BLUEPRINT FOR A NEW MERITOCRACY

This letter was published in the Voices Page of Today newspaper on 19 September 2014.

If meritocracy is the engine that drove Singapore from Third World to First, perhaps the real significance of SG50 is the reinvention of meritocracy so that a new version serves us for the next 50 years. Our aim should be the optimization of our human capital to bring about maximum improvement in our lives.

The Prime Minister’s call for a cultural shift, from a credential meritocracy based on paper qualifications to a performance meritocracy that values actual competence, is just the trigger for such a transformation.

As we recover from the initial confusion such an idea caused, we must think about how to proceed. I suggest that we take three vital steps.

Firstly, we must abandon the belief that intelligence is fixed and is the sole determinant of ability. We should believe that intelligence is fluid and can be increased through education, irrespective of the starting point. That should be the main role of schools. Examinations should only be used to gauge teaching and learning adequacy, not to judge or classify students.

Secondly, we should give up the notion that an intelligence quotient as represented by exam grades determines entry to university courses and suitability for jobs. Instead, the genuine interests and strengths of students should be identified and cultivated in school and made the main entry criteria.

Thirdly, university access to certain prestigious and lucrative professional jobs, such as in medicine, law and engineering, should be open to all ages as long as one is willing and able to undertake and pay for the rigorous training needed.

With these measures, the stress and expense of intensive tuition, the narrowness of studying to the test, wasted time from over-preparation for exams, manufactured exam results and the pain of irrelevant, hollow credentials will gradually fade away.

They will be superseded by the advent of true passion, commitment to lifelong learning and real expertise. People who thrive in such a system would fully deserve the respect they would naturally be shown. Others would know that they succeed because of both their wits and their diligence.

The elitism inherent in the credential system would eventually give way to a more egalitarian performance culture where everyone may have a chance to fail, but also every opportunity to succeed.

Daniel Lee

THREE TRULY LIMITING IMPEDIMENTS TO A PERFORMANCE MERITOCRACY

(Published as 'Three Main Reasons For Paper  Chase' in the Straits Times online forum page on 16 September 2014)

Education Minister Heng Swee Keat's three breakthroughs in fostering a performance meritocracy, lifelong applied learning in the workplace and an expanded definition of success, as well as his action plan of encouraging all citizens to learn at every stage and in every way in a climate of mutual respect are to be commended.

Sadly, in reality, there are three major impediments to such a rosy outcome. In fact, these are the three main reasons why people chase after paper qualifications in Singapore.

The first impediment is the belief that intelligence is fixed and determines the ability of people. So, if intelligence cannot be boosted through learning, schooling becomes merely a mechanism to classify and stratify people. The PSLE, the O-, N- and A-level exams, the SAT and university exams become part of an intelligence-test marathon.

Knowing that their potential will be prematurely and unfairly labelled, students' main priority in school is to play the exam game by over-preparation and intensive tuition, as credentials are the only proof of their intelligence.

The second impediment is the belief that suitability for jobs and university courses is related mainly to intelligence. So, students can qualify to study certain courses only if their exam results are good enough or at least better than other applicants'. If not, they have to settle for other courses that they may not be suitable for.

There is also a tendency for those with good results to choose courses based on the prestige conferred to them or the potential high income associated with them, and not according to their interests or strengths.

Lastly, certain prestigious and lucrative jobs are being treated as professions that require deep and special knowledge and skills. Therefore, only people with the relevant degrees and credentials are admitted to these privileged and protected fields. If students do not get admitted into these university courses in the first instance, it is difficult for them to enter later.

So, without removing these three impediments, people can only believe their economic destiny will still be predetermined early in their lives, and that the only way to good jobs and a good life would be to secure good credentials in the first place. Seemingly, no amount of belated effort, enthusiasm and lifelong learning is going to change that.

Daniel Lee

 5 11 0 0PRINTEMAIL.  

A PURPOSEFUL UNIVERSITY LIFE
(Background: This Straits Times Forum letter published on 12 September 2014 is in response to a National Post article "University should be a place for soul-searching, not just money-grubbing" by David Brooks at http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/09/10/david-brooks-university-should-be-a-place-for-soul-searching-not-just-money-grubbing) 

I refer to last Wednesday's article "The commercial, cognitive and moral purpose of university life" by David Brooks. It has restated the oft-repeated distinctions between the different purposes of university education as if they are mutually exclusive or even in conflict with one another.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I would say that tertiary education is the activity that progressively teaches you how to gather, understand and utilize information to hone your mind, to cultivate your interests and to motivate you to become a useful member of society. It also helps you to create your self-identity and to make sense of the world so that you can respond to it morally.

Such a deeper and enlightened experience would endow you with useful skills to be a productive person in your future career, to be able to make better life decisions and to be a morally-reliable citizen; all in one process.

So, it is not either one or the other purpose being the flavor of the current times, but rather the harmonious integration of all three purposes that makes university education so rewarding.

The reason why universities seem to be singularly absorbed into the commercial ethos is that students have now adopted a narrow and misguided view of education as a launchpad for getting ahead. In my view, the fault of their failure to instead embark on a authentic journey of self-improvement, intellectual excitement and moral awakening lies almost solely with the students themselves.

Daniel Lee

MOVE TOWARDS PERFORMANCE MERITOCRACY 

A Straits Times Forum Page letter published on 4 September 2014

I BELIEVE Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's call for a "culture shift" is not a call for perfect parity between graduates and non-graduates in terms of job opportunities, promotion prospects or starting pay ("Culture shift a matter of degrees"; last Saturday). Neither is he saying degrees and paper qualifications have become worthless.

His real message is that one should not go on a paper chase just for the sake of it.

To progress, you need to know what you are good at and interested in, master your skill in it and advance your expertise continually.

If paper qualifications and degrees help in this process, you should pursue them. If not, you can do it through apprenticeship, self-study and work experience.

So, credentials by themselves are not crucial; they are important only insofar as they boost your competence. If your credentials are irrelevant or do not help you to be a better worker, then your degree or qualification would be worthless.

In effect, PM Lee has clarified for us the definition of a new "performance meritocracy", which values people for their qualities, competencies and contributions as workers and leaders in our economy, whatever their fields or credentials. In such a meritocracy, discriminating between graduates and non-graduates becomes irrelevant.

In fact, we should move from our present elitist "credential meritocracy" to a more egalitarian "performance meritocracy" based on competence and expertise.

One practical measure to help foster the new meritocracy is to minimise the income disparity of the top performers in all fields. This would rationalise the system of rewards and inspire Singaporeans to work harder by valuing excellence in all fields, rather than over-rewarding only certain prestigious fields.

Daniel Lee

UTILITARIAN VIEW OF EDUCATION SHORT-SIGHTED
My Forum Page letter published in The Straits Times on 1 September 2014


(Background: This letter was written in response to another Straits Times Forum Page letter written by Dr Anne Chong Su Yan published on 28 August 2014 advocating a 'no-frills' university education in Singapore. In it, Dr Chong opined that a utilitarian view of the purpose of higher education is justified in the light of the limited national financial resources and the contention that most freshmen would have already known where their strengths and interests lie. So, she thinks that from the get-go, they should get on with acquiring 'the skills and knowledge to enable them to support themselves and their families, as well as contribute to the nation's economy', without having 'to take up irrelevant modules they have "no real interest in and no aptitude for", only to obtain an F grade that will be discounted later'.)


I disagree with Dr Anne Chong Su Yan ("Stick to 'no-frills' education"; last Thursday) on two counts. 

First, her statement that most freshmen are already certain about where their strengths and interests lie is not convincing. Exposure to a broad-based education during secondary school and junior college, attending career fairs and having industry attachments are no guarantee of that. 

Given the instrumentalist attitude of most local students, these are approached merely with the aim of securing a place in university. In my experience, few see beyond that, other than a vague idea of wanting to be on the most efficient path to a high-income future.

Second, Dr Chong's contention that non-discipline-specific modules and subjects are frills we can ill afford must not go unchallenged. A utilitarian view of education is very short-sighted and does not serve the purpose of preparing our students for the 21st century.

To be truly educated, it is not enough to just have the capacity to find employment. More than being useful in the workplace, undergraduates need to develop into mature, thinking adults and responsible, active citizens. Having just discipline-specific skills and competencies are not enough; communication and social skills, as well as curiosity and a positive attitude, are also essential.

Our present university curricula are on the right track and I fully support them. If we succeed only in producing one-dimensional and narrow-minded graduates, our educational resources will truly be wasted.

IN LOVING MEMORY OF MY MOTHER
17 June 1930 - 29 August 2012 (2nd Anniversary)

I'm happy for you, mother,

Back with dad, you're together.

For recently, I heard your banter.

Recalling old times so tender.

You loved durians, I remember;

Also a super popiah devourer,

A great chocolate sundae eater,

And a fierce crab-claw crusher.

This mortal divide is no bother,

As love is the great conquerer.

Forget your gentleness, I'll never;

Cos' I'm your loyal son forever!

THE PERSISTENT DISLIKE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

The fifth and latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)  had renamed "Feeding Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood" to "Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder" (also known as Selective Eating Disorder (SED)). Not only has it broadened its diagnostic criteria, it is also a reflection of the realization that the eating disorder that prevents the consumption of certain foods is not merely a phase of childhood that can be outgrown with age, but can persist throughout the adult lives of people so afflicted.

Perhaps, the most infuriating and puzzling symptom of this disorder for parents of afflicted young children and even adult offsprings is their dislike and persistent refusal of fruits and vegetables. While the World Health Organization recommends that everyone eats five portions of fruits and vegetables a day, these victims may take zero portion for months, years or even whole lifetimes!

Such a chronic lack of fruits and vegetables will have dire health consequences.

WHY THE DISLIKE?

There are a few reasons for the persistence into adulthood such child-like aversion towards fruits and vegetables:

1. Complacency.

Victims feel that they are young and invincible and are indifferent to future health problems. They assess their health by how they presently feel, not by evaluating their diet and lifestyles in the light of widely known medical evidence.

2. Victims place a higher priority on their work and social activities over  their health.

When they feel that they can hardly cope with their busy lifestyles, they eat for comfort or to merely suppress their hunger. So, they skip breakfast and eat whatever is quickest to buy and most convenient to eat. Soon, foods devoid of fruits and vegetables like instant noodles, cracker snacks, delivered fast foods and pizzas become their staple food.

3. Laziness.

Some victims spend most of their time cooped up in their rooms stuck with their computers and electronic devices, lying in their sofas or beds. To them, going to the kitchen, opening the fridge door, washing and cutting or peeling some fruits to eat seem so much of a chore. It would seem much easier to reach for the chips and chocolates on their table.

4. Never eating home meals.

Perhaps, by force of habit or as a form of rebellion, some victims eat out every meal of the day, every day of the year. Even when they are home early, they may call for delivered fast foods to be eaten in their rooms, spurning the home-cooked vegetable dishes eaten by the rest of the family.

5. An acquired taste for sugar and salt.

Victims base their food decisions on taste and appearance, not on their nutrient or health benefits. Due to the commercialization of food, widespread advertising has caused victims to associate sweet and salty foods with their modern lifestyles and reject as more disagreeable the blander and potentially more sour and bitter fruits and vegetables.

6. Ignorance.

Despite the many campaigns, advertisements, books, magazines and TV programs that inform about the benefits of fruits and vegetables, many victims choose to ignore such advice either because they lack education and do not understand the science behind them or they are bored by their repetition.

SO WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

It is widely known that fruits and vegetables provide numerous nutrients that help to lower the risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Therefore, a deficiency of fruits and vegetables may increase the risks of these serious diseases.

If we refer to the largest prospective cohort study of 500,000 participants in Europe on the relationship between diet and chronic diseases called the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study (1993 to date), we can deduce the following key findings regarding the intake of fruits and vegetables:

1. The high potassium from fruits and vegetables prevents high blood pressure.

2. High dietary fibre (including from fruits and vegetables) protects against bowel cancer.

3. Obesity (which may be caused by a high-calorie, high carbohydrate diet in contrast to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables) increases the risk of developing a number of cancers.

4. Increased fat intake (in contrast to a high fruit and vegetable diet) increases the risk of breast cancer.

5. Dietary flavonoid (found ubiquitously in vegetables and fruits) is associated with reduced gastric carcinoma risk in women.

6. Reducing the consumption of processed meat (perhaps by correspondingly increasing fruit and vegetable consumption) can reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and death from cancer.

7. An increase in fruit and vegetable intake reduces the risk from all causes of an early death.

8. The consumption of at least five daily servings of fruits and vegetables (together with not smoking, being physically active and moderated alcohol intake) was estimated to lengthen life by 14 years.

But, I guess with the increasing petulance of the younger generation and the undying indulgence of their parents, this will continue to fall on deaf ears.

HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 4

AN OBJECTIVE PHILOSOPHICAL EVALUATION

The whole effort of religion is a human attempt to try to find order from a chaotic world. We can't accept random events of suffering and evil. We disbelieve that misfortunes are chance events. We want a worldly existence full of meaning and justice, yet all evidence points to the contrary. Are we left only with the the feeling of depression and abandonment as in existential philosophy?

So, despite the foregoing explanations, questions persist. Why is there evil and suffering at all? Why are they so hard to bear? Why doesn't God prevent them? And when they happened, why didn't God relieve or remove them? Does God know about my suffering? Or is God powerless or indifferent? Does God love me at all? How can He bear to let humans He love suffer so much?Or does He even exist?

SOME BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS

1. Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Does God create evil?

2. Amos 3:6 (KJV)
6 "When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?"

Is God responsible for natural disasters?

3. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 (KJV)
8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" 9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;"

Does God ruthlessly punish and take revenge on those who don't know him or don't obey him?

WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF IT?

We have 3 options:

1. We can go on asking: why can't we be free-willed beings in a world without evil, living a life of moral goodness and mutual love, cooperating with God and enjoying His glory?

2. We can accept the Christian faith as it is and trust God whole-heartedly. But, this only works if your acceptance is true and sincere. Pascal's Wager will not do.

3. For those who somehow could not accept the Bible story or could not betray their intellectual honesty, you can assume that this may be the only life you've got and make the best of it and be the best person you can be despite the uncertainty, randomness and indifference of this existence.

HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 3

WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL
(Morally justifying God's tolerance of evil)

1. Augustinian Theodicy

In the beginning, God created a perfect world without evil or suffering. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, it allowed evil to enter the world. Evil and suffering thus become the just punishment for this original sin.

Furthermore, according to the Augustinian tradition, any killing, suffering and pain as inflicted upon an enemy when encountered in a just war is positively justified.

2. Irenaean Theodicy

Humans are created in a two-stage process: made first in the image of God whereby the potential for moral perfection is bestowed; and secondly, made in the likeness of God when perfection is actually achieved. To complete this second stage, humans need to have free will and must experience suffering. Such evil is necessary to allow humans to develop as moral agents in this process of spiritualization and soul-making.

3. Eleonore Stump's Theodicy

In her view, the natural evils of disasters, disease, old age and death work to humble humans and make them realize their own frailty and the temporary nature of their satisfaction with themselves and their worldly possessions. This may help them turn their attention to spiritual things and make it more conducive for them to accept the gift of salvation from God.

4. God's Mysterious Plan:

Like a form of predestination, all events have been willed by God. He has a plan whereby each episode of suffering and evil serves a purpose, either to punish us for our misdeeds, to teach us a valuable lesson, to test our faith or free will, to liberate us from more pain or to serve a higher historical purpose or greater good; so just trust God that everything happens for a reason. If life is considered as a whole, misfortunes fall into a certain pattern such that the suffering will not be more than you can bear, the good will eventually exceed the evil and in cases of apparently undeserved or uneven distribution of suffering, the joys of heaven will more than compensate for those. So, each episode of suffering only has a (human) meaning if we attach our own meaning to it, because ultimately, God's plan is beyond human understanding.

HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 2

HOW GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL 
(Defending the logical possibility of God's tolerance of evil)

1. Alvin Plantinga's free will defense:

It is God’s decision to endow his creations with morally significant free will which is crucial if He is to have a meaningful relationship with them and to enable them to do good and love one another. But, the natural consequence is that the moral choices afforded by such free will render the elimination of much of the evil and suffering in this world impossible. That is because our free will may be misused by us and lead us to make bad moral choices to hurt each other and hurt ourselves such that we actually deserve having the resultant misfortunes. So, you can't have free will without also having evil and suffering.

2. Dualism of Good and Evil:

Good and evil are like 2 sides of a coin. You can't have one without the other. They are necessary complementary opposites with God responsible for good and Satan responsible for evil.

3. Evil does not exist:

Evil as an entity does not exist. Like coldness, coldness as an entity does not exist but is a condition of varying degrees of absence of heat. Heat certainly exists as it is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted. So, evil is merely the absence or deficiency in goodness and therefore has nothing to do with God.

4. Karma:

This is the principle of causality where the future of an individual is influenced by his present intentions and actions. Good intentions and good actions give good karma leading to good future outcomes while the opposite leads to suffering and evil.