Contradiction
-
[quote]Originally posted by dke:
so.... change what?
In the education system? Where do we start? For starters
- Reduce the emphasis on using exams to assess students. Exams are an anachronistic and unrealistic way to assess a student's aptitude, and while I do not advocate scrapping them totally, I believe its high time we increased the importance of in-semester work, assignments and projects to assess a student's performance rather that having a high-pressure 2-3 hour exam assess the student's progress over 6 months
- Accept the fact that every student is an individual and not to be molded into a mindless production line robot. Conformity is good, but the level expected of Singapore's students breeds mindlessness, like that we've seen in a lot of students.
The through train system proposed by the Education Ministry, looks like a step in the right direction at first glance, but look deeper into it. Its obvious that while the best students will go through what will obviously help in their development, the others will continue to be molded into the the production line robots the Singapore school system seems so good at producing. Call me cynical, but this plan can be said as producing advanced controllers for production line robots, instead of the old system of using a few high-QC certified production line robots to controlling the others.
While I accept that not all schools or students can accept the through-train system, the MoE has, by using the through-train plan, proclaimed it has reformed the system. But it has in fact, glossed over and covered up some serious flaws (as well as its gearing for economic situations that are no longer present) in the education system that have become obvious as the global economy gone south in the past few years..
Instead of making the system less elitist, we've gone the exact opposite way.
i cant say that i agree with what they are doing but that is one issue right? But look at it this way, how many ppl own handphones now?
The number of handphone owners is not the issue. That can easily be achieved even if the telcos were MNCs or owned by local companies without links to the government. The GLCs cannot take the credit for the level of mobile penetration because the demand was there and it could just have easily been met by non-GLC entities.
My beef is with the fact that all 3 players in the telco market are GLCs, and have squeezed out entrepreneurs who might have been able to stick a foot in the door. So the question here is, why must GLC ownership of the local economy be so pervasive? By all means, have a GLC in the strategic industries like telecomms, but must ALL players be linked to Temasek?
Of course, we can point to the emergence and disappearance of Virgin Mobile, but remember they were only allowed to enter the market only AFTER the 3 GLCs had established a giant foothold into the market here, and then basically ask a new company to fight for the pie. In this case a government regulatory body (IDA) protected 3 GLCs from outside competition and ensured that the playing field was never anywhere near level in the first place. See the potential for conflicts of interest?
My point is in any economy there must always be a balance of free market forces AND command market forces.
My point exactly. Using the telcos here as an example(there're many other industries with the same problem). ALL players are GLCs! Is that a balance of free market forces and command market forces?
its the balance of these 2 that will make the economy STABLE thats the key. so far singapore has been realli stable compared to other economies in the region.. i am not saying we should hide in our shells todays open world economy does not allow that but instead we shud be cautious (maybe i am a careful person). and no we cannot insist things are right if they are wrong then they are wrong
Caution has its advantages, but in todays fastmoving global economy, being cautious almost always ensures you lose out to someone else whos quicker off than you.
Which is where another weakness of the GLCs in the global economy comes in. They're manned by beareaucrats, not businessmen. They are by nature cautious, and are often slow to react to changes because of this.
the reason the cars are so expensive is realli to maintain control of the number of vehicles there are on the road the prices are already this high but look.. the sales are not going down~! its veri possible we may end up like thailand some day if there isnt enuff control here u know
No arguments here, control of the car population here is needed.You've admitted yourself here that the demand for cars have not slowed down (until the various econ crises hit). So if anything it has showed that the ERP and COE schemes have failed miserably in its original aim of slowing car ownership demands but succeeded brilliantly in enriching the government coffers.
Which seems to be the story of many government schemes, including that to control the sprialling property prices in the 90s. See the reason for many Singaporeans cycnicism?
are we sitting idle?
Read independent reviews of the recommendations put forward by the various wayang committees (Remaking SG, ERC etc). The almost universal reaction was that it was
- an opportunity missed,
- nothing significant suggested
or something to that note. If you care to remember, a high profile minister (no names mentioned here), when questioned why the ERC went back on its promises that "no stone will be left unturned", replied that "It only looks that way because all the stones have been carefully put back in place". The remark would have left me laughing till I fell off my chair if not for the fact that it affects me and my country's future directly.
Your own minster has answered your question?
i agree but a plan in this magnitude has to be long drawn out things do not change overnight
See above, are we changing at all? Or are those who are able to make changes stuck in their comfort zones of their old ways -
thats quite true...
i agree with u on the education thing
and i din realli agree with it in the first place since in the end the students are STILL sitting for A levels so ultimately the results realli no different
but the erp......
the money has to somewhere isnt it??? -
The problem we face is not only confined to Singapore. The issues exist for every country in the world
a) What is our role?
b) Is our role/economic model sustainable in the future?
c) Can our resources/people rise up to support the role/model.
Our role in the global economy was fully defined in the 60s-90s. However, we are now facing a fact that the role is now undermined by globalization, that being a middleman will not last in the future. Hence we have to change the role.
Then, we have to see if our present capabilities can support that. Sadly, we can't even do that (being a middleman) with our current population (which is our only resource) so defineing a new role will be exceedingly difficult.
Philippines and Malaysia has a huge advantage .. it can copy us as it has a 2 to 4 year lag to our development. It can wait for us to iron out the bugs and then steamroll us by being bigger much faster and cheaper than what it took us to do.
a) Education
b) Transhipment
c) Services
d) IT
e) Tourism
f) Call Centre
g) Hospitality
h) Health
i) Finance
Our government has stuck in the mentality of of doing what is popular and profitable currently and hope no one else can do it. The recent tourism and biotech campaigns show this. But it won't be long before our lack of resources in those areas will cause the sector (and the economy) once again to fail.
Let me give you a real example. I spent like 3 weeks in the USA. I invited many of my colleagues to visit Asia for their holidays. Indeed, there is a SIA promotion for a very good fare with accomodation (6 nights) to come to Singapore. The problem is .. what the heck can some tourist do in Singapore for 7 days and 6 nights?
So we will end up benefitting the Malaysians, Thais and the Indonesians. So our wonderful promotion will not be able to kick start our tourism industry. So most of the money used for incentives will be lucky if we break even. -
[quote]Originally posted by chaar123:
[b]Remember what some minister once said "Creativity can only be conditioned in a DISCIPLINED environment" that is b UL L SHIT! U should let go to let all possibilities be available... but anywayz that is Singapore.. Lucky I wont have to be here forever...
Where was this from ah?? I want to read the original text leh... -
just wanna add on to Viper52's replies, prob won't be as in depth as him
Originally posted by dke:
after looking at all the comments i relived alot of thoughts that i had while i was a student. and turth to be said i am going to be a student again, this time in NUS, after my time in national service
however now i have differents views than when i was a student..
all these talk act focused on y the government shudnt be so authoritarian and be more relaxed.
but we shud take into consideration how our country started. During that period of chaos and over-shadowing neighbours the government had to maintain a high level of control... control meaning directing how the country will progress. be it in economic matters, educational matters or even social probs. all that for a new country a new government. i may sound pro-gov here but i believe its because most ppl here are anti-govern.. anyway thats just a feeling i have..
Yes I agree that having an authoritarian govt is the fastest and most efficient way of bringing a country with no economy and much chaos under control for development. However, Singapore's economic successes today give the govt a certain amount of buffer to inject more freedom into our social fabric, instead of coming up with a new committee and a new campaign with some kiddy title for every social issue, perhaps it would be better to lay back abit and let things develop as they are with fewer rules.
and so how long has it been since we declared independency??
i wud say not long enough....
the prob here is we are getting alot of exposure to other countries.
countries like america, the european countries
these countries enjoy great freedom and naturally we are affected
now we want it too...
but our country is realli different from them
for one we have no natural resources not even land
had we had land like malaysia imagine what a hub we can become
but even now malaysia is undercutting us because land is cheap
this is the peril that singapore faces
so relate this to the topic. if so singapore onli has its population as a form of resource.. which explains why the education system is geared as such
engineers were required in the last 2 decades
so... the universities had engineering courses now bio-eng is the point
the point here is singapore is realli struggling to survive in this biting world and the government needs to plan for the future
how did we get this far?
creativity definitely has its merits and should never be ignored
but how much is the question....
unity may be what we need isnt it?
or diversity?
isnt that going to be a risk?
a risk for the future of singapore?
Yep Singapore needed workers in the past, unfortunately it now requires thinking people. And the education system is attempting to apply the same formula it used in producing workers to produce thinking people. Come up with some nice, clear, rigid plan, and set some people to it from the start and stay on the same route till they graduate.
Creating a worker is fundamentally different from creating a person with the ability to judge, evaluate and analyse.
A worker has to be thought fixed skills and can be put through a fixed system, cos what they're gonna do is everyday is about the same. However, when u want someone to think, u dun teach the person to think, u create the environment for the person to think in. U can't teach a person how to think but u can develop thinking skills through the right environment. Having creativity courses from time to time, a through train system to eliminate O levels but still end up at the A levels, would prob not help as much as creating the environment that encourages us as students to find problems for ourselves and then solve these problems in our own way.
Of course, the solving part will mean that students will have to be taught certain skills in the first place. But then teaching these skills do not mean telling teachers to just give students the information.
Singapore's environment is a dynamic, changing one. Unforutnately, the education system is still applying its old rules to come up with new plans.
Perhaps much of it has to do with the way teachers are trained and evaluated. I'm not very sure how this is done but knowing the usual results focused system in Singapore, students results probably play a significant part in teacher's evaluations. This creates pressure on teachers who then transfer this to students by teaching and focusing only on the rigid topics set by some comfy, high ranking, well paid civil servants who decide what is most impt.
Also, with the amount of work students get, how the hell does the govt aim to have students develop themselves in other areas as well and take an interest in national issues when they are more concerned with 'what test am i going to have next' and 'what are homework i have due tmr'.
Lastly, in the development of sports potentials, why do we need a special sports school for these athletes in the first place? Its because the system simply does not allow people to NOT conform and yet still succeed. Thus, the govt has to create and extension to the system and still direct this extension towards the final result of the original system.
Then again, people have been grouching about the education system for years. The govt has just followed its usual policy of creating new committees, thinking out complete plans for students, etc.
Perhaps then we should look at the society and govt policy in Singapore. For it is the requirements and views of society that the education ministry must cater to. And it is still govt policy that will affect society. But this part i dunno anything, maybe someone wanna comment...
my two cents -
Don't really understand your statement but I presume you either meant the money has to come from somewhere isnt it???Originally posted by dke:but the erp......
the money has to somewhere isnt it???
Yes, I don't disagree that that the public transport(NEL notwithstanding) and road system here is really good, and the fees levied upon by road users are necessary for that. But look at the surpluses gained by the LTA year after year since the ERP started, as well as Mah Bow Tan's broken promises of reduced road taxes after the ERP started while his pay increased.
The money came from motorists, but is all (or at least, a significant part) of it going back to improve the motorists and Singaporeans lot?
And no, a long delayed MRT line filled with overpriced and IMO mostly substandard art and driverless trains run by unreliable computers doesn't count. -
Laser, you made some very good points, keep posting your thoughts, Singapore needs more people like you who see and education is not about mugging books and regurgitating for exams!Originally posted by laser51088:just wanna add on to Viper52's replies, prob won't be as in depth as him
The sports school issue is a classic example of this "tunnel vision" that is afflicting our educators, whereby grades are EVERYTHING. They declared that the school will only accept athletes in the Express Stream. When reporting on this, the Straits Times pointed out that had Fandi Ahmad and some of other Singaporean top athletes applied to join, they'd have been rejected.
What gives? The priority of a sports school is to help athletes develop their sporting potential, while at the same time, making sure that they have a reasonable amount of education in the process. By excluding Normal Stream students, we are putting the cart before the horse and getting the priorities the wrong way round. and the message we're sending to these Normal Stream athletes is "It doesn't matter if you're the next Pele or Tiger Woods, you're too stupid". Is this really the message we want to send out when we want to be a centre of sporting excellence? Whither Goal 2010? -
Un uh... I have to disagree with you there... I think the NEL is worth it, and if you have been on the 150 year old subway in London (ugh), you'll be thankful that we had our NEL this way.Originally posted by Viper52:And no, a long delayed MRT line filled with overpriced and IMO mostly substandard art and driverless trains run by unreliable computers doesn't count.
To critcise the NEL now, in the light of it's entire service lifespan, to say... would be myopic. As somebody who takes this service almost everyday, I can vouch for it as a needed addition. -
And what makes you think I haven't been on the subway in London? I've taken it before back in 1998 and while its not spick and span in Singapore, London's network spans over the entire London (I've seen the network maps) and I had a choice of 3 stations on 2 different lines to get to the Imperial War museum in Lambeth North which is not exactly a busy area of London.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Un uh... I have to disagree with you there... I think the NEL is worth it, and if you have been on the 150 year old subway in London (ugh), you'll be thankful that we had our NEL this way.
To critcise the NEL now, in the light of it's entire service lifespan, to say... would be myopic. As somebody who takes this service almost everyday, I can vouch for it as a needed addition.
Singapore's transport system is based on frills, London's is based on functionality and coverage. Isn't a public transport system's main priority meant to transport the public from Point A to B as efficiently as possible?
Sure some of the criticism is unwarranted, but at the crux of it is is there a need to spend so much on high tech frills and gizmos when a simpler system which worked well was available? Is the false pride of being first worth the price the Singaporean taxpayer paid (in terms of higher fares, cost overruns and opportunity costs due to the long delay)? Whatever happened to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? These are very pertinent and relevant questions that have not been answered anywhere near satisfactorily
Glad you enjoyed your rides.