Recently, four military officers were charged for the death of another military serviceman. It is alleged that they had abused their powers in carrying out their duties.
We wasted no time in splashing the photographs of these four officers in Singapore's news media.
When I saw the photographs of these four officers, I felt a sense of shame. Have we become such a merciless and hateful society?
At one time, these officers would have been the elite of our military services. How can we forget the years of good service these men have given to our country?
In our haste to seek retribution, let us not forget the positive contributions of these men.
In holding these officers accountable for their actions, let us not forget that all of us - including the Chief of Army, Chief of Defence Forces, Minister for Defence, Prime Minister and President - have a share of the blame. We left unchecked an unwritten training practice that ended up becoming a part of the culture of our military elite.
I am not defending these officers for what they have done. I am merely suggesting that we should consider their actions in the context of their total military service.
We cannot leave our soldiers out to dry like that. Otherwise, we fail as a nation; we will be no different from the terror groups who send their terrorists out to die.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Regulate Private Schools In Singapore
PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 16 JUNE 2004
If a Singaporean Shakespeare were to write Hamlet today, Marcellus would say: "Something is rotten in the state of private schools in Singapore!"
A few private schools here have been in the news for the wrong reasons.
For example, Nanyang Institute of Management (NIM) was stripped of its trust mark last month, the Singapore Quality Class for Private Education Organisations (SQC-PEO) status given to it by Spring Singapore.
According to Mr Raymond Lim, Minister of State for Trade and Industry: "NIM is alleged to have forged students' signatures on student pass applications, made students sign on blank forms and entered false information to enable students to come here for courses not approved by the relevant authorities. NIM was also alleged to have charged students for items like school uniforms, which are not needed, and guardianship fee when no guardian was made available to the student."
NIM is now under investigation by the Commercial Affairs Department.
Incidents such as these can affect the public perception of private schools.
One wonders what the past and present students in private schools are feeling. How will such incidents affect their employment prospects?
Indeed, a social stigma already exists. Recently, I learnt of two companies which have become wary of recruiting those from private schools. This is a real worry for someone with a private school background like me.
Furthermore, complaints against private schools show an increasing trend.
The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) received 486 complaints against private schools last year, up from 460 in 2002.
Two years ago, my family wasted about $10,000 on an external University of London degree programme that my sister signed up for at a private school here. One year into the three-year programme, my sister was told that it would be stopped. She was told that if she wanted to continue the course, she would be expected to self-study.
There was no one my family could turn to for redress. Eventually, my family had to dip into our savings to send her to England to re-start her undergraduate course at the University of Leicester. The university was sympathetic to her plight and gave her a place, even though she applied well after the admissions deadline.
Such developments will not help Singapore's aspirations to be a "Global Schoolhouse", which the Economic Development Board (EDB) describes as "a world-class education hub internationally renowned for its intellectual capital and creative energy".
Most developed countries have regulators to ensure that the quality of higher education is of an acceptable standard. For example, the Higher Education Funding Council for England ensures "that all higher education students benefit from a high-quality learning experience" to meet their needs and the needs of society.
It was reported that here, the Government prefers the industry to self-regulate. If self-regulation is indeed the way to go, why is the country not moving to do away with its present control over public schools?
The Government's obvious unwillingness to do the same with public schools suggests that self-regulation may not be the best approach. After all, education happens to be a key pillar of our small, open economy.
Moreover, the industry's attempts to self-regulate via the Association of Private Schools and Singapore Education International have so far proved inadequate. The two bodies are due to meet Case, EDB, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises next week — after a scheduled meeting on Monday was postponed — to discuss such regulatory issues.
The Ministry of Education, together with relevant government agencies, should look into introducing a statutory body to encourage a high quality of private education in Singapore. Such a body will be the equivalent of what the Monetary Authority of Singapore is to the financial services industry.
As in the financial services sector, confidence and stability are fundamental to a sound and progressive education system. Singapore, as a young country, has successfully achieved this through both its public and private schools.
In 1999, I secured a place in one of the top 10 British law schools. The university I applied to placed a premium value on a diploma I acquired at a private school, IBMEC, and the rest of my Singapore education.
We should act decisively before others emulate the practices of private schools such as NIM. Let's restore the necessary confidence and stability in our private schools. The Government should introduce a private education regulator with teeth.
We must not allow this rot to evolve into a plague that afflicts our economy.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
If a Singaporean Shakespeare were to write Hamlet today, Marcellus would say: "Something is rotten in the state of private schools in Singapore!"
A few private schools here have been in the news for the wrong reasons.
For example, Nanyang Institute of Management (NIM) was stripped of its trust mark last month, the Singapore Quality Class for Private Education Organisations (SQC-PEO) status given to it by Spring Singapore.
According to Mr Raymond Lim, Minister of State for Trade and Industry: "NIM is alleged to have forged students' signatures on student pass applications, made students sign on blank forms and entered false information to enable students to come here for courses not approved by the relevant authorities. NIM was also alleged to have charged students for items like school uniforms, which are not needed, and guardianship fee when no guardian was made available to the student."
NIM is now under investigation by the Commercial Affairs Department.
Incidents such as these can affect the public perception of private schools.
One wonders what the past and present students in private schools are feeling. How will such incidents affect their employment prospects?
Indeed, a social stigma already exists. Recently, I learnt of two companies which have become wary of recruiting those from private schools. This is a real worry for someone with a private school background like me.
Furthermore, complaints against private schools show an increasing trend.
The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) received 486 complaints against private schools last year, up from 460 in 2002.
Two years ago, my family wasted about $10,000 on an external University of London degree programme that my sister signed up for at a private school here. One year into the three-year programme, my sister was told that it would be stopped. She was told that if she wanted to continue the course, she would be expected to self-study.
There was no one my family could turn to for redress. Eventually, my family had to dip into our savings to send her to England to re-start her undergraduate course at the University of Leicester. The university was sympathetic to her plight and gave her a place, even though she applied well after the admissions deadline.
Such developments will not help Singapore's aspirations to be a "Global Schoolhouse", which the Economic Development Board (EDB) describes as "a world-class education hub internationally renowned for its intellectual capital and creative energy".
Most developed countries have regulators to ensure that the quality of higher education is of an acceptable standard. For example, the Higher Education Funding Council for England ensures "that all higher education students benefit from a high-quality learning experience" to meet their needs and the needs of society.
It was reported that here, the Government prefers the industry to self-regulate. If self-regulation is indeed the way to go, why is the country not moving to do away with its present control over public schools?
The Government's obvious unwillingness to do the same with public schools suggests that self-regulation may not be the best approach. After all, education happens to be a key pillar of our small, open economy.
Moreover, the industry's attempts to self-regulate via the Association of Private Schools and Singapore Education International have so far proved inadequate. The two bodies are due to meet Case, EDB, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises next week — after a scheduled meeting on Monday was postponed — to discuss such regulatory issues.
The Ministry of Education, together with relevant government agencies, should look into introducing a statutory body to encourage a high quality of private education in Singapore. Such a body will be the equivalent of what the Monetary Authority of Singapore is to the financial services industry.
As in the financial services sector, confidence and stability are fundamental to a sound and progressive education system. Singapore, as a young country, has successfully achieved this through both its public and private schools.
In 1999, I secured a place in one of the top 10 British law schools. The university I applied to placed a premium value on a diploma I acquired at a private school, IBMEC, and the rest of my Singapore education.
We should act decisively before others emulate the practices of private schools such as NIM. Let's restore the necessary confidence and stability in our private schools. The Government should introduce a private education regulator with teeth.
We must not allow this rot to evolve into a plague that afflicts our economy.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Finding out if future PM Lee is up to his job
PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 9 JUNE 2004
Thank you, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and PAP. Finally, coffee-shop talk in Singapore can move away from who should succeed PM Goh!
Last week, PAP MPs gave PM Goh's choice of successor a unanimous thumbs-up; Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong can now become the third Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore. The mandate is hardly surprising. It has been overdue since last year's National Day Rally, when PM Goh had announced that DPM Lee would succeed him.
During the rally, PM Goh had provided a detailed explanation for his choice of successor, having "taken quiet soundings from Ministers and MPs on whom they would choose".
Following the announcement, the Government's public relations machinery went into full-steam mode. Tomes of news reports featured DPM Lee in a variety of local, regional and international media.
Almost every day after the announcement, the man in the street got to know something positive about DPM Lee, his family, his background, his achievements or accomplishments and his trials and tribulations; including his choice in clothes. Since he is Singaporean, red and white, naturally, were his choice colours!
The climax to this exercise came when PM Goh announced that PAP MPs would be asked to consider who the next PM (and his own successor) should be. He explained on various occasions the rationale for consulting PAP MPs: The choice had to be made transparently and openly.
In February, his office informed a newspaper: "The PM must command the confidence of his fellow MPs (from the same party)." In an interview with CNN in January, PM Goh had emphasised: "Lee Hsien Loong, who will be my successor — his promotion or his appointment, his selection, will be done on a transparent basis. He will be selected, not by his father, not even by me. He has to be selected by his colleagues, the Members of Parliament."
Nevertheless, some political commentators saw this as a key attempt to assimilate those reasonable individuals who disagree with PM Goh's choice into the camp that supports the choice.
These commentators described the move as no more than a legitimisation process, akin to the President's Assent after Parliament passes a piece of legislation. Others thought it was part of a greater scheme to boost DPM Lee's moral authority to be PM.
Constitutional law experts argued there was nothing wrong, legally,with the move since Article 25 of the Constitution provides: "The President shall appoint as Prime Minister, a Member of Parliament who, in his judgment, is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament and shall, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint other Ministers from among the Members of Parliament."
PM Goh essentially wanted to move beyond taking "quiet soundings". So, here arose a golden opportunity for a PAP MP to make known his or her reservations, if any, about DPM Lee. But really, could any PAP MP have argued credibly against the PM's choice? Perhaps.
However, many political observers felt otherwise. Any MP would have found it difficult to argue credibly against all that positive information available about DPM Lee; even if such an MP had a valid point to make; since the current leadership does welcome constructive criticism.
This is amplified further by there being no better alternative to DPM Lee.The Singaporean chief executive of a British company best put it when he told me: "DPM Lee is, to me, a leader who can and will charge up the (most) arduous of mountains with an unwavering resolve. I don't see any other leader in Singapore, apart from SM Lee (Kuan Yew) and PM Goh, with the ability and will to do the same."
Additionally, the way the PAP has run itself in the last three decades means there has always been one clear leader. Unlike the Malaysian ruling party, key executive positions in Singapore's ruling party are rarely a point of contention. Resultantly, SM Lee, among our Old Guard, was the natural choice.
Then, PM Goh stepped in. And next change will be DPM Lee. One can perhaps qualify that SM Lee had other "leaders-in-waiting" to PM Goh: DPM Tony Tan and the late President Ong Teng Cheong were two possible alternatives.
Similarly, PM Goh could have considered grooming other possible successors. But he had less time than SM Lee had, since the latter was PM for a longer period. In any case, these arguments are all purely academic now. History will now be the best judge of PM Goh's choice of successor. Meanwhile, the "quiet soundings" have evolved into "loud cheers", whose echoes will soon reverberate through the corridors of our legislature.
DPM Lee's mandate to run Singapore as its next PM is now entrenched. The people of Singapore should respect the choice of our legislators. We will, no doubt, miss the political hero of my generation: PM Goh.
Most importantly, it is now time to ask what our expectations, hopes and aspirations are from a Government led by the future PM Lee. After all, at a community event recently, DPM Lee said transition was not simply about one person taking over the political leadership of a country. It represents "a generational succession".
He has also emphasised: "I am myself. I am not my father. I'm not the Senior Minister. I'm not Mr Goh Chok Tong. I am myself and people will have to take me for what I am and for what I am able to do for them … It's the Singaporeans' opinions that count and if they think I'm up to the job, then it's my duty to show that I will be able to do it."
Singaporeans should thus ask what we would like from our next generation of leaders; this will decide if the future PM Lee is really up to the job.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Thank you, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and PAP. Finally, coffee-shop talk in Singapore can move away from who should succeed PM Goh!
Last week, PAP MPs gave PM Goh's choice of successor a unanimous thumbs-up; Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong can now become the third Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore. The mandate is hardly surprising. It has been overdue since last year's National Day Rally, when PM Goh had announced that DPM Lee would succeed him.
During the rally, PM Goh had provided a detailed explanation for his choice of successor, having "taken quiet soundings from Ministers and MPs on whom they would choose".
Following the announcement, the Government's public relations machinery went into full-steam mode. Tomes of news reports featured DPM Lee in a variety of local, regional and international media.
Almost every day after the announcement, the man in the street got to know something positive about DPM Lee, his family, his background, his achievements or accomplishments and his trials and tribulations; including his choice in clothes. Since he is Singaporean, red and white, naturally, were his choice colours!
The climax to this exercise came when PM Goh announced that PAP MPs would be asked to consider who the next PM (and his own successor) should be. He explained on various occasions the rationale for consulting PAP MPs: The choice had to be made transparently and openly.
In February, his office informed a newspaper: "The PM must command the confidence of his fellow MPs (from the same party)." In an interview with CNN in January, PM Goh had emphasised: "Lee Hsien Loong, who will be my successor — his promotion or his appointment, his selection, will be done on a transparent basis. He will be selected, not by his father, not even by me. He has to be selected by his colleagues, the Members of Parliament."
Nevertheless, some political commentators saw this as a key attempt to assimilate those reasonable individuals who disagree with PM Goh's choice into the camp that supports the choice.
These commentators described the move as no more than a legitimisation process, akin to the President's Assent after Parliament passes a piece of legislation. Others thought it was part of a greater scheme to boost DPM Lee's moral authority to be PM.
Constitutional law experts argued there was nothing wrong, legally,with the move since Article 25 of the Constitution provides: "The President shall appoint as Prime Minister, a Member of Parliament who, in his judgment, is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament and shall, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint other Ministers from among the Members of Parliament."
PM Goh essentially wanted to move beyond taking "quiet soundings". So, here arose a golden opportunity for a PAP MP to make known his or her reservations, if any, about DPM Lee. But really, could any PAP MP have argued credibly against the PM's choice? Perhaps.
However, many political observers felt otherwise. Any MP would have found it difficult to argue credibly against all that positive information available about DPM Lee; even if such an MP had a valid point to make; since the current leadership does welcome constructive criticism.
This is amplified further by there being no better alternative to DPM Lee.The Singaporean chief executive of a British company best put it when he told me: "DPM Lee is, to me, a leader who can and will charge up the (most) arduous of mountains with an unwavering resolve. I don't see any other leader in Singapore, apart from SM Lee (Kuan Yew) and PM Goh, with the ability and will to do the same."
Additionally, the way the PAP has run itself in the last three decades means there has always been one clear leader. Unlike the Malaysian ruling party, key executive positions in Singapore's ruling party are rarely a point of contention. Resultantly, SM Lee, among our Old Guard, was the natural choice.
Then, PM Goh stepped in. And next change will be DPM Lee. One can perhaps qualify that SM Lee had other "leaders-in-waiting" to PM Goh: DPM Tony Tan and the late President Ong Teng Cheong were two possible alternatives.
Similarly, PM Goh could have considered grooming other possible successors. But he had less time than SM Lee had, since the latter was PM for a longer period. In any case, these arguments are all purely academic now. History will now be the best judge of PM Goh's choice of successor. Meanwhile, the "quiet soundings" have evolved into "loud cheers", whose echoes will soon reverberate through the corridors of our legislature.
DPM Lee's mandate to run Singapore as its next PM is now entrenched. The people of Singapore should respect the choice of our legislators. We will, no doubt, miss the political hero of my generation: PM Goh.
Most importantly, it is now time to ask what our expectations, hopes and aspirations are from a Government led by the future PM Lee. After all, at a community event recently, DPM Lee said transition was not simply about one person taking over the political leadership of a country. It represents "a generational succession".
He has also emphasised: "I am myself. I am not my father. I'm not the Senior Minister. I'm not Mr Goh Chok Tong. I am myself and people will have to take me for what I am and for what I am able to do for them … It's the Singaporeans' opinions that count and if they think I'm up to the job, then it's my duty to show that I will be able to do it."
Singaporeans should thus ask what we would like from our next generation of leaders; this will decide if the future PM Lee is really up to the job.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Youth's deafening silence
PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 19 MAY 2004
In March, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong reflected about the "bo-chap" (can't be bothered) attitude of young Singaporeans. He told a newspaper: "They think Singapore is the centre of the world ... They are not aware that there are big challenges happening outside, great developments in the region and that these would have an impact on their lives ... It is back to the so-called 5Cs."
Then, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the future premier, lamented how disengaged young Singaporeans were when it came to community work. He observed last month: "Right now, many youths prefer hanging out in Orchard Road while their parents are at community centres. This has to change."
Most recently, Acting Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, during a speech at Presbyterian High School, added more food for thought.
He said: "Our teachers observe that students are increasingly individualistic — lacking a spirit of wanting to help others. Nor are they encouraged to do so by their parents ... Success and improved living standards have reduced their appetite to take to difficult situations and learn to overcome them."
These comments paint a less-than-rosy future for Singapore. Are our young people ill-positioned to face tomorrow.
Have they started to take these value judgments as the cardinal truth?
Some time ago, I argued in this newspaper that our young people are SAD — sceptical, apathetic and detached. But, since returning to Singapore last August, I have observed a certain dynamism in the youth, which has made me revisit my view. I did not see this dynamism when I left Singapore over five years ago.
At most public events, conferences or dialogue sessions — I have attended at least 10 since my return — young people are often the ones asking questions. At the recent Annual Conference of Feedback Groups, a substantial proportion of those who asked questions were students. The questions have covered a variety of topics, not just "bread-and-butter" issues.
More young people are writing in to the press or making their views known on television or radio. Why is this happening? A newspaper reader wrote: "I think young Singaporeans are more assured that their ideas are valued and feel a stronger sense of ownership towards this nation."
This trend is best seen among young Singaporeans who are increasingly setting up social enterprises.
Last December, I attended the inaugural Young Entrepreneurs Congress held at the Ngee Ann Convention Centre that was realised by the young for the benefit of the young. Media guru Robert Chua, the founder of China Entertainment Television Broadcast Ltd, welcomed this trend and saw much promise in the youth present.
One polytechnic student shared with me the resistance he faced from school administrators when he mooted the idea of an entrepreneurs' group. He was doing very well in school, but was told: "Better concentrate on your studies."
A group of young scholars got together last year to form the Kopitiam Discussion Group, which has been encouraging others consistently to take an active interest in local and international current affairs.
Another young person has formed the Young Leaders Foundation Ltd, that has a noble aim of connecting students to role models. It is reaching out to schools.
Tan Tock Seng Hospital revealed last month that over 50 per cent of the 8,000 good wishes it received during the Sars outbreak were from young people.
Space limits me from providing further examples. Arguably, these indicate there is hope.
Our deafeningly silent young persons have perhaps borrowed a page from PM Goh's leadership style: They would rather let their actions speak.
So far, their actions show that they are less individualistic. They do not shy away from community work, which includes helping others. They are as hungry as their forefathers, perhaps for different things.
The young of Singapore are not a diffident lot, as some circles would have us believe. Rather, many of them are playing an active role, which would stand them in good stead for the future.
Let's have more confidence in our young people.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
In March, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong reflected about the "bo-chap" (can't be bothered) attitude of young Singaporeans. He told a newspaper: "They think Singapore is the centre of the world ... They are not aware that there are big challenges happening outside, great developments in the region and that these would have an impact on their lives ... It is back to the so-called 5Cs."
Then, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the future premier, lamented how disengaged young Singaporeans were when it came to community work. He observed last month: "Right now, many youths prefer hanging out in Orchard Road while their parents are at community centres. This has to change."
Most recently, Acting Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, during a speech at Presbyterian High School, added more food for thought.
He said: "Our teachers observe that students are increasingly individualistic — lacking a spirit of wanting to help others. Nor are they encouraged to do so by their parents ... Success and improved living standards have reduced their appetite to take to difficult situations and learn to overcome them."
These comments paint a less-than-rosy future for Singapore. Are our young people ill-positioned to face tomorrow.
Have they started to take these value judgments as the cardinal truth?
Some time ago, I argued in this newspaper that our young people are SAD — sceptical, apathetic and detached. But, since returning to Singapore last August, I have observed a certain dynamism in the youth, which has made me revisit my view. I did not see this dynamism when I left Singapore over five years ago.
At most public events, conferences or dialogue sessions — I have attended at least 10 since my return — young people are often the ones asking questions. At the recent Annual Conference of Feedback Groups, a substantial proportion of those who asked questions were students. The questions have covered a variety of topics, not just "bread-and-butter" issues.
More young people are writing in to the press or making their views known on television or radio. Why is this happening? A newspaper reader wrote: "I think young Singaporeans are more assured that their ideas are valued and feel a stronger sense of ownership towards this nation."
This trend is best seen among young Singaporeans who are increasingly setting up social enterprises.
Last December, I attended the inaugural Young Entrepreneurs Congress held at the Ngee Ann Convention Centre that was realised by the young for the benefit of the young. Media guru Robert Chua, the founder of China Entertainment Television Broadcast Ltd, welcomed this trend and saw much promise in the youth present.
One polytechnic student shared with me the resistance he faced from school administrators when he mooted the idea of an entrepreneurs' group. He was doing very well in school, but was told: "Better concentrate on your studies."
A group of young scholars got together last year to form the Kopitiam Discussion Group, which has been encouraging others consistently to take an active interest in local and international current affairs.
Another young person has formed the Young Leaders Foundation Ltd, that has a noble aim of connecting students to role models. It is reaching out to schools.
Tan Tock Seng Hospital revealed last month that over 50 per cent of the 8,000 good wishes it received during the Sars outbreak were from young people.
Space limits me from providing further examples. Arguably, these indicate there is hope.
Our deafeningly silent young persons have perhaps borrowed a page from PM Goh's leadership style: They would rather let their actions speak.
So far, their actions show that they are less individualistic. They do not shy away from community work, which includes helping others. They are as hungry as their forefathers, perhaps for different things.
The young of Singapore are not a diffident lot, as some circles would have us believe. Rather, many of them are playing an active role, which would stand them in good stead for the future.
Let's have more confidence in our young people.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Buying Toys For Learning
PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 6 NOVEMBER 2003
Have you noticed how people in Singapore have a fascination for buying "educational" toys for young persons here?
Recently, I visited a neighbourhood toy shop to buy a present for a friend's daughter.
While I was there, a middle-aged woman walked in and asked the shop assistant: "Can you recommend me an educational toy please?"
The shop assistant showed her a casino set. To the shop assistant's horror, the woman exclaimed: "This is not educational! This is gambling and bad!"
I started laughing to myself. The woman, obviously, had come to the shop with a fixed mindset of what "education" is. As a result, she was hoping that the shop assistant would be able to read her mind and understand what she was asking for!
I also asked myself: "Is there such a thing as a 'bad' toy?"
I remember reading the wise words of Dr Keith Sawyer, Assistant Professor of education in arts and sciences at Washington University in St Louis: "Parents can relax a little bit. There aren't really any bad toys or bad kinds of play."
Dr Sawyer suggests: "Whatever toy you buy your child, don't just put her in a room with it and let her play with the toy by herself and think she's going to get anything out of it. The child will get the most benefit from parent-child interaction surrounding the toy or game."
I reflected about how I, as a shop assistant, would have responded to the woman's initial request for an "educational" toy.
I would have said: "Madam, every toy in this shop has an educational value."
The real question is, depending on the child's age, what kind of learning you want to give to that child. And the more important question is how much the child will, with proper guidance, enjoy playing with the toy - and that is the "fun" factor in the toy.
Thus, if you wish to teach a child strategic thinking, you could, for example, buy the child a set of toy soldiers. Or if you wish to give the child a jumpstart in culinary skills, you could buy him a masak-masak or kitchen set.
But here's a word of caution based on my own childhood experience: Never try to impose on a young person what you think he will like. Chances are you will convert him into a young rebel!
For example, my father recently bought a quiz-book for my teenage brother. I went "oops" when I saw the present because I received one of those when I was a teenager and I knew that the book was soon to be banished into the storeroom.
Predictably, my brother thanked him for the quiz-book and left it in the living room for aesthetic use over the next two days. The book is now safely tucked away in a cupboard that is rarely opened, along with other exiled presents.
Perhaps a good way to avoid such situations would be to just buy a voucher for the young person and let him take responsibility and ownership for what he likes to read or play with.
As Phil Phillips, author of Turmoil In the Toybox, shares: "Toys should reinforce, not contradict, the positive values we are trying to instill."
After all, the toys we buy for someone can have an impact on that person's development.
I remember getting the board game Risk from my family when I was in primary school. I loved it!
The game taught me to question rules and appreciate better the value of taking risks. I developed the courage to take such risks. I also got a basic introduction to negotiating and forming strategic alliances. All these valuable lessons, in turn, enabled me to manage the unfortunate situations when I failed to achieve what I desired.
Recently, a friend shared with me how the toys he played with as a child had had a great influence on his life. My friend has had a deep fascination for cars since he was very young.
Today, he is, at least in my view, a very successful businessman. He runs two car-wash facilities. He also buys and sells cars. He participates frequently in motorcar races. And he is an avid collector of radio-controlled cars.
Do I now hear you asking what I bought for my friend's daughter?
Well, I bought her a punching bag. Not because I want her to master the art of self-defence to combat any potential rapists, murderers or molesters. And not because I want her to grow up a fighter so that she will be able to appreciate and battle the sexual discrimination that is so rampant in Singapore.
But more because I want her parents to teach her to look at a punching bag creatively. For example, the punching bag could easily be a bolster. And the gloves that came with the punching bag could as easily be placed above one's fireplace during Christmas, instead of socks.
This way, Singapore would be blessed with one more advocate of Mahatma Gandhi's positive values of non-violence.
So the next time you buy a gift for a young person or anyone else, consider the learning value you would like to impart on that individual.
Then, buy a gift that would convey that value in an enjoyable manner.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Have you noticed how people in Singapore have a fascination for buying "educational" toys for young persons here?
Recently, I visited a neighbourhood toy shop to buy a present for a friend's daughter.
While I was there, a middle-aged woman walked in and asked the shop assistant: "Can you recommend me an educational toy please?"
The shop assistant showed her a casino set. To the shop assistant's horror, the woman exclaimed: "This is not educational! This is gambling and bad!"
I started laughing to myself. The woman, obviously, had come to the shop with a fixed mindset of what "education" is. As a result, she was hoping that the shop assistant would be able to read her mind and understand what she was asking for!
I also asked myself: "Is there such a thing as a 'bad' toy?"
I remember reading the wise words of Dr Keith Sawyer, Assistant Professor of education in arts and sciences at Washington University in St Louis: "Parents can relax a little bit. There aren't really any bad toys or bad kinds of play."
Dr Sawyer suggests: "Whatever toy you buy your child, don't just put her in a room with it and let her play with the toy by herself and think she's going to get anything out of it. The child will get the most benefit from parent-child interaction surrounding the toy or game."
I reflected about how I, as a shop assistant, would have responded to the woman's initial request for an "educational" toy.
I would have said: "Madam, every toy in this shop has an educational value."
The real question is, depending on the child's age, what kind of learning you want to give to that child. And the more important question is how much the child will, with proper guidance, enjoy playing with the toy - and that is the "fun" factor in the toy.
Thus, if you wish to teach a child strategic thinking, you could, for example, buy the child a set of toy soldiers. Or if you wish to give the child a jumpstart in culinary skills, you could buy him a masak-masak or kitchen set.
But here's a word of caution based on my own childhood experience: Never try to impose on a young person what you think he will like. Chances are you will convert him into a young rebel!
For example, my father recently bought a quiz-book for my teenage brother. I went "oops" when I saw the present because I received one of those when I was a teenager and I knew that the book was soon to be banished into the storeroom.
Predictably, my brother thanked him for the quiz-book and left it in the living room for aesthetic use over the next two days. The book is now safely tucked away in a cupboard that is rarely opened, along with other exiled presents.
Perhaps a good way to avoid such situations would be to just buy a voucher for the young person and let him take responsibility and ownership for what he likes to read or play with.
As Phil Phillips, author of Turmoil In the Toybox, shares: "Toys should reinforce, not contradict, the positive values we are trying to instill."
After all, the toys we buy for someone can have an impact on that person's development.
I remember getting the board game Risk from my family when I was in primary school. I loved it!
The game taught me to question rules and appreciate better the value of taking risks. I developed the courage to take such risks. I also got a basic introduction to negotiating and forming strategic alliances. All these valuable lessons, in turn, enabled me to manage the unfortunate situations when I failed to achieve what I desired.
Recently, a friend shared with me how the toys he played with as a child had had a great influence on his life. My friend has had a deep fascination for cars since he was very young.
Today, he is, at least in my view, a very successful businessman. He runs two car-wash facilities. He also buys and sells cars. He participates frequently in motorcar races. And he is an avid collector of radio-controlled cars.
Do I now hear you asking what I bought for my friend's daughter?
Well, I bought her a punching bag. Not because I want her to master the art of self-defence to combat any potential rapists, murderers or molesters. And not because I want her to grow up a fighter so that she will be able to appreciate and battle the sexual discrimination that is so rampant in Singapore.
But more because I want her parents to teach her to look at a punching bag creatively. For example, the punching bag could easily be a bolster. And the gloves that came with the punching bag could as easily be placed above one's fireplace during Christmas, instead of socks.
This way, Singapore would be blessed with one more advocate of Mahatma Gandhi's positive values of non-violence.
So the next time you buy a gift for a young person or anyone else, consider the learning value you would like to impart on that individual.
Then, buy a gift that would convey that value in an enjoyable manner.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Monday, August 25, 2003
'Ang moh is better' mentality
PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 25 AUGUST 2003
In July, I read, with great interest, a speech by Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad about how "Asians face the possibility of once again being colonised" by people of European origin, including "those who migrated and set up new nations in America, Australia and New Zealand".
Reading that speech, I thought it applied to Singapore too, albeit somewhat differently.
When I returned from the United Kingdom recently, I called a top company in Singapore and asked to speak to its director of human resources (HR). I was connected to an officer in the HR department, who asked me four to five questions before saying that the director was on leave.
About 10 minutes later, I called the company again and spoke to the same officer. This time, I spoke in a posh British accent. The officer put me through to the HR director immediately.
Two days later, one of my friends, a senior manager in a British company in Singapore, told me her European colleagues enjoyed more leverage with her boss. While she was expected to make appointments with him, her colleagues could just walk in and meet him on an ad hoc basis.
In a British consultancy firm in which I had worked, our Singaporean partner company, which dealt a lot with Government bodies, told us to use our European consultants in preference to our better-qualified Asian consultants.
Her reason: "Oh, HR practitioners in Singapore, especially Government-related ones, prefer Europeans."
These examples - which I believe are not isolated cases - demonstrate how the colonial mentality remains firmly entrenched in the Singaporean psyche.
After 38 years of independence, we still kowtow to the Europeans and kick other races in the butt and everywhere else.
Is this what it means to live in a country that has gone from Third World to First? So, a meritocracy happens to be one where white is good and off-white bad?
Why do we choose to buy imported silver when, for the same price, we can purchase gold locally? Could this be why there is growing resentment against the so-called "foreign talent" in this country?
In June, a former Business Times journalist gave me a dressing down about an opinion piece that I wrote in this newspaper relating to foreign talent. His passionate arguments convinced me that Singaporeans are not against genuine foreign talent.
He suggested that Singaporeans are really against those lowly-qualified smooth-talking foreigners who take away jobs that could be filled easily by better-qualified locals - a point which I failed to highlight in my commentary. (Well, better late than never.)
Moreover, why is Singapore's biggest employer - the Government and its related organisations - allowing such practices to thrive?
During my last visit to the Civil Service College, I ran through publicity materials that were available in the waiting area on the ground floor. These were brochures for training courses provided to Singapore's civil servants. It did not take me long to realise that European trainers delivered a majority of these courses.
Perhaps, this is a flawed basis for one to make a conclusive observation. But the very fact that people are talking about this shows that it is important for the Government to respond to such allegations robustly - not only through words but also action.
The Government should only use a foreign service provider if a local equivalent is unavailable.
Indeed, this became the mandate of the board of directors in the British consultancy I worked in. When our Singaporean partner requested European consultants, the board - comprising mainly Europeans - took an Asian-oriented approach.
The board noted: "We will only use a European consultant if you can show us why our Asian consultants cannot deliver what is expected of us."
As importantly, every Singaporean must ask himself two fundamental questions:
o How differently do I treat a European and a non-European?
o What are my reasons for treating them differently?
When I asked myself these questions, I found that I, too, had preferred Europeans in that I could not see myself working for a non-European company. It is now my personal goal to work for a non-European company.
It is not just the non-Europeans who allow such questionable practices to prosper. Some Europeans take advantage of this, too.
For example, my Malaysian neighbour told me recently: "My Australian director often boasts that his Singaporean clients buy the company's products just because he is European."
During my former British director's last visit to Singapore, an American woman approached him. She wanted him to employ her.
She said: "Your company will need a European face if it wants to make money in Singapore."
The examples of blatantly discriminatory practices that I have highlighted suggest that anti-discrimination legislation is long overdue in this country.
Such legislation will not eliminate the "Europeans preferred" syndrome totally. But legislation, coupled with education, will reduce its incidence.
When we tackle the "Europeans preferred" syndrome effectively, it will not matter if four out of five or one out of 10 newly-created jobs are going to foreign workers.
This is because Singaporeans can then be more certain that someone is being appointed based on merit. A true meritocracy means white is good and so is off-white.
Come on, MPs, do something about it!
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
In July, I read, with great interest, a speech by Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad about how "Asians face the possibility of once again being colonised" by people of European origin, including "those who migrated and set up new nations in America, Australia and New Zealand".
Reading that speech, I thought it applied to Singapore too, albeit somewhat differently.
When I returned from the United Kingdom recently, I called a top company in Singapore and asked to speak to its director of human resources (HR). I was connected to an officer in the HR department, who asked me four to five questions before saying that the director was on leave.
About 10 minutes later, I called the company again and spoke to the same officer. This time, I spoke in a posh British accent. The officer put me through to the HR director immediately.
Two days later, one of my friends, a senior manager in a British company in Singapore, told me her European colleagues enjoyed more leverage with her boss. While she was expected to make appointments with him, her colleagues could just walk in and meet him on an ad hoc basis.
In a British consultancy firm in which I had worked, our Singaporean partner company, which dealt a lot with Government bodies, told us to use our European consultants in preference to our better-qualified Asian consultants.
Her reason: "Oh, HR practitioners in Singapore, especially Government-related ones, prefer Europeans."
These examples - which I believe are not isolated cases - demonstrate how the colonial mentality remains firmly entrenched in the Singaporean psyche.
After 38 years of independence, we still kowtow to the Europeans and kick other races in the butt and everywhere else.
Is this what it means to live in a country that has gone from Third World to First? So, a meritocracy happens to be one where white is good and off-white bad?
Why do we choose to buy imported silver when, for the same price, we can purchase gold locally? Could this be why there is growing resentment against the so-called "foreign talent" in this country?
In June, a former Business Times journalist gave me a dressing down about an opinion piece that I wrote in this newspaper relating to foreign talent. His passionate arguments convinced me that Singaporeans are not against genuine foreign talent.
He suggested that Singaporeans are really against those lowly-qualified smooth-talking foreigners who take away jobs that could be filled easily by better-qualified locals - a point which I failed to highlight in my commentary. (Well, better late than never.)
Moreover, why is Singapore's biggest employer - the Government and its related organisations - allowing such practices to thrive?
During my last visit to the Civil Service College, I ran through publicity materials that were available in the waiting area on the ground floor. These were brochures for training courses provided to Singapore's civil servants. It did not take me long to realise that European trainers delivered a majority of these courses.
Perhaps, this is a flawed basis for one to make a conclusive observation. But the very fact that people are talking about this shows that it is important for the Government to respond to such allegations robustly - not only through words but also action.
The Government should only use a foreign service provider if a local equivalent is unavailable.
Indeed, this became the mandate of the board of directors in the British consultancy I worked in. When our Singaporean partner requested European consultants, the board - comprising mainly Europeans - took an Asian-oriented approach.
The board noted: "We will only use a European consultant if you can show us why our Asian consultants cannot deliver what is expected of us."
As importantly, every Singaporean must ask himself two fundamental questions:
o How differently do I treat a European and a non-European?
o What are my reasons for treating them differently?
When I asked myself these questions, I found that I, too, had preferred Europeans in that I could not see myself working for a non-European company. It is now my personal goal to work for a non-European company.
It is not just the non-Europeans who allow such questionable practices to prosper. Some Europeans take advantage of this, too.
For example, my Malaysian neighbour told me recently: "My Australian director often boasts that his Singaporean clients buy the company's products just because he is European."
During my former British director's last visit to Singapore, an American woman approached him. She wanted him to employ her.
She said: "Your company will need a European face if it wants to make money in Singapore."
The examples of blatantly discriminatory practices that I have highlighted suggest that anti-discrimination legislation is long overdue in this country.
Such legislation will not eliminate the "Europeans preferred" syndrome totally. But legislation, coupled with education, will reduce its incidence.
When we tackle the "Europeans preferred" syndrome effectively, it will not matter if four out of five or one out of 10 newly-created jobs are going to foreign workers.
This is because Singaporeans can then be more certain that someone is being appointed based on merit. A true meritocracy means white is good and so is off-white.
Come on, MPs, do something about it!
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)