TR EMERITUS

Our education system is outmoded: It is stifles creativity and favours the rich. Yet, creativity and equality are the two factors that will determine if Singapore succeeds or fails as a nation. In our previous post, we explained how our school system is killing the creative potential in our children and rendering our economy uncompetitive (read here). The emphasis on exams and streaming not only inflicts heavy psychological trauma on our children but also kills off creativity in them. An equally important issue that our education system has created is inequality. Already, Singapore has one of the biggest gaps between the rich and poor. The education system exacerbates this disparity. The PAP says that its policies are based on the concept of meritocracy. But for meritocracy to work, the system must enable fair competition. Under the PAP, power and privilege is amassed in the hands of a small group of the elite. The Economist compiled the Crony-Capitalism Index, a measure of countries where politically connected businessmen are most likely to prosper, in which Singapore ranked fifth. The pernicious effects of inequality is maintained by our education system in at least three ways: Private tuition. Our education process is structured in such a way that private tuition has become a necessity. This means that students from poor family backgrounds who are unable to afford such expensive tutoring are disadvantaged. As a consequence, they perform less well in exams and are placed in lower-ranked streams. Instead of giving them a leg up, our education system puts those already at a disadvantage further down the totem pole. It is not surprising that academic failure and school drop-out rates rise dramatically among needy families. This creates a culture of poverty, perpetuating the vicious cycle. Elite schools. Many of our elite schools are located in wealthier residential districts, making it more difficult for lower-income families to register their children in such schools. While nearly 90 percent of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, only 40 percent attend top-ranking, elite primary schools. Of course, the government denies elite schools get better treatment. PM Lee Hsien Loong said: “I believe we can make every school a good school and we have done a lot of that to ensure that every school provides a good education for the students." This view was challenged by Jurong West Secondary School's Vice-Principal Pushparani Nadarajah: "How many of our leaders and top officers who say that every school is a good school put their children in ordinary schools near their homes? Until they do so, parents are not going to buy it." The comment was met with applause from an audience of teachers and principals. Pre-school. Rich parents pay in excess of $20,000 a year for their children to attend top private kindergartens in preparation for primary school whereas poorer children skip pre-school altogether because their parents can’t afford it. When a child enters Primary 1, she is expected to possess basic literacy and numeracy skills. This puts poorer children at a distinct handicap. The Government does not provide a nation-wide pre-school programme. In fact, the Starting Well Index, compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit which measures the availability, affordability and quality of early childhood education, ranked Singapore a dismal 29th out of 45 countries in 2012. To overcome these problems, we need an education system that gives all children equal opportunity to perform to the best of their abilities. To apply the analogy of a 100-metre race: Competitors will run at different speeds and hit the tape at different times, but all must start at the same starting point. Education is the most potent tool to dismantle the current rigid and unfair elitist system and build a society where everyone begins the race at the same starting point; it is the best weapon that society can wield in its fight against inequality and poverty. The SDP will unveil our policies to achieve this objective when we launch our paper Educating For Creativity and Equality: An Agenda For Transformation this Saturday. We invite you to join us then. Event: Public Launch of "Educating for Creativity and Equality: An Agenda for Transformation" Date: 17 May 2014, Saturday Time: 2-5 pm Venue: Chinese Success Media, Action Room, #04-41 Bras Basah Complex, 231 Bain Street, Singapore 180231 Singapore Democrats  Read More →

Mark Franklin, the British scooter rider who flashed a middle finger at a Singaporean car driver in a road rage incident, has failed to apologise via TR Emeritus. When the incident came to light, outraged Singaporean netizens quickly discovered he was working for Piaggio Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. Local blog The Unseen Singapore discovered his identity and position in the company: Mark Franklin, managing director [Link]. Picking up where The Unseen Singapore left off, TRE published an editorial (6 May) reporting the road rage incident and fingering Mark Franklin ('Road rage incident: Vespa belongs to Piaggio Asia Pacific'). A TRE reader, A.K., was so agitated reading the TRE editorial that he wrote to Piaggio Group HQ to complain about Mr Franklin. The complaint was copied to TRE ('Unacceptable public behaviour by Piaggio employee'). Subsequently, Piaggio Asia Pacific replied on behalf of Piaggio Group HQ as follows ('Piaggio wants MD to explain & clarify his actions'): From: Date: Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:44 PM Subject: Response from Piaggio Asia Pacific We have received the message that had been directed to the Piaggio Group HQ. Our Company, the Piaggio Group, takes a stringent view in upholding ethical principles and codes of conduct which are universally accepted and aligned. These include equality, fairness, integrity, decency and politeness. These values set the ground rules for all that we do as employees of the Piaggio Group. Therefore, we expect the highest standards of integrity and conduct to be maintained by all our employees and representatives aligned with our business at all times. We were surprised by your email and the related video, even though the episode concerns Mr. Franklin’s private behavior. We have asked Mr. Franklin to promptly provide us with explanations and clarifications on the detailed circumstances surrounding the incident. We know that Mr. Franklin already sent his profound apologies, via every web site and blog reporting the incident, to the car driver and to whoever who have felt offended by his behavior. (emphasis added) We thank you for your patience and attention. Yours sincerely, Piaggio Asia Pacific To date, contrary to what the letter states, TRE has not received any sort of apology, written or verbal, from Mark Franklin. In fact, on 9 May, TRE wrote to Piaggio Asia Pacific separately to offer to publish Mr Franklin's apology on our website. We have received no reply to this offer. Yesterday (13 May), we repeated our offer to carry Mr Franklin's apology. Again, Piaggio Asia Pacific did not reply. Neither has Mr Franklin, of his own accord, approached TRE to apologise to the victim of his rage or to anyone who has taken offence. Interestingly, the reply from Piaggio Asia Pacific to TRE reader A.K. did not have a signatory. Some TRE readers are pretty sure as a result that Mark Franklin himself sent the reply: you hv been fooled by this FT: May 9, 2014 at 9:56 pm i am sure this email is written by MARK FRANKLIN himself. he is the MD for asia pacific. you should write in to HQ in europe. no company will say they are surprised by your email. and he has profoundly apologised. the letter is written by himself. B Real: May 10, 2014 at 8:35 am No big deal about MD of Piaggio, just an ang mo ah beng bike salesman. The product is niche, those who want it would buy it and vice versa; no difference whether this ah beng is here or vanished from the face of the earth. Hope the piaggio/bike communities hold back making new purchases courtesy of Mark Franklinstein. Noted that the reply from Piaggio was from Piaggio Asia Pacific, from he himself? The HQ just passed back to him, wayang? Bapak: May 10, 2014 at 10:39 am Bapak(Quote) This reply came from Piaggio Asia Pacific, not Piaggio Group HQ. Who is the MD in Piaggio Asia Pacific? Don’t be fooled. I takes it that Piaggio Group HQ has not responded yet and has left it to MF to handle. I am not happy with the reply. Piaggio, get out: May 10, 2014 at 10:52 am We must write to their shareholders instead. Seems like they are just passing the buck. Nothing from HQ means they are belittling and insulting us. We will boycott and hit them economically. Was Piaggio Asia Pacific's reply written by Mark Franklin himself? Is Mark Franklin unrepentent and giving Singaporeans the middle finger (figuratively speaking) by pretending to have "profoundly (sic) apologised via every website and blog reporting the incident"? What do you think?  Read More →

A Young PAP (YP) video posted 23 April 2014 on YouTube with the title "Re-ignite the Passion of Servant Leadership" has garnered brickbats from Singaporean netizens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yirr-HNwnMs Many netizens slammed the YP video as amateurish, boring, lame, stiff and unimaginative ('Atrocious Young PAP video has S’poreans ROFL'). Basically, the video features YP members from branches across Singapore. As of 2.45pm today (14 May), the video has received about 53,000 views with 22 likes and 660 dislikes. By 7:30pm, the number has gone up to about 58,600 with 27 likes and 753 dislikes, or about 1 dislike every 3 minutes. In response, PAP put up a post on its Facebook page today defending YP and the video: Several PAP MPs weighed in with Facebook comments in support of YP. MP Baey Yam Keng said, "It wasn't meant to be a slick corporate video. It was raw but the commitment was very real." "Many of them work behind the scene and prefer to keep a low profile. The criticism on how some of them appear in front of the camera is unnecessary and unfair," he added later. Prominent Singaporean filmmaker and social activist Martyn See raised an interesting point about the YP video. He asked on his Facebook page [Link] if the video infringed section 33 of the Films Act. Section 33 of the Films Act states that it is an offence for anyone to "import, make, reproduce, distribute, exhibit any party political film" [Link]. An offender is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years. The Films Act defines a “party political film” thus: (a) which is an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body; or (b) which is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore; The Act also further defines the meaning of a film being "directed towards a political end in Singapore", if the film: (a) contains wholly or partly any matter which, in the opinion of the Board, is intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore; or (b) contains wholly or partly references to or comments on any political matter which, in the opinion of the Board, are either partisan or biased; and “political matter” includes but is not limited to any of the following: an election or a national referendum in Singapore; a candidate or group of candidates in an election; an issue submitted or otherwise before electors in an election or a national referendum in Singapore; the Government or a previous Government or the opposition to the Government or previous Government; a Member of Parliament; a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore; or a political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body. However, section 40 of the Act lists certain exemptions: Exemptions 40.—(1)  This Act shall not apply to — (a) any film sponsored by the Government; (b) any film, not being an obscene film or a party political film or any feature, commercial, documentary or overseas television serial film, which is made by an individual and is not intended for distribution or public exhibition; and (c) any film reproduced from local television programmes and is not intended for distribution or public exhibition. (2)  The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, exempt any person or class of persons or any film or class of films from all or any of the provisions of this Act. (3)  An exemption granted under this section may be withdrawn at any time. Did the YP video infringe the Films Act? Or perhaps, under section 40(2) of the Act, the Minister for Communications and Information, Dr Yaacob, has exempted the video from all of the provisions of the Films Act? What do you think?  Read More →