Term 3 Week 4 (Blogging Assignment)

What is the main argument Jim Rogers is trying to make in this article? Do you agree with his argument? Justify.

In this article, Jim Rogers shares his critique on America’s faltering connections in this rapidly globalising world, as well as the importance of raising “global kids”, a new generation of youths who are able to “fuse” the east and the west. Undoubtedly, we would agree with his point of view. As we all know, Asia is indeed quickly becoming the focus and drive behind the future economy. America has accumulated a tremendous debt of $14.46 million, far worse than in 2006, and its debt crisis is becoming ever more pressing. Although America has long been, and still is, the powerhouse of the world’s economy, Rogers thinks that Americans are oblivious to the rapid pace of globalisation, which has the whole world on its feet. They neglect the presence and progress that India and China have made in the recent years, which may cause the world to plunge into a new world where the Asian countries may rule the economy, leaving little. If America continues to be complacent and ignorant of its competitors, it risks being segregated from the rest of the world.

As globalisation takes hold of the beliefs of more nations, the prosperity of a nation cannot solely depend on mere bilateral ties with other nations. This simple theory has sent America into decline. What America needs is a revolution. It needs to nurture a generation of “global citizens”, who have the ability create fusion using both western and eastern influences and cultures. As it lies on the crossroad of east and west, Singapore has always emphasised on the significance of bilingualism. Since early modern years, besides English as the main medium of instruction, mother tongue has also embedded itself in the heart of Singaporean education, driving our nation towards its aim of an Asia-Pacific hub for quality education and healthcare services. America should probably follow suit, not just through the implementation of the teaching of foreign languages, but a deeper immersion of its youths in other cultures, at the same time creating and realising a global perspective.

Some argue that although Asian superpowers are now taking over the economy, English would still remain as the international medium for communications. However, I believe that one still has to be immersed in the Asian culture and language to better understand these Asian superpowers, especially when these rapid industrialising countries would eventually be behind the wheel of the rocket known as “globalisation”. It would be undoubtedly beneficial for one to be billingual, or even multi-lingual, in order to gain an advantage and be able to deal with both western and eastern influences.

In a nutshell, I conclude that Jim Rogers’ perception that America’s ignorance and low competitiveness compared to the rest of the world is valid, addressing the concerns of the rapidly globalising world. America will fail as the main shareholder of the world’s economy if it continues to refuse to partake in what will soon be an Asian-driven economy. Bilingualism and the ability to immerse would be able to bring intangible and astounding benefits to countries and more specifically, America.

Term 3 Week 3 (Blogging Assignment)

(1) Comment on the Janalle Lee's view on the education system in Singapore.

Janelle's letter has effectively brought across to the MOE the collective views of students, and perhaps even teachers, about the current education system. In a well-written letter, Janelle has successfully addressed our concerns about the flaws in the system.

The focal point of her letter was that the current education system was killing students' curiousity and inquiring mind, both traits which would be beneficial in a 21st Century Knowledge Based Economy. Indeed, the system seems that it only places emphasis on hard memorisation of facts, leaving no room for questioning and inquiry. I can relate to this problem as it had occurred to me many a time. For example, following the recent release of my Integrated Humanities(History) results, I realised just how wrong I was in memorising facts and essay formats. Many students, including me, had written an extra point(paragraph) for the essay even though the question had only asked students to compare two. The result was a massive waste of time, causing us to lose precious time for writing our conclusion, which greatly impacted my score. I got a 9 out of 13 for my essay, for which I was hoping for an 11. It set me thinking. What was it that we lacked? That we failed to see the main point of the question? Simply put, it was because our teacher had only taught us the essay format, which was to write 3 points, and not reminded us to think flexibly in response to the question.

Another example is Science. Science is a subject which aims to inspire students to think "out of the box" and to fire up their creativity. However, it has all come down to the hard memorisation of facts. Biology, for instance, is a "memoris-able" subject, as quoted by our teacher. We were given notes and told to read them and to memorise them. There were no other interesting lessons taught, and the teacher only ran through boring powerpoint slides during normal lessons. Now, as I am learning Physics, I am reminded once again just how much our studies rely on pure memorisation. I have always though Physics was a subject of "application", not "memorisation". I was proven wrong. AS the examinations are approaching, I find myself buried in notes and thinking, "I didn't expect Physics to be like this..."

The next point I would like to comment on is the fact that Civics and Moral Education are not effectively taught in schools. Although I do not have CME now, I can still remember my primary school days, when I had the same teacher teach me 2 to 3 subjects. CME was taught by my Chinese teacher, and I remember vividly the disappointment the students felt collectively when the teacher announced that CME period was to be "sacrificed" for extra Chinese lessons, to "better prepare ourselves" for the Mid-year and End-of-year examinations. Although I agree that my results have undoubtedly improved due to the "sacrifice" of the CME lessons, I think that it is irrefutable that there must be something "wrong" with the time management of the education system.

In conclusion, I can relate to the "plight" of this teenager. Janelle has really set us thinking about the current education system. This letter has inspired me, and inevitably many others, to think outside the syllabus and hope for a change.

(2) Is an ideal education possible? Explain.

What is meant by the word "ideal"? Dictionary.com describes it as "constituting a standard of perfection or excellence". To me, "ideal" means the perfect epitome of an object or matter by a person. It is definitely impossible for anything to be "ideal", as it is known that there must be a balance of advantages and disadvantages in everything. For an education system to "ideal", it must constitute of the following: equal emphasis on academic and moral education, developing a student's inquisitive and inquiring mind and giving students enough time to ace their studies as well as explore their talents. Thus, it is an utter impossibility for an ideal education system to exist.

Firstly, what exactly is a "balanced" emphasis on academic and moral education? Different people's opinions differ, and as such it is impossible to please everyone. If we strive towards a utopian world, we might end up in a dystopia, in which NOBODY is pleased.

We must stick to the utilitarian system, where the ends justify the means and a greater happiness for a greater number of people is ensured. If we introduced a system in which everyone is eager to ask questions, teachers may side-track from the syllabus and in the end, the brighter students are not able to shine and the weaker ones would be eliminated. As we live in a democratic state, it is important for the individual to work hard, and not complain about the current education system.

Term 3 Week 2 (Blogging Assignment)

An article entitled 'The Religion of Water' was published in The Straits Times on 7 July 2011. In the article, it was mentioned that ' within countries, there is debate over whether water should be treated as a human right or as a commodity, access to which is determined by the market.' Please read the article.

Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity? In your opinion, should water be treated as a human right or as a commodity?

Water, as we all know, is one of the most valuable natural resources known to man. The Earth's surface is covered in 66% of water, however, only 3% of that water is drinkable. Although it should be a renewable resource, decades of human water pollution has significantly reduced its already small amount. Many countries, especially those with seasonal droughts, are in increasing shortage of water, and thus, the general global demand for water has increased in the past decade. Despite this, many people in more developed countries are still wasting precious water – that other people would kill for – without even sparing a thought for them.

Charles Darwin once said that the world was a place where the rule “survival of the fittest” prevailed. According to this ideology, it is not wrong if humans treat water as a commodity. Democracy also supports this: the wealthy work hard enough to earn themselves the privilege of water; while the poor, who are incapable to earn enough, simply must die of thirst. Treating water as a human right, of course, is only most definitely practised in communist countries. Even then, there is corruption and the utopian world fails to come to reality.

Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity?

In my opinion, I think that water, even though it is a necessity for human survival, should be treated as a commodity. Although some may argue that we should treat it as a human right, they fail to see that by treating it as a commodity, there might actually be a beneficial side to it. A commodity is “a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differiencation across the market”. That is to say that people pay a price subject to market demand for the commodity, water. Since water is in such short supply and high demand, its price would naturally make an impact on those who are able to afford it. Humans, as society progresses, become more and more materialistic, and thus, they would treasure money as much as their lives. Water is bought with money, and therefore is viewed as money itself, albeit in another form, by humans. They would learn to save and limit their use of water, so as to save money. This would bring about the awareness the governments have wanted us to learn all the time: Water is precious and we should save every drop of it.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that water should be treated as a commodity as it is for the best interests of everyone. This is clearly a utilitarian perspective, and although many die in the process after this decision, the ends justify the means: The survival of the fittest.

Term 3 Week 1 (Blogging Assignment)

Veteran labour leader Halimah Yacob recently called for the legislation of weekly days off for maids working in Singapore. This has sparked off an intense debate amongst Singaporeans. In your opinion, should the giving of weekly days off be legislated in Singapore?

Post your 300 word response on your blog.

It is mandatory for all employees to be given at least a day off in a week by law. However, maids have never been included until recently, when veteran labour leader Halimah Yacob recently called for the legislation of weekly days off for maids working in Singapore. Maids, also known as domestic helpers, are employed by locals to provide assistance in the households. Maids come from countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia and Myanmar. Indonesian maids usually work 7days a week and do not request for off-days, while some Filipino and Myanmar maids insist on only working under an employer who grants off-days.

In my opinion, I think that it should not be made legislatory for maids to have weekly off-days.
Firstly, I do not think that all maids would want off-days. For example, those from Indonesia usually would want to earn more money, and thus would prefer to work 24/7 to maximise their salary. Some maids are self-conscious, and are afraid that they might go astray or spend all their savings if they were given this freedom. They also want to be constantly working, so that they would not find working every day hard.

Secondly, I also do not think that all employers would want to give their maids off-days. This is especially so after the rising number of crime cases involving maids. In an interview on television, a middle-aged housewife said in Mandarin, “They are already as out of control as it is now. If we were to give them off-days, would it not get worse?” It is presumable then, that some families are not willing to employ maids who request for off-days.

Lastly, I think that we should maintain the current model and introduce a gradual change. There should be a choice of having off-days for maids as they are the ones who are debated about in this matter. If the maid insists on having off-days, the employer can always look for another maid to employ. The maid in question does not have to fret as they would surely be a number of employers who believe in giving her off-days. In such a huge labour market, I am sure that there would be enough employees for employers and vice-versa.