem là một sự dũng cảm?

- Tôi chỉ là người điếc không sợ súng. Khi tôi mở công ty, cậu em tôi đang là trưởng phòng trong một công ty của Ban Tài chính Quản trị TP. Hồ Chí Minh và đang phấn đấu để lên phó giám đốc. Tôi nói với cậu ấy rằng hãy từ bỏ vị trí đó, đi theo tôi. Cậu ấy hỏi: Theo anh rồi làm gì? Tôi trả lời: làm gì thì chưa biết nhưng chắc chắn không chết được. Đến bây giờ thì cậu ấy cũng đã có một số thành tựu trong cuộc đời của cậu ấy và một tương lai tốt. Để rủ được những người khác theo mình vào giai đoạn đầu tiên như vậy, buộc phải có nhân cách. Nhân cách không chỉ là một phẩm hạnh mà còn là vốn liếng của những người muốn có sự nghiệp. Những người nào muốn có sự nghiệp mà sự nghiệp ấy không bị tương lai đem ra chế giễu thì người đó buộc phải bắt đầu nó bằng nhân cách, bằng phẩm hạnh.

Trong số những người đi theo ông từ những ngày đầu, đã có những người ra đi, chẳng hạn như trường hợp chị Đàm Bích Thủy, Tổng Giám đốc Ngân hàng ANZ Việt Nam. Ông có tiếc không?

- Chị Thủy có bay lên Sao Hỏa đâu. Sự thành đạt của các đồng nghiệp là những tấm huân chương gắn lên ngực áo nhà quản trị. Tôi có một may mắn là đến giờ này vẫn chưa có một quả thối nào rơi từ cành cây Nguyễn Trần Bạt. Chị Thuỷ tốt nghiệp trường Cao đẳng sư phạm Hà Nội, khoa Tiếng Anh và chị ấy hoàn thiện chương trình đại học của mình theo chế độ học thêm tại chức. Ngành học của chị ấy không hề liên quan gì đến tài chính, không hề liên quan gì đến luật pháp, không hề liên quan gì đến kinh doanh cả nhưng bây giờ chị ấy là người đứng đầu một tổ chức kinh doanh, một loại hình kinh doanh khó nhất trong các ngành kinh doanh là kinh doanh ngân hàng. Tôi không tạo ra khả năng của chị Thuỷ nhưng tôi khích lệ khả năng ấy. Tôi không dạy chị ấy được một chút kiến thức nào về chuyện ấy nhưng tôi thổi vào đời sống tinh thần của chị ấy cái khát vọng trở thành một người như thế và tôi tự hào về điều đó.

Kinh tế suy thoái đang khiến cho rất nhiều các doanh nghiệp gặp khó khăn. Nhưng có vẻ như các công ty tư vấn vẫn đang “chạy” khá ổn bởi kinh tế lên hay xuống cũng đều tạo ra việc làm?

- Nói một cách hình tượng thì ngày xưa, chỉ cần bắt một con ếch là đủ nấu một bữa cỗ. Bây giờ, kinh tế suy thoái, ếch gầy, để nấu được một bữa cỗ, chúng tôi phải bắt hai con. Công việc có vất vả hơn một chút nhưng công nghệ bắt ếch thì vẫn không thay đổi.

Trong cuốn sách Văn hoá và Con người, ông có nói rằng “mỗi thế hệ phải làm cho thế hệ sau tốt hơn”. Khoảng cách giữa nói và làm cách nhau bao xa, thưa ông?

- Tôi không nói to chuyện ấy ra một cách chủ động, nhưng khi tôi viết sách là khi tôi trả lời các câu hỏi của cuộc đời thì tôi nói. Tôi nghĩ rằng, tôi luôn luôn cố gắng làm đến mức cao nhất khả năng của mình những điều mình nói. Có những vấn đề tôi làm hơn những điều tôi nói, có những vấn đề tôi chưa làm được đến điều tôi nói nhưng tôi cố gắng làm. Tôi có một đồng nghiệp là em trai của một người bạn tôi. Cậu ấy học ở nước ngoài về nhưng vì chưa kiếm được việc làm nên người bạn mang đến gửi gắm cho tôi. Sau này, khi đã trở thành một người giàu có, cậu ấy mới nói với tôi rằng lúc đầu em đi theo anh chỉ vì mong muốn mua được một căn hộ để lấy vợ. Bây giờ thì cậu ấy có năm cái villa ở Sài Gòn. Tức là tôi làm được nhiều hơn cái mà người ta kỳ vọng ở tôi và cái mà tôi muốn. Tất nhiên tôi không phải là kẻ từ thiện, tôi chỉ hướng dẫn, cổ vũ, tập hợp để người ta làm thôi, còn những thành quả ấy vẫn là lao động của người ta. Tôi không chiếm dụng giá trị tinh thần lao động của người khác để nói cho mình, nhưng phải nói rằng những người tài hoa trong số họ đã đạt được những cái thậm chí lớn hơn cái động cơ ban đầu của họ khi họ hợp tác với tôi.

Và ông cũng giàu có hơn?

- Đương nhiên. Cái khó với tôi không phải là giàu có, mà là giữ được những giá trị của mình ngay cả khi đã trở nên giàu có. Tôi có thừa trí khôn để có thể kiếm được rất nhiều tiền từ thị trường chứng khoán, nhưng tôi không tham gia. Từ những năm 1989 tôi đã tổ chức hội thảo bàn về thị trường chứng khoán tại Sài Gòn. Lúc đó tôi bị ông Võ Văn Kiệt khiển trách. Có những người tỏ ra khó chịu về chuyện đó, xúi tôi làm chuyện nọ chuyện kia, nhưng tôi chỉ cười và nói: Ở đời, có mấy người được vua nện cho một gậy. Hơn thế, đó lại là vị vua mà mình yêu mến.

Đó là một phép thắng lợi tinh thần?

- Tôi là người không bao giờ để bụng. Không tự giam hãm mình vào sự thù hận là nguyên tắc số một của tôi. Lòng căm thù có thể là vũ khí tạo ra chiến thắng, nhưng không tạo ra hạnh phúc.

Vậy thì, với ông, cái gì tạo ra hạnh phúc?

- Tự do. Tự do với lịch sử của mình, với định kiến của mình, luôn luôn có những năng lực tự giải phóng mình ra khỏi những trạng thái mà ở đó mình không còn nguyên vẹn là một con người nhân hậu. Tự do với bản thân mình khó hơn nhiều so với tự do với Nhà nước. Chỉ cần đi khuất mắt công an là người ta có thể tìm thấy cảm giác tự do với Nhà nước, nhưng có thể ngay trong những giấc ngủ người ta cũng không tìm được tự do đối với bản thân mình, đối với lịch sử hình thành cá nhân mình.

Ngoài việc điều hành kinh doanh, ông còn viết sách. Ông có nghĩ sách của mình khó bán?

- Tôi không viết sách để kiếm tiền. Tôi muốn đóng góp kinh nghiệm của mình với đời sống, con người và đất nước. Ai nhặt được điều gì đó có ích trong những cuốn sách của tôi là quyền của họ. Viết lách là niềm ham thích của tôi, nó là lao động chủ yếu của tôi khi bắt đầu bước sang tuổi 55, sau khi hoàn tất việc cấu trúc công ty. Cho đến năm 2008, tôi đã viết được 8.500 trang. Tôi làm việc cật lực như một người xúc than.


Số lượng không phải bao giờ cũng đồng nghĩa với chất lượng?

- Tôi không chép lại ý kiến của người khác. Tôi chỉ viết ra những điều tôi suy nghĩ. Sai - đúng, hay - dở, chưa biết. Tôi cũng không năn nỉ để được in sách. Tôi gửi bản thảo tới nhà xuất bản, nói với các anh ấy rằng khi nào có điều kiện thì in. Sách của tôi không dễ xin được giấy phép xuất bản. Cũng vì việc in sách mà tôi đã va chạm với Ban Tư tưởng Văn hóa, Hội đồng Lý luận Trung ương. Để được xuất bản, cuốn sách mới nhất của tôi phải được sự thông qua của Chủ tịch Hội Nhà văn Việt Nam.

Trong Bình Ngô Đại Cáo, Nguyễn Trãi viết: “Việc nhân nghĩa cốt ở yên dân”. Còn ông thì cải sửa thành “việc chính trị cốt ở yên dân”?

- Nhân nghĩa là một khía cạnh của chính trị. Tôi nghĩ phải đặt thêm vào câu của Nguyễn Trãi những giá trị mang chất lượng thời đại. Thời của Nguyễn Trãi, nhân nghĩa là chính trị, còn thời của chúng ta, ngoài nhân nghĩa chính trị còn nhiều nội dung khác nữa. Tôi muốn sửa câu ấy nhưng có cùng một mục tiêu là yên dân. Nếu không làm cho dân yên là phi chính trị và không nhân nghĩa.

Theo ông, hiện giờ dân có yên không?

- Không. Dân không yên vì sự vụng về, thiếu tỉnh táo, thiếu cân đối của chính trị. Nhiệm vụ của tôi khi viết sách là cung cấp một số kinh nghiệm để hiểu ý nghĩa của chính trị. Cụ thể là trình bày những cái thuật để người ta tiếp cận với chính trị toàn diện hơn và để đánh giá vai trò yên dân của đời sống chính trị. Tất nhiên, không thể đòi hỏi yên dân ngay. Sự yên dân, hay nghệ thuật yên dân của nhà chính trị gắn liền với những kinh nghiệm, thất bại của họ. Cần có thời gian để thể nghiệm và đo lường chất lượng của các chính sách. Nhà chính trị không mang tiếng là người xấu khi chưa có đủ kinh nghiệm. Nhưng khi có đủ kinh nghiệm để yên dân mà vẫn không xem yên dân là mục tiêu thì họ có lỗi. Lỗi ấy không phải là do học thuật, mà là lỗi đạo đức. Lúc bấy giờ mới quay trở về trạng thái đánh giá của Nguyễn Trãi là không nhân nghĩa. Cho nên câu của Nguyễn Trãi là viết cho một nhà chính trị, còn câu mà tôi bổ sung vào là viết cho một hệ thống chính trị. Tuy nhiên cũng phải nói cho rõ thêm, có những lúc, sự không yên dân là kết quả của sự vụng dại hoặc là sự thiếu đức hạnh của một vài nhà chính trị, nhưng cũng có những lúc, tình thế không tạo ra sự yên ổn của cả nhà chính trị lẫn người dân. Vậy thì chúng ta, khi đánh giá các nhà chính trị, chúng ta phải phân biệt được sự không yên dân nào là lỗi của nhà chính trị, sự không yên dân nào chủ yếu là kết quả của tình thế. Đấy chính là lẽ công bằng của khoa học.

Từ kỹ sư cầu đường, chuyển qua kinh doanh, rồi viết sách. Viết lách có phải là cột mốc cuối cùng trong cuộc đời của ông?

- Công việc sắp tới của tôi là thuyết phục các nhà lãnh đạo về những vấn đề sống còn của đất nước. Tôi không phải là người đối lập, nhưng đem những ý kiến của mình thuyết phục người khác thì tôi làm không mệt mỏi.

Ông có tin rằng mình làm được?

- Tôi chưa bao giờ làm những gì mà mình không tin. Người ta phải có lòng tin vào sự lương thiện của mục đích công việc của mình. Không tin vào chất lượng thiện chí của mình thì sống với ai?

Được biết ông đã có nhiều buổi nói chuyện với sinh viên đại học. Tiếp xúc với đối tượng này, ông suy nghĩ như thế nào về họ?

- Tôi nghĩ cần thực hiện một hoạt động có tính chất quy mô xã hội để giải độc hệ quả của một nền giáo dục mà chúng ta đã có. Tôi cũng là một người cha. Tôi nghĩ cần phải làm thế nào đó để thế hệ trẻ, thế hệ con tôi bước vào cuộc đời với tư cách những người tự do, những người không nhiễm độc, không định kiến, những người có tầm nhìn hình nan quạt chứ không phải cái nhìn trên một đường thẳng. Hiện nay ngành giáo dục đang dạy trẻ con sai. Con cháu chúng ta thi rất giỏi, nhưng làm thì rất kém. Có những người làm rất giỏi nhưng sống thì tồi. Xét cho cùng, mục tiêu của con người là sống chứ không phải làm việc.

Dân gian nói rằng “nhân vô thập toàn”?

- Không. Nhân vô thập toàn là lời than vãn của một dân tộc không có nhân thập toàn. Tôi không tin rằng ở một nước phát triển có câu “nhân vô thập toàn”. Họ có sự khác nhau chứ không phải “vô thập toàn”. Bản thân chữ “vô thập toàn” đã mang tính áp đặt. Vô thập toàn theo tiêu chuẩn nào, ai đặt ra và ai đánh giá sự thập toàn ấy. Tôi không tín nhiệm câu “nhân vô thập toàn”. Tùy thuộc vào năng lực cá nhân mà con người kỳ vọng, mơ đến một cuộc sống có kích thước phù hợp với khả năng của họ. Ham muốn của con người là một đại lượng phát triển, cho nên cái ham muốn của con người cũng biến thiên theo năng lực.

Trong thời gian chờ đợi việc “giải độc cho thế hệ trẻ”, như cách nói của ông, là động cơ khiến ông đưa con trai của mình “di tản giáo dục”?

- Tôi gửi con trai ra nước ngoài du học vì đó là một cơ hội. Bây giờ tôi còn khỏe mạnh, còn kiếm được tiền để lo cho con tôi. Chứ tôi không nghĩ đi du học nước ngoài thì sẽ tốt hơn. Cuộc sống cũng là một trường học.

Có vẻ như cuộc sống dạy cho ông nhiều hơn giảng đường?

- Không. Trút lên vai giảng đường trách nhiệm phải dạy tất cả những gì cuộc sống cần là sự áp đặt ngốc nghếch. Trường học không có nghĩa vụ dạy cho học trò tất cả mọi thứ. Trường học chỉ là nơi hướng dẫn phương pháp, cung cấp cho các em kiến thức để có thể hành nghề trong giai đoạn đầu vào đời. Chính vì hy vọng trường học là nơi cung cấp mọi thứ mà cuộc sống cần nên người ta mới nhồi nhét. Tôi nghĩ những người nào đến 40 tuổi mà vẫn sống bằng kiến thức ở trong trường học thì không có giá trị phát triển. Sự học được ở ngoài đời nhiều hơn ở trường học là một nguyên lý chứ không phải là một thực tế. Tôi biết có rất nhiều người vẫn không ra khỏi được chương trình giáo khoa trong quá khứ. Trong buổi nói chuyện với sinh viên trường Đại học Kinh tế Quốc dân, tôi có nói một câu như thế này: "Trở thành nô lệ tuyệt đối cho những điều mình học thì học tập là một quá trình tự tàn sát mình". Nhà trường phải dạy trẻ em cách ra khỏi sách giáo khoa.

Thời gian còn làm việc ở Bộ Khoa học Công nghệ, tôi được giao nhiệm vụ phụ trách một công trình xây dựng. Do có một cải tiến buộc phải tranh luận trong thời gian thi công, người ta mời một người thầy đã từng dạy tôi 20 năm về trước đến thẩm định. Khi tôi bảo vệ ý kiến của mình, ông ấy nói: “Anh Bạt, hình như anh là học trò của tôi?”. Tôi trả lời: “Thưa anh, đúng. Tôi đã từng là học trò của anh. Những người dạy học trò mà hai mươi năm sau vẫn nghĩ rằng mình là thầy của những người học trò ấy thì đấy là những người thầy tồi”. Hạnh phúc của những người thầy là có những người học trò mà mình có thể ngưỡng mộ được. Không có một người nào lại tự hào rằng mình cao hơn cái cây mình trồng. Cái cây phải cao hơn người trồng và sự chênh lệch về chiều cao này càng lớn thì người trồng càng hạnh phúc. Chúng ta có ít những người thầy tự hào về điều ấy và đó chính là nỗi bất hạnh của nền giáo dục chúng ta.

Ông có đi dạy không?

- Tôi không đi dạy một cách chính thức. Hồi ở viện, tôi có tham gia một số chương trình đào tạo của những trường đại học có ngành liên quan, hướng dẫn sinh viên làm đồ án tốt nghiệp… nói chung là cũng có chút liên quan với việc dạy.

Vậy ông đã có học trò nào mà mình ngưỡng mộ chưa?

- Tôi rất thận trọng khi xếp mình vào vị trí của người thầy. Để làm thầy, con người ta phải có một sự cố gắng vô cùng lớn lao. Tôi không may mắn có học trò. Tôi không nhận ai là học trò của tôi cả.


Đó là một cách nói?

- Không phải. Đó là một cách nghĩ. Tôi cho rằng người thầy là người tạo ra giá trị gia tăng của trí tuệ của người học trò. Nếu chỉ dạy những điều trong sách giáo khoa, trong những quyến sách mình đã đọc thì chưa phải là thầy. Tại sao ở phương Tây, phần lớn các viện nghiên cứu đều nằm trong các trường đại học?

Nghiên cứu khoa học là nhiệm vụ của người đi dạy. Qua nghiên cứu người thầy mới tạo ra giá trị gia tăng của trí tuệ của mình và từ đó mới có khả năng tạo ra giá trị gia tăng của trí tuệ học trò của mình. Một bài giảng năm nay cũng giống như năm ngoái nghĩa là không tạo ra giá trị gia tăng, và như thế là rao giảng chứ không phải đi dạy. Tôi không dám nghĩ mình là thầy của bất kỳ ai. Tôi chỉ là đồng nghiệp của những người yêu khoa học.

Doanh nhân Sài Gòn cuối tuần

Destiny, Fate or Just Random Events?

This morning I read a very sad tale in the newspapers about a maid who was not paid by her Singaporean employer for six years! She was not allowed to go out or call back home so much so that her relatives thought that she had gone missing. Thankfully that B*tch employer was charged in court and the maid was paid $20K in back pay. When asked why she did not report her plight, the maid simply said that she was afraid of her employer and that she believed that not being paid WAS JUST HER FATE.

FATE

I believe this notion of FATE is what keeps many people from changing their lives for the better and turning their fortunes around. By saying FATE, it removes all sense of control, power and responsibility from yourself as it is not your fault but just meant to be. When you believe in fate, it means that you have absolutely no control over the outcomes in your life. It is just meant to be. If you are fated to be rich, then no matter how lazy you are and whatever you do, you will end up rich. If you are fated to be poor, then you are damned, no matter what you do. No matter how how hard you work, it will all be taken away This is why some people remain in abusive relationships, remain poor, remain depressed etc…

DESTINY

I don’t know about you, but I believe in DESTINY,which is entirely different. I believe that God loves all of his creations (this is true in almost any religion) and created every individual with unique gifts, talents and interests to make a huge contribution to the world. I believe within all of us lies a power to be great, its just that many people never make full use of their amazing potential. Some people are destined to be great singers, some people destined to be great communicators, some people destined to be great inventors…all of us are destined to be great in something.

The difference between destiny and fate is that in fate, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. In destiny, you HAVE A CHOICE. You can CHOOSE to make full use of your God given talents or CHOOSE to walk away and give up. LIke Frodo (in Lord of the Rings) was destined to destroy the Ring of Power, but always had a choice to give up at any time or to fulfill his destiny.

The trouble is that many people never find their path (i.e. destiny). They make decisions based on other people’s expectations (e.g. parents or teachers tell them to be lawyers, doctors, engineers when they have absolutely no interest, whereas their passion and gifts lie in drawing or sports). Like I said, all of us are destined to be magnificent in a particular area. And God has given us clues based on our interests, talents and passions.

I believe that I was destined to do what I am doing now, to be put on earth and inspire and change the lives of millions. In other words, by destiny is to be a TEACHER OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT. It is this belief in a spiritual plan that has gotten me through my most painful times and is what is guiding me everyday today. For example, I used to ask myself why I did so badly earlier in my life and went through some hardships. Why did I get expelled in Primary 3? Why did my parents divorce? Why did I screw up my Primary 6 PSLE exams? Why was I bullied in school? Why did my interior design business go bankrupt? Why did my ex-partner play me out? Why did I lose $30,000 in the stock market when I was in the university? Now, looking back, it is clear that all HAPPENED FOR A REASON. It was to teach me the lessons I need to walk my path. If I did not screw up my school life, I would never have read about NLP and accelerated learning that I now used to change my own life and other people’s lives.

If I did not fail in my business and lose money in stocks, I would never have had the hunger and drive to master these wealth building tools and create Wealth Academy and all these best selling books. If I did not go to a neighborhood school and mix around with the ahbengs and gangsters, I would not understand and be able to help some of these tough and wayward kids that come to my program today. Yes, it was destiny. But the, it is NOT FATE. I could have chosen to NOT to read all the NLP books, I could have chosen to blame the world, I could have chosen to become an Ah beng myself and I could have chosen to give up.

I hope by reading this, you will begin to find your path and your destiny of greatness and see all bad things that happen and part of the training to help you tap into your best and to make your mark in this world. In fact, this is precisely what we do in my live PATTERNS OF EXCELLENCE program that I run in Jakarta and Singapore. We teach people how to discover and design their destiny and bring out the very best within themselves.

Quote: “You were meant for greatness. When you play small with your life, you dishonor not only yourself but God who created you”. I read this in a book, forgot which one, but sums up what I was MEANT to say

http://www.adam-khoo.com/139/destiny-fate-or-just-random-events/

Lim Tow Yong - Bankrupt at 72 Years Old, Millionaire Again at 82

(From Adam Khoo's blog)

In this Post, I would like highlight an EXTREMELY inspiring article I read on the Sunday Times (31st October 2006) entitled ‘ 82-year-old Comeback Kid Bounces back from Bankruptcy’.

At the age of 72 years old, Lim Tow Yong was declared a BANKRUPT. The company he founded in the 1960s, Emporium Group Holdings which he built up to a sales revenue of $300 million has been crippled by the recession of the mid-80s and severe competition. His company chalked up debts of over $100 million.

Most people at the age of 72 would either be dead or half-dead. Instead of feeling sorry for himself, he picked himself up decided to START ALL OVER AGAIN at the age of 72. He began going back into the retail business by setting up joint ventures with partners in Sabah, Labuan and Brunei.

Ten years later, at the age of 82, he sold his 17 stores and supermarkets for $4.2 million making him a millionaire all over again! Can you imagine this? I truly salute this man.

So for all those of you who are whining, bitching and complaining that you are too old, too tired and no money to make your millions, then stick this article on your wall and stare at it every single day. Think about it. This man not only started with ZERO, he started with -$XXXX. And at the age of 72, don’t you ever dare tell me that you don’t have more energy than him. These are the stories I read that continue to remind me of the POWER OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT and that everything is possible when you believe in yourself.

Never ever give up. Fight till the very end. I remember watching Rocky (the movie about boxing) whe Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) was being bashed up his stronger opponent. It looked so helpless and it seemed impossible for him to fight back and win.

When he turned to face his coach, his coach Micky shouted to him ‘ I DON’T HEAR NO BELL’. ‘IF I DON’T HEAR NO BELL, THEN YOU KEEP FIGHTING!’ (The Bell signals that the match is over)

So, until you HEAR THE BELL that your life is over and that you are DEAD, you KEEP FIGHTING!

Fear Cannot Not Stop Us From Dying, But it Stop Us From Really Living

http://www.adam-khoo.com/41/bankrupt-at-72-years-old-millionaire-again-at-82/