Straits Times, 21 August 2007
NATIONAL DAY RALLY 07
REACTIONS
BONUS POINTS FOR MALAY
3rd language incentives offered for JC entry to stem high dropout rate before O levels
EACH year, about 300 students sign up for Malay as a third language at
Secondary 1, but only one in five ends up taking the subject for the O-level examinations.
To get more non-Malays to learn Malay and stay the course, the Education Ministry is offering two bonus points for junior college entry to those who pass Malay at the O levels.
Students can now also use their Malay grade in lieu of a humanities subject for their L1R5 (first language plus five relevant subjects) aggregate score for JC entry.
These incentives will also apply to the 200 non-Chinese students who study Chinese as a third language each year.
The same goes for those taking Bahasa Indonesia, to be offered as a third language from next year.
A Regional Studies Programme, whereby students study Malay or Bahasa Indonesia and learn more about South-east Asia, will also be rolled out next year.
Giving details of these initiatives at a press conference yesterday, Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew said the measures will help groom a group of non-Malays who can “effectively engage the region”.
The incentives will kick in with the current Sec 3 cohort.
Since 1986, non-Malay students have been able to study Malay as a third
language under the Malay Special Programme (MSP), which is offered in 14 schools and four centres.
The Chinese Special Programme (CSP),started three years ago, is offered in 11 schools and two centres.
To give CSP and MSP students continued exposure after secondary school, an elective similar to the Japanese or French A-level elective in JCs will also be introduced.
In his National Day Rally speech on Sunday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted that “too few” young non-Malays were fluent in Malay or Bahasa Indonesia.
Malay has not been as popular a third language as Japanese, German and French. These three languages draw 1,200 Sec 1 students, or an average of 400 each, a year.
More students also go on to take these languages at the Olevels – about 400 in total, or one in three.
Teachers and students interviewed yesterday felt that the latest measures will encourage more non-Malays to learn Malay.
Ms Latifah Mohamedzen, teacher in charge of the MSP at Bukit Batok Secondary, believes the bonus points will encourage more to sign up.
It may also stem the attrition rate, she added. Many students start to drop out as the lessons begin to clash with their co-curricular activities (CCAs). Some focus on their CCAs as they can get JC entry points for them.
Methodist Girls’ School student Ng Tze Shien, 13, chose Malay over other third languages as it was “more practical”. She thinks the incentives will draw more students.
“Some people may not be good in humanities, but are good in languages. Malay is quite easy to learn as a language,” she said.
After reading this article, I felt quite glad that I’m still taking Japanese as my third language. This is because of the fact that from RI, there are currently only 14 students from my batch left still studying Japanese.
It has been quite disheartening for me to see a lot of my friends who dropped third languages as they move on to the second or third year of their Secondary school education. I decided to take Japanese because I was aware of the advantages. Not only are we able to study in other countries, we are also giving ourselves more opportunities to extend into the rest of the world. For example, since I study Japanese, I will be able to work in Japan in the future.
The article talks about the government’s approach to ensure that there are many non-Malays who take Malay as third language and stay in the course. This is due to the fact that four out of five drop it before ‘O’ levels. I think the government has made the correct move to let Malay grades be used as part of the aggregate score for JC entry.
This alone has made taking Malay attractive. Not only are there free Malay lessons, it is also helpful in JC entry, which should be exceptionally appealing to students like Rafflesians who care a lot about 1 or 2 marks. From another viewpoint, the government succeeds because not only would there be more students taking Malay, those students will also continue to stay in the course for the whole 4 years and try their best to do well, which is what the government aims to do.
The government hopes to groom a group of non-Malays who can effectively engage the South-east Asia region. I agree with what the government is hoping to achieve. 20 to 30 years down the road, it will be our turn to take on the leadership of Singapore. To ensure that Singapore can communicate well with countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, Malay (and also Bahasa Indonesia which will be introduced) is crucial. Our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong can speak Malay very well too.
However, from a Japanese student’s viewpoint, if more students take Malay, what will happen to Japanese, French and German? Wouldn’t there be less students taking them? The spread of students among the 4 languages will inevitably become unbalanced. As such, I feel that while trying to get more students for Malay course, the government has overlooked the possible effects. I must say that it could be because I am biased towards the foreign languages as a Japanese student, but the impact is possible.
But I know that it is difficult to balance both sides of the situation. Either they get an inadequate number of students who take Malay or they attract students to take Malay and sacrifice the foreign languages. I can quite understand the government’s decision as Malay as compared to the other third languages is more important to Singapore.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Sunday, August 5, 2007
I'm not ready to don the green cape
Straits Times, 14 July 2007
THINKING ALOUD
BY PAUL JACOB
Deputy Political Editor
A WORD to the uninitiated.
When mulling over how you can play your own small part in curbing global warming, it may be best to keep your plans to yourself.
And go about your business quietly.
The danger otherwise is that when you next meet people, they expect to see you in green tights and a cape, with a huge recyclable Save the Earth logo on your environmentally friendly T-shirt.
The mistaken assumption that comes when such statements of intent are offered is that the transformation is going to be immediate, overnight, instant. Out with plastics, dump the car, cut meat intake, stub out the cigarettes – and so on.
But life is not like that. The reality is that you have to struggle against instinct and habits, and contend with the accumulation of paper, junk, power-hungry equipment and gadgets from over the years.
And no way are you ready to give up a car that is distinctly more comfortable and convenient to use than an environmentally friendly bicycle.
I speak from brief experience, having written just a while ago about how much more conscious I had become of things green, especially after being startled by just how large a carbon footprint I was leaving behind.
But it was the weight of expectation foisted by others that I was unprepared for: the expectation of a 180-degree change towards leading a healthier, more completely green, and more environmentally conscious lifestyle.
In time perhaps, but not just yet.
Old habits die hard. So the green tights and cape associated with an
environmental crusader will have to wait.
Just how tough is it to effect change?
Take the case of the mother of all environmental events as a case in point.
Last Saturday’s Live Earth show was a 24-hour, seven-continent extravaganza to raise awareness about global warming.
It featured more than 100 performers and luminaries in concerts across the globe and was broadcast, podcast, vodcast and aired to an audience estimated to number two billion.
The event’s impact on changing mindsets and spreading the word is debatable. Were people drawn to the cause being promoted or were they attracted to what was effectively a rock concert, an occasion for groups like the Police to showcase their reunion?
More critically for an event that was intended to spark change in the way people view the environment, what kind of footprint did it leave in its wake? Mr John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, was quoted in the Observer newspaper as saying that the event’s total carbon footprint – including the travel and energy consumption of the artists and spectators involved – amounted to at least 31,500 tonnes.
That was more than 3,000 times the annual average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain, the paper added.
The Singapore average: 8.38 tonnes.
Some other data that makes you wonder if those involved were part of the solution or contributed to the problem: Performers flew over 350,000km to take part in the events.
That was the equivalent of nearly nine times around the planet, the Daily Mail fumed.
And the aftermath of the concert at the new Wembley stadium was a sight to behold – thousands upon thousands of plastic cups and bottles strewn on the ground.
It would seem that there, too, old habits die hard.
Organisers of the Live Earth concerts countered such concerns about the event’s negative environmental impact by pointing out, among other things, that food and drink stalls used containers that were biodegradable; shows were powered by electricity from renewable sources; low energy bulbs were used; and that trash was sorted out for recycling.
A massive event, such as Live Earth was, no doubt helps focus the minds of those who attended or who tuned in to watch the whole or part of the show.
Yet I wonder if the effects and its impact linger long.
What did you, for instance, take away from it, if anything?
How much have similar well-meaning events like the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh and 1985’s Live Aid benefit concert for Ethiopia changed the course of lives for people in those countries, and where are they today?
The key to effectiveness must be in what continues to be sustained on the ground after the performers, feeling good about lending their names to a cause, pack their instruments and jet back to their mansions.
Which brings me back to my starting point.
Make up your own mind about what you can and want to do in your own small way – and not because Al Gore, Madonna and others made a song and dance about it last week.
That’s the most sustainable way of getting our hands, collectively, around the problem.
As a Geography student, I know and can understand the importance of protecting our environment and slowing down the rate of global warming. Global warming is actually caused by the emission of too much greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide which trap infrared rays as rays from the sun reflect against the earth’s surface.
In the article, the author talks about the old irresponsible habits of everyone of us, which can never be improved. The fact is that no one would ever give up any habits just for the sake of the environment; you wouldn’t give up a car for a bicycle. However, it’s not only a habit; it is a way of life too. You can’t possibly not use paper, can you? Therefore, I think the same way as the author; it is hard to effect changes.
In my opinion, I feel that people are actually doing something, but what they do does not help much. Take the example in the article, Live Earth concert. The concert is supposed to raise awareness of people about global warming, but it has failed in doing so. According to the article, the total carbon footprint of the whole event was 3000 times the annual average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain. My immediate response was “Oh my god?” Yes, it’s very scary. While trying to raise awareness about global warming, the unusually high carbon footprint has caused even more carbon dioxide to be emitted, adding on to the worrying rate of global warming.
Furthermore, from other related articles I’ve read, a lot of rubbish has been disposed of during the event. Yes, the concert made use of electricity from renewable sources and food and drink stalls used containers that were biodegradable. However, from a photo that I’ve seen, a lot of disposable cutleries have been used and then throw away, of course. I am not quite sure why the contradiction, but since I have limited knowledge of the facts, I shan’t talk about it. But the photo which I’ve seen could not be wrong; the earth’s resources are not conserved.
Lastly, the article mentions that whether people have understood the message that the concert was trying to convey. My hypothesis is that a large percentage of audience of the event is more interested in the concert rather than the purpose behind it. There may be a small percentage that got the message and may try to do something to conserve the Earth. As such, the impact is insignificant.
However, I must say that as a teenager though a Geography student, I am not quite aware of what have been done to raise awareness other than the Live Earth concert. Therefore, I’m not in the position to say whether events of this kind are useful. Furthermore, my concerns for the environment may have made me skeptic about the significance of such events. However, one thing for sure is that, the Live Earth concert has not done as much as it aimed to.
THINKING ALOUD
BY PAUL JACOB
Deputy Political Editor
A WORD to the uninitiated.
When mulling over how you can play your own small part in curbing global warming, it may be best to keep your plans to yourself.
And go about your business quietly.
The danger otherwise is that when you next meet people, they expect to see you in green tights and a cape, with a huge recyclable Save the Earth logo on your environmentally friendly T-shirt.
The mistaken assumption that comes when such statements of intent are offered is that the transformation is going to be immediate, overnight, instant. Out with plastics, dump the car, cut meat intake, stub out the cigarettes – and so on.
But life is not like that. The reality is that you have to struggle against instinct and habits, and contend with the accumulation of paper, junk, power-hungry equipment and gadgets from over the years.
And no way are you ready to give up a car that is distinctly more comfortable and convenient to use than an environmentally friendly bicycle.
I speak from brief experience, having written just a while ago about how much more conscious I had become of things green, especially after being startled by just how large a carbon footprint I was leaving behind.
But it was the weight of expectation foisted by others that I was unprepared for: the expectation of a 180-degree change towards leading a healthier, more completely green, and more environmentally conscious lifestyle.
In time perhaps, but not just yet.
Old habits die hard. So the green tights and cape associated with an
environmental crusader will have to wait.
Just how tough is it to effect change?
Take the case of the mother of all environmental events as a case in point.
Last Saturday’s Live Earth show was a 24-hour, seven-continent extravaganza to raise awareness about global warming.
It featured more than 100 performers and luminaries in concerts across the globe and was broadcast, podcast, vodcast and aired to an audience estimated to number two billion.
The event’s impact on changing mindsets and spreading the word is debatable. Were people drawn to the cause being promoted or were they attracted to what was effectively a rock concert, an occasion for groups like the Police to showcase their reunion?
More critically for an event that was intended to spark change in the way people view the environment, what kind of footprint did it leave in its wake? Mr John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, was quoted in the Observer newspaper as saying that the event’s total carbon footprint – including the travel and energy consumption of the artists and spectators involved – amounted to at least 31,500 tonnes.
That was more than 3,000 times the annual average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain, the paper added.
The Singapore average: 8.38 tonnes.
Some other data that makes you wonder if those involved were part of the solution or contributed to the problem: Performers flew over 350,000km to take part in the events.
That was the equivalent of nearly nine times around the planet, the Daily Mail fumed.
And the aftermath of the concert at the new Wembley stadium was a sight to behold – thousands upon thousands of plastic cups and bottles strewn on the ground.
It would seem that there, too, old habits die hard.
Organisers of the Live Earth concerts countered such concerns about the event’s negative environmental impact by pointing out, among other things, that food and drink stalls used containers that were biodegradable; shows were powered by electricity from renewable sources; low energy bulbs were used; and that trash was sorted out for recycling.
A massive event, such as Live Earth was, no doubt helps focus the minds of those who attended or who tuned in to watch the whole or part of the show.
Yet I wonder if the effects and its impact linger long.
What did you, for instance, take away from it, if anything?
How much have similar well-meaning events like the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh and 1985’s Live Aid benefit concert for Ethiopia changed the course of lives for people in those countries, and where are they today?
The key to effectiveness must be in what continues to be sustained on the ground after the performers, feeling good about lending their names to a cause, pack their instruments and jet back to their mansions.
Which brings me back to my starting point.
Make up your own mind about what you can and want to do in your own small way – and not because Al Gore, Madonna and others made a song and dance about it last week.
That’s the most sustainable way of getting our hands, collectively, around the problem.
As a Geography student, I know and can understand the importance of protecting our environment and slowing down the rate of global warming. Global warming is actually caused by the emission of too much greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide which trap infrared rays as rays from the sun reflect against the earth’s surface.
In the article, the author talks about the old irresponsible habits of everyone of us, which can never be improved. The fact is that no one would ever give up any habits just for the sake of the environment; you wouldn’t give up a car for a bicycle. However, it’s not only a habit; it is a way of life too. You can’t possibly not use paper, can you? Therefore, I think the same way as the author; it is hard to effect changes.
In my opinion, I feel that people are actually doing something, but what they do does not help much. Take the example in the article, Live Earth concert. The concert is supposed to raise awareness of people about global warming, but it has failed in doing so. According to the article, the total carbon footprint of the whole event was 3000 times the annual average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain. My immediate response was “Oh my god?” Yes, it’s very scary. While trying to raise awareness about global warming, the unusually high carbon footprint has caused even more carbon dioxide to be emitted, adding on to the worrying rate of global warming.
Furthermore, from other related articles I’ve read, a lot of rubbish has been disposed of during the event. Yes, the concert made use of electricity from renewable sources and food and drink stalls used containers that were biodegradable. However, from a photo that I’ve seen, a lot of disposable cutleries have been used and then throw away, of course. I am not quite sure why the contradiction, but since I have limited knowledge of the facts, I shan’t talk about it. But the photo which I’ve seen could not be wrong; the earth’s resources are not conserved.
Lastly, the article mentions that whether people have understood the message that the concert was trying to convey. My hypothesis is that a large percentage of audience of the event is more interested in the concert rather than the purpose behind it. There may be a small percentage that got the message and may try to do something to conserve the Earth. As such, the impact is insignificant.
However, I must say that as a teenager though a Geography student, I am not quite aware of what have been done to raise awareness other than the Live Earth concert. Therefore, I’m not in the position to say whether events of this kind are useful. Furthermore, my concerns for the environment may have made me skeptic about the significance of such events. However, one thing for sure is that, the Live Earth concert has not done as much as it aimed to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)