-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The perspective that it is necessarily deleterious if Singaporeans raise questions about or challenges to National Service (NS) policy – for instance, “if people start to question now whether NS is necessary, if operationally ready NSmen should shoulder certain responsibilities, and whether the tempo and intensity of military training should be reduced” (ST, Feb. 5) – not only seems short-sighted and further disregards the absence of substantive engagement with servicemen and the general public, but also underestimates the value of rigorous discourse over the need for NS and the principles of defence and deterrence which justify the need for conscription in Singapore. It appears somewhat paradoxical, yet instead of being anchored by unquestioned or unchallenged assumptions of its importance, the institution of NS is perhaps best strengthened when it is constantly questioned and challenged by Singaporeans. Continue reading
The stiffer penalty regime for private security officers, who can now “be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months” (ST, Jan. 18) if caught slacking, sleeping on the job, or breaking the rules , is ostensibly important for security or defence reasons, but the first-hand views of the officers – especially in a collective, systematic manner – are rarely featured, and comparatively little attention is paid to their work conditions and benefits. Furthermore, the onus to improve productivity appears to be shouldered disproportionately by the officers expected to fulfil training requirements, yet little is also said about what their employers ought to do, in terms of technological advancements or improvements to the well-being of the officers. Continue reading
Absent from the recent efforts to increase the diversity of students at Singapore’s independent schools – through which students from low- or middle-income families will enjoy fee subsidies and could qualify for a scholarship for out-of-pocket expenses (ST, Dec. 29) – is a focus on access as well as broadened definitions of success. Put otherwise: In addition to improving the affordability of these schools for academically gifted students from low- or middle-income families, there are outstanding questions on the proportion of students who gain access to these schools in the first place, and on students from these families who may not demonstrate the same scholastic aptitudes, and yet have other talents or abilities which ought to be nurtured. Continue reading
guanyinmiao's musings (Archived: July 2009 to July 2019) 