The Pride of the Welsh

A few hours ago, I was in the Millenium Stadium, part of the record crowd of 76,000 who witnessed Wales win the Six Nations Grand Slam against France. If I were to use one word to sum up the atmosphere, I would say, it was heartwarming, absolutely heartwarming. The architecture of the building, coupled with the closed roof due to rain may have played a part in retaining the voices, but the unified singing within the stadium was quite phenomenal. I have heard the songs sang during National Day in Singapore, and they are songs that move as well. But the experience today, was a souful one. The Welsh National Anthem itself, 'Land of My Fathers' sung in Welsh, carries a very emotive and emotional tune which underlies an almost resigned but determined spirit to protect the Welsh language, culture and land. From young to old, the people were on their feet, tugging at each other, singing with their deepest and loudest voices from their gut. And when the final whistle went, the crowd, all on their feet appluaded and cheered as the all-too-familiar tune of 'We Are The Champions' surrounded the stadium.

I was in the casino a few hours later recouping the price of my ticket, and was speaking to one of the croupiers. He told me, 'Its so good for the country, and for the people.' And I do not think I am reading too much into that when I say that the win definitely was more than just a sporting achievement to this country where I have spent the majority of my past 2 years in. The win was a symbol of a victory of culture and spirit in today's economically-driven world. Once upon a time, the battle was a territorial one against the English, today, it is an increasingly economic one as the rural and industrial Welsh markets and heartlands desperately adapt in a bid to be competitive against the world. But if anything, Wales has demonstrated that culture is bigger than both politics, economics and reputation. A nation that doesnt have political soverignity, a region that is economically one of the most backwards in the UK, a country seen as a romantic joke trying to rekindle a modern relevance for its language and identity. Staring into the face of international irrelevance, political obscurity and economic doldrums, the laid-back Welsh character responds not by simply trying to achive all that, but to protect what it sees as most important, its soul, its culture. In a world where more and more seperatist attempts are violent, where entire cities and villages are torn down and re-structured, Wales perhaps, provides a beacon of hope, that the culture that flows in the soul of people, needs no external institutional or material appearance, if what it is, truly flows internally in the rivers of blood and the beat of the heart.

A true sense of identity, does not lie simply on the quicksand of economic success or the structure of a constitution. It lies on the recognition of a history overcome, a heritage travelled, a presence larger than the transient individual or a temporary time. To the common person, a sense of identity cant make him full or give him shelter, but it perhaps provides worth, meaning and purpose to his life. But perhaps, to the intellectuals in the ivory towers who shape their own discourses of human progress as they seek to maximize the intellectual capacity they have been blessed with, all Man can be and should be like them, since they have discovered what all human beings innately desire. Ah, The beauty of the instrumental equality they preach, in that all individuals are equal in their intellectual capabilities and desires, and only need to be enlightened like themselves! I guess I am not enlightened, I can only hold on to my belief in the intrinsic equality in all human beings, in the differences in ability and capability that are held together only in our common existence. And so, I continue on my never-ending trek of trying to understand other people.

To end of, I will quote from Eric Fromm. I do not normally like to quote others here, but this really sums up what I feel in the most simple and direct way, " Emotional well-being cannot be defined in terms of the adjustment of the individual to his society, but on the contrary... must be defined in terms of the adjustment of society to the needs of man'."

Reflections on the Week - Evaluating the Thru-train System

The first batch of 'thru-train' students in Singapore received their A Level results on Friday. To put this in context, there were 2 major changes to the education system in recent years, first the thru-train system and second the change in curriculum. So this batch of A Level results could have shown an indication on both changes. The main media release by the Ministry of Education, subsequently published in the mainstream media was that, 'there was no real dip in the results as compared to previous batches.' I found this very interesting.

The choice of words, 'no real dip' carries a double-meaning. Behind the obvious 'fact' of no real dip, is the more subtle, 'no real increase'. So while, there may be no real dip, there is definitely no real improvement. The press release then goes to great deal to re-emphasize not less than 2 tims that due to a change of curriculum, results are non-comparable. Again, if results are non-comparable, why state that there are has been no real-dip? Then the evidence to show no real dip must be put to question. Compared with the percentage in 2006 of students with 3 A Level passes and a pass in GP (88.2%), the 'closest comparison' in 2007 of students with at least 3 H2 passes and a pass in GP or KI is 87.5%. I grant that this shows no real dip.

But, but, but, lets revisit the impact group of the through train system. These are the students from the Raffles and HC family, as well as NJC. The rest of the student population did not go through the through-train system, which means they set for the O Levels. Now, the students in the'thru-train' programme have been the academic elite with the PSLE results in the nation, and thus their selection for the thru-train programme. Obviously then, the indicator of comparison for the success of the 'thru-train' system cannot be A Level PASSES, but DISTINCTIONS. To this effect, it is glaring that RJC refused to release details comparing current bacth results with previous batches. HCI released that the current batch did better than their seniors but with no general statistics. Now, everyone in Singapore knows RJC and HCI, or in fact the education body as a whole. (think NUS) If there were any good news, they would be the first to broadcast to the world. If there isnt, its hush-hush. This brings me to my concluding suspicion that, the results for the first batch of 'thru-train' students do not support the proposition that 'thru-train' has led to better students, at least academically when measured by the A Levels.

My area of content however, lies far deeper than that. I am not concerned on the 'output' results of if students under thru-train fared better. The concern must be the outcomes. The problem however, is, if there is no recognition that the outputs indicate a possible negative outcome, then there will be no inquiry into possible reasons for this drop in outputs, and subsequently, no inquiries into detailed implications on outcomes. I know that for obvious political reasons, MOE will find it very difficult to admit that the thru-train may have not worked, and after all, its only the first year. But surely, the key here, is not whether if the thru-train worked or not, but WHY it worked or did not work.

There were 2 key features of the thru-train system. The first was ideological, 'more learning, less teaching', the second was procedural, 'no need for O Levels'. I never agreed that these had to be complementary. I never saw the link between 'more learning, less teaching, and no O Levels'. Could we not have had 'more learning, less teaching, and STILL O Levels? My impression is that for the average Singaporean student, academically inclined or not, the motivation to study is largely still exams. Therefore, I suspect that the lack of a need to prepare for the O Levels would have severely weakened the foundations of the students, which more likely than not, would lead to less A Level accomplishment. Let me break down the concept of 'teaching and learning'. Teaching refers to an action on the part of the teachers, while learning refers to action on the part of the students. The argument that teachers spend too much time teaching and preparing students for the O Levels and not enough time to encourage learning, is logically flawed. Because, while teaching and preparing students obviously require both the time of the teachers and the students, encouraging learning falls largely on the time of the students. I will argue that quality of education is the key in terms of inculcating learning, rather than quantity of time spent. Therefore, it should be perfectly possible for teachers to prepare students for the O Levels and encourage learning through non-time consuming approaches. On the other hand, students who may have been excused from the need to prepare for the O Levels need not spend time learning, but may spend time instead on other more leisurely pursuits which will have a fundamental negative effect on their academic performance.

Therefore, while the move towards a more 'learning' approach should be encouraged, the move to scrap the O Levels should not be maintained. My fear however, is that if MOE approach the entire issue negatively, they may confuse the 2 features, and try to remove both, i.e. re-instate O levels, and revert to old-style preparing for exams approach. Far more research needs to be done in the area, but the start to this is a recognition that there is a problem. Mixing the two up, mixing the changes to 'thru-train' and 'new curriculúm' up, while possibly confusing public attention and defusing possible criticism, may resolve MOE of blame, but huge questions over the interests of of young and their education will be left unanswered.

Yet, the crux of this entire post is not education, or MOE, or media scrutiny. Politics and governance are too complicated to be easily simplified in a few words and there are far more issues that need consideration, which is really beyond me. For me, the far more humble lesson is in the fundamental way which we EVALUATE ourselves as individuals. If we do not dig deep and question our true motivations and intentions and rely completely on 'surface facts', then I fear that will spiral into a fashion of 'self-justification' and more critically, 'self-delusion'.

Reflections on the Week - Malaysian GE

By the time you read this, Malaysia would have gotten up to the news that BN no longer has a 2/3 majority in Parliament, and the states of Selangor, Penang, Perak, Kedah & Kelentan are under opposition control. Barisan National's worst election showing since independence, and party leaders and political analysts alike will be scrambling for reasons. For me however, the situation poses 2 crucial questions on the future of stability in Malaysia, which would probably be the main regional and international concern.

Responsibility for this now lies largely in the hands of the opposition coalition between PAS, PKR and DAP. PKR, led by Anwar Ibrahim, campainging on the vision of a Malaysian Malaysia (which is not a new rallying cry as both UMNO founder Onn Jaafar and PAP founder Lee Kuan Yew have both campaigned on similar terms in the 60s), is the largest of the opposition parties in the Federal Parliament. But in terms of the local state governments, PAS is the largest party in Kelantan and Kedah. DAP is the largest opposition party in Penang and Perak. And PKR and DAP have the same number of seats in Selangor. Politically, the question must then be: Are all 3 opposition parties united behind a Malaysian Malaysia vision? Or is this an opportunisitic alliance? The facts tell a clear story, if not for the fact of an opposition coalition, BN would have retained control of Perak and Selangor as they are the single individual party with the highnest number of seats. The situation in Kedah too, would be risky for the opposition as PAS only has a 2 seat advantage over BN. In other words, all 3 opposition parties know that their success and consolidation relies heavily on cooperation. But to what extent will this cooperation last? Thus far, DAP & PKR have already indicated a willingness to form state governments in partnership with each other and PAS so that is a good sign. However, the situation gets more sticky when PAS is brought in. The demographics show that support for PAS is largely consolidated in the Muslim North of Malaysia, while DAP has clear Chinese backing. PKR is making an appeal to all races, but the support mainly comes from disgruntled Indians and Chinese. While DAP and PKR could coincide their aims for a Malaysian Malaysia and more equal treatment of all races, where will PAS position itself? It dropped its call for an Islamic state before the elections. Is this a determined move? Or opportunistic.

The answer then would lie in the hands of the people. Will the majority of the dominant Malays be willing to support an opposition championing for more equal treatment for all races? Or at least accept such an opposition? Or will deadly racial riots occur again. Are the votes for UMNO votes of the recognition of status quo, or the vote against a Malaysian Malaysia. The next 4 years will tell. Come next election, the future of Malaysia will be the fundamental electoral question. Will the opposition be able to fulfil their opportunity and stay as a united front championing a Malaysian Malaysia, and retain support for their governance? Or will BN undergo a radical transformation to also champion a Malaysian Malaysia? Or will the next General Elections be a vote for or against a Malaysian Malaysia.

I think alot will depend on one man -Anwar Ibrahim. His test will be two-fold, first will be his ability to hold the opposition to some form of agreement on a Malaysian Malaysia, and then second, his ability to convince the general public on the viability of a Malaysian Malaysia as far as Malay interests are concerned. The reaction of PM Badawi will be equally interesting, where does BN go from here?

Stability in Malaysia would have huge repercussions on the region's economy, and I believe on Singapore's political future as well. After all, it was the PAP in 1964 who failed to champion a Malaysian Malaysia. Now that things may change in Malaysia, are we thinking merger again? Or will this huge showing by the opposition in Malaysia against a traditionally dominant ruling party have repercussions on the opposition political scene in Singapore as well?

The Happy Peasant

One of my earliest childhood ambitions, which has stayed on with me all this years, is to be a farmer. I suppose this is already a well-known fact among all my friends. During my stint in the Police Academy, I was nicknamed the 'Happy Peasant' of which there is a classic picture of me somewhere looking exactly like what which I cant seem to locate now unfortunately. But why did I or rather do I ,want to be a farmer?

I think the first reason I had especially when I was young is that I like animals. I envisioned myself playing with the pigs, sheep, horses, cows and chickens everyday. I think animals are cute! And I also quite like planting crops, or collecting harvests. The appeal lay in the repetitive nature of the job, in which, something productive came out of it. Contrary to popular belief, I do not like to use my brain or complicate things, so farming seemed simple enough to me then.

However, I soon realised that maybe the whole idea wasnt as romantic or idyllic as I wanted it to be. Firstly, if the reasons why I kept animals was to play with them, then how was I going to derive income from them? Secondly, if I did not want to use my brain, how was I going to deal with natural disasters, or pest problems with the crops, or increase my crops to sell and make a living? And thirdly, in a remote farm, where was I going to get proper sanitation and clean water?

Then, I thought of some solutions to my problems and decided that some of the problems were not actually problems at all. You see, I did not intend to become a commercial farmer, I wanted to be a subsistence farmer. Which means, that I only need to feed myself and my wife. (My plan was to become a farmer after an early-retirement, when my children would have grown up and started working.) So I would not need much food. The vegetables would be a main source of food, the cows could provide milk, the chicken eggs, and the pigs and sheep would only be eaten after they died a natural death. I would be in no hurry to increase my food or crop production, so I would not need fertilisers, or force-feed my animals. So, their entire lifetime would be spent playing with me and my wife.

Natural disasters and crop failures. This would more likely affect the crops than my animals, so in the event of extreme crop failure, I could then buy some vegetables from the market to feed myself. I was assuming that I would have some savings by then. Then again, having to buy some vegetables for a subsistence lifestyle to feed 2 people should not be too much.

Thirdly, clean water and sanitation. I would have to spend the most of my savings to ensure these are provided for in my little farm hut before I shift in. So these would not be a problem. We would have a telephone too for urgent contact purposes.

Then, what about family and friends. Oh, they could visit us whenever they wanted, and join us for a game of mahjong with peanuts by the river, as the chicken eat their feed and run around.

Medicine and illness? Would there be a doctor or hospital somewhere? I probably didnt consider this much, as I assumed help would be a phonecall away.

There you go, my dream ambition. I wondered if I would get sick of it, or if my wife would get sick of it, or if the animals would get sick of me. Would I need anything else to be happy? But then again, I think, with food, water, shelter, cute animals and a wonderful companion, what more would I need. Maybe nothing. Or maybe, I would be wrong. But I hope, that at least, I have a chance to try it out sometime this lifetime. Is there any place I could go? Is there anyone who wants to go with me?

On My Money

I know I promised to continue with my vision of SEA but owing to intensive school readings to do, I have decided to postpone for another 2 weeks after my terms ends and so that I can do some proper research to support my thoughts. In the meantime though, here is something that could possibly act as a pre-cursor to that post, something that is more simple and cute.

Do you remember how you used to receive pocket allowance from your parents when you were younger? Were you given a montly or weekly allowance? Or did your mum put money into your wallet daily? Or was it more of a 'ask-when-you-need' process? Now of course, different family financial backgrounds will allow for different systems, but also important is your parents' philosophy of money.

Today, I had an online conversation with a very good friend and he told me that at this stage of his life, his aim is to gain financial independence. That is what got me thinking. How does this relate to pocket money? Let's see!

Throughout my entire life thus far, up till now, my pocket money has been given on a very 'free and easy' system, as opposed to a very rigid weekly or monthly routine. When I was in primary school, my mum would give me a daily allowance that would be enough for me to get by at that time. As I grew older into secondary school, the allowances increased in value, but the system was the same. Every morning, my mum would look into my wallet and see if there was any money inside, if there was little or not enough, she would top it up. So actually, I never actually needed to ask. As I grew even older into JC or army, my mum would no longer check my wallet every morning before I went out, instead she would ask me daily if I had enough money. I would then reply yes or no, and if no, tell her how much I would need. This history of how my money allowance showed how my mother's philosophy of money was (when it came to her children) but would also go on to inculcate my own philosophy on the value of money. To my mum, her philosophy was that every morning, her children should have enough money. To me, all I needed to do when I ran out, was to ask for more.

Let me now tell you more of how I reacted in such a system. Firstly, I had little incentive to save money for a rainy day, because there was no such thing as a rainy day. The second outcome though, which is actually somewhat related to the first, is that I developed the thinking that the purpose of money was for it to be enough now, there did not need to be more! However, the older I grew, the more the days started to rain. Costs increased, there were more social gatherings to attend, meals to go for. My mum was not fully aware of this increase in expenditure on my part, but for me, what she gave me was still always meant to be enough. So, money is always enough. When I ran out of money, incrreasingly so, I would not go to my mum to take more, I would borrow from friends (which got me quite a reputation) and then return the next time my mum gave me. And I would cut down on spending, even forgoing basic meals. Sometimes even though I knew full well that my wallet was empty, I would tell my mum that I did not need more money. Only for her to check sometime later, and that tell me, "Your wallet is empty you do not even know!"

But why did I not take more money? It was not because of a fear of getting scolded, because I never would be, nor was it a desire to look thrifty, because even though I actually spend almost peanuts on myself, I never saw that as a source of pride. Why then? Because I believed that 'money is always enough', 'money that my mum gave me is always enough'. Money to me, is meant solely for exchange. Exchange means that if I need something that money can buy, I take out money in exchange for the thing that I need. So, for me, if I had no money, it meant to me that I needed nothing. I did not see borrowing money as money being not enough, since I always knew I would return and never borrowed for luxury, it was just like being in credit.

Now, after this long story, let me come back to the point of financial independence. It is almost obvious by now, that I have been financially very un-independent all my life, havent I? I had little concept of savings, and I never felt a need to make my own money. And till today, I do not have that desire. I have no qualms about taking money from my parents, or from my relatives, or borrowing from my friends. But now, let me also give the other side of the story. Almost my entire academic life was paid for not from my parents' pockets. Having been on scholarship all my life, you could say that my entire schooling fees have been provided for, and even now, my living allowance fees are provided for by my scholarship board. So, it would be easy for me to argue that actually, I have been financially independent from a very young age, in fact I have 'earned' close to half a million dollars for me to study and live. But do I think that way? No! My brain doesnt work like that. My dad and mum did not bring me up like that. In my family, there is no such thing as financial independence. The money is simply to go round the family, everyone puts in what they have when it is needed. There is no my money, or your money, it is not even our money, it is just enough money for now! My aunt part financed my dad for his studies, and they contribute to the household finances and the list goes on and on. No one is independent, but no one is dependent as well. I have never seen myself as financially dependent or independent. Money has had only one purpose, to be enough! To be enough to exchange for what I need or want. If there is no money, it means there is nothing that I need or want. And in case you think that I have never been poor, let me tell you that I have survived days and weeks on close to nothing. Because, if I had no money, I stay at home, I eat the bread that is left, I read the books that I have.

I sometimes think, that people always want more money. Why so? To buy the new clothes, a new car, a new house and then keep some in the bank for spare in case they want to buy something else still. But I never wanted more money, I was happy with what I had and what I have. In the balance between money and desire, people try to change the amount of money they hold, I change instead my desires and my lifestyle . I have never wanted to buy a single branded shirt or jeans or watch or shoes or computer game for myself in my life! I have never owned anything from a Gameboy to an MP3 Player to an Ipod to a WWi. My first laptop which is this one I am using now, is not even mine, its acquired on a loan from JTC! The only things I feel I own are my treasured boxes of letters and cards that I have received from friends and relatives through the years. Besides that, I cannot think of anything material that I own, ok maybe besides my Jacky Cheung CDs! =p But I am idealistic and I know that. And I do regret imposing such thinking on my close friends sometimes taking for granted that they will share the same mentality as me. For those that have not but still put up with me, I am always grateful.

That is why when another friend asked me the other day, will you work hard to earn money? I said yes I would. And my reasons were simple. Just because I know that I can treat money as how I treat it, and that my family from my dad to my mum to my aunties and uncle also treat it that way, it would be unfair for me to expect my future family, wife and children to carry that same thinking. I do not think that just because I can survive on no money a day, then I should expect my children to do so as well. The story comes full circle you see. Back then when my mum and dad could live on almost nothing a day,they would still open our wallets every morning and put money inside. Do you get me? =)