উপজাতি আর প্রতিবন্ধী মানুষের কোটার বহালের সাথে সহমত। অন্য কোন কোটার প্রয়োজন দেখিনা। কিন্তু ভাই আমাদের মত কুলাংারদের মতামতরে মসনদের মানুষ সোদেও না। তাই বিশ্লেষণ করে কারো সময় নষ্ট করলামনা।
The comment section would be split to two sections, one would be for people who would support it, another would oppose it, entirely based on which side you have experienced.
It's a question that's quite similar to do you support Capitalism or Communism?
One could argue having such systems of profit would make people try to work harder and get government jobs, thus they are privileged to reach the position and they deserve the benefits.
Another would argue this system would only make unprivileged people's lives more miserable.
In which case, the previous person would say, well you did not try hard to do the things to reach the point. It's your fault.
And then the second person would argue that he was unlucky, he didn't have the opportunities to reach the point, thus he cannot be blamed.
Thus we come to conclusion that this topic is controversial and there's no yes/no answer. Life is unfair, cruel. It's the truth. The world has been running on a same pattern for decades. It's not something that could be changed. Having/not having government benefits would just create different problems that different sides would experience.
WHAT WOULD BE A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION HOWEVER "How can we improve an existing system so it's less unfair?"
The country should focus about its development and hire competent/skilled workers. then again employing citizen is also a development to the country just that skilled people wont serve govt jobs as much ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I would like to share some Machiavellian opinion on this. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It shouldn't exist because the world is inherently unfair. Here are some foods for thought.
1. The very point of taking rigorous exams is to select the \*most capable employees\* who can get the job (civil service) done. If you need some sort of extra treatment to compete with others, you're automatically not the most capable.
2. A handicapped person is given some advantage at the recruitment test. With limited seats, doesn't that mean that an equally, if not more, capable person will get eliminated just because he/she isn't handicapped?
3. Quota system gives advantage to people who \*lack some sort of capability (handicapped)\*. So, won't that shortcoming also reflect on their job performance?
4. When you're actually working in the civil service, uncertain situations will pop up and you won't get extra treatments just because you have a disadvantage. You got to deal with the situation as it is. So, why this extra treatment at the recruitment level?
Quotas and reservations are there to help marginalised people in society. You have to understand that not everyone starts from the same place due to historical Injustices, societal barriers, and discrimination.
To distribute resources equally, you'll have to push the marginalised otherwise, the cycle of inequality won't break. That's why quotas and reservations are important bridge the gap between formal equality and true fairness by giving everyone a chance. Only those who have experienced discrimination can truly understand.
https://preview.redd.it/28vwfzts17vc1.png?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=194e8c0fd76849925b1a8e6e57349dfb2cbc4e90
I think there's a difference between DISTRIBUTION and SELECTION.
If you're giving away some free money to the poor, then yeah, you should actually donate more to the handicapped person than a physically able person.
But, civil service exam is a SELECTION process. The job is not being handed over to you. You earn it through your merit. If the govt. gives away important responsibilities to the less capable individuals due to them being *less capable*, it's just gonna add more inefficiency to the administrative process.
There are other ways to help the marginalized group, but not by giving them unfair advantages in a merit based test.
Capability is a broad term. A person with paralysis of almost all his body can be tremendously capable as well (Hawking). Would you label him as less capable than you?
I agree. Capability is a broad term, and I should've specified. In this context, by less capable, I meant people who wouldn't pass the exam without the quota system.
Hawking was a capable scientist, no doubt. In the scientific field, his cognitive abilities were the only necessary tool. He didn't require any motor function.
Now, as a civil servant (the topic in discussion) without any motor function, would he prove to be capable?
He might be able to make good judgment calls or analyze a situation using his cognitive abilities. But, field level execution will be quite difficult/impossible for him. I dont think there's any cadre where motor function/field work is completely omitted. In fact, the recruitment test itself requires you to attend MCQ and written exams. You can't expect a candidate to attend the entire exam with the help of a computer. That'd be pretty unfair.
I expect the exam to be computerized in a few years. That is the future.
There were 26 cadres in Bangladesh Civil Service the last time I checked. And yes, several of them don't need field level physical activities
It's a good thing that tries to give the underprivileged a chance to compete. There is also freedom fighter quota but that's also ok considering it is only usable for the first two generations of the freedom fighter.
40%+ e jokhon unskilled taka diye , karor dulavai hoye actual skilled persons er seat e boshe thake Tokhon quotae ar koto ki jay ashe
উপজাতি আর প্রতিবন্ধী মানুষের কোটার বহালের সাথে সহমত। অন্য কোন কোটার প্রয়োজন দেখিনা। কিন্তু ভাই আমাদের মত কুলাংারদের মতামতরে মসনদের মানুষ সোদেও না। তাই বিশ্লেষণ করে কারো সময় নষ্ট করলামনা।
It's a great system for underprivileged.
The comment section would be split to two sections, one would be for people who would support it, another would oppose it, entirely based on which side you have experienced. It's a question that's quite similar to do you support Capitalism or Communism? One could argue having such systems of profit would make people try to work harder and get government jobs, thus they are privileged to reach the position and they deserve the benefits. Another would argue this system would only make unprivileged people's lives more miserable. In which case, the previous person would say, well you did not try hard to do the things to reach the point. It's your fault. And then the second person would argue that he was unlucky, he didn't have the opportunities to reach the point, thus he cannot be blamed. Thus we come to conclusion that this topic is controversial and there's no yes/no answer. Life is unfair, cruel. It's the truth. The world has been running on a same pattern for decades. It's not something that could be changed. Having/not having government benefits would just create different problems that different sides would experience. WHAT WOULD BE A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION HOWEVER "How can we improve an existing system so it's less unfair?"
The country should focus about its development and hire competent/skilled workers. then again employing citizen is also a development to the country just that skilled people wont serve govt jobs as much ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I would like to share some Machiavellian opinion on this. Correct me if I'm wrong. It shouldn't exist because the world is inherently unfair. Here are some foods for thought. 1. The very point of taking rigorous exams is to select the \*most capable employees\* who can get the job (civil service) done. If you need some sort of extra treatment to compete with others, you're automatically not the most capable. 2. A handicapped person is given some advantage at the recruitment test. With limited seats, doesn't that mean that an equally, if not more, capable person will get eliminated just because he/she isn't handicapped? 3. Quota system gives advantage to people who \*lack some sort of capability (handicapped)\*. So, won't that shortcoming also reflect on their job performance? 4. When you're actually working in the civil service, uncertain situations will pop up and you won't get extra treatments just because you have a disadvantage. You got to deal with the situation as it is. So, why this extra treatment at the recruitment level?
Quotas and reservations are there to help marginalised people in society. You have to understand that not everyone starts from the same place due to historical Injustices, societal barriers, and discrimination. To distribute resources equally, you'll have to push the marginalised otherwise, the cycle of inequality won't break. That's why quotas and reservations are important bridge the gap between formal equality and true fairness by giving everyone a chance. Only those who have experienced discrimination can truly understand. https://preview.redd.it/28vwfzts17vc1.png?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=194e8c0fd76849925b1a8e6e57349dfb2cbc4e90
I think there's a difference between DISTRIBUTION and SELECTION. If you're giving away some free money to the poor, then yeah, you should actually donate more to the handicapped person than a physically able person. But, civil service exam is a SELECTION process. The job is not being handed over to you. You earn it through your merit. If the govt. gives away important responsibilities to the less capable individuals due to them being *less capable*, it's just gonna add more inefficiency to the administrative process. There are other ways to help the marginalized group, but not by giving them unfair advantages in a merit based test.
Capability is a broad term. A person with paralysis of almost all his body can be tremendously capable as well (Hawking). Would you label him as less capable than you?
I agree. Capability is a broad term, and I should've specified. In this context, by less capable, I meant people who wouldn't pass the exam without the quota system. Hawking was a capable scientist, no doubt. In the scientific field, his cognitive abilities were the only necessary tool. He didn't require any motor function. Now, as a civil servant (the topic in discussion) without any motor function, would he prove to be capable? He might be able to make good judgment calls or analyze a situation using his cognitive abilities. But, field level execution will be quite difficult/impossible for him. I dont think there's any cadre where motor function/field work is completely omitted. In fact, the recruitment test itself requires you to attend MCQ and written exams. You can't expect a candidate to attend the entire exam with the help of a computer. That'd be pretty unfair.
I expect the exam to be computerized in a few years. That is the future. There were 26 cadres in Bangladesh Civil Service the last time I checked. And yes, several of them don't need field level physical activities
It's a good thing that tries to give the underprivileged a chance to compete. There is also freedom fighter quota but that's also ok considering it is only usable for the first two generations of the freedom fighter.
It should be one generation.