"Happiness is figurative; I'm happy 'cause of me, doesn't matter where I'm living." - 'West Coast', The Neighbourhood.
Got really inspired by this song by The Neighbourhood. Not my favourite song from them(WDYWFM is). Anyway this line really just stuck out and immediately reminded me of the happiness ranking(by countries). It should also be noted that Singapore is ranked as one of the lowest developed countries. It's funny how the happy countries are those that are considered 'developing'. Actually, it's not really funny. Given that happiness is the ultimate goal of living, does it mean that development is less than ideal? Of course, the rankings are probably only true to a certain extent, but I have heard many people around me expressing their distaste for the hectic and boring life of Singapore. I never got why though. We are so goddamned blessed. If you're a Singaporean reading this, was there ever a time when you had to worry about not having enough to eat, not having a shelter over your head, or not having healthcare facilities in your proximity? Highly unlikely. Of course, for our country to move forward, it is probably important for us to compare with countries that are doing better instead of those who are not as developed... But are we sacrificing other (es.p non-material factors) that are far more important?
Wanted this post to be longer but I'm not really in the mood for writing. Just finished my presentation on Social Impact Bond with the division that I only had approx. 1 day to do because I took leave to go to Malaysia.
Showing posts with label Singapore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Singapore. Show all posts
Friday, 16 May 2014
Sunday, 6 April 2014
Response to France's ban on special Muslim lunches
Article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/france-school-religious-lunches_n_5091516.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
I knew I had to write about this the moment I finished reading the first paragraph.
What.the.hell.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people. You can't just bloody cut off the lunch supply of Muslim students! I'm no Muslim but in Singapore, Muslims are one of the largest religion group here and I have Muslim friends myself. I know how frustrating it can be for them in terms of food choice when they go outside even though in Singapore, there are at least 3 halal foodcourts/restaurants/fast food joints in every shopping centre(on average). (Our KFC and McDonald's are halal) In schools/office buildings, there will be at least one Halal stall in each canteen. I already think that more should be added for the convenience of our fellow Muslim friends but oh no, in France, they are cutting the supply off in schools! Schools, of all places! Schools, that are suppose to be teaching your children to love and be considerate of the other races; Schools, that are suppose to inculcate values of peace and harmony among different races.
The way I perceiving the government's view, and views of several commentators, is that they feel that they have been doing 'a favour' for the Muslims all this while by providing special lunch for them. But the government is suppose to take care of all of its people! It's suppose to be one big family and family members don't 'do favours'; they do things because they CARE. I'm just really flabbergasted by the whole situation. Of course, I know that they're not directing this at the Muslims since they justified that ["We will not accept any religious demands in school menus," Le Pen told RTL radio. "There is no reason for religion to enter the public sphere, that's the law."]
But seriously, 'no reason for religion to enter the public sphere'? Your public is bloody made up of people who are from different religions! (of course, not every single person has a religion but yeah);I wonder if there are any Muslims on the council, considering how it's one of their large minorities. And I really hope that I'm wrong about the French government. Until then, I would say you go back to doing what you have to do for your people.
Okay, I should stop raging. Raging isn't gonna help at all. But what is going to help? What can I do, when I'm so far away, with my little understanding of the whole situation from one article on a virtual platform?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/france-school-religious-lunches_n_5091516.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
I knew I had to write about this the moment I finished reading the first paragraph.
What.the.hell.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people. You can't just bloody cut off the lunch supply of Muslim students! I'm no Muslim but in Singapore, Muslims are one of the largest religion group here and I have Muslim friends myself. I know how frustrating it can be for them in terms of food choice when they go outside even though in Singapore, there are at least 3 halal foodcourts/restaurants/fast food joints in every shopping centre(on average). (Our KFC and McDonald's are halal) In schools/office buildings, there will be at least one Halal stall in each canteen. I already think that more should be added for the convenience of our fellow Muslim friends but oh no, in France, they are cutting the supply off in schools! Schools, of all places! Schools, that are suppose to be teaching your children to love and be considerate of the other races; Schools, that are suppose to inculcate values of peace and harmony among different races.
The way I perceiving the government's view, and views of several commentators, is that they feel that they have been doing 'a favour' for the Muslims all this while by providing special lunch for them. But the government is suppose to take care of all of its people! It's suppose to be one big family and family members don't 'do favours'; they do things because they CARE. I'm just really flabbergasted by the whole situation. Of course, I know that they're not directing this at the Muslims since they justified that ["We will not accept any religious demands in school menus," Le Pen told RTL radio. "There is no reason for religion to enter the public sphere, that's the law."]
But seriously, 'no reason for religion to enter the public sphere'? Your public is bloody made up of people who are from different religions! (of course, not every single person has a religion but yeah);I wonder if there are any Muslims on the council, considering how it's one of their large minorities. And I really hope that I'm wrong about the French government. Until then, I would say you go back to doing what you have to do for your people.
Okay, I should stop raging. Raging isn't gonna help at all. But what is going to help? What can I do, when I'm so far away, with my little understanding of the whole situation from one article on a virtual platform?
Thursday, 3 April 2014
Response to bell curves; or rather, what we have defined grades as.
When I was younger, my grades were always a tool for comparison. A useful tool to allow you to gloat around those who did worse and to feel self-deprecated around those who top the class semester after semester. I don't know how many countries actually use this system because it is damn bloody annoying.
To be fair, it has its own merits if not Singapore wouldn't be using it. But it's just too... practical. Education isn't suppose to be like this. Education is suppose to empower people, it's suppose to give hope to people, it's suppose to cultivate better individuals. And the bell curve is really just a cruel(okay, maybe it's too strong of a word but yeah, limited vocab here) tool to rank people, to make us test against one another, to cultivate a "competitive edge". Sure, that's awesome for the economy, awesome for getting better paychecks because very often, we become stagnant with the lack of competition. But it's also not-so-awesome for health - mental health and emotional health. And these two are really important. Many people do not realise this, or maybe they do but do not prioritise it. It's just kinda sad.
I've lost my ranting appetite. I really want to take action, but the truth is, I don't really know what I can do. I am hopeful, but I'm not sure how long it'll last.
To be fair, it has its own merits if not Singapore wouldn't be using it. But it's just too... practical. Education isn't suppose to be like this. Education is suppose to empower people, it's suppose to give hope to people, it's suppose to cultivate better individuals. And the bell curve is really just a cruel(okay, maybe it's too strong of a word but yeah, limited vocab here) tool to rank people, to make us test against one another, to cultivate a "competitive edge". Sure, that's awesome for the economy, awesome for getting better paychecks because very often, we become stagnant with the lack of competition. But it's also not-so-awesome for health - mental health and emotional health. And these two are really important. Many people do not realise this, or maybe they do but do not prioritise it. It's just kinda sad.
I've lost my ranting appetite. I really want to take action, but the truth is, I don't really know what I can do. I am hopeful, but I'm not sure how long it'll last.
Response to meritocracy in Singapore
'Meritocracy' is one word that I would immediately link Singapore to, right behind 'sunny', 'merlion' and 'safe'. Do I believe in it? Yes, when i am being optimistic and no, if I were to be practical. I do support it though. I mean, it's really one of the fairest approaches around. I just don't agree that we are a full-fledged meritocratic country. In fact, it's an issue pertaining to the whole world.
First, let's take a look at meritocracy on a global scale and imagine each country as a single individual. Some may be related; depending on how you it, some examples can be like China-North Korea, ASEAN... Anyway, the main point is that each country has its own unique traits - naturally equating to unequal distribution of resources. Which is exactly why we have developed vs developing countries. Some countries are more developed perhaps because they have an abundance of natural resources, for e.g., Norway. Just to keep things short and simple, I'll make this a shallow comparison to maybe, a rich kid with abundant material possessions - student A. And then we have countries like Singapore, with close to zero natural resources(compared to other countries), a country that basically had to start with nothing after WWII save for a good geographic location. And a shallow comparison will probably be a poor kid placed in a good school cos he lives near it(Singaporeans will understand this) - student B.
Given our history, I totally understand why our government advocates meritocracy because we were a country with HDI lower than that of some African countries and now we're like in the top 20? We had as much chances as other countries to succeed(I say this because we weren't really affected by war or natural disasters ever since WWII) and we did, despite our condition after the war and everyday I am thankful for being born into this country. But I believe that we can do so much better. So, let's say student B does well in school without tuition or whatsoever, doing well based on his own hard work. Classic example of meritocracy. But could he have done better if he had student A's family background? Almost definitely. What about students who may not be as lucky as student B to get into a good school? Will his hard work be enough?
Connections helps. I have known a few cases whereby students use connections to get into my school. This is just one example. Money helps. This is a pretty straightforward one. Let's say a student who has done badly for A levels cannot get into any local universities, cannot afford to go any private/overseas universities even though his/her score makes the cut. Where is our 'equal chances'? Money helps. Indefinitely. Which is exactly why one should never let money rule over oneself.
"What gave money its true meaning was its dark-night namelessness, its breathtaking interchangeability." - Haruki Murakami.
In my opinion, there's never gonna be "real meritocracy" because there's always gonna be "invisible classes" in a society. Like, even if there is a total redistribution of resources, to put to a extremity, everyone starting at point zero, there is never going to be a 100% meritocratic society. The state of total equality is bound to diverge at a certain point. For example, setting English as the first language was probably one of the best decisions ever made by our government. I really admire Lee for having such hindsight. Everyone starting on the same foot(well, almost everyone) but yes, we still have high income equality. But the thing is, every country has a certain level of income inequality(duh) so it's really about balance.
And I believe that this balance can only be achieved by a more humanistic Singapore. Yes, that's right, supporter of Mr. Robin Hood here. I can talk all day about the Robin Hood approach and I'm really more of a supporter of the upgraded Robin Hood approach(i.e. Not just monetary transfers + poor giving back to the rich as well. In what ways I haven't thought of, this will be for a later discussion). Sure, you can be super extreme and say that this would mean that the rich does all the work and the poor gains because of their charity and that is oh-so-unfair but come on, nothing is fair in this world. Which is why meritocracy only works to a certain extent since there will never be "real equal chances"[might not even work well; I mean, classless-ness certainly didn't work well for China] but the basis of it is really for people to think about what they can do for the rest of the society.
So, what are you willing and able to do for our society?
First, let's take a look at meritocracy on a global scale and imagine each country as a single individual. Some may be related; depending on how you it, some examples can be like China-North Korea, ASEAN... Anyway, the main point is that each country has its own unique traits - naturally equating to unequal distribution of resources. Which is exactly why we have developed vs developing countries. Some countries are more developed perhaps because they have an abundance of natural resources, for e.g., Norway. Just to keep things short and simple, I'll make this a shallow comparison to maybe, a rich kid with abundant material possessions - student A. And then we have countries like Singapore, with close to zero natural resources(compared to other countries), a country that basically had to start with nothing after WWII save for a good geographic location. And a shallow comparison will probably be a poor kid placed in a good school cos he lives near it(Singaporeans will understand this) - student B.
Given our history, I totally understand why our government advocates meritocracy because we were a country with HDI lower than that of some African countries and now we're like in the top 20? We had as much chances as other countries to succeed(I say this because we weren't really affected by war or natural disasters ever since WWII) and we did, despite our condition after the war and everyday I am thankful for being born into this country. But I believe that we can do so much better. So, let's say student B does well in school without tuition or whatsoever, doing well based on his own hard work. Classic example of meritocracy. But could he have done better if he had student A's family background? Almost definitely. What about students who may not be as lucky as student B to get into a good school? Will his hard work be enough?
Connections helps. I have known a few cases whereby students use connections to get into my school. This is just one example. Money helps. This is a pretty straightforward one. Let's say a student who has done badly for A levels cannot get into any local universities, cannot afford to go any private/overseas universities even though his/her score makes the cut. Where is our 'equal chances'? Money helps. Indefinitely. Which is exactly why one should never let money rule over oneself.
"What gave money its true meaning was its dark-night namelessness, its breathtaking interchangeability." - Haruki Murakami.
 |
| Get it right, kid! |
In my opinion, there's never gonna be "real meritocracy" because there's always gonna be "invisible classes" in a society. Like, even if there is a total redistribution of resources, to put to a extremity, everyone starting at point zero, there is never going to be a 100% meritocratic society. The state of total equality is bound to diverge at a certain point. For example, setting English as the first language was probably one of the best decisions ever made by our government. I really admire Lee for having such hindsight. Everyone starting on the same foot(well, almost everyone) but yes, we still have high income equality. But the thing is, every country has a certain level of income inequality(duh) so it's really about balance.
And I believe that this balance can only be achieved by a more humanistic Singapore. Yes, that's right, supporter of Mr. Robin Hood here. I can talk all day about the Robin Hood approach and I'm really more of a supporter of the upgraded Robin Hood approach(i.e. Not just monetary transfers + poor giving back to the rich as well. In what ways I haven't thought of, this will be for a later discussion). Sure, you can be super extreme and say that this would mean that the rich does all the work and the poor gains because of their charity and that is oh-so-unfair but come on, nothing is fair in this world. Which is why meritocracy only works to a certain extent since there will never be "real equal chances"[might not even work well; I mean, classless-ness certainly didn't work well for China] but the basis of it is really for people to think about what they can do for the rest of the society.
So, what are you willing and able to do for our society?
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
Response to HPB controversy
I'm not lesbian or bisexual, and really I don't see a point of announcing my sexual orientation but I do anticipate being asked this question so might as well answer it now. Fact: I dislike the term LGBT. It's kind of like this; there's people who are straight and there's people who are LGBT. It's as if LGBTs are people who are in a totally different category, when we are all, well, humans. Honestly, how can we call Singapore a country that stands for equality and harmony regardless of race, language or religion when we can't even embrace basic human preferences? (Okay not sure if 'preferences' is the most appropriate word)
From what I see, promoting homosexuality will not result in higher number of LGBTs, there will just be more people admitting the fact that they are not straight. People who are not straight can't change who they are; in mathematical terms, n is a constant regardless of whether there are pro- homosexuality campaigns or not.
And supposedly, this campaign by HPB is going against another ministry's concept of a "traditional family" of of course, parents of opposite genders plus children(if any). This is where I'd like to bring in something that the HPB said:"...family remains the basic building block of our society. This means encouraging homosexuals married couples to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units." Maybe it's time to rethink the whole concept of family; what is "traditional"? Or perhaps "acceptable"? Does it really matter that much.
I'm not sure if I'm being ignorant here but I do see a positive light in promoting homosexual-led families instead of illegalising it(sorry creating new words since my vocab is limited) because it probably means that there will be more take up for adoptions which means more abandoned kids getting a chance to be part of a family unit. Just my small food for thought.
I usually prefer to stand on the fence but for this one I'm definitely pro-HPB.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)