Singapore still does not accord enough recognition to the arts and humanities. Many bright-minded students with deep passions in the humanities end up succumbing to what is commonly known as the herd-mentality. Courses such as business and law have an indescribable air of appeal to them : notably, the powerful image of corporate rat-race as well as the presuppositions that these are where all the "big bucks" lie. In the end, what we see is a disproportionate amount of students pursuing degrees of which they have little to no prior knowledge. Nor do they know exactly what degrees in finance and law really entail. This results in a vacuum in the humanities faculty and an overall decrease in the quality of humanities students.
This misallocation of resource is disconcerting, to say the least. Singapore needs a fair amount of intelligent, passionate arts students in order to thrive. In other major education hubs such as the USA and the UK, students with inclinations in the humanities will almost naturally pursue it to tertiary level, a phenomenom that is seldom seen in Singapore. One possible reason is that the social perceptions and stigma that usually comes along with an arts degree in Singapore do not exist in the States or the UK. In Singapore, an arts degree is perceived as a "soft" degree that does not wield the economic earning potential. There is also a widespread impression that arts faculties are usually "dumping-grounds" for the least academically-inclined students. These impressions, however egregious and misleading, do much to perpetuate the trend of pursuing "elite" subjects such as business in Singapore.
In the UK and the USA, prospective undergraduates are able to hone their interest in various huumanities courses in top instituitions such as Harvard, Yale or LSE. In these countries, there is not so much a marked distinction between an arts degree and a science degree as one between a good student and a poor student. Employers in other countries are more receptive towards arts degree graduates, namely because bright students go on to further their interest. What do I mean exactly by this?
Let me illustrate. The brighter students with interest in the humanities are more likely to pursue "elite" subjects such as accountancy and law. This results in a skewed ratio of bright students between the elite courses and the arts courses. Hence graduates
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
LOTS OF THINGS
Today I had a conversation with my colleague on the Myanmar tragedy as well as (as random as it may sound) the rise of China. The Myanmar tragedy made me realise the importance of swift and concerted response to any disaster. The occurence of the cyclone is one thing; the lack of coordinated efforts to tackle the disaster is another. The exigency of the situation means that it is imperative for the Myanmar government to allow untrammelled flow of aids and skilled aid workers into their country, which has been torn asunder by the cyclone. No one is an island really, and destruction of this magnitude cannot possibly by reversed and remedied by the effort of one country alone, much less a country which has been the victim of the disaster itself. Well, the stubbornness of the Myanmar government isnt surprising at all, given that these are the same bunch of guys who govern their countries based on astrological signs. Well done.
Now about China. China rise is remarkable by any standards and measure. Of course every country has its downsides but this should not overshadow the fact that China has progressed tremendously in most fields, particularly in the area of economic growth. However, one noteworthy point about China is that whilst it has enjoyed and will continue to enjoy sustained unfettered growth indefinitely, the progress of its people as a whole has not been commensurate. Imagine China as a locomotive with the people as its various parts such as wheels etc. The whole train is cruising at breakneck speed, but the wheels are barely able to catch up and the linkages are shaky. It appears as though China is set to be a formidable superpower, but the truth is the parts are just as important as the sum of them. There is a growing disparity between the quality of the people and the growth of the country. Whilst civility and education has widely improved, the progress in these areas are not in tandem with those in terms of economic growth.
On a side note I hope Barrack Obama wins the election. He struck me as someone who is genuinely and passionately interested in reforming the country and cleaning her image up. For too long American has suffered a dent in her reputation, partly due to her intervationalistic nature and due to (very obvious) Iraq invasion which she has shown contempt of the UN. America's standing on the international stage has diminished tremendously due to the failure of diplomatic missions and policies especially in Iraq , Iran and Israel. Many people see America as too assertive, too arrogant a nation which strong-arms and bullies other nations into submission. Part of the problem, I think, is America's tendency to see the World through their own, blinkered eyes. American government thinks that what works for America would work for everyone esle, and that America is the bastion of the west, a model to which other countries should conform to. This was evident in one of the recent documentaries cum interview Iahve watched when Americans question China's business transparency. Apparently, US seems to take the views that since being transparent is their way of doing business, it has to be China's way as well, and by extension, every other nation's way. America fail to appreciate the vastly differing nature of different countries in terms of culture, tradition, instituitions,heritage, demographics and political background. As trite as it may sound, and even though every candidate echoes for change and reform, Obama intuitively comes across as one who is as passionate as he is sincere. Throughout the whole presidential race, he came across as a cool, composed intellect who is able to fend off every bite and thrust with such panache and elegance. Talk about cool as a cucumber. When I look at this man, I have a sense of his stability and his clear headed-ness. He knows what he is talking about, he has a specific concrete directions and he is not easily swayed in his beliefs and postions. Above all, he is eloquent and charismatic. I find that quite a bonus as well.
Lastly, the speech by attorney general and the clarification by anohter guy from the A-G chambers was very very intriguing.
Some of the things he implied are -
1) judge opinion of the accused may be diff from the verdict
2) Proven beyond reasonable doubt by court to be innocent does not mean one is innocent, especially when the judge can stil see him as guilty
First thing, why is there a dichotomy between the verdict and the judge's opinion? In singapore there no jury system, hence much of the discretion lies with the judges. Whatever concludes, or whatever sentences that is passed, must have concurred with the judge's personal judgement. It makes no sense if the judge thinks he is guily and still passes a verdict of acquittal.
Secondly, legal arguments, witnesses' statement and evidence are presented to the courts as a basis to determine the accused's innocence. If an accused has been proven to be inncoent beyond reasonable doubt, through proper adminstration of these legal procedures in light of all evidences presented to the courts, it makes no sense if he "might still" be "guilty". If these evidences are no sufficient to convince the judge that he is not guilty, what is? The bearing of the man? The mannerism, the tone, the colour of the coat he wears? Through giving both the prosecutors and defendant equal rights to a trial, if a conclusion of acquittal is reached. it has to be respected by all irrespective of arbitrary personal opinions. This is the result of proper administration of legal procedures.
In conclusion, it is really wierd that judge may still find a person guilty even if he is acquitted after trial. First judges holds the autonomy to pass verdicts and if he feels that the accused is still guilty there is no reason he passes a verdict of acquittal. Second, the result of the verdict is contingent on the trial process itself - the evidence, witnesses' statement and police investigation together with arguments from both sides. A judge's verdict is a function of the outcome of the trial process, not based arbitrarily on some personal subjective caprices. Not the colour of his clothes, nor the shape of his hair. The trial process is to allow the judge to determine his innocence. If the trial process sufficiently shows that the defendant is innocent beyond reasonable doubt, the judge will be a vicarious representation of this outcome. Acquittal can only be a natural and fair consequence.
Say X was accused of murdering Y. But theres no evidence to indict X, only the word of Y's good friend. After thorough investigations and judgement, judge cannot find sufficient evidence to prove X guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on a fair trial, the judge has to acquit X. A judge personal opinion has to depend much on the trial. It is dependent on the trial, not independent of it. IF the trial proves his innocence, the judge cannot simply "Feel" personally taht he is stil guily especially when the question of whether his is guilty or not can only be answered through the trial process, not through the judge's personal eyes.
Now about China. China rise is remarkable by any standards and measure. Of course every country has its downsides but this should not overshadow the fact that China has progressed tremendously in most fields, particularly in the area of economic growth. However, one noteworthy point about China is that whilst it has enjoyed and will continue to enjoy sustained unfettered growth indefinitely, the progress of its people as a whole has not been commensurate. Imagine China as a locomotive with the people as its various parts such as wheels etc. The whole train is cruising at breakneck speed, but the wheels are barely able to catch up and the linkages are shaky. It appears as though China is set to be a formidable superpower, but the truth is the parts are just as important as the sum of them. There is a growing disparity between the quality of the people and the growth of the country. Whilst civility and education has widely improved, the progress in these areas are not in tandem with those in terms of economic growth.
On a side note I hope Barrack Obama wins the election. He struck me as someone who is genuinely and passionately interested in reforming the country and cleaning her image up. For too long American has suffered a dent in her reputation, partly due to her intervationalistic nature and due to (very obvious) Iraq invasion which she has shown contempt of the UN. America's standing on the international stage has diminished tremendously due to the failure of diplomatic missions and policies especially in Iraq , Iran and Israel. Many people see America as too assertive, too arrogant a nation which strong-arms and bullies other nations into submission. Part of the problem, I think, is America's tendency to see the World through their own, blinkered eyes. American government thinks that what works for America would work for everyone esle, and that America is the bastion of the west, a model to which other countries should conform to. This was evident in one of the recent documentaries cum interview Iahve watched when Americans question China's business transparency. Apparently, US seems to take the views that since being transparent is their way of doing business, it has to be China's way as well, and by extension, every other nation's way. America fail to appreciate the vastly differing nature of different countries in terms of culture, tradition, instituitions,heritage, demographics and political background. As trite as it may sound, and even though every candidate echoes for change and reform, Obama intuitively comes across as one who is as passionate as he is sincere. Throughout the whole presidential race, he came across as a cool, composed intellect who is able to fend off every bite and thrust with such panache and elegance. Talk about cool as a cucumber. When I look at this man, I have a sense of his stability and his clear headed-ness. He knows what he is talking about, he has a specific concrete directions and he is not easily swayed in his beliefs and postions. Above all, he is eloquent and charismatic. I find that quite a bonus as well.
Lastly, the speech by attorney general and the clarification by anohter guy from the A-G chambers was very very intriguing.
Some of the things he implied are -
1) judge opinion of the accused may be diff from the verdict
2) Proven beyond reasonable doubt by court to be innocent does not mean one is innocent, especially when the judge can stil see him as guilty
First thing, why is there a dichotomy between the verdict and the judge's opinion? In singapore there no jury system, hence much of the discretion lies with the judges. Whatever concludes, or whatever sentences that is passed, must have concurred with the judge's personal judgement. It makes no sense if the judge thinks he is guily and still passes a verdict of acquittal.
Secondly, legal arguments, witnesses' statement and evidence are presented to the courts as a basis to determine the accused's innocence. If an accused has been proven to be inncoent beyond reasonable doubt, through proper adminstration of these legal procedures in light of all evidences presented to the courts, it makes no sense if he "might still" be "guilty". If these evidences are no sufficient to convince the judge that he is not guilty, what is? The bearing of the man? The mannerism, the tone, the colour of the coat he wears? Through giving both the prosecutors and defendant equal rights to a trial, if a conclusion of acquittal is reached. it has to be respected by all irrespective of arbitrary personal opinions. This is the result of proper administration of legal procedures.
In conclusion, it is really wierd that judge may still find a person guilty even if he is acquitted after trial. First judges holds the autonomy to pass verdicts and if he feels that the accused is still guilty there is no reason he passes a verdict of acquittal. Second, the result of the verdict is contingent on the trial process itself - the evidence, witnesses' statement and police investigation together with arguments from both sides. A judge's verdict is a function of the outcome of the trial process, not based arbitrarily on some personal subjective caprices. Not the colour of his clothes, nor the shape of his hair. The trial process is to allow the judge to determine his innocence. If the trial process sufficiently shows that the defendant is innocent beyond reasonable doubt, the judge will be a vicarious representation of this outcome. Acquittal can only be a natural and fair consequence.
Say X was accused of murdering Y. But theres no evidence to indict X, only the word of Y's good friend. After thorough investigations and judgement, judge cannot find sufficient evidence to prove X guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on a fair trial, the judge has to acquit X. A judge personal opinion has to depend much on the trial. It is dependent on the trial, not independent of it. IF the trial proves his innocence, the judge cannot simply "Feel" personally taht he is stil guily especially when the question of whether his is guilty or not can only be answered through the trial process, not through the judge's personal eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)