Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

The Straits Times recently published a news story saying that three-quarters of Singaporean teachers now have degrees. It’s a good development to read about but I have a problem with the story. The story, at least from my perspective, conflates teaching qualification with teaching quality.

I quote the following paragraph from the news story:

NIE director Lee Sing Kong said Singapore should aim to have a high-quality teaching force where teachers have a university or even higher degrees.

He said that Finland, which is touted to have one of the best education systems in the world, requires all its new teachers to have at least a masters degree.

Prof Lee cited a recent report by consultancy firm McKinsey on the world’s best-performing school systems, which showed that ‘the quality of teachers affects student performance more than anything else’.

Studies done in the United States have shown that if you take pupils of average ability and give them to teachers deemed to be in the top fifth percentile of the profession, they end up in the top 10 per cent of student performers.

The reverse is also true - if you give them to teachers from the bottom fifth, they end up at the bottom.

While I do think that university education does help further one’s intellectual development, which in turn can help assist in one’s ability to teach, I do not think that quality teaching is necessarily positively correlated with the level of education. Even if you have a PhD, it doesn’t mean you can teach.

I remember that the best teachers I had in primary school were teachers without a degree. They did not have a degree, but they were dedicated teachers who were able to spark my interest in learning. They built a solid foundation and that helped me advance academically.

During my undergraduate days, I came across professors who couldn’t teach for nuts. I totally switched off during such lectures. They just droned on and on with powerpoint slides that are chock full of text in small font sizes. I don’t think one needs a PhD to know that such teaching makes students completely uninterested to learn.

I think at the end of the day, what is most important for a teacher is whether he/she is able to communicate with students in an engaging fashion. Of course, in the first place, the teacher should have a certain level of expertise in the subject area but beyond that, it is really about pedagogy and communication.

I apologise for the lack of an update for 3 weeks. I’ve been busy with so many things that I’ve not been able to sit down properly to type a blog entry. I’m not done with my busy schedule, though. However, I read an op-ed piece on New York Times that I simply couldn’t resist posting on this blog.

The title of the piece is “The Dictatorship of Talent” by David Brooks. For those who can’t be bothered to read the entire article, basically, the article talks from the point of view of a Chinese national about the “corporacy” in China and how the Chinese system is producing elites for the corporacy. And, Brooks’ description of the system sounds uncannily close to the Singaporean system.

Here’s the part of the article that describes the Chinese system.

As you rise in school, you see that to get into an elite university, you need to ace the exams given at the end of your senior year. Chinese students have been taking exams like this for more than 1,000 years.

The exams don’t reward all mental skills. They reward the ability to work hard and memorize things. Your adolescence is oriented around those exams — the cram seminars, the hours of preparation.

Roughly nine million students take the tests each year. The top 1 percent will go to the elite universities. Some of the others will go to second-tier schools, at best. These unfortunates will find that, while their career prospects aren’t permanently foreclosed, the odds of great success are diminished. Suicide rates at these schools are high, as students come to feel they have failed their parents.

But you succeed. You ace the exams and get into Peking University. You treat your professors like gods and know that if you earn good grades you can join the Communist Party.

Singapore has been called a nanny state, and it seems that China is becoming a nanny state too. Another paragraph from the article reads:

This is a government of talents, you tell your American friends. It rules society the way a wise father rules the family. There is some consultation with citizens, but mostly members of the guardian class decide for themselves what will serve the greater good.

You should be chuckling to yourself by now at the phrases “wise father rules the family” and “consultation with citizens”.

And finally, the article concludes with something I wonder from time to time (the bolded parts) about Singapore Inc:

You feel pride in what the corpocracy has achieved and now expect it to lead China’s next stage of modernization — the transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. But in the back of your mind you wonder: Perhaps it’s simply impossible for a top-down memorization-based elite to organize a flexible, innovative information economy, no matter how brilliant its members are.

It looks like China is pretty good at copying almost anything.

Ms Josephine Teo is encouraging young couples to have kids earlier. Read this article from the Straits Times.

Her advice is for women to put their careers on hold to have children first. The reason? It’s because life expectancy for women are longer. The Straits Times article quoted her as saying

‘If we think of…85 and beyond being a likelihood, what is the hurry to do the things that can be done later?’

I doubt that young couples not having kids is because they are ‘rushing’ to establish their careers. Those who are interested in being established in their careers first would not choose to marry early. Those who choose to marry early usually believe in the importance of family over work.

However, while these people might believe in family over work, the inclusion of kids in the picture usually takes a back seat until a later date. From my own perspective as a young, married man, I think there are a few major reasons for this.

Marrying early means that the couple can enjoy a few years with each other before the arrival of the baby. While I do think that babies add joy to a family, at the same time, babies will disrupt the relationship. I want to enjoy a few years of quality couple time before I think about babies so I don’t think I’m going to be a young parent.

Besides, cost of living is escalating rapidly. Keeping myself alive with some savings for emergencies is already a challenging task. Even with the monetary incentives from the government for having babies, it’s still a huge financial cost. Of course, I probably shouldn’t be so calculating when it comes to having kids but it’s not that I mind the high cost of having kids in Singapore. I don’t want to happily produce a football team only to tell them years down the road that I cannot afford to send them for tertiary education.

And, I wouldn’t want my wife to give up a career now to raise kids. She’ll be substantially disadvantaged later on when she goes job hunting. Ms Teo makes it sound so easy to have kids first and go back to work later. How many employers would be willing to hire?

There are many disadvantages to having kids early, or even having kids at all. This is probably not what the government wants to hear, but it’s reality for young couples. Is there a solution? I don’t know. I only know that the number of kids I am willing to have is the number that I feel I can afford to give a decent level of comfort to in their growing up years.

The all-time favourite complaint about a liberal immigration policy is that foreign talents deprive “local” Singaporeans of their jobs. Actually, I think there’s another big problem brought about a liberal immigration policy in Singapore and that the preservation of the current political hegemony enjoyed by the PAP (of course, I don’t think the PAP would think it’s a problem).

It is my observation that people who migrate to Singapore love the PAP. Many of these migrants come from countries where the government is rife with corruption, low security levels and poor general infrastructure. For these people, Singapore is like paradise on earth.

For this people, it is probably not worth quibbling about ideals such as liberal democracy. These are not pragmatic things. Good paying jobs and stable living environment are more important. I do think that most recent immigrants are pragmatic people who do not mind exchanging some personal “rights” to live in “paradise”.

And, Singapore is aiming at an eventual 6.5 million population, which is a huge jump from the current 4 million. Bulk of the increase would be due to immigration. And I am sure the immigrants will not want to rock the boat. They will be staunch PAP supporters, just as many of the generation before me are.

Even if the PAP is having flagging support from those of my generation, it doesn’t really matter. Elections is about numbers. We have a declining birth rate. Even if my generation and those after my generation are not staunch supporters of the PAP, our numbers will be dwarfed by the immigrants.

For those who think the Internet will bring about political change, I don’t mean to be a wet blanket. It’s just that reality bites, and it bites hard.

I’ve been busy but I spend a short amount of time daily tracking the debate over whether Singapore should repeal s377A, the law that criminalizes sexual intercourse between men. I intend, with this entry, to critically summarise the debate using a broad brush and explain why I still don’t think opponents of the anti-repeal s377A camp have a convincing argument.

Those who oppose the repeal mostly rely on the argument of a numerical majority of conservatives who view sexual intercourse between male to be an immoral act. It is my observation that religion is usually invoked to define the parameters of the immorality of males have sex with one another.

As I’ve pointed out in the previous entry, the term conservative is extremely loaded. So is the term morality. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. What is considered poison today might be considered medicine tomorrow. Terms such as “conservative” and “morality” differ from person to person and from time to time. Case in point: oral and anal sex between heterosexuals is no longer considered “immoral”, thus the repeal of s377.

The same argument can be made for proponents of the repeal who are invoking equality of rights as their basis (myself included). My idea of “rights” is probably different from yours, and “rights” most certainly have changed with time. Singapore’s Woman’s Charter is a good example of how “rights” have changed with times. Such legislation would have been an unacceptable proposition a century ago.

Given that morals and rights are both problematic justifications for the respective camps, how then should we evaluate whether to repeal s377A or not? One of the best answers is probably the concept of harm. Michael Hor, a professor of law at NUS, wrote an excellent piece on the concept of harm in relation to s377A which was published at The Online Citizen.

If two men choose to engage in sex behind closed doors, there is no harm to anyone else. There is obviously no physical harm to third parties and since it’s behind closed doors, there’s no emotional or mental harm to others as well. Why should sexual intercourse between two men be criminalised, even when it’s behind closed doors and not seen by third parties?

I think it is time people get off their moral high horses and think about what sort of possible harm is done to third parties by two or more men having sex behind closed doors. If there should be any stiff legislation at all, it should be for public display of sexual acts, and not the act of sexual intercourse itself.

Be it intercourse between males and females, males and males or females and females, they all have the right to carry out the act. At the same time, other people have the right not to see the act of intercourse as well. So, to strike a balance between the two, I can accept strong laws against public display of sexual acts. However, I cannot accept criminalising the act of sex, be it homosexual or heterosexual because I don’t see the harm to others in the act itself.

Of course, my arguments are moot if the “conservatives” are going to shun critical evaluation of their position. With this entry, I have already critically assessed my position on the repeal of s377A using the rights argument and I hope the conservatives can similarly do so and critically assess the concept of morality as the basis of their opposition.

I am growing more and more annoyed every passing day. To be specific, I am annoyed with those self proclaimed “conservatives” who insist that Singapore is a “conservative” society and that we cannot repeal s377A because of this.

All you “conservative” opponents of the repeal of s377A, come on out and define the meaning of “conservative”. Stop throwing that word around as convenient justification for not repealing s377A without defining what it means. Are all the self proclaimed “conservatives” avoiding this question because attempting to define it will mean they have no case?

To me, the term “conservative” is so loaded that it should never be used as a means of defense against the repeal of s377A. Any attempt to define it will lead to a natural crumbling of this line of defense.

For starters, why are we having casinos in Singapore? I thought Singapore is “conservative”? How can a “conservative” society promote gambling? Isn’t gambling a form of vice?

Also, why are women wearing bikinis on the beach? For that matter, why are they wearing short skirts and tube tops, or even T-shirts? If Singapore is indeed “conservative”, we should be looking to the Middle East for directions on “conservative” dressing.

We should also be abolishing SDU because there’s no need for such things in a “conservative” society. Parents decide who their children should marry. Just bring back the matchmakers and the system of arranged marriage. That’s how things are done in a “conservative” society, no?

Actually, since Singapore is so “conservative”, just eliminate the entire Woman’s Charter! Since when do women have rights at all in a “conservative” society? If we are truly “conservative”, people like Thio Li-Ann would never have got a chance to stand in Parliament and deliver speeches.

Of course, my favourite example would be that now, Singapore is “conservative” enough to allow men to have anal sex with a consenting woman (and if the woman is the legally married spouse, the man has the added option of engaging in anal rape) but yet, Singapore is so “conservative” that men cannot have anal sex with another man.

Pray tell, what is “conservative”?

The follow comment was left by Gerald in a comment on The Online Citizen in response to an article by Michael Hor:

The learned professor has gone into great depths to explain that acts prohibited under S377A are not harmful to society. Social conservatives, myself included, would argue that they are. Both of these are moral stands (Yes, even the liberal stance is a moral stand which is no more rational than the conservative stance.)

Since we are living in a democracy, not a theocracy, it is only natural that our laws to take a stand based on the will of the majority of voters. Consistently, every poll that has been done on Singaporean adults indicates that homosexual acts are still not acceptable to the majority. Even if a referendum on repealing S377A were to be conducted tomorrow, voters will still vote to retain it.

Some have argued that since 377A is not enforced, why have it. They have missed the point and intent of this piece of legislation. 377A is a form of “signposting” — a symbol and indicator of our society’s values (based on the values of the majority). Just like the MDA’s symbolic blocking of 100 pornographic websites.

So until our society’s social values take a sharp turn to the left in the coming years, we can expect S377A to remain, notwithstanding valiant attempts by the gay lobby to have it overturned.

I respect Gerald for stating upfront that he is a social conservative. It makes it much easier for me to see where he’s coming from. I don’t think he said anything wrong when he cited polls as having consistently indicated homosexual acts as unacceptable. However, I think that he forgot to consider the way the poll was conducted, as well as the way the questions were framed.

As a communications scholar wannabe, I am quite sensitive to the issue of framing. The same topic can possibly elicit different kinds of responses, depending on how the question was phrased. Perhaps some examples would illustrate my point. Consider your response to the following questions:

1. Do you think that homosexuality is natural?
2. Do you think that homosexuals deserve the same set of rights as heterosexuals?
3. Do you agree that homosexuals should be discriminated against?

It is my belief that in Singapore’s context, the social conservative would probably answer no to the first question while the liberal would say yes. For the second question, I think that a fair number of conservatives who said no to the first question are going to yes because it’s no longer about homosexuality. It’s about the rights of a human being. As for the last question, I think except for the extreme hawks, most social conservatives are going to disagree with discriminating against homosexuals. I do believe that in Singapore, people (and the government) are very sensitive to the term “discrimination”, given our history with racial and religious violence in the early days of independence.

I don’t want to be a wet blanket but for the social conservatives, before taking out numbers to support your argument, you might want to consider whether the instrument (i.e. the polls) was biased to begin with. Also, I think the social conservatives might want to make up their own minds as to what is it exactly that they are against. Homosexuality and human rights are two different issues.

I consider myself a liberal but I am homophobic. I don’t think that homosexuality is all that natural. But so what? That doesn’t diminish their status as a human being. I think homosexuals should enjoy the same set of sexual rights as me, a heterosexual, because homosexuals are every inch a human being as I am. The issue here is not the sexual orientation but rather equality of rights among human beings. On what basis is a homosexual less human than a heterosexual?

While I do respect the views of the conservatives in general, I dislike how they are framing the debate over S377A as an issue of whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural, rather than whether homosexuals deserve the same set of rights as heterosexuals. It is way too complex to determine whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural. There are many conflicting evidences, so on this note, I say let’s apply the rule of innocence unless proven guilty and take the nature versus nurture debate over homosexuality out of the debate.

So, the two critical questions the social conservatives should answer are:

1. Do you think that homosexuals deserve the same set of rights as heterosexuals?
2. Do you agree that homosexuals should be discriminated against?

Note: Please check out http://www.repeal377a.com/ and sign the open letter if you think the legislation is unfair. I’ve already done so in my capacity as a concerned Singapore citizen.

This entry was inspired partly by some comments in my last entry which mused about some possible unintended consequences of compulsory annuities. Bart, one of the authors of the blog Perspective Unlimited, was attacked by another reader for his opinions in my last entry. The attack was not on Bart’s argument but rather, his background as a civil servant.

The following is the definition of argumentum ad hominem from Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

I do not agree with engaging in argumentum ad hominem because most of the time, such an approach is unproductive. Besides, it is my observation that people tend to be impolite, sometimes to the point of being downright nasty when engaging in ad hominem arguments.

Disagreeing with one another is something very normal, and I suspect a large part of disagreement arises because people have different educational backgrounds and life experiences. Whether we realise it or not, our opinions are grounded in what we know and have experienced. No two people are the same in their education or life experiences. That being said, how can a person then criticise another person’s background? Unless one has gone through the exact same education and life experience, one cannot fully understand why another person made an argument the way they did.

Does this then means a person’s background is irrelevant in an argument? I don’t think so. I think it is important to know just so that we can appreciate why the argument was made in a certain manner. As I mentioned in the earlier paragraph, we can never fully understand the reasons behind a person’s argument. However, if we understand the person’s background, we can appreciate the direction of the argument, even though we might disagree with the argument itself.

It does take quite a fair amount of effort not to engage in ad hominem arguments. I suspect this is because it is so much easier to attack a person’s character or background and therefore, we have an instinctive urge to do just that. By targeting the opponent’s background, one does not bring to the table his/her opinion, which means that one will not have to answer tough questions on why they hold that opinion.

I admit I’m guilty of engaging in ad hominem arguments at times. It’s usually not conscious, though, which is why I have the conjecture that it’s an instinctive urge. I do suppose human beings are not perfect and the only solution would be for people to help one another and remind each other that argumentum ad hominem is a logically fallacy when seeing such an act being committed.

I’ve been so extremely busy that it’s getting really hard for me to find the time to write. I think I only have the energy to write weekly until the end of the university semester, so I apologise for the lack of updates.

Anyway, I’ve more or less consolidated my thoughts on the CPF changes and I concur with the government on most counts. Indeed, with rising life expectancies, we need to change our mindsets on retirement. The only exception to this is if you are able to amass enough money before age 65 to live for the next 20-30 years and beyond. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask Singaporeans to work longer.

What I think is unreasonable is compulsory annuities (or the spin version of the term, longevity insurance) to be borne by all CPF members. It doesn’t matter how big or small the amount is. The crux of the issue is that the government is forcing those who do not live beyond 85 (which is probably the majority) to pay for those who eventually do. I am of the opinion that this is a grossly irresponsible act of conduct by our government.

I am willing to support everything else but this issue. It is NOT as if people have a choice to their life expectancy. I can accept that I should plan for retirement up till the average life expectancy (or maybe 3-4 years beyond that as a buffer) and in fact, I think everyone should do just that. However, should I be lucky enough (or should I say unlucky enough) to live beyond my calculations, it is not my choice. Should the government not be compassionate enough to do something about my predicament?

I think the government has the ability to provide for those who have exceptionally long life expectancies without resorting to forcing people to subsidise each other through annuities. All the government needs to do is to spell out the criteria. Sure, the average life expectancy is 85, and if people are lucky, they’ll live a few years more. So, tell people to make sure their CPF can last until they are 88, 89 or even 90 years old. If a person followed the prescription but lives beyond the buffer he/she has set, I think the government should support this person. He has been responsible to help himself for most part during his twilight years. Is it too much to ask the government to support this person until he passes on? Should the government wash their hands so cleanly off a responsible citizen?

If the government is truly the caring and responsible government it claims to be, I think they should reconsider their position on annuities. I do not think the government should be giving handouts to lazy and irresponsible folks, but I do think that the government should help those who help themselves instead of forcing the rest of the citizenry to do the job for them. I don’t see why the government should not adopt the welfare state model for those who live way beyond expectation. All it takes is for the planning to start now (see Leong Sze Hian’s estimates in his article on The Online Citizen).

From another perspective, the PAP-dominated government should do itself a favour and scrap the annuities idea. It’s one thing to increase GST, but it’s another completely different thing to force people to use their money for something that is unlikely to benefit them. The latter is a much more explosive political fodder for other political parties than the former. Certain issues might make people complain, but some touchy issues are going to make people more than complain.

I read Siew Kum Hong’s prepared text of the speech he delivered in parliament yesterday. I’ve been so busy with work, studies and family that I only had the time to read one blog entry the entire week.

I think Kum Hong asked, in an indirect way, a very interesting question on why the government is not investing the monies of CPF members to achieve a much better rate of return. In his view, the government would be as equally judicious in the investment of CPF monies as reserves. So, if judicious management of reserves by GIC has yielded 8.2% annually from 1981 to 2006 (after smoothening out the fluctuations), can’t similar rates of return be yielded by a similarly judicious management of CPF funds?

I can see where he’s coming from, but I can also see why the government is extremely reluctant to invest on behalf of CPF board members. Basically, no one is going to complain when rates of returns are good. When rates of returns are negative, imagine the consequences, especially in an election year.

People are not going to be so sensitive about returns on the reserves as compared to the returns on their CPF. This is because the individual Singaporean has a personal CPF account and they can claim ownership to the money in that account, since it is under their name. If returns on the CPF are going to be negative for a few years due to a recession, wouldn’t people be upset? How many people will actually be able to accept that this is the cyclical nature of markets? I don’t know, but if I were the government, I sure don’t want to find out the hard way.

I think that unless everyone can understand that investment entails risks, is subject to fluctuations and are able to stomach fluctuations in investment, the government is not going to bear investment risks on behalf of CPF members. Imagine if it was the CPF Board that invested in Shin Corp and not Temasek.