i just finished reading Thinking allowed? (politics, fear and change in Singapore) by Warren Fernandez (currently foreign editor of straits times), and i have 3 thoughts to share:
firstly, this had got to do with a subjective perspective lens. the first time i came across this book was several months ago, shortly after i first started blogging. during that time, i was still relatively influenced by anti-establishment views on the blogosphere, including this report on the resignation of Mano Subnani from TODAY. because of this report, i was very wary of Fernandez, and was highly skeptical and suspicious of his book, believing it to be but disguised propaganda. [back then, i was also too fearful to borrow any books authored by Chee Soon Juan or James Gomez (even though they were openly available for borrowing in the national library) for fear that the gahmen will track me down using my library records.]
i re-borrowed Fernandez's book recently as i remembered that i have not finished reading it several months ago. quite surprisingly, i actually found myself agreeing with much he had to say, which would have been unthinkable several months ago. i still thought he was too fervently patriotic in some of his articles, but i find that he was generally very well-reasoned and moderate in most of his views, something which i definitely would have disagreed with the first time i read the book. now of course, the book was the exact same book which i read several months ago, so the only factor why i have such different views of his book has entirely to do with my own predispositions. in particular, i am currently not as anti-establishment as i was several months ago, and this affects the way i judge the reasoning of other people, Fernandez in this case.
secondly,i found it almost uncanny that the issues which are discussed by Fernandez are exactly the same issues being dicussed in the plogosphere today (such as ageing population, the education system, immigration, bilateral relations with neighbours, ethnic sensitivities and OB markers). this is noteworthy because some of the articles compiled in the book, are written as far back as 1989. in fact, Fernandez noted that former DPM Dr Goh Keng Swee criticized Singaporeans for being too obsessed with examination results, way back in 1967.
why are such issues so "timeless"? (Fernandez calls them "old chestnuts"). the fact that we are still discussing the same issues as 10 or 20 years ago, does this mean that we have not solved old problems and we have not progressed? will we still be discussing such issues 10, 20 years from now? to be fair, i think different issues have different reaons for lasting so long. issues such bilateral relations will probably always be existent due to the nature of foreign affairs.
the issue of an ageing population, and the related issue of not having sufficient retirement funds are "time bomb" issues. they might be recognized over a decade ago, but the full effect of such issues won't be felt until a decade or two in the future. nevertheless, the nature of such issues require action to taken way in advance (like now) to prevent a real crisis from happening in the future. the increasing competition from China and India might be a similar "time bomb" issue.
some issues, such as criticisms of the government being too paternalistic, not open to feedback, and too restrictive on freedom of speech, sound exactly the same 10 years ago as they do now. one might easily accuse the gahmen to be stubbornly refusing to change or are simply not interested to change, and that continual existence of such criticisms are proof of their unwillingness to listen to feedback. this is however, a more complicated issue than meets the eye. one factor to consider is that blogs and the internet are nowhere as proliferated ten years ago as they are now, thus resulting in what appears to be more vocal criticisms, which may not be an accurate reflection of the actual number or the actual percentage of the populace who hold such critical views. are more and more people becoming critical of the gahmen, the same people, or less and less people? the nature of blogs and the internet makes it hard to gauge.
lastly, more than once during reading this book i was lead to contemplate the possibility of me starting to blog about politics. if you have been observant, you'll notice that i don't blog anything at all about political or policy issues. i have 3 fears of blogging about politics or policy: fear of being guity of claptrap, fear of attracting flak, and and fear of gahmen scrutiny. as time passed and the more i blogged, i feel less and less of the last 2 fears. i am however, still quite fearful, being someone who only 6 months ago was a completely apathetic young singaporean, that when i open my mouth i don't know what i'm talking about, and i spout nonsense.
however, i am feeling the increasing sense that should not matter as much on the plogosphere. blogging ought to be more about expressing my own (carefully thought out) views. people are free to engage and disagree, and quite possibly i may be persuaded to change my views when i come across a better argument. at the end of the day we are all better off because we had the opportunity to engage in a dialogue and learn from each other, even if we cannot agree, or even if we turn out to be wrong.
perhaps it is time for me to be a little less fearfully but a little more opinionated?
Friday, March 23, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Yao Ming, Kobe Bryant and bond-breakers
[This is my second attempt to use basketball analogies to desribe apparent disagreements over the blogosphere. Some knowledge of NBA's system of drafting and trading players may be required to fully comprehend this analogy, and I apologize if anyone finds my analogy incomprehensible.]
In 2004, Kobe Bryant was in the final year of his contract with the Los Angeles Lakers, the only team he had ever played for (for 8 years) and the team he had won 3 championships with. Despite later proclamations that he wanted to be a "Laker for life", he did not sign an extension of his contract which was earlier offered to him. Why not? Being a bona fide NBA star, Kobe Bryant would be the hottest commodity in the NBA trade market when his contract expires. Beside the Lakers, several other NBA teams would also make offers to Bryant, hoping that he will sign on with them. The Lakers, not wanting to lose out, will offer an even more lucrative contract to Bryant, to lure him away from the other competing teams. Rejecting the initial contract extension would mean that he would get offered a even more lucrative contract later, so obviously it makes sense to reject the extension, even if it was the team you wanted to play with anyway. Such was the mentality of Kobe Bryant, and such was the mentality of probably all NBA players, and when NBA teams propose contracts to NBA players, they know this full well. At the end of the day, NBA players look after their own interests first.
Another celebrity NBA player, Yao Ming's contract with the Houston Rockets was expiring in 2007, making him probably the hottest commodity of that year. Yao Ming is considered by many to be the best player in the center position in the NBA, and many teams, including the LA Lakers, will be interested in signing Yao Ming. However, before his contract expired and before he could be offered different contract proposals from different teams and choose the most lucrative, Yao signed a contract extension with Houston, in a move totally opposite to what Kobe Bryant did a year ago. Why did he do so? Did he not know that if he waited until his contract expired, he would probably be offered better deals by other teams and Houston? One of the reasons Yao Ming gave was that his "heart is always in Houston", and that he is deeply grateful to the organization for helping him overcome the various obstacles preventing him from being an NBA player several years ago. Unlike Bryant (and probably every other NBA player), self-interest was not the only issue in his mind when deciding which contract to sign, but also loyalty, honor and gratitude. This was somewhat an oddity, because no one really expects Yao to be loyal to Houston, and it is quite difficult to make the claim that Yao was obliged to be loyal. NBA players just do not function that way.
***
There is currently a long discussion going on in Aaron's blog about scholarship bond-breakers. Aside from the fact that I didn't know such a diverse group comment on his blog, I also realized that regarding the ethics of bond-breaking, there were distinctively two camps of views. One camp, which I shall call the "Yao Ming" camp, came to regard scholarships as not just a legal contract, but something like an agreement between gentlemen. There is a promise involved, and it is on your honour not to break such a promise. If a scholar does not feel so, then he/she should, for such is a nature of a scholarship. The other camp, the "Kobe Bryant" camp, just believes that a scholarship is but a legal contract. There is no implication of being immoral if a scholar breaks his contract, but still pays up the liquidated damages as described in the contract.
Of course I am not the only one who realizes this dichotomy, and that the basis of such a difference of views lies in a gap in our fundamental beliefs of the nature of scholarships. But perhaps what is interesting (or pointless) about this debate, is the realization that it is quite impossible for a Yao Ming to argue by deductive reasoning alone, that a Kobe Bryant is wrong, and vice versa. Lucky Tan uses the analogy of one person liking blue shoes, and another liking green shoes, and we argue about which colour of shoes is better. Although that may be an accurate description of differing worldviews, typically a blue shoe lover does not accuse the green shoe lover of being immoral in choosing a green shoe over a blue shoe.
I think this is an interesting case study in differing worldviews (fundamental beliefs), since it unlike the other usual case studies (abortion, homosexuality etc ), religion does not come into the picture here. Aaron, and perhaps other Yao Mings, do not just say that "oh, if the scholars are fellow Yao Mings then they are immoral for breaking bonds, but if they are Kobe Bryants, then it is okay". Aaron believes that all bond-breakers, regardless if they are Yao Mings or Kobe Bryants, are being immoral for breaking the bond (ie, moral permissibility of bond-breaking is not agent-relative, to some extent). And probably, even if the scholarship bodies themselves realize that most scholars are Kobe Bryants (which I personally believe to be the case), and they actually prepare and design the scholarships with the Kobe Bryants in mind, that still does not deter the fact that bond-breakers ought to be regarded as immoral.
I personally am a Kobe Bryant. My reasons for being so are experiential. I have several friends who are scholars, and I know a couple of bond-breakers myself, I generally sympathize with their plight and feel that labeling them as immoral seems unfair. I wonder if Aaron (and other Yao Mings) got to know such friends of mine and listen to their stories, would they still believe that bond-breaking is immoral? Or perhaps, if myself (and other Kobe Bryants) listened to Mr Philip Yeo and how bond-breakers create all sorts of problems for the organization and the nation, then maybe we might change our minds? Although it has come under criticism of late (in Parliament!), I still believe that "anecdotal evidence", is often the most persuasive evidence we have when it comes to issues which cannot be easily agreed upon by reason alone.
[My thanks to Cognitive Dissonance for her helpful input in a recent discussion we had on the issue of bond-breaking]
In 2004, Kobe Bryant was in the final year of his contract with the Los Angeles Lakers, the only team he had ever played for (for 8 years) and the team he had won 3 championships with. Despite later proclamations that he wanted to be a "Laker for life", he did not sign an extension of his contract which was earlier offered to him. Why not? Being a bona fide NBA star, Kobe Bryant would be the hottest commodity in the NBA trade market when his contract expires. Beside the Lakers, several other NBA teams would also make offers to Bryant, hoping that he will sign on with them. The Lakers, not wanting to lose out, will offer an even more lucrative contract to Bryant, to lure him away from the other competing teams. Rejecting the initial contract extension would mean that he would get offered a even more lucrative contract later, so obviously it makes sense to reject the extension, even if it was the team you wanted to play with anyway. Such was the mentality of Kobe Bryant, and such was the mentality of probably all NBA players, and when NBA teams propose contracts to NBA players, they know this full well. At the end of the day, NBA players look after their own interests first.
Another celebrity NBA player, Yao Ming's contract with the Houston Rockets was expiring in 2007, making him probably the hottest commodity of that year. Yao Ming is considered by many to be the best player in the center position in the NBA, and many teams, including the LA Lakers, will be interested in signing Yao Ming. However, before his contract expired and before he could be offered different contract proposals from different teams and choose the most lucrative, Yao signed a contract extension with Houston, in a move totally opposite to what Kobe Bryant did a year ago. Why did he do so? Did he not know that if he waited until his contract expired, he would probably be offered better deals by other teams and Houston? One of the reasons Yao Ming gave was that his "heart is always in Houston", and that he is deeply grateful to the organization for helping him overcome the various obstacles preventing him from being an NBA player several years ago. Unlike Bryant (and probably every other NBA player), self-interest was not the only issue in his mind when deciding which contract to sign, but also loyalty, honor and gratitude. This was somewhat an oddity, because no one really expects Yao to be loyal to Houston, and it is quite difficult to make the claim that Yao was obliged to be loyal. NBA players just do not function that way.
***
There is currently a long discussion going on in Aaron's blog about scholarship bond-breakers. Aside from the fact that I didn't know such a diverse group comment on his blog, I also realized that regarding the ethics of bond-breaking, there were distinctively two camps of views. One camp, which I shall call the "Yao Ming" camp, came to regard scholarships as not just a legal contract, but something like an agreement between gentlemen. There is a promise involved, and it is on your honour not to break such a promise. If a scholar does not feel so, then he/she should, for such is a nature of a scholarship. The other camp, the "Kobe Bryant" camp, just believes that a scholarship is but a legal contract. There is no implication of being immoral if a scholar breaks his contract, but still pays up the liquidated damages as described in the contract.
Of course I am not the only one who realizes this dichotomy, and that the basis of such a difference of views lies in a gap in our fundamental beliefs of the nature of scholarships. But perhaps what is interesting (or pointless) about this debate, is the realization that it is quite impossible for a Yao Ming to argue by deductive reasoning alone, that a Kobe Bryant is wrong, and vice versa. Lucky Tan uses the analogy of one person liking blue shoes, and another liking green shoes, and we argue about which colour of shoes is better. Although that may be an accurate description of differing worldviews, typically a blue shoe lover does not accuse the green shoe lover of being immoral in choosing a green shoe over a blue shoe.
I think this is an interesting case study in differing worldviews (fundamental beliefs), since it unlike the other usual case studies (abortion, homosexuality etc ), religion does not come into the picture here. Aaron, and perhaps other Yao Mings, do not just say that "oh, if the scholars are fellow Yao Mings then they are immoral for breaking bonds, but if they are Kobe Bryants, then it is okay". Aaron believes that all bond-breakers, regardless if they are Yao Mings or Kobe Bryants, are being immoral for breaking the bond (ie, moral permissibility of bond-breaking is not agent-relative, to some extent). And probably, even if the scholarship bodies themselves realize that most scholars are Kobe Bryants (which I personally believe to be the case), and they actually prepare and design the scholarships with the Kobe Bryants in mind, that still does not deter the fact that bond-breakers ought to be regarded as immoral.
I personally am a Kobe Bryant. My reasons for being so are experiential. I have several friends who are scholars, and I know a couple of bond-breakers myself, I generally sympathize with their plight and feel that labeling them as immoral seems unfair. I wonder if Aaron (and other Yao Mings) got to know such friends of mine and listen to their stories, would they still believe that bond-breaking is immoral? Or perhaps, if myself (and other Kobe Bryants) listened to Mr Philip Yeo and how bond-breakers create all sorts of problems for the organization and the nation, then maybe we might change our minds? Although it has come under criticism of late (in Parliament!), I still believe that "anecdotal evidence", is often the most persuasive evidence we have when it comes to issues which cannot be easily agreed upon by reason alone.
[My thanks to Cognitive Dissonance for her helpful input in a recent discussion we had on the issue of bond-breaking]
Friday, March 16, 2007
quarter life crisis?
today is my 25th birthday. how am i going to spend it? i'm probably going to stay at home and read blogs. this has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the post, but i just wanted to whine and mope. =P
both BL and Mr Wang felt inclined to give advice about career choice recently. BL shared his personal story (which is also found here), and talked about finding a dream and a passion and making it into a career. this prompted me to think about my own situation.
some time ago, i had a passion for the study of physics, and i thought of becoming a professional scientist. yet, shortly after i started studying physics proper, i realized how painstakingly difficult it was. i quickly lost my initial passion, and i let the window to be a scientist close on me without regrets. during the same time, i discovered philosophy and loved it. i even thought about being an academic in philosophy. yet after a while, upon digging deeper and facing several difficult challenges in the study of philosophy, my love for the subject waned. i do not know if the window to be an academic has closed on me (i may need to check with Huichieh about this), but if it has indeed closed, i don't think i will feel much regret. not to long ago, i decided that what i wanted to be was a successful professional musician in Singapore. but yet again, after being exposed to how musicians struggle to make a living, as well as the politics and the ugliness of the local music scene (plus parental objections), i started to question if this was really what i wanted to do. after i started blogging, i practiced my instrument less and less.
i suspect i am the kind of person which gets bored easily. although at one point in time i may be very passionate about one thing or another, my passion leaves as easily as it comes, and i'm back at square one. i'm not sure if i can take BL's advice on taking "a dream and a passion" and "make it into a career". probably i will lose interest halfway and just give up. i'm 25. too young to know what i want to do for the rest of my life. maybe i still won't know when i'm 40. nevertheless, i'm too old to sit around, mope and do nothing. i have responsibilities, and i need to start thinking about earning a living, and providing for myself and my family, if not for a passion, then for the sheer sustenance of existence. yet, when time passes, more and more windows close, and the options of what i can choose to do get less and less. will there come a time when i regret letting a window close on me?
one of the best speeches i read recently is this one by Steve Jobs. "you got to find what you love" he says, and talks about his against-the-odds stories of how he founded Apple and Pixar. no doubt he is encouraging, just like BL, that we stick to our passions and persevere against the odds. but what i took away from reading that speech was about finding meaning in our individual lives. and meaning starts with identifying what we love.
i think what we are passionate about and what we find meaningful need not necessarily be something that we want to turn into our career. although it is important to try and reach for the stars, and there will be stories such as BL's and Steve Jobs to remind us that it is possible, at the end of the day, not everyone will make it. many of us are doing jobs we aren't really passionate about. i don't think there is necessarily any less dignity in that. the questions we need to ask is "for what do we work for?", "what do you find meaningful?", "what gives you happiness?" and the answers to these questions depend on the individual and the individual alone.
is ultimately what gives you meaning in life your family? then i believe there is no lack of dignity to work hard for your family (but pls find the time to spend with your family because your presence and company is as important as your income hor). do forming personal relationships and close bonds with friends what gives you meaning in life? then i believe there is no lack of dignity to work so as to support your lifestyle of spending time with friends and close ones. is what gives you meaning in life the obedience and servitude to God? then i believe there is no lack of dignity in whatever job you do, so long as you try your best to live your life in piety and humility.
what do i love? what do i find meaningful? what gives me happiness? to be perfectly honest, i'm not sure. i'm only 25 mah. maybe, just like the things which i am passionate about, these change over time also. i dunno. but i think finding out is the first step. exploring and finding out more about yourself is also what life's about isn't it?
both BL and Mr Wang felt inclined to give advice about career choice recently. BL shared his personal story (which is also found here), and talked about finding a dream and a passion and making it into a career. this prompted me to think about my own situation.
some time ago, i had a passion for the study of physics, and i thought of becoming a professional scientist. yet, shortly after i started studying physics proper, i realized how painstakingly difficult it was. i quickly lost my initial passion, and i let the window to be a scientist close on me without regrets. during the same time, i discovered philosophy and loved it. i even thought about being an academic in philosophy. yet after a while, upon digging deeper and facing several difficult challenges in the study of philosophy, my love for the subject waned. i do not know if the window to be an academic has closed on me (i may need to check with Huichieh about this), but if it has indeed closed, i don't think i will feel much regret. not to long ago, i decided that what i wanted to be was a successful professional musician in Singapore. but yet again, after being exposed to how musicians struggle to make a living, as well as the politics and the ugliness of the local music scene (plus parental objections), i started to question if this was really what i wanted to do. after i started blogging, i practiced my instrument less and less.
i suspect i am the kind of person which gets bored easily. although at one point in time i may be very passionate about one thing or another, my passion leaves as easily as it comes, and i'm back at square one. i'm not sure if i can take BL's advice on taking "a dream and a passion" and "make it into a career". probably i will lose interest halfway and just give up. i'm 25. too young to know what i want to do for the rest of my life. maybe i still won't know when i'm 40. nevertheless, i'm too old to sit around, mope and do nothing. i have responsibilities, and i need to start thinking about earning a living, and providing for myself and my family, if not for a passion, then for the sheer sustenance of existence. yet, when time passes, more and more windows close, and the options of what i can choose to do get less and less. will there come a time when i regret letting a window close on me?
one of the best speeches i read recently is this one by Steve Jobs. "you got to find what you love" he says, and talks about his against-the-odds stories of how he founded Apple and Pixar. no doubt he is encouraging, just like BL, that we stick to our passions and persevere against the odds. but what i took away from reading that speech was about finding meaning in our individual lives. and meaning starts with identifying what we love.
i think what we are passionate about and what we find meaningful need not necessarily be something that we want to turn into our career. although it is important to try and reach for the stars, and there will be stories such as BL's and Steve Jobs to remind us that it is possible, at the end of the day, not everyone will make it. many of us are doing jobs we aren't really passionate about. i don't think there is necessarily any less dignity in that. the questions we need to ask is "for what do we work for?", "what do you find meaningful?", "what gives you happiness?" and the answers to these questions depend on the individual and the individual alone.
is ultimately what gives you meaning in life your family? then i believe there is no lack of dignity to work hard for your family (but pls find the time to spend with your family because your presence and company is as important as your income hor). do forming personal relationships and close bonds with friends what gives you meaning in life? then i believe there is no lack of dignity to work so as to support your lifestyle of spending time with friends and close ones. is what gives you meaning in life the obedience and servitude to God? then i believe there is no lack of dignity in whatever job you do, so long as you try your best to live your life in piety and humility.
what do i love? what do i find meaningful? what gives me happiness? to be perfectly honest, i'm not sure. i'm only 25 mah. maybe, just like the things which i am passionate about, these change over time also. i dunno. but i think finding out is the first step. exploring and finding out more about yourself is also what life's about isn't it?
the clientèle of education
This is the follow-up post to my article on streaming, as previously promised. Piper wrote that everyone is quick to criticize the teaching profession, whereas people are less inclined to do so for other occupations, such as handphone makers, or fast-food restaurateurs. Piper makes the valid point that most of such critics are not teachers, and have little idea the kind of challenges and difficulties individual teachers face in their profession. If they did, their criticisms may not be as harsh.
A friend once remarked to me, "everybody thinks that they are experts on education". There is at least one sense which most individuals are qualified to criticize the education system, and that is that these individuals have been through the education system itself, and hence have experienced, as students, some of its good and bad. Yet, the experiences of students in neighborhood schools, SAP schools or "top" independent schools are different, and your individual experience, although not irrelevant, does not form the complete picture. Similarly, the experience of a student is not the same as the experience of a teacher, or that of a principal, or that of MOE policy makers. Which brings me to the question I want to ask in this article: "Who are the real clients of education?"
I asked my friend who is a teacher this question and she replied that the word "stakeholders" is probably more appropriate. This brings to mind the image of an investor. Because you invest into say, a company, there has to be something you get out of that company, dividends perhaps, otherwise you would have no reason to invest in the first place. Also, because without your investments, the company would not exist in the first place, you feel that you deserve a say in certain decisions which the company makes. What gets complicated is when different investors have conflicting interests, and yet the management of the company still has to make a decision. Making any decision will inadvertently risk alienating one group of investors or another. The analogy isn't perfect, but similarly in the education system, there is more than one party who are stakeholders. Who are they?
Students
Once, nearing the end of a math lecture, many students were impatiently packing their bags eager to leave the room when the lecturer still had not finished. He then commented, "Students are the only consumers in the world who actually want to get cheated". Probably everybody agrees that students are the most direct consumers of education, and insofar as education is considered a "service", students are the most immediate clients. Perhaps this makes students the most important stakeholder in education. After all, it seems that any education which is actually NOT beneficial for the student at all, can hardly make the case that it deserves to be called "education".
Parents
Especially for non-tertiary education, parents are those who pay for the school and tuition fees of education. This is especially so for private or independent schools. So in a sense, parents are like the investors of the education corporation and therefore there is some pressure by educators to please parents. But the investor analogy is not really that accurate. After all, most parents do not really have a choice (unless they are quite rich) to send their children to another education system if they are displeased with this one. Nevertheless, there is an aspect where most parents feel that they are the ones ultimately responsible for the education of their own children, and hence they have ought to have a say on how educators educate their children.
Teachers
Even though educators are part of the education system, in a very basic economic sense, they are also stakeholders. Teaching is an occupation. Teachers do work, and in return they get paid (and perhaps other benefits). This is an economic exchange, just like any other occupation. If the system is such that teachers receive atrocious pay and horrible benefits, nobody will want to teach, and the system collapses.
Schools
Perhaps not as obvious, but academic institutions themselves are also stakeholders. Just as with the case of individual educators, schools need funds to function. The more funds allocated to (or generated by) a school, the greater expenditure of such funds on education resources and supposedly, the better the quality of the education. I am under the impression that schools under MOE actually fight among each other for a greater slice of a pie of funds from MOE, and they will try to prove why they deserve certain funding more than other schools. There is also the intangible aspect of school "branding". It is in the interests of academic institutions to continually "better" the name of the school, perhaps to seek a greater slice of the pie, but I suspect also to seek reputation for it's own sake.
Society and the State
Using the same investor analogy, citizens pay the taxes which funds the education sector of the civil service, and taxpayers will want to have some say on how those tax dollars are spent, regardless if the children of the individual taxpayers are actually going through that education system. But aside from this, education (from the point of view of the state) is about preparing for the future of the nation. More than just merely supplying the necessary qualifications and skills to enter the workforce (and hence contribute to the economy), education also shapes the skills set of tomorrow's workforce, and this ties in to what the state envisions (or hopes to make) tomorrow's economy to be. The prime example of this is life sciences. The state came to the decision that life sciences would be a good industry to develop, for the overall (economical) good of the nation in the future. However, the life sciences sector requires a skilled workforce which isn't available at present, and thus the state encourages the study of life sciences.
It is quite obvious that the interests of these stakeholders do not always coincide. To an individual student, it may not be in his/her best interests to study life sciences, but he/she might have ended up doing so because of the encouragement by the state. A teacher struggling to get a decent grade in his/her ranking may not have the resources to cater to the individual needs of a student or two. A parent may not want his/her child to get the impression that premarital sex is permissible, but a teacher may think that it is in the best interest of the student to have a comprehensive sex education. A school, in the pursuit for more awards and a better "name", may result in an overly competitive atmosphere which is detrimental to its teachers. The list goes on.
I think that sometimes, because we all think we know a lot about education and what education ought to be, we have been too quick to criticize. Teachers who aren't helping students enough are labeled selfish or lacking in passion. Schools who strive for awards are criticized for being self-serving. Parents for being more concerned with what they want their own child to be than what is really good for the student. MOE for participating in social engineering. I think education is really more complicated than it seems, and nobody, including the higher-ups and the policy makers in MOE (I suspect), have a really clear view of all the different aspects of education and how it affects other areas.
Some might want to argue, shouldn't students be the ONLY stakeholder in education? Despite its good intentions, the state should not intervene with education, just like the state should not intervene with whether or not we have babies. Personally, I don't think that view is realistic. Shaping the skill sets of our workforce of the future may be necessary in order for the nation to thrive (or even survive) in the future, with growing pressures due to globalization and improving neighbors, even if such decisions are prone to error. And "the nation" includes yourself, your children and your children's children.
Lastly, it is important to note that what is in the best interest of the nation, the school, or even the teachers, may not be in YOUR best interest or the best interest of your child. Therefore, when making decisions pertaining to education, scholarships or career choice, it is best to think carefully about your personal situation and not be overly influenced by the views of others.
A friend once remarked to me, "everybody thinks that they are experts on education". There is at least one sense which most individuals are qualified to criticize the education system, and that is that these individuals have been through the education system itself, and hence have experienced, as students, some of its good and bad. Yet, the experiences of students in neighborhood schools, SAP schools or "top" independent schools are different, and your individual experience, although not irrelevant, does not form the complete picture. Similarly, the experience of a student is not the same as the experience of a teacher, or that of a principal, or that of MOE policy makers. Which brings me to the question I want to ask in this article: "Who are the real clients of education?"
I asked my friend who is a teacher this question and she replied that the word "stakeholders" is probably more appropriate. This brings to mind the image of an investor. Because you invest into say, a company, there has to be something you get out of that company, dividends perhaps, otherwise you would have no reason to invest in the first place. Also, because without your investments, the company would not exist in the first place, you feel that you deserve a say in certain decisions which the company makes. What gets complicated is when different investors have conflicting interests, and yet the management of the company still has to make a decision. Making any decision will inadvertently risk alienating one group of investors or another. The analogy isn't perfect, but similarly in the education system, there is more than one party who are stakeholders. Who are they?
Students
Once, nearing the end of a math lecture, many students were impatiently packing their bags eager to leave the room when the lecturer still had not finished. He then commented, "Students are the only consumers in the world who actually want to get cheated". Probably everybody agrees that students are the most direct consumers of education, and insofar as education is considered a "service", students are the most immediate clients. Perhaps this makes students the most important stakeholder in education. After all, it seems that any education which is actually NOT beneficial for the student at all, can hardly make the case that it deserves to be called "education".
Parents
Especially for non-tertiary education, parents are those who pay for the school and tuition fees of education. This is especially so for private or independent schools. So in a sense, parents are like the investors of the education corporation and therefore there is some pressure by educators to please parents. But the investor analogy is not really that accurate. After all, most parents do not really have a choice (unless they are quite rich) to send their children to another education system if they are displeased with this one. Nevertheless, there is an aspect where most parents feel that they are the ones ultimately responsible for the education of their own children, and hence they have ought to have a say on how educators educate their children.
Teachers
Even though educators are part of the education system, in a very basic economic sense, they are also stakeholders. Teaching is an occupation. Teachers do work, and in return they get paid (and perhaps other benefits). This is an economic exchange, just like any other occupation. If the system is such that teachers receive atrocious pay and horrible benefits, nobody will want to teach, and the system collapses.
Schools
Perhaps not as obvious, but academic institutions themselves are also stakeholders. Just as with the case of individual educators, schools need funds to function. The more funds allocated to (or generated by) a school, the greater expenditure of such funds on education resources and supposedly, the better the quality of the education. I am under the impression that schools under MOE actually fight among each other for a greater slice of a pie of funds from MOE, and they will try to prove why they deserve certain funding more than other schools. There is also the intangible aspect of school "branding". It is in the interests of academic institutions to continually "better" the name of the school, perhaps to seek a greater slice of the pie, but I suspect also to seek reputation for it's own sake.
Society and the State
Using the same investor analogy, citizens pay the taxes which funds the education sector of the civil service, and taxpayers will want to have some say on how those tax dollars are spent, regardless if the children of the individual taxpayers are actually going through that education system. But aside from this, education (from the point of view of the state) is about preparing for the future of the nation. More than just merely supplying the necessary qualifications and skills to enter the workforce (and hence contribute to the economy), education also shapes the skills set of tomorrow's workforce, and this ties in to what the state envisions (or hopes to make) tomorrow's economy to be. The prime example of this is life sciences. The state came to the decision that life sciences would be a good industry to develop, for the overall (economical) good of the nation in the future. However, the life sciences sector requires a skilled workforce which isn't available at present, and thus the state encourages the study of life sciences.
It is quite obvious that the interests of these stakeholders do not always coincide. To an individual student, it may not be in his/her best interests to study life sciences, but he/she might have ended up doing so because of the encouragement by the state. A teacher struggling to get a decent grade in his/her ranking may not have the resources to cater to the individual needs of a student or two. A parent may not want his/her child to get the impression that premarital sex is permissible, but a teacher may think that it is in the best interest of the student to have a comprehensive sex education. A school, in the pursuit for more awards and a better "name", may result in an overly competitive atmosphere which is detrimental to its teachers. The list goes on.
I think that sometimes, because we all think we know a lot about education and what education ought to be, we have been too quick to criticize. Teachers who aren't helping students enough are labeled selfish or lacking in passion. Schools who strive for awards are criticized for being self-serving. Parents for being more concerned with what they want their own child to be than what is really good for the student. MOE for participating in social engineering. I think education is really more complicated than it seems, and nobody, including the higher-ups and the policy makers in MOE (I suspect), have a really clear view of all the different aspects of education and how it affects other areas.
Some might want to argue, shouldn't students be the ONLY stakeholder in education? Despite its good intentions, the state should not intervene with education, just like the state should not intervene with whether or not we have babies. Personally, I don't think that view is realistic. Shaping the skill sets of our workforce of the future may be necessary in order for the nation to thrive (or even survive) in the future, with growing pressures due to globalization and improving neighbors, even if such decisions are prone to error. And "the nation" includes yourself, your children and your children's children.
Lastly, it is important to note that what is in the best interest of the nation, the school, or even the teachers, may not be in YOUR best interest or the best interest of your child. Therefore, when making decisions pertaining to education, scholarships or career choice, it is best to think carefully about your personal situation and not be overly influenced by the views of others.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
blogosphere sabbath
recently, i've been involved in a debate with ben. thinking about what to say in this debate has took up several hours of my time, and i've been feeling rather tired. also recently, i went to a library to borrow some books to read. i haven't been reading not because i don't enjoy reading, but i just haven't been able to find the time to do so. then suddenly today i had this idea. i should take a blogosphere sabbath every week. so from today onwards, every saturday, i will not do any blogging, read any blogs or comment on any blogs. if possible don't even go online or switch on the computer.
i am quie surprised how much time it freed up. i now have time to do other things which i considered important, but have been neglecting, like exercising, practising my instrument, studying Japanese (i'm currently taking lessons) and reading. in fact, i'm so committed to trying to establish a habit of reading, that i'm going to have a "currently reading" thingy on my blog, if only to remind myself that i should try and set aside some time for reading.
i find it quite amazing how many hours i spend on blogging-related activites per day. and i don't even blog that much. i can't help but wonder if other individuals *ahem* *nedstark* *ahem* might be suffering from spending too much time in the blogosphere, and perhaps should take a blogging sabbath too. i believe reading and contributing to the blogosphere is a good thing, and to be encouraged, but i also believe moderation is important. there are many other things in our life that also need our attention, time and energy, such as responsibilities, friends and family.
but there is also another sense where i think moderation is good. if only to show that you've got self-control and self-discipline. let's say you are a WoW gamer (i'm not. bo lui mah.) and you've completely fulfilled all your responsibilities, and you've got great academic results, and your parents are perfectly fine with you spending 4 hours a day WoWing. you might still want to say, i want to set a day as WoW sabbath. maybe i won't play WoW every monday. why should you do so? just to prove to yourself that you CAN live a day without WoWing. that indeed you are in control of your WoWing, and it is not the case that WoW is in control of you. in the same way, i feel the blogging sabbath is good for me as it is proof that my blogging activities do not have control over me, and is also my attempt to prevent that from happening.
aiyah, or just go get a life lah.
i am quie surprised how much time it freed up. i now have time to do other things which i considered important, but have been neglecting, like exercising, practising my instrument, studying Japanese (i'm currently taking lessons) and reading. in fact, i'm so committed to trying to establish a habit of reading, that i'm going to have a "currently reading" thingy on my blog, if only to remind myself that i should try and set aside some time for reading.
i find it quite amazing how many hours i spend on blogging-related activites per day. and i don't even blog that much. i can't help but wonder if other individuals *ahem* *nedstark* *ahem* might be suffering from spending too much time in the blogosphere, and perhaps should take a blogging sabbath too. i believe reading and contributing to the blogosphere is a good thing, and to be encouraged, but i also believe moderation is important. there are many other things in our life that also need our attention, time and energy, such as responsibilities, friends and family.
but there is also another sense where i think moderation is good. if only to show that you've got self-control and self-discipline. let's say you are a WoW gamer (i'm not. bo lui mah.) and you've completely fulfilled all your responsibilities, and you've got great academic results, and your parents are perfectly fine with you spending 4 hours a day WoWing. you might still want to say, i want to set a day as WoW sabbath. maybe i won't play WoW every monday. why should you do so? just to prove to yourself that you CAN live a day without WoWing. that indeed you are in control of your WoWing, and it is not the case that WoW is in control of you. in the same way, i feel the blogging sabbath is good for me as it is proof that my blogging activities do not have control over me, and is also my attempt to prevent that from happening.
aiyah, or just go get a life lah.
Monday, March 05, 2007
publicity for stressed teacher
once in a while, some folks would visit my list of teacher-bloggers, to read what's been happening with them. i actually haven't been following their blogs, but on impulse i just decided to read one of the blogs on my list, Stressed Teacher, and find that she's been writing some pretty good stuff. i think you guys should check out that blog.
research break
paiseh, i know i have been taking alot of breaks already lah....
i've come across something which i wanna do some extensive research about. i know not the result of my research, hence i will not promise to blog about what i decided to go research up, or even reveal what exactly i am researching.
i may not totally abstain from blogging during this research break, but expect not productivty from me.
i've come across something which i wanna do some extensive research about. i know not the result of my research, hence i will not promise to blog about what i decided to go research up, or even reveal what exactly i am researching.
i may not totally abstain from blogging during this research break, but expect not productivty from me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
