I refer to the article “Keep quality of education consistent for all”. This article is actually a response to another article in the ‘Forum’ section of The Straits Times. It talks about meritocracy in the education system of Singapore, and that equality is more or less absent in the system, while elitism is promoted through the use of the Gifted Education and Integrated Programmes. The debate has sparked a substantial amount of controversy with the Ministry of Education arguing against critics to defend their stand that equality is present in the education system.
The author of this article feels that at the moment, the government is facing a difficult challenge of balancing their focus of equality in education among students of varying abilities. In response to the government’s stand on quality with regards to education, which the government claims to spend an equal amount of money across the various institutions across Singapore, he feels that such is not justifiable. But it is instead, the homogeneity of the quality of teaching methods and the depth of courses that are offered across schools that would define equality in our education system. I agree with this point as money distributed to schools might not all go solely into education. There’re also issues that come into play that prevent an equal education, such as the diversity of teachers. Their teaching methods and attitudes might be different. Through the course of their educating students this discrepancy might result in students with different teachers receiving different depths of education.
Also, the author feels that elitism in the education system is promoted, as can be seen from the large amounts of both funds and effort channeled into elite courses such as the Gifted Education Programme or the recently included Integrated Programme. This is due to the fact that many of Singapore’s future leaders will be sieved out from the group of students undergoing this education that differs from the mainstream. I feel that it is surely unavoidable that the future leaders of Singapore must be ready with the necessary skills and knowledge when the leadership of Singapore is thrust into their hands.
Being both a student under the Gifted Education Programme and the Integrated Programme, I guess I do feel privileged to have received a well-rounded education since primary school. But like the author of the article, I do feel that the government might be placing too much focus on the ‘elite’ student groups, and thus, they might possibly neglect the average and less able students in the process. This is what the author is trying to bring across in his article. That even if the government should assist the groups of students with better competency further their educations, the government should at the same time, strive to create a proper balance of opportunities between the students with different capabilities, to try and close up the already-widened socio-economic gap between the upper class and the middle and lower classes through equal education.
495 words
Author of article: Jonathan Tan
Article reviewed: Keep quality of education consistent for all – The Straits Times (29/08/2008), Page A38 ‘Forum’
http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=08&year=2008&date=29&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2008_9825224
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Commentary on "Democracy creates stability in a society"
Democracy is a form of government that ensures the freedom of the people. It utilizes elections to allow the citizens to choose for themselves, who their leaders are, leaders who represent the ideals that the voters desire for their country.
Thus, in many countries, a government system is implemented in aim of achieving stability within the society. Communist systems like those seen in the Soviet Republic, China and North Korea, were used so as to maintain order as the state government has enough power to control the people. With order within the nation, things can run smoothly, thereby ensuring that the countries economy remains stable.
In democracy however, it is not as simple as “the government says this, you must do this.” Democracy is a system which goes along the idea of liberalism, where people have the right to choose for themselves, but still following under the laws set down by the country’s legislature. However, it is not anarchy where people can do as they wish, as there are little to no laws to control them. Although both are similar, democracy is the one where the state has a certain amount of power; to the extent to be equals if not more powerful than the citizens it governs.
Democracy has 3 main arch-types: Direct democracy, Representative democracy, and Authoritarian democracy.
Direct democracy can be seen in Switzerland, where the Swiss have a say in everything, be it putting up a new dustbin right around the street corner or even a new law. In this case, the power is tilted towards the people, and the government is the one that implements the new ideas into effect. This is a dangerous form of democracy, though it does allow people to be happy with what they want, it has some drawbacks as well. If a poor policy is implemented, it might cause some future instability within the nation, this is especially so when the people are unsure of the consequences of their choice. Also, another downside is that as democracy compares the amount of votes against one another, there will always be a winner and a loser in the community. Unless the voting is unanimous, there will always be people who will not get what they want. This can be seen as a form of oppression of the minority, who then are unable to get what they want.
Representative democracy is more common than direct democracy; this can be seen in Singapore schools where monitors are elected to represent their class, as a figure of authority. They will usually go through a rally where they try to raise support to their cause, and will eventually get to a voting. During this voting, voters choose the potential candidates to represent the ideas they want; their chosen representatives than go into the Cabinet of the country. Therefore, by using one person to represent a group of people, efficiency can be attained as in a government vote, only one person representing their community will be voting, as such, it reduces the time taken to count votes and the policy can be implemented quickly. Although this does detach a substantial amount of power from the people to their representative, it does make a quick alternative of counting 60 votes compared to a few million votes. As with all things in life, there are drawbacks with representative democracy. It is difficult for a single person to represent the ideas of a large community, and the representative will definitely find it impossible to do everything that the community wishes them to do. And sometimes, they might not do it in the way their community wants them to do it. As with many forms of democracy, there will always be a minority in the voting. And as such, the minority might get unhappy and riot. This can create a lot of social conflict, and can influence heavily the stability of the country as a whole.
Another drawback of such democracy can be seen in the United States, when George W. Bush decided to fight a war against terrorists in Iraq. He was voted president by the people, and he screwed the people along with his country’s economy. By fighting a war, a hefty amount of money is required to fund such an effort. Back in the USA, people work to bring revenue into the country, when this money which can be put into the economic sector as investments, it instead goes to fund the war effort. This petty war coincided with the rapid decrease in the American currency, which dropped from 1.65SGD to the current 1.35SGD; that is a drop of 30 cents, which amounts to a lot in large quantities. This economic instability can be brought about when the elected member is an inexperienced politician, and his decisions might influence the stability of the country heavily.
In authoritarian democracy, things are slightly simpler, the people choose their representatives to control the country. This is useful in countries with limited resources such as manpower, and need excessively close scrutinizing to ensure the country progresses. In such a country, stability and order is maintained by a group of people who represent the government. This government has to be experienced and well-versed in ensuring that the country does not fall of the ledge in its progress.
As can be seen from the above examples, democracy is a double-edged sword, wielding it against anything that can create instability in the country it governs; except that the sword seems to be pointing towards you. Therefore, I think that it is safe to conclude that democracy can create stability in a society, provided that the citizens of the country are capable of choosing well enough for themselves.
952 words
Thus, in many countries, a government system is implemented in aim of achieving stability within the society. Communist systems like those seen in the Soviet Republic, China and North Korea, were used so as to maintain order as the state government has enough power to control the people. With order within the nation, things can run smoothly, thereby ensuring that the countries economy remains stable.
In democracy however, it is not as simple as “the government says this, you must do this.” Democracy is a system which goes along the idea of liberalism, where people have the right to choose for themselves, but still following under the laws set down by the country’s legislature. However, it is not anarchy where people can do as they wish, as there are little to no laws to control them. Although both are similar, democracy is the one where the state has a certain amount of power; to the extent to be equals if not more powerful than the citizens it governs.
Democracy has 3 main arch-types: Direct democracy, Representative democracy, and Authoritarian democracy.
Direct democracy can be seen in Switzerland, where the Swiss have a say in everything, be it putting up a new dustbin right around the street corner or even a new law. In this case, the power is tilted towards the people, and the government is the one that implements the new ideas into effect. This is a dangerous form of democracy, though it does allow people to be happy with what they want, it has some drawbacks as well. If a poor policy is implemented, it might cause some future instability within the nation, this is especially so when the people are unsure of the consequences of their choice. Also, another downside is that as democracy compares the amount of votes against one another, there will always be a winner and a loser in the community. Unless the voting is unanimous, there will always be people who will not get what they want. This can be seen as a form of oppression of the minority, who then are unable to get what they want.
Representative democracy is more common than direct democracy; this can be seen in Singapore schools where monitors are elected to represent their class, as a figure of authority. They will usually go through a rally where they try to raise support to their cause, and will eventually get to a voting. During this voting, voters choose the potential candidates to represent the ideas they want; their chosen representatives than go into the Cabinet of the country. Therefore, by using one person to represent a group of people, efficiency can be attained as in a government vote, only one person representing their community will be voting, as such, it reduces the time taken to count votes and the policy can be implemented quickly. Although this does detach a substantial amount of power from the people to their representative, it does make a quick alternative of counting 60 votes compared to a few million votes. As with all things in life, there are drawbacks with representative democracy. It is difficult for a single person to represent the ideas of a large community, and the representative will definitely find it impossible to do everything that the community wishes them to do. And sometimes, they might not do it in the way their community wants them to do it. As with many forms of democracy, there will always be a minority in the voting. And as such, the minority might get unhappy and riot. This can create a lot of social conflict, and can influence heavily the stability of the country as a whole.
Another drawback of such democracy can be seen in the United States, when George W. Bush decided to fight a war against terrorists in Iraq. He was voted president by the people, and he screwed the people along with his country’s economy. By fighting a war, a hefty amount of money is required to fund such an effort. Back in the USA, people work to bring revenue into the country, when this money which can be put into the economic sector as investments, it instead goes to fund the war effort. This petty war coincided with the rapid decrease in the American currency, which dropped from 1.65SGD to the current 1.35SGD; that is a drop of 30 cents, which amounts to a lot in large quantities. This economic instability can be brought about when the elected member is an inexperienced politician, and his decisions might influence the stability of the country heavily.
In authoritarian democracy, things are slightly simpler, the people choose their representatives to control the country. This is useful in countries with limited resources such as manpower, and need excessively close scrutinizing to ensure the country progresses. In such a country, stability and order is maintained by a group of people who represent the government. This government has to be experienced and well-versed in ensuring that the country does not fall of the ledge in its progress.
As can be seen from the above examples, democracy is a double-edged sword, wielding it against anything that can create instability in the country it governs; except that the sword seems to be pointing towards you. Therefore, I think that it is safe to conclude that democracy can create stability in a society, provided that the citizens of the country are capable of choosing well enough for themselves.
952 words
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Blog Assignment 1
BUSY PARENTS ADD TO TEENAGE ANGST
The article talks about how teenage angst can be fueled by parents who are too busy to just spend some time with their kids. It also offers some advice to parents on how they can reduce the likelihood of their child having the problem of overwhelming angst.
Being a teenager myself with many friends of the same age, I too have experienced the horrors of an angsting teenager; randomly lashing out at friends beside me wasn't something out of the blue, violence seemed the only option most times, and I felt a sense of overwhelming gloom for an entire year.
I do apologise to anyone who I might have harmed from my lack of ability to control myself. It wasn't, and will never be, easy to suppress the violent tendancies that seem to rise out during the teenage years of our lives.
A term used to describe angst amongst the modern teenagers, "emo", is the shortened form of "emotional", is generally personified as an Ah Beng, wearing black from head to toe, his hair (sometimes dyed) covers from half to his entire face as he does his best to attempt to imitate a ghost.
However, is it the fault of their brainwaves acting up and telling them that they should star in the sequel to a horror movie? Or could it be some other force at work? That pushes them to feel that they are social outcasts.
If parents are too busy to spend time with their children, it might lead to their children feeling that they are not loved, or have minimal and insufficient love from their surroundings.
I can't say so for myself, having parents that dote on me, I'm quite a spoilt brat, if I must say so myself, but the article seems to think that teenage angst can be roused by parental negligence.
Even with my parents showering me with overwhelming amounts of love, I still had a period of angst that blemished my twelfth year of life. It might have been shortened thanks to the care and attention of my parents, but it still was a reality I had to face.
I personally feel that teenage angst is perfectly normal, and once this period of gloom starts to overhang the child, it is an idicator that the person is developing mentally, and it is also a sign to parents that he would want more space as well. So parents should attempt to not over-pamper their children, neither should they neglect their children entirely.
"It is not about going to the football match or going to the shopping mall with them; be available when they need to talk, don't hesitate to talk to them even when you think they're not listening and when you are talking, turn off the television." says Professor Blum, a professor specialised in teenagers.
I agree quite wholeheartedly with this statement, parents should do their best in maintaining the personality of their children to prevent their children from turning into delinquents.
As a final message to parents, "Leave your child alone, but not completely alone."
Author of article: BBC News
Article reviewed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1937276.stm
The article talks about how teenage angst can be fueled by parents who are too busy to just spend some time with their kids. It also offers some advice to parents on how they can reduce the likelihood of their child having the problem of overwhelming angst.
Being a teenager myself with many friends of the same age, I too have experienced the horrors of an angsting teenager; randomly lashing out at friends beside me wasn't something out of the blue, violence seemed the only option most times, and I felt a sense of overwhelming gloom for an entire year.
I do apologise to anyone who I might have harmed from my lack of ability to control myself. It wasn't, and will never be, easy to suppress the violent tendancies that seem to rise out during the teenage years of our lives.
A term used to describe angst amongst the modern teenagers, "emo", is the shortened form of "emotional", is generally personified as an Ah Beng, wearing black from head to toe, his hair (sometimes dyed) covers from half to his entire face as he does his best to attempt to imitate a ghost.
However, is it the fault of their brainwaves acting up and telling them that they should star in the sequel to a horror movie? Or could it be some other force at work? That pushes them to feel that they are social outcasts.
If parents are too busy to spend time with their children, it might lead to their children feeling that they are not loved, or have minimal and insufficient love from their surroundings.
I can't say so for myself, having parents that dote on me, I'm quite a spoilt brat, if I must say so myself, but the article seems to think that teenage angst can be roused by parental negligence.
Even with my parents showering me with overwhelming amounts of love, I still had a period of angst that blemished my twelfth year of life. It might have been shortened thanks to the care and attention of my parents, but it still was a reality I had to face.
I personally feel that teenage angst is perfectly normal, and once this period of gloom starts to overhang the child, it is an idicator that the person is developing mentally, and it is also a sign to parents that he would want more space as well. So parents should attempt to not over-pamper their children, neither should they neglect their children entirely.
"It is not about going to the football match or going to the shopping mall with them; be available when they need to talk, don't hesitate to talk to them even when you think they're not listening and when you are talking, turn off the television." says Professor Blum, a professor specialised in teenagers.
I agree quite wholeheartedly with this statement, parents should do their best in maintaining the personality of their children to prevent their children from turning into delinquents.
As a final message to parents, "Leave your child alone, but not completely alone."
Author of article: BBC News
Article reviewed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1937276.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)