Image by John Berkeley

Every Chinese New Year, many will gather around to talk about their lives and catch up with each other. Over the dinner table, I heard many stories about primary school education in Singapore. The more stories I heard, the greater my heart sank. It is sad to know that far from being encouraging, our education system condemns children, rips away their confidence and reduces them to obedient, seemingly robotic beings.

Here are five points I hope educators, teachers and parents will keep in mind when considering a child’s education.

Encourage mistakes

Often than not, as Asian parents and teachers, we emphasize too much on mistakes. When I was in Primary school, our Chinese teacher made us stand in class if we couldn’t answer a question, such as forming a sentence with a chinese word. You were a bad student, made to be the mockery of the class so that you would remember your horrible mistake and not repeat it. I remember at that time, Chinese lessons were one of the most horrifying classes and I dreaded them.

I also remember that if you forgot to put a full-stop during dictation, the teacher would put a big cross on your exercise book. In fact, I hear that it is still in practice today. Mistakes are not condoned. You have to be perfect.

I hope teachers who use such practices can rethink their way of teaching. Is missing out a full-stop so severe that a child should fail the dictation? How does putting a huge cross on a child’s nearly perfect answer script help the child?

I believe in encouraging mistakes. Every one of us is learning from mistakes as we progress through life. Mistakes are a means of learning. When we make children adverse to making mistakes, they will fear trying altogether.

Think about it, do you enjoy being told by your boss that every little mistake is a huge error? Should you be mocked in front of all your colleagues just because of that? Even as adults in the workplace, we try to be tactful, less say as teachers to children. We are not here to drown our children in negativity and make them feel inferior. We are in the business of building confidence and the love for learning in children.

Education is not a competition, it is about realising the potential of every child

I find that many parents and teachers view education as a competition – a long marathon to come out tops in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), or at least to survive it. We place our child as a competitor amongst the many children who are also taking the PSLE.

Indeed, the PSLE is a competition amongst the graduating primary 6 cohort every year. This is an inevitable manifestation of a nation-wide assessment designed to easily assess what has been learnt in the classroom and the aptitude of these students. However, the PSLE is not the end of the world.

A good education is able to realise and unleash the potential of every individual. It encourages children to explore different fields and discover their interests and capabilities. Parents are the prime movers in this venture to unearth the potential of our children. As parents, we are in the best position to identify our children’s strengths and build upon them. We should not become too caught up in this rat race and reduce the value of life to merely just the PSLE. Passion and potential are the two main drivers of success. Forcing a child to take up activities and subjects not of interest to him and pressurising him to do well will only prolong his quest to find his direction in life and make him lose interest in learning altogether.

We need a mindset change. Learning is a path of discovery, a chance to discover the world, ourselves and how we intend to be part of it.

Embrace diversity

Teachers are humans and unlike robots, they are flexible people who can make sound decisions beyond mechanical frameworks. If teachers follow guidelines as if they are the law, then we might as well hire robots to teach our children.

I heard that in a premier school in Singapore, show-and-tell is part of the attempts to encourage lower primary pupils to speak. Everyone is supposed to write a script and memorise it word for word. The teacher will then sit in front of the class and check that every word is memorised and repeated without a single deviation during the child’s ‘show-and-tell’.  That is the Singaporean style of show-and-tell, mind you.

I understand why rigid frameworks, in which children are made to memorise phrases, to write in a structured, often memorised manner, are in place. Learning often begins with imitating. When children memorise phrases or entire passages for oral exams and composition, it gives them a direction and confidence in the language. However, not all children need to go through this path. Some children are capable of coming up with their own narratives and they can speak freely during oral exams. Some children use different vocabulary and styles in their narratives which differ from those taught in class. These children should not be wronged for their difference. Afterall, what is wrong with being able to express yourself freely?

While teachers can emphasize our age-old technique of memorising, they should not put down children who don’t wish to follow the herd. Teachers should be flexible and think from the perspective of whether they are doing what is best for their students.

Teachers are not always right

We should throw away the traditional saying that teachers are always right. Teachers learn from students and vice versa. We should encourage our children to question and to voice their disagreement. We have been successful in creating generations of students who have become mere absorbers of information, who price obedience highly and who feel that raising questions is a form of dissent.

Yes, discipline is required to help teachers control a class of 25 to 40 children. It may not be possible to answer every child’s question, but we should not extinguish the inquisitive spark in our children. How can a child be reprimanded for having a question? Teachers can answer these questions outside the class. They can create a board with the list of questions and encourage students to respond to them. There are possible solutions to this and I encourage you to come forward with more.

Encouraging children to ask questions can allow them to participate more in class, encourage thinking and build a child’s confidence.

Learning and playing are two-sides of the same coin

Another Asian tradition is to separate learning and playing as two mutually exclusive entities. Actually, we learn through playing. Learning does not only come from assessment books, textbooks and the classroom. Knowledge can be attained by exploring, observing and experimenting. You may not realise, but when a child bounces a ball and observes its compression against the floor and subsequent rebound, part of him begins to understand momentum. This is the world we live in and this is the world we study. Every time a child plays, he learns something. As parents, we should encourage our children to play. Experience helps in their understanding of otherwise alien concepts in the textbook. Learning is a joy when learning is fun.

Our children deserve a better education. We must begin to recognise pitfalls in our educational system and work on them. It is not about the awards or the international recognition, it is about how much our children can gain from an education.

Our ministers (Photo: xin.msn)

Recently, the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries (CRMS) has revealed its recommendations to the public. The CRMS recommends pay cuts for almost all top-tier political office holders. Our Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong has, in a letter to the CRMS, showed that the government intends to accept the CRMS’s recommendations.

In the following sections, I will attempt to show that such pay cuts do not really matter in the larger scheme of things. In fact, I will go so far to say that the pay cut is merely a superficial attempt at pandering to public opinion.

Simple math

Before we begin on our calculations, let us make a few simplifying assumptions. (These assumptions depict the worst-case scenario.)

1. Let’s assume every minister earns the PM’s pay, which is about SGD 3 million.
2. Let’s also assume that they take the same pay cut as the PM, which is about SGD 1 million.

There are about 22 ministerial positions in the cabinet, including the prime minister. If all of them take the same pay cut, the country will save about 22 x SGD 1 million = SGD 22 million dollars each year. But is SGD 22 million a significant amount? Our national budgeted expenditure in 2011 is about SGD 47 billion. SGD 22 million represents 0.047% of that. Clearly 22 million doest not seem like a substantial sum to the government.

Next, let us ask ourselves, “Is the proposed pay cut enough to quell our dissatisfaction against the government?” Based on what I see on Facebook, the answer is obviously a resounding no. There will always be individuals who are dissatisfied with our political leaders’ remuneration no matter how drastic the pay cut is. After all, they still draw the highest pay compared to other political leaders around the world. The only way we can please everyone is to have our ministers work for free! And even if they do, we only save about SGD 66 million each year or 0.14% of our budgeted expenditure!

While our political leaders may be paid much more than the common man, their salaries do not really matter in the larger scheme of things. The pay cuts do not really affect our fiscal position. They only serve to sway public opinion towards the incumbent government. And even then, its impact is suspect.

Pension – the recommendation that truly matters

Perhaps the most important recommendation, and the most easily overlooked recommendation is the removal of pension for our political leaders. Simply put, pension requires us to pay the retired a portion of their previous salaries. In most cases, pensioners draw a percentage of their last drawn or the average of their lifetime pay every month.

But where does the pension money come from? Essentially, the money comes from the working population; it is the workers who earn the revenues from which pensioners are paid! In an aging population, the proportion of those retired will increase while the proportion of those young and working will decrease each year. And Singapore has an aging population. This means that the young has to work harder and harder to support the increasing number of pensioners. And if it becomes too hard to support the pensioners, the country has to borrow larger and larger sums of money to continue pension payments. Just look at countries like Greece for the outcome of that.

Fortunately, most of our working population is not under the pension scheme. But this raises an equity issue: why should political leaders enjoy pension when the rest of the population is under the Central Provident Fund (CPF) scheme? The removal of pension addresses this concern adequately. Now everyone, even political leaders, is incentivized to plan for retirement. After all, nobody owes Singapore a living, not even our dear ministers.

Big money, small money

We should not be too concerned with ministerial pay, given their minute share in the budget. Such concerns stem from emotions of envy and reflects badly on us.  Instead, we should be thoroughly concerned with big-ticket expenditures like defense and social development. We should be questioning the government’s ability to cushion a deep recession should we fall into one next year. We should ask for more monetary incentives to help local businesses grow. These are some the things that matter in our nation’s development, not ministerial pay. We need to get our priorities straight. If ministerial pay were really a top concern, we would have all voted for the candidate willing to work for the least pay in the last general election.

Photo: urbanphoto.net

My grandfather arrived in Singapore alone when he was ten. He did not know anyone except a distant relative. His relative picked him up at the harbor and brought him to a kopitiam (coffee shop). His relative introduced him to the Towkay (boss) of the kopitiam and got him a job as a server. That was the last time my grandfather saw his relative.

My grandfather worked hard at the kopitiam. He had to. That was the only way he could survive and life was hard for him. As he was the youngest worker at the kopitiam, other workers would bully him and sometimes physically abuse him. He pressed on nonetheless. At night, he would line four of the kopitiam’s chairs together and use it as a bed.As he grew older, my grandfather learned how to make coffee and other tricks of the trade. Eventually, after years of toil, he saved enough money to open a kopitiam himself. Even then, life did not become easy. Singapore was plagued with gangsters and secret societies then and these gangsters would come to his kopitiam and make trouble. However, my grandfather did not back down. He joined a gang and learned Kung Fu for protection. He climbed the ranks of his gang quickly and before long, no gangster dared to disturb him and his kopitiam. My grandfather eventually quit his gang when security in Singapore got better.

As life would have it, things started to get better for my grandfather.  He met my grandmother and started a family. In the end, he sent both my uncles overseas for tertiary education. And as the careers of his children kicked off, he shut down his kopitiam and retired.

Nowadays, he takes frequent walks in Bishan Park and occasionally invites us over to his place for meals and Mahjong.

My grandfather was a simple man. But he was also a hardworking man who never backed down. Nowadays, we all complain about the rising costs of living, the influx of foreigners and seemingly poor governance. But we fail to think of how we can overcome these issues. We back down and attribute our apparent plight to factors outside our control. This is certainly not the recipe for success. In fact, I feel that sometimes we enjoy wallowing. After all, misery loves company and we relish the camaraderie amongst the ‘ill-fated’.

My grandfather is proof that this does not have to be. If a ten-year-old boy can overcome the odds in Singapore’s most trying era, surely we can too. And if my grandfather’s story isn’t convincing enough, talk to the chairmen and CEOs of our local Small and Medium Enterprises. Ask about the founding of their companies. Most of the time, you will hear a story similar to my grandfather’s.

For most of us born into average families, good fortunes come only after ambition and toil. To think otherwise is simply foolish. Let us not blame others for our apparently difficult life. Let us start working towards the life we want to live. We can all make it, if we all try hard enough. All we need is a positive and enterprising attitude.  This is my hope and resolution for the year 2012. Let us follow the footsteps of our forefathers and prove to the world that we Singaporeans are not a whiny bunch.

Photo: Prime Minister's Office

Recently I had an interesting conversation with a friend about the need and relevance of patriotism. She felt that patriotism was really an archaic concept that had no relevance in a highly interconnected world. She felt that since you had no choice in the matter of your place of birth, there was no need to be proud of your country. Although there is an obligation to be a useful contributor of the society you belong in, by no means was there a need to feel any sort of pride or emotional loyalty to it. The conversation got me thinking about patriotism and how it is expressed in Singapore.

I bristled at the notion that patriotism was unimportant. While it may be true that we do not choose our country of birth, it certainly does not follow that there is no obligation to be loyal to it. It is as though we need not be filial to our parents because we did not choose to be born to them. Yet I couldn’t come up with a logically sound reason for patriotism, they all seemed to be based in an abstract idea of “rootedness” and “reciprocation”. It was difficult to think of a justification of patriotism for patriotism’s sake.

Perhaps no country does patriotism better than America. I always get goose bumps when I watch videos of Americans singing their national anthem. The country is one of the most diverse in the world and they are often divided, whether along political, ethnic, economic, social or religious lines. Still, when the “Star Spangled Banner” is played, they face their flag and sing with gusto and conviction. The notion of nation cuts across all differences and unites a fractured people, if but momentarily. It does point to the potential that patriotism can play as a unifying force. Americans may be white or black, rich or poor, evangelical or Mormon, Democrat or Republican, but certainly, they are always American.

A multicultural nation in its own right, I wondered if Singaporeans saw their nationality as a glue that binds the different races, languages and religions. We are certainly not prone to excessive displays of national pride as the Americans do. Often, we almost seem to revel in complaining about our country: too small, too crowded, nothing to do, nothing to see, the football team sucks…We tend to associate patriotism with wearing red on National Day and organising house gatherings to watch the National Day Parade.

Having lived overseas for about two months now, I find in myself a growing pride in Singapore as I experience first-hand the difference between Singapore and London, the city I am currently living in. But it is not the physical differences that breed my growing patriotic pride. Sure, our MRT is so much more efficient and comfortable than London’s Underground (not to mention cheaper); we have an airport that is in its own league, and we have food in such abundance and quality that locals here can only dream of. Rather, it is the reputation of Singapore that foreigners have that never fails to boost my patriotic ego. In my interactions with many foreigners, I found, to my surprise, that many people have not only heard of Singapore, but been there before and they have had only good things to say. Many people were effusive in their love for our country. One Chilean man even said, “It’s an oasis in Southeast Asia”.

The good reputation is further reinforced when many people declare their desire to find work in Singapore. Perhaps there is a growing notion that this century will be an Asian century and Singapore, as an English-speaking Asian metropolis, has popped up on the radar in a big way. Many people recognise the ascent of China and India and want to be part of the process. Suddenly, Asia is the place to be and Singapore is seen as a good place to develop and expand in Asia. It is easy to tell people you’re from Singapore, because you would more often than not receive a flood of compliments.

I do believe that Singaporeans are in general becoming much more nationalistic and aware of their identity as Singaporeans. As a people, we are increasingly well travelled and aware of the differences between our country and the rest of the world. The influx of foreigners into Singapore has expedited the process of the awareness of our “Singaporeanness”. When National Service was once derided as a “waste of time”, we now see fathers writing into the newspapers extoling the virtues of NS and speaking with pride about their time spent “in service to the nation”. As the country matures and develops and as a uniquely Singaporean culture begins to take root, we become more comfortable with ourselves and more embracing of our local ways.

I feel that patriotism is important, not in spite of our increasingly globalised world, but because of it. A family friend married a British man and has been away for more than 30 years, having raised a family in the UK. She now speaks with a British accent and is utterly integrated into the local culture but even till now she still keeps her Singapore passport for “emotional reasons” and remains updated with local developments. Another lady I met married an Irishman and has been living in Dublin for 9 years still speaks fondly of kiasuism and proudly claims to still visit Singapore at least once a year. I guess that when one is in a foreign environment, there is still a connection to a home.

Perhaps even more surprisingly, many of my “Gen Y” peers also have a patriotic streak. Many of them have decided to return to Singapore upon graduation and no, they are not bonded to any scholarship agency. Cynically speaking, we probably realised that job prospects in Singapore are better anyway – considering how badly the economies of the West are doing – but many say they want to return because of family and friends. In a mobile world where identity and rootedness are increasingly arbitrary concepts, it is perhaps a natural development that people want to find an anchor to be connected to.

After all has been said and done, maybe Singaporeans are patriotic after all. Sure, we may not do it as expressively as the Americans do, but we do it in our own uniquely Singaporean way: quiet, pragmatic and understated. We may not effusively declare our loyalty to the flag but we hang on to the strong bonds of friend and family relationships and by extension, this country. Although we still have a long way to go to being hot-blooded Singaporean nationalists, we may not need to reach that stage. We do cherish the many things that Singapore has to offer that other countries do not even come close to comparing and we celebrate our peculiarities in our own self-deprecating way. While we wish that many things could be different and better, we will want to do it our way. It may be hard to instil a sense of patriotism in such an internationalised people living in such a globalised city but I think we will do it in our own way, at our own time.

Unfortunately, I suspect not many Singaporeans share my optimistic assessment of our state of patriotism. Given the constant barrage of changes in our physical and social landscapes, it is not surprising should some people feel displaced and left out of the system. When stress becomes a way of life and we choose to tolerate rather than embrace these changes, it is inevitable that we wonder about the value and purpose of being Singaporean. In the two-sided sword that is globalization, Singaporeans are feeling the heat of foreign competition and the intensity of demands being placed on them. It is difficult to pledge loyalty to a system that one feels carried along by. Perhaps one flaw of our success is that we have managed to refine so successfully the Singaporean machinery that Singaporeans can often feel like gears in the machine rather than part of a living community. Although most choose to stay, many also choose to leave for what seems like greener pastures.

More can be done to build a Singaporean community beyond what we already have. We point to our National Service scheme and our People’s Association events but these are huge institutions inextricably tied to the divisive issue of politics and can often feel impersonal and hence ineffective in building those ties that bind, to borrow a cliche. An individual must build in himself a responsibility to the community and the relationships that will keep him rooted to his country and society. On an institutional level, while we can acknowledge foreign contributions, we need to start rewarding Singaporeans with the rights and privileges of living in this country. Short of creating a welfare state, the Government must look into putting Singaporeans on an uneven playing field with foreigners, vesting us with all the advantages we can give to ourselves without being protectionist.

We need to worry less about “integrating foreigners” and focus more on empowering locals. Above all, Singapore needs to be a land of opportunity where our children will be granted with better opportunities and a higher quality of life, and we need to feel the same way too. Singaporeans need to believe in their country and that this is the best place in the world to live and raise a family and as a consequence feel privileged and proud to be first-class citizens. We may not have a choice in the country of our birth, but we have a choice about how we want to make it work for us.

*Hammy is currently studying at the London School of Economics, and misses Singaporean food dearly.

Image from: cbs.com

Science and Mathematics are taught in Singaporean schools very much as facts. Facts are thrown at you and you are made to accept them. Science is the ultimate truth and it should not be questioned. This mindset is driven into students and remains fixated in their minds all the way into university.

‘Science is about plugging numbers into equations and memorising facts’ is a common mindset amongst Singaporean students. This is a sad result of our education system.

Science is an inquiry. It requires logical argument through induction and deduction. Scientific theories are merely models to allow us to better understand the universe. More often than not, they are not universal truths and are only applicable under certain circumstances. Furthermore, ‘theories’ taught in primary and secondary schools are merely watered down versions of actual theories, with many approximations and simplifications.

You must have learnt in secondary school chemistry that electrons orbit around a nucleus of an atom within a circular orbit. Some teachers depict this as a fact, rather than a model. This causes some confusion when students proceed to junior colleges and are taught that orbits possess a variety of shapes such as spherical and dumb-bell shapes. Yet again, a student may be influenced by the teacher to believe that these are indeed atomic orbital shapes only to realise in university that these are merely plots of electron probability distributions based on the solution to Schrodinger’s equation.

Students need to realise that science, as taught in schools, are merely models for simple understanding and explanations of observable phenomenas. Models are instruments to aid understanding and these are based on approximations and generalisations. These models are tools for thinking about abstract concepts like atoms and electrons which we cannot see.

Science is also a system. While students accept Mathematics as a fact, mathematics is merely a tool for thinking logically. Students become fixated with ideas such as 1+1=2 because these are presented to them as facts which have to be memorised and to be left unquestioned. This makes it difficult to accept other systems such as the binary system where 1+1=10. Different systems are used for different applications depending on their ease of use.

The wrong perceptions of Science have been ingrained into our students, resulting in a distorted view of degrees and diplomas in Science and Engineering. Students feel that these subjects do not require inquiry, discussion or argument.

Yet, a university education has taught me that Science is a mode of inquiry and a way of thinking. Arguments are constantly made with regards to improved approximations, algorithms and theories explaining observable phenomenon. We argue about explanations for phenomenons using different theories such as quantum mechanics, ray optics or Maxwell’s equations for light. Barriers are constantly being torn down to make you think about why we see ideas in a certain way. For example, why must a two-dimensional coordinate system (say with the x and y axis) be perpendicular? Can it be any 2 lines in a plane?

Theories are constantly reviewed to find new possibilities. Why can’t the index of refraction of a medium be imaginary? Can it be negative?

Society and pre-university education has set up barriers to thinking. They have shoved our students with information as if they are the world’s ultimate truth. This limits our thinking by encapsulating us in a box which merely contains what we know as how we know it.

Real science is beyond this box. It requires one to ask fundamental questions about true limitations to theories and commonly known ‘facts’. It requires one to look beyond equations as laws and to question their validity in different contexts and to uncover the associated assumptions. This requires the use of content knowledge to critically evaluate science, as we know it.

This inquisitive thinking is the epitome of science. Science in schools should not be about mere plugging of numbers into equations and constant practice. Facts are available on the internet, we don’t need to create more computers to memorise such information. Instead, we should be equipping our young with the skills they need to think critically. We should encourage students to ask questions about science. We don’t need students to know how to do integration, a computer can very well do that. We need them to appreciate the meaning of integration.

It is always an issue that if there is too much debate about science, science classes will end up like an infinite loop and content cannot be adequately taught. Some of it is needed so as not to kill of the curiosity in our young ones and mould them into information regurgitating zombies. Yet, the main issue here is not the real discussion, which could consume precious curriculum time. Instead, students should be taught the concept of not accepting reality as it is. They should be taught that Science is merely made of models and systems that can be disputed, questioned and improved. They should also understand that what they are taught in schools are merely watered down, simplified versions of complex models used in the real world to explain observable phenomenon. These aid our understanding of the univerese.

With such a mindset, our students can then be placed in a better position to appreciate Science and apply their knowledge to real world problems.

Source: Dailymail.co.uk

Apparently, an article reprimanding the Chinese for the death of a 2-year-old girl has been trending on facebook. Let me provide some background on the article. A 2-year-old girl was run over in a hardware market district in Foshan, China. No one came to help the girl and she was run over a second time by another vehicle. By the time a rubbish collector came to her rescue, it was already too late.

While it would be easy to blame the Chinese for being cold-hearted, it will be more productive to look at the reasons leading to such selfish behavior. In addition, I would go so far to say that we (referring to humanity as a whole) are not so much different from the Chinese represented in this tragedy. I will go on to prove this in the following paragraphs.

Preliminaries

First, let’s assume that human morality and selflessness can be reasonably represented by a normal distribution (a bell shaped curve). On one end of the spectrum, we have social deviants who always put themselves first. In the middle, we have the average person – people who would help others as long as it didn’t hurt them too much to do so. And at the other end of the spectrum, we have individuals who are most selfless and morally upright. Let’s call them saints. Obviously few people are social deviants or saints, and most of us are just about average.

Population shocks

Now, let’s conduct some thought experiments. Suppose the population described above is subjected to a huge natural disaster such that most of the current social and physical infrastructure is destroyed. In such a harsh environment, it would be natural to expect most people to look out for themselves only.  (Recall movies and TV series that have depicted looting and skirmish in apocalyptic scenarios.) And suppose now that the population described above is doing very well economically, it would then be logical to assume that more people will volunteer to help out those that are in need. What I am trying to say here is, human selflessness can and will be affected by external factors. Shocks to the population will shift the population distribution towards either ends of the spectrum.

Vicious and Virtuous Cycles 

Let us revisit the doomsday scenario again. Suppose people start displaying selfish behavior by robbing convenience stores or hoarding medical supplies. Given this, a person who was previously selfless may have a strong incentive to be selfish now. For example, a person who used to give food to others may find it hard to survive due to his/her dwindling supplies from frequent robberies. At some point in time, that person will stop giving out food and start hoarding, lest he/she dies of hunger. Thus, we can see that selfish behavior by others can breed more selfish behavior by those who were previously selfless. Obviously, the converse will be true for selfless behavior.

Back to the Chinese

At the end of the day, I believe the Chinese are like anyone of us. We all respond to incentives. What makes the Chinese people different from people in other (mostly developed) countries is the set of shocks and incentives they face as a society.

In 2006, a young man named Peng Yu helped an old woman who had fallen on the street in the Jiangsu Province by taking her to a hospital. Nonetheless, the old woman and her family later sued Peng for causing her fall. A judge ruled in favor of the woman based on the assumption that “Peng must be at fault. Otherwise why would he want to help?” This incident has since become a national cautionary tale. Similarly, when it comes to traffic accidents, the Chinese believe that accidentally killing a pedestrian costs less then the medical bills that they will be liable for had the pedestrian not died.

Under these set of skewed incentives, and given enough time, it is no wonder that the Chinese population have deviated away from selflessness!

How do we improve the situation?

If you followed my arguments, you would see that the obvious way to correct the situation change the current set of incentives in China. We can start by revamping to law and prevent ill-advised rulings that are seen earlier in 2006. Similarly, we can also implement harsher sentences for causing death in traffic accidents. Alternatively, we can implement state insurance for traffic accidents to eliminate the incentive for drivers to kill their traffic accident victims. With proper incentives, the Chinese population can change and deviate away from selfishness.

Conclusions

Yes, the Chinese are cold hearted, but not by choice. They are merely swayed the circumstances and incentives they face. Given the same set of incentives, we would also make the same choices as the Chinese. Thus, instead of blaming them for being cold-hearted, we should be calling for the Chinese government to implement policy and legislative changes that will eventually improve social behavior.

We can’t make selfish people selfless. But with the right incentives, we can make selfish people display selfless behavior.

Image from garima82.wordpress

Last Thursday, Education Minister Heng Swee Kiat announced the new phase of education in Singapore – the student-centric education system. Before bureaucratic officials and civil servants get too caught up with using this new ‘in’ word in their speeches, meetings and reports, let’s look at what a student-centric system really means.

A student-centric system suggests that our education system is centred around every single student. This means we have our students’ interests at the core of our system and we strive to serve these interests. Here, I identify the harnessing of a student’s learning potential as the key goal of our education system. The unearthing of this potential will give them the skills they need in life and in the workplace.

I shall focus the following discussion on Secondary schools in Singapore. After the PSLE, students are streamed into schools of different rankings and also streams. I argue that the mindsets of teachers teaching different schools and streams need to be changed in order to really attain a student-centric education system.

In order to discover the potential of each student, teachers should first understand the abilities of their students. They should neither overestimate nor underestimate their students. More often than not, teachers underestimate the abilities of students in neighbourhood schools. They step into the classroom with a preconceived notion that students cannot and will never be able to learn through the understanding of concepts. This, I feel, is a major drawback of the current education system. With this, they craft projects and examinations almost entirely based on the regurgitation of facts for subjects such as lower secondary History. You’re looking down on your students, they can do more.

As a teacher, I believe that one should live by the following principle, ‘It is not that my students do not have the capabilities, it is whether I have the capability to help them unearth their full potential.’ If teachers use this as a starting point, they will think of new ways of teaching concepts and continuously revisit their teaching strategies not because of annual reports and self-reflections which are part of the whole bureaucratic mechanism but because they feel that a good education starts with themselves.

Indeed, many teachers step into the Ministry of Education with great ambitions, only to have these watered down when they step into the classroom. I’ve heard of many stories of disappointment, despair and numb acceptance of what seems to be reality. My advice to you is, don’t give up. When you give up, you’re not only giving up on your ideals, you are giving up on a class of students whose futures depend on you. We should be in constant search of better ways of teaching and communicating.

Second, teachers should understand the curriculum and the purpose of the subject they are teaching. They should not be teaching subjects because these subjects have been prescribed by the Ministry. Instead, they should question the value and purpose of the subjects taught. For example, there is greater value in learning concepts like ‘Change’ and ‘Systems’ rather than memorizing how a waterfall is formed in Geography. Likewise, skills like identifying assumptions and inferences are far more useful than mere regurgitation of the types of plantations in Singapore in the 1940s. Before teachers teach these subjects based on the teacher’s guide or learning objectives, they should first understand the purposes of the subject so that they can better focus on the correct content and skills.

Additionally, teachers have a responsibility to voice out their concerns regarding learning objectives when they feel that these are not beneficial to students. After all, we are all in the process of bettering our education system in the best interest of our students. Instead of blindly following guidelines and setting examination formats which repeat year after year, teachers should analyse and question these existing forms of assessment and subject matter. Also, instead of cramming content, causing students to learn nothing year after year, they should raise suggestions of ways of better allocation of time for skills and content within the 4 years of Secondary school. Why follow rigid guidelines when they don’t work?

Last, teachers should empathise with their students. A teacher plays a pivotal role in a child’s education as well as his or her life. I have many teachers to thank for shaping my thoughts, my values and my interests. Likewise, many students out there need teachers who will listen to them, who will give them valuable advice and who will not give up on them no matter what. The students can feel when you care and they will tell you their stories, they will confide in you and they will listen to you when they feel that you have their best interests at heart.

Teachers need to start putting their students first. This doesn’t mean just helping them score well for the A’levels or O’levels. Teachers should look beyond these exams. Education is a learning journey for both the teachers and the students. Teaching is not a job, it is a commitment to your students.

In short, dear teachers, loving your students is the first step towards a student-centric education system.

Photo: The Guardian

Ten years ago, the world witnessed a disaster so grandiose in its scale and so ruthless in its execution that, for better or for worse changed the very course of history. America was under attack and the world watched in fear and trembling as a mighty superpower was brought to its knees.

9/11 was many things to different people. To those who survived the attacks, it is a time to be grateful and reflective; to those who lost their loved ones, it is an anniversary emotional wounds are reopened and deaths are mourned; to bystanders, it is a time to sit back and take stock of the monumental event that shook the world. However, to possibly every one, it was a shock, a massive jolt that traumatised a nation and galvanised it to action.

If America in 2001 was Ronald Reagan’s proverbial “shining city on a hill”, then New York and Washington must have been its two largest, grandest citadels. They were two cities that in their own ways symbolised the American way of life. One was its economic and cultural centre, the other its political and historical core. One was the epitome of its modernity and progress, the other the guardian of its liberty and democratic values. The targets were highly symbolic and the date of the attacks was probably no coincidence.

The US in 2001 was the undisputed superpower of the world. Ten years had passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union; Margaret Thatcher congratulated Reagan for having “won the Cold War without firing a single shot”. The US strutted the world stage with an indomitable swagger; a new world order of freedom and capitalism was afoot.

The world has surged forward since then but the US has appeared to weaken. Once economically dominant, it has been overshadowed by a rising China, a growing deficit and a deepening recession. Once internationally revered, the American reputation has taken a beating from its twin wars and its shrinking clout. Once domestically rigorous, its political diversity has given way to a toxic division at the highest levels of government. Former Utah Governor and Republican candidate Jon Huntsman Jr. has described the US as “weakened at its core” and it needs to be fixed.

Former president George W. Bush made the struggle between freedom and terrorism the great new ideological battle of the 21^st century, christening it the “war on terror”. Like a bad sequel to the Cold War, the war on terror had a “coalition of the willing”, except that the enemies were not the uniformed generals striding the government hallways of Moscow and Beijing but unseen radicals hiding in the caves of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq.

In its zeal to eradicate terrorism, the US embarked on two costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, using its sheer might to confront an enemy that was often hidden and did not play according to the established rules. Bush himself remarked that the war on terror was not a physical war, but a war for “hearts and minds”. America would not win the war with guns and bullets but through its seductive promise of freedom and prosperity, which could qualify and universal aspirations if there were any.

However, how can an America that is “weakened at its core” rise to the challenge? Ten years on and terrorism is still a clear and present danger. Its tentacles have spread across the globe to places as varied as London, Madrid, Bali and Mumbai. Will it still be able to lead when its citizens are weary and its politicians are divided? With a record deficit, a tanking economy, a credit downgrade and a spiralling unemployment rate, do Americans still have the appetite to promote the cause of freedom around the world?

Everyone agrees that terrorism must be eradicated, or at least thwarted. However, there are many ideas as to how to go about doing it. Firstly, clear objectives must be set. While his predecessor had grand visions of a “democratic Middle East”, with Iraq at its heart, President Obama has reduced the scope of American operations in the region. US troops are pulling out of Iraq after Osama bin Laden, who had been the primary target of the war on terror, has been killed in Pakistan. Gains have been made but victory is still far off. Obama must define the notion of victory and decide when enough is enough.

Secondly, America cannot lead in the war on terror if it remains economically weak. The US economy has been “on life support” since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. It was a vibrant economy and a productive, innovative workforce that propelled the US to its position at the top of the global totem pole and supported its military operations. Money, not guns is what really makes the world go round, as China is finding out right now. American soft power is premised on the “American Dream”, a prosperous, democratic lifestyle that continues to appeal to the global masses.

It is unlikely that terrorism will ever be eradicated. However, is it possible that terrorists are drawn to such actions because of poverty? In a society where there is no opportunity to be economically successful and your future looks bleaker than your parents’, poverty and a twisted religious message can combine to form a potent brew of radicalism as thousands of young people stew in an irrational hate. Unless these young people can find an economic reason to live for, they will be trapped by an ideological reason to die for.

While the US may be down, it is certainly not yet out. The best way to avenge the deaths of the victims of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks around the world is not to recoil in fear or strike out in hate, but to soldier on with a stoic optimism, in utter defiance towards the perpetrators. The British during the Blitz come to mind. The greatest resistance comes in a completely unexpected fashion, as Gandhi understood when he fasted and walked his way to independence from the British and Mandela did when he rallied a nation around a much-maligned rugby team to heal the wounds of apartheid.

The US remains the world’s largest superpower. Its economy is larger than any one else’s, its companies wealthier and more innovative than their strongest competitors. Its universities remain bastions of knowledge and its soft power is unrivalled across the world. Its military might is still unparalleled and draws upon an extensive network of allies and partners. It remains relevant in the most sensitive areas of the world: the South China Sea, the Taiwan Straits, the Korean Peninsula, the Persian Gulf and the Horn of Africa.

The US has already won the war on terror, simply because its system is superior and its resources greater than the enemies it fights. But to maintain its victory it needs to be strong again. Its politics needs to be fixed and its economy needs to be revamped. Painful reforms might have to be implemented and sacrifices made. Although it may no longer dominate the global arena like it used to, the US must not allow 9/11 and the war on terror to define its agenda. The best way to exact revenge and mete out justice would be to regain the respect it used to enjoy.

America could be that shining city on a hill again.

Image from ramsheep.com

‘[I]t is likely that many will shy from being possible future sacrificial lambs by standing in Aljunied.’

– Former Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr Zainal Abidin Rasheed

I read this statement in the Straits Times on Friday with much disappointment. The first generation of the People’s Action Party (PAP) fought hard to be the government of Singapore and they fought hard to make Singapore what it is today. Yet, having been born after the anti-colonial struggle and  initial chaos in newly independent Singapore, the new generation of the PAP have lost their fighting spirit. Life has been a bed of roses and our generation has become complacent. PAP candidates want to hop on a free ride into parliament. They want their place in parliament to be given to them on a silver platter.

If there’s one thing that needs to be changed within the ruling party, it is this mindset of complacency. Citizens are tired of seeing these soft and blind lambs hiding behind their shepherds, waiting to be herded into parliament. If the Workers’ Party’s win in Aljunied wasn’t a good hard knock for these candidates, then they may well be sent to the slaughter house. It is better that they are sent to the slaughter house before a huge disaster strikes than be at a complete lost when a calamity hits.

A second item on the agenda for reinvention should be the culture of internal reflection. It is disappointing to know that the PAP Aljunied team has been pointing fingers to everyone except themselves. Yes, they have been in Aljunied for a long time and they have worked the ground, but shoving the blame to a hijacking of local issues for national issues means the PAP hasn’t figured it out yet. You are herding your cattle in the wrong direction. Voters want a government that listens, a government that reflects on itself and constantly changes with times. They want a government with a heart, not merely a head. George Yeo understood voters’ wants when he tried to salvage the Aljunied campaign by connecting with voters and promising to listen to them. Yet, it appears that his team was somewhat fragmented in their visions and this misalignment of ideals may have cost him and his team the consitutency.

It is odd that Mr Zainal referred to the Workers’ Party’s performance in Aljunied as a benchmark for the possibility of PAP fielding a better team in the next elections. Why are they not reflecting and building up a stronger team compared to the team fielded for the 2011 elections but instead waiting for the Workers’ Party performance report card? Why is the benchmark not set by the party itself but set by another party? Doesn’t the PAP prize itself for being excellent in governing the constituencies and representing the people?

It is evident that while the PAP tries to reinvent itself and keep up with the new wave, some lambs are still lost in the midst of this sudden change. In fact, it may even be that they have lost their bearings after this ‘major’ shakeup.

The same sea of change was witnessed during the recent Presidential elections. It provided a reinforcing concept of the wants and needs of citizens. Tan Cheng Bock’s narrow lost proved that Singaporeans are looking for leaders with a heart. He may not have had as good a set of qualifications and experience as Tony Tan, but he touched the hearts of the people with his sincerity and fighting spirit. It is this fighting spirit and sincerity that Singaporeans are looking for. We want you to listen, we want you to care, we don’t just want you to govern.

Lastly, the PAP should start levelling the playing field. The communist threat and period of political chaos are over. The voting population has matured and people are no longer going to be easily taken in by historical rhetoric of probable political fragmentation and social instability within the country. In fact, the stronger opposition is now offering Singaporeans a real choice. Political infiltration in all levels of society to strengthen the PAP’s stronghold on the minds of the people through propaganda and fear will only create greater animosity between the people and the party. If the PAP doesn’t see that their unfair play is causing much of the frustration and swing of votes to the opposition, then come the next General Elections, it will find itself scrambling to connect with voters again.  

Singaporeans have voted twice this year and have given the government an indication of their needs and wants. We don’t want martyrs like Chee Soon Juan, who claim to sacrifice themselves for democracy but never really come back fighting. We don’t need sacrificial lambs who shy away from the elections just because of one lost. We need fighters who continue to come back time and again because of a strong belief and love for Singaporeans. We need candidates who are willing to take calculated risks, who are willing to put their lives into a united belief that Singaporean democracy, government and society can become better.

Dhammakaya temple, Pathum Thani, Thailand. Photo: The World in Photos

Step into Thailand and you will immediately feel the strong association of Thai society with Buddhism. The Thais greet you warmly with clasped hands and a friendly bow. It is a religious gesture that has become so rooted in Thai society that it has evolved into a social gesture.

Theravada Buddhism is the main religion in Thailand and most Thais practice syncretic Theravada Buddhism. Buddhism and the monarchy are viewed as unifying and cross-linking concepts in traditional Thai society. King and religion are unifying pillars of national identity. However, a new wave of modernity is emerging from Bangkok and slowly sweeping into cities, changing the image and position of Buddhism in Thailand.

Wat Phra Dhammakaya, a new Buddhist temple near Bangkok, is the center of this rapid change. The privately owned temple is an enormous complex with elaborate displays of wealth in the form of golden statues and landmarks. The pagoda looks nothing like the traditional temples we see around Thailand. It has a futuristic look and is decorated with 300,000 gold-plated bronze Buddha images on the outer sphere. These gold-plated Buddha images have been redesigned to look futuristic and do not resemble traditional Buddha statues.

You can go on a temple tour with a guide monk. On this trip, you will feel like you have stepped into a corporate advertising event more than a temple. The temple is marketed and advertised for its grandeur, its teachings and its brand. This brand of Buddhism is different from others, it’s the new cool. Additionally, you will be constantly reminded of the founder of Wat Phra Dhammakaya.

Indeed, commercialization can be said to be inevitable in every aspect of life. Many religions have grown to become more like large corporations than merely a form of belief. Yet, the advertising and marketing of religion as a commodity in Thailand represents an even greater change. Besides threatening to change the way religion is practiced and preached, it is changing the very society of Thailand, right down to its heart.

The close link between Thais and Buddhism goes beyond religion itself. Buddhism and the King are mutually reinforcing entities in Thai society. Not only are they authorities which Thais look up to and respect, they are an interconnected web of togetherness and strength for the Thais. A deviation from this mutually reinforcing relationship between religion and the King signifies a shift in unifying pillars within Thai society. Worse still, it could signify a loss in unity.

A split in the traditional and modern versions of Buddhism may not cause as great a rift in Thai society as a rift in the acknowledgement of the value of the God-King. Arguably, the split may increase religious following since youngsters find traditional Buddhism old-fashioned. Yet, the erosion of the King’s position as a God-King and a loss in his association with Thai Buddhism can be said to be detrimental both socially and politically.

Unlike other Buddhist temples which recognize and seek to reinforce the respect and love for the Thai King, Wat Phra Dhammakaya seeks to further its own cause and promote its own founder. While the Thai flag and monarchy flag are seen in many Buddhist temples in Thailand, Dhammakaya flies its own flag, the Dhammakaya flag. While other temples worship the King and even place his portrait beside the Buddha, the Dhammakaya centre constantly advertises its founder and its own version of Buddha. It is a major shift from traditional Thai Buddhism and what is commonly known to Thais as a typical Buddhist temple. Furthermore, since the Thai King’s position in the hearts and minds of the people is reinforced by a common social understanding and deep seated passion which infiltrates all levels of society, a loss of support from religion, another central force within Thai society, could lead to a diminished status of the King in the hearts of the people. With the Thai King having a strong moral authority in all aspects of life in Thailand, any shifts in position could be detrimental.

Yet, this is the new syncretism of Thai Buddhism. The Dhammakaya Centre has received huge sums in funding and massive support, especially from young urban populations and Buddhists abroad. Commercialisation may be the way to go to prevent an erosion of religion in this increasingly materialistic and capitalist world. Greater organization and institutionalization are new ways to control and spread ideas and beliefs. As commercialization continues to hit us, this wave of change will continue.

Only time will tell if this wave of change will be a unifying force within Thailand or cause a fragmentation and a new search for the Thai identity.