After:
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
My view
In YL's essay on Mother Tongue, he mentioned in the second paragraph that the self-serving English-speaking "persuasive" people are "Very persuasive, indeed, almost as persuasive as my guinea pig."
Thought you guys might like to know that his guinea pig is dead.
Well, unless you are Zhang Yang in the latest Channel 8 serial 我在你左右, I guess you can't be persuasive at all as a dead person.
I was toying with the idea of writing to the ST forums on this topic since retards with "5% logic, 20% personal example, 20% fallacy and 55% emotion" can already write in. But YL is not a man of harsh words, and what I read was more like 110% emotion and -10% logic, so much so that I've forgotten how to argue logically after reading one too many letters in the forum.
I bet the editors sometimes publish these asinine letters for a kick. After all, humour definitely sells better than logic (let's see, who's richer and more famous - Subhas Anandan or Russell Peters?)
Most people are logical, but not everyone can be comical. Although I must say after reading the forum page more regularly in the ST, I am inclined to start doubting my first line. Seems as though the balance is swinging towards the other way, albeit unintentionally.
To me, the whole situation is simple. You can only do a few things.
1) Lower the MT weightage in PSLE
2) Let it remain as it is
3) Raise the MT weightage in PSLE
4) Do it O level style and let students take their three best subjects
Item 1 sounds fairly logical, but only in the eyes of those who are weak in Mother Tongue. I was fairly weak in Chemistry back in school, and since it hardly has any real life application in the BUSINESS world, which is the course I am applying to.. shouldn't we lower the Chemistry weightage for A levels?
(Note: I know this is a lousy argument, but as mentioned it's easier to talk cock nowadays than to talk logic.)
Item 2 is what MOE decided to do. I think it's fair. The anti-MT camp will have a lot to say about this, but in the meantime their kids will have to continue failing MT while they gripe and bitch about how smart their children are, less MT.
Hey, I would have got perfect grades in RI if you didn't count Chemistry, Physics, French, Literature, English, Social Studies, and oh, Higher Chinese..
Item 3 is something no one has ever mentioned or talked about. I don't know why I raised it here, either.
Finally - letting students pick their three best subjects. This is about as "logical" as it could go - and it would benefit those strong in MT, yet not disadvantage those weak in MT.
Sounds good?
The PSLE is already about as basic as it can get. It amuses me how parents can think of their children as "talents" if they cannot even handle four subjects.
And still, this mode of examination will invite trouble. Let's say in one particular year the Science paper is a killer (to me it always is), and the MT paper happens to be unbelievably easy. The parents of those geniuses are bound to make noise. No matter what.
You can give them moderation and you can give them assurance, but as my BMT commanders say "stupidity has no limits" - their stupid words will go on limitlessly.
The ideal and pragmatic way to deal with this problem, in my humble opinion, is to leave it as status quo. As some anonymous prick said, "you can't please everyone" - you're going to piss people off no matter what.
Should the government change status quo and alter their current stand on MT weightage, what will only result is a different group of people getting pissed off. And human nature is such that one remembers grievances more than he remembers favours.
Might as well keep the same group of people pissed off.
So don't lower the MT weightage.
Thought you guys might like to know that his guinea pig is dead.
Well, unless you are Zhang Yang in the latest Channel 8 serial 我在你左右, I guess you can't be persuasive at all as a dead person.
I was toying with the idea of writing to the ST forums on this topic since retards with "5% logic, 20% personal example, 20% fallacy and 55% emotion" can already write in. But YL is not a man of harsh words, and what I read was more like 110% emotion and -10% logic, so much so that I've forgotten how to argue logically after reading one too many letters in the forum.
I bet the editors sometimes publish these asinine letters for a kick. After all, humour definitely sells better than logic (let's see, who's richer and more famous - Subhas Anandan or Russell Peters?)
Most people are logical, but not everyone can be comical. Although I must say after reading the forum page more regularly in the ST, I am inclined to start doubting my first line. Seems as though the balance is swinging towards the other way, albeit unintentionally.
To me, the whole situation is simple. You can only do a few things.
1) Lower the MT weightage in PSLE
2) Let it remain as it is
3) Raise the MT weightage in PSLE
4) Do it O level style and let students take their three best subjects
Item 1 sounds fairly logical, but only in the eyes of those who are weak in Mother Tongue. I was fairly weak in Chemistry back in school, and since it hardly has any real life application in the BUSINESS world, which is the course I am applying to.. shouldn't we lower the Chemistry weightage for A levels?
(Note: I know this is a lousy argument, but as mentioned it's easier to talk cock nowadays than to talk logic.)
Item 2 is what MOE decided to do. I think it's fair. The anti-MT camp will have a lot to say about this, but in the meantime their kids will have to continue failing MT while they gripe and bitch about how smart their children are, less MT.
Hey, I would have got perfect grades in RI if you didn't count Chemistry, Physics, French, Literature, English, Social Studies, and oh, Higher Chinese..
Item 3 is something no one has ever mentioned or talked about. I don't know why I raised it here, either.
Finally - letting students pick their three best subjects. This is about as "logical" as it could go - and it would benefit those strong in MT, yet not disadvantage those weak in MT.
Sounds good?
The PSLE is already about as basic as it can get. It amuses me how parents can think of their children as "talents" if they cannot even handle four subjects.
And still, this mode of examination will invite trouble. Let's say in one particular year the Science paper is a killer (to me it always is), and the MT paper happens to be unbelievably easy. The parents of those geniuses are bound to make noise. No matter what.
You can give them moderation and you can give them assurance, but as my BMT commanders say "stupidity has no limits" - their stupid words will go on limitlessly.
The ideal and pragmatic way to deal with this problem, in my humble opinion, is to leave it as status quo. As some anonymous prick said, "you can't please everyone" - you're going to piss people off no matter what.
Should the government change status quo and alter their current stand on MT weightage, what will only result is a different group of people getting pissed off. And human nature is such that one remembers grievances more than he remembers favours.
Might as well keep the same group of people pissed off.
So don't lower the MT weightage.
Monday, May 17, 2010
PSLE Chinese weighting - The argument to end all arguments
Recently, the Straits Times reported that the Ministry of Education was doing a review of the 25% weighting of Chinese in the Primary School Leaving Examination. What ensued was hilarity. The Chinese newspapers were full of protests(duh), with the full blast of Chinese idioms pummeling the logic into all the readers. It was funny because I assumed that the people who make decisions don't read the Chinese newspapers. But I was horribly wrong, because the Education Minister apologized just a few days later.
Meanwhile in the English papers, the deluge of self-serving fucks seeking to lower its weighting because it was 'difficult' was definitely enough to flood the Bukit Timah area. Absolutely solid examples that Chinese is difficult included "My son is an intelligent young man, and he finds a lot of difficulty in Chinese" and the like. They even think about Singapore's well-being, as in "My son is a talent, and since he finds Chinese difficult, the family is emigrating. If this continues, Singapore will suffer a brain drain. That is not in the interest of Singapore." Very persuasive, indeed, almost as persuasive as my guinea pig.
The letters published contained maybe 5% logic, 20% personal example, 20% fallacy and 55% emotion. Well at least I got a laugh. Maybe even several laughs. If you remove the emotion, the opportunism and the defeatism so blindingly obvious in those letters, the crux of the matter is fairly simple.
Bilingualism is still a pillar on which the Singapore economy rests. As a trading hub, the more languages we speak, the better, so I would say that being bilingual is the minimum. In addition, with a low birth rate, an immigration inflow is also necessary for the economy, and Singaporeans being bilingual would definitely aid in immigrants' integration into society. It is quite undeniable that Singaporeans should be bilingual in the interest of the economy.
Despite the increasing number of English-speaking families, a large part of the Singapore society communicate in their mother tongues, especially the older generation. Therefore, it is also in the interest of communication and harmony in society that students are bilingual.
Now that we have established that bilingualism is essential, we can move on to the more contentious point of what should be done to ensure bilingualism.
If what the government wanted was true bilingualism, the mother tongue would share the same importance as English all the way up to the entrance of the tertiary institutions. But it does not. The government probably thinks that one has to be more proficient in English, as it is the business language. We need mother tongue more for basic communication rather than to excel in our chosen professions. As a result, after PSLE, the weightage of mother tongue gradually drops in examinations, such that one barely needs to pass mother tongue before being able to get a place in a local university.
What we can see is that the current system already has a heavy bias in favour of English and other chosen subjects as the years roll on. What the equal weightage at PSLE does is to act as a stop to ensure a basic level of mother tongue for communication. What possible benefit does reducing this weightage have? Some win, some lose, but for Singapore it is a step backward in terms of bilingualism.
Furthermore, the current system does not unduly restrict students. If you don't do so well in the mother tongue, you can still do well in the other subjects and achieve an excellent score. The system rewards students fairly in whichever subjects they are strong in. It is only if the mother tongue level is truly horrendous that it has a significant effect, and this horrendous level is exactly what the equal weightage is designed to prevent. It is serving its purpose. Those who are going to be outstanding engineers and entrepreneurs will be outstanding engineers and entrepreneurs. Why on earth would a mediocre PSLE score stop them? That would be a very defeatist attitude. Those who want to be lawyers and doctors and have lousy mother tongue results, it may be harder because the spaces in the local schools are so limited. However, I can't be the only one thinking that doctors and lawyers should be bilingual in order to cater well to Singaporeans. You are not a talent simply because you have the money to emigrate if your grasp of mother tongue happens to suck.
In my humble opinion, there is no shortcut to learning a language. You have to make a conscious effort to immerse, to read, to write. Unless the student has a learning disability of some sort, there is no evidence to suggest a decent result in mother tongue cannot be obtained through hard work. After all, there are more than a billion people who can communicate in Chinese. It is true that English-speaking families have a disadvantage. But don't the Chinese-speaking families have the same problem when it comes to English? An even bigger problem, because English is already more important in our system and society. The PSLE proves itself to be the last bastion of linguistic equality. If the equal weightage is vanquished, it risks splitting society into 2: English-speaking families enjoying all the perks of society, and mother-tongue speaking families struggling to keep up. Class warfare might result. The concept of bilingualism would degenerate into a farce.
Some think that bilingualism can be preserved by having those with interest in the mother tongue study it, and those without interest to have reduced weightage for it. Such idealism is suited for a revolution, which is not the case right now. How many primary school kids do you think will study out of interest? As if they didn't have enough to study already. That suggestion is like throwing a sucker punch in the face of bilingualism and calling it a massage. In fact, we do have a track record for letting people study languages according to their interests. It's the Third Language Program, which has an astronomical drop-out rate, although that's alright, because they're third languages and not commonly used in Singapore.
At this point, I've run out of ammunition. And I lost the loaded magazine in my vest. The above might have been confusing. If you take away the sarcasm, insults and metaphors, you would probably get a simple and effective argument. That was my intent at first but I failed, because writing without those tools is like eating KFC chicken without the skin - not shiok. I might end up with a boring-ass essay that has no place in the hallowed annals of talkcocksummit.blogspot.com. If the above has confused you further, just remember that the simple conclusion of the essay is that I am right.
Meanwhile in the English papers, the deluge of self-serving fucks seeking to lower its weighting because it was 'difficult' was definitely enough to flood the Bukit Timah area. Absolutely solid examples that Chinese is difficult included "My son is an intelligent young man, and he finds a lot of difficulty in Chinese" and the like. They even think about Singapore's well-being, as in "My son is a talent, and since he finds Chinese difficult, the family is emigrating. If this continues, Singapore will suffer a brain drain. That is not in the interest of Singapore." Very persuasive, indeed, almost as persuasive as my guinea pig.
The letters published contained maybe 5% logic, 20% personal example, 20% fallacy and 55% emotion. Well at least I got a laugh. Maybe even several laughs. If you remove the emotion, the opportunism and the defeatism so blindingly obvious in those letters, the crux of the matter is fairly simple.
Bilingualism is still a pillar on which the Singapore economy rests. As a trading hub, the more languages we speak, the better, so I would say that being bilingual is the minimum. In addition, with a low birth rate, an immigration inflow is also necessary for the economy, and Singaporeans being bilingual would definitely aid in immigrants' integration into society. It is quite undeniable that Singaporeans should be bilingual in the interest of the economy.
Despite the increasing number of English-speaking families, a large part of the Singapore society communicate in their mother tongues, especially the older generation. Therefore, it is also in the interest of communication and harmony in society that students are bilingual.
Now that we have established that bilingualism is essential, we can move on to the more contentious point of what should be done to ensure bilingualism.
If what the government wanted was true bilingualism, the mother tongue would share the same importance as English all the way up to the entrance of the tertiary institutions. But it does not. The government probably thinks that one has to be more proficient in English, as it is the business language. We need mother tongue more for basic communication rather than to excel in our chosen professions. As a result, after PSLE, the weightage of mother tongue gradually drops in examinations, such that one barely needs to pass mother tongue before being able to get a place in a local university.
What we can see is that the current system already has a heavy bias in favour of English and other chosen subjects as the years roll on. What the equal weightage at PSLE does is to act as a stop to ensure a basic level of mother tongue for communication. What possible benefit does reducing this weightage have? Some win, some lose, but for Singapore it is a step backward in terms of bilingualism.
Furthermore, the current system does not unduly restrict students. If you don't do so well in the mother tongue, you can still do well in the other subjects and achieve an excellent score. The system rewards students fairly in whichever subjects they are strong in. It is only if the mother tongue level is truly horrendous that it has a significant effect, and this horrendous level is exactly what the equal weightage is designed to prevent. It is serving its purpose. Those who are going to be outstanding engineers and entrepreneurs will be outstanding engineers and entrepreneurs. Why on earth would a mediocre PSLE score stop them? That would be a very defeatist attitude. Those who want to be lawyers and doctors and have lousy mother tongue results, it may be harder because the spaces in the local schools are so limited. However, I can't be the only one thinking that doctors and lawyers should be bilingual in order to cater well to Singaporeans. You are not a talent simply because you have the money to emigrate if your grasp of mother tongue happens to suck.
In my humble opinion, there is no shortcut to learning a language. You have to make a conscious effort to immerse, to read, to write. Unless the student has a learning disability of some sort, there is no evidence to suggest a decent result in mother tongue cannot be obtained through hard work. After all, there are more than a billion people who can communicate in Chinese. It is true that English-speaking families have a disadvantage. But don't the Chinese-speaking families have the same problem when it comes to English? An even bigger problem, because English is already more important in our system and society. The PSLE proves itself to be the last bastion of linguistic equality. If the equal weightage is vanquished, it risks splitting society into 2: English-speaking families enjoying all the perks of society, and mother-tongue speaking families struggling to keep up. Class warfare might result. The concept of bilingualism would degenerate into a farce.
Some think that bilingualism can be preserved by having those with interest in the mother tongue study it, and those without interest to have reduced weightage for it. Such idealism is suited for a revolution, which is not the case right now. How many primary school kids do you think will study out of interest? As if they didn't have enough to study already. That suggestion is like throwing a sucker punch in the face of bilingualism and calling it a massage. In fact, we do have a track record for letting people study languages according to their interests. It's the Third Language Program, which has an astronomical drop-out rate, although that's alright, because they're third languages and not commonly used in Singapore.
At this point, I've run out of ammunition. And I lost the loaded magazine in my vest. The above might have been confusing. If you take away the sarcasm, insults and metaphors, you would probably get a simple and effective argument. That was my intent at first but I failed, because writing without those tools is like eating KFC chicken without the skin - not shiok. I might end up with a boring-ass essay that has no place in the hallowed annals of talkcocksummit.blogspot.com. If the above has confused you further, just remember that the simple conclusion of the essay is that I am right.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
"Rules don't apply to me"
Today, I was just waiting for the bus, because I'm poor. Then, I saw a guy wearing a shirt that says "RULES DON'T APPLY TO ME" in big bold letters. We got onto the same bus, and I wanted to ask him why the hell did he pay his bus fare. What a nice guy. Or a douchebag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
