Note: The following is just one way to view Singapore. It is not necessarily the right way. Just something that popped into my mind. Not intending to fully develop this view beyond what little bit I've written below.
Singapore is a pragmatic country. We pursue economic growth relentlessly. We are concerned about our bottomline. Every few years, we re-invent ourselves to keep up with the latest in economic trends. In good years, we even get dividends.
Our ministers and top civil servants are extremely well paid. This is to compensate them for their time and effort, as well as reduce their incentive to take kickbacks and their likelihood of being corrupt.
We serve NS not because of loyalty, a sense of servitude, or any feeling of pride in the country. We serve because we have a stake. We're born into the position of shareholder. Our lives have so far been intertwined with Singapore's excellent track record as far as the economy is concerned. As with any investment however, it is the future rather than the past that matters.
Going forward, we expect Singapore Inc. to continue to perform well. We expect a safe environment, we expect subsidized housing, we expect political stability, we expect accessibility and convenience.
Question now is, if our gains on this investment start to decline, or worse, we take losses, and Singapore Inc. starts to decline such that we are able to spot better opportunities elsewhere and the opportunity cost of migration goes down, should we then sell our stake?
What happens to the smaller shareholders (ie. the poor, the homeless, and other groups so heavily vested they cannot afford to sell)?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
On Assortative Mating.
According to TOC's most recent top story, MM Lee commented that
"you marry a non-graduate, then you worry about whether or not your son or daughter is going to make it to the university"
Part One: Why do Uni Grads Produce Uni Grads?
I think there is a correlation between having parents who are graduates and offspring who attend university. Yes, someone whose parents are graduates will probably be more likely to make it to university. But I don't think the link is as simple as the above comment suggests it to be.
The correlation is probably due to a whole host of reasons. Those I can think of are:
1. Graduates have higher earning power. They are more likely to have the financial ability to send their children for enrichment and tuition courses to help their children where help is needed.
2. Graduate parents, more so than non-graduate parents, know what it takes to make it to university. They understand the rigour of academic pursuit and are also better positioned to help their children in their school work, especially in the early years of education.
3. I'm not very sure about this, but I think graduate parents, because of their higher earnings power, are able to ensure that their school going children have only school work to worry about. In addition, I suspect, but cannot confirm, that problem drinking and gambling occurs to a smaller extent amongst graduates. What all these mean is that the children only have to be concerned with schoolwork at an early age.
4. The child's social circle from the beginning is very important. Reasons 1-3, more than anything, help provide a child with a stable home and an environment in which learning is encouraged and help is easily found at an early age. Singapore's education system places pupils judged to be of similar academic ability together. Even as early as primary 2, the better performing pupils from primary 1 are placed in the same class. Amongst the students in the better classes, there is competition, learning is positively regarded, and doing well is generally desired and perhaps even expected. All these create an environment that pushes the students to carry on doing well. When streaming occurs later, the more motivated ones who have done better mix around with like minded students all the way till JC and beyond.
Anecdote: My mum recently told me about her cousin's daughter who finished O levels in a secondary school in Toa Payoh. The girl was in one of the weaker classes. The girl did not want to study too hard or perform well for she feared she would be ostracised and lose her friends. Towards the O levels, the girl's mum forced her to study very hard. Eventually, she passed her O levels while most of her friends didn't or at least, didn't do as well. The girl, after recieving her results, was angry at her mum for she felt that her results would make her lose her friends.
I'm not sure how common the situation in the above anecdote is amongst the students who have been placed together because they share the common trait of weak academic performance. But it provides a glimpse into the possible reasons why those who do not get a headstart early in life in Singapore will not perform well in school later in life.
Part Two: What should the Government be doing?
I believe that the government's role is to encourage a healthy attitude towards academic performance and improvement in schools.
Is it even necessary to place students who have poor academic results together even at an early age? For most children, their schoolmates form their entire social circle. If all their friends did poorly, it will soon be accepted as the norm, the standard to follow.
If and when it becomes necessary later, in order that those who have better academic results can be pushed harder and challenged, MOE should then be extremely careful not to allow a negative perception of striving for better results amongst the weaker classes.
If Singapore allows those who failed in primary 1 to accept mediocre results the rest of their school years because of those primary 1 results, I think a lot of academic potential would be wasted.
As a side note:
(The following might sound a bit crazy or illogical to some people. Its strictly my own opinion based on personal observation and activity going on in my brain. Disagreements, agreements, comments, welcome.)
A. I think a child with 2 graduate parents have the highest probability going to university for the reasons above.
B. I think a child with 1 graduate and 1 non-graduate parent has the the second highest probability of going to university because the reasons above will still apply, but to a smaller extent.
C. I think a child with 2 non-graduate parents has the smallest probability of going to university because he lacks the advantages explained in Part 1.
I think the probability in A is slightly more than the probability in B, and while the probability in B is much more than the probability in C.
The reason is that I believe the child's attitude from an early age, the environment in which a child grows up in, and parents who understand the importance of education and what it takes to do well in school are most important in determining how well the child does when young, and therefore the company he later keeps. I believe having 1 parent who understands all that and able to communicate all that to his or her partner, places the child in situation B in a much better position than a child in situation B. ("better" here refers only in the very strict sense of likelihood to attain higher education)
Therefore, in order that Singapore can have the largest number of people doing fairly well in school at a later age and the largest number of people with a fair chance of going to university, maybe the best policy for the government is to encourage graduates and non-graduates to marry... each other! It might actually make it tougher to make it to university! And then of course, more might also qualify and go for university overseas! (financial constraints notwithstanding of course.)
"you marry a non-graduate, then you worry about whether or not your son or daughter is going to make it to the university"
Part One: Why do Uni Grads Produce Uni Grads?
I think there is a correlation between having parents who are graduates and offspring who attend university. Yes, someone whose parents are graduates will probably be more likely to make it to university. But I don't think the link is as simple as the above comment suggests it to be.
The correlation is probably due to a whole host of reasons. Those I can think of are:
1. Graduates have higher earning power. They are more likely to have the financial ability to send their children for enrichment and tuition courses to help their children where help is needed.
2. Graduate parents, more so than non-graduate parents, know what it takes to make it to university. They understand the rigour of academic pursuit and are also better positioned to help their children in their school work, especially in the early years of education.
3. I'm not very sure about this, but I think graduate parents, because of their higher earnings power, are able to ensure that their school going children have only school work to worry about. In addition, I suspect, but cannot confirm, that problem drinking and gambling occurs to a smaller extent amongst graduates. What all these mean is that the children only have to be concerned with schoolwork at an early age.
4. The child's social circle from the beginning is very important. Reasons 1-3, more than anything, help provide a child with a stable home and an environment in which learning is encouraged and help is easily found at an early age. Singapore's education system places pupils judged to be of similar academic ability together. Even as early as primary 2, the better performing pupils from primary 1 are placed in the same class. Amongst the students in the better classes, there is competition, learning is positively regarded, and doing well is generally desired and perhaps even expected. All these create an environment that pushes the students to carry on doing well. When streaming occurs later, the more motivated ones who have done better mix around with like minded students all the way till JC and beyond.
Anecdote: My mum recently told me about her cousin's daughter who finished O levels in a secondary school in Toa Payoh. The girl was in one of the weaker classes. The girl did not want to study too hard or perform well for she feared she would be ostracised and lose her friends. Towards the O levels, the girl's mum forced her to study very hard. Eventually, she passed her O levels while most of her friends didn't or at least, didn't do as well. The girl, after recieving her results, was angry at her mum for she felt that her results would make her lose her friends.
I'm not sure how common the situation in the above anecdote is amongst the students who have been placed together because they share the common trait of weak academic performance. But it provides a glimpse into the possible reasons why those who do not get a headstart early in life in Singapore will not perform well in school later in life.
Part Two: What should the Government be doing?
I believe that the government's role is to encourage a healthy attitude towards academic performance and improvement in schools.
Is it even necessary to place students who have poor academic results together even at an early age? For most children, their schoolmates form their entire social circle. If all their friends did poorly, it will soon be accepted as the norm, the standard to follow.
If and when it becomes necessary later, in order that those who have better academic results can be pushed harder and challenged, MOE should then be extremely careful not to allow a negative perception of striving for better results amongst the weaker classes.
If Singapore allows those who failed in primary 1 to accept mediocre results the rest of their school years because of those primary 1 results, I think a lot of academic potential would be wasted.
As a side note:
(The following might sound a bit crazy or illogical to some people. Its strictly my own opinion based on personal observation and activity going on in my brain. Disagreements, agreements, comments, welcome.)
A. I think a child with 2 graduate parents have the highest probability going to university for the reasons above.
B. I think a child with 1 graduate and 1 non-graduate parent has the the second highest probability of going to university because the reasons above will still apply, but to a smaller extent.
C. I think a child with 2 non-graduate parents has the smallest probability of going to university because he lacks the advantages explained in Part 1.
I think the probability in A is slightly more than the probability in B, and while the probability in B is much more than the probability in C.
The reason is that I believe the child's attitude from an early age, the environment in which a child grows up in, and parents who understand the importance of education and what it takes to do well in school are most important in determining how well the child does when young, and therefore the company he later keeps. I believe having 1 parent who understands all that and able to communicate all that to his or her partner, places the child in situation B in a much better position than a child in situation B. ("better" here refers only in the very strict sense of likelihood to attain higher education)
Therefore, in order that Singapore can have the largest number of people doing fairly well in school at a later age and the largest number of people with a fair chance of going to university, maybe the best policy for the government is to encourage graduates and non-graduates to marry... each other! It might actually make it tougher to make it to university! And then of course, more might also qualify and go for university overseas! (financial constraints notwithstanding of course.)
Friday, October 24, 2008
Drone.
Just read a post at Xenoboysg that gave me pause.
My life:
I was born in Gleneagles. I attended PAP preschool. Primary school. Got PSLE. Secondary school. Got O' levels. Junior College. Got A' levels. Finishing NS now. Start university next August.
In all probability, I will go on like that:
Work hard. Graduate. Find job. Work hard. Make love. Get married. Work hard. Buy house. Work hard. Buy car. Work hard. Have kids. Work very hard. Grow old. Die. Get cremated, most likely at Mandai.
The only variables are how well or how badly I perform at each stage. The order might be different. For example, maybe I'll buy car before house, make love before graduate, etc. But essentially the steps of my life are about like that.
I'll be damned if thats all I'm going to do.
So. I intend to throw a few challenges in:
1. Get civilian pilot's license.
2. Get damn rich.
3. See the world. And not just the holiday places.
4. Work for an international organisation some time. This probably has to be after I'm damn rich.
5. Keep my best friends.
6. Forget my enemies.
7. Keep learning. Politics, economics, mechanics, geography, psychology, history, whatever.
8. For all that is variable, aim for the best result. (ie. Graduate with Honours, Get a job I like, if not start my own business, have damn good sex, marry someone I really love, buy a house that is comfortable to finance and live in, buy a great car, bring up kids to aim for stuff beyond the path above.)
Of course, the list is an ideal one. How bad life must be if I can't have my ideals. And I'll add to this list in future.
My life:
I was born in Gleneagles. I attended PAP preschool. Primary school. Got PSLE. Secondary school. Got O' levels. Junior College. Got A' levels. Finishing NS now. Start university next August.
In all probability, I will go on like that:
Work hard. Graduate. Find job. Work hard. Make love. Get married. Work hard. Buy house. Work hard. Buy car. Work hard. Have kids. Work very hard. Grow old. Die. Get cremated, most likely at Mandai.
The only variables are how well or how badly I perform at each stage. The order might be different. For example, maybe I'll buy car before house, make love before graduate, etc. But essentially the steps of my life are about like that.
I'll be damned if thats all I'm going to do.
So. I intend to throw a few challenges in:
1. Get civilian pilot's license.
2. Get damn rich.
3. See the world. And not just the holiday places.
4. Work for an international organisation some time. This probably has to be after I'm damn rich.
5. Keep my best friends.
6. Forget my enemies.
7. Keep learning. Politics, economics, mechanics, geography, psychology, history, whatever.
8. For all that is variable, aim for the best result. (ie. Graduate with Honours, Get a job I like, if not start my own business, have damn good sex, marry someone I really love, buy a house that is comfortable to finance and live in, buy a great car, bring up kids to aim for stuff beyond the path above.)
Of course, the list is an ideal one. How bad life must be if I can't have my ideals. And I'll add to this list in future.
Lessons from NS: Lesson #3
Strength of will and stubbornness can sometimes overpower official authority, and often wins where there is no official authority.
Some people I encountered in NS have very strong characters. These people have the ability to bulldoze their way through life and remain absurdly steadfast in their stand and views even when patently wrong by contemporary standards of logic, morality or ethics.
These people may not always be well-liked by those who lack such disregard for what is right, but I have seen how such strength in character can help them get what they want or avoid what they do not want.
While I do not wish to emulate their example entirely, I believe that cultivating some of that strength in my character will help in my personal life and career in future.
In addition, erring on the side of being slightly pushy is favourable to being slightly too eager to please when the ideal compromise cannot be reached, as is often the case.
Ie. Be more thick-skinned!!!
Some people I encountered in NS have very strong characters. These people have the ability to bulldoze their way through life and remain absurdly steadfast in their stand and views even when patently wrong by contemporary standards of logic, morality or ethics.
These people may not always be well-liked by those who lack such disregard for what is right, but I have seen how such strength in character can help them get what they want or avoid what they do not want.
While I do not wish to emulate their example entirely, I believe that cultivating some of that strength in my character will help in my personal life and career in future.
In addition, erring on the side of being slightly pushy is favourable to being slightly too eager to please when the ideal compromise cannot be reached, as is often the case.
Ie. Be more thick-skinned!!!
Change in accounting rules
My dad recently pointed our something to me. Apparently, accounting rules have been changed.
Companies can now report equities that they are holding at cost price rather than 'mark-to-market' prices. What this means is that companies badly hit by the market downturn can hide losses they have taken in their portfolio. Which is fucked up. Assets on the balance sheet will be overstated.
Companies can now report equities that they are holding at cost price rather than 'mark-to-market' prices. What this means is that companies badly hit by the market downturn can hide losses they have taken in their portfolio. Which is fucked up. Assets on the balance sheet will be overstated.
There's a whole host of implications. In one example: Equities are supposed to be 'near cash' assets, used to ability to meet short term liabilities. But if the equities a company is holding is at a rubbish price or not even trading at all, it may not be able to meet its short term liabilities in real life though its books say it can.
The bottomline as far as I'm concerned is that traders and investors will over value a company that uses the new accounting rules.
Lessons from NS: Lesson #2
Always think ahead.
This is universally applicable and actually harder than it sounds. How far "ahead" is often an important variable to consider.
Thinking ahead means factoring future events and indirect consequences into current decisions. When taking "advance" off or leave, for instance, consider the likelihood that I might have to pay it back at an inconvenient time.
Thinking ahead can also be part of the justification for having an exit strategy in any conflict (Lesson #1). By thinking ahead, we take into considering our future need to work with the party we are in conflict in at present, and therefore factor that into our current decision to admit wrong in order to quickly bring the argument to a closure.
Thinking ahead is also an immensely valuable mental tool to help one get through trying situations. For example, keeping ORD in mind has helped me recognise that there is an end to the present situtation and prevented me from rash decisions with devastating consequences when I'm particularly frustrated or angry.
This is universally applicable and actually harder than it sounds. How far "ahead" is often an important variable to consider.
Thinking ahead means factoring future events and indirect consequences into current decisions. When taking "advance" off or leave, for instance, consider the likelihood that I might have to pay it back at an inconvenient time.
Thinking ahead can also be part of the justification for having an exit strategy in any conflict (Lesson #1). By thinking ahead, we take into considering our future need to work with the party we are in conflict in at present, and therefore factor that into our current decision to admit wrong in order to quickly bring the argument to a closure.
Thinking ahead is also an immensely valuable mental tool to help one get through trying situations. For example, keeping ORD in mind has helped me recognise that there is an end to the present situtation and prevented me from rash decisions with devastating consequences when I'm particularly frustrated or angry.
Lessons from NS: Introduction and Lesson #1
Sometime ago, on my Company's Facebook group (yes! facebook is that pervasive!), I posted the following:
"Our (or Mine at least) frustrations with this unit are like an itchy backside that can never heal. The more we think about it, the more we scratch, the more it itches, the more frustrating it gets. Yet even when we stop thinking about it, because of the earlier scratching, its still red, throbbing, sore and painful and we just wish it would go away and leave us alone. May we all ORD unbroken by this experience."
It was an impulsive move, fueled by itchy fingers just before booking in. Anyway, OC responded by sending a message to my Facebook Inbox. Suffice to say that the subsequent exchange led to him putting the following question to me in one message "But did u learn anything?"
2 days later, as I was performing Guard Duty (yes its a performance), I decided I should start thinking about the lessons I've learnt in NS. My intention is NOT to create a list of stuff relevant only in the context of national service, but a list of lessons that can be applied, in a most practical fashion, to a wider context.
The following is not exhuastive and there will be new additions from time to time as "aha" moments strike me.
Lesson #1
Have an exit strategy in any conflict.
When in an argument, especially one about to turn even nastier, I must be prepared to eat humble pie and admit wrong if necessary. This is regardless of whether or not I believe myself to be wrong. This avoids unnecessary unpleasantness and limits the "damage" caused by the argument. This is especially important if I, by necessity or desire, will be maintaining a long term working or friendly relationship with the other party or parties.
"Our (or Mine at least) frustrations with this unit are like an itchy backside that can never heal. The more we think about it, the more we scratch, the more it itches, the more frustrating it gets. Yet even when we stop thinking about it, because of the earlier scratching, its still red, throbbing, sore and painful and we just wish it would go away and leave us alone. May we all ORD unbroken by this experience."
It was an impulsive move, fueled by itchy fingers just before booking in. Anyway, OC responded by sending a message to my Facebook Inbox. Suffice to say that the subsequent exchange led to him putting the following question to me in one message "But did u learn anything?"
2 days later, as I was performing Guard Duty (yes its a performance), I decided I should start thinking about the lessons I've learnt in NS. My intention is NOT to create a list of stuff relevant only in the context of national service, but a list of lessons that can be applied, in a most practical fashion, to a wider context.
The following is not exhuastive and there will be new additions from time to time as "aha" moments strike me.
Lesson #1
Have an exit strategy in any conflict.
When in an argument, especially one about to turn even nastier, I must be prepared to eat humble pie and admit wrong if necessary. This is regardless of whether or not I believe myself to be wrong. This avoids unnecessary unpleasantness and limits the "damage" caused by the argument. This is especially important if I, by necessity or desire, will be maintaining a long term working or friendly relationship with the other party or parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)