Undergrads Too Docile
-
Undergrads
Too docile for the world
Good at studies, they lack initiative and verbal skill that will make it hard to compete in a changing world.
By Seah Chiang Nee, littlespeck.com
Oct 13, 2007
STEPPING up to the mike to ask Lee Kuan Yew a question at a campus forum, university student Terence found himself ‘trembling’.
“I couldn’t control it. My legs shook violently,” said the only Singaporean among the first seven undergraduates with questions for the Minister Mentor, who still overawes many Singaporeans he meets.
The other six were foreigners. From the Singaporeans who made up the vast majority of the 1,800-strong forum audience, there was silence.
As the moderator proceeded to end the session, an exasperated Lee asked: “Is there no Singaporean who wants to ask a question?” Three locals then came forward with mundane questions.
The question-and-answer was LeeÂ’s annual campus sojourn to feel the pulse of people who will one day inherit South-East AsiaÂ’s wealthiest state.
Terence, who was the first to step up, provided an answer to Lee’s question – without referring to it – on Singaporeans’ reticence in expressing themselves.
In his blog, he described his experience of facing Lee, who is two generations his senior, as ‘nerve-wrecking’, and which ‘took a lot of guts’ from a questioner.
Terence’s case could be just an over-statement of his nervousness and may not be representative of the student body. On previous occasions, a few had stood their ground in facing off against Lee, one even calling him “a despot”.
But what is more worrying is the general mood of docility at a time when Singaporeans are bugged by a number of unpopular government policies.
At a time when students elsewhere are playing an active role in society, the locals remain either uninterested or turned-off about anything beyond pursuing a degree and a career.
In some ways, Lee had been the cause of this ‘don’t care’ lethargy, his education system having produced a highly educated, but unquestioning new generation.
Lee’s campus experience last week came as his government is planning to build a fourth – and even a fifth – university to meet the demand for higher learning at home and in the region.
The system had worked very well when Singapore was a manufacturing centre for multi-national corporations. It produced hardworking ant-workers to man the production lines, helping the state to prosper.
To LeeÂ’s credit, he saw the global change away from this, and invested heavily (so did the parents) in educating Singaporeans, which is now paying off.
Economic growth, at 7.8% in 2006, is expected to rise by another 8% this year.
Generally, Singaporean students rank highly in the world, topping in Maths and Science, and many eventually become good professionals and skilled technicians for the economy.
(Last year, the island republic recorded a GDP per capita income of US$32,867 – 17th highest in the world.)
But LeeÂ’s tight control of society has also had a negative impact. It discouraged the emergence of creative, independent-minded youths capable of expressing themselves.
He has always feared that opening up too quickly would result in disorder. He once declared: “If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless.”
Although he has mellowed in recent times, his reputation of knocking heads still lingers.
The result has been a lack of any fire in the belly, an adventurous streak that Lee often says he wishes to see in his people.
Instead, the 21st Century Singaporean is professionally capable, knowledgeable in data knowledge, but short on initiative, action and verbal skills.
He is also self-centred and apathetic about the world around him, a trait that Lee knows will make it hard for Singapore to compete against more gung-ho hordes from China and India.
“Unquestioning citizens are easier to govern. In a small country like Singapore, this necessary compromise has been engineered to prevent chaos,” a newspaper reader wrote.
The education system still tolerates no talk-back, described by a writer as “Teacher teaches, pupils listen”.
He added, “The political culture does not encourage one to speak up, let alone question.”
The university student understands that academic achievement and a dream job do not lie in the ability to ask probing or political questions of a leader, one cynic said.
“Kindly look elsewhere for student activism,” he added.
“At any rate, the local student knows – something his foreign friend does not – that asking Lee questions is not going to change anything, so why bother”, a blogger said.
Ask him an embarrassing question, Lee would “give you his famous laugh and explain to you in very simple terms his point of view, which will be the final and only answer” was another comment.
Part of this lies in the age gap between Lee and young Singaporeans; some 60 years divide them.
The dilemma has, however, not affected the Singaporean universitiesÂ’ steady climb in world rankings or their contribution to the flourishing economy.
i would say that most singaporeans are too docile and unquestioning not just the undergrads or grads. -
they have barely any knowledge of current affairs to ask anything relevant...
-
nt really leh
unless u talking abt some nerds who really dunnoe anything... -
If the Undergrads only use the Singapore mainstream propaganda media for politcal news, then their level of political awareness and knowledge will be too low to allow them to criticise Lee Kuan Yew.
They must seek out other sources for their information.
Singapore mainstream media is worthless. -
Which choice will you rather make?
- Sit there and switch off.
- Ask something and be prepared to be pwned by MM?
-
Why are the university students lacking the critical thinking abilities ?
Can our university undergrads think on their feet.
Let us analyse why we have reached this apathetic state of affairs as lamented by many social commentators like Dr. Catherine Lim or Mr. Ngiam Tong Dow.
If our undergrads are said to be less critical and less analytical who do we compare them with ?
From what has happened to our journalists and students in recent public debates or Q&A forums, it is more than obvious that they were found to be lacking critical thinking as compared with their counterparts elsewhere.
So why are they lacking such abilities? Is it caused by environmental or inherent factors. How different is our environment today as compared with that of free countries like US or UK? Do we suffer a war or such drastic setback in recent history?
No? If we cannot find any other substantive cause for our lack of critical thinking among the undergrads then the more likely possible and obvious cause is our political and social environment we are living in.
For example how do our leaders or MPs value individual freedoms or participative governance in our society? How do our leaders choose or select the professors ? Were they chosen from among well behaved politically uncritical with clean record of not holding tii vocal or strong views about politics or democracy or freedom. If so how do we expect to have good critical teaching to produce critical students in our universities?
One NUS professor was removed and he said the in his parting shot that in Singapore "it is not what you know but who you know" that matters. Is this true?
So unless we allow freedoms of expressions within the universities through careful selection of teaching staff with such qualities will we be better off or worse off in the long term?
Will our students be free to discuss and discover truths and expose falsehood of what is posted in the Little Red Dot or "20 Major Policy Errors" written in forums ?
If the students want to develop critical thinking abilities they should be left to develop them from interactions and exposures with the real world and not just follow the standard textbook questions and answers which probably do not prepare them to ask searching questions of MM Lee about major government policy errors.
MM Lee was a staunch believer of autocracy and dictatorial leadership for his own reason. To him granting greater freedoms of speech and expressions and rights of citizens will lead to instability and chaos. He did not allow the jury trial in serious crimes or politically motivated defamation suits. He does not allow habeas corpus for greater protections of individual freedoms. He did not allow Law Society to disagree with government policies or actions.
In the same way he did not allow journalist to write critically about government policies.
Should the students be allowed to think otherwise from the one-sided political environment which preaches only the virtue of top-down autocratic leadership which does not tolerate dissent.
So if students are not allowed to develop naturally will they know how to argue and discuss critically to come up with what is good system for Singapore.
If the students and journalists were docile and far from critical or analytical as compared with the writing in some forums due to lack of analytical views it is clear that our political environment plays a great part.
Why our cannot ask good searching questions of his government? Standard solutions to textbook problems?
MM Lee should know why both the undergrads and journalists are unable to develop their intellectual abilities? Only it will be poor public relation for him to concede the real cause.
There is a heavy price to pay if we want a stable and orderly society which does not permit or encourage citizens of freedoms of speech and expressions of opinions both the by-products of democracy. -
Highly educated graduates who are able to think could pose a threat to authority ma.
-
the undergrads are more interested to know whether they can get a job in the gahmen sector, who so stoopid wan to jeopardise their future to tio marked.
Maybe their parents oreadi gao dai "ah boy, go there just sit and listen, dun go up to the mic to talk" -
In the world of politics, every move or non-movement is wrong.
-
All these social conditioning isn't going to help in the Internet age. -
Surely, it can't possibly have escaped the observation of any rational mind the docility espoused herein stems from the culture of fear and terror that permeates through the state rather than one's educational inclinations?
It's no coincidence that such cultures are inherent in other totalitarian regimes like China and North Korea as we witness the nurturing of an identical culture? All that despite having the fact such regimes have actually got sound infrastructure in place to churn out tonnes of highly capable technocrats.
Is the docility in question a product of education or totalitarianism?
If you ever needed a benchmark for docility spurned by effective totalitarianism, look no further than the legendary paradise known as the DPRK. In case you were wondering, their "Dear Leader" - pretty similar to the despot running this regime - doesn't subscribe to the merits of international institutions like "Reporter without Borders" and "Amnesty International" either. -
Just go up and engage the speaker.
What's there to lose?
-
You ask a very thought-provoking question about MM Lee, they say you are rude.
You don't ask any question, they say you are docile.
What else do they want us to do? -
Ignore that paradigm and do what you think is best lorOriginally posted by eagle:You ask a very thought-provoking question about MM Lee, they say you are rude.
You don't ask any question, they say you are docile.
What else do they want us to do? -
That fella who found himself trembling has nothing to do with the issue of undergrads being too docile. This is far too sweeping a statement! Every single undergrad is docile? Surely one swallow does not make a summer!
It's a case of stage fright pure and simple..... Some people are just averse to public speaking........ a phobia. Why, even seasoned public speakers can experience a bout of nerves from time to time, let alone inexperienced ones!
TS coming out with such a sweeping statement that holds no water is reflective of an inadequacy of thought and being too easily swayed by the opinion of others. More importantly, it evinces the incapacity for independent thought
-
I remember jack neo variety has a discussion on topic: Politic. They invited students & parents to get involved on this topic. Most students raise their hand that they do not want to get involved on politics. Why? Answer : u would be sued until u bankrupt. I think a fear has been instill on them when they r young. Parents view: U(gahman) call us to talk but have u ever listen to our views.
-
This topic sound like those recruit or enlsitee (PTE to CFC) in the SAF never the question the validity of the order given the by their commanders.
-
if a dog doesn't bark, does it mean it won't bite?
-
It doesn't have to be criticism or offensive. It could be an exploration of ideas. For example, why can't allowances for those who have no means to support themselves be indexed to average earnings ? 1/4 of average earnings. Citizens prefer persuation as opposed to coercion, why can't the government persuade citizens to purchase the annuity through tax incentives or matching $ for $ if we purchase etc.Originally posted by eagle:You ask a very thought-provoking question about MM Lee, they say you are rude.
You don't ask any question, they say you are docile.
What else do they want us to do?
As much as some of us here wishes that students stand up to and challenge lao lee and his legacy, scold him or whatever....questions can also be asked and ideas explored. -
The thing is, there are some Singaporeans who ALWAYS think of the negative before they think of anything else.
People are afraid of asking MM questions because they are afraid of the criticism. They don't even reach the step of thinking of the possibility getting useful input.
Just looking at this forum you can see the negativity seeping through the replies. -
I wouldn't take the risk to be flamed and sued by MM just to get useful input.Originally posted by Parka: The thing is, there are some Singaporeans who ALWAYS think of the negative before they think of anything else.
People are afraid of asking MM questions because they are afraid of the criticism. They don't even reach the step of thinking of the possibility getting useful input.
Just looking at this forum you can see the negativity seeping through the replies. -
I wouldn't take the risk to be flamed and sued by MM just to get useful input.
This is the sort of attitude instilled into our younger generation by certain actions of Lee Kuan Yew.
Sad.
A serious blow has been dealt to our intellectual climate in Singapore society.
Tan Wah Piow talks about Singapore:
So do you still pin the hope on the younger generation?
I think in every political process, they still need new ideas. The youths seem more distracted and show more concern for materialism than political ideals. Singapore wanted to use, although not overtly, Israel as a model to harden national consensus and the sense of national survival.
But I think that is a different context because Israel is very different from Singapore in terms of ethnicity, religion and so on. You can't copy the whole model, the idealism and the sense of nationalism, The urgency is not there.
The whole justification that Singapore can't have democratic space is that you are surrounded, and thus adopting a kind of 'under siege' mentality. You might get some support in the early period but not in this age. I can always pack up and go, then come back to Singapore as a visitor.
http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2006/05/exiled-dissident-tan-wah-piow-on.html -
Maybe so....or is this what the likes of CSJ and JBJ want you to believe ?Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:This is the sort of attitude instilled into our younger generation by certain actions of Lee Kuan Yew.
Sad. -
Most undergraduates straight from A levels are still very young - teenagers for those not in NS. So, how much do they know about the world let alone SG? When you hear them chit-chats, you hear all the bo-liao talks, nothing solid or substantial. So, what question can they ask? Even to think of question to ask is quite a task for them!
Also, there are few social issues for them to champion - they have all the good things in life, so their grouses are over silly little nothings! So, what question can they ask? Silly ones? -
Have you then questioned: what bred this apathy in the very first place?Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Most undergraduates straight from A levels are still very young - teenagers for those not in NS. So, how much do they know about the world let alone SG? When you hear them chit-chats, you hear all the bo-liao talks, nothing solid or substantial. So, what question can they ask? Even to think of question to ask is quite a task for them!
Also, there are few social issues for them to champion - they have all the good things in life, so their grouses are over silly little nothings! So, what question can they ask? Silly ones?