The floodgates remain open.

In comes yet another letter from yet another excellent Singaporean parent.

 

Review PSLE weightage for mother tongue (30 November 2009)

READING about the struggles of many fellow Singaporeans with the current bilingual policy, especially with regard to Chinese, I am prompted to urge the Ministry of Education to review not just the methods of teaching but also the weightage given to mother tongue in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE).

I speak from the experience of my son’s recent PSLE results. He fared well in all subjects with As but unfortunately had a C in Chinese Language, despite the support we had given him with tuition twice a week. His T-score was greatly affected by mother tongue.

It does not raise the motivation level of a child when mother tongue is seen as the subject which leads to an overall lower T-score, which means one is unable to pursue secondary studies in a better school.

The education system could be more flexible with some secondary schools placing less emphasis on mother tongue, while accepting and nurturing students with good grades in other subjects. It would help if elite schools allocated places to students who fare well in subjects other than mother tongue. Students deserve equal opportunities to a good education, even if they do not fare so well in the second language.

 

Same old story, only variance is in the outrageous claims made, so let’s leap right to demolishing those.

It does not raise the motivation level of a child when mother tongue is seen as the subject which leads to an overall lower T-score, which means one is unable to pursue secondary studies in a better school.

So it does raise the motivation level of a child when English is seen as the subject which leads to an overall lower T-score? It does raise the motivation level of a child when Mathematics is seen as the subject which leads to an overall lower T-score? It does raise the motivation level of a child when Science is seen as the subject which leads to an overall lower T-score? Perchance a child is encouraged when Quantum Mechanics is seen as the subject which leads to an overall lower T-score? Mayhaps a child is not discouraged when Venusian Physiognomy is viewed as the subject that results in an overall lower T-score? A child might well take heart when it is Satanic Ideology that causes him to have an overall lower T-score, and not mother tongue?

Come on now, someone’s bad at every fucking subject. Just that the parents of those who are bad at something else other than mother tongue seem considerably more level-headed and less self-centred.

The education system could be more flexible with some secondary schools placing less emphasis on mother tongue, while accepting and nurturing students with good grades in other subjects. It would help if elite schools allocated places to students who fare well in subjects other than mother tongue.

Hmm you seem to have made a few mistakes there… let me… just correct them for you… done.

The education system could be altered to unfairly favour my offspring, with some secondary schools placing less emphasis on mother tongue, while accepting and nurturing my son because he is Einstein-reincarnate due to having good grades in other subjects. It would help if elite schools allocated places to my son because he is smart and has a Supreme Creator-granted right to be there.

Yeah, I think that gives a much better idea of what you are actually saying.

Students deserve equal opportunities to a good education, even if they do not fare so well in the second language.

I… wow. I am not able to make fun of this because the breathtaking hypocrisy has completely washed away my humour. Our writer spends an entire letter advocating a form of gross inequality, and concludes by attempting to claim the moral high ground with references to equality? That’s a new low, even for ST Forum bad letter writers.

Suffice to say that students do deserve equal opportunities to a good education, and everything our writer is advocating is going to ensure the diametrical opposite of that.

It’s raining broken records by now, but I have to say this again: there is no reason to treat Mandarin differently from any other subject. If anything, all these awful letters all but prove it, because none has managed to provide a single compelling reason why we ought to have a massive double standard within our education system.

Is this at least the end of the beginning?

I have to ask: what exactly is it about the bilingual policy that makes Singaporeans completely lose their basic powers of reasoning? From now on every bad letter about it that comes in, I’m going to imagine the writer typing it with bloodshot eyes while foaming at the mouth.

 

Changes came 20 years too late for her (28 November 2009)

I REFER to yesterday’s report, ”We migrated to spare our kid further misery with Chinese”, on Mrs Pauline Tan’s story of her son’s struggle with Chinese. I fully understand how her son felt as I went through a similar experience in primary school.

I was probably the worst Chinese student in my class, judging from the number of times the Chinese teacher picked on me. Unfortunately, she was my teacher three years running. Often, I was made to stand outside the class with the textbook on my head because I was just ‘wasting’ her time and there was ‘no hope’ for me. She made it clear she could not understand why I was so bad and I should be ashamed of myself since I was Chinese.

One incident I remember clearly was when I came down with chicken pox and had to skip classes for two weeks. When I returned, the teacher said I was already so bad in Chinese, why in the world did I have to get chicken pox and miss even more lessons?

And she made me stand outside the classroom.

After every ting xie (spelling test), she would fling the exercise book at me and say: ‘As usual, you didn’t do well.’ I discovered that the only way to stop the humiliation was to have a pre-written set of words hidden in my pencilcase and copy it.

Unlike Mrs Tan’s sons, I did not have the option to migrate. There are some who may find it hard to fathom what she did, but they did not have their books thrown at them simply because they could not make it in Chinese.

I grew up hating Chinese, refusing to make any effort since I was told at a young age it was no use. I am now in my late 20s, doing well in my chosen profession and, like Mrs Tan’s son, I refuse to visit my former primary school.

The policy changes came 20 years too late for me.

Let’s play a little game. Take every instance of the word “Chinese”, where it is referring to the academic subject, in this letter and replace it with another subject of your choice. Following that, omit the last sentence, and to make it easier, the paragraph mentioning ting xie and tell me if the essential meaning of this letter is still unchanged.

It is, isn’t it?

So is the bilingual policy, or the academic subject, responsible for our writer’s woes?

No. It’s her teacher.

Why, then, is this appearing in the forum pages as an attack on the bilingual policy, and why was it even written as an attack on the bilingual policy? Basic powers of reasoning could have prevented either occurrence. I assume that neither the writer nor the august personages at the Straits Times lack such powers, as one is currently “doing well in [her] chosen profession” while the other(s) are responsible for our exceedingly competent national broadsheet.

Therefore I must ask again – does a red mist of madness descend every time people seek to critique the bilingual policy? Why is it so difficult to even be relevant and sensible about it, when people can be relevant and sensible so often in their daily lives?

I sympathise with the writer because she truly had a horrible teacher if even half of what she described actually happened, but that is the teacher’s fault. I don’t think the bilingual policy magically anthropomorphized itself and administered abuse to her. She had a really bad teacher, 20 years ago, and she still can’t get over it. Personally I would not wish to ever cross paths with this person; I might mispell her name or something and find an angry forum letter castigating me about it in 2037, but that’s neither here nor there.

Anyway this all means that her letter is utterly pointless and faintly smug, as she subtly asserts that she is doing well despite growing up hating Mandarin and presumably knowing almost no Mandarin now. Well and good, but I repeat: being successful is one thing, gloating about it just means you lack class.

I am teaching valuable lessons to my children, part 3

Here we are with yet another letter. It seems like bilingualism is the real bumper crop!

 

Make mother tongue less critical in PSLE (26 November, 2009)

THERE is a need to prevent Chinese language scores from forming such a critical component of the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) aggregate scores quickly, as early as the next PSLE.

I value the importance of Chinese language, especially with the re-emergence of China as a major global player, but I do not think China will replace the United States as the world’s most important economy any time soon. Neither will Chinese replace English as the most important language.

I do value the cultural importance of the Chinese language. But I would like to think that my children and I are Singaporeans first and Chinese second; and that English is the medium of education and business in Singapore, as in many other important parts of the world.

My son will sit for his PSLE next year. He may score three As, as he did in Primary 5 this year, but may be dragged down by Chinese if he repeats this year’s C. He may even fail and if either happens, his choice of secondary school and stream will be wrongfully compromised.

Wrongfully, because the poor mark he may score in Chinese has no bearing on whether he has the aptitude to become a surgeon or accountant or any other key professional. Human capital, our most vital resource, should not be stunted this way.

This letter is hilarious for being one of the worst attempts to dress up a self-centred motive ever. In fact our writer just all but gives up towards the end. They usually at least try (pathetically, but still) to maintain some pretence throughout.

He probably should not have bothered at all, though, because the very first paragraph destroys any hope that this won’t be about our writer’s offspring. The line that change should occur by the next PSLE makes it all incredibly obvious to anybody with a pair of brain cells to rub together, mainly because there is no conceivable reason why this change should go in so soon and the letter does not even attempt to provide one.

After that he tries harder. It is futile, but he gives it a shot. Points for effort. Unfortunately he walks right into a false dichotomy – because English and Mandarin are not the only subjects being offered at PSLE level. I suppose he is trying to justify why Mandarin should be de-emphasized while English should not, but he fails to consider the other subjects at all. Why shouldn’t they be de-emphasized?

Well… because his son can score As in them! I was open-mouthed in shock at this revelation. I was more stunned than I would have been had the radiator in my room grown a set of slimy green tentacles, torn itself off the wall, and greeted me in a posh British accent. Complete astonishment there, I assure you.

So here we are again – the third parent to be teaching his child valuable lessons in as many days. What do we do when we encounter difficulties in life? Do we muster our will and strength to face and overcome these difficulties? No, that’s for losers. Real men, and women, always try their best to circumvent their problems. To shift the goalposts to one’s advantage! Well, at any rate, we can see how successful Moral Education has been the past few decades. Or maybe it’s the parents that need the lessons, instead.

So, to spell out once more my argument – there is no reason to treat Mandarin, or any other mother tongue, differently from any other subject. I learnt mathematics because I had to, and I fucking sweated blood at it for years. I did not write to MOE to call for mathematics to be de-emphasized, and neither did my parents when I was in Primary 5. Maths results at primary school level have no bearing on a person’s aptitude for many key professional roles, either. Yet I recognize that, by de-emphasizing it, we would be stunting lots of human capital, because there exist many students out there who depend on their maths results to do well in examinations. Many students rely on mother tongue to do well too, and de-emphasizing it would be grossly unfair to them.

So our writer here is not in fact afraid of stunting human capital in general. He is merely afraid of stunting the human capital of his own offspring. I have an excellent suggestion for him to avoid this fate: teach your child the value of hard work and make sure he works hard. Please – be a better parent for your future and for mine.

Here we go again.

It seems that I missed an even better letter, from the day before, on the current discussion about bilingualism.

 

Don’t let language drag down the best (23 November 2009)

I AM continually impressed by the ability of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to reflect on his policy shortcomings and change for the better (‘MM Lee wants learning of Chinese to be fun’, last Wednesday).

I agree that learning a language is an aptitude. Unlike science-based subjects, the study of language cannot be shoved down one’s throat.

I have a daughter who has just completed primary school. The top award in her class went to a pupil who got an exemption from studying Chinese. She was not the best in class in any of the three subjects, but because of her exemption, her aggregate was the best.

About two years ago, when we found our daughter was a borderline pupil in Chinese, my wife and I were concerned that a poor score in the language would pull her aggregate results down for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). We were told we could take her to a child psychologist and get a note stating her inaptitude in the language so she could be exempted, come PSLE time.

We did not take the option, but I know of several parents who did.

I fully support the new approach of MM Lee that the learning of Chinese should be predicated on piquing the interest of the learner.

While it cannot and should not be an elective subject, future PSLE scores should de-emphasise language and concentrate on other assessment criteria.

I have known so many bright students who had to leave Singapore to further their education because of their lack of proficiency in Chinese.

I am glad the issue is being addressed now. Late as it may be, it is better late than never.

Unlike our previous writer, the person who sent in this letter has quite apparently not left our shores and is not gloating from a far-off, Mandarin-free place. That doesn’t make his letter any worse than the last. It just reeks in a different way.

At least our man gets right to the point. Second paragraph:

I agree that learning a language is an aptitude. Unlike science-based subjects, the study of language cannot be shoved down one’s throat.

That is completely ridiculous in more than one way. Learning languages does indeed depend partly upon aptitude, but so does virtually anything else – including science-based subjects. Some people are talented at maths, or physics. You’re telling me Einstein was an idiot and had physics shoved down his throat? Perchance Niels Bohr had absolutely no aptitude for science and got his place in history by slaving at an unheated desk in secondary school? Obviously they had latent talent at the subjects they later became famous for. To flip the analogy, languages similarly require both aptitude and hard work. It is commonly known that talent, in any area, does not bring lasting and genuine success if it is not supplemented by hard work and careful coaching. It is the same for languages. No one picks up a language and becomes fluent in it merely through talent.

Secondly, I find it highly disturbing that our writer is implying that science-based subjects should be shoved down students’ throats. There is a considerable double standard here: somehow, Mandarin ought not to be shoved down the throats of those not good at it, but science-based subjects can and should be. This is predicated on the above patently ridiculous assumption that hard work is useless for languages because language ability is based only on aptitude.

Hot on the heels of this incredible assertion is what I always look for in any bad letter – the true motive. And the true motive here is nothing new. Our writer’s daughter is poor at Chinese, and instead of working hard the goalposts ought to be shifted to make sure she does well instead!

I do wonder what values parents like these inculcate into their children, upon which the future of our country depends. The previous letter writer gave in to her 9-year-old son when he said there was no way out of his misery. Lesson: Whine hard enough and you can run away from all your problems. Facing and overcoming adversity? That’s for losers. Our present writer’s lesson to her child is not far different: instead of working hard to improve yourself, endeavour to shift the goalposts so that you can do well without having to put in much effort. Again, facing and overcoming adversity is for losers.

So one parent is teaching her child to always seek to run away from his problems, while another is teaching his child to always seek ways to circumvent them. Neither is teaching their children that there are some things in life one simply cannot run away from or resolve through self-piteous bleating, and that some problems must be faced and defeated through one’s own will and effort. That is excellent parenting, for sure.

Our writer then hammers home his point by suggesting, astonishingly, that language ought not to count in PSLE scores. He blows away his own weak disclaimer because that would effectively make all languages elective subjects. Not to mention that this would be unbelievably unfair to those talented in languages but weak in maths or science, and turn our education system into one incredibly skewed towards the maths and the sciences, unless of course humanities subjects are introduced into primary school. It is one of the most nakedly avaricious and self-serving statements I have ever read, and I can assure you I have read very many of those.

Finally, our writer appeals to the empirical evidence, and that is the undeniable fact that the bilingual policy has forced many otherwise bright students to leave Singapore. Yet as a sensible letter today points out, what about those poor in English? They have nowhere to turn. Many have been denied entry to junior college or polytechnic only because their English is not up to scratch. Many are good at their mother tongues, including Chinese, but this helps little because English remains the most vital language in our education system. I can extend the analogy, and argue that being poor in mathematics or the sciences has denied many otherwise bright students opportunities as well. For instance, to get into medical school in Singapore one needs to have done well in his or her science subjects. That leaves those with ambitions to be doctors but who are not able to attain the required standard in their sciences, out in the cold.

So, why the double standard? The only justification offered is a patently outrageous one – that languages cannot be improved through hard work but other subjects, especially the maths and sciences, can. Mandarin, I repeat, is like any other subject and should be treated thus. If we want to make learning it a choice for students, we should make learning every single subject a choice as well. Otherwise, stop trying to clothe blatantly self-serving suggestions in the robes of fairness and empathy.

Look at how smart my children are! Look!

Price of Bilingualism (24th November, 2009)

I REFER to the current discussion arising from the report on Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s acknowledgement that his policy on bilingualism started on the wrong footing (‘MM Lee wants learning of Chinese to be fun’ last Wednesday).

I am comforted that finally someone at this high level of government has come to see my point of view, which I have voiced for a long time.

I wrote to The Straits Times about 20 years ago when my son was nine, appealing for official help and describing his traumatic experience: he suffered in school because of his poor Chinese, he was picked on by the Chinese teacher, he lost his self-esteem and hated school.

I remember the criticism heaped on me from several quarters, although a few columnists offered a more sympathetic and even-handed view of my son’s dilemma.

My son believed there was no way out of his misery and that was when I told him we could emigrate.

We left Singapore and settled in another country, Australia. Here, my son was immediately spotted by his teacher to be talented. His English was flawless. He could speed-read with 100 per cent comprehension and retention.

Today, his skill enables him to do well at work, as he can read a complex 100-page document in a few minutes, with no need to scroll back to refresh his memory.

My second son also did well in Australia. When his IQ was tested, he scored 176. At age nine, when he was in Year 5 (Primary 4), a government-funded test revealed that his mental capacity was that of Year 9 (Secondary 2), so he was fast-tracked in a talent school.

By contrast, in 1989, when I asked Singapore’s Ministry of Education to enrol my second son when he was five, I was turned down because the system did not allow exceptions.

I have pondered in the past few days whether we would have stayed in Singapore if the bilingual policy in the early 1990s had been less harsh. My answer would probably be yes.

There was no compelling reason for us to leave other than my older son’s predicament. But there is no point in rewinding the clock. The new country has nurtured my sons well, and I am grateful.

I am pleased MM Lee has signalled that the bilingual policy will be toned down to suit different abilities.

 

Bilingualism is one of those eternal issues that will never go away, mainly because the very policy itself will always be around. It is a cornerstone of Singapore’s education policy. It can be changed around, as it indeed has in recent years, but it will always exist in some form.

It is also a popular issue for one very simple reason: an incredible number of students in Singapore can do well in everything except Chinese. Understandably, this baffles, demoralizes and enrages a very good percentage and their parents. Our writer today is manifestly one of those parents who went through hell and back. I empathize, but that does not give her the right to take such a high-handed, gloating tone. She could have saved herself a lot of effort and just put down that excellent punchline – “Screw you, I’m in the West now.” Culturally speaking, of course, because Australia is to the south-east of Singapore.

Let me just lay out my views of bilingualism first: I believe it is necessary. Without getting into the whole mess of culture and knowing our roots, Mandarin is incredibly important in the world of today. It is the world’s most widely-spoken language, and although the Chinese over in the PRC are increasingly learning English, it remains vital as a tool of communication should you wish to work or invest in that country. There are definitely differences between our local variant and the Chinese one, but it would still be much easier for one to pick up the nuances with a working knowledge of the language to begin with. I must qualify that this is merely for Mandarin; I am not certain of the value of having a bilingual policy for Tamil, for instance, because I am not well-informed enough about the global importance of Tamil. But the global importance of Mandarin is very real.

So we need to have bilingualism. The problem here is that Mandarin is a very different language from English. Most basically, English has an alphabet, while Mandarin does not. Thus, Mandarin requires a lot more hard work and memorization, because there is a huge number of different characters and you can’t exactly “spell” them out like you can English words using phonics. This is the root of the reason as to why many people cannot do well in both English and Mandarin – because they are very different creatures. Mandarin simply requires a lot more hard work, and this hard work is what a lot of people aren’t willing to put in because they can’t see the point of learning Mandarin.

I mean, there are plenty other subjects that require memorization. We need to know scientific laws by heart, and certain mathematical formulae. There are formula sheets, but students are allowed to have Chinese dictionaries during examinations, as well. I see little difference here.

To be fair, of course, every subject except Mandarin is taught and learnt in English. Thus it becomes something like a foreign language. But – and I’m only half-joking – maths seemed like a foreign language to me a lot of the time, too. My point is that the people who don’t do well at Mandarin, tend not to have worked as hard at it as the language required. Maybe even on a subconscious level; and the reason they didn’t work as hard at Mandarin was because they fail to appreciate the importance of being at least conversant in it.

All that said, I support the move towards trying to establish oral skills in Mandarin. It is definitely a more sensible policy than testing students on seemingly arbitrary words out of the infamous shou che. But we need to have bilingualism, in Mandarin at least, and it is necessary to make students and parents both realize why it is important and why they ought to work hard at the language. I knew the importance of basic mathematics and I worked hard at it. But I guess if you are rich enough, you can escape all your problems.

That was a long preamble. Whew. Well, on to the letter.

It begins fairly sensibly, actually. Teachers are known to pick on students who are not good at their subjects, and students can certainly be demoralized by not doing well in something. Her actions were those of a concerned parent. That’s alright.

Then, at nine years of age her son tells her there is no way out of the misery. And she believes him, and they pack up and leave.

I find that quite startling, to say the least. One is commonly in Primary 3 at the age of nine. After having been in primary school for a mere 3 years, her son finds himself already in an inextricable predicament. He is a child, though. She is a parent and ought to know better. Absolutely nothing is set in stone at that age. The child is still growing and he can certainly still learn. Ultimately, both parent and child simply gave up far too easily. By overreacting, she certainly set an excellent precedent there. Though it is not mentioned, and there is not enough evidence for me to pass judgement, I have to wonder whether her child was, or is, a spoiled brat whose every whim gets satisfied.

After that we get a fair bit of thinly-veiled bragging about how smart her sons are. I suspect this is the real reason the letter was written. Because what, exactly, does it have to do with the bilingual policy? If she were criticising the education system in Singapore, at that time, as a whole, it might serve some purpose. Given what – as she has herself stated – she is writing in about… no, it has no discernible purpose other than to feed her own ego. What, for instance, does it matter that her son can speed-read with “100 percent comprehension and retention”?

She then returns from Cloud Nine to speak of the bilingual system once more. Now she terms it harsh. Yet she does not tell us how it was harsh. Yes, her son suffered in school due to it, lost self-esteem, etc. How is that different from being poor in any other subject? I lost plenty of self-esteem in doing badly at mathematics all throughout my school years. I was picked on by teachers, too. So how and why is the bilingual policy particularly harsh?

She then ends by emphasizing that her sons are still doing well. Good for her, but it’s rather obvious gloating. As I earlier said, if you are rich enough, you can run away from all your problems. Bragging and gloating after you do? What a lack of class.

A letter of my own.

This section is dedicated to the letters I myself have sent in to the Straits Times forum. There are only two in recent memory, and I can only find one at the moment, so here it is.

You might remember Singapore’s glorious victory in winning the rights to host a certain inaugural minor sporting event. Much was made of that, and my brother and I reacted to some of the sickeningly saccharine tributes appearing in the forum pages by penning the below letter. I sent it in, and in case you are wondering, I did sign off with my real, full, name in doing so.

It was a test as to whether, as it seemed at that time, our august national broadsheet would publish any piece of crap coming its way, so long as it contained a singular scrap of positivity regarding our great national triumph. We decided not to take the route of publicly declaring our support for child molesters while praising the sublime achievement, but rather to send in a letter so incredibly over-the-top that its publication would confirm the complete lack of credibility of any “editor” of the forum page.

To our national newspaper’s eternal credit, this one never saw the light of day in print.

 

I refer to the letter “One small step for the Games, one giant feat for Singapore” by Mr Martin Tan (ST Forum, Feb 23).

Like Mr Tan, I am a patriotic, red-blooded Singaporean who has never shied away from celebrating the wondrous achievements of our young and rising nation. I too awaited the results of the Youth Olympic Games bid with the utmost eagerness and anticipation.

When the appointed hour came, I sat myself down before my television set, dressed appropriately in the national colours, with the NDP ’07 cap upon my head and minature Singapore flags in both hands. I was determined that, whether Singapore won or lost the bid, I would continue to uphold national pride and dignity, as should be required of any citizen of this great and glorious nation-state.

As the seconds ticked down, the tension became unbearable. My mouth went dry and my heart could not stop thumping. Nervous sweat dripped from my face. It had all come right down to this very moment, and nothing else mattered to me now but victory.

“Singapore.”

It took a couple of seconds for the word to register. When it finally sank in, tears welled up within my eyes; tears of pride and joy. We had done it. We had done it as a nation united, a country 4 million strong but with one unbreakable will. Victory was finally ours, after months of ceaseless struggle and toil. I got to my feet, the tears coursing down my cheeks, and despite the lack of any accompaniment began to sing our much loved community song “Stand Up for Singapore”. I sang loudly and proudly, unabashed in my patriotic joy, right hand rigidly raised in salute to those whose unabridged sacrifices had made this greatest of feats possible.

I had never felt so proud to be Singaporean. Our tiny island, for so many years an insignificant pimple upon the Earth’s surface, had done the unthinkable, the historic, the monumental, the truly incredible. We had achieved what no other country, no matter the greatness of their history or the wealth of their people, had ever achieved. We had won hosting rights to the inaugural Youth Olympic Games. It was a stunning triumph which would long endure in global consciousness.

I sang on, further raising my voice in love and respect for this truly amazing country I am so fortunate to be able to call home. Four million people with one collective soul – the future is ours for the taking.

One People, One Nation, One Singapore.

A bumper crop.

I’ve decided to grant my tremendous rage against poor ST forum letters a site of its own. And there is no better way to begin than with a bumper crop of the stuff – we have two today!

 

No good can come out of ghostly Halloween (2nd November, 2009)

I FIND it abhorrent that the retail industry blindly apes the Western practices of Halloween as a cute and harmless activity for children.

Even the Singapore Zoo has used the Halloween theme in its Night Safari programme. Toy shops and roadshows offer Halloween costumes and activities for shoppers. Many uncreative advertisements show gothic and gory pictures of zombies, vampires and demons. Witches, evil and the occult are promoted openly.

There is nothing beautiful and beneficial in surrounding ourselves with a ghostly atmosphere. In fact, to the spiritually informed, evil is a real force not to be trifled with.

It is disgusting to watch children paint themselves insane with blood and sores mimicking the dead. Our young must be taught to sanctify life, not to glorify death.

I urge schools and the authorities to take a firm stand against the foul and vile practices of Halloween.

Personally I’ve never paid much attention to Halloween, aside from the special Simpsons episodes, some of which are unarguably the greatest things ever to appear on a small screen. My apathy stands in stark contrast to this writer’s alarm at the “foul and vile” practices of an annual day where children and adults that enjoy behaving like children have an excuse to wear silly things while painting the town red. Not that many adults don’t already do that normally, but that isn’t the point here.

So – a single day out of the year where people can dress like supernatural creatures, eat lots of sweet things (children), get heavily drunk (adults, I should hope) and wake up the next day vowing not to ever do it again. What’s the harm?

The harm lies in the fact that “evil is a real force not to be trifled with.”

Ooh.

So, everyone having fun on this day is actually playing with an unnamed evil that presumably does not sleep and cannot be reasoned with, because they usually tend to be that way. No wonder this shit is serious.

It then might be pertinent to question, what will happen to these daring souls? Sadly, our letter-writer/psychic does not inform us. Instead he chooses to go on a wholly unrelated tangent about how it personally offends him to see children having fun. And that, as with so many letters over the years, is the real point of the letter – it personally offends me, so nobody should be allowed to do it. Attempts are usually made to cloak this self-serving motive via reference to some greater public good, and some attempts are better than others. This one here, with a vague reference to an unknown, unnamed evil, and a feeble admonition regarding the sanctity of life, falls into the category of “barely trying”. At least tell us what kind of evil we are facing, or the consequences of taking this evil lightly, or perhaps explain why exactly Halloween in its present form is “foul and vile”. It would be a loony letter, but at least it wouldn’t be so self-centred.

But no, all the writer ultimately has is – “I don’t like looking at it, so it should be banned to protect my virgin eyes”. All too selfish, all too familiar.

 

Don’t say NS at the drop of a hat (2nd November, 2009)

ONE thing that always amazes me is how, at the drop of a hat, the topic of national service (NS) is brought up by those who want to justify that they ‘deserve’ more.

Did the earliest inhabitants of Singapore, who came from different lands but settled here to build this great country, have to do NS?

Of course not, because the circumstances were different.

Does that make their contributions any less significant? By that same logic, doing NS is not the only way one can contribute to the country.

The policies of the Government are well thought out and will continue to attract foreigners to this beautiful country.

 

I have stated before that while many letters are silly, few actually are offensive. This is one of the few, and it offends me on a personal level. It is also, of course, heavily flawed.

Firstly, our writer makes a very vague reference to some people who always bring up NS to “justify that they deserve more”. Our writer has apparently never heard of weasel words. Who are these people? Where are they doing all this bringing-up-of-NS? Perhaps a concrete reference to an occurrence of this phenomenon which you are railing about could aid readers in understanding your point?

Our writer then manages the incredible task of cramming a huge reasoning failure into so short a letter. He is right to say that doing National Service is not the only way to contribute to the country – however, his implication that NS should not be used to justify increased rewards by those who went through it fails due to one simple fact: it is not the case that male Singaporeans serve two years in the army and then spend the rest of their lives on a couch being waited upon by nubile beauties and well-paid foreign talent. We actually have to work, thus contributing to the social and economic well-being of the country, and while working continue to contribute to the defence of this country as part of the armed reserves. So male Singaporeans not only sacrifice two years to serve the country full-time, but have to continue to serve the country part-time for the next decade, decade-and-a-half, two decades or whatever, depending on vocation, even as we toil at our day jobs for the good of the nation.

It is offensive that our writer completely overlooks this and chooses to dismiss the sacrifices of so many Singaporeans working to protect him and his family, if he has one. The fact is that male Singaporeans contribute to the country in more ways than one, and I daresay make more sacrifices for it than any other group in society, that is why we deserve extra reward. That is not to say that we actually do get much extra reward, unfortunately. But that is another matter.

So here we are, up and running. More to come if the ST throws me bones!