Donaldson Tan / Photo courtesy of Boris Chan
Panellists – from left to right – Tony Tan, Hazel Poa, James Gomez, Justin Ong,
Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Peter Li, Jason Soh
Last Saturday, the Reform Party’s Seminar on Education attracted a crowd of 60 people that included teachers, working adults and students. This is the second seminar in the series of seminars organised by the Reform Party. The theme of the first seminar was the Singapore economy.
Education and the economy
In his opening speech, RP’s Secretary General Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam remarked that Singapore’s current economic growth is due to the expansion of workforce instead of higher productivity. In fact, real income for Singaporeans have stagnated for the last 10 years. Singaporeans are working longer and harder for less wealth.
Kenneth proposed GDP per person or GDP per hour worked as new key performance indicators. “We see a direct link between productivity growth and the level of spending on education. Also, we have to spend more if Singapore wants to grow as a knowledge-based economy,” he told reporters.
Compound annual growth rates compiled by the Reform Party
He also said that Singapore spent too little on education – a mere 2.8% of the GDP compared to countries such as the USA (7.0%) and South Korea (4.0%). Rising productivity and increasing national spending on education are key to improve the living standard of Singaporeans. This figure should be increased to 4.0%.
Mr Tan Kin Lian, former CEO of NTUC Income, could not attend the seminar. However, according to a written circular for the education seminar, he said the lack of minimum wage led to inadequate wages being paid to occupations that involves interaction with people, such as jobs in health care, education and social service sectors. The education system also does not provide adequate opportunities to hone social skillls required in the previously mentioned jobs.
Education policy should not be foreign policy
Mr Justin Ong, president of the Young Reformers, expressed his disapproval on the sheer number of foreigners on the Singapore government’s scholarship. These scholarships are modelled after the Fulbright scholarship in the USA. They are designed to expand the outreach of the Singapore-based intelligentia to the international community.
“Developing foreign talent in Singapore’s universities is at most a gamble,” said Justin. As a result, Singaporeans are deprived of spaces. This is not an acceptable situation as top Singaporean students who further their studies abroad are being replaced by second-rate foreign talents on campus. Influx of foreign talents at all levels is an abomination to Singapore’s education policy.
Preschool to university education
During the seminar, Mr Tony Tan of the Reform Party, emphasised that one should not address issues by only looking at their symptons. Together with his wife Ms Hazel Poa, they outlined the education policy proposals of the Reform Party that cover pre-school to university education.
Among them was a through-train program from primary to secondary level education. Ms Hazel Poa said without PSLE, students would be able to focus on character building, creativity and entrepreneurship. Hazel also proposed MOE to regulate the pre-school sector and assist the pre-school sector in developing curriculum while ensuring pre-school teachers are well-trained.
While the Ministry of Education provides for underprivilleged children through the Financial Assistance Scheme, Tony found publicly available statistics are lacking in area on how money has been given out and how many families actually benefited from the scheme. The impact of such schemes are particularly important for measuring the success of Singapore education system in promoting social mobility. Interest-free loans for tertiary education should be made available to lower income families. A funding source for such a loan can come from savings accrued from the Government’s departmental budgets.
Floor participant Norvin Chan blamed the National Examination Board for promoting rote-learning. In 2006, the then Minister of Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam recognised that Singapore is an examination meritocracy, not a talent meritocracy, during a PAP Policy Forum. Rote-learning rewards specific behavior such as doing well in mathematics and natural sciences. As a result, parents tend to emphasise a lot in these areas.
According to Tony, for every 10 students in each cohort leaving secondary school, 2 go to ITE, 4 go to polytechnics, 3 go to pre-university institutions offering A levels and 1 leaves the education system. Dr James Gomez, one of the external speakers, proposed that the education system should provide access points for drop-outs to return to higher education.
In response to a floor participant on the teaching competency of foreign academics in local institutions, James revealed that he had to pass a Graduate Certificate in Tertiary Teaching before he was accepted to teach at Monash University in Australia. Spoken and written competency of the English language is a key component of the program. Local tertiary institutions should consider a similar program.
Academic freedom
James also called for equal renumeration among Singaporean and foreign academics. This should be reflected in pay scales and fringe benefits such as housing allowance and relocation packages from overseas to Singapore. There should be more transparency in terms of promotion, appointment into leadership positions, awarding of tenure, recruitment of academics and termination of contracts.
Academics critical of the Singapore government face the risk of non-renewal of their employment contract. Academic freedom is instrumental in fostering the intellectual vibrancy of Singapore. James suggested academics should have privilege of immunity. He also added that the recent amendment to the Statistics Act, which makes available micro-array of anonymised data available to researchers in public agencies, is no substitute for a Freedom of Information Act.
Academic freedom was cited to justify the pull-out of University of Warwick to establish a campus in Singapore. NUS Professor Thio Li-Ann was hired to advise the university in August 2005 on how constraints on freedom of expression in Singapore might affect teaching and research activities. Professor Thio’s bottom-line was, “Speech is permissible as long as it does not threaten real political change or alter the status quo.”
For disabled / special need children
The final speakers Mr Peter Li and Mr Jason Soh covered on education for the disabled. The curriculum for disabled children should be one that prepare them to be independent and contribute to society. While allowing special need children to enrol at mainstream schools is ideal, constraints such as the lack of qualified special need educators and special facilities make it difficult for mainstream schools to accept special need children.
A small number of mainstream schools are currently available to children with dyslexia, autism, physical and sensory disabilities. As of 2010, children diagnosed with dyslexia are allowed into all mainstream schools as long as there is available support. Only 10% of school teachers in Singapore are trained to provide support to special need children.
Early detection and intervention is extremely important in the bringing up of disabled children. Non-physical and non-sensory disabilities are difficult to detect during a child’s early years. In a recent study, Singapore scored very low in the area assessing the ability of pre-school teachers to identify disability among their students.
Read also: Dr James Gomez’s speech at the RP Seminar on Education
Related posts:
- Budget does little to address main issues faced by S’poreans
- Signs and symptoms
- President’s Address: Regurgitating only the existing priorities
- PAP MPs disinterested in bread-and-butter issues?
- Men in White silent on key historical issues, say scholars
I agree with Hazel’s view that , quote, “…I am sure we have a lot of very capable people who are not scholars”
Was Margaret Thatcher a British government scholar ?
Was Winston Churchill ditto?
Was Reagan an American Scholar?
The examples are endless.
Scholar means can study but need not limited to study.
Non-scholar could mean don’t want to study so much but can study and get scholarship if he or she choose to.
Politics is politics.
Leadership is leadership.
Scholars are scholars.
a farmer is a farmer.
Hi Smallvoice585,
I have no quarrel with your contention but we cannot be a tad too careful to make sure that we are not being too judgmental and over-critical of our fellow Singaporeans. Let me counter-ask your questions:
1. Are Singaporeans the only people that have poor social etiquettes?
2. Are Singaporeans the only people who lack initiatives?
3. Are Singaporeans the only ones who have trouble adapting to competition from foreigners (I do not buy the foreign talent line of argument).
4. Are Singaporean daughter-in-laws the only ones who cannot get along with their mother-in-laws?
5. Are Singaporeans the only ones who are superstitious?
6. Are Singaporeans the only ones who have poor language skills?
7. Are Singaporeans the only ones who show anxiety & insecurity and the only ones who are demanding and uncaring toward the elderly and the pregnant?
8. Are Singaporeans the only ones who are concern with money and survival?
9. Are Singaporeans the only ones who are apathetic toward politics and lack the drive to step forward to serve?
Surely you can now see clearly that these attributes are not restricted to a special class of humanoids known as Singaporeans. We are doing ourselves in by believing that we are all these and more, why?
How else do you think unpopular policies like embracing foreign talents and foreigners be made acceptable to the masses? Firstly, we have to believe that we are a flawed people who have to be taught by a foreign legion of higher class humanoids with extra-special attributes. Blah! This had been and will continue to be the PAP’s modus operandi whenever it wants to push ahead with hard-to-accept policies.
Let me tell you something. I dig my nose in public like the Indians from India do, so what? I spit on the ground when there is a lump of mucus I am not comfortable keeping inside my mouth, like the Chinese men do, so what? I can be loud and proud in public like the Americans are, so what? I refuse to be the gallant gentleman, when I have a splitting headache after a hard day’s work, and when I do not feel like giving up my seat to a half-pregnant lady, like many others all over the world don’t, so what?
You see, there are many other things I do on the side for the good of society. Do I need to fit into the stereotype that I offer my seat therefore I am a true Singaporean, that I pick my nose in the bathroom therefore I am Singaporean? No my friend. We have been sold to a set of notions that tell the story of the ugly Singaporean, the uncouth Singaporean, the academically-educated-but-uneducated Singaporean.
Once you buy into this notion, you are sold to the belief that you are a flawed citizen and automatically fall into the mainstream scheme of things, to be moulded into another typical Singaporean that fits into the system crafted by the state.
I cannot bring myself to buy into this and will continue to protect the Singaporean identity that I have come to know, with all warts and what nots. This is where the true beauty and intelligence of the human race can be found – outside the stereotyped mould being offered by the mainstream.
This is why I said in my first post that the government must take away all these obstacles that hinders the cultivation of intelligence and to allow the freedom for intelligence to blossom outside a strictly-controlled environment. How else are we going to produce the Bill Gates or Steve Jobs like what SD has shared?
Hi Hazel Poa at 11.30 am,
“Can you divulge more details of your La Convivencia in your gaming world? Or is it something non-gamers would not understand?”
With keenest of pleasure Hazel, I shall try my best to demystify it by endeavoring to explain this concept in lay man’s terms so non gamers can understand it ( I just hope that I don’t induce a comatose state to some readers,so do bear with me) – “La Convivencia” , simply means in brotherhood parlance, “let’s try to get along.”
It came about during the age of steel in our game, which was 900 years ago in our calendar, but in real world time, its somewhere around Sept 2001. During that period, the brotherhood annexed the virtual city by called Prima Maritima by force; we were compelled to prosecute a war NOT because of imperialistic reasons, but simply because, it was a very prosperous confluence point where all manner and type of nationalities traded in an assortment of virtual goods and services, so it was considered a strategic asset (like the Panama canal or the straits of Malacca). They imposed a blockade on us, this we considered a “unacceptable.”
Though prosperous Prima Maritima was renowned as a hotbed for insurrection; firstly, the port city was divided into nearly 47 zones! You had the Jewish quarter; Nigerian, Muslim, EU, US, Russian etc etc – no one got along with each other; the rule was if a American wandered into let’s say a Russian enclave, he was fair game – so Prima Maritima was not so different from those wild west gold mining outpost.
I will be frank; as soon as our forces marched into the city; law and order was restored; but trade plummeted to nil; the troublemakers moved out, but they also took away the buzz that once made it a prosperous port – so this was no good for the Mercantile guild. As our goal was purely economic – we wanted to preserve the buzz that once made it the most prosperous virtual trading locale, now it was like Pyongyang – no money there, it’s no good.
So it was decided by our leaders (The Council of the wise) that emissaries should be sent to get all these troublemakers under one tent; each quarter, would elect a tribal chief and he would be their nominated spokes person – so if let’s say the Jews had an issue with let’s say the Muslims; we would act as facilitators to reach a resolution and vice versa – cutting a long story short, the whole idea is to establish a trios ménage that involves us (as key keepers of the city, sounds better than invaders), the local community (citizens) and the many of the traders (foreigners) that made up the composition of this virtual city.
In this way, we were able to accomplish 3 crucial aspects of statecraft (1) conflict resolution – if there is a flare up between the locals and the foreigners, we can interdict at source point (proactively), instead of sending in a garrison of stormtroopers (reactively) when they all go out in the streets to protest (2) planning – as the trilogue, enables us to gather vital intelligence on the strengths, weaknesses , roles and goals of each community, along with giving each community a quorum to vent their grievances in a civilized setting without the risk of a flare up (3) most importantly, this enables us to set the directional focus (our planning horizon is about 100 years) – and to communication this strategic vision so that each community knows how they may fit in the larger schema.
Let me translate the idea of La Convivencia to a real world scenario – if let’s say our govt is in constant touch with the nominated leaders of let’s say for example: the Burmese community (could even be the Mickey mouse club or the Nigerian Voodoo doll manufacturers) here; then they would be able to gather first hand intelligence as they are the first point of contact; the Burmese elders may say to our Singapore Liaison foreign community officer, “hey, I think, our folk are pretty incensed with the Junta shooting monks, there could be a street protest soon.” Our Singapore community liaison officer can then ask further, “what is sentiment like on the ground? Is it a clear and present danger or is this just a storm in the tea cup?” He may feed this information back to the MFA and George Yeo ( and other agencies) may have to show the Burmese junta the finger or something (or pretend too) – then we will tell those Burmese elders, “Please inform your community, you cannot protest in our streets for so and so reasons (give some excuse lah, my favorite is, “it’s bad for business” etc. Perhaps we can arrange this to be done in a stadium or something? We will even throw in a rock concert and give out free light sticks? That way you can get your point across and still have a family outing. What do you say?”
In this way, we can all get along happily; there will be no need for riot police, road blocks, cancellation of visa’s etc etc – life will be beautiful.
I am sorry, but I need to go for an urgent conference call now. I hope this is helpful.
SD
gemami ,
tell me which citizenry in this world behaves like singaporeans.
almost all Singaporeans do not voice up to demand answers like
1. construction cost of any flat.
2. the recent public order act. It used to be a few person allowed with approval. now leh?
3. the risk of having a weak (in terms of numbers of seats and calibre) opposition that technically allows bills to be passed without effective resistance.
Of course, nothing is absolutely 100% in this world. There are people like this whole world you go.
My question is which country’s citizenry is like this in this extent where almost all silently accept the situation?
You tell me which country like this, i give you a lolipop as prize.
Hi Lee Chock Tong,
Before I answer your question I’d like you to ponder a while and ask yourself why Singaporeans behave this way? Is it the education they receive that makes them so reticent? Or, is it the pace of development that provided them no respite to stop and think over their indifferent behaviour? Or, is it the plain need to survive the day to day concerns that makes it seem they are disinterested?
Ponder these and see whether your answer falls into the same pigeonhole of the stereotypical – they are just bo chap, everything the PAP say, just do it lor – no need to think when the thinking has already been done for you?
I do not believe that this is the normal sentiment of one who is disinterested but the sentiment of one who is more inclined to have already given support to the PAP and its policies in the first place. If this is the case, then we cannot fault them for supporting the PAP and for thinking this way. To them, the PAP has provided for them and is continuing to provide for them.
It is the alternative views and the lack of it that we must fault. It brings us back to where I have been saying we are stagnated at – the fault lies with the PAP – only that the PAP and its supporters do not see it as a failing but a fantastic tool to use and to use it to exact the best result with it too. The fault is clearly the PAP’s tight grip on freedom of speech, of views and of conflicting alternatives. It has been killing off all of these and clutching tightly to its own vision of the Singapore utopia which will never be.
Now to answer your question and the questions I have asked you to ponder over. One cannot talk about the bo chap attitude of Singaporeans without touching on the fear factor. Like it or not, it is still there – like a heirloom being passed on from parent to child.
These days, there is a different type of fear though, from that which was experienced by our forefathers. Where the former generation was fearful of one man and the ISD, the new generation fear for their livelihood and the living standard they will have to face based on whether the are able to cling onto the mainstream scheme of things.
Do you think these would dare rock the sampan and hope they fall into a leisure craft? Fat hope, and so the rest of us, you and me, continue to wait for the day when more citizens are brave enough to face up to the PAP and tell them that there is more to life than acquiring an academic education, a flat, a car and a househelp. On our part, we must stop blaming ourselves so that others may come to know that they are not at fault and that there are enough alternatives out there for us to pursue. The apron will then have lost its strings and we will be free.
Dear gemami on Jan 28, 2010 at 2.41 pm,
Can I ask you 4 questions?:
1. Must we be the only people on this planet to have flaws for these flaws to be acknowledged?
2. Is your paranoid belief in PAP conspiracy so strong that you want to avoid being in the “stereotyped mainstream” at all costs (even to the extent of admitting your guilt in some pretty gross anti-social behavior)?
3. Can you trust your own eyes and ears and your own good judgment to evaluate things around you instead of dragging the convenient bogeyman of PAP conspirators as a cover for all apparent bad things?
4. And please, can you elaborate on the “Singaporean identity” that you have vowed to protect, where “true beauty and intelligence of the human race can be found” only outside the stereotyped mould of the mainstream?
I await your answers with bated breath.
Dear Hazel Poa on Jan 28, 2010 at 11.30 am,
La Convivencia is not a concept invented by the gaming world. It is a term referring to the historical period in Spain when the Muslims, Catholics and Jews once co-existed peacefully. It is nothing elaborate.
Gemami,
“…and so the rest of us, you and me, continue to wait for the day when more citizens are brave enough…”
You , me, smallyfly, and everyone in Alternative Nation knows for SURE that this day will come as it must come for Life is Finite. As simple as that. And they know that. No surprizes about the inflow.
For a small pool of people to be apathetic is normal in any country. But the Apathy is such a great extent that it spells trouble in the long run. To many, their world does not exist the word Politics. How uneducated can that be?
Meanwhile we continue to wait for the Hidden Tigers to step forward in the year of the Tiger.
“I am sure we have a lot of very capable people who are not scholars.” – Hazel Poa
I like Scolaris’ comment on this. To add, if someone excels in carpentry and make beautiful furniture, is s/he not considered capable because its carpentry and not Medicine or Law? Aren’t all hands-on housewives capable? They have to manage the household as well as nurture the children.
This “scholar” system is downright stupid and outdated. It should be buried 6 ft under.
I once asked a child who scored exceedinly well in Maths if he knows the logic in the method he used to solve Algebra equations. His answer was stupidly “Maths is like this”. This potnetial scholar child knows the method well and can apply it, but he does not know the logic or reason (like a computer). Another child who does not practice enough did not score so well but this other child could explain the logic. He said that in an equation, the left must always equal to the right, what you do to the left to get rid of the constant, you do the same to the right.
This is partly why the World’s top Universities interview students to decide their intakes. The other major part are things like character and personality. What it takes to be a genius is a whole package, besides mental ability.
As long as the stupid scholar system continues, Spore is going nowhere. I once read in an overseas medium “Singapore is all dressed but nowhere to go”.
Good Evening, Jan 28, 2010 at 11.30 am,
“La Convivencia is not a concept invented by the gaming world.”
I never said it was. As an idea it has nothing to do with even the 20th century – but you have to understand a word can go BEYOND its dictionary meaning, just as the word “gay” once referred to certain state of mind; these days it may still refer to a certain state of mind, but its has lost its original contextual meaning, very much like La Convivencia – So since you do not seem to be a very perceptive reader; may I caution you that if one day you happen to strike 1st prize in 4D, never walk into a pub and shout out, “Drinks on me! I am very gay tonite.” If you do that, you find the numeral “0″ to have an organic meaning beyond its 1,2,3 etc.
Fortunately I do NOT need to waste my time explaining to most of the other readers here, as they would have registered that I referred to “La Convivencia” in the context of a PARLANCE (kindly refer to the second paragraph in entry @ 3.06) that is regularly used by the brotherhood and NOT as a HISTORICAL term.
I spent 15 min of my valuable time responding to Mrs Pao – I would appreciate if you dont waste my time in future with stupid comments.
Thank you so much for your understanding, do have a painless evening.
Singaporedaddy (The Internet Officer of the Brotherhood – sponsored by the Interspacing Mercantile Guild
Hi Gemami, smallvoice585, Lee Chock Tong, etc..
Just my view. Definitely every individual is accountable for his/her own upbringing & purpose to society – unfortunately culture, norms & policies definitely have strong influence. But how can someone realise such influences, especially if say the media is pro-policies, etc.? Look at Japan – one generation can be psycho into having an apathetic view of their nation’s role in WW2 (as they are pissed about being A-bombed). Is this really the fault of each individual Japanese? Or just a bok-chap attitude?
What I observed is that our current generation is definitely different from the previous one – we may attributed it to growing affluence, changing technologies, dependence on maids, whatever. But the basic courtesy and discern of past seem to have vaporize within one generation of self-rule. Is this more due to individual or policies? I’m not looking for a clear Yes/No, just thinking out loud.
I likened it to Nazi Germany. How could a nation of 45 millions(?) be turned into a Jew-hating mob within a decade (the 1930s)? Are we to say it is the fault of each individual German or that of an overall apparatus? We have history to tell us that it is due to Nationalism/Nazism; are we similiarly under influence something called kiasuism? Who or what introduced that to our society in the past 40+ years? The foreigners? Media? Evolution? Deliberate policies? Is our low birth rate really due to individual choice or no choice?
Anyway, while we are in a dog-eat-dog mentality, you-blame-me-I blame-you vicious circle, we will never be a nation.
Apology if this somehow divert from topic of education(?).
Dear Hazel,
Change will come. It will take time, but it come, nonetheless – as for your appeal to do something for a better Singapore – nothing will give us the keenest of pleasures, but its missing one vital ingredient, most of the custodians in power dont see anything wrong – there is no problem it seems – so why should we even contribute; let me put it politely, if you see a man swimming care free why would you even go and rescue him?
For there to be help; there must be an OPEN and SINCERE admission things are not right i.e we are in trouble, the problem is the current custodians of power have sold themselves as the gold standard of “I can do no wrong,” They have even complemented this with the highest pay in the world – so let them be. After all they are so smart, so why is there a need to appeal to nationalism and patriotism?
BTW I have just received the latest com-sat from the brotherhood – the rubberband brigade WILL NOT RETURN without FIRST a formal apology from Philip Yeo et al. Its final. Endorsed directly even by Darkness himself – you see, we are living in a very different world Hazel – it is a world of implications and rammifications – if you do have the time, do read this:
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/why-china-fucked-itself-big-time-with-google/
I believe it this essay puts everything in the perfect perspective. We can ONLY start discussion abt king and country after Philip Yeo and Company has worked through the issue, but as it is, even I will no longer dare to bring out this issue out – surely even you can understand, my country is never as important as the need to cover my own arse – I am sure even your husband will agree with me?
SD
Hazel,
Your husband will understand this: we don’t want to like the 6th army in Stalingrad – we don’t want our logistical lines to fritter away – as I said earlier in my other entries – setting the strategic vision is not our job. If you pay me a seven fgure salary, then I willl gladly lay out the strategic blueprint.
If there is problem; come clean (that is our sincere advice) – only then can we help. But as our leader said, “we don’t seem to have any problems, we are in Disneyland it seems, so be it….life just goes on, you will get nothing from us! Absolutely nothing!” Those are the exact words of our leader; I agree with him.
SD
Dear Singaporedaddy,
Thank you for your explanation of how La Convivencia works in your gaming world. I like your idea of a protest cum family outing, hahaha, I like it very much! (So did my husband.) You guys must have a lot of fun.
Based on your description, the structure is not new, but the implementation can be vastly different depending on the underlying guiding principles and philosophies. I feel that a key ingredient in your model is having a suitably matured coordinator (whether as a person or an organisation) who is adept at channelling emotions and energies rather than suppressing them. Unfortunately in the real world, we tend to veer more towards “the rule of the law” and changing legislation to make unwelcome actions illegal, e.g. public order act. Alas, a total mindset change is required before this model can work the way it is meant to.
Thank you for your valuable 15 mins : ). I am so glad the server is finally up, I had been trying so many times in the last few days trying to access this thread. Is there any other way of contacting you? but i do not mean to intrude. If it is inconvenient for some reason, I have a blog that you can pop by sometimes for an exchange of views.
Regards,
Hazel
Dear Smallvoice585,
I was not able to access TOC these past few days and therefore the delay in my reply to you.
In answer to your questions:
You are suggesting that I am not acknowledging that there are flaws in our citizens. No, I am only giving an opinion on where this flaw could have come from? Neither am I suggesting that our flaws have to be unique in order that we plead guilty to them. What I am saying is that our flaws are no different to many in other parts of the world, yet we are condemning ourselves to the bone for having them instead of the ones who are primarily guilty of creating these flaws.
Read my earlier comments again and you will see that the point I was trying to bring across was; that yes, there is apathy, but what is the reason behind this attitude if not for the fact that most have come to accept everything that the PAP is, and that there is no need for opposition representation, because the PAP is able to oppose itself and renew from within? Can you deny the fact of all the underlying reasons like press control, threat of arrest and punishment without trial, the disadvantage of not being in the mainstream scheme of things, the fear of rocking the boat etc, play an integral role to how Singaporeans behave? It is a behaviour not attributed to apathy but acceptance.
The average Singaporean is well-verse in this mantra and they accept it. This surely cannot be the ‘apathy’ that many are blaming.
To ask it very simply: what made the present day Singaporeans they way they are? When you have figured out the answer to this, you too will acknowledge the root cause, and perhaps come to accept that you might be too opinionated against your fellow Singaporeans instead of the ones who created this condition in them.
The Singaporean identity is one that is not clouded and ruled by rigid doctrines but one that is free – free to chose their life-paths and pursuits.
Hi Theforgottongeneration,
You are absolutely correct and I thank you for sharing your insights. We certainly have to be careful when we put blame on the behaviour of Singaporeans. How very often we get blamed for being kiasu, kiasi and tum chiak etc? And mind you, some of these accusations come down from right at the top of the PAP echelon.
I liken it to the stop-at-two policy. Our parents were told that having more than two would sink the country. Less than fifty years later we get the blame for not producing more. During the same period, we were also told that the land we have could hold no more than four million people; today we are stretching to beyond 5 million, maybe six.
Who often gets the blame whenever there is a wind of change? The ones responsible for introducing these policies or the ones at the receiving end? The point is clear isn’t it?
Likewise, we have been told to blame ourselves for being apathetic, forgetting that it is not apathy that we a grappling with but the acceptance of a generation of people who believed that acceptance is the best way forward.
So, my plea to the opposition is this: do not fight apathy but rather fight the attitude of blind-acceptance of all things branded PAP.
Dear gemami Feb 1, 2010 8:14,
Thanks for your reply. I understand your point of view though I’m not entirely convinced by it. I always believe that everyone is accountable for their own behavior and should not try to blame others.
Even if they are influenced by circumstances or other people, they have only themselves to blame for being vulnerable to such influences. Well, that’s just my point of view.
I’m not being deliberately harsh in my judgment of others as this is the standard I hold for myself.
Dear Smallvoice585,
We do not have to always see eye to eye when sharing our points of view. I concede that many Singaporeans think along the same line as you. What I was hoping for was to present a different way of thinking, one that is outside the dictates of the government, more so the PAP and its staunch supporters.
Indeed we reap what we sow. Just that too many believe in the end product that they have harvested and hope to continue to harvest – failing to see that their harvest come with a huge price tag that we do not yet know how huge.
Look at the most recent economic news and the new direction we can expect to be set upon us. Again the government is running away with its own thinking over what’s best for the country – pinning its hope that once the country makes more money, the poeple will be happy.
When are they going to stop and ponder whether this is what Singaporeans want? I personally do not want an over-rich country where I cannot enjoy my life. Some want to be a little laid back. How do these fit in if there is only one road to take?
Again, many would lament and just accept. It is not apathy.They do care, oh yes. Just that they feel helpless.
Are they?
There is a very destructive mindset festering amongst our civil servants. From my conversations with them, they think that locals are stupid and lazy, and are seeking to replace locals with ‘hard-driving’ foreigners so that MNCs continue to be based in Singapore.
Of course i do not like what I hear, chiefly because no government has the right to judge its people, as if the people owe it a living. And it is also not true that locals are stupid and lazy – if they are, then the govt is solely to blame for creating an environment that fosters such an attitude of resignation and stupor.
//angy_one
They keep the MNC here to continue to pay tax to them.
That’s why what the MNC says, they agree.
I like singaporedaddy’s comments on kuai kuai scholars being unable to contribute to creativity and unable to foster out-of-the-box thinking when placed in a stifling room walled by deadening bureaucracy. His example of Berkshire Hathaway is also funny =) However, this ‘intellectual anorexia’ will never be solved through a simple apology by Mr Phillip Yeo.
Nonetheless, I do support the PSC’s scholarship as I see the need for the PSC to capture and nurture talents from a young age. However, I hope that some of these scholars be given a chance to disentangle themselves from the System by giving them flexibilities to join the corporate world or even forming a Opposition Party, that is, as long as they are based in Singapore. As such, Singapore’s industries and even the political scene will not be bereft of talent, which is currently monopolized by the PSC and the Service.
@ Germani: Valid points over whether economic development is what people really desire. However, leisure is also an economic good. Giving up economic development involves opportunity costs that some of us might not be willing to forsake, esp more so if leisure is an inferior good. Currently, 13% of employed Residents earn more than $100,000 in annual income. Without them and their extensive business networks, we will not have the regional financial hub, nor the regional tech hub. In fact, we might have to resort to extraordinary measures to change our growth plan to fit the popular consensus (or what appears to be).
Are Singaporeans prepared for a social democracy like Finland? I don’t think so.
P.S. The general remarks about foreigners being 2nd rate talents are extremely insulting. They provide vibrancy and diversity to an institution, as well as serving as competitive benchmarks and should not be derogated as such. Also, ‘top Singaporean students who further their studies abroad’ do not remain top rate when they are squeezed out by foreign talents. Only 2 kinds of students go overseas. 1. Capable/Rich 2. Cannot make it here but rich. Those who stay but cannot get into a local unis? they only have themselves to blame for not studying hard enough, ceteris paribus.
The RP has to drop some of the xenophobic members before I will consider giving them my vote. Despite its title, some of their suggestions are still fire-fighting.
//Sleepless night
Those comments are substantiated and are not as insulting as the “daft” comments by LKY.
//Do Re Mi
As if the policies by LHL/MBT/GY/Hen (Teo doesn’t suggest anything; he just stand there and look tall) are not fire fighting ones.
And they make the general population poorer with lower productivity and negotiation power.
What a joke!
Regardless of whether existing pap policies are fire-fighting, which i don’t think so given the extensive amount of debate in the civil service college, it still doesn’t change the fact that the WP policies are fire-fighting.
1. Calling for equal renumeration for foreign tenures and local tenures is equal to being oblivious to all social-economic pressures that a foreign lecturer/professor faces upon taking the chair. Every university has its own politics. Letting government having a hand in how the Faculty appoints its own Dean or even its Professors is equivalent to interfering in Academia which runs contrary to privatization of NUS in the past few years. Also, have Dr Gomez considered all the relevant stakeholders (i.e. Professors) who might want to have a say in this issue? I personally know of a few who will want to dispute his argument. Government has no place in dictating the tenures and discourses in higher education unless they themselves become a stakeholder. (i.e. become a subject of criticism/activities that threaten the social fabric)
2. Singapore’s education ‘learning-by-rote’ model was emphasized post-war independence so as to ensure that most of the population was at least minimally educated. There has indeed been changes to the needs of the economy and changes to the education system is needed at a fundamental level. In fact, I tuition part-time every weekend and there has been a major change in the Sec 2 Math Syllabus where more emphasis were placed on application and challenging questions instead of formula-memorization. Now, in Sec 2, they emphasize on spatial visualization as well as the basic stuffs that I used to learn when I was in Secondary – just that its less memory work, and more conceptual. There has been changes. Just give them more time.
3. Abolishing the PSLE is definitely not a good idea. The PSLE allows schools to cater to children with different academic abilities and potential, albeit its many criticisms and its occasional counter-productive results. The abolishment of the GEP is, to me, a great disappointment. During my time, students from the GEP would study the Sun Tze Art of War, together with other Annals and Texts and interesting out-of-the-curriculum ‘Discovery Projects’ that made learning much more fun and exciting. In my school, GEP were treated as normal students with a different curriculum. In fact, in my school, we had 4 streams. The EM2s, the Mainstream EM1s, the Supplementary Stream and the GEPs. I believe everyone from my school treated each other equally and fairly. It was disappointing when I knew that future GEPers would no longer have the opportunities to experience learning as such. Instead of abolishing the PSLE that many parents cite as a form of stress, why not implement logical testing alongside the PSLE to screen for children who might have underdeveloped potential?
Oh I almost forgot. The GEP was a means of logical testing and it was abolished due to an excessive amount of people making noise. Now social mobility will be more difficult than usual. Abolishing the GEP, and subsequently the PSLE to relieve parental pressure/stress is not a viable reason and not a good idea.
If you cannot separate the cream from the crop, the good from the average, the average from the mediocre, you will never be able to craft an Education System to tailor to everyone’s needs.
What is needed in this case is greater exposure to different subjects and more exposure to different forms of talent development, so that everyone can find their own niche in life and be able to subsist/live by their own means. Definitely not trying to reduce means-testing and thus depriving students of their ability to benchmark their capabilities with their peers. Also, another issue is that PSLE is primarily based on rote-learning and that must change. The Primary Syllabus must reflect how the economy has shifted from a knowledge-based economy to a creativity-based economy. As such, the PSLE will remain relevant to the economy and to society’s needs while retaining its status as an essential tool of means- testing for children of 12 years of age.
Hazel Poa suggests that the PSLE and ‘character building, creativity and entrepreneurship’ are mutually-exclusive. That is not the case, and I shouldnt go into details about all the co-curricular activities they have going on for children at primary schools.
@mon: why do you like to make generalizations? Also, the comments made by LKY on CNA is different in context to the comments made by Justin Ong in this article. LKY said the contentious statement with a pretext: IF citizens finds fault with the HDB policy. Keeping in mind the 经济适用房 vis-a-vis 商品房 situation in China, I don’t.
In contrast, Justin Ong made a sweeping generalization condemming ‘foreign talents at all levels’ to be an ‘abomination to Singapore’s education policy’. This kind of generalization is abhorrent at all levels of academia. Even more so when he is supposed to lend credibility to the newly-formed RP. Instead, xenophobia echoes throughout the entire article, and throughout this entire forum. I don’t understand what’s with this globalisation-denying mentality throughout the entire forum. From issues ranging from FT to lower birth rates to employability of Singaporeans to affordability of HDB flats. Seriously. I have done my calculations. And I don’t believe I’m wrong in my calculations on the issue of HDB flats. As long as families dont spend beyond what they can afford to, they should have in excess of $300-$800 every month after controlling for all expenses.
There are issues with Singapore. Yes the opposition did mention some solutions. But its not the way I would like to see them solved. Not with all the inherent bias and one-sided policy crafting.
Exasperated.
errata – RP not WP.