the Rudder: a rather sad reality of public schooling

 

I break the silence (despite the fact that I should really be studying for my exams right now, instead of writing a post expressing my rather blatant displeasure) that had been on this blog for quite some time, since the last post by our dear PeaceKeeper. Perhaps it is discreet to say that certain events that happened in the instituition that I belong to, catalysed my urge to pen this rather unpleasant post (proclaiming some ugly insight which have the possibility of being opinions) and before I proceed, a discretion that the comic above may not be directly applicable in the context of this post.

My response to the traditional notion of “spare the rod, spoil the child” is that the rod, should and only be held and used by the primary authority of the child, also known as parent(s). But the big irony is the bipolar demand the current parenting community have for schools (especially so for parents of primary school students today): one on hand, parents expect schools to enforce discipline on their children; but at the same time, cannot bare for their precious ones to face the cruel (and at times emotionally tramautic) experience of punishment. I believe that the duty of discipline should be bared by parents only, in cases of failure to manage their children, this responsibility can only be given up voluntarily.

Labelling is also a major issue in my opinion. As mentioned in my previous posts about education, the social hierarchy constructed based on traditional Confucianist name-rectification is largely responsible for the outcome of this power obedient, inflexible and even, at times, manipulative state. But what many fail to realise is the fatal flaw in this system, is the assumption that the leader or person in power at the top of this hierarchy is “people-centred” or in Confucian’s words “human-hearted” – which means to rule in the interest for the people and for the good of the people. You might ask, what has this got to do with the education system?

In fact, it has everything to do with the education system. Firstly, this organisation of power makes the education system back-ward and it turns off passionate young teachers. For the fact that in most situations (like in my school for instance), “orders from above” are taken, even if incomplete, uncertain or lacking a confirmed policy. Some traditional practises (which believed by some from the older generation to be useful) might actually be ineffective and inflexible in nature, the inability to open up to change or new ways of doing things breed a stubborn-ness and force students to make their way around the boundaries.

Rectification of names is also detrimental to the being of students, in their period of self discovery, by condemning them to a label fixated by the principles of another person. By inhibiting personal expression (be it in speech or appearance) in discovery is destroying individualism, which is its purpose nonetheless, in a society that worships community and demonises individualism with the brand of “selfishness”. This is increasingly outdated, in the time of Generation Y, and not only that but I also believe this ideal transcends age. This period of self discovery, is like the metaphor of chance described like an open window, once it’s closed and the opportunity is lost forever. By oppressing expression is to breed rebellion, by drawing a line is to invite someone to cross it, by labelling everything either black or white is to lose an entire spectrum of colours.

While this hierarchy is not only built on education, societal norms and expectations of course shape the system too. And with young fresh teachers hindered from making the change they wanted to see in their own education due to the lack of power and say in implimenting their ideas; the “chi” is blocked in the movement for revolution. I believe Singapore is ready to make the change if people are willing to forgo their pride in a failing philosophy and biased ideals (or is it caused by the vicious cycle of ego) and have the trust in the generation of teachers produced in the system they believed in. It might be naive of me to have the optimism, but the folly might be what I need to believe in the change I want. Well, belief is the birth of probability.

Or else, even in the Darwinist world of education, our system would fail us not now, but in the future generation of unthinking, babysitted, yet over-qualified leaders of our country.

And for me? I guess that remains the inevitable truth that wherever you are, as long as you breathe the air in that place, no matter big or small, you are obliged to play by their rules. I believe that’s the same for public schooling, it’s meant to cater to the masses, and at times much is dispensed in the name of “order”. I too, even with this post that may sound like a breathless rant when I wake from this fit of frustration, will have to return to my place as a fellow follower in my iron-pressed uniform, dorned with the school badge; and silence the deviated voice inside me. Lest thy blasphemous tongue lead to hot waters.

Vulgarities vs Moral Values

This blog has been very stagnant for the past few months, many thanks to the much dreaded mid-year tests (both students and teachers are banned from using the word exams, even though it’s the same thing.) in school. On the behalf of all the editors—the Rudder, el Diablo, SPECTRA, l’observateur, and myself, The U.N. Peacekeeper, I would like to apologise for the lack of action (read: total inaction) on our part. I am sure that my post today will serve as a shining example and role-model for the other editors to follow, and to inspire, motivate and spur them on to write more. 

Today, I’ll not be talking about food, contrary to what I promised. I have run out of new ideas quicker than I expected. So, this time, I shall be speaking about vulgarities. Not speaking vulgarities (God and everyone else knows I do that often—too often for my own good—in school). In our highly conservative and Asiatic society, swearing of any form, in any language is frowned upon. Schools “take a serious view on the use of vulgarities” and “will not hesitate to take harsh actions against the offender if caught”. I should be very well acquainted with the last line of the school rules. But let’s go one step back, to address the issue: Are we overeating over the use of vulgarities? Are vulgarities really totally unacceptable?

Perhaps, for many of the older folk from the previous generation, vulgarities are really offensive, but for the younger generation, it is not so. Before you switch off the computer, do hear me out. Walk into any school in Singapore and you will be treated to a cacophony of expletives  in all languages and dialects. Students do this not because of defiance, or the “cool” factor; nor is it because they are all rotten apples with totally unsound moral values. We do it simply out of necessity. Do not forget why vulgarities were invented in the first place. It was to vent anger and frustration, or as an expression of surprise. For the students, they are no worse than “Geez” or “Oh man” or “Christ”. To us, they are just like any other words that convey that message.

Some adults will argue that most vulgarities have sexual references to them. Most swear words in English are derived from body parts. Same goes for most of the other languages. This is very offending to some, especially the females. I cannot understand why, as the context that we use it in is such that the original meaning is erased, and all that remains is the exclamation. These words have evolved from their meaning in the original context. Even so, I do not see why anything of sexual reference is offending in the first place. But that’ll be for discussion next week. Please, if you can shed light on this matter, do enlighten me by dropping a comment; I’ll be happy to hear what you have to say.

Others will slam us as having no morals or values, or lack dignity and respect when the youth (it’s always the young generation that is at fault, isn’t it?) swear. They claim that the language we use reflects on our character and morals. It does, in a certain sense, but forget not that words are created by man. Vulgarities by itself do not have an “un-holy” effect; it is humans who label them that way. It is how our society perceives them that make them so dreaded. If one argues that all the people that swear regularly are spineless creatures that do not have good characters, then the converse must hold true. All those that do not swear must be God-fearing, hardworking people with a strong sense of justice and civic responsibility. This is a flawed argument. Not all people who swear are people who do no good; neither are all people who do not swear all good boys and girls. This is a jump in logic, a “hasty generalisation”. Unfortunately, this is a stigma society forcefully labels on people who are more foul-mouthed than others.

Let me give you an example. I read this in the Reader’s Digest a few years back. In the U.S, there is a woman by the name of Monica Caison, who runs a volunteer organisation that helps the relatives of missing persons find their loved ones. She never gives up on any of her subjects, long after the law enforcement has given up. She describes herself as “chain-smoking and salty-tongued”. Not exactly the type that goes for service every Sunday, right? If you were to solely look at the fact that she swears, and then judge that she is someone without a good character, you are wrong. I’ll give an opposite example. The executives of AIG or Citigroup shamelessly took hundreds of thousands of  dollars of American taxpayer money even after they were bailed out of bankruptcy, in the name of bonuses. These are the true spineless scum that our world can totally live without, but I am sure these guys have never uttered a single profanity. They are too smart and too “high” class for that. But yet, if you were to follow the [false] train of thought, these people are those with good moral characters.  

To sum up all I’ve been saying in the past 880 words, please,

1. Do NOT think that vulgarities are anything more than just words to express one’s anger.
2. Do NOT associate vulgarities with character.
3. Do NOT feel that vulgarities are unclean words; they are just interpretations by Man.
4. Do feel free to drop me any comments or queries.

Happy holidays!

The U.N. Peacekeeper

Singaporeans nothing better to do?

It has been quite some time since the last post due to exams, but here we are, back again to do more reporting. According to newspapers, people, ESPECIALLY Singaporeans, are getting into fights more easily and then ending up in court to settle their differences. Do Singaporeans really have nothing to do, or is there something that makes us more and more aggressive and unwilling to forgive? Looking at the current situation, our society has a part to blame for this issue of ugly Singaproean behavior.

Look at our education system. Although the teachers and almost everyone in the Education Industry says that moral development triumphs over academic results, nothing significant is done to make them live up to their words. Students in primary school do not learn much from Civics and Moral education as the form teacher would usually use this time on subjects that seems much more important, like Math and Science. A student usually has their Civics book very much empty at the end of every year, and this phenomenon seems much more prominent in the last year of primary schooling. This gives one the illusion that moral education is not significant as nothing is taught or the teachers give very little importance to the subject. This illusion is further enhanced by the fact that results seem to be the one and only thing that one gets out of a schooling life. Hence they begin to lose the near-sacred ability to tolerate large amounts of barbs before giving in and getting pissed off.

With the drastic drop in fertility rates in developed countries such as our sunny island set in the sea, children are not born by the broods, or rather by the ones and twos (hey, it rhymes). This makes the kid kind of a De Facto leader in the household as parents generally regard the child as their most precious asset. Due to this reason, the parents will go all out to pacify their children like how the ministers of the past try to pacify their leader when he flies into a rage. The child is raised to believe that whatever he wants, he gets, or else a crying fit would do the job. Hence he/she loses the ability to make concessions and forgo some of the benefits to get long lasting peace and harmony. He/She grows up to think that the world outside is like the warm confines of the home, where people gave way to you. With this mentality, when this person meets another with the same thinking, they both then become at loggerheads over a small matter that would be resolved amicably. A good example from the Today Online, where a  dispute over a $2 bowl of fish ball noodles resulted in a man losing his thumb, and another facing a jail term.

Singapore aims to become a cultured society, and yet such things are allowed to happen. If such barbaric acts of fighting over the smallest of things are allowed to persist, we will not improve and might even return to being an uncivilised society.

I believe that if this issue is to be resolved, people from all walks of life have to co-operate to achieve the common goal.

Firstly we have to prevent these people from getting their way to go court. There could be a community to access all the cases before forwarding to the judge. Those that are considered to be a waste of taxpayers’ money will be thrown out, reserving the funds for more serious issues.

Secondly, parents also have to do their own part in the education of their own bundle of joy. Parents could try to teach their children the virtue of tolerance by not giving in to most of the unreasonable requests made by their kids.

Finally, teachers should focus more on Civics education, especially in the part that states that tolerance breeds harmony. This could also come in handy when reprimanding students for their own rash acts.

the Rudder: dragged by gender role?

Toys. Clothes. Cartoons. Colours. Seemingly harmless exposure to children, but are they destroying our young? No, I do not refer to poisonous chemicals in baby’s toys or compromised Hannah Montana series on Disney. But rather, the choices we make for them, to give them a toy car or doll; perhaps even buying a blue coat rather than a pink one. What about prince charming, ever ready to save the damsel in distress; or the ultra buffy Superman who discharge testosterone like the sun releasing rays of light.

Perhaps the above are minor examples, what of ear piercings for boys (in an Asian context) or conforming girls to skirts (in most school uniforms)? They might seem insignificant, even preposterous to some, but if seen from a neutral perspective: is there any consideration for the ones subjected to these unwritten rules? Gender role, this unreasonable expectation was said to hold society together, but on the contrary, is crumbling our social fabric.

Gender role is discriminatory, especially so to those who do not “fit” into the perfect picture of society. More often than not, these expectations assigned are based on stereotypes and ingrained into the minds of the population through ages of relentless avocation. Superficial terms like sissy and tomboy are used to categorise people who do not portray the required aspects of their sex (which is very much different from sexuality). For this post I’d discus about male adopting, more specifically effeminacy, as it is seen as a vice or weakness in the otherwise masculine male species.

The law of masculinity depicts a strong male, viewed as the head of a family in Asian culture, more often than not the breadwinner and a role model for his son. This kind of strength, seemingly necessary in the family, is threatened by the gentle aspects of effeminacy, hence explaining the little tolerance towards it. There is an ongoing myth about, that is the necessity of a masculine (or fatherly) role in the family, for which without would spin into incapability of raising children “the normal way”. The absence of this “fatherly” person in the family is also blamed for misleading boys into homosexuality, or so it is claimed. No doubt behaviours noncompliant with traditional masculinity has a intimate relationship with “homosexual tendencies”.

The rise of the metrosexual. The trend of males, who care more about their appearance, is sending shockwaves into the pillars of the conservative society. There are people who say it’s unnecessary and even narcissist; amongst others who cringe at men in makeup or the shoots of facilities specialised for men. Is there such cause for such alarm? If affluence is to blame for this phenomenon, then who are we to tell people where to spend their money? But when society requires the new men to be more physically conscious, the blasting influence of a more demanding media, what exactly is the message society is spending to men these days? When what is portrayed in movies and advertisements conflict with people’s expectations, the masculinity is given a revolutionary progression from its traditional image into a more trendy and romanticised cover.

Bishonen, another popular culture twisting the restrictions of the male gender role, more surprisingly found in otherwise conservative Japan. Bishonen, or “beautiful young boys” as it is translated, is often depicted as a form of impossibly good looking male characters in Japanese pop art with aspects of effeminacy. What originally started as an idea of an ideal homosexual lover became a culture in Japan, perhaps influencing the young men more than ever today. This form of aesthetic gives leeway to a metrosexual generation, but not without its fair share of criticism. Recently a new term has sprung; there is an “alarming” rise of Japanese “grass-eating boys”, who tend to have more effeminate personality rather than the traditional macho samurai image. When a more satisfying materialistic world catches on the male population, when the “family” is being threatened, all the more attention is given to this issue; perhaps after all society feels threatened by the power of individualism, centuries of concrete ideals of a family being broken down by the separation of the entities.

Is this all a sign of an overpopulated world or an inevitable phenomenon of diversity? Whether it is gender role or a warped personality, a sign of weakness or the two genders coming to an intersection; it boils down to society’s tolerance for it. We are preaching gender equality and efforts are made to clamp down on misogyny, but are we being ignorant of our expectations for boys? There is freedom for a girl to pick up a gun and fight for herself; will a boy then have the chance to wait and be rescued?

the Rudder: porny love-hate relationship

The new age of the Internet revolutionised information, computing, business, politics and media; entertainment always had the after-dark show, that is pornography. Use or abuse, moderate doses or utter addiction; porn, like prostitution as mentioned previously, is viewed very negatively by society, reasons for so I will discuss in this post. Porn in its purest form, be it pictorial or literary, is more easily accessible thanks to the Internet; a love-hate relationship that seems too good to refuse. Its most attractive aspect? It can be free!

Pornography is a fantasy, a mean of escapism, perhaps more often than not used like alcohol and drugs. But it brings more attention than the counterparts, be it in the East or West, because of Asian values or religious beliefs, or even a combination of both, there is a lot of unnecessary debates on the issue. To put it outfront, people love to make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to pornopgrahy; it is shunned at, people in the industry looked down upon, and yet it is a flourishing billion dollar industry. If there is so much resentment about it, why are people still clicking away at porn sites and pumping money into the arteries of this “condemned” business?

Humans are all sexual creatures and lust be perhaps but an instinct for procreation. Pornography is credited for wreaking people’s marriages, for poisoning the minds of the youth, for outbreak of violent sex crimes and for damaging society at large. That might be one bit too unfair to let pornopgraphy shoulder all that blame! For one porn even though known for destroying people’s marital covenants, it reflects something inherently wrong with the individuals involved be it lack of commitment or personal insecurities. The individuals have to take responsibility of their actions rather than to blame an entire industry for a choice that they made. I have to agree that pornography is a fantasy to start with; there is no denial about that; people should also stop denying about the other reasons that caused their failed marriages. Porn IS a lie, but one which the viewers readily buy and enjoy.

The notion about how “porn may not correspond to what teens may experience in their adult sex lives” is not refutable. Nonetheless it is a fact that all forms of media or art, in one way or another, may not necessarily depict life as it is. Take films for example, Hollywood is infamous for exaggerated stories (with those supposedly historically accurate) and superstar actors are not everyday Joes, same goes to porn stars. Apparently there is a double standard when it comes to pornography due to society’s norms and religious views on it, since pornography is essentially sex in front of the camera (perhaps a little role play too) paralleled to videography in movies, should honesty be an obligation?

Pornography might be an outlet for teens to “satisfy their sexual curiosity” and from that a conclusion can be made: a failure in sexuality education. Governments have been pumping so much money into “protecting our children from the dangers of pornography” which could have been spent otherwise into better funding of counselling services or providing schools with materials on teaching sex. If everything there is to know about sex is told to the youth, would then teens resort to finding out for themselves? Under the supervision and guidance of a teacher when questions are answered truthfully, the youth is carrying away a better message about sex than what pornography has to offer. One thing that pornography preaches is true, that is the pleasures of sex; but it is a biased end product put together after numerous takes involving porn stars throwing up between shots. People’s perception of sex as something taboo is causing direct harm to the younger generation, because information, and false information, is so readily available on the net; apathetic attempts to protect the innocence of children undermines the intrinsic inquisitiveness that nature bestowed upon humans.

Parenting plays a major role in a child’s mental growth, and but when it comes to the natural instincts of lust and curiosity, it may be true that it is “nature over nurture”. Sexual curiosity and even desire is an inevitable phrase of puberty, but due to the expense and influence of the net, the problem with pornography gets a whole lot dirtier. The objective perspective to adopt towards the issue is not one of apathy or authoritarian, but parents’ attitude towards upbringing their child will eventually impact him or her in more ways than just what chromosomes do. What people could do does not necessarily mean what they should do; one has the liberty to view pornography, with or without discretion. To equip a child with a firm mindset is to allow him or her to filter the information received, and above all make an informed choice. Is pornography but another sellable product a consumer can reject?

The element of free will undermines the eventual consequences of porn, be it having one’s compromising photos aired in cyberspace or divorce with a spouse, everyone should be reminded of their personal responsibilities as a worker, partner or child to their parent before they double click. The responsibility of pornographers is to ensure the welfare and safety of those in the industry while the viewers have an innate obligation to differentiate reality from fantasy, the crossing point at which one mixes the two lies the danger in pornography. To blame the industry for the personal faults is tantamount to scapegoat fast food chains for obesity problems, one needs to search deep inside to realise the root of this predicament and inherently is where this struggle centres about.

SPECTRA: Educated to serve

Disclaimer: I would like to apologize for the absence of posts on my part for the past couple or so weeks (though the diversity of insightful and entertaining posts published in this timespan would likely prove effective in concealing my existence here altogether ;). It’s just that I’ve been in a rather languid phase lately. Languor and donuts, a combination like none other. ^^

I would like to pose a question to the crowd. Simply: “what is the purpose of education?” I have been toying with this question for quite some now; as of late, it has been gnawing away at me rather insistently. From an objective viewpoint, I believe it can be fairly contended that the purpose of education is (to phrase it nicely and all) “to empower one to gain knowledge through a process of uninhibited learning in a conducive environment”. Sickeningly cliché though it might sound, not to mention the use of abstract terms like “knowledge” and “learning”, the statement  is possessed of a significant degree of fundamental truth. When one is considered to be educated, one learns. Oh, and no, “learning” does not equate to rote learning, memory work or any other of the numerous vile practices that today’s education system is saturated with. True learning involves understanding; preferably, understanding with the individual’s will to do so. Any student (or for that matter, any person) would be surprised at how efficiently he/she can gain knowledge from a field of interest (as compared to one that he is obliged to draw knowledge from). Yet, the present education system (speaking for Singapore, at least) is guilty of none other than – EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MURDER OF INNOCENT STUDENTS GALORE – erm, burdening students with the necessity of  monotonously processing and selectively absorbing knowledge to aid them in examinations — in turn, their career and ultimately, their contribution toward the “greater good” that is societal progress. As such, it can be seen that the purpose of education here is to map out optimal routes in students’  life  journeys *makes me wonder if humans are but some complex evolutionary manifestation of  the humble ants and bees* instead of  ”empowering them to gain knowledege through a process of uninhibited learning… (the latter purpose, albeit being intrinsically correct, literally and figuratively melts away in the (ugly) face of pragmatism).

To be continued! (: (sleeeeep and donuts for the moment)

Cellphones: Weapons Of Mass Distractions or Indispensable Tool For All Ages?

Hand phones. Probably the most important and useful invention of mankind since the air-conditioner. It apparently caused much controversy among the older generation that the mobile phone is killing off most of our traditional values like courtesy. The younger generation and office workers feel that their mobiles are like heroin; without it, they might just be incapacitated, being unable to carry on with normal life. Is this invention ultimately a boon or bane? Will it be a WMD or simply a tool that transforms the world into a village?

Phones are degrading social values.

Visualize this: you and I are having a chat over lunch. Both of us were engaging in an exciting conversation about the newest things in town. Then the ring of a mobile phone breaks the lively chatter. I then whip out my newly acquired iPhone and start typing away furiously on the screen, leaving you ranting and raving non-stop at me. Sounds familiar? Such is the typical way lunch with friends, especially those with mobile phones ends. The culprit? The cell phone. This sets us thinking. Has anyone been fine with your conversation partner does his own things when you are talking to him? Unless the person talking likes looking like a fool in public places, this kind of action is generally repulsive to all of us. Doesn’t using the phone when your friends are talking equally disrespectful? Since when did society become okay with such a notion? Like what comedian Jerry Seinfeld said, looking at phones while talking to a friend is equivalent to reading a few pages of the magazine that you have every once in a while during the conversation. With the advent of gadgets like the mobile phone having such a devastating effect on our society, I wonder what would happen if the iPad comes our later in the year.

Mobile phones are undoubtedly indispensible and a must in youngsters’ lives. It is a gadget, no, the ONLY gadget that is able to shrink world boundaries to become that of a proverbial village. Think. Without mobile phones, one would still be rushing home everyday to wait for calls, your friends will not be able to call you to come over for a gathering that has been decided in the last minute. What if you are on your way home from work and something important cropped up at work? In all mentioned issues, failure to be there on time will result in a) merciless teasing from your friends for not being a good friend or b) your boss hits the roof the very next days and gives you the sack. With the mobile phone, one is contactable anytime, anywhere, which is essential for keeping your rice bowl intact in the world that favors people with the uncanny ability to multi-task.

Well, that basically sums it all. In our current society, where material pursuits are the norm, keeping your paycheck at the end of every month now seems to be much more important than being on good terms with your long-lost friend. Phones are the undisputed winner and therefore declared the indispensable tool for all ages.