TR EMERITUS

By Bhaskaran Kunju, Political Correspondent The issue of examinations being too difficult is one that has been around for a long time. So the most recent incidents of the PSLE Mathematics and Chinese Language papers being too difficult making headlines came as a bit of a surprise to me. Of course a story has to be sold, so it’s been called even more difficult than those of past years. Looking at the sample questions that have been released it does appear to be difficult. But I suppose it is a matter of opinion if the questions are indeed more difficult than that of previous years. But at the heart of the matter, what exactly is the problem? How is it that the same type of complaints isn’t heard at the ‘O’ Level or ‘A’ Level examinations? I think for one, there is an over emphasis on the streaming process, and even more so wrongly at a relatively young age. To a lot of parents the primary school phase becomes a make or break period of their child’s lives when they should be cherishing the fleeting moments of childhood. Don’t blame the parent for obviously wanting what’s best for their child. The fault is in the system. A lot of students at age 12 would not have matured intellectually and may only reach their peak years later. For the few who have reached that peak at a young age, they get the advantage of continuing their education in a more robust and academic oriented stream. The lack of good grades at a young age, specifically at the PSLE, doesn’t mean the student will be handicapped if placed on an equal learning path as others who did better than him or her. There are students with weak academic grades who are accepted in elite schools given their sports or artistic background. These group of students often times fare no worse than their peers. In other words they actually benefit from being placed in the same learning environment as their academically better peers. In these instances there is just no correlation between prior academic results and capabilities of a student. There is I believe some rationale in the current system of streaming. Given the limitations of resources and capabilities of some students it may make sense to have a system of streaming in place to ensure each child receives optimum education and allocative efficiency for resources is achieved. But the present system is without a doubt being applied too broadly and that ultimately weeds out too many students from entering the mainstream or higher. Yes there is room for student to move in to other streams should they demonstrate the capability to. But why should a child be starting from a position of disadvantage? And in practice this flow of students between streams, is far less flexible as well. The crucial flaw in the system as mentioned earlier is how the streaming stage is placed at such a young age. Students sitting for the ‘O’ and ‘A’ level examinations largely contend with rote learning with little emphasis on application. Yes, there have been some changes in syllabus over the years to incorporate more application skills into the exams, but any student will be able to tell you how insignificant the additions have been. I mentioned in a previous article, “Should Universities be Re-Politicised?” about how we have become a nation that produces great workers but not leaders. That really is the reality for our education system. When taking into account the perpetual problem of brain drain as cited by our ministers, this only further emphasizes that issue. It is no wonder then that we have resorted to foreigners to fill the gaps of our labour pool. Mr Sim Wong Hoo, the founder and CEO of Creative Technology is probably one of Singapore’s greatest entrepreneurs. For the uninitiated, Mr Sim is the brain behind one of the key computer utilities we take for granted, the sound card. His stand-alone sound card, the Sound Blaster is one of the most widely recognised brands in the world and has taken its place in IT history. Having won multiple awards and been used as an example by our ministers in various speeches over the years, his independent success seems to be an anomaly for Singapore in general. I remember a talk given by him at my alma mater, Raffles Institution. He mentioned how his early sound cards were sold off the street and were only intended to play music. But upon receiving feedback, he expanded the capabilities of his device for other uses as well and the result of it is a dominant company that is largely unmatched in its core expertise of sound cards. The path to success is never fixed and it takes a lot of adjustments and creativity to maneuver through each obstacle that comes in the way. But most of all it also requires persistence and endurance to take in each setback. Mr Sim’s education record and route is not one that we would associate with as leading to success but he has achieved more in his life than what most of us will fail to in all our lifetimes combined. Unsurprisingly Mr Sim has been a critic of our system as well. In his book Chaotic Thoughts from the Old Millennium, he uses the analogy of U-turns, to describe restrictions on Singaporeans and their subsequent inability in response and reaction without an authoritative figure. We just do not have the system in place to produce more Mr Sim Wong Hoos. We’ve produced students who do well at each International Science Olympiad, which almost always automatically leads to praise for our education system. But how relevant are these awards in judging the actual intellectual capabilities of the students, when what they have demonstrated is largely rote learning. There is an inherent flaw in the system that instead of being fixed has been papered over the years instead. With this latest issue over the PSLE papers looking to subside we may just have to contend with status quo yet again.   Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju: >> The saga of (dethroned) beauty queen Ris Low >> Is there room for more foreigners in Singapore? >> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally >> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices >> The untimely departure of Chip Goodyear >> Should universities be re-politicized?   About Author: Bhaskaran Kunju is a political science undergraduate in a local varsity. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices.  Read More →

I was married to a Singaporean wife for 11 years and divorced some years back. Our divorce agreement was done in a fully amicable way and I even consented myself to a very generous maintenance package for my ex spouse and agreed to grant her full custody of our 3 children. I went back to my home country to work since I could not find adequate employment in Singapore since the Asian Financial Crisis back in 1997. My expertise and speciality were not in demand and appreciated in a saturated Singapore business environment, so I had to migrate back to my home country to make a living to still support my family back in Singapore. A couple of years ago, my ex spouse passed away suddenly strike by a heart problem which took every one of us by surprise. This is when my endless legal troubles started. My former in-laws came to my house in Singapore while I was working overseas, right on the day when my late spouse passed away in a hospital in Singapore and took away my children travel documents and birth certificates without my consent. My late spouse and my children were still living in or matrimonial flat despite the divorce as we had agreed that it should be so until the property market improved so that the flat would be disposed off in the market and in my divorce agreement, I already consented that all cash proceedings from such transaction would go entirely to my late spouse benefits, for the sake of the children and her future endeavors. I came back for the funeral of my late spouse and tried to regain custody of my  children who are dual nationals. despite the fact that Singapore does not recognize dual nationality, my country of citizenry legally allows so and the children were registered as that country nationals since birth though they were also declared as Singaporean since birth. The former in-laws adamantly refused to hand over my children's travel documents back to me, their legal and sole surviving parent, and claimed I had to go to court to seek back my rightful custody of the children. In any civilized country, custody of the children automatically falls back to the sole surviving parent unless he/she is a convicted or a drug addict --which I am none--. Hence started a 2 year legal proceeding through the family court to regain custody of my children. As I was busy working overseas and did not have much time to commute back and forth to Singapore each time for court appearance, my first lawyer (from a local reputable firm) handled the issue on my behalf. The former in-laws demanded that I continue to pay them the same monthly maintenance fee that I had agreed with my late spouse during our amicable divorce agreement (which is a substantial amount agreed in foreign currency!). My argument all along was why should I continue paying my former in-laws for any such maintenance while my own children have been all along staying in our matrimonial flat and I had never failed in my parental obligation since Day One despite our divorce. The first court order ruled that all my children must not be separated but the former in-laws have since the very day of that court order issuance, broken the order by separating my children. The former in-laws have also subsequently come to my Singapore home and took away my daughters to stay with them leaving behind my young son who refused to go with them at that time. The former mother-in-law kept my 2nd daugther while the former sister-in-law kept my eldest daughter, separately from each other some more! That was done on the very same day when the Family Court issued its first ruling of forcing me a joint custody for all my children with my former in-laws and imposed that I continued to pay them the so-called high monthly maintenance fee with my children travel documents being kept by them as well. That was too much to bear given such strange ruling issued 2 years ago and I had to wait for a good half year before I hired another lawyer (from a small firm this time round) to help me seek a variation of the first Family Court Order. I managed to demonstrate in the second proceeding that my former in-laws were merely going after monetary gain and never really cared for my children's welfare. The proof was since a year now, my daughters had run back to stay at my Singapore flat as they refused to remain with the former in-laws. Subsequently, I tried to bring all my children to vacation to my home country so they can see for their own eyes the reality of the place despite being brainwashed by the former in-laws of the so-called backwardness of the place. Unfortunately, again only my son agreed to come with me at that time and I had to cancel the airtickets for my daugthers at the last minute though we had agreed initially to make the trip all of us as a family. They were simply being again convinced by the former in-laws that they would never returned to Singapore should they follow me to my home country. As a properly educated person, I could not afford to run afoul of your Singapore law and since the first court order imposed that I had to seek permission from my former in-laws to get my children travel documents whenever I want to travel with them, I had to return those travel documents upon return from my trip. Again that was highly ridiculous of such court order treating me as though I am a criminal while these are my own flesh and blood children. The consequence was my son has declared to the court at the second proceeding that he wanted to be with me, his father, in my home country and not in Singapore. The Family Court had no other choice but grant me full custody of my son and forced the surrender of my son's Singapore passport to me by the former in-law but still maintained the order of joint custody for my daughters with their travel documents being retained by the former in-laws. However, due to my clear evidence that those former in-laws were only going after my money and started the whole thing just for monetary gain, the Family Court in its second order rescinded future request of any monthly maintenance cost to them. Nonetheless, I was imposed the penalty to pay the former in-laws the hefty sum of nearly SGD 20,000/= for the few months that my 2 daughters were staying with them. That was despite my argument that (1) they took my daughters out of my house without my consent and during my absence from Singpaore (2) I never asked them to do so since the children were staying at my Singpaore home being looked after by the nanny who was with me for 10 years now (3) so why should I be penalized to pay such maintenance fees of nearly SGD 20K for just the few months that they took my daughters by force to be with them??? I am extremely sad and concerned that the Singapore court ruling had been so weird, denhying me of my rightful parental privilege, having to humiliate me to the point of me having to go to court just to seek back custody of my own children (while in other normal countries, such issue is automatic and nobody ever had to go court for that being the sole surviving parent!), humiliation is also that I was denied my right to educate my own children since the court by its repeated and second ruling forced the physical separation of my children. Now my son is residing in my home country with me while my 2 daughters are being kept in Singapore. Only in Singpaore did I from personal experience see such amazzing thing occuring when the parent himself was denied of the right to look after his children and decide how to educate them. Why should the Singapore legal system force upon such ruling? I am totally astonished to see this happening and am still till today living in pain for not having my children together so that I could provide them overdue parental love as my daugthers are staying now with a friend who helped look after tham since the long serving nanny had to return home as her work permit was cancelled having reached retirement age. This bitter experience only draw me further away from wanting to remain living in such environment and I long honestly for the day I could settle legally the fate of my daughters so that I could surrender my PR back to the authorities without regret. My son is now staying happily with me and I have since remarried with an additional baby girl whom he adores. I even brought my current spouse to Singapore earlier this year to acquaint my daughters who also seemed to take a liking over their baby half sister as well but unfortunately, I am still entangled with this legal technicality imposed by the Singapore Family Court. I am only sad that after 2 decades of PR in Singapore, my impression of the place has been spoilt by this problem. I am not asking for any sympathy from your Singpaorean readers with due respect to them and to your country, I only wish to share my concern over the discrepency resulting out of your legal system. I am currently still helpless and none the wiser as per how would I finally get my daughters to be reunited with me as a happy family together. Time will tell certainly. Signed: a disappointed PR  Read More →

By Gordon Fairclough from Wall Street Journal Here in China's agricultural heartland, signs of progress abound. Qunguang village's 1,000 inhabitants, who live among rolling fields of corn, rice and peanuts, are linked to the world by a new 215-mile, $1.6 billion expressway. An industrial park is under construction nearby. Incomes for rural people in the county jumped 85% between 2000 and 2008. At the local health clinic, not far from the highway exit ramp, Mei Ruying diagnoses patients with little more than a stethoscope and a thermometer. To keep abreast of new drugs, Ms. Mei, who lacks a medical degree, reads instructions enclosed in the boxes. China's rickety health-care system relies on thousands of practitioners like Ms. Mei. Often, they are poorly compensated and ill-equipped to serve their big rural constituencies. According to the national health ministry, just 17% of China's medical workers in 2005 were university graduates. In village clinics and township hospitals, just 2% were. As China continues riding a long wave of prosperity, its health-care woes are under a spotlight. Medical treatment has improved greatly for many Chinese in recent times of heady growth. But the system of near-universal but basic coverage offered in the years after the Communist revolution has frayed. Opinion polls rank medical care among citizens' top concerns. Spiraling drug costs, inadequate insurance and big out-of-pocket expenses are all cause for public distress. In poor rural areas, many forgo treatment because they can't afford it. Now, as the Communist Party leadership this month celebrates its 60th year in power, it is moving away from a nearly single-minded focus on economic growth that shaped policy for much of the past three decades. This year, the government announced a plan to spend more than $120 billion on the first phase of a 10-year overhaul of the health-care system. By 2020, China says, it wants all its citizens to have access to affordable, basic medical services. "The public is demanding this," says Mao Qunan, spokesman of the Ministry of Health. "Investment in health-care has not kept up," he says, and the new approach is meant to bring the country's health system "in line with China's economic and social development." The government is renovating thousands of medical facilities and funding broader state-sponsored insurance coverage. After a recent push, the government says that about 77% of people are enrolled in insurance plans, though the portion of medical expenses covered is often relatively low. About 300 million people have no coverage at all. Just as health-care reform in the U.S. is testing the Obama administration, China's medical policy has become a political lightning rod for China's president, Hu Jintao. Mr. Hu and other top officials have pledged to "put people first" and to pursue a more balanced approach to economic development than their predecessors. William Hsiao, a Harvard University health economist who has studied Chinese health care for years, says previous Chinese leaders were deeply skeptical about the benefits of investing in health. The attitude, he says, was: "There's a surplus of labor. So, more people die prematurely. It doesn't affect the labor market materially." Now, he says, President Hu and other top leaders -- who spent much of their careers working in rural areas -- have a better understanding of the troubles facing the country's rural poor. "They worry that unhappiness at the grass-roots level could result in social unrest. There is that sense of threat," he says. In 2006, the latest year for which the government has released figures, nearly 10,000 incidents of violent protest were spurred by people unhappy with the care, or lack of it, provided by state hospitals. In a speech last month, Li Keqiang, China's vice premier, said that repairing the health-care system would have "an overall impact on reform, development and stability" in China. Chinese health-care reform could also play a role in making the economy less reliant on exports by stimulating domestic demand. The specter of high medical costs -- and the lack of a social-security system -- is a major force driving Chinese to save rather than spend. Whether China succeeds in the task has implications for global public health. China is the world's most-populous nation, with 1.3 billion people. And diseases that emerge here -- such as severe acute respiratory syndrome -- quickly spread around the world. Officials are handicapped by years of underspending. Government outlays for health care amounted to less than 1% of gross domestic product in 2006, ranking China No. 156 out of 196 nations surveyed by the World Health Organization. The $124 billion infusion, promised through 2011, will provide a substantial boost. But it is only a start. And the tab could be higher than expected: Chronic illnesses -- such as heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes -- are becoming more prevalent as China grows affluent. In the first decades of Communist rule, China made significant public-health strides. Initiatives reduced malaria deaths and infant mortality rates. Workers on collective farms and in state-run factories received almost universal, if very basic, medical care. That system started to unravel in the late 1970s as China began to embrace capitalist-market economics. Rural communes were disbanded and inefficient state enterprises went bust. Funding for public hospitals and clinics slowed. Out-of-pocket payments for medical services rose from 20% of health-care expenditures in 1978 to roughly 50% in 2006, according to government figures. Read rest of the article here  Read More →