went to alaric's 21st yesterday. been some time since ive seen some people, like his mom and keith's parents. and unexpectedly, some ppl from NJ and NS. pleasant surprise ;p sad fact was, couldnt make it to the airport in time to see ps off. and on fri i told him i'd "see him tmr." famous last words, he got that rite. :( a tad too disappointing....
seems like there has been a recent furore over GPs performing aesthetic procedures on patients. i really wonder how med students think abt this. considering that top US med students have allegedly been fighting tooth and nail over residency(did i get that rite) places for aesthetic practice, it'd not be surprising that most, if not all, of our top yong loo lin students aspire to be like woffles wu. it IS a highly lucrative industry, what with our beauty-obsessed world and what not. but i have faith in why some of those in YLL want to study medicine (thanks mos for saying that it may not be so bad to not go into pte practice. suddenly doctors don seem too mercenary.) after hearing all those S$3000 / eye/ 15 min rip-off stories from andy and samuel, it's really not so reassuring. and there isnt a need to regulate prices i heard. hmph, licensed to rob.
makes me wonder what is the true motivation for the study of medicine. year after year many ppl tear their hair out over a much coveted spot in YLL - i wonder what's all the motivation behind all that? does the school purely admit people who are just academically brilliant, or those who are in it for the service of mankind? it's a noble calling and i knew that i am not so great so i didnt even bother. and again if those who truly have that calling cannot meet demand, then perhaps more if not most people may be in it for the moolah. i shudder when i think of the number of parents who dictate that their children should be doctors just because they view it as the epitome of success - then what about their children's dreams? and even more when people let their lives be dictated for them, the money is not too bad anyway. hmm. at the end of the day, some say the high charges are a sort of consolation for the many years of study. but when should it end and if that's really what someone wants to do, then the study shouldnt have been such a torture isnt it? the process may have been a necessary evil but it's just worse to perpetuate the vicious cycle because human beings can never put an end to avarice. that is just the nature of the capitalist world that we live in. but i must say it beats the extreme conditions in Orwell's Big Brother anytime. and doctors are human beings after all. they have their needs and wants and more dough wont hurt. knowing the rite thing is easy; doing it takes immense courage.
there's no deal if there's no demand. so those who are trying for a quick fix or instant solution to all those "beauty woes" are really the accomplice. but that's really another story altogether. evil corporations which prey on the naive and desperate. the devil takes on many forms and people have short memories.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
saw in the papers that 2 very reputable insitutions intend to give out their own diplomas. as it is, our education system has so many filters at different levels that many have raised the issue of elitism. not surprisingly, this is an unfortunate effect of meritocracy. so instead of acting as a social-leveller, it has further polarised the many strata of society. why else have movies like I Not Stupid been made? EM1/EM2/EM3, Gifted/Special/Express/Normal(Acad)/Normal(Tech), diploma VS A levels,Streamed VS non-streamed, Mainstream/IP/IB. In NS, why is it that most if not all NSF commanders are JC and poly grads and seldom, if never, others of lesser qualifications, some of whom have been known to be better performers than some so-called academically superior? At tertiary levels, there's a differentiation of local and overseas universities. Even locally, there are many pre-conceived notions of the few local institutions here. such labels and the stigmas attached are hard to get rid of but they are an inevitable result of the many rankings that we like to see and form a virtually indestructible foundation for the nefarious rat race. While the intention of pitching the difficulty and intensity of the course to the aptitude of the student should yield, theoretically, optimal results, a serious side-reaction has not been adequately dealt with.
By deciding to issue their own diplomas that "better reflect the students' achievements over their 6-year course" in addition to the national exams, ie the GCE A levels, they are inadvertently adding to the differentiation of students. and is that really necessary? further increase the disparity between the haves and have-nots? moreover, not everyone in the respective institutions will be issued with the diploma so wont it adversely affect school cohesion in the long-run? obviously, those who get issued that additional scroll would stand to gain from the extra weight in their academic credentials and it would bolster the institutions' reputation of academic success and excellence. furthermore, im sure technical issues of accreditation and getting universities to recognise the diploma would be not much of an issue seeing that these institutions already enjoy nationwide acclaim. but from the standpoint of national interests in the long-term, why bother causing greater polarisation when they are already arguably the most sought-after institutions in the state? jus to give their very best a competitive edge over others and (i exaggerate) cause the social barometer to go off like mount vesuvius?
the only things that are constant are change and increasing competition. the A level sybllabus has been recently revised in a bid for it to remain more relevant to the ever-channging world and competition is getting increasingly stiffer in an increasingly gloablised world. having been through and left the system, i'd like to think that such a move of issuing separate diplomas would be (would that put them on par with poly grads?) a tad too selfish and narcissistic, wouldnt it?
By deciding to issue their own diplomas that "better reflect the students' achievements over their 6-year course" in addition to the national exams, ie the GCE A levels, they are inadvertently adding to the differentiation of students. and is that really necessary? further increase the disparity between the haves and have-nots? moreover, not everyone in the respective institutions will be issued with the diploma so wont it adversely affect school cohesion in the long-run? obviously, those who get issued that additional scroll would stand to gain from the extra weight in their academic credentials and it would bolster the institutions' reputation of academic success and excellence. furthermore, im sure technical issues of accreditation and getting universities to recognise the diploma would be not much of an issue seeing that these institutions already enjoy nationwide acclaim. but from the standpoint of national interests in the long-term, why bother causing greater polarisation when they are already arguably the most sought-after institutions in the state? jus to give their very best a competitive edge over others and (i exaggerate) cause the social barometer to go off like mount vesuvius?
the only things that are constant are change and increasing competition. the A level sybllabus has been recently revised in a bid for it to remain more relevant to the ever-channging world and competition is getting increasingly stiffer in an increasingly gloablised world. having been through and left the system, i'd like to think that such a move of issuing separate diplomas would be (would that put them on par with poly grads?) a tad too selfish and narcissistic, wouldnt it?
Sunday, March 09, 2008
"More families are breaking up today. We need all the help we can get to provide a home for our children."
Instead of looking at ways to cope with divorce, which is like trying to find a cure for HIV, why not look at the root causes of divorce in the first place and nip the problem in the bud (say NO to casual intercourse!)?
Marriage as an institution is failing if the current trend of increasing divorces is to be believed. That the notion of free love being superior is paradoxical compared to the ancient practice of arranged marriages, in which love can be nurtured and flourished under the auspices of authoritative parents.
Considering that in both cases, 2 persons start as strangers, the idea of free love only has the additional element of choice. as we all know, human beings are far from infallible so what gives the choice of soul mates absolute certainty? and then the rest of nurturing and committing to the marriage is as we know it. so it again boils down to choice and therein lies the problem.
We have all heard of enduring and lasting unions but even those are few and far between. These are found in both arranged marriages and people who have found each other (arent they both the same in a way?) so what differentiates them from those who have failed? i'd like to say that instead of assuming that all will end happily ever after, those who have succeeded have never been complacent and have braved through storms together. Those who didnt may have taken too much for granted and not put enough into nurturing something which they have always assumed to be constant. Hence, whereas we may blame our elders for failed arranged marriages, all 10 fingers point to the individual in choice.
In an increasing globalised world and with relentless breakthroughs in technology, we are increasingly exposed to a wider gamut of options. That also means we are getting increasingly bewildered by our choices and can get increasingly demanding with knowledge of the whole spectrum. With cultures and influences travelling around the globe with the click of a button, it also isnt surprising that human interactions get increasingly complicated. How many of us can say that we have one person whom we know thoroughly inside-out? Thus, it is not surprising that ppl find so many excuses (3rd parties, loss of feeling, lack of excitement etc, arent they are the same) to end a marriage and many parties are often dragged into the storm. That being the case, then isnt the trend of rising divorce rates really a reflection of the state of human beings as confused souls who dont know what they want?
It is thus an imperative for people to know who they are,what they want and be able to treat others sincerely and respectfully, that is, if skyrocketing divorce rates are a cause for worry, if any. Simple things that are easier said than done and constantly being eroded in the face of wanton consumerism, instant gratification and hedonistic pleasures. Also, getting together may be a Herculean task but staying so is no less a superhuman undertaking. it entails not being impossibly demanding and being less self-absorbed and egotistic, which unfortunately stem from the rat-race or rather the abyss that our species have created for ourselves.
Before subjecting ourselves to reckless abandonment and get ourselves caught in a downward spiral of dysfunctional families and broken marriages, we should really take a long hard look at ourselves and determine what is really the problem that needs to be solved. have we merely put aside that identity crisis for long enough or is it just that extra smile in the morning or that look in those eyes? whatever the case, the government cannot be a panacea to all our problems and if we need someone to give concessions and leeway to divorcees all the time, then we are not really dealing with the problem at hand but merely alleviating the signs and symptoms.
Instead of looking at ways to cope with divorce, which is like trying to find a cure for HIV, why not look at the root causes of divorce in the first place and nip the problem in the bud (say NO to casual intercourse!)?
Marriage as an institution is failing if the current trend of increasing divorces is to be believed. That the notion of free love being superior is paradoxical compared to the ancient practice of arranged marriages, in which love can be nurtured and flourished under the auspices of authoritative parents.
Considering that in both cases, 2 persons start as strangers, the idea of free love only has the additional element of choice. as we all know, human beings are far from infallible so what gives the choice of soul mates absolute certainty? and then the rest of nurturing and committing to the marriage is as we know it. so it again boils down to choice and therein lies the problem.
We have all heard of enduring and lasting unions but even those are few and far between. These are found in both arranged marriages and people who have found each other (arent they both the same in a way?) so what differentiates them from those who have failed? i'd like to say that instead of assuming that all will end happily ever after, those who have succeeded have never been complacent and have braved through storms together. Those who didnt may have taken too much for granted and not put enough into nurturing something which they have always assumed to be constant. Hence, whereas we may blame our elders for failed arranged marriages, all 10 fingers point to the individual in choice.
In an increasing globalised world and with relentless breakthroughs in technology, we are increasingly exposed to a wider gamut of options. That also means we are getting increasingly bewildered by our choices and can get increasingly demanding with knowledge of the whole spectrum. With cultures and influences travelling around the globe with the click of a button, it also isnt surprising that human interactions get increasingly complicated. How many of us can say that we have one person whom we know thoroughly inside-out? Thus, it is not surprising that ppl find so many excuses (3rd parties, loss of feeling, lack of excitement etc, arent they are the same) to end a marriage and many parties are often dragged into the storm. That being the case, then isnt the trend of rising divorce rates really a reflection of the state of human beings as confused souls who dont know what they want?
It is thus an imperative for people to know who they are,what they want and be able to treat others sincerely and respectfully, that is, if skyrocketing divorce rates are a cause for worry, if any. Simple things that are easier said than done and constantly being eroded in the face of wanton consumerism, instant gratification and hedonistic pleasures. Also, getting together may be a Herculean task but staying so is no less a superhuman undertaking. it entails not being impossibly demanding and being less self-absorbed and egotistic, which unfortunately stem from the rat-race or rather the abyss that our species have created for ourselves.
Before subjecting ourselves to reckless abandonment and get ourselves caught in a downward spiral of dysfunctional families and broken marriages, we should really take a long hard look at ourselves and determine what is really the problem that needs to be solved. have we merely put aside that identity crisis for long enough or is it just that extra smile in the morning or that look in those eyes? whatever the case, the government cannot be a panacea to all our problems and if we need someone to give concessions and leeway to divorcees all the time, then we are not really dealing with the problem at hand but merely alleviating the signs and symptoms.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
On foreign workers' lodging:
was reading the Sunday times when i came across the article saying that 2 foreign workers' dorms are slated to be built near the LCK cemetery. For those who are blissfully unaware, the LCK cemetery is isolated from the rest of singapore and is the last major landmark that you'd come across before approaching the trg area of SGC, TVMA, and other wilderness that non-NSmen cannot possibly imagine exist in urban sg. having called that establishment home in the last 1.5 years, i have personally experienced the dread and inconveniences of living in literally the western tip of our tropical paradise.
the whole affair reeks of social alienation of the foreign workers. even though a survey may have indicated that most of them do not mind living next to a cemetery, a significant number have voiced that they would prefer to live elsewhere if given a choice. they are after all migrant workers and have to make do with the living arrangements made for them by their employers; they cannot possibly protest living next to a cemetery, with repatriation being a not-so-remote possibility. with their livelihoods at stake, it's only natural that they would not mind living next to a cemetery, seeing that employment beats hunger and destitution hands down anytime. so what happens in the times of an emergency, say myocardial infarction??
superstitions and supernatural beliefs are arguably prevalent throughout all races and cultures. im sure that the man on the street can easily relate to the reluctance of living next to a graveyard. that seldom are homes built next to cemeteries attests to that fact. by letting them live on a site shunned by local people, are we not letting our actions speak for ourselves? are they not in a way exploited by arranging for them to live in a place that noone else would want to? how would we feel if the HDB built some flats next to a graveyard and that is the only place where homes are available, anything else priced beyond reach?
it is a fact that that most migrant workers are looked upon with disdain by locals, especially so if they are taking on menial tasks that are similarly shunned by the locals. in creating a KBE with a highly-skilled workforce and making education compulsory for everyone, we have created a social gap that is currently filled with migrant workers, especially in an age of hedonism and instant gratification. before we banish those who take on such undesirable jobs to the fringes of society, let us remember that we have our roots as a migrant society and our forefathers came to take on jobs that were beneath our colonial masters. currently, without foreign workers, who would sweep the roads, take out the trash, build our HDB flats, just to name a few? ther'd no booming construction industry if we do not have enough banglas, as we so affectionately call them, to help with the tedious and laborious processes. whatever happened to good old CME when we learnt that everybody had their role to play and we shld appreciate the niche roles that each person plays?
one foreign worker commented that Singaporeans want them to build the flats fast and yet be invisible at the same time. if that is indeed the case, shouldnt we be concerned with the snobbish, unappreciative way we treat migrant workers? or is it a case whereby the money does all the talking and if you dont want to do it, someone else will? i can understand why the authorities chose not to place the workers' quarters in the centre of HDB heartlands (think integration issues) but being social creatures just like you and me, being isolated in the wilderness of sg will isnt being totally fair to them and will only serve to continue the alienation of migrant workers. what can be done is creating an environment where we can get to know each other better and where the workers can have easier access to basic amenities (instead of more mud and shrubs). the rest is up to the community-at-large to determine which direction to head and such social pressures inadvertently form the human-o-sphere that we call home.
On money:
after having worked at a minst. and in a school, i have decided that the equation time = money is not homogenous. for the price that i have to pay for working like there is no night or day, the remuneration is simply not worth it. the time can always be better spent to build better relationships with other people, in a form of non-materialistic investment that is definitely more satisfying. it is difficult to trade my human-ness for a bigger paycheck and i shall keep reminding myself that. more money is good but it cannot be a guiding principle of life. perhaps being bonded isnt so bad after all; at least i get proper development and reasonable challenge, i hope. aiming big isnt always abt the moolah.
On the 6 year IP programme:
Vincent was saying what happened to the good old days when no one cared wad CCAs you took in pri sch. and i second that. i see pri sch as a lab, where children can experiment with the myriad of activities available so that they can clearly identify their interests. if u havent noticed, im an interests-first person. if a person has to plan at such a tender age or be left behind, im guessing that speaks volumes of the society we live in and the pressures we are placing on the next generation. and we only seriously thought about such problems at 18, let alone 12. isnt expecting someone to know what they want in life at 12 a bit unreasonable, or is it again a case of parents know what is best for their children? i guess to a certain extent, it plays both ways even though im more inclined to believe that the move is played more to the adults. moreover, we are assuming that the programme has and will be a brilliant success to want to commit to it in its infancy. the old system has been tried-and-tested and with the recent revamp, it cannot be said to be totally obsolete. so wad's so bad about going through the mainstream system compared to the IP? for one, having gone through the O levels exams will pitch students at a more adequate level to face the A levels. that being said, i cant deny the fact that some ppl think that the A levels is merely an extended version of the O levels and prepare for it in the same way, only to be struggling through it all and lamenting their fate. however, that is simply a matter of a paradigm shift and compared to the dangers of not having gone through a major exam before, i want to belive that having gone thru the O levels warrants its merits. the recent spectacular showing at the IB results release may disagree with what i believe but only time will tell if a thru train programme for the A levels is indeed viable. moreover, those 2 systems are not exactly identical so a gd showing at the IB doesnt necssarily mean that this year's A levels will be gd. however, i do believe that eventually, it boils down to how badly the individual wants to do well and how much effort was put in nurturing the fruits of his education.
was reading the Sunday times when i came across the article saying that 2 foreign workers' dorms are slated to be built near the LCK cemetery. For those who are blissfully unaware, the LCK cemetery is isolated from the rest of singapore and is the last major landmark that you'd come across before approaching the trg area of SGC, TVMA, and other wilderness that non-NSmen cannot possibly imagine exist in urban sg. having called that establishment home in the last 1.5 years, i have personally experienced the dread and inconveniences of living in literally the western tip of our tropical paradise.
the whole affair reeks of social alienation of the foreign workers. even though a survey may have indicated that most of them do not mind living next to a cemetery, a significant number have voiced that they would prefer to live elsewhere if given a choice. they are after all migrant workers and have to make do with the living arrangements made for them by their employers; they cannot possibly protest living next to a cemetery, with repatriation being a not-so-remote possibility. with their livelihoods at stake, it's only natural that they would not mind living next to a cemetery, seeing that employment beats hunger and destitution hands down anytime. so what happens in the times of an emergency, say myocardial infarction??
superstitions and supernatural beliefs are arguably prevalent throughout all races and cultures. im sure that the man on the street can easily relate to the reluctance of living next to a graveyard. that seldom are homes built next to cemeteries attests to that fact. by letting them live on a site shunned by local people, are we not letting our actions speak for ourselves? are they not in a way exploited by arranging for them to live in a place that noone else would want to? how would we feel if the HDB built some flats next to a graveyard and that is the only place where homes are available, anything else priced beyond reach?
it is a fact that that most migrant workers are looked upon with disdain by locals, especially so if they are taking on menial tasks that are similarly shunned by the locals. in creating a KBE with a highly-skilled workforce and making education compulsory for everyone, we have created a social gap that is currently filled with migrant workers, especially in an age of hedonism and instant gratification. before we banish those who take on such undesirable jobs to the fringes of society, let us remember that we have our roots as a migrant society and our forefathers came to take on jobs that were beneath our colonial masters. currently, without foreign workers, who would sweep the roads, take out the trash, build our HDB flats, just to name a few? ther'd no booming construction industry if we do not have enough banglas, as we so affectionately call them, to help with the tedious and laborious processes. whatever happened to good old CME when we learnt that everybody had their role to play and we shld appreciate the niche roles that each person plays?
one foreign worker commented that Singaporeans want them to build the flats fast and yet be invisible at the same time. if that is indeed the case, shouldnt we be concerned with the snobbish, unappreciative way we treat migrant workers? or is it a case whereby the money does all the talking and if you dont want to do it, someone else will? i can understand why the authorities chose not to place the workers' quarters in the centre of HDB heartlands (think integration issues) but being social creatures just like you and me, being isolated in the wilderness of sg will isnt being totally fair to them and will only serve to continue the alienation of migrant workers. what can be done is creating an environment where we can get to know each other better and where the workers can have easier access to basic amenities (instead of more mud and shrubs). the rest is up to the community-at-large to determine which direction to head and such social pressures inadvertently form the human-o-sphere that we call home.
On money:
after having worked at a minst. and in a school, i have decided that the equation time = money is not homogenous. for the price that i have to pay for working like there is no night or day, the remuneration is simply not worth it. the time can always be better spent to build better relationships with other people, in a form of non-materialistic investment that is definitely more satisfying. it is difficult to trade my human-ness for a bigger paycheck and i shall keep reminding myself that. more money is good but it cannot be a guiding principle of life. perhaps being bonded isnt so bad after all; at least i get proper development and reasonable challenge, i hope. aiming big isnt always abt the moolah.
On the 6 year IP programme:
Vincent was saying what happened to the good old days when no one cared wad CCAs you took in pri sch. and i second that. i see pri sch as a lab, where children can experiment with the myriad of activities available so that they can clearly identify their interests. if u havent noticed, im an interests-first person. if a person has to plan at such a tender age or be left behind, im guessing that speaks volumes of the society we live in and the pressures we are placing on the next generation. and we only seriously thought about such problems at 18, let alone 12. isnt expecting someone to know what they want in life at 12 a bit unreasonable, or is it again a case of parents know what is best for their children? i guess to a certain extent, it plays both ways even though im more inclined to believe that the move is played more to the adults. moreover, we are assuming that the programme has and will be a brilliant success to want to commit to it in its infancy. the old system has been tried-and-tested and with the recent revamp, it cannot be said to be totally obsolete. so wad's so bad about going through the mainstream system compared to the IP? for one, having gone through the O levels exams will pitch students at a more adequate level to face the A levels. that being said, i cant deny the fact that some ppl think that the A levels is merely an extended version of the O levels and prepare for it in the same way, only to be struggling through it all and lamenting their fate. however, that is simply a matter of a paradigm shift and compared to the dangers of not having gone through a major exam before, i want to belive that having gone thru the O levels warrants its merits. the recent spectacular showing at the IB results release may disagree with what i believe but only time will tell if a thru train programme for the A levels is indeed viable. moreover, those 2 systems are not exactly identical so a gd showing at the IB doesnt necssarily mean that this year's A levels will be gd. however, i do believe that eventually, it boils down to how badly the individual wants to do well and how much effort was put in nurturing the fruits of his education.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)