There is only so much of the PAP candidate Chan Chun Sing that i can stand listening to. This guy exemplifies everything that is bad about English in Singapore. This wouldn't matter in everyday life, but here is a candidate potentially being groomed for a ministerial position. His grammar is non-existent, his enunciation is dismal and his accents throughout his sentences are seemingly random. It boggles my mind how someone who has spent 4 years in Cambridge University and Oxford can have this level of spoken English. His language skills is merely the first impression. As for the substance of his speeches, his analogies are irrelevant and obfuscate his points, and every interview question he answers is filled with rhetoric, like he was a character from a civics and moral education textbook. Yes, remember that one? Hao Gong Ming?
Let's take one of his interviews as an example. The question was, what grassroots experience do you have? He starts by saying that he started only 10 days ago due to his previous job, which required clear separation between military and civilian life. In the 10 days, he was working in Buona Vista, which is a microcosm (one of his favourite words) of Singapore. The question is, how do you bring them togetherThe challenges that people in Buona Vista faced, were not that much different from what his men in the military faced. Everyone has different aspirations and challenges, and the question is how would one bring all these people together? He was impressed with the poor people he met, who were disciplined and determined to climb out of poverty. He was inspired to try and do better. He was more concerned however, with the group who was slightly more priviledged, but need a little help with their financial circumstances, that despite the fact that they have more, they may need more help. He hopes to bring the community together where the haves can help the have-nots, then the community will be strong. He said that poverty will always exist in society, and the important thing is to have the rich help the poor. Then he invokes his 'hero' Spidey. Those who have the means should reach out to the less fortunate. He goes on to cite his 'humble' beginnings and how he has risen and benefitted from the system. He wants to ensure that next generation Singaporeans will be able to continue to benefit from this system, so that able and willing people can always rise up regardless of their circumstance.
How did his grassroots experience turn into quoting Spiderman and rising up regardless of circumstance? His directionless ramble managed to touch upon an unidentified group of slightly priviledged people who need help, having the rich help the poor, and maintaining a system of social mobility.
Nowhere in there was a discussion of the causes of poverty in Singapore, concrete plans on how he was going to get the able to help the poor or even a hint at his ideological stand on whether it should be the government's job to alleviate poverty. It was just three minutes of fluff and rhetoric.
Can we finally have someone of more substance? Next....
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Tiger mums and GRCs
It is well-documented from education studies that when teachers and schools set a high but realistic expectation for their students, these students tend to do better (see Rutter 1979, Fifteen Thousand Hours). Schools where weaker students are identified and constantly bombarded with the message that they are not good enough will tend to do badly. The psychological effect of subtle messages around us has a larger power than many of us realize. It is common sense that constantly being told that you're not smart will probably have a devastating effect on your self-esteem and confidence, and inadvertently have the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Now let's suppose that a government and her citizens have a teacher-student relationship. This analogy might seem a little of a stretch for most countries, but in campaign-loving and paternalistic Singapore this dynamic seems to exist. From the 'Stop at Two' to littering to speaking English, the government constantly preaches to her citizens the lesson currently in vogue, attempting to change behaviors through a blend of nudges and shoves. If the government were to learn any lessons from education research, how should it approach its relationship with her citizens?
The Chinese culture seems to believe in the tough-love way of teaching. Tiger Mom thought nothing of belittling her daughter to push her towards excellence. My JC Chinese teacher exemplified this when she told me I should thank my lucky stars for getting a B for my AO exam and not waste my time trying for a better grade. Was she trying to spur me to a better grade? Or did she really think an A grade was beyond my abilities? Either way I was hurt. I often feel the same hurt when I read the Straits Times. Hurt by the low expectation that the government seems to set for her citizens. Hurt that they constantly belittle the intelligence and collective spirit of Singaporeans.
'Singaporean votes are not mature enough to vote beyond racial lines', we are told over and over again. That is why we need a GRC system to ensure minority representation. Yet, I always want to scream at the newpapers. 'Please let me decide for myself! Stop telling me what you think I will do!' This relationship between the government and her people is Uniquely Singaporean. I do not know of another country where politicians can get away with insulting the electorate. Instead, in most places you get a more encouraging 'yes-you-can-do-it' message.
“A poll says 90 percent of Chinese Singaporeans say they will elect a non-Chinese as PM. Yes, this is the ideal. You believe these polls? Utter rubbish. They say what is politically correct,”
Well guess what? After a few decades of being told we are not ready for full racial integration, we might really start believing it.
What if I heard this message instead?
We are proud to be multiracial and multicultural. We may still be stuck voting along racial lines (I don't personally believe this to be true), but let's try to be conscious of this and aspire to be a nation that can vote in a minority candidate! I believe that Singapore can and will look beyond racial differences, because all Singaporeans ultimately wish for such a society for their children.
I might just start believing this...
Now let's suppose that a government and her citizens have a teacher-student relationship. This analogy might seem a little of a stretch for most countries, but in campaign-loving and paternalistic Singapore this dynamic seems to exist. From the 'Stop at Two' to littering to speaking English, the government constantly preaches to her citizens the lesson currently in vogue, attempting to change behaviors through a blend of nudges and shoves. If the government were to learn any lessons from education research, how should it approach its relationship with her citizens?
The Chinese culture seems to believe in the tough-love way of teaching. Tiger Mom thought nothing of belittling her daughter to push her towards excellence. My JC Chinese teacher exemplified this when she told me I should thank my lucky stars for getting a B for my AO exam and not waste my time trying for a better grade. Was she trying to spur me to a better grade? Or did she really think an A grade was beyond my abilities? Either way I was hurt. I often feel the same hurt when I read the Straits Times. Hurt by the low expectation that the government seems to set for her citizens. Hurt that they constantly belittle the intelligence and collective spirit of Singaporeans.
'Singaporean votes are not mature enough to vote beyond racial lines', we are told over and over again. That is why we need a GRC system to ensure minority representation. Yet, I always want to scream at the newpapers. 'Please let me decide for myself! Stop telling me what you think I will do!' This relationship between the government and her people is Uniquely Singaporean. I do not know of another country where politicians can get away with insulting the electorate. Instead, in most places you get a more encouraging 'yes-you-can-do-it' message.
“A poll says 90 percent of Chinese Singaporeans say they will elect a non-Chinese as PM. Yes, this is the ideal. You believe these polls? Utter rubbish. They say what is politically correct,”
Well guess what? After a few decades of being told we are not ready for full racial integration, we might really start believing it.
What if I heard this message instead?
We are proud to be multiracial and multicultural. We may still be stuck voting along racial lines (I don't personally believe this to be true), but let's try to be conscious of this and aspire to be a nation that can vote in a minority candidate! I believe that Singapore can and will look beyond racial differences, because all Singaporeans ultimately wish for such a society for their children.
I might just start believing this...
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Getting ahead of oneself
Election fever has hit Singapore. Going by the groundswell of sentiment on the Singaporean blogosphere, you may be led to think that popular anger at the PAP government is going to lose them quite a few constituencies this time around. Yet going by the results of the last election, it seems this anger is peculiar to the small segment of the Singaporean population that makes up the blogosphere. Many other blogs or sites have touched on this issue so I won’t repeat it. Instead, I have been thinking about the PAP’s latest petulant complaint, that opposition candidates are received with open arms and much less scrutiny than the PAP ones. Well guess what? This is a phenomenon that results directly from PAP politics!
In the past, opposition candidates were either weakened through lawsuits to the point of bankruptcy (JBJ and CSJ) or exiled to foreign nations (Francis Seow etc). Those that were deemed safe enough to coexist with the PAP government were constantly subject to character assassinations and smear campaigns. They were ridiculed for bad grades (CST) or some other personal failing. We were led to believe that PAP candidates were the best because of their combination of good grades in school, top educational pedigree and successful careers. Opposition members were painted over as mediocre students, slipper-wearing crackpots, extreme radicals or mentally-disturbed sociopaths.
If we believed this hook line and sinker, then it’s no surprise that with the unveiling of the latest opposition candidates, the public would embrace them so warmly. Whether or not good grades and educational pedigree make for good leaders, the opposition can boast of having the same if not better caliber candidates as the PAP. With years of making us believe that these were the qualities that made for a good MP, the PAP’s strategy is now inadvertently legitimizing the candidacy of the opposition. Furthermore, years of ‘fixing’ the opposition has resulted in a climate of fear, so that any opposition candidates who emerge that do not appear clinically insane, are instantly perceived as brave, courageous and patriotic. Can the PAP’s policies back-fire any worse than this?
In a sense, the environment that the PAP has created selects for a certain breed of opposition candidates. While I do not know any one of the opposition candidates personally, here is my guess of what his or her typical profile is, based on age group. For those in their thirties and forties, he (or she) is likely to be working in a private company or have started his own company. He is very idealistic and possibly driven by religious motivations, and sincerely believes that with more alternative voices in parliament change can come about. For those older, he is likely to have been very successful in his career and felt that it is time to serve the public. He is driven more by frustration at recent policies and a sense of nostalgia for a Singapore of the past.
Conversely, the PAP’s history of trooping out one Oxbridge graduate after another sets up a self-reinforcing system, so that future candidates not from the same mould are scrutinized to a greater degree. The initial curiosity into Tin Pei Ling’s personal life is probably driven by the desire to know the qualities that got her selected over other qualified candidates. When the public balked at her lack of stellar achievements, she did not help matters by flubbing her debutante media appearance. Her Palinesque lack of substance did not fit the mould of the typical PAP candidate, drawing her even more flak. Once the PAP set the standard for high-achieving candidates, they cannot blame the public for spurning their latest insipid offering, for the public is just holding them to the high lofty standards they have painstakingly created in our minds.
In the past, opposition candidates were either weakened through lawsuits to the point of bankruptcy (JBJ and CSJ) or exiled to foreign nations (Francis Seow etc). Those that were deemed safe enough to coexist with the PAP government were constantly subject to character assassinations and smear campaigns. They were ridiculed for bad grades (CST) or some other personal failing. We were led to believe that PAP candidates were the best because of their combination of good grades in school, top educational pedigree and successful careers. Opposition members were painted over as mediocre students, slipper-wearing crackpots, extreme radicals or mentally-disturbed sociopaths.
If we believed this hook line and sinker, then it’s no surprise that with the unveiling of the latest opposition candidates, the public would embrace them so warmly. Whether or not good grades and educational pedigree make for good leaders, the opposition can boast of having the same if not better caliber candidates as the PAP. With years of making us believe that these were the qualities that made for a good MP, the PAP’s strategy is now inadvertently legitimizing the candidacy of the opposition. Furthermore, years of ‘fixing’ the opposition has resulted in a climate of fear, so that any opposition candidates who emerge that do not appear clinically insane, are instantly perceived as brave, courageous and patriotic. Can the PAP’s policies back-fire any worse than this?
In a sense, the environment that the PAP has created selects for a certain breed of opposition candidates. While I do not know any one of the opposition candidates personally, here is my guess of what his or her typical profile is, based on age group. For those in their thirties and forties, he (or she) is likely to be working in a private company or have started his own company. He is very idealistic and possibly driven by religious motivations, and sincerely believes that with more alternative voices in parliament change can come about. For those older, he is likely to have been very successful in his career and felt that it is time to serve the public. He is driven more by frustration at recent policies and a sense of nostalgia for a Singapore of the past.
Conversely, the PAP’s history of trooping out one Oxbridge graduate after another sets up a self-reinforcing system, so that future candidates not from the same mould are scrutinized to a greater degree. The initial curiosity into Tin Pei Ling’s personal life is probably driven by the desire to know the qualities that got her selected over other qualified candidates. When the public balked at her lack of stellar achievements, she did not help matters by flubbing her debutante media appearance. Her Palinesque lack of substance did not fit the mould of the typical PAP candidate, drawing her even more flak. Once the PAP set the standard for high-achieving candidates, they cannot blame the public for spurning their latest insipid offering, for the public is just holding them to the high lofty standards they have painstakingly created in our minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)