Too Much Tech Makes the Kids Go Bad

In Sarah Pinker's NY Times article, she argues against the unthinking worship of Education Technology in the politics of education.  Simply put, people think that the mere presence of Ed Tech, even in its simplest form as giving every child a laptop will lead to dramatic reductions in the digital divide.  In turn, it would reduce the social and economic inequality that may result.  And of course, as the article argues, it's not that simple: nothing really replaces the tough but loving parent and the teacher who is gifted in the art of teaching.

Singapore's similar to the extent that there is a great emphasis on Ed Tech.  But MOE's been way ahead - the Singapore education scene's far beyond talk about equipping (that was IT Master plan 2 and we're at the brink of Masterplan 4!).  Singapore's really gone into training the teachers with IT specific pedagogy and educating parents on their role in making Ed Tech work.  Of course there will be room for improvement but I think MOE deserves credit where credit is due.

Except that most teachers and students will probably hesitate to praise the benefits of tech too quickly.  No one is quite clear whether equal access to tech has equalized the playing field.  Frankly, in my teaching experience, many students (including the serious ones) continue to prefer the more traditional methods of teaching.  There is also this jadedness with regards to tech.  I wonder if 10 years down the road will we turn back and laugh at ourselves for going through all that trouble for so little, if any, benefit.

Caught between a rock and a hard place

In Yamaguchi's CNN International analysis of Japan's hostage crisis entanglement with ISIS, he points to the real source of Abe’s dilemma.  Whichever way the government reacts would bound to raise the ire of some key political entity.  Giving the $200 million ransom defuses the domestic political crisis and safeguards Abe’s political capital (which just won him a resounding election).

 Yet, doing so creates both immediate and long term damage to their political alliance with the US-led coalition of international parties.  However socially  homogeneous Japan wishes to be, she needs her friends for political and economic reasons more than ever.  For the first time in more than a decade, it has a real chance to end its deflationary nightmare and political weakness.  She can’t risk it.  But I don’t think Japan’s experience is peculiar.  As the world becomes increasingly polarized over international conflicts (whether the Middle-east, Eastern Europe or our good friend North Korea), no one can afford not to choose the wrong side. 

 It made me think about Singapore.  If the same were to have happened in Singapore, would our government face the same dilemma?  Politically speaking, the Singapore government’s stand has always been clear – it will stand with the winners.  The national narrative of obsession with its small geographical size (and political strength) has meant avoiding taking an assertive stance with respect to the international community.  Traditionally, the government has little problems doing so – it can do what is shrewd whether the citizens like it or not.  

  

But with the waning political strength of the ruling party, can it still do what it wants?  Will that provide more fodder for alternative political parties in Singapore to chip away the ruling party’s already diminishing vote share?  You decide.

Word of the Day: Uberization!

Wouldn't it be nice to hold a regular job and as and when you like it earn some spare cash.  You don't have to if you don't want to, but if you did, you'll have that option of turning what you have - whether your house, your car or your knowledge - into spare cash priced based on the simple economics of on-demand pricing.  

Welcome to the world of Uberization!

Turn your car into a cab with just one click!

Not discounting the benefits of such disruptive technologies which completely destabilises traditional business models, Farhad Manjoo in a NY Times Tech article on Uberization, warns of the dangers "monetising downtime" (Uber's Business Model Could Change Your - Work NT Times ).  While he doesn't really explain why he thinks why it's such a bad idea, one can easily guess.  Downtime is meant for you to unwind and relax, and most importantly, build those life-sustaining relationships with friends and family.  

When yet another opportunity to earn quick money comes along, it can be tempting to uberize your life.  What are the long term impact on our relationships?  How will our life change when our private spheres, spaces and possessions are transformed into revenue generating assets?  I fear the encroachment of work and technology, and wonder if there will be any space left for human relationships and solitude.  I fear the commodication of all spaces and possessions left in a a big city like Singapore that's already so obsessed with financial success.  I wonder.

Uberrization = Social Alienation?