The current education system has too many flaws and causing too much stress on the children. It is very unhealthy, too exam oriented and does little to develop character and good values and did not produce a well rounded person on graduation. What should be done is to study the feedbacks of parents and their children, understand what they want, what they fear, their expectations and dislikes, and put them together in a neat little basket to please parents and children for a more holistic and inclusive education, developing the sporting talents at the same time, wholesome and good character building and with straight As of course.
For a start, too much emphasis on exam grades is bad. Too much elitist bias is bad. The branded schools should go and all the schools should be made more equal and the spread of students spread equally to all schools, including the spread of good and bad teachers. This will not only level the playing field, it has plenty of wholesome goodness. The more talented students will have a chance to mix with the less talented and empathise with them. Good for bonding and the removal of elitist thinking.
The curriculum should be reduced, teach less and learn more is good. Children must have a lot of time to play, which will also develop their friendliness and EQ. Play if specially coordinated can be part of the sports training to develop the children into future champions as well.
Second Language or mother tongue shall be made optional. Children should not be stressed to learn something they dislike, like their mother tongue. The future will be mono lingual, maybe just English. Plan for the future and help the future to succeed.
And science and mathematics are just too restrictive. Allow the children to read other subjects as well. Reduce the time from science and maths and spread them to other subject. This can include ethics and morals, how to be good citizens.
And make sure the students have good grades. Ask the parents how many As they want their children to have. Make the necessary moderation to make the parents and children happy. Having more than 50 per cent with straight As may be too much and people will question the standard of our education. 20 percent straight As should be a nice number, follow by 20 percent with 4 As and 20 percent with 2As. Another 30 percent should be for those with Bs and Cs and balance 10 percent, make it 9 percent pass and 1 percent unable to make it. This would be good news for parents and children. What? Not good enough? OK make it 30 percent straight As and adjust accordingly.
And I forgot, articulation skill is very important. Our children are quite tongue tied and find difficulties in expressing themselves. Have more debating classes and social interaction time for students to debate with each other. Such skills will be good if they later choose to become politicians. They can continue debating in Parliament.
Did I miss out anything? I think that’s about it. This must be the most wholesome and happy education system for happy parents and children. And all guarantees to have good grades. Oh, oh, one more thing, no homework. I remember those days when I was in school, barely any homework except when punished to write lines. The free time available can be used to explore the neighbourhood and play with the neighbour’s children.
Think about it, the best education system we ever had was in the 50s and 60s. Every day is fun. Have fun in school and have fun after school. Only thing bad then was the red marks. But this can be fixed with moderation to make parents proud of their children’s grades. What is important is an enriching and rewarding experience for both parents and children. And the teachers must also inculcate into the children that winning all the time, being the best all the time is not necessary a good thing. In life, there are many other better things to achieve than just winning. Always think of the losers before one thinks of winning. I think this last sentence is the best part. Just imagine the look on the loser’s face. That is satisfaction beyond words. : )
Specialised or customized is good, generalized is bad. General education is good, streaming is bad. Elite school is bad, neighbourhood school is good. Now I got myself confused.
4/11/2012
Medical Insurance coverage at 90!
Why does a person need medical insurance coverage at 90, or 70? Well if one is LKY or Wee Cho Yaw, when life is a bliss, when everyday extra on earth is better than another day in paradise, you would need insurance even at 100 with the premium costing $100k a year.
Would a 70 year old retiree need to have medical insurance if he is living alone in his lease buy back flat or with his retired wife? Or would a retiree living with his children, supported by his children, still need medical insurance at 70? He will if he wants to continue to live to 100 and pay for all the gadgets they are going to insert into his body or chop dying parts off his body when the parts are not working anymore.
I would say this is a very subjective point. I do not need insurance at 70. I rather use the money to amuse myself or give it to the children and grandchildren. What is the point of paying so much insurance and more for medical bills that may come to hundreds of thousands when one is already 70? But if one has all the money in the world, why not?
Consider an average person with no income, just living and waiting to be called home to the Lord, is it worth it to spend the children’s money, a few hundred thousands, to live for another few months or few years? Is it worth it to spend whatever that is left in one’s CPF savings, including the ransom held for one’s own good in Medisave for more insurance premium? It may be an issue of affordability or an issue of where to spend the money.
A lease buy back scheme on a HDB flat may not be enough for a long hospital stay. It will bankrupt people under such scheme as the bill is no small matter. And after paying the bill and with nothing left, then what?
The thought of medical insurance after 70 is amusing. The thought of medical insurance at 90 must be a joke to many.
Would a 70 year old retiree need to have medical insurance if he is living alone in his lease buy back flat or with his retired wife? Or would a retiree living with his children, supported by his children, still need medical insurance at 70? He will if he wants to continue to live to 100 and pay for all the gadgets they are going to insert into his body or chop dying parts off his body when the parts are not working anymore.
I would say this is a very subjective point. I do not need insurance at 70. I rather use the money to amuse myself or give it to the children and grandchildren. What is the point of paying so much insurance and more for medical bills that may come to hundreds of thousands when one is already 70? But if one has all the money in the world, why not?
Consider an average person with no income, just living and waiting to be called home to the Lord, is it worth it to spend the children’s money, a few hundred thousands, to live for another few months or few years? Is it worth it to spend whatever that is left in one’s CPF savings, including the ransom held for one’s own good in Medisave for more insurance premium? It may be an issue of affordability or an issue of where to spend the money.
A lease buy back scheme on a HDB flat may not be enough for a long hospital stay. It will bankrupt people under such scheme as the bill is no small matter. And after paying the bill and with nothing left, then what?
The thought of medical insurance after 70 is amusing. The thought of medical insurance at 90 must be a joke to many.
4/10/2012
Would PAP eat its own words?
Speculations abound of a by election in Hougang plus one or plus two GRCs. Technically Tanjong Pagar is due for a by election and so is Marine Parade. One candidate is time to exit and one still a big liability. Talks of Hsien Loong vacating Ang Mo Kio is too far fetched. He cannot afford to put his head on the chopping block. An election is an election and anyone can lose. Unless he is planning for his own exit from politics.
The other key consideration is what PAP had said about holding by election. It is an expensive exercise, very serious, and not masak masak. You get the people to elect their representatives and don’t suka suka decide to change the MPs after a year and replace with new candidates. It does not bode well on the PAP in their choice of candidates and how they regard by elections, which they had sneered at the sacking of Yaw Shin Loong. In the case of Yaw, there is an element of indiscretion and integrity which are compelling enough to have a change of candidacy.
There are no extenuating circumstances for the PAP to be able to justify having by elections in other wards or GRCs just to replace a candidate. It will be going against what they had said. They can’t be telling the people of Tanjong Pagar that LKY is retiring after one year in office. They should have known. Neither can they announce that a MP has to give way for being found unsuitable.
So, how believeable is this talk of more than one by elections? It could be a red herring being thrown out to get everyone excited for whatever reasons. It could be a lure to entrap the adventurous.
The other key consideration is what PAP had said about holding by election. It is an expensive exercise, very serious, and not masak masak. You get the people to elect their representatives and don’t suka suka decide to change the MPs after a year and replace with new candidates. It does not bode well on the PAP in their choice of candidates and how they regard by elections, which they had sneered at the sacking of Yaw Shin Loong. In the case of Yaw, there is an element of indiscretion and integrity which are compelling enough to have a change of candidacy.
There are no extenuating circumstances for the PAP to be able to justify having by elections in other wards or GRCs just to replace a candidate. It will be going against what they had said. They can’t be telling the people of Tanjong Pagar that LKY is retiring after one year in office. They should have known. Neither can they announce that a MP has to give way for being found unsuitable.
So, how believeable is this talk of more than one by elections? It could be a red herring being thrown out to get everyone excited for whatever reasons. It could be a lure to entrap the adventurous.
Third world thinking cap
We are here today proclaiming that we are in the first world of developed countries. We got here today, from the third world, by thinking first world. The basic thinking was that everything must work. There is no excuse for failure. And definitely no excuse for failures when the cause is known well in advanced. Claiming that because of such and such, failure is something to live by is third world thinking, unbefitting of first world, unless we want to progress back to the third world, when things are less demanding.
Just because we have brought in a few million people into this little piece of rock does not mean that the problems must be something to live with. The problems we are facing today, unfortunately, was due to incompetency, poor planning and coordination, hardly anything about thinking ahead of problems, pro active, nipping problems at the bud. Thinking ahead and preventing problems from cropping up are first world thinking, but it seems that we are losing it.
Today we live in denial, pretend there is no problem or insist that there is no problem, talk away the problem using the media, once in 50 years, cannot be solved, so be it.
So, the next best thing is to think like third world. We have to live with the problems we created and failed to anticipate. The worst that can be is to be fourth world if there is a fourth world, knowing the cause of the problem and stubbornly encouraging it, in this case over population and still asking for more.
How thick can that be? Fourth world thinking or delusionary thinking?
Just because we have brought in a few million people into this little piece of rock does not mean that the problems must be something to live with. The problems we are facing today, unfortunately, was due to incompetency, poor planning and coordination, hardly anything about thinking ahead of problems, pro active, nipping problems at the bud. Thinking ahead and preventing problems from cropping up are first world thinking, but it seems that we are losing it.
Today we live in denial, pretend there is no problem or insist that there is no problem, talk away the problem using the media, once in 50 years, cannot be solved, so be it.
So, the next best thing is to think like third world. We have to live with the problems we created and failed to anticipate. The worst that can be is to be fourth world if there is a fourth world, knowing the cause of the problem and stubbornly encouraging it, in this case over population and still asking for more.
How thick can that be? Fourth world thinking or delusionary thinking?
A brutal admission of grave errors
Light is shining through the thick foliage of the old oak tree. For 46 years, never has an individual got the guts to speak out so violently against the ills of the system, against a cancerous growth that all pretends not to see while the beneficiaries are lapping them up as their ill gotten rights.
Professor Lim Chong Yah has made a strong recommendation for radical reforms in our wage structure. Among his recommendations is a 50% increase of wages for those earning $1,500 or less per month and the freezing of wages for those earning $15,000 per month for three years. Those in between will continue to enjoy moderate wage increases with the main purpose of closing the widening wage gap.
The recommendations come at a time that calls or demands for drastic change which would otherwise be mulled over with some cosmetic changes to placate the victims of the economic structure.
Immediately we are hearing growls of pain and suffering from the super talents. Foul, foul, they screamed. Why should they continue to work when there is no increment for three years? The world appreciates their talents and they will move to greener pastures. And there are those earning in the millions that will see their days darkened. How could they survive the three years of drought without any pay rise? It is frightening. This country’s progress today is the fruit and effort of the super talents. If we lose them, we will, yes, go back to the third world 60s.
I think we should take a gamble and let our super talents move to greener pastures if they are that good. Sure they will find better paying jobs in the world. The whole world is waiting for them with open arms and willing to pay them the obscene pay they are getting today. Oops, maybe got to rethink this statement again. If we have to continuously import foreign talents to fill up top jobs, I doubt we have many super talents to go around. And knowing how protective are other countries are of their top jobs, I bet not even a handful will be hired if they quit their jobs in this island.
My apologies to the top talents here who feel that they will be able to land better jobs across the world. Some will, definitely. But if we look at Lim Chong Yah’s recommendations from the super talents’ point of view I think it also makes sense. What if it is true, all our super talents are hired in Wall Street and Fleet Street, in Europe and Japan, our little economic miracles will vanish over night. This is equally frightening.
A safer bet, not to risk the great economic progress that we are enjoying, is to reverse the recommendations. For those who are earning $15,000 and more, their income shall be raised by 50% over the next three years. Those earning less than $1,500 pm shall have wage freeze for the next three years. The recommendation for the in between group can be as recommended. This approach would definitely energise our super talents to work much harder and propel our economic miracle to greater height. Isn’t that what we want? It is all about meritocracy and the meritorious should deserve all the merits. And those earning a million can expect another half a million increase over the three year period. Those earning $5m can expect $2.5m increase. That would be great and we will have more multi millionaires.
Now which way shall we go? Maybe we will need another GE to decide what is the better move.
Professor Lim Chong Yah has made a strong recommendation for radical reforms in our wage structure. Among his recommendations is a 50% increase of wages for those earning $1,500 or less per month and the freezing of wages for those earning $15,000 per month for three years. Those in between will continue to enjoy moderate wage increases with the main purpose of closing the widening wage gap.
The recommendations come at a time that calls or demands for drastic change which would otherwise be mulled over with some cosmetic changes to placate the victims of the economic structure.
Immediately we are hearing growls of pain and suffering from the super talents. Foul, foul, they screamed. Why should they continue to work when there is no increment for three years? The world appreciates their talents and they will move to greener pastures. And there are those earning in the millions that will see their days darkened. How could they survive the three years of drought without any pay rise? It is frightening. This country’s progress today is the fruit and effort of the super talents. If we lose them, we will, yes, go back to the third world 60s.
I think we should take a gamble and let our super talents move to greener pastures if they are that good. Sure they will find better paying jobs in the world. The whole world is waiting for them with open arms and willing to pay them the obscene pay they are getting today. Oops, maybe got to rethink this statement again. If we have to continuously import foreign talents to fill up top jobs, I doubt we have many super talents to go around. And knowing how protective are other countries are of their top jobs, I bet not even a handful will be hired if they quit their jobs in this island.
My apologies to the top talents here who feel that they will be able to land better jobs across the world. Some will, definitely. But if we look at Lim Chong Yah’s recommendations from the super talents’ point of view I think it also makes sense. What if it is true, all our super talents are hired in Wall Street and Fleet Street, in Europe and Japan, our little economic miracles will vanish over night. This is equally frightening.
A safer bet, not to risk the great economic progress that we are enjoying, is to reverse the recommendations. For those who are earning $15,000 and more, their income shall be raised by 50% over the next three years. Those earning less than $1,500 pm shall have wage freeze for the next three years. The recommendation for the in between group can be as recommended. This approach would definitely energise our super talents to work much harder and propel our economic miracle to greater height. Isn’t that what we want? It is all about meritocracy and the meritorious should deserve all the merits. And those earning a million can expect another half a million increase over the three year period. Those earning $5m can expect $2.5m increase. That would be great and we will have more multi millionaires.
Now which way shall we go? Maybe we will need another GE to decide what is the better move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)