'Exam Meritocracy' versus 'Talent Meritocracy'

There have been talks recently about whether Singapore has placed too much emphasis on exam success. Our academic system tends to focus too much on exam results ahead of talent, so much so that Singapore is only able to produce exam-beaters, but not world-beaters.

I agree with this statement. Although there is an emphasis on creative thinking and alternative methods of concept learning these few years, students are still on the traditional exam system. This is the reason why Singapore students who top global science and maths ranking regularly do not become top-ranked adults in their chosen vocations.

The over-emphasis on grades is evident in schools, where many students choose to participate in CCAs that are less demanding, as they are afraid that the CCA practices will interfere with their studies. For many, grades are their top concern, as scoring As is the only way to get to get a scholarship.

For a student to be truly successful, scholarship bodies must redefine success by de-emphasising grades, and actively encourage scholarship holders to pursue their own personal interests. If they are forcing students to meet certain academic standards in a short period of time, it means little in terms of career success. Parents should not pressure their children into entering a prestigious school as having good academic abilities does not necessary mean that they have what it takes to be an all rounder.

As for students themselves, they must learn to better benefit from their education by learning to take 'risks' to really benefit from their education. For example, biomedical scholarship holders may sign up for political science etc and initiate changes to become more creative and resilient.

This way, students can get the most out of their education and educators can understand that there are other things that constitute ability, like leadership, entrepreneurship and sporting skills.

It has been said that taken as a whole, the problem with world population, usually manifested in the shortage of resources is not due to population growth as such but to the inequitable distribution of wealth and resources. What are your views?

The planet is becoming undersized with the population growing considerably. Not only in space-wise is the planet shrinking, pressure has also been surging in other aspects, especially on the environment. It is hence customary for one to take at face value that this forms the basis for the problem with world population, apparent as the lack of resources. However, many fail to recognize the other veiled yet critical links to this problem, which are that of the inequitable of wealth and resources along with a matrix of additional factors.

The major contributors to the booming population are more often than not the developing and poorer countries, where the people lack education and means for family planning. And, in spite of what you would think, these countries are by and large having abundant of rich resources on their land. As many can name it, a tangible example will be Africa. In these impoverished nations, parents pin their hopes on the children to look after them when they reach old age and to help with chores from very young. Thus, as indemnity to the high child-mortality rates, they tend to have many children. Yet, having bountiful resources does not see the people being fed well. Many are still starving in the face of such potential wealth they possess. Here, the mounting population does not meet with a shortage of resources, which one may habitually presuppose to be so.

In fact, it is of immense contradiction to say a growing population would cause the problem with world population because depleting birth rate is a prevalent phenomenon in developed countries like the United States, Japan, and even Singapore. The governments in these countries bend over backward to overturn this trend for fear that a continually ageing population will cause the economy to suffer in the near future. So, if a huge population really necessitates the shortage of resources, will these governments be ludicrous enough to encourage population growth just to put more strain on resources and to trigger more problems to follow? I doubt so. If truth were told, Singapore with her virtually zilch resource not only survives but also prospers while the resource-abundant yet debt-stricken Africa slowly wastes away.

Hence, population growth has essentially no direct effect on the problem with world population. Ultimately, it is the unequal distribution of wealth and resources that is setting off the problem. It all depends on how we tap, use and manage these resources. A vast population indubitably put a certain degree of strain on resources, but a small population can make the same impact, or even more. With better technology and greater expertise, these people from rich countries with small population can exploit the resources at an all the more alarming rate in the desire for a higher quality of life. As a matter of fact, what we have now will only beget us to want more.

Therefore, population growth does not unequivocally amount to the shortage of resources. There live much more intricacies like the distribution of these resources and wealth, as well as the attitude of the people who manage and use them, all of which play a greater role in attributing to the problem with world population, rather than the mere strain on resources from people.

Blog Comment - "Science and Technology: Good or Bad?"

An indubitably professional piece of writing as of the introduction! I see eye to eye with your view that the differentiation of a matter, particularly the effects of science and technology, into good or bad is an oversimplification. The innumerable consequences that S & T made happen cannot be clearly delineated and categorized into these two categories as many still remain open to question. However, for opinion sake, I do concur that S & T has done more good than bad, in the sense that without it, our lives will be no different from that a millennium ago.

The structure of your argument is clearly demarcated into the various impacts of S & T, namely on the medical field, economy and the general standard of living. With those concrete examples and facts, the argument is strong to your stand. For each impact, there is apparent balancing of the idea with the explanation of both sides of the story. However, I deem it more appropriate to rebut on the point contrary to your stance. For example, the mentioning of euthanasia and plainly deciding that it is a bad science may seem to contradict your stand. Perhaps there can be further elaboration on the more recognized and accepted part of euthanasia, begetting some good as well despite the fact that it takes away lives. A similar effort can be made to the subsequent balancing paragraphs to bring your standpoint lucid to the surface.

The conclusion was of impact, in the image of the well thought-out introduction, which adequately summarises the whole argument, weaving it to a beautiful close.

Original Post: http://www.kongmustdowellingp.blogspot.com/

Discuss the causes of global warming, its consequences, the solutions and the problems that hinder the solutions attempted.

Global warming has become an increasingly serious problem in the recent years, and it has posed many significant problems for mankind, be it in terms of our biodiversity, lifestyle, etc. Hence, actions should be taken to curb the causes of global warming in order to prevent the earth from becoming a place not fit for our living.

Natural cycles of warming and cooling have occurred in Earth’s history. What worries the scientist now is man-made global warming, when carbon-rich fuels stored for aeons beneath the ground are extracted and burnt, releasing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, being a greenhouse gas, traps the sun’s heat in the atmosphere instead of letting it radiate out to outer space. As a result the earth’s surface is warmed, disrupting the planet’s delicate ecological and climate system.

Carbon dioxide levels began to rise with the Industrial Revolution, when coal began to be burnt in large quantities. They have surged in recent decades as more countries become industrialized and millions more cars take to the road. As a result, billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide are now being released into the air each year from the fossil fuels that previously were underground. Over the past decades, a mountain of scientific evidence has accumulated about man’s impact on the temperature through the burning of fossil fuels. This could be due to the increased consumption rate of electricity alongside with the increasing affluence of people’s lives.

Global warming could lead to increase in global sea level by as much as 88 cm by 2100, creating an exodus of “climate refugees”. There will also be more violent and frequent droughts, floods and storms. Almost most of the world’s population will be affected, but poor tropical countries- the nations least to blame for the problem- will be hit worst.

Some solutions to curb the worsening of global warming is to stop using fossil fuels and use clean energy sources instead such as wind, solar, hydro and hydrogen. Interim solutions involve better fuel efficiency, hybrid cars and storing carbon dioxide underground from coal, as the fuel is burnt, rather than letting the damaging gas escape into the air.

Polar ice sheets melting at alarming pace....

"Sea levels could rise 6 metres by the end of this century", scientists warned.

How many of us have actually taken this warning seriously? Despite many reports and studies published on the acute extent of global warming now, many people still close their eyes to the necessity of environmental conservation. There is just so much one can stress that we will be digging our own graves if more is not done to save our Mother Earth.

Based on current warming trends, average temperatures could jump at least 2.5 degree Celsius by the end of the century, resembling the last great global warming surge 129 000 years ago when sea temperatures rose by that much.

Although the work of the scientists is polar, the implications are global. Ice sheets in the Greenland and the Arctic have melted before and sea levels rose. Now, the warmth needed is not that much above present conditions to get these ice sheets melting. Furthermore, the warming danger in Antarctic is not just the overall melting of the ice cover, as would happen in Greenland. Instead, scientists expect The Antarctic ice sheets to fracture, plunging more icebergs into the sea and raising the sea level even more that way. It would exactly be like throwing a bunch of ice cubes into a full glass of water and watching the water spill over the top.

While examining the grounds for global warming, scientists believe that it is mainly caused by greenhouse gas pollution. So as to say, the emission of greenhouse gas, and thus the aggravation of global warming, can be controlled by Man, by us. If every single one of us put in a little to reduce the production of greenhouse gases, like taking public transport more often and using vehicles powered by natural gas, we can avert the effects of global warming in concert.

Do you think science and technology has done more good than bad?

Science and technology plays an all the time more vital role in people's lives, making the truthful communication of scientific developments more imperative than ever. Yet, such communication is fraught with challenges that can easily distort discussions, leading to unnecessary confusion and misunderstandings. However, none can deny the benefits science and technology has endowed with us, which have enhanced our lives in its small yet significant ways. These affirmative repercussions do outweigh the off-putting aftermath that many put the accent on. Hence, I concur that science and technology has done more good than bad.

How can one forget the amount of invaluable time saved on traveling now as compared to when expeditious vehicles like airplanes were not invented? Or the luxury of being able to see in the dark, and thus making the most of our time, with the birth of light bulbs? These are often neglected and taken for granted by many, who do not realize just how much developments in science and technology has done for us, making our everyday life smoother-going and hassle-free.

Recently, many scientists have been recognized for their achievements in science research of various forms. For instance, Associate Professor Zhang Lian Hui, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, was among the pioneers in research on hidden communication among bacteria. Using several novel enzymes and chemicals, he demonstrated a new way to control infectious disease by stopping microbial communication. Another example is Dr Leonard Ang, Singapore National Eye Centre and National University of Singapore, whose work with stem cells taken from the eye have helped establish Singapore as a leading centre in the world for eye-disease treatment and stem-cell research and transplantation. He has pioneered safer ways to grow stem cells without the traditional animal serum or donated human tissue. This eliminates any chance of rejection or transmission of disease to the recipient. Other than these discoveries of medical science that will improve the health of people, Associate Professor Edward Teo, Department of Physics, National University of Singapore, researches on general relativity, quantum gravity and string theory. In particular, his globally known work on the study of multiple black holes brought great impact on the study and conservation of the environment.

Such are only a few of the plentiful breakthroughs in the field of science and technology that have impacted our lives in one way or another. Here, we can see to it that science and technology has indeed done a great deal of good to us.

No doubt there are still disapproving upshots, especially on ethics, which have aroused the concern of many people. Examples include Dr Simon Shorvon, who committed serious ethical breaches by treating patients like experimental subjects without rights, and the eggs-for-sale scandal surrounding South Korea's embattled cloning hero Hwang Woo Suk that has deepened after a news report revealed that possibly hundreds of eggs had been bought for his lab with the women unaware they were being used for research. These illustrate that there are undeniably a minority group of scientists who are so hungry for fame and recognition that they took the wrong step, setting off some pessimistic outcomes and issues that many accused have resulted from the development of science and technology.

Then again, we cannot rebuff the good just because some black sheep are lurking among those otherwise. We should not let our anger and disparity in opinions reign above our conscience. Indubitably, science and technology has beget upon us innumerable conveniences and improvements, without which our lives will be no different from that a millennium ago.

A great city? Only if Singaporeans take pride in it....

In years to come, Singapore's housing estates may have special zones where residents can get a free rein to beautify their neighbourhoods. The whole island could be ringed by a jogging track, while heartland districts like Jurong could be developed as unique attractions to visitors.

These were ideas thrown up by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), which discussed how to make people feel they own this city, and create a buzz to attract global talent. We have to lay emphasis on the need for long-term plans for the country. At such, work to liven up the city has hotted up in the recent years in tandem with the keen competition for global talent. Singapore is banking on high profile, long-standing developments like the new downtown at Marina Bay.

Yet, all these efforts made to enhance Singapore's image internationally and to create a centre of attention for global talent will be futile if we as Singaporeans do not take gratification and ownership of the city, which is a more intangible but vital element. Notwithstanding all that has been done and suggested by the Government and higher authority, Singapore can be a great city only if her people take pride in the city and act like her owners. They cannot leave it all to planners to enhance their neighbourhood.

Here, it all buoys down to the sense of belonging and ownership that Singaporeans have for the country. If Singaporeans do not care about how they want their home and neighbourhood to be like, or what the planners have in mind for them, all the uphill struggles of the government will be fruitless without this appreciation and interest of her people. Rather than waiting for the authorities to come into play, Singaporeans should learn to take the initiative to bump up the appeal of their neighbourhoods. At the end of the day, we are the people living and working there.