tabulas.com

Suppose a couple only earns a little income. For their own living, they sometimes have to borrow money from someone else or depend on government's social security fund. Yet, they have a kid. Naturally, the kid needs food, clothing, health treatment, toys, and education. Now, what will the couple do? Some will work harder or find other employments to earn more. Some will dump the kid somewhere, maybe in front of someone's else house or maybe anywhere just to kill the kid. Some will ask more money from government.

The first one is a responsible couple. They know their obligations toward their kid and it is expected they manage to raise the kid well to become a strong and good family. The others are opposites, they try to pass up their responsibilities to others or solve problems in immoral way (in the case of killing by dumping the kid).

The situation is that nowadays, there are more and more couples who behave like the third case. They demand their rights to be supported by the state. They believe that it is the duty of government to provide for their kid and themselves. They are unwilling to stand on their own feet and prefer to depend on someone else. Ironically, their demands often gain popular support by media and society. The society somehow forgets that the state's money comes mostly from tax, which is paid by society or the working population. In effect the couples harm the society by asking more and more money without putting much effort.

The practice of social security fund by state is a usual way to alleviate the suffering of people and to prevent social problems due to poverty. It starts with noble intention and is in line with ethics and religions. However, in reality, it is very easy for the fund to be misused.

Thus, the media and society should stop supporting without reserves poor people who ask for more and more financial assistance from government. There are a lot to consider before distributing the aid, such as the recommendations from local leaders, the criminal record, the occupational history etc. Those who are indeed really poor should understand they have obligations to raise the kids properly. If they do not want to understand, let the government uses its power to exercise its authority.

The New York Times puts an article that gathers opinions from several chosen people as a response of falling mathematics scores in US:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/how-to-improve-national-math-scores/

One that is highlighted among those who comment is that how Math lessons in US emphasize more on the concepts of math, the beauty of mathematical objects, the deeper meaning of math etc; while at the same time it lacks of exercises to drill math skills such as four operations of arithmetics and algebraic simplications. The students there are expected to do more projects concerning math. They are introduced to abstract ideas since early age.

The opposite happens for Asian countries, in the sense of Japan, China, India (although not mentioned here, I have known that Korea and Vietnam also follow in the same path). The students are drilled with a lot, a lot of exercises ranging from basic to advanced levels of difficulty. The number of homework (not projects) is far more than that in US. A lot more exercise and assessment books are produced.

Result: Asian students score better in math than their American fellows. If Americans still score high in international competition, they come from Asian immigrant families.

In Singapore, MOE has followed more or less the American philosophical pedagogies. The emphasis is similar. The class is expected to be more fun and have more activities. Students are also expected to be well-versed with technology and they are allowed to use calculators ever since primary 5/6.

Then, why do students here still score high in math? The solution is simple: tuition. Parents do not mind sending their children for tuition or buying their children extra assessment books or past year exam papers. Most likely it is because the parents still have Asian minds and cultures, which heavily focus on academic execellence. Tuition agencies are abundant and so is the number of private tutors. Some even train exclusively for math olympiad preparation (and remember that here is such a small country).

It may not be the most ideal solution. But it seems that common Singaporean parents know better than MOE officials of how to prepare their kids for future.

This morning, on the bus journey to church, I was pondering from one thing to another thing. As usual, my mind quickly jumped from here to there and so on.

Actually the original thought was there were too many faculty members in local universities who were well-known for their research works but unable to teach properly due to language problem. It is possible in the future that their lecturing hours will be cut and they will be able to concentrate more on research. Yet, at the same time, it may create a problem of having too many research scientists and engineers.

My friend pointed out that few years later, the A-Star scholarship recipients will have completed their postgraduate studies and return to Singapore. Then, what will happen? Those who are senior already, who have been failing to produce results and publish in prestigious international journals will be forced to leave. The curious case of researcher-turn-taxi driver is only an example. In future, there may be more and more people with the same fate.

Personally, I don't believe that the government is running out of money. They still have a lot to spend, to employ more intellectuals, to build more labs, to fund more projects. But there is a lack of space for the labs, for housing the workforce. So, just my thought, why not use Batam?

Several months ago, when I visited my brother during his training there, we saw several industrial complex ready to house in new factories and warehouses. Yet, these sites are empty, no party is so interested to rent the place. It made me wonder how to make this island to be attractive for foreign investments.

Hence, my idea is this: let the Singapore government build their labs and send their researchers to Batam. The local authority there should provide the housing, the transportation, the necessary rules and legal documentation, last but not least the recreational places.

This may not be applied only for the case of labs but also for warehouses and some factories. Singapore does not have much more space to occupy and Batam still has a lot. The staffs and employees may buy a house and pay in installments. Why not? The price is much cheaper than in Singapore. They may even able to afford a car or two.

On Batam's side, they should ease the rules and regulations. The taxes and other fares should be cut, to make it more inviting. The qualities of ferries should be improved. There should be more pubs, theatres, cinemas, parks, restaurants, cafes and others so the new workforce will have pleasure after hardwork. Provide cheap travel tours to Bintan and other Riau islands. If they want to go back sometimes to Singapore, it's very easy to do.

What about children? Build more international schools. Let the schools hire teachers from Singapore with NIE qualifications. What about supermarkets and malls? Let the Singapore developers built them, as long as there is market. And the market is the expatriates from Singapore who work in Batam.

Singapore is pragmatic. They will not mind as long as there is potential advantage for their side. What about for Batam side? The land can be used and can be taxed (no so expensive, please). The people will have more jobs (entertainment and low-skilled jobs, mainly). The island will be more known to foreigners and who knows they may like to stay for long there, building their own businesses.

The initiative should come from Batam. Singapore is not naive. If the proposal is not carefully prepared, it will be rejected. Singapore is cautious about building too much on the neighbour land. But the potential is there. There is a chance it will benefit both sides. So, Batamese, get ready for your opportunities!

Inspired by today's review article in newspaper, I would like to response also. Since I am not a match for the author who is from a renowned think-tank institution, it will be simply a post in personal blog not an article for newspaper.

A year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Wall Street does not show any signs of repentance. It can be seen from the way bosses manage bailout money from government. The mentality of aiming for quick and easy money, ignoring risk and not looking far to the future still reigns in the financial companies there.

New York Times reports that a lot of funds have been invested in Germany and China for green technology. Even some US companies have chosen to build their plants in China. One global company has fifteen plants throughout the world and none in US, It is really doubtful that US will soon produce more environmental-friendly vehicles, looking at current trend.

The division between Republic and Democrat parties is getting deeper. Without national unity, there is no strong and effective national (and international) policy. American gained optimism when Obama was elected President but after almost a year, they start to lose hope and the President's charm has diminished. Congress has so much debates around health-care projects and bailing out of companies until public has got sick of it. When the machinery of democracy is no longer reliable, we are not sure what can replace it.

If economy is not getting better and the politicians fail to reach a lot of agreements, then the military will not gain necessary financial support. The cost of maintaining US army and military posts around the world, to fight wars in Iraq and Afganistan, to keep the US carriers sailing around seven seas is so high. Then the army has not much choice but to pull up a lot resources, to sell more arms to other countries. US will still be no. 1 in military but slowly, without fresh aid, the power is declining.

In times of crisis, in the aftermath of disaster, in the middle of much suffering, in the loss of beloved ones, in facing the uncertainty of future, who remains true to his/her faith? Again and again it is shown that ordinary people who live simple lives are the strongest, capable of enduring hardships without keeping bitterness, remain loyal to the Creator despite experiencing the imperfection of creations. A lot can be learnt from them and yet they will not lecture any theory. Their lives are enough for teaching others.