Passing thought on the development during the day on Lokpal issue
Is there a possibility of filing a PIL in court for establishment of truth on "scientific enquiry into the possibility of Parliament and politicians acting correct to curb Corruption" ? Corruption has been studied as to have originated from "political" grass roots even by the United Nations. Then, another common study is that "election fundings are the door way to corruption". Understanding the implications of these two commonly held view points, what is the scientic possibility of the Parliament and the Politicians passing the right anti-corruption bill?
Philosophical enquiry into the concept of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha
Having pondered over the terms of Popular Choice and the Right Choice over here, I was trying to decipher the philosophical gap between the two houses that Indian Parliament consist of. The System is very much copied from the British Parliament, which houses the House of Commons (the wisdom of popular choice) and the House of Lords (wisdom of right choice).
The Lok Sabha is based on the lines of House of Commons, while the Rajya Sabha is based on House of Lords.
The election procedure of the members of the Lok Sabha, and the selection procedure for members of the Rajya Sabha speak of the difference and highlight at what the two houses are aimed at.
Thus, the collective wisdom of the nation is a combination of the Popular Choice and the Right Choice.
But since both of these, the Popular Choice and the Right Choice, are difficult to be found on any issue, Popular Choice is often deemed as the majoritist view, while the Right Choice is approximated away as the Popular Choice in the absence of a clear knowledge of what is right. Principaly, the Right Thing is always above the Popular thing, which is why Rajya Sabha is also called the Upper house, while populist choice is called Lok Sabha, or the Lower House. And since the populist choice often prevails over the Right Choice, the lower house is supposedly more powerful than the Rajya Sabha.
The unfortunate trend in India is that even the Rajya Sabha has been politicaly taken control of by the populist people. Sane voices have no place to live in this counry.
And then they say, "have faith in Parliament". Large number of people cannot be made to work in unison on the basis of faith, but truth alone. Because each of us have a different belief. "Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram" is the hierarchy of statement. Truth(satyam) is easier to be found in the matters of Logic than in the matters of faith(shivam).
The Lok Sabha is based on the lines of House of Commons, while the Rajya Sabha is based on House of Lords.
The election procedure of the members of the Lok Sabha, and the selection procedure for members of the Rajya Sabha speak of the difference and highlight at what the two houses are aimed at.
Thus, the collective wisdom of the nation is a combination of the Popular Choice and the Right Choice.
But since both of these, the Popular Choice and the Right Choice, are difficult to be found on any issue, Popular Choice is often deemed as the majoritist view, while the Right Choice is approximated away as the Popular Choice in the absence of a clear knowledge of what is right. Principaly, the Right Thing is always above the Popular thing, which is why Rajya Sabha is also called the Upper house, while populist choice is called Lok Sabha, or the Lower House. And since the populist choice often prevails over the Right Choice, the lower house is supposedly more powerful than the Rajya Sabha.
The unfortunate trend in India is that even the Rajya Sabha has been politicaly taken control of by the populist people. Sane voices have no place to live in this counry.
And then they say, "have faith in Parliament". Large number of people cannot be made to work in unison on the basis of faith, but truth alone. Because each of us have a different belief. "Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram" is the hierarchy of statement. Truth(satyam) is easier to be found in the matters of Logic than in the matters of faith(shivam).
Right Choice and Popular choice democracy
Popular choice and Right choice are two different things. Popularism (aka जनमत/बहुमत) may not be the right (धर्म-संगत) thing. When people of free-will meet, they each have different beliefs. For a community to happen with people of different beliefs, Right path has to be explored which they each voluntarily agree to abide. In non-violent and civil methods, this is done through शास्त्रार्थ/ or the .........Debates and Dialectics (thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis). That is how wisdom is propounded. That is the job of Parliament. Further, specialisation has to harped in to convert a personalo-logic thing to a natural-standard item to overcome the problem of varying beliefs of people. Like, a kilogram can no longer be defined as weigth equal to that of gold bar kept in London Museum. a kilogram, now is weight defined in terms of Carbon atoms. In the last resort, Right path is approxmated away as the Reason-ified path, where the final reason of choice is stated away with room left for adopting new reasons if and when found. Right choice can be approximated as the Polular choice when all the options at the disposal are right enough to be not dismissed out.
Above Lokpal, do you need a Dharampal, if the Lokpal falters??
My friend asked me this question in his stand to oppose Team Anna and their Lokpal issue. Here is the orignal conversation which broke out between me and my friend on Facebook.
Manish Singh:
The basic reasoning why the role of Civil Society Organizations for Erradication of corruption has been prompted by even the United Nations is that corruption globally is of 'Political' Base. it is obvious that most politicians will vehemently deny this and say 'all politicians are not corrupt', much the same way Pakistan responds the the charge of terrorism.
Do people believe Parliament is going to pass the right Lokpal Bill on it's own ? I see the Lokpal battle go the long way as the freedom struggle did.
Vineet Dubey:
why do we need lokpal in the first place? And if the Lokpal gets corrupt would you want to get Dharampal?
Manish Singh :
Vineet Dubey, Bro, I know you are still our History and Civics teacher's mistake, like I was until job-ex taught me that Corruption in India is SYSTEMIC..it was a nice and good word to study in one letter from CMD of SCI. Lokpal could also get corrupt, but to prevent that, a design correction can be applied at policy-framework itself. Transparency principles, and "Dharmapal" effect through means of 'constant conflict between two independent bodies can make Lokpal himself a "dharampal" body. You see, the system of Checks and Balances in a Democratic setup can work only through seeking the path of righteousness, the Dharam, other wise any Democratic Society will meet it's natural death valley. Dharma , or Righteousnes, is searched in the battlefield when two parties war with each other. And two parties get into a genuine war only when they are truely separate. In an eyewash system, the Ruling and Opposition are suppose to be doing this war. But what if at some issue both , the ruling and opposition, become joint. In such case, the system designers of Democracy thought of separating Judiciary, Executive and Legislator. In India, one technical blunder has happened in that Legislator has succeeded in taking control of everything, as the Rank of President is a titular head, appointed through a collegiate of the Legislators, "the politicians"; the Judiciary is recommended-appointed by the legislator,"the politicians"; and the executive heads of all the departments are the legislators"the politicans", in their avtars as the Ministers.In the original British design which we copy, the difference of Republicanism and Monarchy makes the difference. So either we switch to the Presidential Form Design.
Or, make the Gandhi family the monarchs of India, and separate them from Parliament and from contesting elections. and then raise the issue of political Corruption with the monarch-- I guess an Ombudsman will be installed. Monarchy has ensured that this systemic Independence is achieved thoroughly. In India, the constitution has provided for Independence of the Ranks of Election Commission, the CAG, and the body of UPSC--but to the extent of reporting to the head of the state-- the President of India, which is politican-controlled portfolio. CAG has declared a severe loss to exchequer at occasion, but no results have come. The scene is a political equivalent of Jessica Lal Murder, where the murderer is "no-one !!", while a dead body exist died due to shooting in the middle of a party.
and by the way, the Indepedence of these departments has been ensured by the Constitution of India, by directly regulating in the Constituion, thier functions, appoint procedures, salary methods, financing methods, post-retirement procedures, et al. Thus no law of the government can change that, except by a process of constitutional amendment which requires three-fourth majority. In this regard it is noticable that the parliament arranged to make the Election Commission a three-person body after T N Sheshan become the first Election Commsioner to personally enure fair polls. Election Commissioners before him never asserted their "independance characterstic" already given in the constitution. This is quite a knowledge I read when doing B Com from IGNOU, where I picked up Indian Administration as a subject for second year.
And that's what the fight is around, to give Lokpal a "constitutional status", by the ruling Government. believe you me, I am nearly a Congress guy these days, except here when the righteousness call from with is urging me to look for what is right. Since contitution-ising the Lokpal is going to be more challenging with the opposition not helping the each law while apparently support Team Anna "in principle", clearly the Government and the opposition (both in invisible collusion) is attempting yet again evade the task.
Also notice, Kapil Sibal could dare to talk of limiting the functions of CAG, Mr Vinod Rai, after he wrote an audit report on loss worth 1.76 coror to ex-chequer in the 2G/3G loss. This is not in good virtue for a politician, as it disturbs the prevailing checks-and-balance of the Constitution. Kapil could do so because the apperent knowledge of people of India on the Governance System in not up to the mark. Digvijay singh attempts to hogwash the people by rasing question that "DG Audit says loss is worth 2000coror, CAG says loss 1.76 coror--whom to believe? ". The methods of calculation for a speculative loss on a property may be different, but "is it not important that a very significant loss has happened" --someone ask Digvijay. Apparently , Digvijay is also fooling the already unaware citizens. And P Chidambaram is hiding, while A Raja has been booked by CBI which is until now under Supreme Court directions. Will supreme court rule for ever? and will the corruption be only when the thief is caught otherwise no case of theft will be accepted by the people? Can we not repair our governance system to work right way for itself while we each are busy in earning our bread and butter?
Vineet Dubey
Manish Singh, You are as far from logical congruence as i am from dating Deepika Padukone. Dharma is not a war of two parties, Dharma is what you seek within yourself. Raja & Kalmadi are in Jail not because of Lokpal but despite it. Gandhi family has won elections for whatever reasons but this win is not permanent. Nobody can have that guarantee in a democracy.
Vineet Dubey
One of the contentions of the governments is how will a PM defend himself if any frivolous Lokpal prosecute and investigate him. To this a wrong message is being that separation of prosecution and investigation is a Democracy- mandated requirement. But truely, right now too a murder case or a scam case is prosecuted and investigated one body only - the Government. But in truth, such problems can and will be overcome by the design of Lokpal institution which will require to work on transparency principles. The government will anyway have access to all institution to bring evidence in defense of prime minister. Transparency method include date and time logged sequence of events-the log books.
Answer is that
Vineet Dubey
By the nature of your very profession you are groomed to go on long cruise. When you get back to the topic at hand, maybe after 6 months, please do let me know.
Manish Singh
kar di be-izzati. :-)aur kuch nahin mila toh aise hi nipto-- "Aana is RSS man". :P
Manish Singh
Vineet Dubey, Bro, I just figured that u have suffered an IQ problem! In fact, the question for need for a Lokpal has never been cross-examined by anyone from parliament. U may be unique in that. Of the 543 MPs, maybe 500 will agree to need for Lokpal. And infact this need was felt way back in 1960's itself. your cross-question of "why do we need lokpal in the first place? And if the Lokpal gets corrupt would you want to get Dharampal?" , has no significance because this reasoning could anyway be applied to any law-enforcement that the Parliament would have began to ponder from 1960's itself. The cross-examination u pose has be outrightly rejected in order to take the first step towards Corruption prevention. This cross-examination can find relevance only when the design of the ombudsman office whichever is being imagined is not suited enough to achieve its aim.
Vineet Dubey
thats the usual tactics employed by people who lack arguments... circumvention and discredit the messenger. To reply in the language you understand...Manish Singh some of us went to college for graduation and then did post graduation as well. I understand you have not had the opportunity to go to college and your qualification is still 10+2 with some distance learning graduation thrown in... your work ex too kept you away from humanity in the seas for months at stretch.. for your understanding, the argument is not to be put for any law body, the argument is put cause we have enough law enforcement bodies. get back to basics....i put in two simple premises... Civil body to be supreme and segregation of power within the Indian constitution.. Just tell me how does Lokpal guarantee that and i will be with you.
Manish Singh
@Vineet Dubey :The two premise you hold are correct but I think they have less significance to challenge the subject because they are as it is not being infringed. Lokpal will be a civil body in that the highest authority will be 'selected' from a collegiate of people who will, in turn, either be 'elected' or 'selected' or 'publically acredited'. Lokpal will not be a military rank or controller of armed agency- military or police or paramilitary. Investigating power only imply forensic, not law and order control. Neither a secretive control as the design envisages transparency. Further, Lokpal will not be a private institution, but a civil one, as parliament will have power to control finance and removal, - if the Team Anna way , then by simple majority; if the congress way, then by three-fourth majority.
The segregation of power is incidental to any separation of department carried out. Separation may be for 'vastness and Specialisation' purpose, or, 'authoritative take over' of governance. In what way can the Lokpal institution take over government? The judiciary will be independent. Lokpal may sabotage the governance but if the larger section of public feels this, it can anyway be controlled through the parliament. Clean or Dirty MP's, Parliament will exist because elections are under the control of election commission.
the RTI Act has already caused flutter in bureaucrats as they now fear making any entry in any record for the fear of being scrutinized. This fear is being projected in public as 'loss of civil liberty'. But strong Democracys always had RTI equivalents. Are u a taking side of such a propagation?
The civic nature of Lokpal finds no apprehensions otherwise. The 'anshan'-blackmail means of Team Anna is being accused of being undemocratic. Is this situation confusing you to differ A from B.
@Vineet: Please note IQ problems are art type. Any person can suffer them, even if he otherwise have good IQ. My sentence was not aimed to discredit you, but to point to you one observation. Your cross-examination was requiring evaluation in different time and space frames.
Manish Singh
Vineet Dubey: hit it bro! found it why Prosecution and Investigations need to be separated. In case of Grade C employees, say of Passport department, if the PP is not delivered in time, if Citizen 'A' is given to complain the matter to Lokpal, then Lokpal employee 'L' will investigate the PP department employee 'P' . case1: what if the cause of delay is genuine, and employee L is himself corrupt to delay report about P to be made transparent and available to public including citizen A? 'L' may coerce P to bribe him to trouble his future? Case 2: cause of delay not geniune and 'P' shares the bribe received from A with 'L', and in return send report of 'P' as "genuine cause". Who will 'A' go to now? Citizen charter bill has the connection at this point to resolve the tangle.
Manish Singh:
The basic reasoning why the role of Civil Society Organizations for Erradication of corruption has been prompted by even the United Nations is that corruption globally is of 'Political' Base. it is obvious that most politicians will vehemently deny this and say 'all politicians are not corrupt', much the same way Pakistan responds the the charge of terrorism.
Do people believe Parliament is going to pass the right Lokpal Bill on it's own ? I see the Lokpal battle go the long way as the freedom struggle did.
Vineet Dubey:
why do we need lokpal in the first place? And if the Lokpal gets corrupt would you want to get Dharampal?
Manish Singh :
Vineet Dubey, Bro, I know you are still our History and Civics teacher's mistake, like I was until job-ex taught me that Corruption in India is SYSTEMIC..it was a nice and good word to study in one letter from CMD of SCI. Lokpal could also get corrupt, but to prevent that, a design correction can be applied at policy-framework itself. Transparency principles, and "Dharmapal" effect through means of 'constant conflict between two independent bodies can make Lokpal himself a "dharampal" body. You see, the system of Checks and Balances in a Democratic setup can work only through seeking the path of righteousness, the Dharam, other wise any Democratic Society will meet it's natural death valley. Dharma , or Righteousnes, is searched in the battlefield when two parties war with each other. And two parties get into a genuine war only when they are truely separate. In an eyewash system, the Ruling and Opposition are suppose to be doing this war. But what if at some issue both , the ruling and opposition, become joint. In such case, the system designers of Democracy thought of separating Judiciary, Executive and Legislator. In India, one technical blunder has happened in that Legislator has succeeded in taking control of everything, as the Rank of President is a titular head, appointed through a collegiate of the Legislators, "the politicians"; the Judiciary is recommended-appointed by the legislator,"the politicians"; and the executive heads of all the departments are the legislators"the politicans", in their avtars as the Ministers.In the original British design which we copy, the difference of Republicanism and Monarchy makes the difference. So either we switch to the Presidential Form Design.
Or, make the Gandhi family the monarchs of India, and separate them from Parliament and from contesting elections. and then raise the issue of political Corruption with the monarch-- I guess an Ombudsman will be installed. Monarchy has ensured that this systemic Independence is achieved thoroughly. In India, the constitution has provided for Independence of the Ranks of Election Commission, the CAG, and the body of UPSC--but to the extent of reporting to the head of the state-- the President of India, which is politican-controlled portfolio. CAG has declared a severe loss to exchequer at occasion, but no results have come. The scene is a political equivalent of Jessica Lal Murder, where the murderer is "no-one !!", while a dead body exist died due to shooting in the middle of a party.
and by the way, the Indepedence of these departments has been ensured by the Constitution of India, by directly regulating in the Constituion, thier functions, appoint procedures, salary methods, financing methods, post-retirement procedures, et al. Thus no law of the government can change that, except by a process of constitutional amendment which requires three-fourth majority. In this regard it is noticable that the parliament arranged to make the Election Commission a three-person body after T N Sheshan become the first Election Commsioner to personally enure fair polls. Election Commissioners before him never asserted their "independance characterstic" already given in the constitution. This is quite a knowledge I read when doing B Com from IGNOU, where I picked up Indian Administration as a subject for second year.
And that's what the fight is around, to give Lokpal a "constitutional status", by the ruling Government. believe you me, I am nearly a Congress guy these days, except here when the righteousness call from with is urging me to look for what is right. Since contitution-ising the Lokpal is going to be more challenging with the opposition not helping the each law while apparently support Team Anna "in principle", clearly the Government and the opposition (both in invisible collusion) is attempting yet again evade the task.
Also notice, Kapil Sibal could dare to talk of limiting the functions of CAG, Mr Vinod Rai, after he wrote an audit report on loss worth 1.76 coror to ex-chequer in the 2G/3G loss. This is not in good virtue for a politician, as it disturbs the prevailing checks-and-balance of the Constitution. Kapil could do so because the apperent knowledge of people of India on the Governance System in not up to the mark. Digvijay singh attempts to hogwash the people by rasing question that "DG Audit says loss is worth 2000coror, CAG says loss 1.76 coror--whom to believe? ". The methods of calculation for a speculative loss on a property may be different, but "is it not important that a very significant loss has happened" --someone ask Digvijay. Apparently , Digvijay is also fooling the already unaware citizens. And P Chidambaram is hiding, while A Raja has been booked by CBI which is until now under Supreme Court directions. Will supreme court rule for ever? and will the corruption be only when the thief is caught otherwise no case of theft will be accepted by the people? Can we not repair our governance system to work right way for itself while we each are busy in earning our bread and butter?
Vineet Dubey
Manish Singh, You are as far from logical congruence as i am from dating Deepika Padukone. Dharma is not a war of two parties, Dharma is what you seek within yourself. Raja & Kalmadi are in Jail not because of Lokpal but despite it. Gandhi family has won elections for whatever reasons but this win is not permanent. Nobody can have that guarantee in a democracy.
Vineet Dubey
My premise is as simple as the formula of benzene ring; all constitutional bodies should have segregation of power. Any combination of the power to investigate, legislate and prosecute isnt desirable. Second, a civil body should be above al...l constitutional bodies. Anything else is dictatorship and taking away my liberties, which i will never like to happen. I know your kinds believe in divine intervention, a supernormal body to solve our problems but i cant allow a body like Lokpal, which incidentally is more draconian than AFSPA in Kashmir, to be put in place.
Manish Singh
Now there is the war on How is dharma sought. The circumstances of seeking dharma came when self-interest came in conflict with itself. The kingdom or the killing of Bishm Pitamah? In the parliamentary debates, the opposition is also essen...tially our own citizen group while both the parties fight for citizen welfare. That what is truely sought within is awakening-the enlightenment. This enlightenment aides in seeking dharma from within only but the situation for it arises from a conflict - inside or outside.
Important is that dharma-seekers of Public administration, the researchers, have universally agreed to separation of Judiciary, Executive and Legislature; but separation of Prosecution, and Investigation is not essential for democratic preservation purpose. Infact the Karnataka Lokayukta is already vested with the power to investigate and prosecute. The separation of powers to investigate and prosecute is reasoned, if at all adopted by any state, on the vastness and Specialisation required in each of the two fields. This separation is different from the Democracy mandated separation. Lokpal in itself will be another parallel 'executive' only, although a misleading message is being sent that it will be quasi-judiciary. Civilian body anyway is essential to be put above in all the Democracy institutions. I don't believe in devine intervention which is why I am willing to yet again 'heuristically' repair the system , instead of seeing it as a 'vyawastha' which tends to reject idea of change on call from a single person, no matter that single person is right or wrong.
Manish Singh
the above might also draw you to think about and understand what is conflict of interest. It is a good thing to happen truely except when a person has means to avoid the conflict by trying to achieve both of his interest through those means.... We call that corruption. The best idea in this case is to separate away the custodians of those two interests. Laws like to attain this state. Indian laws have made a mistake at this point.
One of the contentions of the governments is how will a PM defend himself if any frivolous Lokpal prosecute and investigate him. To this a wrong message is being that separation of prosecution and investigation is a Democracy- mandated requirement. But truely, right now too a murder case or a scam case is prosecuted and investigated one body only - the Government. But in truth, such problems can and will be overcome by the design of Lokpal institution which will require to work on transparency principles. The government will anyway have access to all institution to bring evidence in defense of prime minister. Transparency method include date and time logged sequence of events-the log books.
Answer is that
Vineet Dubey
By the nature of your very profession you are groomed to go on long cruise. When you get back to the topic at hand, maybe after 6 months, please do let me know.
Manish Singh
kar di be-izzati. :-)aur kuch nahin mila toh aise hi nipto-- "Aana is RSS man". :P
Manish Singh
Vineet Dubey, Bro, I just figured that u have suffered an IQ problem! In fact, the question for need for a Lokpal has never been cross-examined by anyone from parliament. U may be unique in that. Of the 543 MPs, maybe 500 will agree to need for Lokpal. And infact this need was felt way back in 1960's itself. your cross-question of "why do we need lokpal in the first place? And if the Lokpal gets corrupt would you want to get Dharampal?" , has no significance because this reasoning could anyway be applied to any law-enforcement that the Parliament would have began to ponder from 1960's itself. The cross-examination u pose has be outrightly rejected in order to take the first step towards Corruption prevention. This cross-examination can find relevance only when the design of the ombudsman office whichever is being imagined is not suited enough to achieve its aim.
Vineet Dubey
thats the usual tactics employed by people who lack arguments... circumvention and discredit the messenger. To reply in the language you understand...Manish Singh some of us went to college for graduation and then did post graduation as well. I understand you have not had the opportunity to go to college and your qualification is still 10+2 with some distance learning graduation thrown in... your work ex too kept you away from humanity in the seas for months at stretch.. for your understanding, the argument is not to be put for any law body, the argument is put cause we have enough law enforcement bodies. get back to basics....i put in two simple premises... Civil body to be supreme and segregation of power within the Indian constitution.. Just tell me how does Lokpal guarantee that and i will be with you.
Manish Singh
@Vineet Dubey :The two premise you hold are correct but I think they have less significance to challenge the subject because they are as it is not being infringed. Lokpal will be a civil body in that the highest authority will be 'selected' from a collegiate of people who will, in turn, either be 'elected' or 'selected' or 'publically acredited'. Lokpal will not be a military rank or controller of armed agency- military or police or paramilitary. Investigating power only imply forensic, not law and order control. Neither a secretive control as the design envisages transparency. Further, Lokpal will not be a private institution, but a civil one, as parliament will have power to control finance and removal, - if the Team Anna way , then by simple majority; if the congress way, then by three-fourth majority.
The segregation of power is incidental to any separation of department carried out. Separation may be for 'vastness and Specialisation' purpose, or, 'authoritative take over' of governance. In what way can the Lokpal institution take over government? The judiciary will be independent. Lokpal may sabotage the governance but if the larger section of public feels this, it can anyway be controlled through the parliament. Clean or Dirty MP's, Parliament will exist because elections are under the control of election commission.
the RTI Act has already caused flutter in bureaucrats as they now fear making any entry in any record for the fear of being scrutinized. This fear is being projected in public as 'loss of civil liberty'. But strong Democracys always had RTI equivalents. Are u a taking side of such a propagation?
The civic nature of Lokpal finds no apprehensions otherwise. The 'anshan'-blackmail means of Team Anna is being accused of being undemocratic. Is this situation confusing you to differ A from B.
@Vineet: Please note IQ problems are art type. Any person can suffer them, even if he otherwise have good IQ. My sentence was not aimed to discredit you, but to point to you one observation. Your cross-examination was requiring evaluation in different time and space frames.
Manish Singh
Vineet Dubey: hit it bro! found it why Prosecution and Investigations need to be separated. In case of Grade C employees, say of Passport department, if the PP is not delivered in time, if Citizen 'A' is given to complain the matter to Lokpal, then Lokpal employee 'L' will investigate the PP department employee 'P' . case1: what if the cause of delay is genuine, and employee L is himself corrupt to delay report about P to be made transparent and available to public including citizen A? 'L' may coerce P to bribe him to trouble his future? Case 2: cause of delay not geniune and 'P' shares the bribe received from A with 'L', and in return send report of 'P' as "genuine cause". Who will 'A' go to now? Citizen charter bill has the connection at this point to resolve the tangle.
Ships practise to muster at muster station either at lifeboat station first and then proceed to emergency Muster Point for fighting the emergency, or Muster at emergency station first and then proceed to lifeboat for abandoning. Here is the representation of two approaches.
Emergency Muster Station Dilemma -
Emergency Muster Station Dilemma -
Letter to the DPA in regard to style of Management on board ships
Dear Capt Leboffe:
I am writing this mail to express some thoughts I have in my mind after attending the seminar.
I was initially intending to talk to you about my promotion, as to what are the company plans on this. There was a collective meeting organized with all mates, masters, second engineer and chief engineers in a room, which I had also attended. Here is a summary of inferences I could draw up on this meeting and the seminar as a whole .
In the room, the most common question that people sought to know was about the promotion policy and its sincere implementation. Even when already in know of the standard answer of the company, which is ‘three recommendations from three different masters’, I think the more discreet question people wanted to seek was – what?, if the aspirants are finding it hard to obtain the three recommendations.
The appraisal report and system came under scrutiny at this juncture. Some people , particularly old masters, believed that closed appraisal system had more advantage because in the open appraisal system, if there is something critical to be mentioned, the person would plainly refuse to signature them, or in the extreme, may resort to sabotage activity or damaging the master personally, say by dropping his luggage into water when the master is leaving.
As a matter of fact, the aspiring mates like myself had a question to ask: obvious enough, what if the master is not fair in his work, and wants to settle score with the mate for resisting his polices, which the mate would perceive to be unjustified.
I felt for once that the argument had returned to that basic of human nature, where , as a god’s bountiful gift, each human is awarded his own judgment, his own perception. I thought about the evolution of the system of democracy in management over so long years of mankind’s existence, a system most embraced, both in Governance and in Style of leadership, which requires views of all kinds to be accounted in. Was not the closed appraisal system suppression of the views of the Mate, I thought? Was it a still a newer event in the history of sailing, even with case of the famous mutiny on Bounty, to allow master an upper hand before the management? Then why such questions were still not resolved by those old masters, who themselves have been ex-mates? It was resonating in my ears that the ‘seafarer’s worst enemy is an ex-seafarer”.
Incidentally, the master who talked about the closed system of appraisal, (that is, the Confidential Report system) was the same who next day in the seminar inquired about why has Defect Reporting form of the VMCM report put as part of the ISM filing system. His intention to ask the question was clearly that the visiting Surveyors, Vetting Inspectors, could easily find defect with the system using the report which the vessel has itself prepared, and so the defect reporting should be made a confidential form as well.
I wondered at the prevailing ethics and ideologies of the masters on board, quite many of them coming from a less-democratic culture, forget the flawed democracy culture which the general population of people come from. Will it not be natural to have ideological difference with such masters, and they preparing the secret Appraisal Report to play with the promotion possibility of their mate?
Your speech workshop was perhaps also intending to send the same above message, although it ran into vagueness. In the room also you were emphasizing on the people that for a good decision-making, master should take input from everyone, but think for himself before giving his decision.
Last time, during my cross-appraisal by the company, You had given me a piece of advice,—“if you have any issues with the master, do not keep it pending”. Will it be possible to close a pending matter with a master with whom there exist an ideological difference and who would use a confidential report to settle the score, instead of letting the matter of difference be known to mate through an appraisal or a show-cause.
The other concerning talk was about the inaction of the company against the errant crew even when warning letters had been issued. Sir, my belief is that the democratic system which we all humans have arrived at with all consensus, seen in the form of Labour union agreements and so many other Statutory Laws, these all talk of the ‘Show-cause’ and not the ‘Warning Letter’, because the warning letter does not aim to give other an opportunity to present his side of the story.
In short, I feel the Masters and Mate examination courseware had not fully succeeded in achieving its aim of educating harmony to its disciples by practice of the Styles of Leadership, Observance of Ethics, and the laws as a product of natural ethics- the Common Law.
Indeed, the kind of questioning further raised during the course of seminar kept telling of the understanding of Common Law, people and senior masters had.
The use of cadet on board was another very broad example of misunderstanding prevailing among crew due to varied understanding of the common law. On the matter, I would like to point at the company’s circular as well, which un-intentionally, ends up sending a message of what “cannot” be asked of cadet to do. At this point, it reminds me of the critics, who ask of the purposefulness of the legal vocabulary, commonly called the verbose, in making a law. Perhaps, the verbose finds it’s origin in the arguments and misunderstanding we saw in the seminar. The circular , even when very pious in its approach, sends a message that cadet not to used ever for any critical work, which include stations. Maybe the use of ‘verbose’ could have saved the misunderstanding which became the root cause of all the arguments noticeable in the seminar. The STCW Amendment Speaker, Capt Yadav, often talked about the clarifications on various issues to be coming from the IMO, all with the aim of having a unified interpretation. May be, a similar clarification is required for the contentious circular about use of cadets.
Dear sir, in the entire duration, it was noticeable to see people talking of all the good and virtuous things such as Integrity, Honesty, and Transparency. Is it not essential to have staff who personally practiced such a conduct? The test of virtues comes when the harder times arrive. The measure is truly taken in such an hour.
One on-board experience is worth a mention here. Just before a vetting survey, it was found that some engine room checklist were not filled. A retro-dated checklist was prepared and signature by chief mate and chief engineer.
Later, in another event when chief mate refused to prepare a forged paper, the master pressured him by accusing him of having double-standards, and being hypocrite, as he had acceded to the engine room checklist.
The mate however acknowledged that the Engine room checklist was signatured only as a observer to the event, not as an executer. ‘Mate’s concern is mainly with his own department’, thought that mate, and therefore any erroneous act cannot become reason for doing more of other such acts.
The master succumbed to mate’s demand, but secretly bore a grudge. Towards the sign off of mate, he did not prepare the open appraisal, and perhaps sent one secret appraisal after the mate has left. Such is the purpose of secret appraisals.
Sir, until the time a new generation of well-informed cadets comes up to the stage of becoming master, please prevent undoing of the well-found principles of management by ignorance of old style masters; principles which are even though not perfect but still the best to work the most agreeable solution.
Perhaps, this is one good reason why STCW 2010, the Manila Amendments, talks of special and enhanced training in Leadership and management for management level ranks.
I am writing this mail to express some thoughts I have in my mind after attending the seminar.
I was initially intending to talk to you about my promotion, as to what are the company plans on this. There was a collective meeting organized with all mates, masters, second engineer and chief engineers in a room, which I had also attended. Here is a summary of inferences I could draw up on this meeting and the seminar as a whole .
In the room, the most common question that people sought to know was about the promotion policy and its sincere implementation. Even when already in know of the standard answer of the company, which is ‘three recommendations from three different masters’, I think the more discreet question people wanted to seek was – what?, if the aspirants are finding it hard to obtain the three recommendations.
The appraisal report and system came under scrutiny at this juncture. Some people , particularly old masters, believed that closed appraisal system had more advantage because in the open appraisal system, if there is something critical to be mentioned, the person would plainly refuse to signature them, or in the extreme, may resort to sabotage activity or damaging the master personally, say by dropping his luggage into water when the master is leaving.
As a matter of fact, the aspiring mates like myself had a question to ask: obvious enough, what if the master is not fair in his work, and wants to settle score with the mate for resisting his polices, which the mate would perceive to be unjustified.
I felt for once that the argument had returned to that basic of human nature, where , as a god’s bountiful gift, each human is awarded his own judgment, his own perception. I thought about the evolution of the system of democracy in management over so long years of mankind’s existence, a system most embraced, both in Governance and in Style of leadership, which requires views of all kinds to be accounted in. Was not the closed appraisal system suppression of the views of the Mate, I thought? Was it a still a newer event in the history of sailing, even with case of the famous mutiny on Bounty, to allow master an upper hand before the management? Then why such questions were still not resolved by those old masters, who themselves have been ex-mates? It was resonating in my ears that the ‘seafarer’s worst enemy is an ex-seafarer”.
Incidentally, the master who talked about the closed system of appraisal, (that is, the Confidential Report system) was the same who next day in the seminar inquired about why has Defect Reporting form of the VMCM report put as part of the ISM filing system. His intention to ask the question was clearly that the visiting Surveyors, Vetting Inspectors, could easily find defect with the system using the report which the vessel has itself prepared, and so the defect reporting should be made a confidential form as well.
I wondered at the prevailing ethics and ideologies of the masters on board, quite many of them coming from a less-democratic culture, forget the flawed democracy culture which the general population of people come from. Will it not be natural to have ideological difference with such masters, and they preparing the secret Appraisal Report to play with the promotion possibility of their mate?
Your speech workshop was perhaps also intending to send the same above message, although it ran into vagueness. In the room also you were emphasizing on the people that for a good decision-making, master should take input from everyone, but think for himself before giving his decision.
Last time, during my cross-appraisal by the company, You had given me a piece of advice,—“if you have any issues with the master, do not keep it pending”. Will it be possible to close a pending matter with a master with whom there exist an ideological difference and who would use a confidential report to settle the score, instead of letting the matter of difference be known to mate through an appraisal or a show-cause.
The other concerning talk was about the inaction of the company against the errant crew even when warning letters had been issued. Sir, my belief is that the democratic system which we all humans have arrived at with all consensus, seen in the form of Labour union agreements and so many other Statutory Laws, these all talk of the ‘Show-cause’ and not the ‘Warning Letter’, because the warning letter does not aim to give other an opportunity to present his side of the story.
In short, I feel the Masters and Mate examination courseware had not fully succeeded in achieving its aim of educating harmony to its disciples by practice of the Styles of Leadership, Observance of Ethics, and the laws as a product of natural ethics- the Common Law.
Indeed, the kind of questioning further raised during the course of seminar kept telling of the understanding of Common Law, people and senior masters had.
The use of cadet on board was another very broad example of misunderstanding prevailing among crew due to varied understanding of the common law. On the matter, I would like to point at the company’s circular as well, which un-intentionally, ends up sending a message of what “cannot” be asked of cadet to do. At this point, it reminds me of the critics, who ask of the purposefulness of the legal vocabulary, commonly called the verbose, in making a law. Perhaps, the verbose finds it’s origin in the arguments and misunderstanding we saw in the seminar. The circular , even when very pious in its approach, sends a message that cadet not to used ever for any critical work, which include stations. Maybe the use of ‘verbose’ could have saved the misunderstanding which became the root cause of all the arguments noticeable in the seminar. The STCW Amendment Speaker, Capt Yadav, often talked about the clarifications on various issues to be coming from the IMO, all with the aim of having a unified interpretation. May be, a similar clarification is required for the contentious circular about use of cadets.
Dear sir, in the entire duration, it was noticeable to see people talking of all the good and virtuous things such as Integrity, Honesty, and Transparency. Is it not essential to have staff who personally practiced such a conduct? The test of virtues comes when the harder times arrive. The measure is truly taken in such an hour.
One on-board experience is worth a mention here. Just before a vetting survey, it was found that some engine room checklist were not filled. A retro-dated checklist was prepared and signature by chief mate and chief engineer.
Later, in another event when chief mate refused to prepare a forged paper, the master pressured him by accusing him of having double-standards, and being hypocrite, as he had acceded to the engine room checklist.
The mate however acknowledged that the Engine room checklist was signatured only as a observer to the event, not as an executer. ‘Mate’s concern is mainly with his own department’, thought that mate, and therefore any erroneous act cannot become reason for doing more of other such acts.
The master succumbed to mate’s demand, but secretly bore a grudge. Towards the sign off of mate, he did not prepare the open appraisal, and perhaps sent one secret appraisal after the mate has left. Such is the purpose of secret appraisals.
Sir, until the time a new generation of well-informed cadets comes up to the stage of becoming master, please prevent undoing of the well-found principles of management by ignorance of old style masters; principles which are even though not perfect but still the best to work the most agreeable solution.
Perhaps, this is one good reason why STCW 2010, the Manila Amendments, talks of special and enhanced training in Leadership and management for management level ranks.
passing thoughts
The cost saving sense of a new arrived manager:
Seeing the huge amout of losses to the company due to poor maintenance of machinery, the management decided to adopt the Planned maintenance system (PMS) whereof to change the part before it suffered fatigue failure. The new talented manager arrived to improve company's profit through cost-cutting and wastage-control by asking everyone to run the part until it broke down.
Moral of the story: Know the background, take interest in history, otherwise you will undo what has itself been done as a best solution to certain problem. _______________________________________________________________________________ Your system can be abused against yourself by shrewd people , if you become too generous to allow counter-balancing views.
Why is it hard to speak that the division of a country happened on the lines of religion- Islam, so many times. Curzon did it of bengal; then Pakistan happened, and last, the Bangladesh. The cause of distrust arises from the division of the land, although the mainland, called India, continued with the traditional Hindu practise of Polytheism, translated as Secularism in Political terms. Time filled the distrust gap for mainland, but the border fence is stalled with the Religion - Islam. The basic ideological difference between these nations as on today, is that Islam, and that tells of the economic gap and across the border.
Moral of the story: Don't expect the bull not to attack you, just because you are a vegetarian. Your system of kindness and generosity can be used against yourself, those who are unkind and mean, and simply by putting your kindness and generosity at test, while they keep doing their unkind and mean acts. ____________________________________________________________________________ Democracy in itself was the answer which came through long evolution, to the problem of immense diverse views that mankind holds.
The were lots and conflicting views on every issue ever since mankind came on earth. Unanimity was hard to achieve. Over many ages, everyone managed to build consensus that the best decision should involve everyone's viewpoint, although not necessarily satisfying everyone. They called it the democratic system which was not perfect as it still not satisfied everyone but found immense popularity. Many more ages later, the new decision-makers would take solo decisions and preferred closed appraisal reports because they said - People never reach consensus.
Democracy has eventually turned into an item of demand from the government, but not to be practised on itself by the organisations. ____________________________________________________________________________
Who will be the new age Brahmin
There was never so great a need of the encompassing principles as it is going to be now, in the new information age.
I was wondering what will be the ethos of the generation of these young children I see around at the airport. There is so much of information up in the air. What will this abundance of information, of all sorts- right, wrong, inferred, intelligence'd, half, full, and dichotomous, do to the basic sense of right and wrong in the growing up child? Indians today have a much greater need of a Brahmin than perhaps ever. There is utmost need of someone's able guidance to the budding young children to tell right from wrong. Someone who understands 'brahma' the big cosmos of information humans have woven around themselves where the link between A and B, B and D, A and D , and so on is so complicated a theory that an average human mind, busy in his daily chores of struggle of survival , just misses out to understand and remember. it is a space of super-confusion, and morality can easily go for a toss. Ethics need to be built , dismantled and built again, brick by brick, as each new information is produced. Encompassing principles would be something that would say how to broadly categories a new information. for example, a new information could be a kind of criticism to some older one. At the same time it may be a piece of art put up against a logic. Or in sciences, history -derived from a combination of mythology and archaeology. 'Can or cannot happen', 'may happen but has not happened'- these will be the sort of questions to rage fire in our brains. Either fanaticism will douse this fire or the Brahmin, the keeper of eternal knowledge. But the good news is that the new age brahmin need not be Veda educated. Infact he need not be a human being necessarily because a website like Wikipedia, or Britannica or Encarta would serve to be a brahmin.
On a funny thought, the new age Brahmin would not have surnames like Vedi, Dwivedi, Trivedi or Chaturvedi; but Encyclopedi, Wikipedi, or Encarta. The new brahmin is the one who can collate all the information about a topic, the composition and all the criticism , counter-criticism, to draw the big picture- coherent and Most agreeable for all people.
Seeing the huge amout of losses to the company due to poor maintenance of machinery, the management decided to adopt the Planned maintenance system (PMS) whereof to change the part before it suffered fatigue failure. The new talented manager arrived to improve company's profit through cost-cutting and wastage-control by asking everyone to run the part until it broke down.
Moral of the story: Know the background, take interest in history, otherwise you will undo what has itself been done as a best solution to certain problem. _______________________________________________________________________________ Your system can be abused against yourself by shrewd people , if you become too generous to allow counter-balancing views.
Why is it hard to speak that the division of a country happened on the lines of religion- Islam, so many times. Curzon did it of bengal; then Pakistan happened, and last, the Bangladesh. The cause of distrust arises from the division of the land, although the mainland, called India, continued with the traditional Hindu practise of Polytheism, translated as Secularism in Political terms. Time filled the distrust gap for mainland, but the border fence is stalled with the Religion - Islam. The basic ideological difference between these nations as on today, is that Islam, and that tells of the economic gap and across the border.
Moral of the story: Don't expect the bull not to attack you, just because you are a vegetarian. Your system of kindness and generosity can be used against yourself, those who are unkind and mean, and simply by putting your kindness and generosity at test, while they keep doing their unkind and mean acts. ____________________________________________________________________________ Democracy in itself was the answer which came through long evolution, to the problem of immense diverse views that mankind holds.
The were lots and conflicting views on every issue ever since mankind came on earth. Unanimity was hard to achieve. Over many ages, everyone managed to build consensus that the best decision should involve everyone's viewpoint, although not necessarily satisfying everyone. They called it the democratic system which was not perfect as it still not satisfied everyone but found immense popularity. Many more ages later, the new decision-makers would take solo decisions and preferred closed appraisal reports because they said - People never reach consensus.
Democracy has eventually turned into an item of demand from the government, but not to be practised on itself by the organisations. ____________________________________________________________________________
Who will be the new age Brahmin
There was never so great a need of the encompassing principles as it is going to be now, in the new information age.
I was wondering what will be the ethos of the generation of these young children I see around at the airport. There is so much of information up in the air. What will this abundance of information, of all sorts- right, wrong, inferred, intelligence'd, half, full, and dichotomous, do to the basic sense of right and wrong in the growing up child? Indians today have a much greater need of a Brahmin than perhaps ever. There is utmost need of someone's able guidance to the budding young children to tell right from wrong. Someone who understands 'brahma' the big cosmos of information humans have woven around themselves where the link between A and B, B and D, A and D , and so on is so complicated a theory that an average human mind, busy in his daily chores of struggle of survival , just misses out to understand and remember. it is a space of super-confusion, and morality can easily go for a toss. Ethics need to be built , dismantled and built again, brick by brick, as each new information is produced. Encompassing principles would be something that would say how to broadly categories a new information. for example, a new information could be a kind of criticism to some older one. At the same time it may be a piece of art put up against a logic. Or in sciences, history -derived from a combination of mythology and archaeology. 'Can or cannot happen', 'may happen but has not happened'- these will be the sort of questions to rage fire in our brains. Either fanaticism will douse this fire or the Brahmin, the keeper of eternal knowledge. But the good news is that the new age brahmin need not be Veda educated. Infact he need not be a human being necessarily because a website like Wikipedia, or Britannica or Encarta would serve to be a brahmin.
On a funny thought, the new age Brahmin would not have surnames like Vedi, Dwivedi, Trivedi or Chaturvedi; but Encyclopedi, Wikipedi, or Encarta. The new brahmin is the one who can collate all the information about a topic, the composition and all the criticism , counter-criticism, to draw the big picture- coherent and Most agreeable for all people.
Signs of a low-intelligence group
Signs of a low-intelligence group:
- Extra emphasis on an issue, which is other wise is very insignificant, trivial.
- Repeat presentation of some matter at every place. Lack of creativity in scrutinizing the issue.
- Incoherent connection of Incidence A with Observation B.
- They generally keep better in the company of other low intelligence people. Every individual in the group shows the characteristics listed over here.
- Words of any person are perceived as a stand being taken on some issue and talks tend to proceed into a fight.
- Extra desire to be seen as humorous and funny, - witty , in short, to establish one's superior intelligence.
- A smaller and obvious cross-question on a matter is presented as though a great wisdom has been chanced upon and which was unthinkable by others.
- The sense of humor : mostly comes from making fun of something, or somebody; has excessive scatological talks, and obscenities.
- The tendency to take the cover of belief; Facts-based inference are negated by putting the contentious item behind the shields of personal belief. Most of the low IQ people often tend to be great believers in god and religious faiths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)