Bali Expat Forum - Bali Travel Forum

What was that Thorsten said about being right and the Balinese point of view?

Oh yes "it’s all more about having right, claiming to be right, getting right and it’s almost a caricature of Western behaviour due this".

I guess this is a case of "when in Rome"...

Allen,

Now that the "storm" has subsided, I would like to elaborate on the term "private university." You claim that there is

…nothing illicit about admitting someone because their parents are alumni or because they make million dollar donations

but in practice, it reeks to the high Heaven, because universities, such as Harvard, are indeed "private," but only in name. Harvard is a business, and as a business it must be competitive with other universities and colleges. Therefore, it would be a total failure if it were not accredited by the Government. As soon as it is accredited, it falls under many Government rules and regulations, in order to be eligible, among other things, to received millions upon millions of $$ of tax payer money for scholarships and research contracts. So, it has lost much of its "privacy" in the process.

During the admission process, not only are the grades of the prospective student taken into account, but his or her extra-curricular activities, social background, etc. The letters of recommendations from community leaders, ex-professors, etc, are also important, and of course the fact that a prospective student is an alumnus' child. There was, and there still is, a substantial majority of Americans who are against "affirmative action programs" in the admission process, which favors minority students. But the same people do not bat an eye lash for the quota favoring alumni's children (a quota of 10 -13% of the yearly admissions is the rule).

So going back to Kadek's point, as far as I am concerned, .the money given under the table by a parent to an Indonesian school (called by the self-righteous people a "bribe"), and that given by a big donor to a "private" institution, is exactly the same,

a quota of 10 -13% of the yearly admissions is the rule

There is nothing illicit about it. It is not dishonest or illegal. It is not bribery. Full fee paying students in Australia can gain entrance with lower scores. I might not think it's fair but it has nothing to with corruption in Indonesia.

IMO cosying up to Balinese royalty and accepting hand-outs from them has more to do with corruption in Indonesia.

IMO cosying up to Balinese royalty and accepting hand-outs from them has more to do with corruption in Indonesia

Would you care to elaborate?

Allan,

I cannot believe (or rather I know) why you don't see the similarity between the two "donations." In both cases there is a quid pro quo: you accept my kid...I give money to your institution. Call it what you want.

Equally Daniel it's obvious to me why you don't see the difference.

OK Allen,

would you care to explain why

Full fee paying students in Australia can gain entrance with lower scores.

is OK, and it is not OK when it happens in Indonesia?

Your question contains at least one false premise and in any case it's not my job to teach you basic logic.

Go away and think about it and with a bit of luck you understand the difference between: a bribe and an inducement; an illicit payment and a payment under the rules; the corruption of and the perceived unfairness of a system.

Or maybe you should stick to nuclear physics. Philosophy is obviously not your strong suit.

BTW private conversations should be carried out by pm. Let's do that from now on shall we?

Gentleman,

this hair splitting attitude about terminations is rather boring and also not very constructive.

I think the comparison with Bali and Harvard is appropriate too – illegal or not, call it bribery or something else, the result is the same.

The ongoing policeman has to bribe somebody to get in this job, the student in Bali who lacks competence or intellect but not money gets into the higher school by backdoor – the son/daughter of a wealthy family can attend Harward only because the influence of the parents.
A degree on Harward is highly regarded all over the world, it will open doors and while the very eager and competent student of University XY will end behind a counter of a village bank in Iowa handling loans for a new tractor, the dumb slacker from Harward will go straight into a nice office in Manhattan, London, Frankfurt.
The result will be the same, in the end you have less competent people in higher positions, which they actually not deserve, the guy in Iowa will make a mistake with a loan and get fired, the Harward guy is wrong with every analysis at Merrill Lynch and to get rid of him, they will put him on a political carrier.

Corruption is theft, when you can buy a carrier with money then it’s theft at the society.

Best regards
Thorsten


PS: In respect to Kadek’s post about rewarding/ bribing children with money for all and everything – in my point of view she’s damn right and I can see this all the time here in Germany.
Kids are often educated to do nothing without money anymore, bring the garbage out, mow the lawn, every single, normal task and even good school grades are rewarded, by this they learn, don’t do anything without money and that a favour must be rewarded.
Do me a little favour and I will reward you – isn’t this the first step into corruption?

I was educated in another style, my parents thought – for whatever you want to have – to value this – you must earn it, you have to work for this.
I was 12 years old when I wanted to have a skateboard, my father said, ok – you want it, you work for it.
The price for the thingy was 36 Marks that time (about 18€ now) – I worked 36 hours in my parents company after school, then I bought the skateboard.
It was the same for the first motorbike, driver license, car (of course not for this price) and when I made a degree some years later (had already moved out at home for some years) my father came with a present to me, which was a big surprise since I never expected this, he gave me a package and there was a golden Cartier watch inside.

I was 12 years old when I wanted to have a skateboard, my father said, ok – you want it, you work for it.

The money to buy the skateboard was the inducement for you to do the work. In other words, by your definition, your father exploited you.

Allan wrote:The money to buy the skateboard was the inducement for you to do the work. In other words, by your definition, your father exploited you.

It was a job Allan, you work and you get money for it - that's a job.
You want to buy something - you need money, you need money - you have to work for it!

Thorsten you are the one getting tripped up by definitions.

Offering payment for work is an inducement. Making a child's pocket money contingent on them doing their chores is an inducement. Anything that goes to providing a motivational force is an inducement.

A bribe is an illegal act. An example of the important distinction is where a government appointed official or police officer abuses their position and commits a felony by initiating an act of extortion or submitting to bribery.

It suits your purposes to blur the distinction and argue that discussions about terminology are boring. Fine. In law the distinction is clear and the reason for the distinction is clear.

OK - I give up Allan - you win !

Allen,

Or maybe you should stick to nuclear physics. Philosophy is obviously not your strong suit

I would point out that, first, as a physicist I use logic, a Cartesian mind, in order to solve the problems thrown at me, not philosophy, and second, as old Will Shakespeare would say:

"A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet"

except that in this case we are not talking about a rose and it stinks.

That's OK Allen, like Thorsten said, you win!

PS. You still haven't elaborated on your sly previous remark

IMO cosying up to Balinese royalty and accepting hand-outs from them has more to do with corruption in Indonesia

The reference to logic was to your inclusion of a false premise in your question.

Consider the implied threat of arrest of your wife, the immediacy of it, when no crime has been commiited, the intent of which is to extort money and contrast that with giving a child a dollar if he does his chores.

One is an abuse of power for illicit means and one is a positive reinforcement of a desired behaviour. There's a philosophical, practical, ethical, moral and lawful difference.

If you want to concede then do so. Follow Thorsten's lead and don't include further argument. That's just bad form.

P.S. There's nothing sly about my remark. The meaning is clear but if you really need it to be spelt out for you I will do so. I'm saving it up.

I can hardly wait to hear the punch line. Don't save it to long, it might rot in your pocket.

In the meantime, I have to do some chores for which I am not compensated.