Zelig Dhi Lee
While Singaporeans perceive the Workers’ Party (WP) as the most credible “co-driver” for now, I find there are shortcomings that may impede the WP from obtaining the “driving licence” to drive the vehicle forward for all Singaporeans. Last night’s WP rally certainly reveals room for improvement, in particular, the education system and the cost of living.
Education system
WP candidates Somasundaram (Moulmein-Kallang) and Koh Choong Yong (Sengkang West) raised salient points about high stress levels and competitiveness in our education system especially at the primary level. They even lamented about the tuition culture in Singapore as well as the need to compete with foreigners for university places.
What I found very disturbing about their arguments is that none of them offered really credible alternative models for Singapore’s education system; and even suggested revamping at the primary level first. Soma also left a hanging point when he commented about the tuition fee disparity between Singaporeans and foreigners; as well as the ASEAN scholarship not available to Singaporeans. As a polytechnic lecturer who has interacted and mentored several students of various nationalities, I felt that he ought to emphasise his postion more substantively, and reflect on his experience as a lecturer in a tertiary institution.
My key thesis is – parents groom their children with the university in mind (considering only 1 out of 5 Singaporeans can make it there) – and that any changes in the education system should start from the Tertiary institutions rather than the lower levels because ultimately parents and youths aspire to meet the university entrance requirements for their dream course.
What I always told many of my peers in NUS is that examinations in tertiary institutions has lost its purpose as it inadequately reflects the realities of the industry, when the real world is an “open book exam”. Perhaps, we should rethink the way tertiary institutions assess and set standards of entrance and assessment, for their requirements will send a ripple-down domino effect to our JCs, Secondary Schools and Primary Schools. Our tertiary institutions need to do more to encourage an application-centric assessment culture and totally do away with sit-down, closed book examinations.
If our tertiary institutions do that, the lower level education institutions will be forced to react accordingly; and could potentially put motivational-educational industries such as Adam Khoo’s NLP, Yaw Shin Leong’s Eduhearts and several educational agencies either out of business; or remake their educational programs to emphasise a holistic-mode of learning as opposed to simply study or exam-smart strategies per se.
Such a strategy will also reduce parents and students’ reliance on tuition since the focus is on application, NOT strategizing to ace the national examinations which is sadly the focus and motivation for tuition. Remaking at the lower level, such as removing exams at lower-primary or no national exams till age 16 will not solve the root of the problem cos ultimately they will face hard challenges at the tertiary institutions such as transiting to project-based programmes, and I think the MOE needs to think very hard how we model our curriculum and assessment methods.
Cost of Living
We are not Japan where deflation helps mitigate high cost of living as far as possible. But like it or not, the WP should realise that cost of living will always go up, and salaries will never rise up as much as they would desire mainly because we’re an open economy. We cannot artificially control our prices and wages too much and that would cause unnecessary distortions to our economy, which can potentially deter foreign investment which is so vital to our survival.
In addition, the fiscal burden to absorb these rising costs is uncertain – my question is – has the WP done any economic modelling and budget forecasting like what the SDP has done (with their Shadow Budget) to ascertain what is the best alternative model that would be sustainable for Singapore from a fiscal point of view?
I understand the rationale is to forge a more progressive cost structure which is a very promising alternative – however, how are we going to implement this effectively while ensuring that the upper classes do not abuse the system and park their wealth outside Singapore beyond our control? How are we going to do this without the necessity to tap into our reserves? How do we enhance wages beyond the productivity and minimum wage conundrum? Is there more to that?
—
Photo courtesy of the Workers’ Party.
Hi Zelig,
You wrote:
(1) “But like it or not, the WP should realise that cost of living will always go up, and salaries will never rise up as much as they would desire mainly because we’re an open economy. We cannot artificially control our prices and wages too much and that would cause unnecessary distortions to our economy, which can potentially deter foreign investment which is so vital to our survival.”
I see. Then you sound no different from the PAP and their supporters who have helped to put us into this hybrid-neoliberal impasse to begin with.
Do you mean to suggest that we can (or even should) never catch up in terms of our wages and salaries to help mitigate the high costs of living?
What then would be your solutions?
(2) “ensuring that the upper classes do not abuse the system and park their wealth outside Singapore beyond our control.”
Newsflash for you, my friend — It’s Already Happening.
Hi zellg,
I can see where u r coming from on the education matter, but I think u have missed out some considerations in ur thought. The fabric of society, as with any company, is made up of a large base of “hands”, a middle section of “brains”‘, and at the top the voice of the leader. As u mentioned, while all aspired to reach university, maybe only 1 in 5 attains it. What would happen to the remaining 4? In an ideal world, any change in the educational system should be in parallel, but if resources are limited, then starting at the fundamental level, primary school, would definitely make more sense, since that would benefit all the population n not just the 1 in 5.
Moving to an application centric educational system is only beneficial if what we aspire to be is the manufacturer of the world. Innovations will have to come from good fundamental understanding of subject matters which in this case close book exams will have it’s merits. I agree that we should not just produce exam smart student but moving to the other end of the spectrum is not the answer either. Some form of middle ground approach should be the key n again starting from primary is the way to go to nurture the correct mentalities before the bad qualities are molded.
I totally agree that the oppositions should come up with more substance in their proposals, n a shadow budget will give a good measure of the foresight n capability of the party. dun think that any party, ruling party included has the perfect solution for all citizens. Perhaps the best (but by no means perfect) approach will be to infuse all the pros of each sides proposals into one that will better serve the nations interest. This, I’m afraid can only be achieved if there is more meaningful alternative voices.
Zelig,
I find it troubling that you imply that one 1 in 5 Singaporean is capable of attending university. Have you looked at the U.S. and Western Europe statistic on college education? I can assure you that it is far higher than 1 in 5! Perhaps you should ask the current government why the ratio is so low given that Singapore is reputed to have one of the best educational systems in the world based on published test scores. You should be troubled that the government has decided NOT to invest in its own citizens’ education at the same level as other first world countries. Many qualified students cannot get into local universities and have to go overseas to receive their education, while the government is providing free college education for many foreign students.
As for cost of living, I find your assertion that “cost of living will always go up, and salaries will never rise up as much as they would” amazing. If it were true, every Singaporean will be destitute! Cost of living is determined by many factors, some of them are -
1. Commodity prices.
2. Domestic factors such as rent, electric, water, gas, levies, and taxes.
3. Increased demand as a result of population growth.
4. Privatization of public utilities and unregulated pricing power of monopolies.
5. Reduced subsidies in areas such as healthcare.
Aside from commodity prices, the other factors are domestic and are subjected to government policies. A stronger currency policy, which MAS is currently implementing, is useless against domestic factors.
Singapore is largely a capitalist society.Given that nature, market forces should determine the land and house prices. Having the government distorting the prices will be detrimental in the longer run. Affordable public housing is important but cannotbe achieved by distorting the way the market works except by extension of rebates or discounts as is the case now. None of the opposition seem to have a credible solution except to say that it is an area of concern which we all know.
Note that majority of singaporeans are home owners and bringing down the price of all homes will be an act of wealth destruction rather than a help to anyone.
Cost of living will go up when any country progresses. The question is whether there is sufficient safety net to take care of the needy and those who are left behind. I think more can be done on this front but sadly, I have not heard the alternate solutions to what we have today.