Stabbing incident in NTU — is it really an “attack”?

STREAMS OF protests have arisen on the Internet over the perceived biased coverage by the mainstream media on David Widjaja’s death, and not without good reason.

For the past week, the mainstream media has portrayed – intentionally or not — David as a reclusive loner hell-bent on murder. The motivation? His grades had slipped, and his scholarship was revoked. He became a deranged math genius who lost all sense of rationality. That seemed like a pretty neat explanation.

However, things may not be what they seem.

It has been assumed in many news reports carried by the mainstream media that David was the aggressor. The story goes that the professor was stabbed when his back was facing David. After the alleged assault, David then slashed his wrists, walked out the office, and climbed onto a linkway between two buildings before falling to his death.

But where did the source of this story come from? Apparantly, it originated from Associate Professor Chan Kap Luk’s colleagues.The Straits Times’ report by journalist Sujin Thomas on 3 March 2009, which happened to be one of the earliest reports on the incident, recounted the stabbing incident in vivid detail...

Click here to read the full article on TOC.

Litter at the Istana — on Chinese New Year

27 JANUARY — NO PRIZE for guessing where this is — nope, this is not your typical hawker centre or HDB block, but THE Istana.

Imagine: people littering indiscriminately at the White House. I wonder what would the White House staffers say to that?

It seems like the presidential palace has attracted more than just people during its open house on the second day of Chinese New Year.

For the foreigners out there, the Istana is where the President lives and works in Singapore. And no, the president here mainly serves a ceremonial role with very limited executive powers, quite unlike the American president.

Anyway, I didn’t manage to take a picture of the whole stretch as the queue entering the Istana was moving quite quickly. Trust me, the scene was much worse than it looks...

Click here to read the full article on TOC.

Religious harmony in Singapore – a façade?

THE WORLD watched intently when Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States of America.

But being a Singaporean, it came to me as a surprise that God was invoked so many times during the ceremony. And I understood that this was cause for controversy among some critics who took issue with how the presidential oath would end with a “so help me God.”

Such a phrase will never be uttered by a Singaporean politician, in any ceremony or tradition.

You often hear a minister talk about religion and religious harmony, but never about his own religious experiences. While Obama spoke of the “grace of God” and “may God bless America” in his inauguration speech, Singapore political rhetoric is too often infused with hard facts and GDP figures.

Frankly speaking, when was the last time you heard a Singaporean minister speak about his religious journey? It remains something hidden behind closed doors...

Click here to read the full article on TOC.

Can Singaporeans accept a 'Mohamed' as Prime Minister?

"I want to be a president."

That was what Barack Hussein Obama's wrote when his teacher asked the class to write an essay entitled, "My dream: What I want to be in the future."

Schooled in Indonesia during his early years, perhaps even he could never have guessed his prolific rise to political superstardom. His classmates did not describe him as a particularly intellectual or bright student, and he was only a B-average student.

While we do not know if he held the ambition of becoming President throughout his entire life, that essay became prophetic when he was elected to become the first African-American president in US history.

In many ways, his election was groundbreaking. It signifies the redeeming qualities of democracy and civil liberties, marking a successful transition from a nation that enslaved blacks to one that elects them. All the talk about the "Bradley effect" and racism does not quite apply to most Americans, and here we are seeing a mature people choosing their leader based on principles of charisma, merit, and character.

Political tolerance in Singapore

Having been following the elections quite feverishly, I cannot help but draw comparisons with the current political situation in Singapore.

While Singapore prides itself on meritocracy and integrity, it has a limited tolerance for political diversity. The PAP inherits Lee Kuan Yew's political recipe of crushing opponents at all costs; from the detainment of alleged communists in the 1960s to the arrest of the Marxist conspirators in the 1980s. For appetisers, consider the assortment of defamation and libel suits against a large spread of politicians, newspapers, and magazines.

In the most recent case where the government is suing the Wall Street Journal for contempt of court, Attorney General Walter Woon accused the newspaper of launching a "two-decade campaign to besmirch the Singapore judiciary," said a Reuters report. However, I would venture to say that it is the PAP that is launching its own campaign to not just discredit, but utterly crush and destroy those it perceives as a threat to its hold on power.

While I have no problems with the PAP suing in some instances, the party has gone overboard in extent and scope. Why run JBJ to the brink of poverty over a few loose comments? Why subject James Gomez in 2006 to post-election rough interrogation tactics over the fact that he did not submit an inconsequential registration form? The iron cage sure stinks of legalism and senseless bureaucracy. While the PAP justifies these lawsuits as a means of protecting its integrity, it has backfired instead and stained its own reputation as an unsympathetic and small-minded party.

In contrast, while the US elections reeked of half-truths and outright lies, American society understands that the media has a role to play in sieving out the truth. While news channels like FOX News have attained a dubious reputation of perpetuating rumours and lies, other media outlets like CNN and The New York Times provide people with a more balanced picture.

No doubt, some have been deceived by the smear campaigns that sought to portray Obama as an Arab and a terrorist. The elections, however, has proven that most Americans are sensible enough to discern between truth and deception. Obama's election serves as a vindication of democracy: despite all its flaws, it does work. While it is too early to judge whether an Obama administration will be successful, perhaps Singapore can take a page out of the US elections.

A lesson learnt: Please trust your citizens to make the right decisions.

A Muslim President, or Prime Minister?

Having said that, the US elections has also demonstrated the ugly side of American society, especially its intolerance for Islam. While the US can accept a Black President, can they accept a Muslim one? Responding to allegations that Obama is a Muslim, Colin Powell responded by saying: "Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, "What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America."

This is an important question that has not been treated extensively - if at all - by the leading American newspapers. Perhaps it is too discomforting or even taboo to discuss this in the mainstream media, after all, America is in a self-congratulatory mode for finally - after 200 years - doing away with its demons of racism and discrimination.

But all indications point to a 'No'.

One of the main controversies in the Presidential campaign is the issue about Obama's religion and his middle name: Hussein. The fact that it is even an issue at all demonstrates the deep-seated fear and ignorance of many Americans. It is even more interesting that none of the presidential candidates have gone far to say that it is okay for a Muslim to be a president. Doing so, I suspect, would be political suicide for them. Perhaps still scarred over September 11, the association between the words "Muslim" and "terrorist" will take a long time to be totally decoupled.

But is Singapore ready for a Barack 'Hussein' Obama, or a Mohamed for that matter?

I believe this is where Singapore shines. Unlike America, Singapore has demonstrated incredible racial and religious tolerance, and credit must go to the government's policies for this.

We can argue that the OB markers placed by the government on mentioning race and religion has led to the extreme of people mistaking religious harmony as "not talking about it." But the fact is that despite a minority Muslim population, Singapore society has been relatively untainted by religious strife since the 60s.

No doubt, while prejudice and stereotypes still exists, it is nowhere compared to other societies where people can hate you for being Muslim. The government has gone to great pains to conjure up with policies that enforce racial and religious harmony.

In1980, a race quota was instituted for HDB flats in 1980 to ensure that different races get a chance to mix together and interact. After September 11, Inter-racial and religious confidence circles (IRCC) were set up to provide guidance and understand among different racial and religious groups.

Also, mainstream schools in Singapore - with the exception of SAP schools - allow for people of different races and religions to interact with one another and form friendships from a young age. While elite schools are said to be more homogeneous, this is due more to the fact that the Chinese are performing better academically, but it is hoped that this gap will shrink.

There is no mechanism stopping a Muslim or Hindu from rising up the political ranks - we are seeing minority MPs in parliament. However, many Malay Muslims are consigned to the Police Force and Civil Defense because the government is still uncomfortable with too many of them serving in the Armed Forces. This hesitance is expressed by then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1999 when he was quoted in The Straits Times as saying:

"If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who's very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that's a very tricky business. We've got to know his background... I'm saying these things because they are real, and if I don't think that, and I think even if today the Prime Minister doesn't think carefully about this, we could have a tragedy."

But this leads to the question: If the government is uncomfortable with a Muslim commanding a platoon in the Armed Forces, would it be comfortable allowing the same person to assume the highest office in the country?

We will never know until a Prime Minister Obama arrives.

The war between bloggers and journalists rages on

It all started with an apparent misquote - Ms Agnes Lin, a 20-year-old undergraduate, accused ST journalist Nur Dianah Suhaimi of twisting her words and portraying her as a money-sucking daughter of middle income parents.

But the clincher was this: Ms Lin thought it “silly” that her friend would not ask her parents for money. Ms Lin, of course, vehemently denied this in her blog, saying that she told the journalist no such thing.

When bloggers heard about this incident, most of them were outraged. They poured scorn on the state-owned paper, and some criticised its links with the PAP despite the incident merely being an issue of journalistic ethics.

One common grouse that many netizens have against ST is this: the Agnes Lin incident has not been the first, and it seems that neither will it be the last. But even as bloggers “group hug” and share horror stories over their own experiences with misquotes, journalists themselves are not having it easy...

Click here to read the full article on TOC.

Positive Journalism?

Whenever bad things happen, count on the journalist to be there. Be it disasters, famine, economic meltdowns; whenever and where ever it happens, we'll cover it.

In fact, the news industry pretty much thrives on bad events -- It is bread-and-butter to us. While reading about some student winning an international award is all nice and good, readership really spikes when controversies arise. As journalism students, we are taught that conflict makes a good story: maid versus employee, foreign workers versus locals, government versus the people.

Negativity sells, because somehow deep in our hearts, we are thrilled when bad things happen to other people.

The reason why I wrote this blog post was because my friend Yong Xin asked me this question one day: why can't journalism be more positive? It's a question I've asked myself, but never quite thought much about, until now. Why indeed?

This is my take on the issue: maybe we've been asking the wrong question all along. Instead of asking, "Should journalism be more positive," we should ask: "Is it serving society well?"

There is value in negative news. Conflict stirs debate, debate leads to reflection, and reflection leads to positive change. The government improves their policies based on what is reflected in the media. Readers are educated about class struggle, discrimination, and morality through the media, and this leads to a more enlightened society. I don't believe reporters should downplay a bad event simply for the sake of fluffy positivity. While I believe there should be some dramatisation to draw readers, reporters should make no attempt to exaggerate a bad event. 

Also, negative news should be weighed based on its value to the readers. For example, in the case of a young girl's toe who was ripped off by the escalator while she was wearing Crocs, the article has value because it warns readers about the potential dangers of Crocs. Also, it results in positive action, with the shoe-maker placing "escalator safety" messages on its shoes to inform customers.

Having said that, perhaps it is inevitable that there is more negativity in the media, if it's role is to expose the unsavoury side of society. The media can therefore be said to be both a mirror and a magnifying glass of society. It serves as a mirror because it should try to portray the world as accurately as possible. It serves as a magnifying glass because it should attempt to highlight the pressing problems in society.

That is where the editorial/opinions section of the newspaper comes in. Negative news should be placed into context by an opinion piece. And my next sentence might frighten some: hit the government hard if you have to, but don't be afraid to sing its praises as well. Credit should be given where it is due, but be critical when you have to. 

Reporters should also avoid a doom-and-gloom perspective. In the case of the economic meltdown, it is unhelpful for writers to only point fingers all the time; writers should be obligated to offer the light at the end of the tunnel, and serve to calm down for anxious readers.

Personally, I advocate the Libertarian-Social Responsibility role of the press. The press should serve as a check on the government, to ensure that it is doing its job properly. Also, the press should serve the interests of the wider society, giving voice to the voiceless,  hope to the hopeless, guarding against rampant capitalism and political tyranny.

While I don't believe in the press becoming merely a stage for PR, I do believe in positive journalism -- which is simply the ability to derive positive outcomes out of negative news. 

On a side note, here is an article about how some journalists do see some good news arising out of the economic recession.

It's not just about Chee, but media lunacy

Almost every student I spoke to agreed with me: censorship is outdated. In fact, when I wrote the article entitled "NTU censors campus news coverage of Chee Soon Juan visit", I had difficulty finding students who agreed with NTU’s actions.

But if there is anything this whole fracas has demonstrated, it would be the idea that censorship is an antiquated notion, belonging to a past era. In the age of the Internet, supression of information is difficult, if not impossible. Even before the said article was written, one of the editors at the Chronicle had already posted her displeasure about the whole issue online.

Some will argue that students have nothing better to do, and that we are just making use of the Internet to voice senseless grouses. While it is true that the blogosphere is sometimes a cauldron for complaint, it can also be a platform to voice genuine concerns. In this case, students felt that a great injustice was wrought, and something must be done about it.

In fact, this is the first time in the history of the Nanyang Chronicle that such a censorship has occured...

Click here to read the full article on TOC.

What the Olympics taught us about education

A shortened version of this article was featured on the Sept 15th issue of the Nanyang Chronicle.

The sheer joy of victory is something every athlete craves for, and this was most evident in the Beijing Games.

But in the obsession for sporting supremacy, it seems that some athletes have lost the joy of participation, resorting to doping scandals and nasty fights. The Olympics has also become a political sideshow – with protests, boycotts, and sharp criticisms headlining the media.

One wonders if the same thing is happening in our university education.

No doubt, the results are important, but so should be the sheer enjoyment of intellectual pursuit, which seems to have become an oxymoron these days. A proclamation of your love for hitting the books will often be met with this common retort:

“You must be kidding me!”

The current university system in NTU, together with the hectic pace of life in Singapore, makes it rather difficult for students to have a truly enjoyable educational experience. As a basic requirement, students are told to complete all tutorials and readings beforehand, but this may prove difficult.

Consider the other commitments that students often have: co-curricular activities, relationships, and even religious obligations. Some are even actively involved in community or grassroots work which falls outside the purview of the university. It seems unfair that students have to choose between maintaining a decent GPA and having extra commitments outside of school.

There is more the university can do to improve the quality of its education.

Firstly, consider the implementation of the study week – a full one week break from lessons right before the examinations. A common complaint among students is the lack of preparation time before sitting for the papers. The study week allows students to have more time to understand and digest the concepts which have been learnt throughout the semester and to clear existing doubts with their tutors.

Secondly, reduce the number of AUs required for students to graduate. At Columbia University – which is a member of the Ivy League and consistently ranked among the top ten in the world – a student is required to complete only 124 credits to graduate with a Bachelor of Arts degree in four years. In NTU however, students must complete a staggering 146 AUs to graduate with a Sociology degree in the same amount of time. Despite the disparity, it is no secret which university offers a better undergraduate programme – and it is not about how much you study.

It is an illusion that by taking up more modules, students will benefit from greater knowledge. It is a question of width versus depth: with fewer modules to take, students will be able to have a deeper understanding of the subjects they are taking. Also, lessening the requirements for graduation would give students more time to pursue their own interests. These things are the least the university can do to lessen the burden placed on students by a Singaporean culture already obsessed with academic achievement. For students with a desire to be involved with, say, setting up a business, they would be free to do so without worrying too much that their studies will be affected.

And with all the fuss about poor alumni donations among local universities and poor marriage rates, the above measures just might do the trick in alleviating these problems. More free time equals more socialising – resulting in students building deeper bonds with the school and with one another. Expect more young couples to visit the grassy roof of ADM to star-gaze pretty soon.

A paradigm shift is needed – by students, educators, and Singapore society alike, especially when it comes to how we define success. In the Beijing Olympics, China topped the medal standings based on gold medal count alone. But if we look at the total medals count, including silver and bronze, the US is still tops. However, if you factor in population count, Jamaica is king, with 2.2 gold medals per million inhabitants. The US came in at 33rd, and China at 47th.

So instead of merely recognising outstanding academic achievers at the NTU Convocation, special mention –and perhaps even awards – should be given to students with outstanding extra-curricular work. Small financial incentives that are given out annually can be considered as well. These activities should be in addition to the school club the student may already be involved in. To facilitate this, students should be encouraged to list down – at his discretion of course – a list of his outside commitments. This could be in the form of religious activities, entrepreneurial endeavours, and even private language courses. The whole idea here is that everything the student does that can be deemed educational should be recognised.

With these measures, education becomes more of a pursuit of passion rather than just pointless mugging. And when students are allowed to do more of what they like, they will enjoy the process a little bit more, and maybe even perform better.

Usain Bolt, the flamboyant, fun-loving track star who rose quickly to prominence during the Olympics, exemplified what it meant to enjoy what you do – and to do it well. While International Olympic Committee Chief Jaques Rogge criticised “showbolt” for celebrating with crowd-pleasing theatrics before completing the 100m race, others defended him. Just let the guy have some fun, they said.

He broke the world record in 9.69s, and the funny thing was – he was not even trying very hard. Sometimes, having a little bit of fun can get you somewhere.

Liberalising the Films Act? Teach Media Literacy too

Can a film - or a blog post - spark a revolution?

That must be the question on the minds of some PAP politicians, even as Aims released its recommendations for the Government on how to manage the new media’s influence on Singapore politics.

Four broad recommendations have been put forth: that the Government should be more active in engaging netizens; that Section 33 should be liberalised; that children should be better protected against cyber dangers; and that content hosts should be spared from defamation suits.

While Aims has rightly emphasised that education rather than censorship should be the long-term solution when it comes to consuming new media, this notion currently applies only to protecting children against the likes of pornography or cyber-bullying.

One crucial element has been left out: the implementation of media education in schools and in public. Part of the requirements of a functioning democracy is a well-educated populace that is media literate and well-equipped to discern between balanced and fallacious content.

Click here to read the full article on TOC.

Is Privacy Extinct?

This article was first edited and published on The Nanyang Chronicle on 25th August, 2008.

Privacy, is going the way of the dinosaurs, and there is nothing Singaporeans can do about it.

Consider this: on a typical day, you would already be caught numerous times on close-circuit television (CCTV) while on the way to campus. Furthermore, when you board the train, somebody might be taking photos of you with their mobile phones, and uploading them onto STOMP, a citizen journalism website run by The Straits Times.

However, it appears that Singaporeans don’t mind that their actions are being tracked, at least on the internet. We do not seem to mind the fact that websites like YouTube, a Google-owned video sharing site, are efficient in gathering information about us by keeping track of our viewing.

And such information can easily fall into the wrong hands. In a US$1 billion (S$1.41 billion) copyright infringement lawsuit last year, Viacom contended that YouTube has been showing 160,000 video clips of its programming without permission. The verdict was controversial: it ruled that Google must hand over the viewing record of all YouTube users.

Fortunately for YouTube users, both Google and Viacom had later pledged to protect all YouTube users’ anonymity in its investigations. This meant that all private information will be used for investigative purpose only.

In the internet age, where we often reveal more of ourselves online, there is a need to define what privacy is. In this case, we are referring to information privacy, where an individual has the right to decide what information one chooses to reveal to others.

With the explosion of information in society today in the form of text, pictures, sound, and video, the possession of knowledge is truly a source of power. Consider the case of Dr Tam Tak Chuen who, according to a Straits Times report in May, was caught on camera having sex with his clinic assistant. The voyeur: business partner Khairul Abdul Rahman, who had long suspected them of having an affair.

The above example illustrates a moral dilemma: should privacy be violated in the name of exposing another immoral deed?

No doubt, whatever individuals choose to do in private is their own personal choice, but they must be reminded that any private action runs the risk of becoming public – especially if society deems it immoral or controversial. Take the case of the Edison Chen sex scandal.

Edison Chen and Co’s privacy were violated when photos of their sex romp were uploaded onto the internet early this year. Yet, we find ourselves laughing at its irony: there is no doubt that Mr Kwok Chun-wai - the 24-year-old logistics clerk who discovered the photos - deserved his comeuppance, but I suspect that the only praise reserved for Mr Chen is his ability to bed many famous celebrity women.

Nevertheless, privacy is an inalienable right of every human being, and this fact must be recognised more strongly in Singapore. This is especially important in the Internet age, where our privacy is under siege by the advent of technology.

The lack of clear privacy protection guidelines in Singapore is apparent, and will only become more so in the future. In 1999, then 21-year-old NUS student Anne Lee told The Straits Times that her SingNet account was hacked into from the Home Affairs Ministry. Later, it was found that a staggering 200,000 accounts were scanned without the users’ knowledge – about half of the total number of internet users in Singapore then.

But this is not an isolated incident.

Last year, SingTel was once again embroiled in a privacy infringement controversy. Local anime distributor Odex obtained court orders that required Singtel and Starhub to reveal the identities of over 2,000 subscribers who were alleged to have downloaded anime illegally.

While the judge felt that copyright infringement must take precedence over privacy protection, Straits Times senior writer Andy Ho wrote in September last year that the individuals who were about to have their information divulged were not represented in court at all. Surely the privacy matters of internet users should be given a better hearing?

Both incidents illustrate the fact that privacy issues would continue to surface, especially in the information age.Therefore, a set of privacy laws will be useful for the government and the Supreme Court: it defines the rights citizens have to information privacy, and would serve as a guideline in future controversies.

The government can look to the European Directive on Protection of Personal Data for inspiration, currently in effect in the European Union (EU). The directive states that for every data collected, there should be a stated purpose, and they should be deleted when it is no longer needed. Also, some data can be deemed too sensitive to be collected, except under extreme circumstances.

Only with such laws can the privacy rights of Singaporeans be safeguarded effectively.

Hate Religion...but love thy God

It's in the news: Taoism is fast losing traction among the Chinese here, but Buddhism and Christianity are on the rise.

The Straits Times reported how Taoism has lost many believers - from 30 per cent of the Chinese population in the 80s to 8.5 per cent in 2000. On the other hand, Christianity represents 17 per cent and Buddhism 54 per cent of the Chinese population, according to the population census.

However, in the midst of these religious tectonic shifts, tremours of unhappiness are brewing within the homes of many traditional Chinese families. A typical scenario: a Buddhist mother grieves over how her children have converted to Christianity, and worries over how there will be no one to perform her funeral rites.

Baptism has also been a contentious issue: it represents a total abandonment of old religious traditions in favour of the 'new-fangled thing'.

So what is this new-fangled thing? It is the result of the reevaluation of our purpose in life - leading to a drastic change of beliefs.

The Straits Times report has revealed a common understanding among many religious adherents and seekers: there is no use for old religious rites that bare no meaning upon one's lives.

But the search for meaning is often a rocky path. While many youths yearn for parents who are open-minded, they will find instead their desire to convert met with unhappiness from them instead.

This brings us to the bugbear of religion: emotionalism. Like it or not, a religious debate will often be heated up and quite emotional. Yes, you have your euphoric religious experiences of how 'God is Love' and how you have achieved a sense of wholeness, but many of the emotions that are tagged with religion is negative.

The abandonment of old traditional rites is one, and seems to strike great fear within parents. Other contentious issues include extremism and fundamentalism, which include terrorism and the notion of church versus the state. In Singapore, where the situation is rather calm, you have the gripes against over-zealous evangelising and seemingly over-extravagant spending on religious buildings.

In forums and blogs, it is hard to find a religious discussion that stays calm. Yes, discussions about politics will occasionally heat up to boiling point, but religious discussions are volcanoes waiting to erupt.

So it is quite understandable why parents react the way they do: religion represents a certain identity. Many of us cling on to it when we were young and for some of us, they form integral parts of our past memories.

But in order to gain happiness and a sense of purpose, shouldn't old mindsets and traditions be abandoned, even if it means upsetting the old institutions? Nevertheless, a conversion should be done with great care and love: it's about showing that despite a change in beliefs, your concern for your parents would be intact, if not enhanced.

I'm not saying that any religion is bad, but if we merely perform the traditional rites for the sake of doing it, then it becomes nothing more than 'Religion' - a set of practices and traditions that hold no purpose or value in the present context. In other words, a wayang.

We should strive to hate Religion: abandoning old practices that no longer hold meaning to our lives, yet at the same time to love thy God - realising that there is a spiritual dimension in all of us that needs to be fulfilled.

Therefore, if Taoists want to regain a foothold in Singapore society once again, then they need to address this question: what does the religion have to offer modern-day Singaporeans?

The Tan Lead Shake saga - no conspiracy involved

The recent Tan Lead Shake saga has offered a revealing insight into the state of journalism in Singapore. And no, The Straits Times is not The State's Times, as many bloggers like to say.

Before I proceed, here's a summary of events that has happened over the past week:

The brother of opposition politician Tan Lead Shake, aka Slipper Man, was found dead with multiple stab wounds. The victim was murdered by his wife. The news ran in the June 29 edition of The Sunday Times, explaining details of the murder and background information of Lead Shake's life as an opposition politician.

On the same day, National Solidarity Party member Law Sin Ling posted an angry response on a Yahoo! group, which was subsequently reproduced on Sgpolitics.net and The Online Citizen. In it, he accused The Straits Times of "journalistic madness", mocking the opposition and the dead, and brazenly betraying their "thicket of putrid inner value."

Angrier comments poured in, calling the Tan Lead Shake article a "piece of trash" and an "abominable despicable unconscionable exploitation for political mileage".

Another anonymous comment put it more crudely, with such vulgar eloquence:

"&@#!%$&*% I would not want to translate that, those were words meant for the piece of prostituting shit of a journalist."

In summary: yet another PAP-bashing, Straits Times = PAP conspiracy theory.

I personally think Sin Ling has gone too far in his criticisms. An examination of journalistic 'News Values' will explain perfectly why the article was framed that certain way, with 'Slipper Man' Tan Lead Shake highlighted in the article.

News Values are simply the criteria that editors use to decide what makes news.

Much space was given to the article, not because of some PAP conspiracy to dent the opposition (it's not the GE yet). Rather, the news was simply interesting.

Firstly, it involved a somewhat prominent personality, but not famous enough to make front page or a 6-page spread.

Secondly, the moniker 'Slipper Man' was used not out of disrespect, but because it reveals an interesting aspect of Lead Shake's personality.

Thirdly, the emphasis on Lead Shake's losses in past General Elections was necessary because hardly anyone would know about him prior to his brother's murder.

And lastly, this was no conspiracy for a very simple reason: the PAP is not in cahoots with the Straits Times.

And it is true that Tan Lead Shake is a SDA member, or rather - was. However, I must admit that the article could phrase it better, by naming him as a "former Singapore Democratic Alliance member" instead.

There is not the slightest trace of politicalisation in the article. The PAP boogeyman did not pop by to the newsroom one day and proclaim: "You must cover this! Let's smear the opposition!" The article did not attempt to suggest that Tan Lead Shake was somehow involved in the murder attempt. The facts spoke for itself.

As any Singapore journalism student will tell you, the government pretty much leaves the press alone, unless intervention is needed. The government is too sophisticated for that. Restrictions and OB markers are already in place to manage the media.

The article was just that: a typical murder case - with Tan Lead Shake, an opposition member, unfortunate enough to be related to the victim. In any other country, even those with a free press, any opposition politician with his brother murdered would receive similar treatment by the media.

It seems that the only one politicising the situation is NSP member Law Sin Ling himself.

Is the Straits Times that bad?

"Why are you selling your soul to the devil?"

That was what somebody told me, quite incredulously, when I said that I've applied for the SPH scholarship.

Of course, I can't blame her. The reputation of The Straits Times among bloggers and the online community is not a positive one. In fact, the daily has been "demonised", accused of being biased, a tool for propaganda, and a stooge for the government.

Surf SingaporeDaily, and you are likely to find a ST article, or the journalist who wrote it, or the paper itself being criticised left, right, and centre. Many have swore that they've quit reading ST a long time ago, and they're quite proud of it.

I can imagine a Straits Times Anonymous group gathering in a room, sitting in a circle and sharing about their joyful experiences.

"I dumped my copy of ST into the bin, and never looked back," says a 22-year-old girl in a sweet voice.

"Once, I was a brainless citizen, but now, thanks to the internet, I'm set free!" says a 40-year-old man in polo tee and shorts, the type you often see sipping coffee at the hawker centre.

Amen and amen. One wonders why they should not set up a new religion.

But don't be so quick to label me an anti-ChriST. I have my gripes about ST and the state of the local media too. But I think some perspective is needed.

Back to the question: Do I think that ST is that bad? The answer is a categorical no.

Yes, I agree that The Straits Times is state-controlled, and many of its stakeholders are linked to the government. Yes, I agree that the quality of writing there pales in comparison to some of the top-notch newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. And yes, I agree that the paper is biased in its coverage of government policies. The Editorial Team is overwhelmingly pro-government, and this is reflected in the op-eds.

However, I must say it is doing its best under existing restrictions. Being the oldest paper in the country, it is difficult to undo years of tradition. It plays the expected role of being nation-building by the PAP's definition, and this is something that will take a lot of inertia to change. You can describe ST as a victim of its circumstances. The real culpit here must be the law of the land: the ISA, the NPPA, as well as a judiciary that has been used to sue dissenting politicians and media for libel.

And the ST does have its own gems as well. The Saturday special is an enlightening read, most of the time. Some of the opinion pieces are well-written. And the ST is quite stringent when it comes to reporting hard news.

Journalists themselves have also gotten an unfair portion of the flak. Being in such a large organisation, the journalist often has to adhere to the demands of the editorship as well as the ST's policies. The piece of writing that ends up on the paper often bares only a small resemblance to what the journalist originally wrote.

This is not to say that journalists are not totally absolved from bad and biased reporting. But I just want to highlight this fact: the journalist is but a small spoke in a very large wheel. And at the heart of everything lies the government.

Furthermore, the ST can be likened to a very large oceanliner, and blogs to small pecking fishes. I'm not trying to look down on bloggers, but to highlight differences between MSM and new media. While criticism is awash all over the internet about ST and its articles, the paper has no ability to react. As a result, there is a gigantic imbalance as far as online sentiments go.

Here's how it works: ST publishes an article, which is viewed as biased by the online community. Blog reactions flood in, criticising the ST for whatever reason. As a large oceanliner, the paper is too slow to respond, to counter the arguments raised by netizens. It tries to steer, but is unable to do so quickly enough against the tide of criticism.

This is something the ST should try to change. Journalists should be more actively engaging the blogging community, not as enemies, but as active citizens working towards better public discourse. The new media should not be seen as a threat, but as an opportunity. ChannelNewsAsia and Mypaper have already done so, launching blogs featuring their own journalists.

It is therefore the imperative of the journalist themselves to decide what to do with it, and also to counter criticism that may arise as a result of the articles they write. While management may be scrambling to make sense of this new beast, journalists by themselves have the independence and savvy to better engage netizens. That is the advantage of being young and nimble.

Does Singapore deserve its press freedom ranking?

IN A 2008 survey by Freedom House, Singapore has shown no improvement in its freedom of the press, despite the maturing of online media as a medium to air alternative views.

The latest results reveal nothing new: much has already been said about the deplorable state of press freedom in Singapore, ranked a lowly 153rd out of 195 countries, sharing the same ranking as Iraq. The idea that Singapore is first-world in economic competitiveness but third-world in press freedom and civil liberties has already become an over-sung tune.

A check with Freedom House’s past survey results revealed that Singapore has not only been stagnating, but has in fact deteriorated in terms of press freedom, increasing from a score of 60 (the lower the score, the freer the press) in 1994 to 69 in 2008...

Click here to read the full article on TOC.

Like Pilate, DPM Wong washes his hands clean

For the guards on duty on the fateful day of Mas Selamat's Houdini-like escape, it must have been a hellish month-and-a-half. Haunted by recurring thoughts of how they could have let the wanted terrorist slip through the window, it would be hard for them to flip through this morning’s papers.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng’s speech yesterday on Mas Selamat’s escape was effectively their death sentence. Towards the end of the speech, DPM Wong promised that “Officers who are responsible for Mas Selamat’s escape will be disciplined and penalised.”

Furthermore, he added that not only should the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC) junior officers be examined, but the scrutiny should “go up the chain of command and include the supervisory and management levels of WRDC as well.”

While the personnel at WRDC should rightly be responsible for the escape, it seemed that they have been accorded all the blame, and would suffer all the disciplinary actions as well.

Opposition MP Chiam See Tong has asked in parliament whether any heads will roll, but it seems like the only people facing the guillotine are the staff and Officers at the WRDC. For some of them, it is possibly hanta kaki to their promotion and job prospects in the force.


Who is really to blame?

DPM Wong has been irresponsible to absolve himself of the blame. He seems eager to point the finger on “slacking” within some individual units, all the while dismissing the notion that strategic oversights have led to the escape.

Why, for instance, is an extremely dangerous and wanted terrorist kept in an old facility formally used to house communists? The rationale for housing Mas Selamat there is so not to antagonise him and “treat” him better so that he would be more willing to divulge information on terrorist activities. However, these functions could be performed just as well in a better-secured facility.

Another reason cited by DPM Wong was to prevent “contamination” of the terrorist with other inmates. This argument, however, raises more questions: why couldn’t a section of the prison be condoned off for Mas Selamat? Why is it that the Internal Security Department (ISD) needs a rude awakening to decide that they are going to house terrorists in Changi Prison?

The security at the WRDC was appalling. As DPM Wong has mentioned, metal grilles were not installed at that one window and the CCTV that would have documented his escape were not actively monitered. Furthermore, the perimeter wall and fencing resembled more of a school’s than that of a secure facility used to house terrorists.

Rather than pushing the blame squarely on the complacency of the personnel at WRDC, strategic oversights on the part of the ISD and even the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) should bare the responsibility as well.

DPM Wong should have accepted responsibility

Now that Mas Selamat has escaped, what’s done is done, and there is no use mourning over past incompetency. While DPM Wong was right to say that the focus should now be to catch the terrorist, he was insincere in the way he handled the whole situation.

Responsibility does not mean accepting punishment, but it means telling that people that yes, there is sincere regret that this incident has happened, and yes, the Ministry has contemplated the fact that maybe there is something that they themselves have overlooked. It seemed that DPM Wong was unwilling to concede all this while.

Some members of the online community are calling for his resignation, but that is wholly unnecessary. However, as the Minister in charge of Home Affairs, it is only right that he accepts responsibility for the whole incident, take the burdens upon his shoulders, and try to undo the mess.

The whole Mas Selamat incident is an indication of how distant the ruling technocrats are from the ground. It is a failed Public Relations exercise on the government’s part. By not accepting responsibility, the MHA has proven that it is more than willing to appoint scapegoats in this fracas, and wash their own hands clean.

Unfortunately, the people who suffer will always be the ones at the bottom of the food chain.

Singapore journalism in stasis

WHILE NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION and traditional print advertising revenue appears to be increasing in Singapore, journalism here has remained stagnant.

In the Money Section of the 15 April 2008 issue of The Straits Times, it was reported in an article that SPH’s “newspaper and magazine operations saw sales rise 8.4 per cent to $236.4 million, as print advertisement revenues surged 11.3 per cent to $179.8 million.”

However, whether newspaper sales by itself has increased, stagnated, or dropped was not made clear. The surge in sales and print advertising revenues could in fact be due to its magazines sales.

The situation in the US appears much more drastic. Despite America being a symbol of Democracy with a liberal press system, the nation has seen newspaper circulation decline for 20 years running. This is due to a credibility crisis in American journalism, where corporate takeovers of major newspapers and declining print advertisement revenues are leaving journalists shorthanded.

The figures below, extracted from the American Journalism Review, speak for themselves:

• Thirty years ago, 71 percent of adults read a daily newspaper. Ten years ago, it was 59 percent. Last year's figure: 48 percent.

• Last December, 63 million unique visitors came to newspaper Web sites. Google's figure: 133 million.

• Ad revenue for newspaper Web sites rose 21 percent to $773 million in the third quarter of last year over the previous year. Print ad losses during the same period: $1 billion, wiping out the gain from the Web.

• In the third quarter of last year, print advertising dropped 9 percent, including a decline of 17 percent among classifieds. A Goldman Sachs prediction for overall newspaper advertising this year: a drop of 8 percent.

Singapore print journalism, on the other hand, seems relatively untouched by the assault of Internet advertising. While circulation of The Straits Times could be argued to be on a decline, the figures are nowhere as drastic as those above.

However, to determine the vitality of journalism in a country, it is not just enough to look at its financial status.

In the US, it is a widely held viewed that the standard of journalism there is deteriorating. Corporate takeovers meant that commercial interests may overtake newspapers. Foreign news coverage is decreasing despite the need for more such coverage. Newspapers are shrinking in size and manpower has been cut so as to save costs.

While major newspapers in the US are dropping in readership year-by-year, readers there still have exciting online alternatives to turn to for their regular news fix.

American journalists there are rebounding. Philanthropists are putting funds to start up news websites, most notably Propublica.org, which has former WSJ Managing Editor Paul E. Steiger as editor-in-chief. The website is funded by California philanthropists Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler, who will be pumping in US$10 million annually for the next three years.

Foreign news coverage will also be getting a boost from an online source. Global News Enterprise, slated to become the first US news website dedicated solely to foreign news, will be set up in early 2009. It will be run by CEO Philip Balboni and assisted by initial investments of US$8 million.

In contrast, the journalism scene in Singapore is much less exciting. With no Malaysiakini in Singapore, disgruntled readers have nowhere to turn to other than ST or Today. The Online Citizen, one of the most widely read alternative news and opinion websites in Singapore, is too severely shorthanded to be an alternative news source.

Not that many people are complaining. While online forumers and bloggers have been quick to criticise Singapore’s PAP-friendly mainstream papers, they remain an extremely vocal and internet-savvy minority. The rest of the population is probably rather content with what is already available.

It sure doesn’t help that Singapore is only a small island-state with a small population. As PM Lee has mentioned, talents are few and the top talents are leaving the island, perhaps for good. But the main reason for Singapore’s static journalism is really our political state.

The PAP government is attempting to listen to its people through online feedback units and by engaging bloggers, but these gestures are meant to cement PAP’s position in parliament, not loosen control. The PM’s disdain for the opposition has been reflected in a recent article by Today.

All three Opposition MPs were graded by PM Lee, with Mr Chiam See Tong observed as speaking less nowadays, Mr Low Thia Khiang chided for being “more passionate about nitpicking,” and Ms Sylvia Lim surprisingly getting an ‘A’ (was it sarcastic?) for being “rather cautious and reserved” in her speeches. On the other hand, the NMPs were praised for raising contrary views in parliament.

At the moment, Mr Chiam declined to retort, while the other two MPs “could not be reached for comment at press time.” It remains to be seen whether a follow-up article will follow, although I rightly feel that there should be one. In the interest of free and fair journalism, it is only right.

Whether PM Lee’s comments does reflect actual performance is debatable. Nevertheless, it does reflect the fact that the PAP wants an opposition that is friendly to the party, by the sheer fact that NMPs heavily outnumber the opposition MPs in parliament. Likewise, the PAP ideology of a “nation-serving” press is not set to change anytime soon.

The government is content with mainstream media being the way it is. In fact, it can be said to be too liberal by even the government’s standards. Unless PAP amends its media policies and unless the liberal minority becomes the majority, Singapore journalism looks set to remain in stasis for a long while more.

The ugly side of Democracy

Democracy has an ugly side, as shown by the recent protests against China at the various Olympic torch relay sites.

In London, police had to keep pro-Tibet protesters away from the flame. In France, demonstraters hurled water at the flame and lunged at the torchbearers. If this is what Democracy is all about, then I do not want any part of it.

We would expect citizens in these mature, highly-developed and Democratic countries to behave with dignity and to carry themselves well, yet they resorted to this sort of ugly behaviour. I mean, what would happen if they did get to the flaming torch and had their hands on the torchbearers? How ugly could it have been?

This leads to a question: If Singapore were to be truly democratic and if freedom of speech were to be liberally exercised, and if the torch were to pass by Singapore, how would Singaporeans behave? Chee Soon Juan had gone all out to show that "peaceful protests" are certainly possible in Singapore. Videos of him being confronted by the police despite protesting peacefully are being circulated on YouTube.

Hypothetically, under the pervasive eye of the media and the liberalisation of government control, it is hard to determine if Singaporeans would be as disruptive as the mob protesters in France. However, with Singapore being a more conservative and reserved culture, perhaps we might demonstrate the ability to "protest peacefully."

The prospect of demonstrations at the Speaker's Corner, if legalised, may finally provide space for Singaporeans to make their voice heard. But such measures might just be 'gestural politics', as the restrictions that come with having to register with the police discourages Singaporeans from using the must maligned venue. Perhaps a more 'light touch' policy should be applied, quite similar to what we're already seeing online, giving Singaporeans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to voicing their concerns.

Here in Singapore, the ugliness that is associated with freedom of expression has so far been limited to the online space. We are no stranger to the racial and religious slurs and the personal attacks that have been rampant online. How that would translate in the real world is pretty much an untested question.

The people know this: that if they were to try something like the protesters in France, they would be dealt under the heavy hand of the law. The ever watchful eye of the government has been what's keeping Singaporeans in line. But without the law, how would Singaporeans behave? It is possible that the "peaceful protest" doctrine endorsed by Chee Soon Juan might even fade to obscurity as Singaporeans become bolder in their expression?

The ugliness of Democracy has been what's keeping the Singapore government hesistant about giving more political freedom to its people. The recent spate of protests would seem to reinforce that viewpoint. Nevertheless, while it might be wrong for Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, to not offer him a choice in the first place might be the greater sin after all.

No one left behind

Photo: One of the many homeless in Singapore. Edited version of article published on Vol. 14, issue 10 of The Nanyang Chronicle. Photo extracted from online source.

On a busy Sunday afternoon, Chan Ai Eng, 71, was selling tissue at a crowded street near Bugis Junction. The skinny arch-backed woman carried a large plastic bag filled with packets of tissue. The pale sinews on her arms were almost visible; her translucent skin wrapped around her limbs like parched leather. With a diminutive voice she pushed her wares to bystanders, who waved her away.

Lonely and abandoned, Madam Chan is a forgotten ghost treading the land of rapid modernisation. She is homeless, wandering from place to place, unsure of where she will stay for the night. If she is lucky, kind hawkers will treat her to a free meal. But more often than not, she pays for food with the meagre sum she earns.

Living on such a subsistence level, she has fallen out of the scope of the budget speech, which was delivered by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on 15th February 2008. In it, he mentioned how a budget surplus meant that needy Singaporeans stand to gain by receiving ‘hongbaos’ in the form of financial assistance.

However, she will not be receiving growth dividends, which is based on family income and the value of their homes. Top-ups will be given to Medisave accounts, and Public Assistance payouts will be increased, but these mainly service needy families and not homeless folks like her.

An additional $200 million will be pumped into ComCare, and another $10 million will go into grassroots, self-help groups, and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). However, it is unclear which organisations will benefit from this funding, and how much of it will be steered towards the homeless elderly.

For Madam Chan and those like her, the god of prosperity seems to have passed them by.

Despite the various measures mentioned in Budget 2008, the homeless elderly seemed to have been left behind. While 10 welfare homes exist in Singapore to provide care for about 1,700 destitute people, many are still left wandering the streets. With no caring relatives, no friends, and no way to be contacted, the only hope for Madam Chan is to fall into the attention of some social worker, if they ever find her at all.

While no official figures have been made public about the number of homeless in Singapore, sightings of the destitute sleeping on void decks and on benches are common. They can be spotted sleeping on laid-out cardboard boxes, with their bags as pillows and newspapers as blankets. They carry their belongings with them in plastic bags. Many of them are old, lonely, and abandoned.

While Budget 2008 has not addressed the need of these individuals, it seemed that their families and society in general are not helping much either, content with leaving the problem to welfare organisations, which sometimes lack sufficient funding themselves. In a society where ‘filial piety’ is touted as one of its foremost values, we should not be seeing feeble elderly sleeping out alone and unprotected.

While the budget speech has promised benefits for all, it is doubtful that much of the wealth generated from the additional education, entrepreneurial, and research assistance will trickle down to the bottom of the barrel. The new measures effectively cover the lower-class to the rich, but what about the desperately poor?

The economic benefits coming our way, unfortunately, may remain firmly in our pockets. While many of the middle class and rich will benefit from the new measures, nudging them to “give back to the poor” may not be easy, as present economic realities may make this difficult.

On one hand, the middle class, many of whom are degree holders in middle-management jobs, have inflation to worry about.

On the other hand, the rich, many of whom are living comfortably off their hard-earned money, may find it difficult to give up too much for a philanthropic cause.

Amidst all the buzz and excitement of the ‘New Singapore’; the casino with its opulent splendour, the shuffle of chips at the poker table, and the Singapore Flyer soaring above the skyline, we must never forget to develop into a more compassionate society.

The voice of those like Madam Chan must never be forgotten.

Seeing her at the McDonalds restaurant along the air-conditioned ‘street’, I went up to the old lady and bought tissue, paying extra for it. Her face widened in a wrinkled grin and she thanked me profusely. We then sat down at the table to have a chat.

She revealed that she was left to fend for herself by her only son, who bums around from job to job and stays at their relatives’ place. Her husband abandoned her early in the marriage. Her feeble legs only allow her to work twice a week. She earns less than $10 a day, adding up to barely $20 a week.

Our time together was cut short because she had to go back to selling tissue. With no contact number, it was difficult to meet her again. I left her my number, hoping that somehow we could keep in touch again.

She never called.

Save the planet: RECYCLE LESS

Published on The Nanyang Chronicle, Vol. 14, Issue 7. Photo courtesy of Foo Chee Chang. The article, renamed "Reduce and reuse before recycling," was published on 31st March 2008 in My Paper.

I was wondering what to do with a read copy of a newspaper.

Considering how environmental conservation is becoming a widespread practice, the most obvious answer would be to dump it into the recycling bin.

However, this is an assumption that needs to be challenged.

As global temperatures continue to rise, people have finally warmed up to the 3Rs – Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. Celebrities in Hollywood are jumping onto the environmental bandwagon. For example, Sheryl Crow has a tour bus that runs on bio-diesel, while Cameron Diaz drives a Prius and uses recycled products.

Recycling, however, is hardly an effective solution to our environmental conundrum as it does not cut down on human greed and wasteful consumption, which is the root cause of our current woes. In other words, recycling is a reactionary measure, and not a preventive one.

However, it is the concept of recycling that seems to have hit home with the general public, perhaps due to the visibility of the recycling bin, which has become an iconic symbol of environmentalism globally and in Singapore.

And it seems the practice has caught on among locals; at least that is what statistics are telling us. Latest figures from the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources show that Singapore’s recycling rate – which is the total amount of waste recycled as a percentage of the total amount of waste generated – has risen from 40% to 49% between 2000 and 2005, and the ministry aims to increase this to 60% by 2012.

While recycling does have an important role in environmental conservation, it does not address the root causes of our environmental problem: human greed and high consumption.

But these are problems requiring very complicated solutions. Asking consumers to buy less would be an economic disaster, as advertisers, marketers, and the government are counting on them to spend the dollar and contribute towards economic growth. Therefore the next best solution would be to curb wasteful consumption.

In an article titled “What’s Your Consumption Factor?” published in the New York Times on 2nd January 2008, Jared Diamond shed light on how wasteful consumerism is contributing significantly to the gravity of the environmental problem.

He reveals how people in developed countries have a consumption factor of 32, consuming that number of times more resources than a typical person in many developing countries. In other words, a typical Singaporean consumes 32 times more resources than a Kenyan.

To make matters worse, as countries prosper and develop, the standard of living will increase, and the citizen’s demand for material possessions will rise as well.

Even though the developed nations are moving towards sustainable development, their progress are offset by countries like India and China, who would not only become the biggest engines of growth on the global economy, but also the biggest contributors of pollution.

With a combined population of 2.5 billion people yearning for a taste of the high life, it would seem that we are spiralling inevitably towards an environmental meltdown.

Even as environmental activists, governments, and scientists busy themselves with reversing the planet’s environmental woes, individuals do have a part to play in all of this.

More than just recycling our trash, we need to alter our spending behaviour and stop splurging on wasteful purchases. Diamond shows in his article how people can always work towards maximising resources without having to compromise on standard of living. He then cites the example of Western Europe, which consumes about half as much per capita oil consumption as America, yet enjoys a higher standard of living.

All we need is a little bit of creativity. The January 12th, 2008 edition of The Straits Times reported on how a Swedish state-owned firm is using body heat from a quarter-million commuters from Stockholm’s central station to heat up its office building. Through the use of ventilators and pipes, heat is directed into the building, where it is used to heat up water.

As clichéd as it sounds, the 3Rs – reduce, reuse, recycle – is apt in describing how an individual can contribute towards environmental conservation.

As a result, in the order of importance: first, we reduce, then we reuse, and for everything else – we recycle.

Liberal arts: much to gain and little to lose

Published on The Nanyang Chronicle, Vol. 14, Issue 6

Stacy Hong has always been a model student. She had a stellar CCA record, was the vice-president of the science society, and was involved in numerous student research projects.

She attained straight As for her ‘A’ levels, guaranteeing her a position in the medicine faculty in NUS, where her doctor parents had always wanted her to go.

Now imagine their horrified faces when she comes home one day and told them she has applied to study Philosophy and Religion at Bates College in Maine, USA.

They objected vehemently to her choice, harping on the impracticalities of an arts degree and her rashness in making that decision.

She pleaded tearfully saying that she was just following her passion, and the first question they shot at her is this:

“What are the job prospects?”

An education system to be proud of

Traditionally, the Singapore education system is well known for producing excellent mathematics and science students.

Even its tertiary institutions had a decidedly science and engineering focus in the early years. In a recent Straits Times article on 19th December 2007, it was reported that universities in the US are encouraging trainee teachers to teach “Singapore maths”, while the state of California has endorsed the use of a Singapore maths textbook in its elementary schools.

However, Singapore is undergoing a metamorphosis in its development as a nation, and in the way it shapes education policies. A paradigm shift in the Singaporean mentality is emerging: from pragmatism to idealism; practicality to passion.

Liberal arts degree a pragmatic choice

We are witnessing transformations in the local education landscape – Singapore’s first pre-tertiary arts institute, the School of the Arts, is receiving its first intake in 2008, while the Lasalle College of the Arts has moved to its new urban campus along McNally Street this year, highlighting the government’s willingness to invest in fine arts education and develop Singapore’s nascent arts scene.

In the midst of this transition phase, the government has also pondered the idea of a liberal arts college as the fourth public university in Singapore.

A liberal arts education is a drastic contrast from the more practical and market-oriented education that is now dominating tertiary institutions in Singapore. Instead of gearing the student towards a specific career, a liberal arts college provides students with a vigorous mind exercise, developing within them the ability to think critically, integrate knowledge from various disciplines, and articulate their ideas eloquently either in speech or writing.

The skills acquired by a liberal arts graduate are often not immediately recognised in the workforce. A liberal arts degree does not translate immediately into job prospects, quite unlike an engineering degree.

In a study by CNN.com in 2005 on the starting pay of university graduates, the average liberal arts graduate earns about US$29,000 – 80% of what a marketing graduate (US$37,500), 70% of what an accounting graduate (US$43,000) or barely 60% of what an electrical engineering graduate (US$51,000) earns.

However, it is unfair to base the value of a liberal arts degree on starting pay alone. It is a well known perception that a liberal arts education prepares the student for a highly mobile and fast-paced job market where career switches are commonplace. Effective presentation skills and the ability to write well and work across disciplines and learn new knowledge are traits highly valued by employers across all fields.

A liberal arts education is also well known for producing leaders. According to The Annapolis Group, an alliance of independent liberal arts colleges in the US, even though only 3% of graduates in 1998 were educated at a residential liberal arts college, they account for 8% of Forbes magazine’s listing of the nation’s wealthiest CEOs and 19% of all US presidents.

A liberal arts education may be the most pragmatic form of education after all. Even as Singapore aims to produce more leaders and innovators out of its education system, is setting up a liberal arts college really the solution?

Liberal arts in the local context

While Singapore could benefit from the setting up of a liberal arts college, starting from scratch may not be the best option. Education at a liberal arts college comes at a high price due its low faculty-to-student ratio, its small class sizes, and frequent student involvement in faculty and independent research. As such, a liberal arts college, with a usually small annual intake of 1,000 to 2,500 students coupled with expensive tuition fees, may not be what the government is looking for.

Nevertheless, there are already some elements of a liberal arts education here in Singapore. In SMU, for example, the climax of the Bachelor of Social Sciences programme is the Capstone Seminar which promotes cross-disciplinary dialogue, interaction, and research. Furthermore, SMU practices the seminar teaching approach, which it hopes will promote interaction and critical thinking. The university prides itself in developing an “interactive, collegial environment that models and encourages open communication and life-long learning.”

However, students looking for natural science oriented programmes with a similar teaching emphasis will be disappointed.

Bringing liberal arts into the education system

The best way forward may not be to start a liberal arts college, but to bring liberal arts into existing faculties. The high costs of a liberal arts education would be offset by the sharing of many facilities and student services. There would not be a need to hire as many new faculty members as there are competent ones in the existing faculties.

It is certainly easier to make adjustments to the existing system rather than to start from scratch. Also, to ease parent’s concerns about the value of a BA degree, professional internships could also be included in the programme, as universities like the Colorado State University are already doing.

Changes should also be made to the education system as a whole.

Starting from primary school, students should be taught to think critically and be vocal about issues affecting our nation. Educators should make humanities more interesting for students instead of treating them as second-tier subjects. While the junior college has been adjusted to incorporate more breadth, there is still too much of an emphasis on rote learning and the ten-year series.

Liberal arts for everyone

Skills like critical thinking and rhetoric should not be learnt only when the student has reached college level. Indeed, a liberal arts education is not just a university programme, but a lifelong process that starts from young.

During the holidays, I had the opportunity to teach creative writing at a private education centre for kindergarten and primary school children. The students there are taught to be imaginative and they learn how to write well. However, students should be able to pick up these skills in public schools, and not just in private education centres.

In an interview with The Business Standard, Mr Kamath, chief executive officer of India’s second largest bank, attested to the value of a liberal arts education when he said: “I am probably too technical a person. By training I am an engineer and also did my MBA but I never had an exposure to liberal arts. I wonder sometime that if I had an exposure to liberal arts, probably I could have been a better person, better leader and achieved a little more than what I have [done].

Early in my career I used to feel that technical education is the best education but after 35 years of working I like to admit that I stand corrected.”