Due to pressing personal problems and those with work, I will cease updating of this blog till further notice.
I will be away in Shenzhen, China till the end of the year and I heard that Blogger is banned in China. As such, I think it might be impossible to blog on this platform.
I thank all my previous readers for their support and I hope bloggers out there will continue on your endeavours to protect Singapore's and Singaporeans' collective interests!
WE LOVE SINGAPORE!
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Recycling and why it will not take off in Singapore
Before I start the post proper, let me display two pictures I took at Suntec City the other day.
The two bins. Look similar? Not really, right?
But contents looks similar!
The two bins. Look similar? Not really, right?But contents looks similar!
This is what I call the lack of social conscience in SG. This is why, despite many of the good intentions behind the SG government's policies, they almost never seem to take off in the way it was intended.
Since people like to compare across countries, I shall use Finland as an example. There, the law doesn't state a penalty for littering. Why? Because simply, people there don't do it. I once asked a friend over there, "why don't people litter?" She looked at me with an extremely puzzled look, and replied, "Clarence, why would anyone WANT to litter?" That was what I call, a moment of enlightenment. Why do we litter? Why do we throw rubbish into the wrong bins? When it is obviously a recycling bin and the one for rubbish isn't even overflowing with refuse!
That moment of enlightenment led me to change my attitude towards littering. Nowadays, when I have something to throw and a bin is not in sight, I simply shove it in my back pocket.
****
We are already a first-world country, and in many aspects of our economy, we're first-class amongst the first-world nations. But the thing is, we look upon other locals with disdain, treat them as inferior, simply because of their social practices. Things that could have been changed easily, like not littering, like giving way to alighting passengers from MRTs and buses, like not squeezing yourself into the train when it is obviously bursting with people inside already, like not spitting in a public place, like... like... like... so many other things. I understand the meaning of 'old habits die hard', so I really hope that the younger generation (my own and those younger) will not follow in their parents' generation's footsteps, at least in terms of social practices.
Having said that, we now look at the decision of putting the two bins side by side. If we leave it as it is, there will be absent minded people who just throw their rubbish into either of the bins (let's just say 50-50 chance for argument's sake.) Some people will feel guilty about dropping it in the wrong bin but even these are rare. There will be those who are more civic-minded who after accidentally drop it in, will want to pick it out and drop it in the correct bin, but these people are an endangered species (even rarer than the previous category.)
Yet if we don't, there will be inconsiderate asses who, on pretext of not having a rubbish bin to throw their litter, will just drop it conveniently into the recycle bins if they are placed separately from the rubbish bins.
So this is going to be a real hard decision, eh? Because if we look at how recycling works, it just takes one idiot to pour in some curry sauce and dirty all the paper, plastic, or cans to make them unfit for recycling. No wonder recycling is not that profitable a business as in other countries. Back to my earlier example, in Finland, where people even SORT OUT their refuse to be recycled! There are about 7 or 8 categories of such, and people actually bother to do it. It's amazing to us Singaporeans, maybe, but until we bother to do such, we can never call ourselves a first-world country in all senses of the word.
My suggestion to the management of all establishments/ recycling companies is to rig the design of the bins such that the rubbish bins are incorporated with the recycling ones, with the hole for rubbish at waist level to suit those absent minded and inconsiderate asses. The hole for dumping materials fit for recycling should be placed slightly higher, maybe at shoulder level, so kids cannot reach it, and only civic-minded people actually bother. I'm not sure, it might be expensive to redesign the bins, but in a country like ours, it might be the only saving grace for recycling yet.
Featured read: The Great Singapore Sale
Synopsis - Esther talks about her GSS experience, whilst comparing between Singapore and Malaysia. I think it's a good read and a wake-up call for the frogs-in-the-well who are unable to see the picture outside of their wormhole.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
University places = F(protectionism, citizenship, taxes)?
Great debate on the issue of "how we should allocate our university places." I didn't write on it first-time round because I didn't think it was much of an issue to be debated on. How wrong could I get.
If people understand what a debate is about, they will realize that there is hardly a "correct" and "wrong" stand. Too very often in our lives, there are the so-called grey areas. I hope that readers exercise caution in reading, then commenting. It is easy to gripe about the imperfections in any system, simply because no system is perfect! But it is more difficult to come up with a solution that can actually work better, and has less/minor side-effects! But you all already know that.
Before I start let me explain the title of this post. So far that I've seen in the blogs and their respective comments, these few issues have cropped up together with this discussion on "university places", so I somehow thought that it would be interesting that university places could actually be a function of all the above-mentioned! What you guys think?
----------
I was quite taken aback that Mr Wang - whom I highly respect for his (usually) rather incisive and balanced views - took an absolute stand on this issue. To the extent I thought he was actually xenophobic. I was wondering why I thought that way (apparently my subconscious mind works faster than my conscious one), but when I re-read the article I finally realized.
Yes Mr Wang. But to what level are we talking about? The state is providing for education up till secondary level. We can't even guarantee places at JC level, and now you're talking about university? What is adequate? Enough for one is not enough for another. ($1million a year is enough for many of us, but yet not enough for... you know, others.) It is easy to SAY things, but to implement, you must have the means, and that directly translates to money, and yes, taxes.
Of course, I foresee the next point coming: "Then don't give out so many foreign scholarships lah!" Correct, I agree on this point. I even mentioned in one of my previous comments on some blog that some of the money that we've been giving out to foreign scholars to make Singapore more "cosmopolitan" could be better spent on Singaporeans to give them an overseas exchange experience. This, as opposed to giving out whole scholarships to some Singaporeans, because the same amount of money could be better spent to benefit a larger group of Singaporeans. I also argued that the cosmopolitan-ity of a country would not be greatly enhanced just by introducing a group of foreigners into the country because people will tend to stick in their social circles (of course not true for hall residences where people get to mix around more freely!) and not mix around too much.
From the many comments on Mr Wang's blog, I can see that a lot of these people do not have foreign friends, and it is quite sad. Not just because you cannot be more "cosmopolitan", but also because you will tend to have warped views of yourself, your country and the world as a whole. I am against excessive spending OUR money on foreigners, of course, but the thing is, I have seen firsthand, how a foreign friend of mine (American) came here, studied for a year, fell in love with the place, fell in love here too (albeit not with a local), went home to complete his degree and vowed to come back here to be a PR (with a possible view of taking up citizenship) - he already has a return ticket to Singapore! Looking at the big picture, would you say the money spent on him - I dunno how much - is not worth it? He is probably going back to Michigan and saying a lot of good words about Singapore - of course he is not blindly pro-Singapore - and encourage more tourists to come here in the process. Word-of-mouth is growing in importance in this age, and I believe it's more powerful than any advertisement. In this sense, the scholarships/bursaries given out might be more effective than the STB advertisements being screened in various countries. (Now of course if you're going to be a total ass and say that we DON'T NEED foreigners, then sorry, there is no point for argument anymore. We're on two different wavelengths already.)
In case people start accusing me of being elitist/ uncaring/ not knowing what being rejected from university means, I have to categorically state that my bro got 4As, 1D and 1M (for S papers), A1 for both GP and Project Work and got rejected from the Medicine faculty too. His CCA record is impeccable too, having had MP attachment (only offered to the best students in his JC) and various Community Involvement projects. I shall not elaborate further on his achievements (I'm not here to boast!) but needless to say, my brother has qualifications that far surpass any of those mentioned in the papers. Yet as we wonder why he did not gain acceptance into Medicine, my family and I do not go around accusing the government of not doing its part. My mum's considering selling some property - not sure if it's the flat we're staying in - to let my brother study overseas. Thing is, there is always going to be competition all round, and if you get rejected from somewhere, it is fair to say that you're going to have choices elsewhere. There ARE second rate/less established universities in Singapore, besides the 3 main ones, and well, if I state those university names, I run the risk of offending YET another group of people (hint: read the comments in Mr Wang's blog for clues.)
In fact, as pointed out somewhere, the whole idea of setting up second-rate universities opens up a can of worms. It is recognizable that competition is indeed quite the extreme in Singapore, and getting this second rate degree might not be worth its salt (or money). Then, ah yes, when you graduate after 3 or 4 years, these very people are going to COMPLAIN again (oh why not?) that now that they have degrees, they SHOULD be employed and why are they not? Look at Taiwan, they're bursting with graduates from all over the place, but a significant percentage of them are unemployed. So is this how we want our graduates to turn out? Even being the best is not enough? Then what? Masters, PhD, post-doc? Then everyone in Singapore will now want a PhD and they're going to demand tha tthe government provide enough places for everyone?
Can of worms indeed. Huge.
The suggestion of setting up another university JUST to cater to the Dragon Year babies is NOT economically viable. Are you going to tell me, you're setting up an multi million-dollar (probably upwards of $50million?) institution just to cater to one batch of students, and after they graduate, the university falls into disuse until 8 years later (assuming 4 year courses)? I hope the person who said that has some intellect left to admit that he was a moron.
The author believes that we should not always turn to the government for help, as I have said again and again. Since when has not getting a place in university turned into a thing of national concern? Sure, and the next time you lost your wallet, you'd blame the government for not making the place safer?! What next, pray tell. Sure, by all means, vocalize your thoughts, but before that, sit down and reexamine yourself, and those thoughts - are they reasonable or not?
I end this post urging readers and bloggers alike to try to get the big picture of the situation (well, I'm not saying I did get the WHOLE picture, so correct me where I erred) before actually airing your thoughts. Of course it all makes for good verbal discourse when ideas get thrashed out in the online world like this.
G'day to all!
Related blogs and news:
Mr Wang: Should Citizens Get Priority for University Admission
Molly Meek: University Places: Can we think beyond the universities?
Singapore Angle: Much ado about university admissions
Aaron Ng: Universities should give Singaporeans priority?
Bart JP: Protection for Singaporeans?
Updated
ST Forum: S'poreans have priority in university admission - MOE clarifies
ST Forum: Unsuccessful students may yet excel in life
If people understand what a debate is about, they will realize that there is hardly a "correct" and "wrong" stand. Too very often in our lives, there are the so-called grey areas. I hope that readers exercise caution in reading, then commenting. It is easy to gripe about the imperfections in any system, simply because no system is perfect! But it is more difficult to come up with a solution that can actually work better, and has less/minor side-effects! But you all already know that.
Before I start let me explain the title of this post. So far that I've seen in the blogs and their respective comments, these few issues have cropped up together with this discussion on "university places", so I somehow thought that it would be interesting that university places could actually be a function of all the above-mentioned! What you guys think?
----------
I was quite taken aback that Mr Wang - whom I highly respect for his (usually) rather incisive and balanced views - took an absolute stand on this issue. To the extent I thought he was actually xenophobic. I was wondering why I thought that way (apparently my subconscious mind works faster than my conscious one), but when I re-read the article I finally realized.
"Heh. Actually there's nothing surprising about it. Look at our property market. Look at our residential rental rates. Look at the crowds on our MRT trains and in our food courts. Look at the endless jam on the CTE.
And then look at our university situation.
See the pattern? Due to a massive intake of foreigners in recent years, our resident population has exploded. We've become the 2nd most crowded country in the world. And our current infrastructure just can't cope."
Now, I dunno what happened along the way, but although I am quite certain that the intake of foreigners may have something to do with the problems mentioned (there is indeed a logical connection), I wouldn't connect them in the manner that Mr Wang has done. If connections were so easily made, then academics would be out of work.
"The basic point still remains. It is the responsibility of the government to provide adequate education opportunities for its citizens."
Yes Mr Wang. But to what level are we talking about? The state is providing for education up till secondary level. We can't even guarantee places at JC level, and now you're talking about university? What is adequate? Enough for one is not enough for another. ($1million a year is enough for many of us, but yet not enough for... you know, others.) It is easy to SAY things, but to implement, you must have the means, and that directly translates to money, and yes, taxes.
Of course, I foresee the next point coming: "Then don't give out so many foreign scholarships lah!" Correct, I agree on this point. I even mentioned in one of my previous comments on some blog that some of the money that we've been giving out to foreign scholars to make Singapore more "cosmopolitan" could be better spent on Singaporeans to give them an overseas exchange experience. This, as opposed to giving out whole scholarships to some Singaporeans, because the same amount of money could be better spent to benefit a larger group of Singaporeans. I also argued that the cosmopolitan-ity of a country would not be greatly enhanced just by introducing a group of foreigners into the country because people will tend to stick in their social circles (of course not true for hall residences where people get to mix around more freely!) and not mix around too much.
From the many comments on Mr Wang's blog, I can see that a lot of these people do not have foreign friends, and it is quite sad. Not just because you cannot be more "cosmopolitan", but also because you will tend to have warped views of yourself, your country and the world as a whole. I am against excessive spending OUR money on foreigners, of course, but the thing is, I have seen firsthand, how a foreign friend of mine (American) came here, studied for a year, fell in love with the place, fell in love here too (albeit not with a local), went home to complete his degree and vowed to come back here to be a PR (with a possible view of taking up citizenship) - he already has a return ticket to Singapore! Looking at the big picture, would you say the money spent on him - I dunno how much - is not worth it? He is probably going back to Michigan and saying a lot of good words about Singapore - of course he is not blindly pro-Singapore - and encourage more tourists to come here in the process. Word-of-mouth is growing in importance in this age, and I believe it's more powerful than any advertisement. In this sense, the scholarships/bursaries given out might be more effective than the STB advertisements being screened in various countries. (Now of course if you're going to be a total ass and say that we DON'T NEED foreigners, then sorry, there is no point for argument anymore. We're on two different wavelengths already.)
In case people start accusing me of being elitist/ uncaring/ not knowing what being rejected from university means, I have to categorically state that my bro got 4As, 1D and 1M (for S papers), A1 for both GP and Project Work and got rejected from the Medicine faculty too. His CCA record is impeccable too, having had MP attachment (only offered to the best students in his JC) and various Community Involvement projects. I shall not elaborate further on his achievements (I'm not here to boast!) but needless to say, my brother has qualifications that far surpass any of those mentioned in the papers. Yet as we wonder why he did not gain acceptance into Medicine, my family and I do not go around accusing the government of not doing its part. My mum's considering selling some property - not sure if it's the flat we're staying in - to let my brother study overseas. Thing is, there is always going to be competition all round, and if you get rejected from somewhere, it is fair to say that you're going to have choices elsewhere. There ARE second rate/less established universities in Singapore, besides the 3 main ones, and well, if I state those university names, I run the risk of offending YET another group of people (hint: read the comments in Mr Wang's blog for clues.)
In fact, as pointed out somewhere, the whole idea of setting up second-rate universities opens up a can of worms. It is recognizable that competition is indeed quite the extreme in Singapore, and getting this second rate degree might not be worth its salt (or money). Then, ah yes, when you graduate after 3 or 4 years, these very people are going to COMPLAIN again (oh why not?) that now that they have degrees, they SHOULD be employed and why are they not? Look at Taiwan, they're bursting with graduates from all over the place, but a significant percentage of them are unemployed. So is this how we want our graduates to turn out? Even being the best is not enough? Then what? Masters, PhD, post-doc? Then everyone in Singapore will now want a PhD and they're going to demand tha tthe government provide enough places for everyone?
Can of worms indeed. Huge.
The suggestion of setting up another university JUST to cater to the Dragon Year babies is NOT economically viable. Are you going to tell me, you're setting up an multi million-dollar (probably upwards of $50million?) institution just to cater to one batch of students, and after they graduate, the university falls into disuse until 8 years later (assuming 4 year courses)? I hope the person who said that has some intellect left to admit that he was a moron.
The author believes that we should not always turn to the government for help, as I have said again and again. Since when has not getting a place in university turned into a thing of national concern? Sure, and the next time you lost your wallet, you'd blame the government for not making the place safer?! What next, pray tell. Sure, by all means, vocalize your thoughts, but before that, sit down and reexamine yourself, and those thoughts - are they reasonable or not?
Having said that, it is my belief that our government should not have gone out on such an aggressive drive to hunt foreigners to come to our land (which is quite frankly, bursting at its seams already - like Mr Wang said.) It should be a gradual thing so we can adjust at the various stages. But I'm not sure, it could be due to the greying population issue.
I end this post urging readers and bloggers alike to try to get the big picture of the situation (well, I'm not saying I did get the WHOLE picture, so correct me where I erred) before actually airing your thoughts. Of course it all makes for good verbal discourse when ideas get thrashed out in the online world like this.
G'day to all!
Related blogs and news:
Mr Wang: Should Citizens Get Priority for University Admission
Molly Meek: University Places: Can we think beyond the universities?
Singapore Angle: Much ado about university admissions
Aaron Ng: Universities should give Singaporeans priority?
Bart JP: Protection for Singaporeans?
Updated
ST Forum: S'poreans have priority in university admission - MOE clarifies
ST Forum: Unsuccessful students may yet excel in life
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Pragmatism and the choice to stay out of politics
Life could be predictable, if only you'd believe it to be.
There's a "straightforward" path to success. Study hard in primary and secondary school (get into all the brandname ones without the "negative influences"), get into a top JC (y'all already know which), then achieve the perfect 4As, 2Ds, A1 for GP and an excellent CCA record to boot. (But that's IF you can do it, and a very big IF.) Then of course, hone the interview skills to ace that scholarship interview, and you have it MADE FOR LIFE. Yes, literally speaking.
From then on, as those responsibilities come one by one, so does greatness. Promotions come thick and fast, and before you know it, you're in the top echelons of power, a position which commonfolk like us all can only hope to reach - and that we pin our hopes on our next generation. One of my friends actually said she LIKED that kind of predictability - she felt safe in the knowledge that there was a surefire formula for success. But that's only if you do make it there, or at least somewhere NEAR there.
-----------
Pragmatism in Singapore means to lead a peaceful existence, earn your own money and mind your own business. This necessarily(?) means you do not dabble in politics or engage in alternative views, or does it? Pragmatism tells me I shouldn't be confronting (if at all) the establishment. Yes, looking at what I can potentially lose, it is scary.
While it is not my business who is in charge of Singapore, it is my concern, as long as I am Singaporean and feel such, to want the best to be right at the top, and more than that, to ensure that they do not go unchecked and totally unopposed as they chart the path for our country. I think a government, however bright and capable, will crumble if there is insufficient checks and balances in place. Corruption will set in, regardless of the level of salaries being paid out (of course a higher salary will manage to stave off chances of that happening for a longer time, but still...) That is why, although I favour a limited democracy for its efficiency in policymaking, I also believe that the citizens have a role to play by being watchful over their own leaders.
I am glad to have found an active online community which watches the government's actions closely. While we might be tempted to feel discouraged from time to time (words are only words without action being taken), let us take heart in the fact that maybe one day, the government will take our opinions with more than a pinch of salt.
There's a "straightforward" path to success. Study hard in primary and secondary school (get into all the brandname ones without the "negative influences"), get into a top JC (y'all already know which), then achieve the perfect 4As, 2Ds, A1 for GP and an excellent CCA record to boot. (But that's IF you can do it, and a very big IF.) Then of course, hone the interview skills to ace that scholarship interview, and you have it MADE FOR LIFE. Yes, literally speaking.
From then on, as those responsibilities come one by one, so does greatness. Promotions come thick and fast, and before you know it, you're in the top echelons of power, a position which commonfolk like us all can only hope to reach - and that we pin our hopes on our next generation. One of my friends actually said she LIKED that kind of predictability - she felt safe in the knowledge that there was a surefire formula for success. But that's only if you do make it there, or at least somewhere NEAR there.
-----------
Pragmatism in Singapore means to lead a peaceful existence, earn your own money and mind your own business. This necessarily(?) means you do not dabble in politics or engage in alternative views, or does it? Pragmatism tells me I shouldn't be confronting (if at all) the establishment. Yes, looking at what I can potentially lose, it is scary.
While it is not my business who is in charge of Singapore, it is my concern, as long as I am Singaporean and feel such, to want the best to be right at the top, and more than that, to ensure that they do not go unchecked and totally unopposed as they chart the path for our country. I think a government, however bright and capable, will crumble if there is insufficient checks and balances in place. Corruption will set in, regardless of the level of salaries being paid out (of course a higher salary will manage to stave off chances of that happening for a longer time, but still...) That is why, although I favour a limited democracy for its efficiency in policymaking, I also believe that the citizens have a role to play by being watchful over their own leaders.
I am glad to have found an active online community which watches the government's actions closely. While we might be tempted to feel discouraged from time to time (words are only words without action being taken), let us take heart in the fact that maybe one day, the government will take our opinions with more than a pinch of salt.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Bureaucracy at its ugly worst
Well well, what do we say to this?
Alfian Sa'at writes:
If the person were me, I would be extremely indignant. I'm sure this guy is very angry too, but he manages to stay cool and fire off a cool-headed letter to the MOE, but the reply he got was another TYPICAL dodgy governmental answer. No Alfian, I did not have fun reading your correspondence. I was boiling with rage.
Why is the Civil Service like that? Is it that they have a standard protocol to follow (and again, this begets the question on WHO sets this policy) and that this practice is pick one of several "standard" replies and send it back to any letter writers, regardless what the matter at hand is?
The administration who are in the Civil Service are those with a handicap in the language - is that it? I'm wondering if the Government has a reply about this postulation, what with their INCREASE in Civil Service salaries to attract talent and retain existing ones. Are you equating talent to those equipped with the skill to write inane replies which "communicate maximum bureaucratic reticence", in Alfian's words? If so, their salaries really need not be that high - you could hire any JC kid on summer vacation to fill in those posts.
So where are the people who are actually equipped with the proper command of grammar and vocabulary and who are able to better answer queries than... an advanced robot with pre-set generalized replies to respond to ANY kind of situation? Note that I am not even talking about verbal sparring or debating, most people just want a decent reply that actually ANSWERS the questions swimming in their heads!
To me, what Alfian has asked is plain and simple. I reproduce his questions.
To MOE's credit, they DID manage to answer one of his questions - q2! WOW, wonders of an automated generalized reply!
Quote:
But I think, maybe it's just me, or did I see points 1 - 4 neatly organized into paragraphs, and all waiting to be answered?
However, I read one of the comments at the bottom. And it was enough to chill me to the bone. Next, just to convince myself, I googled for Alfian Sa'at - sure, I've heard of his name, but I'm just not familiar with what he does. And here might be a more plausible reason (although not necessarily palatable) which MOE neglected to include in their reply to Mr Sa'at - reputed in Wikipedia to be Singapore's enfant terrible -that people who are known to be anti-establishment/have alternative views might not be suited to teach our young and malleable minds. Goddamn it, I'm cold, I'm shuddering at the thought of the insidiousness of it all.
If anyone would like to clarify my conjectures with me (I only put two and two together), I will oblige and will be more than happy to answer any queries to my best of my knowledge. I will not be dodgy because... I'm not a "Civil-ized Servant".
Alfian Sa'at writes:
"I was told that the school had received a telephone call from the MOE requesting the immediate termination of my services as a relief teacher. He [the principal] was unable to give me the grounds for such a decision. When I queried him as to whether this was based on my performance in school, he assured me, in his own words, that 'professionally and pedagogically, we had no problems with you'.
I asked if there had been any complaints made against me by any student or parent. Again, I was told that the school had been very satisfied with my performance, and based on feedback from students and teachers, acknowledged the fact that I had often gone beyond the minimum expectations for a relief teacher—including producing extra classroom material and marking the examination papers. He acknowledged that the school was in a very difficult position, because they would have problems procuring the services of another relief teacher at such short notice. "
If the person were me, I would be extremely indignant. I'm sure this guy is very angry too, but he manages to stay cool and fire off a cool-headed letter to the MOE, but the reply he got was another TYPICAL dodgy governmental answer. No Alfian, I did not have fun reading your correspondence. I was boiling with rage.
Why is the Civil Service like that? Is it that they have a standard protocol to follow (and again, this begets the question on WHO sets this policy) and that this practice is pick one of several "standard" replies and send it back to any letter writers, regardless what the matter at hand is?
The administration who are in the Civil Service are those with a handicap in the language - is that it? I'm wondering if the Government has a reply about this postulation, what with their INCREASE in Civil Service salaries to attract talent and retain existing ones. Are you equating talent to those equipped with the skill to write inane replies which "communicate maximum bureaucratic reticence", in Alfian's words? If so, their salaries really need not be that high - you could hire any JC kid on summer vacation to fill in those posts.
So where are the people who are actually equipped with the proper command of grammar and vocabulary and who are able to better answer queries than... an advanced robot with pre-set generalized replies to respond to ANY kind of situation? Note that I am not even talking about verbal sparring or debating, most people just want a decent reply that actually ANSWERS the questions swimming in their heads!
To me, what Alfian has asked is plain and simple. I reproduce his questions.
"I am thus writing to you to seek some answers.
1) What are the reasons for my termination as a relief teacher? I have satisfied the eligibility requirement as stated on your website, which stated a minimum of 5 'O' Level passes. As a matter of fact, I had garnered ten A1 distinctions for my 'O' Level results. I do not have a criminal record. To the best of my knowledge, I have not committed an infraction during the course of my teaching so grievous as to warrant such abrupt termination.
2) Today I received a letter from the Personnel Division informing me that I have not been 'successful for (my) applicaton'. This of course came after the fact; I had already been teaching for a month. Obviously, I would like to know why this letter is sent to me only after my employment.
3) When your directive arrived at the school, I was in the midst of marking the first semestral exam papers for 16 classes. I would like to know why you had urged my termination with such alacrity, without considering how this would affect the school and the student population. I felt a natural responsibility to review with the students the papers that I had marked. In light of these considerations, would it not have been more humane and less disruptive to provide me with a grace period so as to tie up loose ends before my departure?
4) I can only speculate that I have been somewhat blacklisted—as a relief teacher for now—by the MOE. I do not know the basis of this blacklisting, and whether it was generated via any kind of inter-ministerial communication and information-sharing. Does this mean that I will not be able to enter the teaching profession, and that an avenue for possible gainful employment in the civil service has been forever closed to me?"
To MOE's credit, they DID manage to answer one of his questions - q2! WOW, wonders of an automated generalized reply!
Quote:
"In the processing of relief teacher applicatons, we will usually give provisional approval due to the urgency of need at school level, pending further registration formalities. This is why you were initially appointed by East View Sec from 16 Apr to 11 May 07. Upon consideration of your application, we were not able to approve your registration as a relief teacher. Unfortunately, due to an oversight, the school has appointed you again on 14 May 07. We would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused."
But I think, maybe it's just me, or did I see points 1 - 4 neatly organized into paragraphs, and all waiting to be answered?
However, I read one of the comments at the bottom. And it was enough to chill me to the bone. Next, just to convince myself, I googled for Alfian Sa'at - sure, I've heard of his name, but I'm just not familiar with what he does. And here might be a more plausible reason (although not necessarily palatable) which MOE neglected to include in their reply to Mr Sa'at - reputed in Wikipedia to be Singapore's enfant terrible -that people who are known to be anti-establishment/have alternative views might not be suited to teach our young and malleable minds. Goddamn it, I'm cold, I'm shuddering at the thought of the insidiousness of it all.
If anyone would like to clarify my conjectures with me (I only put two and two together), I will oblige and will be more than happy to answer any queries to my best of my knowledge. I will not be dodgy because... I'm not a "Civil-ized Servant".
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Say NO to NETS
NETS is increasing its fees for merchants, and these merchants are likely to pass the increased costs to us. This increase is not unsubstantial, as it represents a three-fold increase over current charges.
"NETS now charge businesses between 0.35 and 0.55 per cent of the amount of each transaction. Starting July, this will be increased gradually to between 1.5 and 1.8 per cent of purchases." --- from Channelnewsasia website
True, there's no free lunch on Earth, and we should expect to pay for everything we use, but what? A three-fold increase? Right. I suggest that we vote with our dollars, and use cash, debit/credit from now on. We will show NETS that we consumers are not to be trifled with.
Meanwhile, NETS has also clarified that this increase in fees is not meant to be a consumer issue, but I think they're more afraid of the Competition Commission coming down hard on them because of their monopolistic position as CASE has filed a complaint against them with the Commission. Hooray to that.
A ST reader sent in his views on the NETS issue and I'm furiously nodding my head away to his comments. Couldn't agree more. But well, I'm not sure if the hoo-ha will die off like it ALWAYS does in Singapore - be the issues be on upgrading of HDB estates, political issues, transport fee hikes and stuff. I'd be disappointed if it were the same with every issue, although I'd tend to think that this NETS thing shouldn't be blown out of proportion - I'd just change my mode of payment to debit, thank you very much.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Of hawkers, whining and foreign talent
It is funny how the mind works. I cannot pretend to fathom how my own brain works, much less say I understand others'. In the short span of 15 minutes I was at a coffeeshop (a coffeeshop is different from a hawker centre, but any Singaporean would know that) having my lunch, I had formulated this post in my mind's eye.
I had noticed a bunch of hawkers grouped together at a table, and gossiping. Although I cannot say I heard their words, but through their gestures and glances, I quickly began to realize that it was directed at their more successful neighbour - Botak Jones.
Before we begin, let me give some background on this outfit Botak Jones (BJ). It started off as one outlet in Tuas, or so I heard from my brother's friend (should be accurate). That one is reputed to serve the best BJ food. The other outlets, I heard, cannot compare, somehowthe original is still best. (I've had the chance to dine at the Clementi outlet - the Cajun Chicken is not bad - but this post is not about food.) I think the idea of this BJ chain is to serve great Western food at "affordable" prices. Their prices are not hawker standard, but again, this post is not about food prices or quality. BJ has quite successfully infiltrated the coffeeshops they set up at, as evidenced by the crowds that throng these eateries AFTER they set up shop there. And it must be mentioned that most of these people eat from the BJ shop rather than the other hawkers.
---------
Now, picture this situation. You're an old-time hawker, having seen the setting up of this coffeeshop when it was still a venture between two old and balding men, rather than big coffeshop chains like S11 or Kopitiam. Now, the coffeeshop's revamped by one of these big coffeeshop chains, and then they bring in Botak Jones.
You laugh, thinking it must be one those ambitious entrepreneurships trying to make it big. Just another one of them, doomed to failure within... 3 months, you calculate with your fingertips. Then you go about your business, selling fishball noodles. You steal another glance at the stall, and get stumped. WOAH, is that $7.60 for a set of fish and chips? IN A COFFEESHOP!? Hahahaha... you recalculate with your fingertips, this time, you estimate that they will pack up and go within one and a half months. Nobody with half a brain would choose to eat there, after all people come to coffeeshops for CHEAP food. And of course, your fishball noodles has been the traditional crowd-puller. You go back to cooking food for that nasty customer who's yelling away. Secretly you wish to slap that guy's face, and when he shouts again, you tell him to "go eat at Botak Jones lah! Don't come back! Don't need your business!"
Within 1 month, your business is down 30% (no, it's nothing to do with that previous incident). The crowds prefer to eat at BJ, somehow. You begin fretting, but then you've seen many new shops open and suffered temporary loss of business before the novelty factor wore off and the new hawkers began to pack up and leave for a "better location". So this must be another trying period for you, but it's going to pass. No worries.
The next month, your business nosedives to 50% of the pre-BJ era. Now you start worrying. Weren't they supposed to ship out after one and a half months? And now they're not just going strong, they're growing stronger! The novelty factor is supposed to last all of a month only, wasn't it?
3 months since, your business remains dismal. Lunch hour comes and goes, it used to be hell for you, but now you're sitting at a table, shooing houseflies from your leftover ingredients from last week. Shit.
4 months pass. You start to get really angry about this BJ outlet. You secretly harbour thoughts of razing their stall to the ground, but of course you're more rational than that. You bitch about them to the next stall owner. "Look at them, they think they're so great cos they sell Western food. Please lah, Singaporeans where got so stupid like to eat Western food one. They still prefer the traditional food like laksa and chicken rice mah. How come all our business like that? Must be that stupid Botak Jones lah. Come and ji siao."
---------
I can imagine that was what happened. Anyway I believe it's been more than four months since BJ set up in my area, and a lot of these old time hawkers are getting really frustrated with them for snatching otherwise what would have been their business.
But from a neutral standpoint, I should say the increased business at the coffeeshop was in no small part due to BJ. And I shall use this example as part of bigger concepts - the foreign talent policy (see my previous article on the same topic) and the typical Singapore mindset to whine and complain (I'll talk about both in simultaneity.)
BJ can be seen as the foreign talent imported by say, Kopitiam, to improve their business. After all we know that Kopitiam is a business outfit driven by profit, and the way it functions is not unlike our government, who operates Singapore Inc. in a similar fashion. So of course, somehow, by means of some magical formulae or pure luck, Kopitiam hit on their jackpot, more people eat at the coffeeshop and handsome returns come flushing into their coffers. Very similar to Singapore Inc.'s reliance on foreign talents who create jobs for our locals and at the same time getting our own national coffers flushed with surpluses.
But see, the other hawkers are not happy. Yes, more people eat at the coffeeshop, but the influx of the new customers go to BJ! They don't really notice that they have new customers coming to their stalls too, because now their old customers eat at BJ (the stall which disgusts them to no end not least cos of their huge servings of fries which always seem to be unfinished.) Their business is down, but instead of seeking to innovate, how to improve themselves, they just sit around, mope, gripe and reminisce about the pre-foreign talent era.
One hawker recently came up to my friends and me one day and whilst serving me my food, started to gripe to us about Botak Jones! He asked my friends sarcastically if they were getting food from BJ. One of them was, and he said so. Then the hawker went on to tell us a long story, about how he'd been there for a long time, that BJ was unhealthy, that the waiting times for their food was unreasonable, that the prices were crazy. By comparison, his fish bee hoon was the healthier choice (bah!), cheaper, and in the time my friend was going to get his western food serving, I was going to finish my bowl of noodles, walk one big round around the neighbourhood, and then come back to see... that my friend hadn't gotten his food yet (yes the hawker said all of that.) It wasn't like he knew or could reasonably expect my friend to drop his BJ order and immediately order from him, but he said it anyway. Kept coming back to make snide remarks, and, brought up by our parents NOT to be rude to the older generation, we could only nod and smile in silence, and pray that he would get the hint we were not interested in hearing him talk.
Yes, I know, I'm still young. I might not know as much about what goes on in the working world yet, cos I haven't started working. I would be the first to admit too, that I've had a very sheltered environment, being in all the, for lack of a better phrase, non-neighbourhood schools. But I make an effort to mix around with the neighbourhood school people, and I do not find that a chore. In fact, my life revolves about people and making friends. I do not see the people who did not go to elite schools as inferior. In fact, I'd say most are much better than me in EQ and people relationships when I was younger, especially when I was in secondary school and did not mix around much. So please, I do not see myself as part of the elite, nor am I elitist. (This paragraph is to pre-empt people who might offer dumb comments about me - please do not get personal.)
I think whining and complaining are both things which come naturally to us. It in itself is fine. I engage in whining too. But to rely on the government for everything and anything is becoming a chilling prelude to where our future is headed. I believe, as do many of my European friends that the Singapore CPF system is one of the best systems in the world. You reap what you sow, what is so wrong with that? If you choose to give private tuition, or set up your own business, and in both circumstances not contribute to CPF, then it's your choice too, and it's your fault if anything goes wrong later on, right? True, the government should provide some sort of social security, but too much of it provides for a crutch mentality in all Singaporeans.
I forget when the cash handouts started, prolly when GST was first introduced in Singapore, but since then we've almost begun to take it like a given. There're so many of these schemes that I've forgotten all their names, I just remember that the government's giving me money and that I've a bonus over my female counterparts cos I've done NS and they haven't. When the government started giving out cash handouts to ALL Singaporeans, they might not have anticipated the turn in tide of public thinking. It was all cosy in the beginning of course. Everyone appreciates spare cash.
But soon enough, the Government got so caught up with this that they conveniently ignored the fact that they did NOT want Singaporeans to rely on the Government! But slowly and gradually, it became such. You laugh, you think it's nonsensical, but you judge for yourself when you look at the deluge of extremely humourous articles in the Humour section of ourStates Times Straits Times. Oops, sorry my bad, it's the Forum Pages.
A ST forum article, which happened to be the centrepiece for Piper's article about a father writing in to gripe his daughter's inability to get into a local university despite her grades - A, B, E, made for good lunchtime fodder. A and B aside, what about the E she got? And I think it made perfect sense to read the fineprint in the university handbook that was given to most aspiring undergrads who bothered to turn up at the annual Open House - that meeting the minimum criteria would NOT guarantee admission into the university. I do not think an open admission policy would be in the sights of NUS/NTU/SMU, who are all so caught up with the rankings in the international arena that the last thing they need is a perceived drop in standards of entrance criteria and correspondingly the university's "exclusivity" and reputation. With UNSW Asia's pullout of Singapore, and other foreign institutions' unwillingness to move in as yet, Mr See's daughter would have to try her luck elsewhere.
Last time, in my parents' generation Eh my bad, just some four years back(!), if I couldn't make it to university, it was my fault that I wasn't good enough. Nowadays, if you can't make it to university, you ask your dad to write a letter to the Forum pages (letting people have a good laugh about it in the process must be a bonus.)
Maybe in some part due to Singaporeans nowadays being better educated and as such being more vocal, they start to articulate issues which might have been their own personal grudges last time. True, See Jr's grades of A, B, E and a C for GP are reasonably good, but it's not like they're terribly good that a university would be damned not to accept her. Blame it on luck, blame it on herself. By no means the system is perfect, the net might not have been woven tight enough to catch all the capable people and not let anyone fall through. Whining, if done correctly, can cause the system to improve, but the truth hurts - not many people engage in constructive whining.
Wang Hongjun, in his letter to the ST Forum, laments the participation of our youth in their own business. In his letter, aptly titled "Why are students not writing in themselves?", he claims he is surprised to see parents writing in for their children when the matters at hand are clearly the problems of the children. Add that to the fact that these very children we speak of are not primary school going age, but rather aspiring to go to the university! Have their linguistic ability failed them? Or are they used to having their parents write parents' letters for them in primary, secondary school and even junior college? Stressed Teacher wrote about this topic before - a very interesting phenomenon indeed, although by no means new.
My whole point here is that, many Singaporeans have become sucked into a vacuum of mollycuddling by the government. We need to get out of this vicious cycle and once again learn to stand on our own two feet.
P.S.: I'm not sure if hawkers can opt to sell anything they want or change the food they cook (if they don't have that liberty, then maybe the fault's not really theirs), especially in the setting of a coffeeshop. But then they could ask for a switch? Or somehow improve their cooking, come up with other gimmicks, team up with other hawkers, come up with discount schemes? I dunno, but many of them are the older generation, haven't had the benefit of a tertiary marketing education. Tough luck.
I had noticed a bunch of hawkers grouped together at a table, and gossiping. Although I cannot say I heard their words, but through their gestures and glances, I quickly began to realize that it was directed at their more successful neighbour - Botak Jones.
Before we begin, let me give some background on this outfit Botak Jones (BJ). It started off as one outlet in Tuas, or so I heard from my brother's friend (should be accurate). That one is reputed to serve the best BJ food. The other outlets, I heard, cannot compare, somehowthe original is still best. (I've had the chance to dine at the Clementi outlet - the Cajun Chicken is not bad - but this post is not about food.) I think the idea of this BJ chain is to serve great Western food at "affordable" prices. Their prices are not hawker standard, but again, this post is not about food prices or quality. BJ has quite successfully infiltrated the coffeeshops they set up at, as evidenced by the crowds that throng these eateries AFTER they set up shop there. And it must be mentioned that most of these people eat from the BJ shop rather than the other hawkers.
---------
Now, picture this situation. You're an old-time hawker, having seen the setting up of this coffeeshop when it was still a venture between two old and balding men, rather than big coffeshop chains like S11 or Kopitiam. Now, the coffeeshop's revamped by one of these big coffeeshop chains, and then they bring in Botak Jones.
You laugh, thinking it must be one those ambitious entrepreneurships trying to make it big. Just another one of them, doomed to failure within... 3 months, you calculate with your fingertips. Then you go about your business, selling fishball noodles. You steal another glance at the stall, and get stumped. WOAH, is that $7.60 for a set of fish and chips? IN A COFFEESHOP!? Hahahaha... you recalculate with your fingertips, this time, you estimate that they will pack up and go within one and a half months. Nobody with half a brain would choose to eat there, after all people come to coffeeshops for CHEAP food. And of course, your fishball noodles has been the traditional crowd-puller. You go back to cooking food for that nasty customer who's yelling away. Secretly you wish to slap that guy's face, and when he shouts again, you tell him to "go eat at Botak Jones lah! Don't come back! Don't need your business!"
Within 1 month, your business is down 30% (no, it's nothing to do with that previous incident). The crowds prefer to eat at BJ, somehow. You begin fretting, but then you've seen many new shops open and suffered temporary loss of business before the novelty factor wore off and the new hawkers began to pack up and leave for a "better location". So this must be another trying period for you, but it's going to pass. No worries.
The next month, your business nosedives to 50% of the pre-BJ era. Now you start worrying. Weren't they supposed to ship out after one and a half months? And now they're not just going strong, they're growing stronger! The novelty factor is supposed to last all of a month only, wasn't it?
3 months since, your business remains dismal. Lunch hour comes and goes, it used to be hell for you, but now you're sitting at a table, shooing houseflies from your leftover ingredients from last week. Shit.
4 months pass. You start to get really angry about this BJ outlet. You secretly harbour thoughts of razing their stall to the ground, but of course you're more rational than that. You bitch about them to the next stall owner. "Look at them, they think they're so great cos they sell Western food. Please lah, Singaporeans where got so stupid like to eat Western food one. They still prefer the traditional food like laksa and chicken rice mah. How come all our business like that? Must be that stupid Botak Jones lah. Come and ji siao."
---------
I can imagine that was what happened. Anyway I believe it's been more than four months since BJ set up in my area, and a lot of these old time hawkers are getting really frustrated with them for snatching otherwise what would have been their business.
But from a neutral standpoint, I should say the increased business at the coffeeshop was in no small part due to BJ. And I shall use this example as part of bigger concepts - the foreign talent policy (see my previous article on the same topic) and the typical Singapore mindset to whine and complain (I'll talk about both in simultaneity.)
BJ can be seen as the foreign talent imported by say, Kopitiam, to improve their business. After all we know that Kopitiam is a business outfit driven by profit, and the way it functions is not unlike our government, who operates Singapore Inc. in a similar fashion. So of course, somehow, by means of some magical formulae or pure luck, Kopitiam hit on their jackpot, more people eat at the coffeeshop and handsome returns come flushing into their coffers. Very similar to Singapore Inc.'s reliance on foreign talents who create jobs for our locals and at the same time getting our own national coffers flushed with surpluses.
But see, the other hawkers are not happy. Yes, more people eat at the coffeeshop, but the influx of the new customers go to BJ! They don't really notice that they have new customers coming to their stalls too, because now their old customers eat at BJ (the stall which disgusts them to no end not least cos of their huge servings of fries which always seem to be unfinished.) Their business is down, but instead of seeking to innovate, how to improve themselves, they just sit around, mope, gripe and reminisce about the pre-foreign talent era.
One hawker recently came up to my friends and me one day and whilst serving me my food, started to gripe to us about Botak Jones! He asked my friends sarcastically if they were getting food from BJ. One of them was, and he said so. Then the hawker went on to tell us a long story, about how he'd been there for a long time, that BJ was unhealthy, that the waiting times for their food was unreasonable, that the prices were crazy. By comparison, his fish bee hoon was the healthier choice (bah!), cheaper, and in the time my friend was going to get his western food serving, I was going to finish my bowl of noodles, walk one big round around the neighbourhood, and then come back to see... that my friend hadn't gotten his food yet (yes the hawker said all of that.) It wasn't like he knew or could reasonably expect my friend to drop his BJ order and immediately order from him, but he said it anyway. Kept coming back to make snide remarks, and, brought up by our parents NOT to be rude to the older generation, we could only nod and smile in silence, and pray that he would get the hint we were not interested in hearing him talk.
Yes, I know, I'm still young. I might not know as much about what goes on in the working world yet, cos I haven't started working. I would be the first to admit too, that I've had a very sheltered environment, being in all the, for lack of a better phrase, non-neighbourhood schools. But I make an effort to mix around with the neighbourhood school people, and I do not find that a chore. In fact, my life revolves about people and making friends. I do not see the people who did not go to elite schools as inferior. In fact, I'd say most are much better than me in EQ and people relationships when I was younger, especially when I was in secondary school and did not mix around much. So please, I do not see myself as part of the elite, nor am I elitist. (This paragraph is to pre-empt people who might offer dumb comments about me - please do not get personal.)
I think whining and complaining are both things which come naturally to us. It in itself is fine. I engage in whining too. But to rely on the government for everything and anything is becoming a chilling prelude to where our future is headed. I believe, as do many of my European friends that the Singapore CPF system is one of the best systems in the world. You reap what you sow, what is so wrong with that? If you choose to give private tuition, or set up your own business, and in both circumstances not contribute to CPF, then it's your choice too, and it's your fault if anything goes wrong later on, right? True, the government should provide some sort of social security, but too much of it provides for a crutch mentality in all Singaporeans.
I forget when the cash handouts started, prolly when GST was first introduced in Singapore, but since then we've almost begun to take it like a given. There're so many of these schemes that I've forgotten all their names, I just remember that the government's giving me money and that I've a bonus over my female counterparts cos I've done NS and they haven't. When the government started giving out cash handouts to ALL Singaporeans, they might not have anticipated the turn in tide of public thinking. It was all cosy in the beginning of course. Everyone appreciates spare cash.
But soon enough, the Government got so caught up with this that they conveniently ignored the fact that they did NOT want Singaporeans to rely on the Government! But slowly and gradually, it became such. You laugh, you think it's nonsensical, but you judge for yourself when you look at the deluge of extremely humourous articles in the Humour section of our
A ST forum article, which happened to be the centrepiece for Piper's article about a father writing in to gripe his daughter's inability to get into a local university despite her grades - A, B, E, made for good lunchtime fodder. A and B aside, what about the E she got? And I think it made perfect sense to read the fineprint in the university handbook that was given to most aspiring undergrads who bothered to turn up at the annual Open House - that meeting the minimum criteria would NOT guarantee admission into the university. I do not think an open admission policy would be in the sights of NUS/NTU/SMU, who are all so caught up with the rankings in the international arena that the last thing they need is a perceived drop in standards of entrance criteria and correspondingly the university's "exclusivity" and reputation. With UNSW Asia's pullout of Singapore, and other foreign institutions' unwillingness to move in as yet, Mr See's daughter would have to try her luck elsewhere.
Maybe in some part due to Singaporeans nowadays being better educated and as such being more vocal, they start to articulate issues which might have been their own personal grudges last time. True, See Jr's grades of A, B, E and a C for GP are reasonably good, but it's not like they're terribly good that a university would be damned not to accept her. Blame it on luck, blame it on herself. By no means the system is perfect, the net might not have been woven tight enough to catch all the capable people and not let anyone fall through. Whining, if done correctly, can cause the system to improve, but the truth hurts - not many people engage in constructive whining.
Wang Hongjun, in his letter to the ST Forum, laments the participation of our youth in their own business. In his letter, aptly titled "Why are students not writing in themselves?", he claims he is surprised to see parents writing in for their children when the matters at hand are clearly the problems of the children. Add that to the fact that these very children we speak of are not primary school going age, but rather aspiring to go to the university! Have their linguistic ability failed them? Or are they used to having their parents write parents' letters for them in primary, secondary school and even junior college? Stressed Teacher wrote about this topic before - a very interesting phenomenon indeed, although by no means new.
My whole point here is that, many Singaporeans have become sucked into a vacuum of mollycuddling by the government. We need to get out of this vicious cycle and once again learn to stand on our own two feet.
P.S.: I'm not sure if hawkers can opt to sell anything they want or change the food they cook (if they don't have that liberty, then maybe the fault's not really theirs), especially in the setting of a coffeeshop. But then they could ask for a switch? Or somehow improve their cooking, come up with other gimmicks, team up with other hawkers, come up with discount schemes? I dunno, but many of them are the older generation, haven't had the benefit of a tertiary marketing education. Tough luck.
The Charade of Meritocracy
An old article found (click on the link above) after reading one of Mr Wang's old posts, but nonetheless a great read because of the investigative journalism done.
The article outlines how the government scholarship system works to the man-in-the-street's detriment. While the Govt continues to insist that the system is fair and above-board (it may well be so), statistics prove otherwise. The author, Michael D. Barr, looks at several top government scholarships, namely the President's Scholarship (the most prestigious), SAF Overseas Scholarship (commonly ranked as the second most prestigious) and concludes that if there is indeed any meritocracy in our system, then it has to be a fact that Singaporean Chinese are indeed smarter than our Malays and Indians.
Brings me to realize what "ignorance is bliss" means... the world is becoming a darker place - the more we know, the more we become afraid.
Is meritocracy truly dead? I can only cross my fingers and pray it is not so. And now time for more thinking, how much more information is the government keeping from us?
The article outlines how the government scholarship system works to the man-in-the-street's detriment. While the Govt continues to insist that the system is fair and above-board (it may well be so), statistics prove otherwise. The author, Michael D. Barr, looks at several top government scholarships, namely the President's Scholarship (the most prestigious), SAF Overseas Scholarship (commonly ranked as the second most prestigious) and concludes that if there is indeed any meritocracy in our system, then it has to be a fact that Singaporean Chinese are indeed smarter than our Malays and Indians.
Chart from: http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/0610/free/p018.html
(I'm not sure how he uses his statistics - the very fact that Chinese are the dominant race means that you're going to see more of them amongst the elite, unless you're assuming that Chinese brains are warped and Malays and Indians are superior, but let's not debate on that, shall we? Statistics have to be interpreted with a pinch of salt, and confidence levels have to be taken into account. I shan't do my own analysis - in a large part due to my abhorrence for statistical analysis - I just want the readers to be aware of this. Anyone is free to do their own analysis and then come up with a conclusion.)
But then other lines of reasoning he uses are quite chilling. That the SAP programme was used to marginalize non-Chinese, or seen in another light, to help the Chinese remain dominant over the rest of the races. (I do not want to be seen as a radical wanting to upset the racial balance, and indeed with this, I might well be already bordering on sedition, but it's quite upsetting how the article analyses our government's actions.) I just hope that it is not true. Preserving the Chinese culture is a good thing, is it not? Of course, it could be seen in another light like what Barr did, and in totality with other policies, could be seen in a negative light.Brings me to realize what "ignorance is bliss" means... the world is becoming a darker place - the more we know, the more we become afraid.
Is meritocracy truly dead? I can only cross my fingers and pray it is not so. And now time for more thinking, how much more information is the government keeping from us?
Oh oh Singapore is not as clean and white as you think
Well well, so we've raised the pay of our ministers, ensuring that they stay corruption-free, and now we get a nice rude shock.
First it started off small (though quite big by any standards), with the Public Accounts Committee revealing that EDB was being audited for the first time in 46 years, and on top of that, many irregularities were found. What now, "Cocky" Yeo?
The Auditor General's report on our 12 ministries and statutory boards has shown that the full extent and collective loss of public monies amounted to $6.2million - an amount almost equivalent (slightly less than) to our PM and MM's pay.
Is it the dawn of a new cleaner era, or is it the sign of murkier things to come? A stricter regime of checks and balances really need to be set up in place. And the Auditor General needs to wake up more often than once in 46 years.
Read more on the TOC website. A well written exposé.
First it started off small (though quite big by any standards), with the Public Accounts Committee revealing that EDB was being audited for the first time in 46 years, and on top of that, many irregularities were found. What now, "Cocky" Yeo?
The Auditor General's report on our 12 ministries and statutory boards has shown that the full extent and collective loss of public monies amounted to $6.2million - an amount almost equivalent (slightly less than) to our PM and MM's pay.
Is it the dawn of a new cleaner era, or is it the sign of murkier things to come? A stricter regime of checks and balances really need to be set up in place. And the Auditor General needs to wake up more often than once in 46 years.
Read more on the TOC website. A well written exposé.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
You Can Do It
This phrase is an oft-heard one, but how often do we use it on ourselves? Be it in educational institutions or in the workplace, it is a sad fact but true - that negativity in the leaders breeds even more negativity in their followers. Read the middle part of Mr Wang's post on this. Can you imagine how the promising young man that is now would have turned out if he actually believed his teacher?
That said, we must beware the danger of overusing this sentence without meaning it, because we, being the smart people we are, can easily differentiate between heartfelt words and words that are said out of routine/without meaning them.
I have seen and heard so many people who tell you not to dream big. They use their age to impress upon me that, despite all my "potential", I better be pragmatic. A big house, a sports car? Stop dreaming. A millionaire before 30? Stop dreaming. The inevitable answer to "I think I have a great idea to make money" would be "if so, why didn't the thousands and millions of people before you not think about it?" Better have your two feet firmly on the ground, stop building castles in the air. All too familiar? I think it's in the Singaporean culture to be "practical".
Yes, Practicality and pragmatism are something we should be aware of. Parents should let their sons and daughters know how to be practical in life, yet should never try to suppress their youthful zest for life. It would be the greatest tragedy to bring up your offspring and have them think they can NEVER reach the top of the world, even in their wildest dreams. Is it wrong to dare to dream? To be the greatest musician that ever lived, to be the fastest person alive, to be the multi-talented person whom everyone admires, to be the most patient person in the world, to be the best teacher, to be the Prime Minister, to be whatever you want. You could even dream of being Superman, just so long as you have a firm vision of going about it. No one can ever stop you, it's all in your mind whether you can conquer that wall, get past that obstacle in life, whether you can pass the test, whether you can forget your old flame who left you for another.
It's all too tempting to tell someone to know their limits. Granted we have their good at heart, we don't want them to dream too high and fall down even harder. We don't want them to be left disappointed, disillusioned with the world, have their hopes smashed and dashed when they realize they're not up to par. But thing is, we have to admit we will never know how things will turn out. How do you know the classmate beside you who's always failing his maths test won't one day "wake up" and get the next PhD in maths? There're all too many cases of no-hopers made good to ignore.
Autistic people who are normally seen as mentally retarded, all have their own strengths. Kim Peek, whom doctors gave till 14 to survive, is 54 now and is known all over the world as the "living Google". He has the amazing ability to devour books 2 pages at a time, his left eye reading one page and his right eye the other - all of that simulataneously - and can read up to 8 books a day. He is able to store 80% of this information in his brain, hence his nick "The Living Google". (His life has been made into a movie, The Rain Man.) Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Jane Austen, Henry Ford, Van Gogh and even Bill Gates have all been known to be autistic. How many more examples of supposed "no-hopers" do you need to tell you that dreams are worth dreaming?
You know yourself best. Don't let people dictate your fate. Others may think that to live peacefully on Earth and minding their own business is the way in life. My own mother believes that suffering IS NECESSARY when we're living on Earth (in some ways it is true). But for the most part, I beg to differ. I have my own set of thinking, and I have included positivity as a way of life. I find that more often than not, I wake up feeling happy, and friends always admire my happy-go-lucky attitude. But that is something they too can control! And being happy-go-lucky doesn't make me any worse than them - I'm aware of being pragmatic too (notice I don't use "knowing my limits" - even autistic people can reach so high, why not me, an able-bodied person?). But that does not preclude me from dreaming my own dreams (and smiling that wry knowing smile that gets people puzzled.)
From Mr Wang's post: "Although I believe that most people can achieve great things, I also believe that most people won't. The greatest reason is that THEY don't believe that they themselves can achieve great things."
How apt. If you tell yourself you can't do it, you WILL NOT make it. If that lucrative bank job is still open, who is there to tell you you should not apply for it cos you're not good enough? Heck, give it a go, it won't waste a bit more than a few hours of your time, and at worst end up with a bruised ego. You at least have a chance of getting that job, better than that good-for-nothing who has ZERO chance.
The next time you want to tell someone to "forget it" and "stop dreaming", stop yourself. You might be looking at the next world champion or the world's next richest man/woman.
Related posts/blogs:
Trybe blog
Mr Wang's post
That said, we must beware the danger of overusing this sentence without meaning it, because we, being the smart people we are, can easily differentiate between heartfelt words and words that are said out of routine/without meaning them.
I have seen and heard so many people who tell you not to dream big. They use their age to impress upon me that, despite all my "potential", I better be pragmatic. A big house, a sports car? Stop dreaming. A millionaire before 30? Stop dreaming. The inevitable answer to "I think I have a great idea to make money" would be "if so, why didn't the thousands and millions of people before you not think about it?" Better have your two feet firmly on the ground, stop building castles in the air. All too familiar? I think it's in the Singaporean culture to be "practical".
Yes, Practicality and pragmatism are something we should be aware of. Parents should let their sons and daughters know how to be practical in life, yet should never try to suppress their youthful zest for life. It would be the greatest tragedy to bring up your offspring and have them think they can NEVER reach the top of the world, even in their wildest dreams. Is it wrong to dare to dream? To be the greatest musician that ever lived, to be the fastest person alive, to be the multi-talented person whom everyone admires, to be the most patient person in the world, to be the best teacher, to be the Prime Minister, to be whatever you want. You could even dream of being Superman, just so long as you have a firm vision of going about it. No one can ever stop you, it's all in your mind whether you can conquer that wall, get past that obstacle in life, whether you can pass the test, whether you can forget your old flame who left you for another.
It's all too tempting to tell someone to know their limits. Granted we have their good at heart, we don't want them to dream too high and fall down even harder. We don't want them to be left disappointed, disillusioned with the world, have their hopes smashed and dashed when they realize they're not up to par. But thing is, we have to admit we will never know how things will turn out. How do you know the classmate beside you who's always failing his maths test won't one day "wake up" and get the next PhD in maths? There're all too many cases of no-hopers made good to ignore.
Autistic people who are normally seen as mentally retarded, all have their own strengths. Kim Peek, whom doctors gave till 14 to survive, is 54 now and is known all over the world as the "living Google". He has the amazing ability to devour books 2 pages at a time, his left eye reading one page and his right eye the other - all of that simulataneously - and can read up to 8 books a day. He is able to store 80% of this information in his brain, hence his nick "The Living Google". (His life has been made into a movie, The Rain Man.) Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Jane Austen, Henry Ford, Van Gogh and even Bill Gates have all been known to be autistic. How many more examples of supposed "no-hopers" do you need to tell you that dreams are worth dreaming?
You know yourself best. Don't let people dictate your fate. Others may think that to live peacefully on Earth and minding their own business is the way in life. My own mother believes that suffering IS NECESSARY when we're living on Earth (in some ways it is true). But for the most part, I beg to differ. I have my own set of thinking, and I have included positivity as a way of life. I find that more often than not, I wake up feeling happy, and friends always admire my happy-go-lucky attitude. But that is something they too can control! And being happy-go-lucky doesn't make me any worse than them - I'm aware of being pragmatic too (notice I don't use "knowing my limits" - even autistic people can reach so high, why not me, an able-bodied person?). But that does not preclude me from dreaming my own dreams (and smiling that wry knowing smile that gets people puzzled.)
From Mr Wang's post: "Although I believe that most people can achieve great things, I also believe that most people won't. The greatest reason is that THEY don't believe that they themselves can achieve great things."
How apt. If you tell yourself you can't do it, you WILL NOT make it. If that lucrative bank job is still open, who is there to tell you you should not apply for it cos you're not good enough? Heck, give it a go, it won't waste a bit more than a few hours of your time, and at worst end up with a bruised ego. You at least have a chance of getting that job, better than that good-for-nothing who has ZERO chance.
The next time you want to tell someone to "forget it" and "stop dreaming", stop yourself. You might be looking at the next world champion or the world's next richest man/woman.
Related posts/blogs:
Trybe blog
Mr Wang's post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)