Is the dream to make SkillsFuture a reality but a policymaker's fantasy?

SkillsFuture: is it a mere fantasy?

Within the polytechnic education circuit, SkillsFuture initiatives are like the biggest thing.  The general sentiment is, as least among the less cynical staff, that the infrastructure of employment is set to experience a radical transformation. And behind this transformation, is a strong government will to reconfigure Singapore's socio-economic motherboard, so that we place a premium on skills, as opposed to paper qualifications; on the ability to learn, as opposed to how innately intelligent one is.

So it comes as a surprise to me that most people I've come across have little clue of what SkillsFuture is, let alone the intent of the policies.  In fact, such people come from a wide spectrum, from the highly educated professionals to experienced industry professionals.  Even a fair number of MOE teachers I'm acquainted with know little as to the intent of SkillsFuture, let alone whether they're convinced its policy goals would come to fruition.  Even within the polytechnic circuit, I do wonder.

More shockingly, a management/director level person in the polytechnic circuit whom I spoke to referred to SkillsFuture as a 'policy fad'.  He could have just been cynical.  But what's worrying is if he were right, then what would that mean for all the effort that's gone into this effort?  Would Singapore remain a narrow, paper qualification driven society, where what counts as success, and what's rewarded as success is narrowed defined as 'Lawyer', 'Doctor' and 'Businessman'?  

In fact with so much buzz about Singapore becoming the first Smart Nation of the world, you would think data analytics is the way to go.  But consider this:  Recently, I had a casual conversation with a data analyst about the smart nation initiative.  

"Wah, you have such foresight.  Who would have thought that analytics and tech would have become so big?  Wish I had been less of an art student wannabe and studied computer science instead"

"Mark, don't be fooled.  At the end of the day, it's the generalist that will be rewarded.  There are tons of cheap and good data analysts from China, India and Vietnam.  After this fad dies down, it will still be the generalist, the business student who wins."

Even though I think I stand to benefit more if Singapore remains paper qualifications driven, in my heart, I feel what should count is skills mastery.  If he were right, I'll be really sad. 

My Easter Plan: Resurrecting my Blog

I can't imagine anyone reading this blog actually.  But about a year ago, when I was still searching for some direction in life, this blog gave me the courage to keep trenching on.  It was my way of maintaining some connection with my past as a General Paper tutor, grieving the death of my role as a teacher in the mainstream education system but also, a way to keep my mind busy and active as I attempted to find some purpose and meaning in life.  

But after I found my job at Republic Poly, things kind of came to a standstill.  Rightly so, for I was too busy trying to get back into the routine of work.  My skills and expertise were frankly a little flabby having floated around for 5 months.  And of course, I was too busy just trying to digest all I needed to to reframe my world and get a sense of what polytechnic education was all about.

Now, almost one year on, on this special pre-Easter day, I'll like to start this blog again, though with a few changes.  I'll like to keep things short and simple, focusing mainly on reflections and questions, rather than analysis and evaluation.  Also, I will focus on keeping to a regular routine of posting once in two weeks, so I can get into the swing of things.  I'll see what happens.

I can do it.  One post at a time.

Finding Hope Amid those Hazy answers: Indonesians and Singaporeans unite!

Just a few weeks back, a friend of mine in Jakarta whom I recently befriended through church posted a heartfelt message on her Facebook wall:

Dear friends in Singapore, I'm so sorry for the haze that pollutes Singapore's air caused by forest fires in Sumatra...I really don't know what to say except I apologise... :(

Now of course, what followed was an overwhelming outpouring of support from friends in Singapore, many of whom pointed out the rather plain fact that it wasn't her fault.  After all, what can ordinary citizens do?  This is Indonesia, where the politics are as choked up as its infamous Jakarta Jam.  And while some have made observations that the Jokowi administration has engaged in haze fighting efforts like no other Indonesian administration before, few pundits are even remotely optimistic.  Doesn't help that even as Jokowi does his level best to appease Indonesia's neighbours, you get strange leaders like Kalla, the vice-president of Indonesia making strange statements like:

“For 11 months, they enjoyed nice air from Indonesia and they never thanked us. They have suffered because of the haze for one month and they get upset,” 

-Mr Kalla, Vice-President, 3 March 2015

“Singapore shouldn’t be like children, in such a tizzy,” 

- Mr Agung Laksono, then Minister, 2013

We could draw the conclusion that the persistence of the haze issue stems from the lack of political unity and decisive leadership.  On the one hand, you have leaders like Jokowi who are trying to act as a leading ASEAN nation should, with courage, responsibility and plain sensibility.  Then you have parochial politicians like Kalla, who think only of posturing, and pandering to national pride.  Which I think is the main reason why till now, Indonesia has been unable to take a decisive position on whether it would accept help from its neighbours, namely, Singapore and Malaysia.  It's hard to accept help from the former, which has often been the target of ridicule by Indonesian politicians since Independence (c.f. former President B.J. Habibie's comment on Singapore as that 'little red dot' in 1998).  The fact that the Jakarta administration has chosen to do so instead of addressing poverty issues, the lack of regulation and enforcement, and issues of corruption which are root causes which exacerbate the haze crisis is all the more frustrating.

I feel a great sense of injustice for my friends in Jakarta, and the many who suffer from the haze of political nonsense.  Quite recently, there've been a series of reports on ordinary Indonesians, returning to their normal lives.  I can't tell if it's false bravado or utter resignation.  But one thing is for sure, I don't think we should be accepting what a Channel NewsAsia report called 'the new normal: life goes on for Indonesians in spite of the haze'.  Frankly, life HAS gone on as per normal for wealthy Indonesians.  It's the ordinary folk, those who live in the slums of the Jakarta metropolis, those who are homeless, those who can't afford air conditioning, let alone air filters, who bear the brunt of the haze crisis.

Photocredits: ChannelNewsAsia

As for Singaporeans, I think to their credit, they have matured a little.  Unlike previous years, you don't really hear much of  xenophobic "those Indonesians" slurs.  In fact, the discourse has evolved such that instead of simply calling on the Singapore government to do something about the situation, there have been a number of grown up initiatives to combat the issue e.g. movements to boycott companies linked to illegal forrest clearing in Indonesia.  Though of course, in characteristic Singapore fashion, the discourse rarely moves into the terrain of Human rights.  Mainly, it's been course in apolitical, safe language like 'caring for the environment'.  Going forward, I hope that we will soon grow behind the mindset of thinking about the haze in terms of how it affects us, and instead, how we can stand in solidarity with ordinary Indonesians, especially the poor, who suffer.

Invasion of the Tiger Parents!

At the Association of Muslim Professionals seminar on education a year ago, Professor Jason Tan argues that instead of having a "meritocracy" in Singapore, we are increasingly a "parentocracy", where parents' education and financial advantages have an undue influence on children's academic success.  More recently, the issue was resurrected at Raffles Institution's homecoming event, where the principal Mr Chan Poh Meng himself warned the Rafflesian community to guard itself against becoming too insular and elitist.  My first reaction to the allegation of "parentocracy" was: how is this any different from what is already happening?  The traditional definition of meritocracy describes how the merits one receives is a direct result of and reward for hard work.  But in reality, since time immemorial the 'applied' form of meritocracy has always been flawed because no one starts from a level playing field.  Maybe in postwar Singapore, the playing field was largely even, but this has never been so since the 1980s as Singapore rose to be one of four Asian Economic Tigers, and now, the only one left.  Mr Chan Poh Meng's fear I suppose is Singapore no longer rewards people for their merit, but their parents' merit. Hence, "parentocracy"?

Credit: The Straits Times

As I reflected on Professor Tan's views, I realised that his point might be a lot more nuanced.  Yes, one's socioeconomic background has always had a major influence on one's success in life. And kudos to the Ministry of Education rolling out various policies (e.g. "Every school a good school") and working in partnership with CDAC, Mendaki and SINDA to create equal opportunities for all.   Few would argue Heng did much more than most Ministers of Education  in that area (Read Heng's interview: "Past 4 years have been demand but meaning"). Having said all that, what Professor Tan's pointing out is that many well-heeled parents today are actively subverting the government's very attempts to make Singapore a more inclusive society.  That the 'natural' good intentions of parents are inadvertently subverting Singapore's founding philosophy, our 'secret sauce' for success, i.e. meritocracy.  In the past, the Ministry of Education's 'enemy' was a public one, such as insufficient policy support for the needy students or schools that support needy student from pre-school to post-secondary education.  Now, the Ministry of Education's 'enemy' exists in the domain of the private, the very place where standard Singapore government policy protocol avoids.

Credit: www.thekeys.global

Incidentally, not long after Professor Tan's speech was delivered, Amy Chua, of Tiger Mum fame, announced the opening of a tuition enrichment center, The Keys Academy, for which she is an advisor.  While high end tuition centres are not new in Singapore (c.f. Learning Lab), The Keys Academy stands out because it offers silicon valley style enrichment for hard skills like coding and robotics to soft skills like multicultural communication and networking skills.  Beyond that, they're offering 'externships' with leading international institutions which only the uber rich kids opportunties even money might not be able to buy.  

I don't have children yet but to be honest, I would definitely do a double take on them.  And frankly, if I had the means, I might just give it a try.  This is something the public sector could never really offer and from a macro point of view, it could be good for Singapore .  Having said that, such enrichment centres bring parentocracy to a whole new level.  My guess is that such opportunties at enrichment centers like Keys may involve some level of competition even among their students.  The insanity of competition is no longer confined to the mainstream Singapore school.    Recently I was told that an entirely new level to my friendly neighbourhood shopping mall in Tampines was converted into a dedicated area for tuition and enrichment centres, with anchoring tenants like Adam Khoo.  Learning Lab recently opened a branch in Tampines as well.  The competition is now so intense that these enrichment centers have an incredibly long waiting list of student competing for enrolment.  Does this herald a new era of education in Singapore? Are we entering a new era of 'arms race' among the uber rich in Singapore? Is Singapore set to be the global centre for Tiger parenting?  We shall see.

Credit: ww.advisorhubic.com

Robo-HR: An Idiot's Guide to Hiring and Firing

I suppose with the incessant drive to introduce ever more smart technology to simplify our lives, it was only a matter of time companies began using machine learning to do the messy work of HR.  A slew of innovative tech solutions like Doxa, Gild and Textio are promising to do a better, more objective job of making hiring decisions by making sense of mountains of data (including data mined off the internet).  What's best is the promise of making sure that now only will the new hire be a better fit in terms of values, beliefs and work ethics, s/he will also be hired free from bias (e.g. gender, race, sexuality, socio-economic background, old girl/boy networks, etc).  That's where the debate lies.

Most comments I've come across don't seem too optimistic though.  Not because they don't support the eradication of bias, but because they don't trust computers to make such a complex judgment which most people feel comes down to one's gut feel.  They might well also be right that computer algorithms could encode the bias of the coder, and if that were so, machine learning can hardly be trusted to make an accurate and objective choice.

But I think that counterargument seems to miss the point.  Whether the proposed solution can accurately predict or make a good decision is one thing. But that's different from whether it'll be good to have such a solution in the first place, especially if eventually, we can make it work.  And to add to that, I also hope that companies can be a little more explicit about the way they design the algorithm so that at least there can be public accountability and reassurance that HR decisions aren't purely based on old boys networks, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.  

Of course, people of certain social variables tend to have shared values and beliefs.  But I think the values and beliefs, and how they fit the organisation should be prioritised, not factors beyond their control.  And I also think governments and NGOs should publicly acknowledge and reward companies that do.  No one's going to do that on their own - yes, I know companies love to say how much they believe in diversity and how diversity makes economic sense but really, who knows?  At the end of the day, it's about dollars and cents.  Which sensible businessman would invest so much money into diversity for its own sake, without solid proof that it leads to greater profits?  If these tech solutions can prove that hiring decisions were free from traditional bias, and if governments/NGOs can back their use, may be this could work!

Don't make gifted kids an easy scapegoat for inequality

WE NEED to view gifted children with more compassion ("Gifted tests: Ensure we don't create elitist mindset" by Mr Jeffrey Law Lee Beng, and "Risky to gauge potential based purely on IQ" by Mr George Lim Heng Chye; both published yesterday).

Some argue that there should be a more holistic view on giftedness, that is, one that includes social indicators like adversity and emotional quotients, as opposed to limited measures like IQ scores.

But schools already make values-driven education, focused on developing children holistically, a priority; it is infused throughout the curriculum.

Others say tests for giftedness will lead to "a generation of intellectual snobs". But doing away with the notion of giftedness will not magically lead to a more compassionate and egalitarian Singapore society.

The socio-economic stratification of Singapore stems from a complex interplay of cultural, economic and historical factors, which gifted children have little control over and which all Singaporeans are complicit in.

Society will always find inventive ways to distinguish between groups of people, with or without the notion of giftedness.

Let us not make gifted children a convenient scapegoat for inequality in society.

The responsible thing to do is to recognise that each child has something different to offer, and to bring out the best in every child's strengths.

Gifted children have gone on to contribute much to society, whether in public service or civil society.

Failure to give the diversity of gifted children the space to grow contributes to even greater socio-economic inequality in Singapore.

We will be, on the whole, worse off if we do not celebrate excellence (not elitism) as a desirable outcome of education.

What we should stigmatise are views that make a convenient scapegoat out of gifted children and make their growing-up experience that much more difficult.

Published in the Straits Times on 20 June 2015

What is the colour of prejudice?

I've been trying to wrap my mind around why I felt disturbed by this but I'm not quite sure.  Read the NY Times article for a little more background on the issue.  But anyway here goes: Rachel Dolezal, a white, blonde-hair blue eyed woman, is exposed for falsely passing off as a black/biracial woman.  To add fuel to fire, she's got a career in social activism for coloured folk, being the president of the NAACP for her local chapter.

Is race but a performance?

The public is out raged but for a whole variety of reasons. 

Some are angry because they saw what she did as a misappropriation of identity by a dominant group (i.e. the whites) where it is to their advantage, in the way say white rappers approach hip hop and rap music.  But of course, she's actually the president of her local chapter for an organisation fighting for the advancement of coloured people - so I'm not sure where the real racial domination is.  Isn't she fighting for coloured people - does the fact that she's white disqualify her from doing so?  Is it a regression the fact that we're outraged a white person becomes the president of an organisation?  And if you say only a black person can be the president - is that a progression or regression of civil rights for coloured folk?

Others are angry because she deceived the public as to her racial heritage when she clearly knew otherwise.  No one's stopping her for being the social activist that she is as a white person.  Plus she intentionally deceived the public and has hitherto been unapologetic until the media shove evidence to the contrary in her face.  Now I think people are right to be outraged.  But then, the extent to which they are outraged seemed to suggest that race matters more than it should.  Would you be similarly outraged if a transgender woman (e.g. caitlyn jenner)  tried to pass off as a woman and ran for the presidentship of a women's rights organization but was caught for it?   What if say the president of AWARE in Singapore were exposed as a man?  

Gender as a performance

I certainly wouldn't condone her act.  She intentionally deceived, and plausibly, for benefits she otherwise wouldn't have received -the media attention and career in activism.  But then, perhaps part of the public anger I think also stems from people's personal anger with themselves - that fundamentally, race (unfortunately) still seems to matter even among professed liberals.