As I have pointed out in the previous post, in order to create a fairer picture I would follow up with another article on the merits of Singapore Education system.
To write it off in a single stroke is abit too hasty and not doing myself justice either - since if the Education system is really THAT deplorable as mentioned, than I can be no better, since after all I AM a product of this Education system. Furthermore, since I have not had the benefit of assimilating with people in the lesser instituitions, my commentaries on the dichotomy between students of varying academic calibre remain blinkererd.
The greatest strengths of the education system, i believed, lies in the quality of its teaching force. Teachers to be are carefully scrutinized and lots of effort, both time and money, are invested into the training of every individual teachers. This include a training stints in the National Institute of Education, where standards are set and the quality of the curriculum is streamlined to meet the needs of all children from various backgrounds. One favourable outcome is that teachers are up to date with the curriculum, and are reasonably trained not just in their specialty, but also in other quasi-specialties. This is integral in an age of volatility where having different tools of trade, or different perspectives is the order of the day. Teachers are picked and chosen based on stringent academic requirements as well as background assessments.
Secondly, is the perpetration of technology in every corners of the education system. One cannot help but marvel at the fine state of technology in our classrooms, utilizing virtually every advantages conceived by this age of infocom.What is the advantage? The advantage is pupils are able to access materials at relative ease, and dessemination of education materials, both at teaching level and students level, occurs at a groundbreaking speed. Efficiency is no doubt sped up as more unimpeded information flow indicates less beaurucreacy and red tape. Pupils are able to view their notes online and teaches likewise can set questions online.
Thirdly, it seems to me that the government is indeed aware of the growing disparity between the different academic echoleons - this is demonstrated by the increased publicity of the Institute of Technical Education, which has taken the education world by storm. The once dormant, perhaps embarrassing appendage of education has now been revitalised - thanks to a major shift in Government policy to accord greater effort and significance to technical and vocational education. True to form, ITE has been awarded the Harvard prize for most improved education model in the world, which really bears testament to the efforts spend in transforming the quality and reputation of ITE.
I think this attempt to value-add and enhance the worthiness of an ITE education is commendable to say the least. The effect would not only be greater employability, but will indeed do away with some of the greatest barriers in academic ascension. Many ITE grads are now rewarded in more ways than one, including generous scholarships and internships with renowned firms which could embellish their track record as well as motivate them, especially those with financial constraints, to strive for the better. Also, what i see is not just an attempt to improve the quality but also to render a large scale, wholesome makeover - radically speaking, it is to alter the perceptions of people that ITE is an institute of the lowest esteem, and for the lowest of hierachy. This is important , because people become more encouraging and accepting, employers become more willing to take in ITE grads, and most important, it bolsters the confidence and self-esteem of ITE grads - that they are indeed able to contribute in a meaningful way by virtue of their talents and skills wihout being stiff-armed and snickered at by society.
Also, a review team has been tasked to examine the possibility- and the conditions - to open a new university. This actually addresses the alarmingly low university admission figures for polytechnic graduates. Although how they are going to do it I have no idea, because unless real flexibility is introduced I see little in it but the possibility of duplication. The inanity and insufficiency of present university admission systems might just be spilled over. Hence the new universities must be fundamentally different in their selection process - giving weightage to poly technic grads, or even non academic factors such as work experience and sporting achievements. However this would be in a way going against the notions of meritocracy that the Government has so unfalteringly espoused and promoted. So would the Government set a precedent in this one? How about this advantage would deny real performing JC students a chance of a university education that is different from the present 3? Wouldnt this be a violation of choice? The start of point is in good faith, but the path is wretched and not at all simple so to speak.
Lastly, meritocracy does push students to their true potential since students of high competency when put together, tend to flourish and inter-motivate. The opposite is also true - but what we can see is an overwhelming trend which indicates that the former is more manifestly true. There is no one size fits all approach - less academically inclined students need more time, moderate pace while more academically inclined students cannot be bogged down and handicapped by the limiting factors of weaker students. We cannot pull the reins on the stronger students because in the end potential for greater development will be curtailed and congenital intelligence and brilliance will be snuffed out and castigated. So yet again we have to decide where to strike this delicate balance.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
A critique of the Singapore education system
Some time ago I had a heaty discussion with my colleague whether the present Education system was as adequate and self sufficient as many sources have purported it to be. I argued that the present state of education system leaves much to be desired ; since meritocracy has tipped the line and degenerated into a lurid perpetrating form of elitism, something so abhorent, aversive that I find myself increasingly disillusioned in the working mechanism of our Education System and the future of our young children.
The carefully medidated streaming process ( Many thanks to Dr Goh) has much to contribute to the success we have today. The brightest are churned, trained, and stretched to their full potential. They have the best of facilities, the best of teachers (both pedagogically and professionally), and are not least the apple of the public's eyes - studious, conscientious, assiduous students who will "make it big" as lawyers, doctors, bankers, engineers etc.
This is only one side of the coin. Flip it around and we will have a rather disconcerting picture - students from young who learn the meaning of segregation. Students who are unable to fight the tides of competition face rejection,ostracisation, outcasting and eventually viewed as the quintessential "social reject" - those who become deliquents and unable to contribute to the society in a fruitful manner.
And then there is also a place for academic mediocrity. Students who get further categorized in the later phase of their education and gets into polytechnic. These students would eventually learn the difficulty of university admission in a hard way. An optimistic projection of the percentage of polytechnic students who finally managed to squeeze their way into one of our 3 reputable universities hovers around a rather cringeworthy 15%.
Herein lies the problem.
This society has been divided - perhaps too much - by academic capabilties. The continual emphasis on examination results and academic performance has led to inevitable self flagelletion and brimming stress. Students understand too well the value of their academic results - and this often results in disproportionately less amount of attention accorded to their psychological development encompassing asthetics and sports, as well as unneccessary comparisons across every individuals, classrooms and schools. Students either cut it or lose it - something they come to know of at a tender age of 12. PSLE - the primary school leaving examination has already served to mirror the governments policy on education - that the most intelligent be channelled to, narrowed and concentrated in a few top prestigious instituitions. The rest? They are consigned to instituitions of less prestige - and often less of this also meant lower quality of teachers, classroom and facilites.
Magnify this process all the way up to pre university level, and you get an idea of the sheer enormity of this project. Those who have indeed survived the gruelling, uncompassionate streamings are indeed the creme de la creme - emerging more affirmed of their sheer competence and capabilities - whatever these terms actually mean. By what has this led to? It has to a creation of a caste system, and yes archaic as it sounds, and definitely anachronistic, but nevertheless it happens right here, in 21st century modern Singapore. Why? Because the grand astute plan has created a pervading snobbish milieu - something reminiscient of the English in the 19th century all the way up to early 20th century. While florid displays of opulence has defined such snobbery in Great Britain, in Singapore it is the unapologetic flaunting of intellectual wit. There is a growing dichotomy between the "top students" and the "bottom ones", and clearly top ones are in a league of their own - academic straight distinctions, numerous sporting accolades and international competition achievements.
The bottom ones are literally left to fend for their own, struggling in a perilous territory that doesnt really reward those who are academically flaccid and pallid. These are left to languish in the ineptness of their academic records (if they have any) and left to ponder over the mistakes they have commited for - what the irony- being bornt less intellectually inclined than some others.
In various nooks of society, it is clear and evident that we have already judged a person before even coming to know them personally -through the ubiquituous yardstick of academic achievements.In national service, the distinction is all too prevalent. The ascension of rank is contrived and calculated in favour of the scholars - those who have the indisposable paper qualifications and spent a few good years in some of the top universities. And then there are the "farmers"- a term coined to describe the weathered officers who have worked their way painstakingly purely by virtue of their long service period and perhaps experience, but nonetheless the playing field is never levelled. The less educated engage in a wild goose chase - clamouring for rank promotions that is never to be, or exceedingly difficult, while those who have spent a few more years of their life in univeristy have it the easier way.
It is however inappropriate to dismiss the system altogether, but this system has bred a class of "intellegensia" who knows only the value of paper qualifications and nothing esle. These group retreats in their ivory tower, seemingly detached from realities on the ground, and offers nothing but condescension and disdai on the less academically inclined. Why I do issue such a harsh verdict on them? Because personal anecdotes, and various trends have attested to my personal opinion that these group of supersmart scholars are too aloof in their league - lofty, supercilious and never able to be empathetic, however much they try.
Wee Shu Min case in point. It has affirmed this phenomenom that these elite class of intellgensias are getting increasingly dislodged from the general populace - patronizing in their tone, and contemptible in their actions. And whats worst, these education policies and systems have been put in place in expediency- to promote these intellegensias into high ranking civil service job which yields great power. The dismal thing is not the flippance, snobbery displayed by these group of scholars per se, but rather it is the perpetuity of the vicious cycle - when scholarship and elitism is likely to be passed down in the same family. A cursory observation would likely reveal how top civil servants have bright children in the top schools. I am not too optimistic about the state of affairs because as far as i know, many students are a chip off their own block. They pride upon being the vestige of academic excellence, being at the forefront of competitiveness, and having an almost impeccable family heritage matched head to tail by an impressive CV. So this has culminated in a sorry state of affairs when the smart thrives and revels in his brilliance while the less smart will have to make do with the fact that some people are just more equal than others. Who says one cannot have a headstart in life?
I strongly believed that education system should be fair and just. The vexing problem remains the lack of academic integration, since the smart elitist huddles together in one corner while the less smart are left to languish in one corner. These is hardly a definite bridge between the 2 : except maybe national service, but this will tend to affirm the elitists' egoticism and ignorance rather than suppress it. Such cavalier attitudes must be kept in check - and I think the first main step would be to diminish this invisible barrier between the 2 divides of the society, because the first step towards solving a problem as abject as this would be to acknowledge the problem and its root causes itself.
Though I have definitely come down hard on the system, but I will comment on the merits of the system in my next article too, so you guys can come to the conclusion youselves.
The carefully medidated streaming process ( Many thanks to Dr Goh) has much to contribute to the success we have today. The brightest are churned, trained, and stretched to their full potential. They have the best of facilities, the best of teachers (both pedagogically and professionally), and are not least the apple of the public's eyes - studious, conscientious, assiduous students who will "make it big" as lawyers, doctors, bankers, engineers etc.
This is only one side of the coin. Flip it around and we will have a rather disconcerting picture - students from young who learn the meaning of segregation. Students who are unable to fight the tides of competition face rejection,ostracisation, outcasting and eventually viewed as the quintessential "social reject" - those who become deliquents and unable to contribute to the society in a fruitful manner.
And then there is also a place for academic mediocrity. Students who get further categorized in the later phase of their education and gets into polytechnic. These students would eventually learn the difficulty of university admission in a hard way. An optimistic projection of the percentage of polytechnic students who finally managed to squeeze their way into one of our 3 reputable universities hovers around a rather cringeworthy 15%.
Herein lies the problem.
This society has been divided - perhaps too much - by academic capabilties. The continual emphasis on examination results and academic performance has led to inevitable self flagelletion and brimming stress. Students understand too well the value of their academic results - and this often results in disproportionately less amount of attention accorded to their psychological development encompassing asthetics and sports, as well as unneccessary comparisons across every individuals, classrooms and schools. Students either cut it or lose it - something they come to know of at a tender age of 12. PSLE - the primary school leaving examination has already served to mirror the governments policy on education - that the most intelligent be channelled to, narrowed and concentrated in a few top prestigious instituitions. The rest? They are consigned to instituitions of less prestige - and often less of this also meant lower quality of teachers, classroom and facilites.
Magnify this process all the way up to pre university level, and you get an idea of the sheer enormity of this project. Those who have indeed survived the gruelling, uncompassionate streamings are indeed the creme de la creme - emerging more affirmed of their sheer competence and capabilities - whatever these terms actually mean. By what has this led to? It has to a creation of a caste system, and yes archaic as it sounds, and definitely anachronistic, but nevertheless it happens right here, in 21st century modern Singapore. Why? Because the grand astute plan has created a pervading snobbish milieu - something reminiscient of the English in the 19th century all the way up to early 20th century. While florid displays of opulence has defined such snobbery in Great Britain, in Singapore it is the unapologetic flaunting of intellectual wit. There is a growing dichotomy between the "top students" and the "bottom ones", and clearly top ones are in a league of their own - academic straight distinctions, numerous sporting accolades and international competition achievements.
The bottom ones are literally left to fend for their own, struggling in a perilous territory that doesnt really reward those who are academically flaccid and pallid. These are left to languish in the ineptness of their academic records (if they have any) and left to ponder over the mistakes they have commited for - what the irony- being bornt less intellectually inclined than some others.
In various nooks of society, it is clear and evident that we have already judged a person before even coming to know them personally -through the ubiquituous yardstick of academic achievements.In national service, the distinction is all too prevalent. The ascension of rank is contrived and calculated in favour of the scholars - those who have the indisposable paper qualifications and spent a few good years in some of the top universities. And then there are the "farmers"- a term coined to describe the weathered officers who have worked their way painstakingly purely by virtue of their long service period and perhaps experience, but nonetheless the playing field is never levelled. The less educated engage in a wild goose chase - clamouring for rank promotions that is never to be, or exceedingly difficult, while those who have spent a few more years of their life in univeristy have it the easier way.
It is however inappropriate to dismiss the system altogether, but this system has bred a class of "intellegensia" who knows only the value of paper qualifications and nothing esle. These group retreats in their ivory tower, seemingly detached from realities on the ground, and offers nothing but condescension and disdai on the less academically inclined. Why I do issue such a harsh verdict on them? Because personal anecdotes, and various trends have attested to my personal opinion that these group of supersmart scholars are too aloof in their league - lofty, supercilious and never able to be empathetic, however much they try.
Wee Shu Min case in point. It has affirmed this phenomenom that these elite class of intellgensias are getting increasingly dislodged from the general populace - patronizing in their tone, and contemptible in their actions. And whats worst, these education policies and systems have been put in place in expediency- to promote these intellegensias into high ranking civil service job which yields great power. The dismal thing is not the flippance, snobbery displayed by these group of scholars per se, but rather it is the perpetuity of the vicious cycle - when scholarship and elitism is likely to be passed down in the same family. A cursory observation would likely reveal how top civil servants have bright children in the top schools. I am not too optimistic about the state of affairs because as far as i know, many students are a chip off their own block. They pride upon being the vestige of academic excellence, being at the forefront of competitiveness, and having an almost impeccable family heritage matched head to tail by an impressive CV. So this has culminated in a sorry state of affairs when the smart thrives and revels in his brilliance while the less smart will have to make do with the fact that some people are just more equal than others. Who says one cannot have a headstart in life?
I strongly believed that education system should be fair and just. The vexing problem remains the lack of academic integration, since the smart elitist huddles together in one corner while the less smart are left to languish in one corner. These is hardly a definite bridge between the 2 : except maybe national service, but this will tend to affirm the elitists' egoticism and ignorance rather than suppress it. Such cavalier attitudes must be kept in check - and I think the first main step would be to diminish this invisible barrier between the 2 divides of the society, because the first step towards solving a problem as abject as this would be to acknowledge the problem and its root causes itself.
Though I have definitely come down hard on the system, but I will comment on the merits of the system in my next article too, so you guys can come to the conclusion youselves.
Monday, October 29, 2007
S377A - Any progress?
The recent imbroglio between the 2 opposing camps regarding 377A taught me a great deal. Firstly, We ( By We I mean Singaporeans) are not as apathetic as we have made ourselves out to be, so just for that we deserved a good pat on the back. No doubt the recent brouhaha has caused much animoisity and controversy, but it most certainly revealed a newer society that is quite unlike its predecessors - fiercely opinionated, passionate, and rightly persistent in its own views.
No doubt tempers have flared and word wars have escalated. Both sides are just as adamant and unflinching in the wake of the rancuous exchange between both - and sometimes things have retrogressed into a more ugly process of cheap shots, Ad Hominem attacks, below the belt digs and caricaturization. Both sides have unapologetically and mercilessly resorted to gutter tactics - demean your opponents ( epitmomised by the recent Dr Thio Li Ann speech, when point by point rebuttals became the order of the day), strip them bare, and assert your own stand. This obdurate, indefatigable all encompassing stance adopted by both camps is not wihout its pitfalls.
As a disengaged viewer, I am bemused to say the least. Watching the 2 camps sweat it out was infinitely more arresting and more intriguing than any thriller novels i have read in recent times. To me the picture is very clear : Two parrots of different colour perched high up in their own exclusive canopies, rallying their cries and oblivious, almost heedless in a rather bizzare fashion, to the other party's voices. So ironically, this cacophany of disccordant voices have done themselves a huge disfavour - they have drowned out their very own voices, so now it becomes more like (to borrow a terms very much in trend nowaday) hatemongering and senseless rattlings. People either refused to listen to the other party, or are themselves detached from each other within the same sections.
This is counter productive.PM Lee has wisely pointed out that both views are highly unlikely to change. Where are views so incumbent and so highly resistant to (any) sort of tendency for change? Because both sides are beginning to diverge instead of converging. Both camps revel in their ingenuity of their arguments; for the pro 377a, their moral highground and how they have managed to retain a streak of morality in an age of the "wild wild west" decadence and for the anti 377a, the sheer sound-ness of their argument and how their logic fits perfectly like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. To each his own i would say, because both sides are so stubbornly enmeshed and entrenched in their own views that its is exceeding difficult, if not impossible, for them to even give "slight" benefits of doubt that the other side might just make sense. And once people clammed shut, any form or hopes of effective political, or social discourse would be persecuted. People only like what they like to hear.
I don't envy the PM's job. Personal bias aside ( I am in favour of the repeal), I feel that the issue of homosexuality runs deep in our social precincts. It is a pain in the ass no doubt, but a cursory glance throughout some of the pro - 377A comments would give the uninititated an idea of the extent of perpetration of misconceptions as well as the influence of religions in Singaporeans life. Anti 377A has made a fatal error in assuming that all talks about logic and notions of equality would cut some ice with the government, or the rest of the population for that matter, which actually did not. From what i see,i can only surmise that Singapore does not rely on any sort of "moral highground" theories to justify its actual stance. If Singapore had any to begin with, IRs would never materialize, bar top dancing will not make its way to the table, and prostituition will still be a crime. So it is never morality to begin with. And for this I would gladly concur with PM Lee that morality cannot be used to justify social policies or legal policies.
The realpolitik of the issue lies in what i term the equilibrium. PM lee has insisted that he would thus let the society be divided and polarised, for such is a move neccesary to prevent further provocation, animoisity and friction. In fact, as much as i hate to say it, this is a prudent move. Its more like the lesser of the 2 evil, because there are Singaporeans who have been religiously indoctrinated, whose mindsets towards homosexuality have been cast in stone, whose beliefs are not malleable. Homosexuality is too distasteful and too "morally pugnacious" a phenomenom for them to accept. Why do I use this word phenomenom? Because many believed homosexuality to be a interest driven agenda, in which any sort of leeway would set a definite precedent for many more things to follow down the slope : same sex marriages, adoption of children by same sex parents, gay pride parades etc. Homosexuality in itself ( as a sexuality ) is already, to them, a frowned-upon and rejected form of orientation. Not to mention that homosexuality was a package in their opinion, a warped convoluted lifestyles filled with haphazard, flamboyant promiscuity and (some even mentioned) debauchery and the likes. As much as we know deep down that younger generations of heterosexuals are just as likely to commit such gross acts of indecency such as fellatio, anal intercourse and rimming, we have to resign to the fact that this society is akin to a bullet train travelling with old cart wheels at its side. As much as we yearn to speed forward, there is the inevitable limitation of the speed and the direction in which we travel.
So the PM has advocated an err-on-the-side-of-caution approach. In fact, the status quo has elucidated mere caustic, fiery debates and nothing esle. Repealing the law would give rise to the possibility of much more than the evincing of unsavoury emotions and stirred passions. Whether this worst case scenario may be founded or not is not the crux. The move by government has always been meticulous and cautious. We are all perched precariously on a balance that is just right; any marginal efforts towards bolstering one particular side would inevitably topple the balance. It has taken Singapore long enough to calibrate this sort of balance, and i believe it is erudite of the government not to tip the scale. Even when I am fiercely advocate for the repeal of 377a.
Lastly, I believed that things will eventually change. The "conservative majority" will bow down to the tide of rights and equality in years to come, although for how long i am not too sure. I have always believed that the most effective rhetorical way of debunking myths is to meet a gay himself in real life, because a real life gay puts a human face on the word homosexuality.
No doubt tempers have flared and word wars have escalated. Both sides are just as adamant and unflinching in the wake of the rancuous exchange between both - and sometimes things have retrogressed into a more ugly process of cheap shots, Ad Hominem attacks, below the belt digs and caricaturization. Both sides have unapologetically and mercilessly resorted to gutter tactics - demean your opponents ( epitmomised by the recent Dr Thio Li Ann speech, when point by point rebuttals became the order of the day), strip them bare, and assert your own stand. This obdurate, indefatigable all encompassing stance adopted by both camps is not wihout its pitfalls.
As a disengaged viewer, I am bemused to say the least. Watching the 2 camps sweat it out was infinitely more arresting and more intriguing than any thriller novels i have read in recent times. To me the picture is very clear : Two parrots of different colour perched high up in their own exclusive canopies, rallying their cries and oblivious, almost heedless in a rather bizzare fashion, to the other party's voices. So ironically, this cacophany of disccordant voices have done themselves a huge disfavour - they have drowned out their very own voices, so now it becomes more like (to borrow a terms very much in trend nowaday) hatemongering and senseless rattlings. People either refused to listen to the other party, or are themselves detached from each other within the same sections.
This is counter productive.PM Lee has wisely pointed out that both views are highly unlikely to change. Where are views so incumbent and so highly resistant to (any) sort of tendency for change? Because both sides are beginning to diverge instead of converging. Both camps revel in their ingenuity of their arguments; for the pro 377a, their moral highground and how they have managed to retain a streak of morality in an age of the "wild wild west" decadence and for the anti 377a, the sheer sound-ness of their argument and how their logic fits perfectly like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. To each his own i would say, because both sides are so stubbornly enmeshed and entrenched in their own views that its is exceeding difficult, if not impossible, for them to even give "slight" benefits of doubt that the other side might just make sense. And once people clammed shut, any form or hopes of effective political, or social discourse would be persecuted. People only like what they like to hear.
I don't envy the PM's job. Personal bias aside ( I am in favour of the repeal), I feel that the issue of homosexuality runs deep in our social precincts. It is a pain in the ass no doubt, but a cursory glance throughout some of the pro - 377A comments would give the uninititated an idea of the extent of perpetration of misconceptions as well as the influence of religions in Singaporeans life. Anti 377A has made a fatal error in assuming that all talks about logic and notions of equality would cut some ice with the government, or the rest of the population for that matter, which actually did not. From what i see,i can only surmise that Singapore does not rely on any sort of "moral highground" theories to justify its actual stance. If Singapore had any to begin with, IRs would never materialize, bar top dancing will not make its way to the table, and prostituition will still be a crime. So it is never morality to begin with. And for this I would gladly concur with PM Lee that morality cannot be used to justify social policies or legal policies.
The realpolitik of the issue lies in what i term the equilibrium. PM lee has insisted that he would thus let the society be divided and polarised, for such is a move neccesary to prevent further provocation, animoisity and friction. In fact, as much as i hate to say it, this is a prudent move. Its more like the lesser of the 2 evil, because there are Singaporeans who have been religiously indoctrinated, whose mindsets towards homosexuality have been cast in stone, whose beliefs are not malleable. Homosexuality is too distasteful and too "morally pugnacious" a phenomenom for them to accept. Why do I use this word phenomenom? Because many believed homosexuality to be a interest driven agenda, in which any sort of leeway would set a definite precedent for many more things to follow down the slope : same sex marriages, adoption of children by same sex parents, gay pride parades etc. Homosexuality in itself ( as a sexuality ) is already, to them, a frowned-upon and rejected form of orientation. Not to mention that homosexuality was a package in their opinion, a warped convoluted lifestyles filled with haphazard, flamboyant promiscuity and (some even mentioned) debauchery and the likes. As much as we know deep down that younger generations of heterosexuals are just as likely to commit such gross acts of indecency such as fellatio, anal intercourse and rimming, we have to resign to the fact that this society is akin to a bullet train travelling with old cart wheels at its side. As much as we yearn to speed forward, there is the inevitable limitation of the speed and the direction in which we travel.
So the PM has advocated an err-on-the-side-of-caution approach. In fact, the status quo has elucidated mere caustic, fiery debates and nothing esle. Repealing the law would give rise to the possibility of much more than the evincing of unsavoury emotions and stirred passions. Whether this worst case scenario may be founded or not is not the crux. The move by government has always been meticulous and cautious. We are all perched precariously on a balance that is just right; any marginal efforts towards bolstering one particular side would inevitably topple the balance. It has taken Singapore long enough to calibrate this sort of balance, and i believe it is erudite of the government not to tip the scale. Even when I am fiercely advocate for the repeal of 377a.
Lastly, I believed that things will eventually change. The "conservative majority" will bow down to the tide of rights and equality in years to come, although for how long i am not too sure. I have always believed that the most effective rhetorical way of debunking myths is to meet a gay himself in real life, because a real life gay puts a human face on the word homosexuality.
First post
First of all, I would like to introduce myself. I am a Full time army boy, due to complete my national service in Dec 2008. This blog is intended more for my voracious commentary appetite on the various socio political trends and issues in my country, as well as various parts of the world. I endeavour to approach my writing with as much disinterest and objectivity as possible, because i have always believed that audience has the right to different perspectives, and they are capable to pass judgement on their own. I dont need to tell them how they should feel towards a certain issue. I chart the course, they lay the verdict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)