It's kinda strange but I would never thought that I would actually pay so much attention to politics. To me, politics is just about cheating and winning. At the end of the day, it's not really about who is the most capable, but who is best at convincing people or handicapping others. And after election, life goes on, except the winner gets more say in how the country should be run, and more importantly how many zeroes are there behind one's salary. I assume that all these hasn't change yet, but this year is a little different, given the sudden massive uprising and challenge by opposition parties against the incumbent. The monopolist is shaken.
Let me begin delving on this topic on a lighter note. I remembered when I was young, we've been pushed to excel in academics. We were advised by parents and relatives that one needs to excel in academics in order to make a living. This... "passport" called certification. We slough through kindergarden, all the way to university, "stepping" on top of others in the process of "success". And we are so proud of ourselves for that. Yes, I know this is the reality of life, but is this what we really want? Maybe it might not matter what we want, since we cannot change reality. Oh. Really? Is that self-fulfilling prophecy in the making? Would anyone have at least done something insignificant, in hope that things would one day change? Anyway, about almost 10 years ago from today, I was told that almost all the young working populations are at least a degree holder. And I suspect that it will be Masters in another 10 years time.
What am I getting at? Why are we so... strangled by meritocracy? It's because of competition, and Singapore needs these type of unhealthy competition in order to thrive. Or so the PAP thinks. I need to clarify myself 1st. I'm not disagree that we should not have competition, but rather, we should make it a healthier one. When one's future is highly dependent solely on academic success, people will go all out for it, whether they like it all not. Some people are just better off that others academically. Some are just luckier that they were able to afford external tutions or come from knowledgeable families to help their kids "succeed". The playing field was never levelled. On a sidenote, overemphasize on education also means we are naturally short on talents in other areas. As such, we have to induct foreign talents to make up for what we don't have, and then we call these people "Singaporeans" too.
What the source of all these problems? Education. The PAP did not seemed to have the foresight to rectify the problems in our education system. At least, not until it's a tad too late now. How does Singapore wants to stay competitive? She first needs to recognise that it could compete from many angles, despite it's lack of natural resources. Any childhood psychologist can tell you that every child has different inclinations and potentials. Rather than forces them to do what they are not inclined towards, it's better to discover and develop their strengths. Does a better education system exist? Probably. Take a look at Switzerland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Switzerland
A system of apprenticeship with private companies make the knowledge that we gain more relevant. And we get to choose to go into fields we are better at. It's even ranked 1st in terms of Global Competitiveness by World Economic Forum! A further reading also reveals that the education system at some levels are highly focused on group performances, just like I polytechnic. But wait! It's almost the end if you get into polytechnic since it's difficult to get into the public university unless you're in the top 3% of the cohort! And without a degree in Singapore, you will find that you'll need workfare really soon in 20 years in an average job. Another point here to make is that education should teach cooperation at early stage of a student life, if it were to inculcate this positive value.
What? An ordinary citizen can't change the education system? Bugger. Then who can change? The government! But... who's the government? It was PAP, and they have been the incumbent for about 5 decades already. Its contribution in the 1st 3 decades was admirable, but things were about going downhill in many aspects in esp. the last decade. I wouldn't even list the screw-ups since I believe the media and oppositions have been repeating them over and over like a broken record, due to the election period. But I've stated 1 of my main concern and suggestions above, which I thought that neither the opposition nor PAP actually addresses at all.
I may seemed like an opposition supporter now, but it doesn't mean I do not weigh the value of what was said by the PAP. For example, I do agree with MM Lee that we should not move away from the manufacturing industries and focus on service industries, as per suggestion of SDP's candidate Tan Jee Say. After all, a healthy portfolio has a good mix of investments in different industries. But I would like to caution about bringing in FTs to replace existing Singaporeans, regardless of whichever industries. And that has already been the case with the 2 IRs in Singapore, with the majority of the higher mgt and base jobs going to the FTs. Singaporeans are only the really thin patty in the middle. So much for creating job opportunities.
My final concern is with how the government is going to help the poor. Yes, I know there's workfares and some low-income assistance schemes. But from what I've read (the issue was raised by my area's MP Dr Lily Neo... PAP's MP but really fabulous lady), at the really low level, the assistance schemes are only able to pay off for 2 meals a day, which equates to $6/day. All is well and fine. Wait. 2 Meals? Is that called subsistence? At the lowest level, most of them have no means of wealth growth, and they have no means of getting an income. Worse still, what happens if they need medical coverage? And what about housing loans, if any? Well, her colleagues in parliament rebutted her with the model answers of what the govt has done to help the lower income group. But Dr Neo's question was not answer, cos the problem is mention still exist AFTER all these temporary aids. Then came Dr. Balakrishnan's doctrine of no-reliance... to not advocate people's over-reliance on the govt. A be-all-end-all answer to say no to additional funding despite posting good financial results for the year. The problem here is that those at the lowest level are permanently incapable of making a living already. So should the govt just let them die since they cannot contribute?
I'm rather disturbed by this, because of where I live in. Everyday, I can see some old people sleeping on benches or cupboards below my flat when night falls. And I remembered an old lady who would lay a styrofoam box on the floor and display a few miserable stalks of parsley or leek, or 1 or 2 tomatoes of carrot, hoping that someone would buy them. My mom seemed to know this old lady and happened to find out that those are stuffs that people donated to her. And she was still sitting there until 9pm. What is the government doing to help these people all these while? Really... I don't know. In my capacity, there's only so much I can do if I buy from her, so she at least earn enough for another meal, but I can't be doing that everyday. Then, how is she going to take care of her next meal? This, is poor. Not about not being able to afford IPhone. For the most of us including myself, we're somewhat closer to the middle class. For the record, I can't afford an IPhone... yet, and I might not be keen anyway. I digressed.
And that is all I have to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment