The Students' Notebook

Is Blogging Really That Bad?

2006-08-04T13:33:00.000-07:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

Our first guest contribution to Singapore Angle, has been published. Read about it over there.

Blogger Registration Act - A Follow-Up

2006-07-08T11:14:00.000-07:00

The report, "Bloggers don't need to register after all", was published on the The Straits Times on Friday.

A copy of the report has been uploaded, accessible above, for reasons of completeness to the debate. Apologies for the two days' delay in processing it.

Bloggers Anonymous - A Follow-Up

2006-07-02T20:42:00.000-07:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

The Straits Times has decided to do a follow-up twice - Sunday's web feature, and a follow-up debate in YOUTHink. It is reproduced here for completeness :

Let's talk about Bloggers Anonymous - YOUTHink, July 3 2006 (click to enlarge)

For some who require context, Ephraim Loy's mention of "(commenting) on a particular blog to this paper's Forum page...my blog was hit by more than 500 comments" refers to this fisaco. He probably sees the comment box in a BBS manner, that is it can be regulated by technical restrictions.

In genenral, the letters have strongly rebuked most of the sweeping statements Mr de Souza has made in his original letter, and attempt to provide some explanation on the reasons behind anonymity. Some of the points by a few writers are a re-hash of our reply letter to ST, so I shall not repeat here.

And in the meantime, I find it...weird that even Mr Brown is under attack for using pseudonym, de Souza-style?!

"As for means testing for special school fees, we understand mr brown's disappointment as the father of an autistic child.....Instead of a diatribe mr brown should offer constructive criticism and alternatives. And he should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly."

Doesn't everyone already know his real name (and perhaps even where he lives)? And why the ad-hominem attack on him?

100% Seditious, or Money Back Guaranteed

2006-07-01T22:53:00.000-07:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

Just as we see a local blogger getting into trouble with the law over a few Christ cartoons, one game developer in America decides to go all out to create their ultimate Christan game (article contains 5 parts).

"You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state" (from article "The Purpose Driven Life Takers", Talk to Action)

Should I dial 999 and cry to the Police that the game is Seditious and could cause anarchy by damaging the fabric of religious and racial harmony, that should be dealt with vigorously under the law?

If the Sedition Act does not discriminate, then this form of cyber-terrorism will probably never make the shores of Singapore. Surprisingly it was even talked about in The Sunday Times, but it was more about its related spyware problems. (Spy Game, Abdul Karim, July 2 2006).

On the Blogger Registration Act

2006-06-29T01:31:00.000-07:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

Mr Leong writes about a hypothetical situation whereby all bloggers are required to register after an act of violence was induced by blogs, and in this case controversy will be akin to the enactment of the PATRIOT ACT after the September 11 attacks. (which is well covered elsewhere, so I shall not repeat.)

Now, instead of stopping here we consider a step further - suppose the government agrees with Mr de Sourza, and actually passes the Blogger Registration Act now. What are the possible consquences, on top of the issue of privacy?

Instructions Creep will occur. Most of us are familiar that the workings of the government will know that it is very likely to ask for exhaustive information before granting licenses to blog. This is assuming the government automatically grants them if they believe the information is correct and accurate, and that grounds of credentials are not considered. If they decide to include and warn you of its associated regulations, many will be too scared to even contemplate signing up for a blog.

There will be a loss of opinons. There are few people who blog anonymously for a very good reason, and that is those who are working within the government sector. They will face the fear of reprecussions and subject to harassment if they criticise the government's policies. Just as The Straits Times journalists have mentioned, civil servants and government employees are likely to turn into Yesmen in exchange for job security. Dissenting but useful feedback for the government to consider will simply dry up.

Singapore's "Nanny State" reputation will embolden. It will join the ranks of China and Cambodia in terms of Internet censorship and dismal human rights. This form of social control will be noted as a form of social control, similiar to the Chewing Gum Ban in the 90s. One may also compare the government to control blogs in Singapore similiar to Nicolae Ceaușescu, who regulated the ownership and usage of typewriters (to control who was writing what) and the penalty of failure to register was death.

The negative implications from any invoking of a Blogger Registration Act in the forseeable future far outweights any benefits it brings (if there is any). Furthermore, most bloggers aren't anonymous. The Singapore blogosphere has the ability to be self-regulating, and to upset its ecology by introducing regulation is not only a bad idea to the blogospehere, but harmful to the country as well.

Part One : Not true to say bloggers hide under cloak of anonymity to rant against govt

Not true to say bloggers hide under cloak of anonymity to rant against govt

2006-06-23T19:25:00.000-07:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

Our letter to The Straits Times was published today. It is reproduced here for historical interest.

We refer to the letter 'Bloggers should have the conviction to stand behind any statements they make and not hide under the cloak of anonymity' by Lionel de Souza (ST, June 22). We believe that Mr de Souza's claim that bloggers usually hide under the cloak to rant against the government and others is seriously misguided.

Most bloggers reveal their real identities, as we can see from people such as Mr Lee Kin Mun (mrbrown) and Mr Benjamin Lee (Mr Mayagi).

Bloggers' critical commentaries that are logical and backed by facts play a part to better shape our country politically, as we can see from Gayle Goh's (i-speak) recent postings that prompted Mr Bilahari Kausikan, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to respond.

Despite the use of pseudonyms by some bloggers, views that are coherent and sound have been considered by the media, as The Straits Times did for Mr Wang's views in the original report 'Divided views over police checks on blogger' (The Sunday Times, June 18).

Furthermore, blogging with anonymity does not guarantee that the bloggers cannot be traced, as we saw the identification and conviction of three bloggers last year for flouting the Sedition Act.

It is a great misjustice to tar the entire group of netizens as cyber-terrorists just because of the acts of a few, and it is unfortunate for Mr de Souza to make further sweeping statements that bloggers will go all out to disparage him online. Mr de Souza's hasty conclusions on Char's actions and his advocacy for more punishment is very distrubting to us.

It should be noted that he is only being investigated by the police for the alleged cartoons and has not been charged with breaching the Sedition Act.

Everyone has the right to scrutinise the whistle-blowers' actions and see for himself whether his actions are indeed justified. We wonder if Mr de Souza has viewed the four cartoons in question before making a such strong conviction that Char is guilty of sedition and blasphemy.

We would like to express disappointment on the publication of such prejudiced views. We are sure that readers and netizens are right-minded enough to decide for themselves whether to take Mr de Souza's opinions seriously.

And this is the letter we are addressing to, by Mr. Lionel de Souza :

"I refer to the report, 'Divided views over police checks on blogger' (The Sunday Times, June 18).

Personally, I have developed a great distaste and distrust of bloggers who post anonymously or use pseudonyms to disguise their identities. I can understand that sometimes anonymous postings are unavoidable. However, when postings on the Internet are seditious or have a tendency to deliberately wound the religious feelings of any person, the perpetrator of the posting should have the full weight of the law brought to bear on him or her.

It appears to be the norm for bloggers to hide under the cloak of anonymity or use pseudonyms to blame, insult and rant out against the Government or individuals believing that their postings can better the political process or current events concerning Singapore. Netizens have no legal or constitutional right to condemn the whistle blower who brought blogger Char's blasphemous posting of pictures of Jesus Christ on the Internet to the attention of the police. The conduct of netizens is similar to that of cyber terrorists since netizens have unashamedly condoned the seditious posting of Char, which could have sparked off strong reaction as did the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper in February this year. Fortunately, Char's blasphemous and seditious posting happened in Singapore, a country of tolerance. I am certain that if this letter is published in The Straits Times, netizens and other cyber-terrorists will have a field day posting all kinds of nasty or defamatory remarks against me. They will do so anonymously or using pseudonyms. To these cyber-terrorists I say, 'Be brave and don't hide under the cloak of anonymity or use pseudonyms'.

They should have the conviction to stand behind any statements they make. If they do not have the confidence and passion to put their names beside their statements, I am sure that all right-thinking people cannot take them seriously. It appears to be the current trend for bloggers to hide under the cloak of anonymity to act irresponsibly by ranting and musing about current events. If their ratings and musings do not cross the line of fair comment, they are free to do as they please. However, for bloggers who choose to post seditious and inflammatory comments that could cause anarchy by damaging the fabric of religious and racial harmony; they should be dealt with vigorously under the law. Cases of this nature should not be dealt with by the Community Court where the punishment meted out could be probation and performing a number of hours doing community service. They deserve a more deterrent punishment. I hope that I do not sound 'sub-judice', but I hope that blogger Char receives his just deserts for his blasphemous and seditious posting. "

Also See : Word for word match on Mr De Souza's letter when compared aganist an Virginia (US) columnist's article that was posted one month ago.

Part Two : On the Blogger Registration Act

The Power of Legitimacy

2006-06-18T06:02:00.000-07:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

Bloggers are known to have the tendency to question the credibility of the mainstream media, and pride themselves to be the alternative form of media online. There is good reason to be such - We are ranked 140th out of 167th in the 2005 worldwide press freedom index by Reporters Without Borders.

However, there is something that the mainstream press possesses as a trump card that we do not have. And that, is the power of legitimacy. Often, bloggers tend to underestimate the power of it.

"Fellow Comrades! I mean, Bloggers!"

Ironically, the reason why our press is ranked so low, is also the reason why it holds legitimacy. Our mainstream press is backed by the government. In other words whatever it is reported, the people consider its views to be implicitly endorsed by the government.

A simple look in schools can tell the extent of this - it is hardly ever questioned. English/GP classrooms often make use of materials from the mainstream media, and it is not uncommon to hear from teachers that "articles other than from the Straits Times are not accepted". Also to note, is that broadsheets like the Straits Times usually hold a 6 figure circulation.

This is a crucial point, as sheer popularity has no credibility without legitimacy. The power structure of the Singapore blogosphere today is all thanks to the very media it tends to question, as it will be shown in the examples below.

Xiaxue and Mr Brown

The two most prolific bloggers today were the first to appear in the mainstream media. With this, the perception of them being the pioneers and (hence) most popular of blogging is fixed into the minds of Singaporeans forever. It is no doubt why they essentially become the staple of the blogosphere itself, always the ones often representing it on mainstream, and have the ability to make other bloggers popular too. Both being offered space to write in the mainstream press, means that they are also now accorded the power to legitimise other bloggers as well.

Dawn Yeo

The first sign of endorsement came from a report in the New Paper that began all the talk around town. The floodgates opened when two other bloggers, Gabriel Seah actually posted evidence to claim that Dawn Yeo underwent plastic surgery, with XLX later throwing in further weight on the issue. Being both previously featured and legitimised by the mainstream media (former by then Computer Times, and the latter by the XLX-XX conflict in Sunday Times), their voices carried enough weight to justify a follow-up article in the New Paper.

Gayle Goh

Associated with the criticisms of the government and General Paper, she would not be as vocal as she is without the mainstream press giving her the loudhailer. The plus point to her legitimacy is the fact that the government-backed media has actually approved of her objections, a rare occasion that has caught the attention and envy of many. (which is usually ignored, or regulated)

In the graph of Gayle's blog tracker, week 17 is the month of April. Notice the spike 2 weeks later when she was featured by Tomorrow.sg. When she began to be featured by the mainstream media for the first time in Week 20, the number simply jumped two-fold . Fears began to surface that bloggers may just decide to hop in the bandwagon and bash the government for the sake of it, but it is likely that this form of legitimacy would be accorded to many by the mainstream media even if it happens.

Seriously, I'll not be surprised if my GP teacher actually put this question in our regular GP Current Affairs Test :

"Name the 17-year-old blogger who spoke aganist the Foriegn Minister of Singapore critically, an example to us all."

And what about STOMP? Between the Straits Times and the Star Bloggers, it is a win-win affair. The Straits Times implicitly gives them the blessings on their views, while the bloggers levarage on their popularity to pull in the crowds. Currently, the site managed to pull in 120,000 visitors (so as they claim), critics claim that it is perhaps a way to "manage the negative Internet" (now more than just that), but what it will really be in future remains to be seen.

But all these revolve around one thing in common. That is social acceptance through legitimacy.

A Country of Maximizers

2006-05-29T05:00:00.000-07:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

"Brown, but my first choice was Yale." Does that sound familiar to many students in Singapore?

Schwartz, in his book "The Paradox of Choice : Why More Is Less", speaks about the concept of maximizers. The definition is given as the group of people who will seek and accept nothing but the best, and absolutely the best when it comes to decision in their lives.

He then goes and point out the causes and its consequences of such : Maximizers exist because of the concern with status, in particular when it comes to social comparison (i.e. self vs. expectations, self vs. others). The contemplation of more choices in turn leads to regret, and less self-satisfaction on the choices we have made.

Our society has grown increasingly competitive, to the point of being a rat race. The school rankings table some years ago have caused schools to up the ante with each passing year, turning educators into maximizers and the concept reinforced upon students. Parents fight for a place in a good primary spot, wanting to see that their children have the best. (Schwartz, p. 77-96)

It's not difficult to spot the trend - We are all increasingly becoming a country of maximizers. Many of us, faced by circumstances (such as elitism and bigotry), has made us feel compelled to be maximizers, not wanting to fall behind. I mean, who wants to fall behind and get looked down by others? Jack Neo's box-office hit "I Not Stupid" is a gentle reminder of such.

Adam Khoo, on his book "I Am Gifted, So Are You!", claims that one's failure is absolutely his/her own fault, and nobody else. To think otherwise is to have a mentality of a loser, and one should be a winner's mentality by converting all the negative emotions, and do whatever it takes to drive the person to success. (Khoo, p. 18-19)

It is noted, that the book is a form of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), and this form of development by itself is not without controversy. It advocates that self-responsibility is the sole factor of its causes, but is this always the case as such? Interestingly, what it did say is that it won't work for 95% of the population because they have a loser's frame of mind. (Khoo, p. 16-18)

Or...is it that NLP is ineffective in the first place?

If the person succeeds, that is fine with me. What if he/she does not? Then the psychological effects would be devastating to one's well-being. Schwartz warns that allocating excessive self-blame leads to even more helplessness, depression, or worse. In addition, maximizers tend to be more susceptible to such, and are less happier. (Schwartz, p. 201-217) It may be irrational to blame everything else except oneself when it comes to failure, but does that mean one should simply take all of it?

Schwartz has many suggestions, but I think this one has got to be my personal favourite for our fellow Singapore students (on why we should resist the tendancy to make social comparisons)

And following that, "remember, it's a bumper sticker, not wisdom!" (Schwartz, p. 224)

Failing which, I would truly worry about my personal well-being.

He's Gifted. So, What's Wrong?

2006-05-29T04:50:00.000-07:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

"Gifted children suffer in a normal education environment, as much as a retarded child would suffer in a normal education system. Therefore (it is) very important that gifted children be placed in an environment that at least acknowledges their different-ness, and makes some attempt to cater to that different-ness." - Mr Wang

Mr Wang justifies the implementation of gifted education with the otherwise negative psychological effects that a gifted child faces, and the potential opportunities missed if he/she were to otherwise undergo a normal education.

It is natural, that every parent would want to see their child realise their full potential. Mr Wang also brings in the case of Einstein. Up to this point, it may sound fair and square.

So, when we have the Gifted Education Programme :

Students of similiar gifted intellect come together as a class, and were given opportunities to explore knowledge the world could offer.

Yet rarely mixing with others at the next-door classroom, and were seen to be "out of touch"
To be exact, the problem of inability to mix with the rest remains unresolved.

They were encouraged by the teachers, reminded of their "giftedness".

In turn, regarded themselves as superior and declared everyone else as immature and stupid.
To be exact, the "different-ness" is used to discriminate upon other students instead, which is counterproductive.

Students receive education that is catered to their "giftedness", paid for, and that is different from the rest.

Then, invited to join the civil service, subsequently rule over the country and its people.
To be exact, their giftedness is seen more as a form of investment, rather than to fulfill their thirst for wisdom.

What has gone wrong here?
(Stop and Think first before highlighting the text above.)

Social Mobility (or Lack Thereof)

2006-05-27T12:57:00.000-07:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

'Doesn't matter who your parents are, doesn't matter where you live. We'll give you the best chance to do well in education,' - Tharman (GE2006)

O RLY? (Oh, Really?)

A brief look at the Straits Times' Saturday (27 May) report would give some clue on what the situation in reality is :

Gina (p. S3), 15, is under the Normal (Technical) stream, and felt that she was no good in her studies.

Rick (p. S3), 17, studying in ITE, has to juggle with his job and studies

Devi (p. S5), 12, is under the EM3 stream, and has flunked her all subjects.

Alina (p. S5), is also under the EM3 stream, and is struggling to pass PSLE.

all living in poverty, and their parents/guardians worrying that if they have to go hungry for the night.

And more statistics from the same set of reports :

Data from MOE has indicated that 72% of Normal stream secondary school students live in four room or smaller flats. (p. S3)

Mrs Elyan Wong of Feiyue Family Service Centre, indicates that children who did not (or cannot afford) go to kindergarden are generally disadvantaged at Primary 1. (p. S2)

Ms Hong of Headerson Student Centre notes that families with problems, in turn causes childen "to have problems in schools, unable to cope with the lessons, have very poor memory and short concentration spans," and that by the time they catch up they would have already found themselves in EM3. (p. S3)

And are the Education policies in the recent past go towards helping these poor people to receive a good quality education? Let's have a review through them :

The formation of Independant Schools were the result of a study tour to 25 elite, private schools in the US and the UK, led by Tony Tan in 1986, that would "cater to the academically meritorious". School fees for these schools, for instance ACS(I), then shot up from the initial $25 to $200 within a year. (Rahim, p. 140-142, Ths Singapore Dilemna, 1998; Tan, p 97-98, The Marketisation of Education in Singapore (Shaping Singapore's Future), 2005)

As early as 1990, PAP MP John Chen has warned that "the good schools are getting better, while the poor schools seem to be getting poorer". (Rahim, p. 136)

Unversity fees for public universities have increased over the years, in particular just recently.

Social mobility in education? What social mobility?

And for those are really cynical, may wish to consider the timing of the ST report.

Bigotry & Elitism

2006-04-10T10:13:00.000-07:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

* First, it was neighourhood schools v. elite schools
* Followed by the GEP v. non-GEP fisacos.
* Now, it is JC v. Poly.

Notice a pattern on the nature of these disputes?

I think what all of us just need, is much more empathy to understand each others' differences. And we have a long, long way to go to really become a gracious society...

And, for further reading.

A step by step review of Meritocratic Jesus.

2006-01-08T07:21:00.000-08:00

En, The Students' Notebook

If you are christian and you are offended by this issue, this is the place for you to go.Here, i try to explain why this issue is actually in praise of the christian religion. I don't usually do this as the "point" of the story is meant to be discovered for yourself.

The First Frame shows Pontius Pilot.
Note* how Pontius Pilot is spelled as Pilot and not Pilate-showing that it is 2 different Pontius altogether.
Meritocratic Jesus incidentally tells Pontius that he has good news.

Jesus tells Pontius that he has a new idea that will change the world- The idea is meritocracy: according to wikipedia it means:

is strictly speaking a system of government based on rule by ability (merit) rather than by wealth or social position.

This is similar to what Meritocratic Jesus said, that God wants the Best to be rewarded with positions, power, etc..etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with this statement, letting the most capable rule is a very good idea... so we go on to the next frame..

Meritocratic Jesus tells us that the Roman Jews are the most capable and best to rule. He seems to be eager to please the most powerful in position.

Compare this to the real Jesus:

Luke 23:1-3

"Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying,

'We have found this man subverting our nation.

He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and

claims to be Christ, a king.' So Pilate asked Jesus, '

Are you the king of the Jews?'

'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied."

Note how differently Jesus and Meritocratic Jesus respond to the situation. Meritocratic Jesus says nothing that is subversive.. in fact he says what the jews wanted to hear.. whereas Jesus on the other hand is saying things that may subvert the power of the jews.

Thus, a clear difference between Meritocratic Jesus and Jesus is established. One panders to the rich and powerful, the other speaks for the poor and oppressed.. I don't see how you can relate Meritocratic Jesus to that of Christian belief...

Another important point about meritocracy is being raised, by what standards do we choose to elect those to power. Do we elect them on the basis of what they know in terms of theology? If so the Jews clearly have an advantage in this system, being already educated in judaism. Should that mean that God has given them the mandate of power to rule?

One of the key problems of meritocracy is that we do not define what the standards of "ability" are, and even when we do the problem remains contentious. What is to define a person more capable than the other?

In the realm of education , we use meritocracy to justify everything... We justify GEP with meritocracy, saying that the children who have scored good results in PSLE are too smart for the normal system and that they deserve a different system catered to their expressly different needs. I doubt the indicative ability of the PSLE, and i doubt its system in selecting gepers.

Jesus agrees to build the best schools for the sons of these powerful jews. He justifies it because he believes the jews, being the most "capable" in their knowledge of theology deserve to be justly rewarded, and be put in an advantageous position in the system.

Does that not cause class stratification, that people in a more ideal and advantageous system get to carry on legacy of their fathers?

Meritocratic Jesus refused to heal the sick... his justification is that this would snatch away the businesses of those who are good enough to find a cure. Again there is an emphasis on "merit". According to Meritocratic Jesus, the world is full of opportunities where those with the capability can take advantage of, he sees the terminally ill as an opportunity for the doctors to get richer. Those with merit will always benefit from helping the less fortunate. This does not always happen in real life, sometimes acts of altruism are just needed to end suffering.

More importantly, Meritocratic Jesus believes that a perfect society can be achieved on conditional terms. He believes that through the setting of incentives and conditions, great acts of charity can be achieved. Those with the Merit to do these deeds should and would be greatly awarded.

Lets look at how Jesus of Nazareth would have handled it:

Scripture reference: Romans 13:9 “Love your Neighbor as yourself." Galatians 5:14, John 13:34, I Corinthians 13:4
Concepts: Treat others like you would like to be treated. God loves everyone regardless of color, size, intelligence, social status, etc. Love is patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast . . .

Jesus preaches a doctrine of unconditional love . Love that is not motivated by the prospect of getting money. I seem to remember that Jesus went around healing the sick and feeding the hungry during my time in sunday school before i became atheist... someone correct me if i am wrong.

The main crux of the meritocratic issue:"What is to judge a person to be of ability? what is the standard of judging if there is to be a meritocratic society?"

Technically Titus Duraius did a wonderful job, he ran the organization without a hitch. Although his ethics leaves alot to be questioned, can we not say that he is not wrong due to his sheer competence?

In the world of meritocratic Jesus, judgement on one's ability is based on hard statistical measure.. How about other issues like morality? or ethical righteousness?

Jesus seems to have an answer:

5 "Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

6 "Blessed are those who Hunger and Thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

7 "Blessed are the Merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

8 "Blessed are the Pure in Heart, for they shall see GOD

Jesus seems to play a large amount of emphasis on the purity of heart, the goodness of soul, etc etc.. intangible measures that cannot be counted as competency. A person may be competent without being moral.

This frame was added just to show how Meritocratic Jesus sells the idea of meritocracy to others. He tells others that the educated have great prospects, and everyone can be educated and smart if they try hard enough.
like:"If ylur son had tried hard enough to study he'd be able to enter RVHS (illustrative example only) and recieve the education he so fully deserves.."
Meritocratic Jesus believes that social standing, prospects and education are important aspirations for the everyday man... So important that he sells assessment books about how to have an edge in the exams. (Obviously , achieving this is one of the main pointers of his self-made religion.)

Also remember what Jesus Christ said instead of Meritocratic Jesus:
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24)
Jesus christ is clearly trying to tell you that no matter how good your social standing, prospects, or reputation which society judges you by, one can have the possiblity of being unable to be able to recieve spiritual salvation. One may be a rich man, but still inherit nothing in the kingdom of god.

Meritocratic Jesus gets what he deserves when he is betrayed by the immoral TiTus Duraius.

He somehow manages to bribe his way out of his situation.. The real jesus on the other hand(we are sorry to have drawn him so shoddy, we draw our comics in slightly more than an hour most of the time due to time constraints) died for his beliefs, and died for the sins of man.. Isn't this a powerful comparison? Showing that Jesus does not preach meritocracy.. in fact he preaches a very different doctrine.. I'm sorry if you found this picture offensive but it was supposed to solidify the argument and show that Jesus did not believe in meritocracy, and is very different from meritocratic jesus...

A juxtaposition of the real jesus to meritocratic jesus, who died for his beliefs and sacrificed himself for the sins of mankind is in the background.. while meritocratic jesus escapes scott free with his riches...

I thought this was clear enough to show that Christianity was being praised for its higher values.

Praising Jesus and singing songs about him isn't the only way to compliment a religion... You can also show the values that are opposite to what the religion believes and prove how dispicable they are...

I have nothing against meritocracy, i just believe that over emphasis on it changes the spirit of what meritocracy was intended to be. When the best of our students are isolated from the other students, classified, and trained to be different from everyone else, what do the words equality and democracy mean?

Of Meritocracy... and what it means to singapore

2006-01-07T03:06:00.000-08:00

Throughglassdarkly, The Students' Notebook

It seems regardless of whatever some contemporary statesmen might tell you about the idea of meritocracy, they deserve to be commended for buying into an incredible joke.

Regardless of anything you may have heard, the truth is that meritocracy originated out there as a joke in some Englishman's book. Michael Young, aka known as Lord Young of Darlington (1915-2005), arguing that the British school system created a greater level of stratification, however jokingly, than the old class system, in his book "The Rise of the Meritocracy" foresaw a society that, buying into the "scientific" methods of measuring a person's IQ in order to determine the station of life that person should reach, simply produced a change in the pattern of inequality ... yet in the end, a fundamentally unequal society remains. He believed there are certain human rights that shouldn’t be distributed on the basis of merit. These include health care, education and police protection ... which today are much more easily available to the rich. Young goes on to say that: “It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.”

“Ability of a conventional kind, which used to be distributed between the classes more or less at random, has become much more highly concentrated by the engine of education. A social revolution has been accomplished by harnessing schools and universities to the task of sieving people according to education’s narrow band of values. “

The Singapore education system deserves kudos for being one of the few in the entire world to actually think this is a good idea and implementing it for a number of years. Meritocracy has become a catch-all, a benchmark whenever it comes to assessing Candidate ability around election time to the existence of the GEP, to the advent of streaming. The kind of stratification becomes a whole set of articles to justify one's status in Singapore by, rarely in any other society does your education become a part of who you are when you introduce yourself.

And the ride is only about to get wilder.

And thus, if we listen to what another prominent intellectual, John Ralston Saul, has to say, it would be that meritocratic societies would grow increasingly mediocre. While meritocracy appears to mean that people of a certain calibre are placed together in order to learn from each other and improve together, the truth is that this system would only produce people who think increasingly alike. Sooner or later, that elite becomes cut off from the "unconscious society", the thoughts, mores and philosophies that make up the fabric of whole civilizations. We cannot have too many that think increasingly alike. Because if we do, we would create "heads and hands" without mediating "hearts" (to rather clumsily borrow an analogy from Metropolis.)
An education system, in bringing the children of the nation together, is in another way, not just a machine to create a workforce, but an ideal "heart" apparatus. It binds the citizens together in an unconscious, by highlighting their differences as well as their similarities. Actually, Singapore universities do know this, which is why at University there is a lack of streaming and the general student is more free to pursue a course of study according to his/her likings. That may be one thing that is still saving the best of Singapore's society as it stands.

The truth is: among ten fingers, none are the same on a single hand. Meritocracy does not realize that if you put thumbs together, you do not make a hand, you only make one all thumbs.

Have Your Say : School & Job Prospects

2005-12-19T06:48:00.000-08:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

From "Neighourhood vs elite schools: Does it matter?" (pg 42), 11 December 2005, The Sunday Times, RGS student Cheryl Tan says that "Having RGS on your resume makes a different impact...employers make the assumption that if you come from a good school, you have received a good education."

This week's question : Does the name/type of school you come from affect your job prospects?

"In this paper-chasing society, a job applicant from an elite school is more likely to get the job than others."

"Employers now look for something else rather than just academic qualifications."

Or do you have other views? Have your say! In particular, we would love to hear those from the working world to comment.

Introduction

2005-12-01T12:00:00.000-08:00

Hou, The Students' Notebook

Education nutures the young for the society in future. Its issues today, are society's issues tomorrow. It is hence not surprising, that one can rather passionate when it comes to discussion about education, and debates rage in the mainstream media from time to time.

A warm welcome to the Students' Notebook. From the cartoonists from the The Students' Sketchpad, we will report, highlight and comment on some of these issues. We have also invited some undergraduate associates to contribute in this journal as well. From questions to research to articles, our aim is to provide a friendly and civil environment where diverse perspectives are shared.

Contributions are individual submissions - this mean that they may not represent the views of all the contributers as a whole. Some of the topics may be controversial in nature, but topics that are declared 'illegal' by the state (everyone knows by now what are they) will not be covered.

We invite all readers to give their own perspective. Comments are currently unmoderated, and restricted to registered Blogger users (if you don't have one, sign up for an account here, complete Step 1 of the process only, and then come back here). This policy may change depending on situation.

This project is currently started on a trial basis. We hope to interest readers in what we write, as much as we have done so in our drawings, and that you will enjoy your stay here.

En & Hou
The Students' Notebook

Legal Disclaimer

2005-11-01T00:00:00.000-08:00

By visiting this website and reading its contents (i.e. The Students' Notebook), you hereby automatically agree to the following :

1.) That this website is not political in nature, and is not intended to. It is for academic and educational purposes. There is also no intention to incite anger or discord - Viewers are welcomed to offer opposing views if they disagree.

2.) Copyrighted reports may be reproduced, but this is in accordance to 'Fair Dealing' under the Copyright Law, which states that :

"the purpose reporting of current events; for the purpose of judicial proceedings or professional advice would not constitute an infringement. In the case of criticism or review and the reporting of current events, a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is required."

3.) Content posted is the opinon of the individual poster himself/herself only and do not represent anyone else (including fellow contributors). The owners shall neither take any responsibility, nor be liable for any loss or damage resulting from the use/misuse of this website.

4.) Neither do we endorse nor take responsibility for any information or opinion expressed in anyway by any third party in any comments, trackbacks or links which are external to this website.

SHOULD THE READER NOT AGREE TO THE PROVISIONS STATED ABOVE, YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE YOUR USE OF THIS WEBSITE IMMEDIATELY.

En & Hou, et al.
The Students' Notebook