Basket.

Going to school getting to be like checking into a resort (ST Forum, 29 June)

I REFER to last Monday's report, 'Every student is a customer at this school'.

I find this headline disturbing, and the text makes me wonder about institutions of higher learning today. Going to school is like checking into a holiday resort.

When I was at polytechnic some 30 years ago, academic lessons and social conduct were of paramount importance. Niceties like personal convenience and comfort took a back seat. We were not allowed long hair, singlets, shorts or slippers.

Attendance was strictly enforced and students could be barred from taking examinations if they did not meet a certain percentage. Assignments and projects had to be completed on time or we would have failed, even before the start of the exams. Disciplinary actions ranged from suspension from classes to termination of study. Most lecturers and administrators were strict and serious. The diplomas we received were of substance.

All of this will have to go or be acutely compromised if and when polytechnics are run like a holiday resort. Is this progress? What kind of graduates will we produce in future?

Will we go the way of some other countries - where everyone who can afford it has a degree or diploma; but in practice does not know much and, worse still, thinks he is the 'most-wanted customer' wherever he goes?


As far as bad forum letters go, I think this is one of the worst I've seen in terms of faulty reasoning. It also helps that it is written in an astonishingly haughty, moralistic tone. For fuck's sake why waste so many words? One sentence is enough: "Kids these days... are inferior to the disciplined, flawless specimen I was at their age, and they can but aspire (if only the incomparably lax system of the present could teach them to have aspirations!) to reach the pinnacle I did."

I mean there are stupid letters, and there are stupid and offensive letters. This falls squarely into the latter category. The writer's sense of smug superiority is palpable throughout; unfortunately for him, so is his skill at defective reasoning. Let's take his leaps of logic together.

When I was at polytechnic some 30 years ago, academic lessons and social conduct were of paramount importance. Niceties like personal convenience and comfort took a back seat. We were not allowed long hair, singlets, shorts or slippers.

Okay. So...

1) Academic lessons were of paramount importance at polytechnics 30 years ago... but it is implied that they aren't now because students have a greater degree of personal choice consistent with their growth and development into mature adults.

2) "Social conduct" (what a stupidly vague term) was emphasized then but it isn't now because students can exercise their personal freedom to keep long hair and wear comfortable clothes of their own choosing to polytechnic classes.

3) Students should not be allowed to be comfortable at school for some reason. I mean people learn best when they are strapped into cold metal chairs and whipped with spiked whips at regular intervals.

It's bad enough, but then he continues:

Attendance was strictly enforced and students could be barred from taking examinations if they did not meet a certain percentage. Assignments and projects had to be completed on time or we would have failed, even before the start of the exams. Disciplinary actions ranged from suspension from classes to termination of study. Most lecturers and administrators were strict and serious. The diplomas we received were of substance.

1) Attendance is vital. If you get a good result without a certain arbitrary percentage of attendance, your diploma lacks substance.

2) Deadlines are no longer assigned in polytechnics these days? News to me.

3) Lecturers and administrators must always be strict and serious, otherwise your diploma lacks substance. What they teach does not even matter, what matters is that they are strict and serious.

Enough unreasonable leaps of logic yet? Well, he isn't done.

Will we go the way of some other countries - where everyone who can afford it has a degree or diploma; but in practice does not know much and, worse still, thinks he is the 'most-wanted customer' wherever he goes?

Apparently, if a tertiary institution allows its students personal choice in how to dress, does not tightly control them with outdated disciplinary measures and arbitrary attendance numbers, and most importantly does not possess lecturers who are eternally strict and serious, the students will leave said institution lacking knowledge. And their diplomas will lack substance.

What, exactly, is the primary purpose of education? Is it to impart knowledge and skills, or to discipline the fuck out of students? Obviously we need a bit of discipline in any given educational institution, but to insist that discipline must play an overarching role in education - at a tertiary institution, no less - is ridiculous. Why bother about attendance percentages? These are completely arbitrary. If a student turns up only on the day of the exam and does well, it means he has understood and is able to properly apply the source material. Isn't that what matters?

Why insist on a strict dress code? Does it torment your soul to know that students are attending classes in the attire they find most comfortable? Will it blind you to confront such a sight? What matters is that they are there, and they are learning. Don't tell me people can't learn in a t-shirt and shorts. But I've dealt with this particular one multiple times, I think.

Why the insistence on lecturers being strict and serious? This has got to be the silliest one, especially as it directly precedes the line implying that diplomas have no substance unless acquired in this way. The best lecturers I've had, I daresay, are those who aren't strict and serious. In fact I haven't met one who really is. I will say that if I run into one that is strict to the point of treating tertiary students like children, I will walk out of the lecture hall. Because if you want to be a tinpot tyrant like that, go teach in the secondary school. I'm there to learn, not to see your clenched fist of a face.

If our polytechnic students are not learning, then we have to be concerned. If our polytechnic students are being allowed a greater degree of personal freedom and choice, it does not follow that they are not learning. It's the same judging a book by its cover attitude that a lot of moralistic snobs like to adopt with student attire. They don't look to you like they are ready to learn - but they are (most of them anyway), so what exactly is the issue here? Don't deride others just because they don't fit your own perceptions of the ideal.

Just a few days after I bitched them out, the ST Forum throws me a bone. So here we are: My children are not my personal responsibility, Part X.


Ban teen parties that go on past midnight

ONE of the best things about living in Singapore is the knowledge that it is a very safe city. Low crime rates have led to us developing a casual take on certain matters. However, as the adage goes: 'Low crime does not mean no crime'. I sometimes wonder if Singaporeans are basking in a false sense of security, taking their personal and property safety for granted.

What is particularly alarming is the fact that nightspots like Zouk and Play in Tanjong Pagar are organising non-alcoholic parties for teenagers under the legal drinking age of 18. These establishments point to the fact that they are not breaking any laws because they do not serve alcohol at these parties.

However, as a father of a 16-year-old girl, I find it irresponsible for such establishments to encourage teenagers who are yet of a responsible and mature age to engage in a 'late-night' lifestyle. These parties may not serve alcohol, but they carry on well into the early morning. My daughter recently attended a party on March 15 that lasted until 4am.

Singapore's streets are relatively safe, compared to those in other countries. However, as a parent, I cannot help but worry when my teenage daughter is out roaming the streets after a party.

I understand the establishments want to cultivate new business and are not seen to be breaking the law as long as they ensure that no alcohol is served.

However, responsible businesses need to run on a moral obligation to society as well, especially when youth and children are concerned.

I am all for my daughter having a social life. But I want her to be safe, and one of the best ways to be sure of that is for her to come back at a reasonable hour. Parties like the one she went to should end no later than midnight.

Perhaps establishments like Zouk, and even government bodies such as the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, should look into developing guidelines regulating the conduct of these parties with youth participation. Parents, businesses and the Government should work hand in hand to cultivate healthy and responsible lifestyle habits among youth.


The first thing you ought to notice is that the first paragraph is almost completely irrelevant to the rest of the letter. From reading the rest of the letter, this individual is obviously a concerned parent who wishes that his daughter will not stay out so late. Understandably, he is worried about her safety. I do not, however, see how such worries necessitate a haughtily moralistic admonishment of Singaporeans for being complacent on crime. He could have replaced it with something more relevant and a lot less nauseatingly moralistic. But then again being moralistic is a distinct hallmark of Singaporeans.

What is unfortunately also a distinct hallmark of Singaporeans (or, to be fairer, humanity in general, but this island seems to have a particular affection for this affliction) is a tendency to blame and question others with regards to matters of personal responsibility. Hence the yearly ritual of parental complaints about exams being too hard, or children not being able to enter NUS, that sort of thing. What we have got here is an identical concept - the abdication of personal responsibility, in this case personal responsibility for the safety, well-being and general upbringing of one's own offspring.

Our letter-writer here, as mentioned earlier, is concerned as his teenaged daughter has been coming home very late from parties. However, he appears to believe that the fault does not lie with him as a parent, but rather with the clubs that conduct such parties. He goes on to admonish the clubs for even daring to conceive such events of undoubtedly Bacchanalian decadence, and suggests that in order to get his daughter to come home at a more earthly hour, they should cut their events short. Somehow, of course, not one thing in the letter is any of his fault. Never mind that this is his daughter, his own flesh-and-blood, we are talking about here; and no matter that he as a father has the ultimate responsibility - along with his wife, if he has one - for his child.

I mean, isn't it the responsibility of parents to nurture and discipline children? Is not one aspect of this discipline the ability to set rules and get children to follow them? Obviously it's easier said than done, but look: if you can't get your daughter to listen to a word you say then you've got bigger problems than her being out all night at non-alcoholic parties. Our author apparently either has not thought of this, or does not agree. The clubs are responsible and they should be punished and regulated instead. He is effectively asking the state to do his parenting for him, and that is thoroughly ridiculous.

At least he was smart enough to hastily put in that last sentence about parents, the state and businesses working together, so that his abdication of parental responsibilities doesn't seem too obvious. But it's a mere fig leaf for his indefensible position. Bottom line: you want your daughter safe in bed at a time you desire, achieve it by acting like a responsible parent. Can't do that? You have bigger problems than a complaint letter can solve.

I was recently undeservingly flattered with regards to this barely updated spot - someone had forgotten and subsequently rediscovered how fun it was to read here! Entries that dated back to some time last year were then referred to. Yes. Not a very good sign, that, it isn't.

I suppose there are a few reasons:

1) Life is relatively good now. I updated the most at points when I'm under the most severe stress - check 2004 and the later parts of 2006 for prime examples. Those were the days of incredible hundreds-to-thousands words rants because things appeared to be going to pieces. I was taught that the cathartic effect of writing can be pretty incredible.

2) Related to the above point, I do not wish to bore people with narration of all the myriad annoying and mildly interesting things that ever happen in my life. Rest assured there are plenty of the former and a considerably less but still statistically significant amount of the latter, but the minutiae of life makes for neither enjoyable writing nor enjoyable reading. Also I am not a teenage girl and so I do not have these EMO or RANDOM thoughts where I talk about self-abuse and string polysyllabic words together in no particular order. Not that I believe anyone I know would enjoy reading anything like that.

3) The ST Forum has become exceedingly tedious for the past few months. People are bitching about low road tax rates for weekend cars. Right. This is no doubt an issue intimately close to the hearts of many a dedicated Singaporean motorist, but seriously it's boring. I'm pretty sure there are stupid opinions to call out on the issue, just as there are on every single issue, but I don't feel enough about the issue to even bother. No more fire-and-brimstone letters about sodomites despoiling our perfect heterosexual Eden, none that deplore the collapsing values of our heavily Westernised and thus Satanised society, a distinct lack of demands for higher education places for sub-standard but allegedly hardworking children - what can I do about that? Maybe the forum just stopped accepting those because they too realised it's fucking stupid. But this is the Straits Times we speak of here, so I don't think so. Either way I have run into a lack of material of late.

4) I forgot how fun it can be to update here. Maybe I wrote too many essays and that put me off writing. But that remark above has hauled me back a little.

But anyway, here's hoping the ST Forum sends some good stuff my way soon. Otherwise I might have to begin putting down my piss-poor attempts at fiction here, and that would be to the detriment of all.

Let's see if I can make this latest revival stick.

Anyway it's midterm hell at the moment, with 5 in 2 weeks and 4 left to go. Is this better than the 5 essays due in 2 weeks which I had last time round? I can't decide. I think it's a safe bet that whatever I get, the other alternative is always better.

To take my mind off such, and other even less clear-cut things, I have re-discovered the atavistic joy of creation. No, I do not sculpt or bake or mould or any such thing that actually requires a fair degree of proficiency and training. Instead, I build objects out of Lego.

Breathtaking in its simplicity, Lego is one of the most ingenious and (rightly) successful toys ever invented. Essentially all Lego bricks are pieces of plastic with varying numbers of studs in them. Yet such a simple concept has been able to gift the world some of its most intricate and unique creations, and more importantly, millions of children over decades and decades a memorable childhood literally building entire realms of their own.

My brother and I were two of those children, and as a consequence our home is packed with an inordinate amount of Lego. I cannot be sure just exactly how much there is, but the loose bricks alone probably number in the thousands and we guess the number of Lego minifigs to be around 400-500. When I was younger, nothing better occupied my attention. For a normally hyperactive child (you better believe I was), to be kept quiet for hours on end by anything was quite miraculous in itself. Throughout adolescence I still got and enjoyed the occasional set. Of course, the older I got the more I found other interests, but I still dug out bricks for the occasional impromptu creation.

I hadn't for a long while prior to this weekend, but I did, and now I feel the richer for it. There is no feeling like the sense of satisfaction derived from turning a pile of odds-and-ends bricks into a coherent object. The best part? Literally anybody can put Lego bricks together, and literally anything can come out of Lego. I don't believe anything else toes the line between simplicity and complexity quite so well.

Well there goes another year, and by recent standards it was a pretty good one too. It was eventful, but for once the good kind of eventful - so many new places, so many new experiences. From the usual traipsing around NUS to living it up in First World Australia to choking on dust in the streets of Phnom Penh to weaving in and out of the chaotic traffic of Hanoi, I have done so much I never did before. It was intense, it was hectic, and maybe that's why it all went by so quickly.

So here is 2009. I hope I it'll be another good year for me, and I certainly hope it'll be a good year for all. Happy New Year, everyone.

Well, one more exam and that's it - curtain down on yet another semester. My reaction is: it's about time.

It was a trying semester because I had to learn to count again (exaggeration but still), pass a computer programming test for the first time since I was 14 (I hope/think I did) and deal with an evil conspiracy between my lecturers to synchronise their major assignment deadlines. Compared to this semester, the previous one was a walk in the park.

Well, it's been an eventful year, so let's hope it ends well.

In the news today - Tertiary institution believes it has the right to dictate what students wear. ST "journalist" agrees in poorly-written article.


1st Article:

ONE of Singapore's biggest private schools is cracking down on student dress, banning mini-skirts, flip-flops, dyed hair and visible tattoos, among a host of other things.

The decision by the Management Development Institute of Singapore (MDIS) has upset many of its 12,500 students, who called the rules draconian.

No singlets, shorts, mini-skirts, clothes with obscene slogans, slippers, or sandals without heel straps.

'I think (they) are unnecessary. We are studying at a private institution, not at a secondary school or polytechnic,' said final-year mass communications student Raaj Kumar, 18.

'We should have the freedom to choose what we want to wear to school.'

The wide-ranging crackdown, which began last month, leaves the school with tougher enforcement on dress standards than most universities and polytechnics. The dress code includes a prohibition on shorts, singlets, low-cut tops, slippers and facial piercings.

'The objective of coming to MDIS is to study, not to display distasteful dressing,' the school's senior manager for student administration, Ms Jamuna Rani, said yesterday. 'Students who are here genuinely to study may be put off or influenced by that.'

The school, which offers over 65 programmes, including English and mass communication diplomas, has campuses in Queenstown and Dhoby Ghaut. It has had watchers stationed at school entrances every morning since last month and has sent others on roving patrols in search of offenders, who are given verbal warnings.

Those who flout the rules repeatedly face suspension and being expelled.

The strict enforcement has irked students. Final-year mass communications student Matthew Ingrouille, 18, has been pulled up twice for wearing slippers to school. But he has no plans to wear proper shoes.

'I've always dressed like this and I don't see why I need to change,' he said.

Final-year business management degree student Vivian Zeng was warned twice for wearing mid-thigh length denim shorts and having dyed blond hair. The 24-year-old, who is from China, has decided to shelve the shorts.

'I understand that this is a school and we should respect our teachers so I've decided to follow the new rules. But I find the rules too restrictive. Universities in China do not have such rules.'

MDIS said its dress code has been in place since 2002 even though school officials started strictly enforcing it only last month when faced with a surge of miniskirts, bottle-blonds and slipper-clad youths.

Secretary-general R. Theyvendran dismissed claims that the rules were too strict. 'A certain amount of basic decency should be maintained. Otherwise, those who are serious about studying will be put off by these people,' he said.

Image consultant Elaine Heng, who advises clients on how to dress for interviews and work, said the MDIS imposes too many dress restrictions.

But the idea of instilling in students the importance of proper dressing is a good one, she said.

'One of my clients wanted to go for a job interview in sneakers. The rules will remind the students of the importance of looking presentable,' she said.

A check with the three local universities, polytechnics and private schools found most have dress codes stated on their websites, but many of these are not as rigidly enforced.

While MDIS said it is prepared to give a full refund to students who want to leave the school, it has not come to that yet. In fact, the number of offenders has dropped from 45 a day last month to 15 this month.


2nd article:

Why such a sloppy show?
November 05, 2008 Wednesday, 11:16 PM
Amelia Tan explains why university students will benefit from dressing well.

WHEN I was studying at the Nanyang Technological University, I used to frown upon students togged in skimpy tops, midriff-bearing shorts and slippers.

I would think to myself: “My mother would never let me go out of the house dressed like that”.

The issue of school dress raised its head recently when the The Management Development Institute of Singapore started cracking down on students, banning mini-skirts, tube tops, facial piercings and flip-flops among a host of other things.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a member of the fashion police.

I don’t think my university attire, which comprised mainly of jeans and t-shirts, qualifies me to judge.

But I think sloppiness is unacceptable.

I asked my friends who stayed in residence why they turned up for classes in what looked like sleepwear. Think threadbare t-shirts, running shorts and plastic slippers.

They told me they saw no need to dress up as they had no one to impress in school.

I disagreed. As the saying goes, clothes make the man. It says a great deal about how you view yourself if you turn up everyday looking bedraggled. It shows a lack of interest in learning as well as a lack of respect for your surroundings and classmates.

However, it was not all bad. My classmates and I started to dress better after we returned from a six-month internships during our third year in university. From our interaction with our colleagues as well as meeting other adults in the work force, we learnt the importance of looking presentable.

Many of my lecturers said they look forward to seeing the annual transformation of their students from sloppily-dressed youths to polished adults.

The Management Development Institute of Singapore does seem to be coming down hard on its students. I hope school officials will lighten up a little in the time to come.

But I feel in the long-run, students will benefit from the new dress code. Learning to take care of their image will put them in good stead when they enter the workforce.


A quick glance at the Straits Times today yielded these two gems, which complement each other in fallacious arguments and sheer absurdity. Long story short, MDIS decides that it has the right to dictate a dress code to young adults pursuing tertiary qualifications. A "journalist" (if she writes like this all the time, I wonder how she ever qualified as one) agrees and tells us just why in her own deeply flawed article. Let's have a go at them both.

Lying at the heart of MDIS' move and our intrepid reporter's article is one central, fallacious, assumption - that whatever one chooses to wear is an accurate judge of one's abilities, character and personality. In other words, we can and should judge a book by its cover. Is the sheer absurdity of this point of view clear yet? Even if it is, these articles are too good for me not to go on. Let us take a look at the school's justifications for this draconian and quite frankly ridiculous move:

'The objective of coming to MDIS is to study, not to display distasteful dressing,' the school's senior manager for student administration, Ms Jamuna Rani, said yesterday. 'Students who are here genuinely to study may be put off or influenced by that.'

One - why exactly are the things you banned considered "distasteful dressing"? Is anybody with tattoos and piercings automatically a secret society troublemaker? Is someone who wears slippers to school automatically a lazy and shiftless bad influence? It's the fucking 21st century already, why do people cling to astonishingly broad and hopelessly outdated generalisations such as these?

Two - on a similar vein, it is also implied that people who dress "distastefully" are not "genuinely [in MDIS] to study". What makes you believe so? MDIS is a private school that costs a significant amount of money. Enrolment is not compulsory for any group of people in society, so if the students aren't all in there to study, may I please ask what the fuck they are in there for? Are they there as fake students because they have too much bloody money and feel the need to give some of that cash away?

Three - so what if people are "put off"? I get "put off" by lots of shit but I tolerate it. In fact, I am put off by Ms Rani's shallow generalisations. That does not mean I demand that she be sacked, because I understand that I cannot generalise what she is saying here to other areas of her work, and that she might well be a very capable administrator. In a similar way, we cannot generalise that students are poor students simply because they don't dress well on a normal schoolday.

Secretary-general R. Theyvendran dismissed claims that the rules were too strict. 'A certain amount of basic decency should be maintained. Otherwise, those who are serious about studying will be put off by these people,' he said.

Adding to Ms Rani's point is the MDIS Secretary-General himself. Surprise, surprise, he brings decency into it. Now may I ask, why exactly are all the mentioned items indecent? I believe that whatever MDIS students wear to school, it is more than sufficient to cover the intimate areas of their body. That being the case, where is the indecency? Come on, the world won't end with a bit of cleavage or a few tattoos on show. And after that, there's the point about poorly dressed people not being serious about studying again. What gives?

This whole business is completely ridiculous, especially given the amount of resources the school is apparently devoting to hunting down these harlots:

It has had watchers stationed at school entrances every morning since last month and has sent others on roving patrols in search of offenders

Don't staff have better things to do, such as, I don't know, running the bloody school? I'm quite certain that the man-hours spent desperately trying to enforce a practically unenforceable rule can be put to better use. Your students pay good money to study in your school. You owe them that much. Stop being ridiculous and spend whatever resources you have on the important stuff instead.

Next, let us turn to our ST "journalist".

I would think to myself: “My mother would never let me go out of the house dressed like that”.

Does your mother still pick out what you wear to work every morning? If at the age of 19-early 20s your mother still dresses you every morning, you have bigger problems than a sloppy dress sense.

I don’t think my university attire, which comprised mainly of jeans and t-shirts, qualifies me to judge.

But I think sloppiness is unacceptable.

A time-honoured ST/general Singaporean tactic: "I don't mean to..., but.../I'm not qualified to judge, but.../(similar variants on the form)" followed by action which was just expressed as being unqualified to perform. "I don't think I'm qualified to judge, but..." and she then proceeds to pass a judgement on the very next line. And for the rest of the article. Don't they teach you not to do this shit in journalism school?

I disagreed. As the saying goes, clothes make the man. It says a great deal about how you view yourself if you turn up everyday looking bedraggled. It shows a lack of interest in learning as well as a lack of respect for your surroundings and classmates.

Why and how? At least try to justify your bald assertions. But journalism school apparently doesn't teach that either. How do your clothes show "a lack of interest in learning" and a "lack of respect for surroundings and classmates"? Interest in learning is demonstrated in lectures and tutorials, and respect for others is demonstrated in speech, body language and other forms of day-to-day interaction. You're trying to tell me that someone who wears a suit and tie everyday is incapable of being disrespectful to his peers and is definitely always 100% interested in his studies? That's complete crap. The private right to dress as one sees fit is a right that must also be respected - I'll come to school uniforms later.

It's true - there are always going to be idiots who turn up at job interviews dressed in t-shirts and shorts. But we have the death penalty for murder, yet people still commit murder. It does not follow that stricter penalties are going to eradicate behaviour like that. We have to live with it, and if people are too stupid to see the difference between daily life and an important interview, then they deserve whatever they've got coming. This idiocy is not a justification for more idiocy.

To address the point about school uniforms - I support school uniforms. Why? Because they are the great leveller. Everyone wears one thing regardless of wealth, status, etc. So if MDIS really wants to achieve its aims, it should institute a school uniform. Don't go pussyfooting around and try to find a compromise with wholly unrealistic regulations. Put in a school uniform, enforce it like junior colleges do and it'll be a far less idiotic policy, not to mention being much easier to regulate. If you think making tertiary students wear uniforms will make you look ridiculous, well, you already look plenty ridiculous now.

As for our "journalist", she needs to learn how to be one.