A global identity: paradoxical?

A year back, I led a city tour and asked an international student - "where are you from? *smiles*" She frowns back, "I hate it when people ask this question. I don't know; it's a long story." "Tell me?" SHe then went on about how both her parents are Indians (one from North, one from South) and worked in Bahrain. They met in Bahrain. Her mother became pregnant with her, and rushed back to India to ensure her daughter would get an Indian passport. When the child was a week old, they flew to Sri Lanka and stayed there till she was 9. They then migrated to Bahrain and stayed there till she was 17. She then flew to London for her further education, before coming on an exchange to Singapore.
I probed further, "But surely there was a place you felt closest to?"
She replied, "Yes, Bahrain. But I went to an international school in Bahrain, so I wasn't acquainted with Bahrain per se. But I identify with that place the most. It was where I grew up in."

There's nothing wrong with that. Or is there? Why was the term "third culture kid" invented?
I write today with the aim to tell third culture kids that there is really nothing wrong, and perhaps they were made to believe that there is something wrong with them because the world doesn't see a horizon as broad as theirs, and could never half comprehend their world.

Wiki "Blind men and the elephant." That is a story originating from India about how different people only see part of a picture. Perhaps like kids born in the same land as their parents, they cannot comprehend an elephant, and bring with them a small skewed picture of their perception of what a third-culture kid may feel like. And hence "Snobbish? Slack? Spoilt?" are words that "local kids" use to perceive TCK.

Singapore is a young nation and many of its citizens still hold skewed stereotypes of its fellow counterparts, in terms of races, religion, gender, age, dialect group, ... This may have been a Confucian tradition of hierarchy, core-periphery, and stereotypes. I sometimes struggle with trying not to stereotype and giving the benefit of doubt too. My parents' perception of other races and religions are unfortunately not as cordial and all-embracing, and I lived with them for the past two decades. It would have rubbed off somehow. This is not uncommon in Singapore too.

Sorry... We didn't know International Baccalaurate was difficult, even more difficult than A Levels in many respect. We only knew that we are constantly compared to "Raffles" and "Hwa Chong" and striving towards the Ox-bridge or Ivy League schools - and then be ashamed if we cannot speak Standard English, or study much harder, or speak up in class only to find that we speak nonsense. For those who are luckier, they may migrate there, get a passport there, marry a Caucasian/non-Singaporean Asian and settle down overseas. That was what many parents of JC kids aspired towards. All JC kids know is that "ethanol + ethanoic acid = ethyl ethanoate" and "glocalization (quote localization of McDonalds) is a phenomenon to suggest that globalization is not all culture-antagonizing". Many of us didn't really truly understand what we were memorizing. A science student like myself and many of my peers wouldn't know what's the link between USSR and Russia, nor Cold War in general. We used the term Cold War when our good friends don't talk to us after some dispute. God knows how it was related to USA, let alone democracy and communism. (I didn't have the luxury of taking History in Secondary School and read only Geography, so I probably knew land forms and tectonics better than my History counterparts).

Third culture kids, we have lots to learn from you, but we do have a lot on our mind as well. We don't know if you would leave us jobless like what our parents often complain about ("expats!"). We don't know if you understand day-to-day struggles like squeezing up an SBS bus or MRT. We don't know if you actually have tasted chicken rice, actually, or if you live on spaghetti and ratatouille on a daily basis (I learnt the latter dish only from the rat movie; how "educated" I am!). We sometimes don't understand what's with democracy (ok I identify with this quite a lot) and why should we fight for freedom and individual rights. We don't really know what our political system is about - but we know enough not to question it if we don't know anything. We know stuff. We know how molecules interact, how we can calculate the conservation of mass and energy, and recite the proton number of elements in periodic tables. We know how to "differentiate" and "integrate" functions, how to draw a logarithm graph and what are the causes, advantages and disadvantages of globalization and technology (we learnt that in General Paper). We don't really know where Bahrain or Sicily is (at least for myself and my peers when we were in JC).

We know "ang mohs" and kids of expats go to international school. They are expats and must therefore be rich. They are rich and therefore must be snobbish (because our parents told us how snobbish their bosses are!). They are "ang mohs" and therefore have school politics that are similar to Gossip Girls, Friends, and other American dramas and we think they eat McDonalds and potato everyday. Not that we don't. But we don't really know. Really.

There's nothing wrong with a global identity, I think. My friends feel more Korean than Singaporean after watching tons of Korean dramas. And most of us Uni students prefer Starbucks (if we can afford it). Some of my friends took French. I went to India. I think NUS has a mix of just everything, and you are a global citizen par excellence, something Singapore is striving towards.

Some thoughts on Singapore

Having read some newspaper dated Feb 2012 when the General Election hype was roaring, I wondered why Singapore continues to feel hopeless.

As a student, I worry about the ever-increasing tuition fees. I've two brothers - age 12, and 20. Will my brothers be deprived of university education because the family hasn't enough money to support them? They are deserving high B low A students - certainly insufficient to get a scholarship, yet they are still full of potential, and are constantly improving daily. The family already struggles to pay bills from day to day, and we have barely enough, not to mention, savings. I'm in University now, and my father paid for it with his CPF.  The government only allows a certain percentage of the CPF be used. When my brother finally gets into University, there wouldn't be enough.

As a daughter, I worry for my parents' retirement and rising healthcare costs. My mother has cataract, and visited the National University Hospital in early March 2012, when she was already almost blind in one eye. She dared not see the doctor at first for fear of the expensive healthcare costs. When she went to the polyclinic, the doctor told her she had just astigmatism, and so she waited, and sought no further treatment. She lost more and more of her sight, and banged into walls while working as a cleaner, at a PAP kindergarten. The staff showed no sympathy, and questioned her reduced speed of working, sometimes even threatening her. She went back to the polyclinic, and the clinic finally referred her to the hospital. The hospital scheduled her appointment in end of May, and made her wait for almost three months. She suffered more frequent injuries while working, and because she is a part-timer, she has no leave she could take. My question was:
1. Why did the hospital make her wait so long? If they have their constraints, their lack of doctors, why wasn't the intake of Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine increased 10 years ago, when the problem of ageing population first surfaced?
2. Because my family is bigger than others, my father has only a PSLE certificate and my mother doesn't even have that, can my mother afford not to work, since she's ailing and having aches in her knee and back?
3. If she does stop working, will my grades at NUS and my brother's grades at Ngee Ann Poly suffer if we have to take on more employment just to support the family? Why make meritocracy such a vicious cycle packaged in a glitzy wrapper?


Moving on from my family matters, I worry about the education of the future generation. As a future educator, my heart sank when I read the newspaper that "students are tested on much more than what the school teaches." Private tuition is essential. However, my question is - can the poor afford tuition? The school has forgotten that Financial Aid is insufficient to cover just the books, uniform and school fees. Can more be done to bridge the widening gap by ensuring that deserving students from less privileged backgrounds can receive quality education? It saddens me that schools only remember and invest in their cream of the crop (yes, I was part of the cream all my life) and forget that most of the students in the top classes can afford tuition outside, while most students in the bottom classes cannot.

==> Can teachers be better trained to help such students, or schools implement schemes where students can look up teachers at a specific time slot at a specific place on any day to ask questions on any subjects?

The government has invited people of all nationalities (many Indians and Chinese) to partake of our great nation-building project, but hasn't provided the infrastructure to support the huge influx in population. Take the public transport for instance. The buses/MRT are consumed by the blue collar, and a large percentage of the white collars. Buses are so packed when they leave the interchange they do not stop at any bus stops until they reach the industrial parks where everyone get off the buses. More buses please! The transport companies reply that they are doing what they can. Could the government intervene, either through forums with the transport companies, or by engaging top economists to see if the transport companies could in fact do more, or enforce sanctions to protect the basic needs of citizens? Note: I haven't a big issue with foreigners, and foreigners or Singaporeans, we need to get to work on time in order not to get fired. We could leave the house 15mins early, but the situation isn't any better. We could leave the house 1 hour early, but what do we do when we get to work so early?
==> Could we encourage the staggering of working hours? While the Budget 2012 focuses on building the Downtown Line, can we pause for a moment and improve what we have instead of building more?


As a citizen of Singapore, I understand the twin problems we have - an aging population, and a shrinking workforce. The former requires fiscal investment which the latter is unable to provide. To bridge the gap we have the foreigners joining us in both blue-collar and white-collar sectors. I also understand, and sympathize with the blue-collar workers - while we think that they have a good life in Singapore and would be a rich man when they go back, most of them got conned/lured to this place and realise only when they reach that whatever they thought was far from reality. While we think the Banglas are disgusting and dangerous, most that I've met were very polite and respectful of ladies. Not far from my home is a Bangla/Indian quarter, where hundreds to thousands of them are housed. They rather stand on the bus than sit next to me. And while I do get stares of curiosity, I don't remember being leered at. Many of them are also very, very educated, and speak fluent English.
==> Could we make them love Singapore, instead of fear Singapore, and increase their productivity by making them love the job they have and giving them a decent standard of living? Do we really need to make them remember that Singaporean employers hurl nothing but threats of repatriating them, of docking their salary?

Supposedly, the aging population problem can be alleviated by an increased birth rate. I don't fancy the Baby Bonus idea, and instead prefer the grant of privileges for bigger families. The rising standard of living has made life more expensive to maintain, but above all, it's evident that the largest expenditures come when one's children enter the tertiary education. Most of the developed world also believe that having one -elite- child is better than having 3 not-so-elite ones. Yet, having one is better than having none,which is what many Singaporeans are steering towards. I think the government could get the public, the policy makers and the academics to air their views on how this problem can be best solved.

is there hope for... me, humanity, the world?

many think that these two animals are bought by my boyfriend for me. contrariwise, they aren't. My little brother, being a reserved child, is deeply acquainted with the little Pooh bear in the picture. Big sister me spotted Big Pooh, and together with my boyfriend, we brought the Big Pooh back home to my little brother. He was flabbergasted. "Ahhhh!!!!" He couldn't stop grinning. It has since become his new best friend. The Big Pooh's his girlfriend, and the little Pooh his little boy. He's only 12.

Lab report. Screwed because my extremely brilliant partner spilled the DNA over to the other lane. He airbrushed it away on photoshop. We scored an A for the report. All I did was to check the grammar. *grins* [An 'A' grade in NUS is extremely hard to get by the way.] I got to keep this photograph, the DNA fingerprint in which I argued on and on, "I'm dead sure there's ethidium bromide in it!" There isn't. There's only agar, and it isn't edible.

A slice of rainbow cake, compliments of my hostel neighbour. Being the extremely shy/asocial new addition to the block, I was not invited to any celebrations of birthdays. Not that I really care, actually. I was studying hard for my exams. Then came a knock at the door, and a slice of cake. It did cheer me up from my lulls of work, and for a split second, the world didn't look as dystopic as education has made it out to be.

I love this photograph. It's badly taken, i know. I took it during a visit to a nursing home with my boyfriend. I saw that possibly 80 year old man feeding his wife food. They didn't speak much, but the love in his eyes surpassed any words that the universe could describe. There she was, in the nursing home. Rain or shine, he would be there to visit. Almost brought tears to my eyes.

Gender stereotypes, seen in these little ten-year-olds. "Boys eat more what!' They were buzzing away. Truth is, I thought so, when I was 10, but now that I'm so much older, I realised boys only eat much more after puberty, not at such a tender age. Their fascination with almost everything strikes me. Little Einstein, a boy in the crowd of 39, answered every single question like reading a Britannica with a twinkling in his eyes. Plump girl got scolded by teacher, and started crying and withdrawing from the crowd. "The girl in yellow", the teacher said, "watch out for her." I thought she was a monster. She wasn't. She was a little autistic, and could not relate well to her peers. It's most unfortunate that children are "marked for destiny" at such a tender age. And equally unfortunate is that they would grow to be who the society expects of them. At least, according to Psych, a lousy capability paired with high hopes makes a child a "high ability kid" as opposed to a normal capability paired with low hopes.

This is the most epic photo of my life's collection. Snapped in Singapore, this photograph is a lift that's shut down. The paper writes, "The management didn't treat us like humans... [the rest I couldn't read cus it's too cursive]... B**tard!" It might not be a big deal, but because it's Singapore and I literally walked up the stairs with other residents of the block, I was quite startled that such a protest was launched. In Singapore, workers always do as told. In Singapore, there hasn't been a strike for more than half a century. In Singapore, the government believes in efficiency and protection of labour welfare. Is there a slice of population that we have forgotten, or the workers are being overly demanding? But anyway, I smiled to myself that something extraordinary has happened right before my eyes.

Is there hope? Of course! Agency vs structure. The world's a bizarre, yet dazzling place.

Is Singapore degenerating?

Some has written that Singapore is getting from first-world to third-world with the MRT power outage, flooding, ministerial scandals.

The government says this is normal in other countries. We face a huge percentage of migrant workers, because Singapore is unable to support itself. And the citizens are blamed for the falling birth rate.

On birth rate: The government was the one who introduced the stop-at-two campaign. It was overwhelmingly successful, because of many reasons. The three-or-more campaign started did not work because:
1. not enough effort is put into it - in publicity, incentives, etc
2. the primary incentive of having a child is gone - mothers have to work and take care of the child, worry about his/her grades, send him/her to tuition and a range of whatnot classes, from ballet to arithmetic
3. it's too stressful to live in Singapore, so why create a human to suffer with you?
4. (most important) It's too costly to support a child while having to support a house, (car), bills (utilities, phone/internet), parents (father and mother). It's actually more dystopic than this, because one cannot afford to be ill because healthcare is so expensive it wipes out all your savings. And if one is on long-term healthcare support, then... Who's even thinking about getting married, which costs?

It all boils down to money. And society.

If conditions favour having children, why not have them? It's precisely because the structural support isn't there. Very strangely, it's far more favourable to have children in India (esp boys), because all one has to think of is to send the child to a public school, and ensure that the child gets married, work, and support his parents. And not be a wife-beater. There aren't so many considerations - if the child fails in school, then too bad; he's not cut out for it, God has a way for him.

In Singapore, everywhere you go, it shouts, "If you've no certificate, you're dead." No, you aren't. You just have to find out what you're good at. But wait a minute, everyone else has a certificate, whether it's a good or lousy one. There comes the big problem. You're not ahead of others if you have a cert, you're behind everyone else if you don't (C.Seow, 9/2/2012).

Is Singapore degenerating?

What about the poor people in Singapore? Arguably, the poorest of poor isn't the foreign labourers. It's fellow Singaporeans, those who are at the bottom of the Gini coefficient. And it's quite apparent that these Singaporeans are either old, or do not have a good qualification, or for some reason are unable to give as much manual labour (arthritis, deformed backbone, or anything else). Such Singaporeans have to compete with the much cheaper foreign labour. There aren't any incentives to hire Singaporeans in this case, unless the person is willing to be paid as much as the foreign labour. The pay difference, if I'm not wrong, is around $21 (foreign) vs $50 (local) per day in a construction site. It's about the same in factories.

So what now? The progress which was much celebrated around the world has created a vicious cycle, and only the government can help, by either giving more incentives to employers for hiring locals (eg in tax-relief), or disincentives (not preferable, but quite a Singaporean method). This is important because this affects how we see our leaders of the country. This is exceptionally important because from 1965 to 2007, Singapore has been progressing linearly, save for the 1998 Asian financial crisis, and it's a consensus amongst the public that life is unhappier as compared to yester-years.

The government says we shouldn't compare ourselves with US president, or even other Asian ministers, regarding pay. Should we compare ourselves against ourselves, and strive to be the utopia of the world again, for a greater Singaporean population?

And every sound politician knows this: you can't afford to do worse; you can only do better. Better than other countries, or preserve status quo in the country's standing against the world. And even Machiavelli knows this: you keep the people happy, well-clothed and well-fed, and you as the leader won't be questioned.

That was why Lee Kuan Yew was such a great man. He gave the poor a real chance, and real help, to stay in HDB, have a toilet of their own, schooling opportunities for everyone, and made sure the entire island had affordable and comfortable transport, when there was nothing except debris and riots to begin with (post-WWII). Hell-yeah, there was no free press, no free-and-fair election, high ministerial pay. But few made noise.

We're losing our transparency, efficiency, accountability, and social security for the poor. We're slowly losing our friendliness as well. The world looks and feels treacherous, we can't get married, we don't want children, and we want to migrate to a less stressful place, after years spent on this island. Unless something can be done asap, politics is going downhill from now on.

Long Distance Relationship: A Brave New World

Check this youtube clip out if you've the time. I didn't feel very much for it. What fascinates me was:
1. He's from Singapore - Ah! We've a champion over here! :) In love too!
2. They were together for 2 years without having met - Respect to the guy (and the girl) for being faithful despite all that
3. THE COMMENTS - it's amazing; I never knew there were so many LDRs around!

As a person who have seen too much melodramas of life, I don't believe in LDRs. For a long time, not even in "happily ever after". And there's been a global problem, especially amongst first world countries:

People are spending less time with humans than with computers, this really could be the new norm. This threatens one of the longest traditions humans have - love. It's quite exciting to know that human behaviours are evolving with technology, even in this respect. Wasn't love supposed to be spending quality time, buying gifts, doing sweet things for each other, other than the obvious hand-holding? Human behaviors are evolving so quickly that children are typing faster and faster, processing stuff in their mind like computers, but ah, they're less able to interact with other children, especially in Singapore, for the lesser half of the society.

I do wonder if it's possible to father a child over Skype, assuming that nobody cheats. With the entering of credit card details, one can so easily buy gifts for the other party. My friend's friend in Australia bought my friend in India FLOWERS and got it delivered to her doorstep.

Perhaps one day, all our spouses would be online, since it's so much easier to live with someone when the person isn't around 24/7 to create situations with high tension or generate conflict. Perhaps life in reality is all work, from 3 years old when one gets into kindergarten to 23 years old when one is in university, and then work, and work, and work some more.

Perhaps the definition of family would be challenged, or redefined within the next 20 years. Maybe there would be creation of platforms where families can all come together in one single portal, like WhatsApp, and share their lives. Yeah, with the mobile phone, your family is just a call away.

Perhaps people could and would love more, with the rise of modern technology.

Perhaps cheating would be accepted in the near future - men cheating physically, women cheating emotionally, whatever. Perhaps computer skills and how one designs his/her facebook is more important than how one dresses up. Apparently, there are nice people desperately looking for "soul mates" and partners to date, but to no avail.

Whatever, I'm glad I found someone I really love, someone whom I wish (for now) to spend my life with.

Wahh! Millionaire! - Ministerial Pay cut

I posted on 18 Jan. Today (27 Jan), I decided to include a link over here, which talks about free press and corruption, and I'm even more uncertain of Singapore's political future.

I couldn't resist myself from blogging about this, so here I am. I am POLITICALLY AGNOSTIC - I see individuals rather than parties, for good reason.

Chen Show Mao's debate in ministerial pay cut was fantastic. I heard some really unintelligent debates on the ruling party's side, and was disappointed. Disappointed because it didn't produce as many political eagles as they had decades ago. Disappointed because I do think its contributions - or track record - in Singapore, was admirable. Let me sidetrack and come back. Ms Grace Fu is most admirable, and here's why.

My mother, unlike most privileged NUS students' parents, is a cleaner, at PAP Kindergarten (PCF). She's old, weary, and aching everywhere. She's working after 18 years of housewife-ship, because Singapore's increasingly expensive to live in. I'm studying in NUS. My father earns less than $1.5k. My brother is in Poly. And my little brother (yes, I've a big family), is only 12.

Cut the long story short. Grace Fu invited staff of PCF my mother to her house during Chinese New Year last year. My mother was ashamed to turn up, but she did anyway, and she was accepted amidst a myriad of political hotshots at Ms Grace Fu's home. That to me was impressive.

What's more impressive. My mother, as a staff of PCF, had the chance to travel to a nearby island for retreat with Ms Fu. In my mother's words, "I was sitting around with other aunties, chatting. Grace Fu walked up to us, carrying a big plate of food, and served us, telling us 'Eat! Eat'. I was so embarrassed, and so were my colleagues. Fancy an MP serving food to cleaners... But she did it very sincerely, with a broad smile and enthusiasm..."

My mother tells me Ms Fu speaks good mandarin. That's quite amazing, considering that many undergrads now, not to mention the very educated, do not.

Every year, Yuhua would host some Chinese New Year celebration the Sunday morning after Chinese New Year week. She would always be there, EARLY, to shake hands with every old folk who queues up for free mandarin oranges and lucky draw tickets. And she does it excitedly and warmly. I know it cuz I've been there many times.

I do not know if she helps the homeless, jobless, or hopeless in my constituency. I do know she is a good MP in many ways.

Let me now come back. Should ministers be paid that much? Firstly, why the debate now?
1. It will never happen again. Once everything is set in stone, life moves on, and citizens can never influence ministers' pay again.
2. Privileges can never be withdrawn. The pinch is very, very great. It's understood. Who in Singapore likes pay cuts? "Kee Chew!" (Raise your hand! A tribute to our dear MG)
2a. Those who are new feel it less, but given the plans they have, just like the plans we all humans have about our little bonus end of every year, it's still painful.

I'm not here to say whether it should be further cut, or not. I'm still confused in that sense, though Chen Show Mao made a great case. The premise of a politician:
1. It's not for the money
2. It's the willingness, coupled with ability, to serve.
[3. They represent the people.]

Point 3 means that if politicians are paid that much, they cannot empathise with citizens' financial woes. But most politicians don't empathise with citizens' woes in this manner. Not Obama, not Aroyo, not Lee Hsien Loong. Let's delve a bit deeper.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
According to the Social Contract (which arose from Hobbes and Locke, and evolved since the Enlightenment era with Rousseau), citizens give up a bit of their freedom for order and security, and if ever, prosperity as a nation. However, it's very difficult to measure order in Singapore - it's a culture to be ordered! We don't need politicians for that now. Security? Singapore's very safe. Social security? Hardly any [AND IT'S A BIG PROBLEM.] Prosperity? Yes to the top 10% of Singaporeans, no to the lower 50%. The income gap is widening, and the median income of Singapore $2.5k. GNP per capita is $52,000. That's a problem. Singaporeans don't feel rich enough to support high paying ministers. The prosperity of the nation's secure though, but that's another business for another day.

No one would admit they join politics for money. No one with brains would join politics for money, because one's life is suddenly scrutinised, and that means wearing a mask every second which also includes your children performing well in school, lest he/she gets questioned by the public. Strange, but true. The good thing (and actually bad thing) about Singapore is that THERE IS NO FREE PRESS. So that's not so bad, as compared to UK or US.

But Singaporeans, being Asians, hate being publicly scrutinised, because of our Confucian-influenced culture (or Chinese cultures). That's still a big sacrifice to make. Let me add that there are endless people enticed by fame and glory, but those aren't all good. Even the best fall from grace sometimes, as my study of British Prime Ministerial history has proven.

So I'll leave a few questions here:
1. To what extent is the pay necessary to attract talents who are headhunted into politics, people who are capable, but shun politics because they hate the entanglements that come with "serving the people" (eg being publicly scrutinized, having to answer to the nation, etc)?Those who are USELESS AND THERE FOR FAME or money and produce nothing amazing, GET OUT.
2. How good are all our ministers and members of parliament? - Scrap the GRC to find out, and keep only the VERY BEST in the Cabinet. No Mas Selamat, No SMRT vandalism... Security of the nation should not be compromised, and keep people who genuinely want to (and have the ability to) serve the nation. Those who are USELESS AND THERE FOR FAME or money and produce nothing amazing, GET OUT.
3. Confucian tradition - To what extent is our politicians capable and virtuous? In medieval China, those who are CAPABLE (passed the imperial exams) and VIRTUOUS were selected as officials. They were respected, and therefore unquestioned.
3a. It's a question of faith - Singaporeans feel that our politicians aren't as fantastic as to deserve being paid that much.
3b. Assumptions like that aren't baseless. Truth is, Singaporeans are feeling compromised in their lives. Gone were the days of 1980s when Singaporeans felt like they were in the best country in the entire world - safe, clean, green, efficient, wealthy, morally upright.

Virtue - If politicians are virtuous, they would not take public funds for themselves. If politicians are virtuous, they wouldn't even need to be paid that much. Very unfortunately, to err is human, and the mass media makes a mistake really big, and virtue really small. Money's the only compensation. How much? I don't really know. But if you did read closely, I wasn't questioning how much they should be paid. I was questioning whether they deserve to be paid as much as they currently are.

Grace Fu is a good minister. I would close an eye if she's paid very highly (sigh, but I'll still accept it). But not all ministers and MPs are that good. My friend's constituency has a really incapable MP who couldn't help her and her family and she has to stop school to earn money for the family.
REMEMBER, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT - If you make sure citizens are happy, citizens will close an eye as to how much politicians are paid.

My school cut my hair?

This post is dedicated to Mr Lee Hee Fock, teacher, Jurong Junior College (Singapore). He was a wonderful teacher in leading Civil Defence Club, and a quirky math teacher who taught math in lots of Chinese. He was also famous for "Ah, 你没剪头发!" (You didn't cut your hair!) We all know he was the Discipline Master of Jurong JC for a long, ... long... time.

Should schools cut students' hair? What are the implications?

Premise:

• Schools should warn students of hair checks a few days in advance to ensure they get their hair cut
• Students should be responsible to get their hair cut at their favourite barber
• If hair isn't cut, schools should ask student to call his/her parents, and pass the phone to the teacher to talk after the student is made to confess that he/she hasn't cut his/her hair and obeyed the school rules
• Schools should bring the student to the nearest barber to cut his/her hair - whether teachers should ask barber to cut it real short, the jury's out
  

No:

• Human rights will be observed.
• Singapore would slowly shift towards westernisation while abandoning its Confucian (respect your teachers') roots
• Management of discipline would become increasingly difficult, as this rule has been in place for a long time. Schools would have to look at all disciplinary rules and revamp the entire system again. Should students be punished for not doing their homework?
• There is also a sublimal question of whether the great divide between the lesser off and the better off would increase. Students like myself had learned discipline in schools, from teachers. And stuff that I had learned in school allowed me to rise in social ladder
• Scrapping the school rule would also acknowledge students' rights to a greater degree beyond what the Singapore society would wish to cope with. This would further increase teachers' woes of having to deal with students.
  

Special concessions to students who are parents' gems/babies?

• Should there be schools who market themselves as having students' welfare and interest at heart? If yes, is discipline part of having the students' future at heart?
• Should students be sent to international schools (SIngapore has plenty of them) just to avoid the hair-cut?
• Should schools allow long hair or coloured hair if parents write in to request for exceptions to be made?
• Has MOE done enough to assure parents that students are WELL taken care of?
  

More significant questions:

• Question on responsibility: Should a student, an adolescent, obey school rules, stop being mummy's boy and start understanding that life is full of rules and they are often unfair?
• Is progress always good? What about traditions which makes us who we are? If westernisation is the new norm, should we abandon the right to cut students' hair just to follow what is the new cool? When the new cool blows over, we forget who we were, and move on to the next new cool?

To students of the future: It's important to cut your hair because short hair is the acceptable norm of the society. Whether you venture into the arts industry is another matter. If you, as a student, gets an interview either for scholarship or job, turning up with a haircut not touching the collar or covering the eyebrows is crucial. The school is an institution. Colour your hair or keep it as long as you want (or even wear a wig, if you like) once you step out of the school compound, but when you're within its premise, obey its rules, or leave.

A lesson Singapore could learn

This morning as I read the news I realised that Singapore is now accused of being inefficient. Many Singaporeans experienced the MRT train breakdowns, including my father, who was once trapped for 5 minutes. Even he couldn't stand it - it was hot, smelly, and stuffy. And lately, Singtel has failed in its 3G services. What do we make of all these?

1. Singaporeans are intolerant of the unexpected
Even myself. Risk-averse. But that isn't a real problem unless people choose to live elsewhere, say India or China, and they would find it hard to cope. Otherwise, Singapore's probably fine, except that breakdowns aren't our thing. At all. This is in line with Geert Hofstede's cultural index experiment. Singapore, to him, was not very tolerant of the unexpected. Lowest in line.

2. We're afraid to make mistakes
Singapore is such a utopia of sorts that it feels like life is good and polished. Mistakes are grave and severely condemned. Again, it's a Singapore culture. People expect perfection from us, so we are very afraid of making mistakes. The implication of this is that most people take the "common route" through life, get a stable job, and live alright. Very cautious, very stifling for creativity sometimes. If you've lived in Singapore long enough to know what "kiasu" and "kiasi" means (scared to lose; scared to die), then you probably would understand.

3. Actually, on second thought, we rather people make mistakes and own up
That goes back to my first point. Singaporeans are generally risk-averse and we don't like the unexpected. If you make a mistake, and it's actually unexpected, we actually rather you tell us, than to keep us guessing. However, the second point of us being afraid to make mistakes suggests that if we own up, we have faulted, but if we haven't and we manage to fix the problem instantly, then nobody will be bothered.

People are unhappy with the SMRT breakdowns and Singtel 3G glitches primarily because in both instances, there weren't any notifications to tell patrons that they are experiencing problems.

Then again, considering a perfect Singapore world where escalators aren't expected to breakdown, that you could accidentally leave your bag at the table and it would still be there... Maybe we could understand why they didn't say anything, because the "smaller people" like you and I needed to keep their job. The "big guys" up there would not hesitate to fire anyone if glitches happen.

If something's wrong, it's your fault. It's never a chance factor, or fate, or Black Swan. That's what the government has taught us through its 50 years in power. And learn we did. That is also aggravated by lack of free press. The world looks very polished. Everyone except ourselves is enjoying life.

*laments* To my students in the future, it is perfectly alright to make mistakes. Mistakes are sometimes worth making when they are spurred by creativity. When they are not, there's always a second chance. You make your second chance, in Singapore. You choose to define what success is to you. It doesn't always have to be money, especially if it doesn't bring you prolonged happiness. But I'm afraid most of people up there never really did make any mistakes we can see. But it's alright. They have their troubles and we have ours.

On tertiary educational facilities

I wanted to lift quotes, but was afraid I might misquote, so I've attached the entire article below. The writer talks about how the Institute of Technical Education has much better facilities than that of Junior Colleges. This issue is of concern because it insinuates that ITE students (and implicitly, less academically-inclined students) cannot appreciate good facilities; if the government doesn't give the better students in Singapore better facilities, the lesser off students shouldn't have it either. The writer is right on his facts, but a little knowledge is often a dangerous thing. This article is also of concern because the writer has adopted a very biased stance, with his viewpoint of an ex-JC student, and failed to consider opinions of the other side. This is also the reason why Humanities is important - it teaches one how to construct persuasive and therefore powerful arguments. What are my thoughts?

1. Renovation always strives for progress
Many years back, ITEs were in horrendous shape, because Singapore was more rightist (and meritocratic) back in those days. Junior Colleges were under renovation about a decade to two decades ago. The government cannot be renovating JCs all the time, and thus started to pay more attention to the forgotten sector of the society. Wasn't that what all we Singaporeans wanted, to "ensure no one gets left behind"? Even communism couldn't ensure no one gets left behind, let alone capitalism infused with Confucian teaching (work hard, work harder, study hard, respect the educated).

It depends on many factors too. Apparently Raffles Junior College and Hwa Chong Institution are beautiful in every way (common perception). Even Jurong Junior College (a mid-range neighbourhood junior college) has a synthetic field and fully air-conditioned classrooms. When VJC is finally renovated, it probably looks pretty spectacular as well. So yes. It's commonsense. You can't renovate JCs, nor ITEs, every year. It's their turn now.

2. It's Technical training, not academic training
Across the world, science and engineering schools are always better funded than humanities schools. They need labs, equipment, etc. Whatever you call it. That's partly the reason why most funding are necessary. It's actually understandable that JCs don't get so much funding, because they aren't that necessary. You don't need 10 computer labs, 10 commercial kitchens, operation theatrettes, etc.

Students who graduate from ITE actually find jobs, and while university students think that a crap degree doesn't bring us anywhere (it's a Singaporean mentality), there are sectors who need the support of ITE grads. This is the sector which has seen a huge influx of foreign labour, having more to offer and asking for less [pay]. Another thorny issue here. They need training as JC students do.
-----

A more significant point raised is that the facilities are vandalised. While I'm not so sure whether VJC/RJC/HCI ever got vandalised with enigmatic, philosophical quotes on tables or sticky notes around the school inspiring dissent or love, I know even NUS tables are vandalised. Vandalism is a crime that should be condemned everywhere, and the point that they vandalised and therefore they don't deserve the facilities doesn't seem valid. Students are students, be they from the top or bottom. While NUS students cringe at vandalism, ITE students also frown at vandalism. If vandalism equates to undeserving, schools should be built like mental hospitals (no offense, but these hospitals are vandalism-proof to a large extent).

I do wonder if there's a political statement to be made by the fact that ITE students are given pretty lavish facilities. The fact remains that ITE campuses are used to a greater extent, by the public too, when they attend courses to upgrade their skills, like Mr Tan whom I met, who went for N Levels English Course at the age of 55.

Let he who has no money to afford the best private tutors, enrichment courses, or the most nutritious foods, and yet made it to the top, cast the first stone. Money allows one to avoid getting into ITEs, to a large extent. Money allows you to get to where you really set your heart on very often. Let's be more gracious, yes, our educational facilities across the country is good. There isn't any leaking roof on a daily basis, or excessive flooding. Check this post by Yee Jen Jong, a socio-political blogger and educator.

---------
Disparity in tertiary education facilities

by Kwek Jian Qiang (a JC student)

04:45 AM Dec 26, 2011

Singapore has often been accorded the honour of having one of the best education systems. Our students rank high in their scores, from mathematics to other subjects. There are, though, significant disparities in the quality of learning environments.

When my grandmother visited Singapore this year, one of her most striking comments was when she saw a sparkling, shiny Institute of Technical Education (ITE) "skyscraper" campus.

Her first impression was that, in such a quality school environment, the students would be the best and brightest in Singapore. It took me a while to convince her otherwise and her look of dismay was apparent.

Indeed, a question should be raised: In a system where people are rewarded according to merit, why are our best and brightest not getting the best learning environments?

I once attended a seminar at ITE College East. The interior was like a plush hotel: Sleek floors, plush lecture theatre chairs, high-quality tables - quality exceeding that found in our polytechnics and junior colleges (JC).

From the exterior, with an Olympic-sized swimming pool and a stadium stand, it looked like it was made for the Youth Olympics.

What saddened me, though, was the graffiti on the tables and chairs. Apparently, the students do not cherish what they have. Should any JC or polytechnic student have access to such quality facilities, I have no doubt they would appreciate it better.

There is a need to equalise government spending on school facilities. Campuses such as Anderson JC's and Victoria JC's pale in comparison to ITE College East's.

Our brightest students, who will become Singapore's future leaders, should get the best facilities in order to excel and grow. We should reward according to merit.

Moving on, and away, from Jason Neo: my thoughts

1. The government should speak up on this, and take this chance to educate the public as well as reassert the priorities of Singapore, the Singaporean identity, and why all these are important.

2. Jason Neo should be tried by law for making a seditious remark. In other countries, he would have been detained immediately. This will serve as a deterrence to the general public.

3. The issue should be followed up in schools, and schools could take this as an opportunity to educate morals. [read http://diluted-enigma.blogspot.com/2011/11/moral-education-incorporated-into.html ] There seem to be loopholes in the education system, in that not enough is done to make sure an educated person understands.

4. The media could be employed to remind/encourage people in Singapore (foreigners and locals alike) to live harmoniously with one another.

*****

I personally would refrain from condemning the Young PAP; it was hardly likely to have been prevented. Nonetheless, as a Singaporean girl who have spent my childhood playing football with my Malay neighbours, I'm very concerned. As a student of History who has by academic exercise gone through the history of Singapore, I'm very concerned. As a daughter whose parents went through racial riots, I'm very concerned. As a potential teacher who would potentially serve the MOE (I've a weekend to think if I should be bonded), I'm also very concerned. As a potential voter (I'm still disenfranchised because I'm deemed underage), I hope to see mitigation of the issue because it could potentially threaten the social fabric of Singapore.

To begin, one should refrain from associating terrorists with Malays/Muslims. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, from Ireland Republican Army to Tamil Tigers etc. Let's recall: there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Islamic practices also differ from region to region, and Southeast Asian Islam, while it's multifarious, is generally considered by scholars as the most accommodating of other ethnic groups due to regional influences. The Bollywood movie I've written a paper on, My Name is Khan, is the perfect movie to understand more about issues on discrimination, labelling, and terrorism. Its famous line goes like this: My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist (He's autistic, and kind, but always suspected and held up. Poor him.)

As a Chinese, I think it's only fair that something can be done to appease the Malay community. Looking into the case seriously (and that includes trying him) is minimal that the government can do. The remark has gone beyond the mildly racist and broke the ceiling of the extreme. They're children. They are going to school to be educated to be good people with upright moral values.

I also secretly hope that PAP can be redeemed (though I've no political allegiance) because I sincerely believe the ruling government isn't like this. When I saw a comment alongside this issue alluding to "Hard Truths", my heart sank. I saw this somewhere: "If it were the opposition making such a remark, he would have been dead." I haven't found a reason to reject that hypothesis. There's no way to prove it, but there's no way to disprove it unless something is done to publicly condemn the act. I honestly think this issue does waver the faith of the electorate.

While many have given feedback that there is no Singaporean identity, my proposition (as a historian by training) is that hard times bind Singaporeans together: WWII, economic crises, and SARS. This episode highlights and stresses what is important to us Singaporeans. Singapore prides itself for being multiracial. We ought to be that.

The Malaysian newspaper has written about this issue (I've just checked). The newspaper reminds me of a class I taught in a local secondary school, when I handed newspaper articles from different countries (SG and Msia; and photos from Dutch and Malaysian sources) to my Sec 2 students about Maria Hertogh riots. I remember telling my students, on Racial Harmony Day this year, the importance of understanding. I'm not saying it would degenerate into that, but that itself shows how sensitive this entire issue is - school children are still learning about it.

Singapore's identity and cohesion are shaken lately. I do hope we can tide this through together, especially those of us who holds a pink- and blue-IC.

Singapore is increasingly multi-ethnic. If we cannot even ensure local Chinese, Malays and Indians can live together, it would be extremely difficult to make sure we can live with - come on, let's face it - our PRC Chinese and Bangladeshi migrant population. It is an issue we are trying to sweep under the carpet. I think this issue deserves greater attention, and response, from the people "up there".