TR EMERITUS

American leaders, impressed by the economic success of Singapore and China, frequently sound envious when talking about those countries' educational systems. President Obama, for example, invoked Singapore in a March 2009 speech, saying that educators there "are spending less time teaching things that don't matter, and more time teaching things that do. They are preparing their students not only for high school or college, but for a career. We are not." New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof regularly praises China, writing (on the eve of the Beijing Olympics) that "today, it's the athletic surge that dazzles us, but China will leave a similar outsize footprint in the arts, in business, in science, in education" -- implying his strong approval of China's educational practices, even in an article in which he decries the Chinese government's ferocious opposition to political dissent. But Obama and Kristof and all the other U.S. proponents of Singapore and China's educational systems apparently aren't thinking very hard about the relationship of those policies to democratic debate and democratic autonomy. Indeed, they are glorifying that which does not deserve praise. What do educators in Singapore and China do? By their own internal accounts, they do a great deal of rote learning and "teaching to the test." Even if our sole goal was to produce students who would contribute maximally to national economic growth -- the primary, avowed goal of education in Singapore and China -- we should reject their strategies, just as they themselves have rejected them. In recent years, both nations have conducted major educational reforms, concluding that a successful economy requires nourishing analytical abilities, active problem-solving, and the imagination required for innovation. In other words, neither country has adopted a broader conception of education's goal, but both have realized that even that narrow goal of economic enrichment is not well served by a system focused on rote learning. In 2001, the Chinese Ministry of Education proposed a "New Curriculum" that is supposed to "[c]hange the overemphasis on … rote memorization and mechanical drill. Promote instead students' active participation, their desire to investigate, and eagerness … to analyze and solve problems." Singapore, similarly, reformed its education policy in 2003 and 2004, allegedly moving away from rote learning toward a more "child-centered" approach in which children are understood as "proactive agents." Rejecting "repetitious exercises and worksheets," the reformed curriculum conceives of teachers as "co-learners with their students, instead of providers of solutions." It emphasizes both analytical ability and "aesthetics and creative expression, environmental awareness … and self and social awareness." The language used in both of these reforms harks back to the ideas of the great progressive educators John Dewey and Rabindranath Tagore, both of whom visited China, and both of whom once had considerable influence throughout East Asia. Singapore and China are trying to move toward open-ended progressive education that cultivates student creativity -- just as we seem to be moving away, with the increasing emphasis on teaching to the test that has been the result of No Child Left Behind. Observers of current practices in both Singapore and China conclude that the reforms have not really been implemented. Teacher pay is still linked to test scores, and thus the incentive structure to effectuate real change is lacking. In general, it's a lot easier to move toward rote learning than to move away from it, since teaching of the sort Dewey and Tagore recommended requires resourcefulness and perception, and it is always easier to follow a formula. Moreover, the reforms are cabined by these authoritarian nations' fear of true critical freedom. In Singapore, nobody even attempts to use the new techniques when teaching about politics and contemporary problems. "Citizenship education" typically takes the form of analyzing a problem, proposing several possible solutions, and then demonstrating how the one chosen by government is the right one for Singapore. In universities, some instructors attempt a more genuinely open approach, but the government has a way of suing professors for libel if they criticize the government in class, and even a small number of high-profile cases chills debate. One professor of communications (who has since left Singapore) reported on a recent attempt to lead a discussion of the libel suits in her class: "I can feel the fear in the room. …You can cut it with a knife." Nor are foreign visitors immune: NYU's film school has been encouraged to set up a Singapore branch, but informed that films made in the program may not be shown outside the campus. China, needless to say, does not foster creative thinking or critical analysis when it comes to the political system. It is time to take off the rose-colored glasses. Singapore and China are terrible models of education for any nation that aspires to remain a pluralistic democracy. They have not succeeded on their own business-oriented terms, and they have energetically suppressed imagination and analysis when it comes to the future of the nation and the tough choices that lie before it. If we want to turn to Asia for models, there are better ones to be found: Korea's humanistic liberal arts tradition, and the vision of Tagore and like-minded Indian educators.   Martha C. Nussbaum Martha C. Nussbaum is professor of law and philosophy at the University of Chicago. She is the author, most recently, of From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and the Constitution.  Read More →

London-based Global Witness said that Cambodia's sand-dredging industry threatened endangered species, fish stocks and local livelihoods, despite the government's May 2009 ban on sand-dredging. "This situation highlights the continued failure of Cambodia's international donors to use their leverage to hold the small elite surrounding the Prime Minister to account," said George Boden, campaigner at Global Witness. "Cambodia's natural resource wealth should be lifting its population out of poverty." Koy Koung, the spokesman and undersecretary of state at Cambodia's Foreign Affairs Ministry, said he was unable to comment as the government had not seen the Global Witness report. The report said Singapore was the world's largest importer of sand in 2008 and has used sand imports to increase its landmass by 22 per cent since the 1960s. It said this development has wreaked havoc on the region's coastlines, with Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia having all announced bans on sand dredging for export due to environmental concerns. Global Witness said it had tracked boats being loaded with sand in Cambodia to their destinations in Singapore, a regional base for manufacturers and banks that is expanding its financial centre and leisure attractions onto reclaimed land. The Singapore government said sand imports for reclamation were done on a commercial basis by a government entity, with sand concession holders determining the source locations. "We are committed to the protection of the global environment, and we do not condone the illegal export or smuggling of sand, or any extraction of sand that is in breach of the source countries' laws and rules on environmental protection," Singapore's Ministry of national Development said. "The policing and enforcement of sand extraction licenses is ultimately the responsibility of the source country," it added. "Singapore says that the import of sand is a purely commercial activity but it also presents itself as a regional leader on environmental issues," said Global Witness' Boden. "If Singapore wants its environmental stance to be taken seriously, monitoring where the sand is sourced and what is being done to obtain it would be an obvious place to start."   By Neil Chatterjee Source: Reuters    Read More →

       As a Chinese-majority state sandwiched between 2 large Malay neighbours, Singapore has adopted national service since 1967 and established 350,000 strong SAF as a deterrent against any external military aggression. Being a small island state with no strategic depth, the SAF has been organized with an offensive posture in the form of combined arms divisions, an amphibious division and has acquired offensive weapons such as leopard tanks, self-propelled artillery, apache helicopters, Chinook helicopters, etc. This suggested that the SAF has adopted a land offensive or forward- defence strategy in defending Singapore against external threat. In the book on “Defending the Lion City”, Tim Huxley had suggested that Singapore is using a forward-defence military doctrine.        However, a forward defence strategy is based on the assumption is that the SAF is able to obtain accurate and timely intelligence on the movement of the adversary’s forces and is able to launch a first strike before they build up their forces to launch their attack on Singapore. However, what if intelligence failed? Unlike Israel which possess the strategic depth that enable the Israelis Defence Force to reorganize its forces before launching a counter offensive during the Yom Kipper War in 1973, in which the failure of the intelligence services had resulted in a surprise attack by Eypt and Syria, Singapore do not have the advantage of strategic depth due to its small land area. Hence, the landing of hostile foreign troops in Singapore would mean the end of Singapore.         Based on information obtained in SgWiki, intelligence in the SAF is well protected and little is known of the method of intelligence collection. However it is well-known that the SAF is probably the most advanced in SIGINT (Signal Intelligence) and imagery intelligence . On the other hand, however, does it mean that with an advance SIGINT and imagery intelligence, the SAF Intelligence Corps is efficient and able to provide early warning to the Singapore government and the SAF top military leaders of an impending military conflict?       The above limitations of Signal Intelligence and Imagery Intelligence of the SAF Intelligence Corps means that if an adversary wish to launch a surprise attack on Singapore, they can deployed a small group of soldiers/civilians to communicate with one another over radios as a form of deception and counterintelligence, while at the same time, deploying dummy soldiers, tanks, etc. on the ground to portray a large concentration of forces in a certain area, while their real concentration of forces are taking place on another area to launch a surprise attack on Singapore.            The limitations of the SAF Intelligence Corps are weakened by the increase of the retirement age of the SAF Intelligence personnel to 60 years old under the MDES scheme introduced by MINDEF in 2010. By increasing the retirement age of the SAF Intelligence personnel, it implies that the SAF Intelligence Corps will comprise of a large pool of elderly military personnel, whose sharpness of eyesight and hearing ability will be affected by their old age and whose mind will be less quick thinking in analyzing the information obtained intercepted from radio communications and air photos captured by UAVs and satellites. Moreover, by increasing the retirement age of the SAF Intelligence personnel, it means that the intelligence personnel will hold a particular post in their entire career longer. Hence, this means that should the intelligence personnel make a mistake when analyzing the intelligence obtained, the mistake will not be discovered if the particular personnel choose to hide his mistakes from his superior to protect his own career.        With the limitations of Signal Intelligence and Imagery Intelligence capabilities of the SAF Intelligence Corps, coupled with the increase in retirement age of the SAF Intelligence personnel, the SAF Intelligence Corps has “Eyes that do not see, Ears that do not hear.” Hence, will the SAF become like “a man without ears and eyes” and a national institution with the blinds leading the blinds?   Kelvin Kok  Read More →