My son is also on P5, but from a different school. I’ll check out his English homework. It becomes serious. I wonder why teachers simply leave some many errors uncorrected. Because they are only minor ones?

Choices has consequenses
Understanding
Reputation
Hard working
Intelligence
This are some of my values that are helping me in someways.I think she has reached it but i have not.Like Intelligence i have not conquered it as i am not scoring like 4/5 of the total upon 400 score i only scored 243/400 i may be in a sep.school which is difficult but then i also must be good in standard.My school is Nan Hua Primary School.It also is not the best of all school.I am Primary 5 too not yet Primary 6,it sure willbe hard next year this like me writing a composition.Hehe!

You asked ..”is it possible to change anything?” and you answered yourself…” Personally I am pessimistic”. The academic world is, in my detached judgement, mechanistically moron and the institutions are archaic and dynamically conservative. This is just not PRC but is nearly everywhere including academics themselves who resist change to impossibility.

laoma, you worked in the academic sector and dealing with PHD mostly with no commercial practical experience. They build castles out of thin air in academic publishing much of which is arty-farty fairy tale. How can they change or allow change which may displace their airy-farty fiction publishing and calss room utterances to economic irrelevance outside the ivory towers ( I called that learning mausoleums). The finance meltdown completely discredited the genius concoction of “high priest” finance theories, how else could those finance professors continue to teach fairy-tale high finance concepts to business students and finance postgraduate classes? It is not just Wall Street and London where lots of MBA corpses were littered wioth blood splattered all over the streets to public contempt.

The comedy in Singapore, as I am told, is even a grade higher. Institutions of higher learning here even recruiting teaching academics on higher qualification which ALSO DEMANDED RECORD OF THEIR SECONDARY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE as evaluating criteria. Even the dumbest fool living south of the North Pole knows that knowledge is a living expanding circle. What have you learnt or not learnt of achievement in secondary school of playful age relevant to academic achievement and teaching ability of a prospective lecturer in class room context?? I can’t comprehend this except as a concessionary thought to MORONIC WORSHHIP AND PRACTICE OF ARTISTRY OF DEADWOOD CONSERVATISM.

It is another magic whip to eliminate candidates who might have a good mixed of both academic and practical experience on grounds that their secondary school achievement is inadequate to reflect some kind of intellectual incapacity – NOTING THAT THOSE POSITION ACTUALLY REQUIRED A PHD? Or perhaps, it is the same conservatism of no change of standardised application forms used 50 years ago and now re-constructed in the same web mode – regardless of archaic irrelevance. They might as well require prospective academic applicants to show they actually “passed” their kindergarten leaving examination as proof of scholastic ability!!!!

Universities should be autonomous and surviving on competition. If they can’t perform, let them go just like commercial enterprises but these are sacred cows in Singapore’s context where “atmosphere” limits the stratopheric experimentation, exploration and rigorous of question learning.
Institutions of higher learning should NOT have out of bound markers of rigorous intellectual exploration – be it buiness, politic, law and or Government. They are the seeds of the nation’s future. If those places are not fertile or rendered infertile by political oppression, what is there hope for the future of our generations to come? Foreigners can’t meddle on domestic issues ( where unknown sensitivities cross-over trampled upon brings dire political consequences) – what future there is for this country?

Until the domination power coalition discard rigid imperatives of self-interests and political hegemony, no great foreign talents of sufficient numbers will stay in this stifling oppressive intellectual and academic climate to fertilise success for themselves and for this country. It condemns this country to mediocre achievements – no matter how many gold medals the likes of Qiu Biqings wins regularly in international competition. The good ones will leave – inevitably.

Singaporeans have to decide its future and their childrens’ future. They have to decide between

- retention of the status quo of autocratic dominant power dominant coalition of feudal one-party rule of predictable self-destruction and extinction of this nation. A lot of policies are NOT functioning now, not just education.

or

choose their children’s future and embrace the future with bravery and creative imagination. The world is changing – those remain inactive to adaptation will perish and those who redesign their own future will have time and opportunity to find niche and success in this evolving world.

I want to see big changes away from the status quo – personal preference. The present situation is hopeless!!

All that said, especially by you, the crucial question now is how change can be made. Or a more plausible question: is it possible to change anything? Persoanlly I am rather pessimistic. I used to work in academics and many of my superiors got their PhD in western countries. But I saw hardly anyone having learnt the basic behavior when dealing with people under them: respect. So it is too much required to change the mindset of people, not only of teachers.

Keep cool. Regards.

The case of Qiu Biqing is a classic example of our immigration policy done RIGHT. ///

No way. On the contrary, Qiu Biqing is the perfect example of our immigration policy done WRONG. You have a 13 year-old competing with 12 year old. Why are we short-changing our own children. How about getting our top Sec 1 students (also 13 year old) to take the same PSLE and see who comes out top.

And we gave our prestigious President Scholarship to another China “FT” who was 2 years older than her cohort.

How to win by pitching our middleweight boxer against heavyweight boxer?

Thank you for your rejoin of this conversation. I am robust on ANY blog – be it ANYWHERE ON DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. No one spoke of my English, but some says am aggressive.

But, perhaps, with a little of sober modesty now, maybe you assumed too high of me.

How do you know if I passed my leaving kindergarten examination?

Your two primary kids are maybe brighter and more informed than me!!

As for Qiu Biqing, she is a real talent and a driver of success. I conceded that absolutely BUT I DISLIKE HOW THAT ACHIEVEMENT WAS SUBTLY AND CYNICALLY POLITICISED IT as if locals are innately incompetent of survival possibility and that includes your two kids when reality is that Qiu Biqing is OLDER. For the same age, and nearly competitive ability, your kid or another local born might have won the honour which Qiu Biqing successfully secured for herself. THE MEDIA BEAT UP WAS WAY OVERBLOWN. A subtle, sublimal message is sent to our citizenry that foreign talent ( Qiu Biqing is a shining BUT OUTLIER EXAMPLE) IS WHAT WE SINGAPORE NEEDS – a put down of local as “no talent” and therefore immigration of unlimited quantity is what Singaporeans MUST ACCEPT WITHOUT QUESTIONING.

It is BULLSHIT. You come from PRC. If you look at the quality of ZYY as a measurement yardstick of quality check, I say next to nothing is the quality in Singapore migration intake. THAT IS NOT INSULTING OF YOU AT ALL. I lived for years in China, there are outstanding genius among its young. I have a lot of respect – even grudgingly of them but we cannot just absorb just about any migrant of unlimited quantity and quality.

As for English expression, I know many youths in China write beautiful English – perfect grammer and DEFINITELY BETTER THAN ME even though they cannot speak fluently. I deals with foreigners a lot in my life experiences including those from PRC. Unlike you writing English in a Singapore blog like TR, my spoken Mandarin in PRC would make your PRC kid giggling, maybe even puke if wrong word was spoken. But they still understand by and large.

As for teaching of Mandarin with English, I basically thinks it is a little absurb. I see PRC speak English from Chinese translation of words – I understand but my foreigner friends from Western culture often befuddled. Likewise, I speak Mandarin from English translation, your PRC kids laughing. Good example of hot food, I say “hern sao” ( very fiery) , the correct expression is ” hern thang” (burning sensation). When you teach Chinese using English, you might get this outcome. And Singaporeans learning Mandarin this way wants to do business in China in their adult life?? A bit funny, don’t you think??

Singapore relied on rote learning, maximising acquisition of knowledge but NOT creative and innovative thinking and development. I noticed that inventions came from West, very little from PRC, or Singapore of earth-shattering proportions. We got very little NOBEL prize for achievement even though the maths and science scores at right at the top globally. The root is wrong learning culture. In the west, kids spent the first 6 years of primary school heavily “play” oriented. Parents in eastern cultures frown on these “time wasting” and the education Ministry here is no exception. The reality is that in “playing” kid experiment with all sorts of idea association, thinking outside the box, re-inventing solution to obstacles – THEY LEARN A LOT OF INNOVATIVE SKILLS SUBSCONSCIOUSLY which they transported these skills into adult life of commerce, industry, science and personal development.

In Singapore, we categorise “smart” and “stupid” kids before they are mature to know right is differentiate from wrong and even aware that shapes are NOT defined etc. A lot of good kids got stereotyped as failures and rejects – the insanity of pressure of no relevance to their future life. AND MY ANGUISH IS THAT SINGAPOREAN PARENTS NOT HAVING WORKED, LIVED ABROAD OR DONE BUSINESS ABROAD HARDLY KNOWS THAT EDUCATION HERE IS BASICALLY FLAWED.

AND THIS GOVERNMENT IS INTOLERANT OF CRITICISM OF ANY SMALLEST SLIGHT, how can we progress comepting in a world of globalisation.

I am angry BUT A LONE VOICE HERE, laoma.

I hope you understand why I choose to blog aggressively and robustly. I want a better Singapore in the future for future Singaporean generations including new citizens like you and your family who share our common destiny.

I also wish Qiubiging success and achievement in her life – be it in Singapore or anywhere else.

THIS IS HER LIFE AND SHE HAS RIGHT TO DECIDE WHERE AND HOW HER FUTURE SHOULD BE.

I speak with objectivity of reality even if robustly not to your taste perhaps.

Look at the “quality” of traffic flow. The brightest of Singaporeans and all foreigners, for that matter, flows from whatever sources, to Silicon Valley, Wall Street, London, Canada or Australia, and the “chicken shits” (with exceptions of course) flow the other way round or from other sources into Singapore.

Look at Zhang Yuan Yuan, she got her PR with only a diploma qualification studying here in a private school for a few years. Not any insignificant experience to add value to this country. This is toilet paper grade migration policy quality control here.

SHE IS SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THIS PLACE ROT, not rock as some strange politicians would want you and me to believe.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng said in Parliament on 23 November said that

…”Most did not intend to stay long term, but “a good many” are well-qualified, skilled personnel who decided to stay longer and applied for PR….”

http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20091123-181787.html

If most PR won’t stay and take up citizenship DESPITE THE BAITS OF BORDERING ON BRIBE-TAINTED INDUCEMENTS GIVEN TO THEM, it is telling of ABSOLUTE TERMS, what they think TRULY this red dot offering them of a great future – without the need to utter one disaparaging word of political risks to themselves.

The KEY word here of official ‘WISDOM’ disclosure is ‘MOST”, so, Zaq, are you betting your loose change from hawker centre food purchase, on Qui Biqing will stay and wasting her talent in this suffocating place of no possibility for full realisation of her potential?

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/news/story/0,4574,361495,00.html?

If it is paradise, most PRs would kiss Pappies ar$e to stay on. And for your informed reminder (maybe already known to you) it is often published in MSM that 80% of the Singaporeans studying abroad in US, UK, Canada, Australia WILL NOT COME BACK.

And we are not counting those who came back and changed their mind to migrate back to countries where they studied before, well accustomed to their culture, society and opportunities.

IF THE QUALITY OF ZYY KNOWS HER FUTURE IS MUCH BETTER IN CHINA, OR ELSEWHERE, I WON’T HOLD ANY BREATHE THAT WHAT REMAINS BEHIND IS CLOSER TO THE DEGENERATED GRADES THAT WOULD FILL UP MY RUBBISH BIN with due respect to exceptions of course.

The economics of migration here is PERVERSE, AND SINGAPOREANS ARE TAKING ALL THE CONSEQUENCES. MANY ARE VERY UNHAPPY, RIGHTLY AND JUSTIFIABLY SO.

But is Singaporeans need so much trash in their rubbish bins?

This election will be telling of message, I HOPE!!!!!!!!!

I think no other country as as obsessed as mine in increasing population from a communist country when for decades they have been combating our own communist and imprisoning them. Suddenly communist is good for us?

Hi there, I merely shared my point of view. Of course you are entitled to yours too. Whether or not my comment was intelligent, that’s not important, because your reply is far more interesting than mine.

There are many immigrants migrating into those countries you’ve mentioned too. I guess the only difference is those countries are not trying to increase the population size by the millions in the next 10 to 20 years. Which is why the heat can be felt so evidently in such a small island like Singapore.

The fact is, Singapore government (just like any other govts) wants to increase the population size for sustainence reason. Therefore new immigrants will arrive whether you like it or not. The smart Chinese girl only (and wont be the last) indicates the ‘quality’ of the immigrants residing in Singapore. Whether she will move on is still unknown.

Why would anyone wants to move on if they established their future and fortune in where they live? There must be a reason.

Do you want to move on?

Zaq