Sin’s champalan Education System a flop

Now am I getting some attention? Our highly regarded education system, churning out robot like straight A students like a factory cannot be champalan, cannot be a flop. How can it be? Just hear me out why our education system is a big failure.

The flaws in our system are mirroring the flaws in our social economic system. Somehow the acts and intentions were there but the plot was lost. We wanted the best from our students. In the process we developed a highly stressful system that many students and parents are unable to cope with the pressure. Along the way some pressure were released to make the system less harsh. Then the wise parents and educators started to think about a holistic education system, the best in all fields to churn out the best all round products that money can buy.

What we ended up with are half baked students in everything. Academically good but not good enough to be trusted for top jobs. Good in sports but not good enough to win medals. Good in the arts but not good enough to be in fame. We forgot that not everyone is a diamond to start with. Some are rubies, jade, agate, moonstone or simply pebbles. No matter how they are polished, the agate, moonstone or pebbles will still be pebbles, maybe with a little better polished.

And the holistic approach is good in concept but bad in the results. Our students will turn out knowing a bit of everything, a wholesome education, a wholesome individual, but unable to compete with the best in their respective fields of academic excellence, arts and sports.

The less affluent countries simply do what they think is good for a child to excel in a specific field, be it academic, arts or in sports. Full effort, time and resources, were devoted to a narrow and clear goal, to be the best in the chosen field. There is no pretension to be everything. No such nonsense as wanting to be the best in all fields in one average child. Even an exceptionally gifted child will have problems becoming an Einstein, a Mozart, a Husain Bolt and a Bill Gates put into one. It is just impossible. No one has been so gifted in the history of civilization. But that is what our parents and educators are trying to do. I will take back my words if they really believe in a holistic education, an all rounder but average in everything and are happy with it.

The stress part is that with such high expectations, our students are really going through three educational systems in one go. There is the formal school system, the informal tuition system, and the parent imposed and paid classes in arts and sports. Are the children being stressed, or being cooked?

And the truth is in the pudding. See our education products in the real world. In the industries and professions they are not good enough compared to the FTs who did not go through a holistic and highly stressed system. In sports and the arts, there is nothing worth mentioning.

So, isn’t our champalan, bao ka liao education system a big flop, producing students that know a bit of this and that but excelling in nothing? We are trying to do so many things and expecting excellence without knowing the limitations of time and resources and the limits of an individual child. Many are just pebbles and will be pebbles. We need to face this hard truth and cater to the abilities of different children according to what they are naturally gifted to do best. Holistic education is good but has its price to pay. There are merits in specialized education and general education and not every child must be cast by the same mould.

A more deep seated problem in FT craze

The original concept of hiring FTs and foreign sportsmen and women was to use them as a catalyst to stimulate the growth of locals, to learn from them, to be better. And eventually, when our locals have reached a higher skill level and can compete in the international arena and win honours, the scheme could, I think, peters away. The intent was to train our locals, to raise their standards not to replace them with foreign talents especially in sports.



What happens to the quality of sportsmen and women in the few high profile sports like swimming, football and table tennis? You need me to tell you that they are now worst than before? Where are the Pat Chans and Joycelyn Tays and Junie Sngs? In football, where are the Fandis, the Quah brothers, the Rajagopals, the Samads? We can’t even beat a Malaysian state team when we were Champions in the Malaysia Cup, in many Southeast Asian tournaments. Are we improving or downgrading? How many international table tennis players, locals, have we produced?



The reality is that the dependency is growing like drugs. We are now more or less totally dependent on foreigners in these sports. The quality of locals is getting from bad to worst. This is a very serious matter as opportunities and resources spent on foreigners and not on locals would mean the latter would not get better. Soon there would not be any local talents left in these sports. The national football coach is another glaring example. We used to have Choo Seng Quee and some other local coaches. These are likely to have been buried and forgotten and nothing in the pipeline to replace the great foreign coaches who were imported to replace them.



What is more serious is in the industrial and commercial sectors. When we keep bringing in foreigners to replace the locals, we will soon be addicted to foreigners who will keep improving their skills and experience for the opportunities we gave them. Our locals that have been replaced will degenerate and become less skill and less experience less valuable and less marketable. It is a vicious cycle. We will end up with lesser skill locals and more skilled foreigners in our midst. It will come a time when we are highly dependent on foreigners and have serious problems weaning away from this dependency.



Having foreign talents to replace the locals have far reaching adverse consequences in the long term. Locals not given the chance, not given the opportunities will not be able to acquire the critically needed exposure and experience to move up the skill levels and professional competency. That is why though we are the biggest financial centre in Southeast Asia, our top bankers are always from foreign talents because we do not give our locals a chance.



Look at the political theatre, we have greenhorns and little boys and girls being placed in political leadership roles to learn the ropes. Not giving them such chances they will never be able to claim being there and done that. There is political training and renewal, but sadly this is lacking in the industries and in commerce and also in sports.



It is time to turn the clock around to train our own people, give them the opportunities to earn their rights to be at the top of their sports and professions. This is elementary, Watson! We are now bringing in inexperienced foreigners, train them, expose them, give them all the opportunities and resources to improve their skills and experience just to replace the locals. Is this not stupidity, what is? If we don’t give our own citizens the opportunities who will?

Own a piece of art by an inhuman artist, Mother Nature

Tapestry

Many collectors have built a collection of paintings and other works of art by great painters. None has ever own a piece of painting created by Mother Nature. Now you can own a piece of painting conceptualised and painted by the hands of Mother Nature.

The Exhibition is at NUSS Guild House at Kent Ridge till 21 Dec 12.

Sunday’s political trivials

Xi Jinping is expected to take over the leadership of China after the national Congress that is now in progress. There is a nice photo of him today in the Sunday Times, plus a few others in his team. In fact the ST has been introducing the Chinese leaders for the past weeks. A few distinct features can be drawn from the crop of Chinese leaders. These include thick black hair nicely combed and oiled, a white shirt and a govt issued casual zipped jacket on the outside.

According to ST’s China correspondent Grace Ng, these features have their specific meanings. Nicely oiled and combed hair signifies pragmatism, white shirt means rigid professionalism but tempered by a casual jacket probably meaning not too dogmatic and rather down to earth, a leader closely in touch with the ground. The whole package is simply a no nonsense and task oriented pragmatic leadership, nothing frivolous.

What is obvious is the thick black hair on the roof of these leaders. They must have taken the advice by LKY seriously, that leadership must be kept young and vibrant, not oldies that are stuck in the mud with their obsolescent ways of thinking and ideas. And they will maintain this profile throughout their 4 or 8 years in power. Quite a remarkable achievement, looking at Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao and the whole team. They hardly age at all. Maybe the task is easy in a communist state. Maybe they think less hard or no need to work so hard and thus were able to keep their hair black in tact. I am really surprise that they could retain their youthfulness while carrying such huge responsibilities and load on their shoulders. Their hair only turned white after they left office. Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji were two good examples. Perhaps they lost all the privileges and the good life in office, no more free medical and goodies that came along while in high office.

Our leaders used to have some similar features, black hair and a suit of simple white shirt and pants. I am not sure if they have the same meaning as the Chinese leaders. Let me hazard a guess. Thick black hair signifies youth. White shirt and pants are often associated with pragmatism and even incorruptibility. These were the characteristics of our past leaders and today it is a different story.

Our political leaders entered politics young and with a nice black crop of hair. Heng Swee Kiat and the two generals are good examples. But within a few terms they would all turn grey or white, looking very wise and dignified. And they would stay that way till they are retired.

The white shirts have changed to something more casual and colourful. The favourite colour is pink or red. And designer jacket is often seen in Parliament. Oh, one more thing, our leaders are mostly nerdy looking in the sense that many put on glasses. The difference is that the glasses could be fashionably thick framed like celebrities. This could mean a more affluent society where life is more enjoyable, living life to the fullest. There is no govt issue jacket to come along.

The grey or white hair or no hair must be telling. Working too hard or thinking too hard to run this unique little island to be the best in the world. This must have taken its toll on their crowning glory. A little dyeing could help to retain that youthful look if they don’t mind trading the look of wisdom that came with grey and white, or the classic balding professori image.

I think the Chinese leaders are having a good deal, less stressful, and an easier job to handle. Or perhaps if they were given a chance to stay as long as they want in power, they would also look like our leaders, ageing wise men. I deliberately left out women as they are still young and beautiful.

Would China and Japan go to war over Diaoyu Islands?

This was the discussion topic that had seen several reruns on CNA’s Perspective programme hosted by Pek Lian. The participants were Tommy Koh and Lam Peng Er, the latter is likely to be a Singaporean too, Victor Gao from China and Takaaki Kojima from Japan.

The issue of Diaoyu/Senkaku is quite clear. The islands were seized from China under the Unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1894 after China was defeated by Japan. They were war loots. The islands were supposed to be returned to China after Japan’s defeat in WW2. But the Americans was tasked to be the trustee, tried to return to Chiang Kai Shek, but he preferred the US to keep them in case he lost Taiwan to the Communists and had some where to run to. The US gave administrative control of the islands to Japan in 1972 after falling out with Communist China and the start of the Cold War.

In 1972, Zhou Enlai and Tanaka signed a communiqué agreeing to keep the status of the islands on hold, but also with Japan agreeing to abide by the post war treaties of Potsdam and Cairo. The sovereignty of the islands was thus kept in the back burner till it flared up again when Shintaro Ishihara hatched a scheme to buy it from another Japanese, thus sealing the fate of the islands as Japanese territories. China protested strongly against such a move.

On the pretext of easing tension, Japanese PM tried to con the Chinese with another sure win scheme, to nationalise the islands. Under both con jobs, the islands would be officially recognised as Japanese islands if they were executed. And China would have lost the islands by a fait accompli for not protesting.

The position of the two Singaporeans was simple enough. Please don’t go to war as it would hurt both countries. The neutral stance is understandable as they did not have any stakes to consider.

The Chinese position was also simple. The islands were Chinese territory and China would fight to keep them at all cost. China was willing to maintain status quo but Japan had pushed China to react and China would have to let the world know that these were undisputed Chinese islands. Not negotiable.

The Japanese position was also simple. It refused to acknowledge that the islands were seized from China and claimed that those were Japanese islands. And to further perpetuate its con job, even accused China for raising tension.

The Chinese would not fall victim to this con job. But Tommy Koh was conned all the way. He swallowed hook, line and sinker thrown out by the Japanese. He did not even want to dispute Japanese claim to the islands, and through his comments that was a settled issue.

And he tried to throw smoke to compare Germany and Japan’s remorse after the WW2 and urged both parties not to go to war. The official position of Germany and Japan, to acknowledge the war atrocities and aggression, was really a moot point and secondary in the discussion.

Tommy asked whether China would risk and waste resources and lives over a few pieces of worthless rocks. Or would Japan do likewise over these rocks. He forgot that China lost the islands to the Japanese and the Japanese was the illegal owner of Chinese islands.

Another point of naivety exposed in Tommy was his belief that the US did not want to see a war between Japan and China. Unbelieveable to think that he is a veteran in international relations! Yes, the US would not want to be involved in a direct war with China. An open conflict between Japan and China would be most welcomed. Whatever treaty it has with Japan, it would use it expediently to serve its selfish interest. It would be in a very advantageous position to calibrate its response, likely to start with lip service, then supply and sell more arms to Japan, and finally decide whether to commit arms and its military forces to the conflict, depending on the outcome of the war. The Chinese and Japanese would have to kill each other first before the Americans decide what to do, just like WW2. Let them cripple themselves, their economies, lives and resources. The Americans can march in as the victor at the closing chapters.

The island dispute is really about sovereignty, about national pride, about ownership. Why should China give up fighting for its own islands? Or why should Japan not return the islands to China without going to war?  Who is the net loser or gainer? Not going to war, China lost. Returning the islands to China, Japan did not lose anything and could lead to a real closure to WW2. Why would Japan want to risk going to war again with China by keeping a few worthless pieces of rocks, in the view of Tommy Koh, that it stole from China?

This is the real issue that would have to be settled between China and Japan now or later, not the apologies and gestures of remorse. Return the islands and everything would be back to square one and bringing about a full closure of Japanese aggression against China and the Chinese people. Is this so hard to understand? Why are the recalcitrant Japanese so persistent in holding on to war loots it took by forced and risking a war with China some time tomorrow? They are peaceful people? They started the war of aggression not only against China but the whole of East and Southeast Asia and against the US.