Singapore announces 60 percent pay raise for ministers
By Seth Mydans
Published: April 9, 2007
Source: International Herald Tribune

    SINGAPORE: How much money does it take to keep a Singapore government minister happy? The government says a million dollars is not enough, and on Monday it announced a 60 percent boost in ministers' salaries, to an average of 1.9 million Singapore dollars, or $1.26 million, by next year.
    Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will see his pay jump to 3.1 million Singapore dollars, five times the $400,000 earned by President George W. Bush.
    In this nation where the bottom line truly is the bottom line, the argument goes, you've got to pay to get them and you've got to pay to keep them.
    "If we don't do that, in the long term, the government system will slowly crumble and collapse," Defense Minister Teo Chee Hean told reporters last month.
    As the minister who oversees the civil service, Teo announced the pay hikes Monday, saying: "We don't want pay to be the reason for people to join us. But we also don't want pay to be the reason for them not to join us, or to leave after joining us."
    It is a pay system created in 1994 by Singapore's founder, Lee Kuan Yew, pegging the salaries of government ministers and top civil servants to the money they might earn at the top of the private sector.
    Defending the system last month against an unusual public yelp of pain, Lee Kuan Yew painted a horrifying picture of a Singapore governed by ministers who earn no more than ministers anywhere else.
    "Your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is," he said, "your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries."
    Singapore has one of the most efficient and corruption-free governments in the world.
    It is Asia's second-richest country after Japan, with a gross domestic product per capita of about $31,000, and Lee said it could well afford to pay its leaders top dollar.
    The total of the salaries before the increase amounted to 46 million Singapore dollars a year, he said, or 0.13 percent of government expenditure - 0.022 percent of gross domestic product.
    Under the government's formula, ministers are to be paid two-thirds of the median of the top eight earners in each of six professions: accounting, law, banking, engineering, multinational companies and local manufacturing.
    There has been no public sign of discontent among the men and women who run Singapore, but last month the prime minister noted that they were earning just 55 percent of this benchmark.
    Talk of the impending pay increase drew an outcry here for weeks that included letters to newspapers and an online petition that has collected more than 800 signatures.
    The average Singaporean earns something over $2,000 a month, and the government has voiced concern over a widening gap between rich and poor.
    The ministerial raise comes three months ahead of a 2 percent increase in the sales tax.
    Mohamad Rosle Ahmad wrote in a letter to the editor: "I am sure Enron and Worldcom paid more than top dollar for their top executives, and look where their companies are now - six feet under." (top dollar does not guarantee results)
    Lee Kuan Yew, whose title is minister mentor, said naysayers like this need a reality check.
    "I say you have no sense of proportion; you don't know what life is about," he said last month.
    "The cure to all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government," Lee said. "You get that alternative, and you'll never put Singapore together again."
    He presented himself as an example: "A top lawyer, which I could easily have become, today earns 4 million Singapore dollars. And he doesn't have to carry this responsibility. All he's got to do is advise his client. Win or lose, that's the client's loss or gain."
    The Straits Times newspaper quoted him as saying his current salary as minister mentor was 2.7 million Singapore dollars.
Money may buy happiness for a government minister, but some Singaporeans suggested that other motivations should also come into play for government service.
    "What about other redeeming intangibles such as honor and sense of duty, dedication, passion and commitment, loyalty and service?" asked Hussin Mutalib in the Straits Times' online forum recently.
    Carolyn Lim, a prominent writer, suggested in an essay in The Straits Times that Singapore needed a little more heart to go along with its hard head. "Indeed, a brilliant achiever without the high purpose of service to others would be the worst possible ministerial material," she wrote.
    "To see a potential prime minister as no different from a potential top lawyer, and likely to be enticed by the same stupendous salary, would be to blur the lines between two very different domains."
    The minister mentor brushed aside concerns like that.
    "Those are admirable sentiments," he said. "But we live in a real world."

--

Ministers' salary increase: Can it be delayed until there is more public consultation?
April 6, 2007
Dr Hussin Mutalib
Source: Minor Epiphany

    THE views expressed so far on this difficult issue rightly deserve attention, even as Singaporeans await the Government's presentation of its case in Parliament next week.
    Given the unhappiness, it is hoped that the Government will do more to soothe this feeling during the Parliament sitting, and address this issue beyond the offer of relevant statistics and other pragmatic arguments.
    This issue is not new. So too the attendant shock that many Singaporeans react to when this pay scheme was publicly goaded in the early 1990s and hotly debated in Parliament in 1995.
    Let us recap the two sides of the argument. To the Government, we are fooling ourselves if we want to lure top talents but refuse to pay them top salaries, and that moral counter-points must give way to pragmatic ones.
    The cost of living, the competitiveness of the market place in a global economy, the high standards of integrity and performance expected of ministers and the equally high cost to their private lives are imperatives that must be taken into account.
    MM Lee even once argued that 'moral values on pay are good only for textbooks on socialism and political tracts on social justice'.
    However, to many Singaporeans, other factors must be given consideration. To begin with, is it right to compare jobs in the public and private sectors since there are obvious fundamental differences between the two?
    Secondly, while many have no problem with raising ministerial salaries as a matter of principle, the quantum of the raise seems to be unduly high, making our Cabinet ministers among the most highly paid in the world.
    Thirdly, while we must credit the political leadership for securing Singapore a sterling economic position in the world - our Republic's GDP growth rate and foreign reserves are among the highest in the world - such a remarkable achievement could not have been attained without the contributions and sacrifices of an equally productive workforce.
    Finally, this increase of ministerial salaries may convey the wrong signal that money is actually the bottomline, even in such a nationally important issue of political contribution and service.
    What about other redeeming intangibles such as honour and sense of duty, dedication, passion and commitment, loyalty and service?
    It may be difficult for many to believe that the talent pool is so small and that the able are so money-minded that the best way to get them to come forward is to give them more money.
    Hopefully, the Government will do more to appease this unhappiness. What about delaying this proposed increase until more public consultation is done and a better way of compensating the ministers and senior civil servants be found?
    Otherwise, many Singaporeans will feel the sheer helplessness that however unhappy they are about matters that are close to their hearts they will have little chance to be redressed, both outside Parliament and inside - and this is not good for Singapore's future.

--

Singapore’s bleak future
By Elia Diodati
Source: http://diodati.omniscientx.com/2007/04/08/singapores-bleak-future/

[This Dear Diodati column comes from lightbulb, a Singaporean currently working in a prominent Silicon Valley hi-tech company. I've edited the draft emailed to me, as requested, but I've tried to remain faithful to the original content. The author has requested to remain anonymous. The opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my opinions. As always, feel free to write in your contributions!]

Trends of the past five years or so in Singapore indicate a dismal future for our country. Here’s why:

Higher ministerial salaries have negative implications for our country

The justification for raising ministerial salaries is that public servants have to be paid what they are worth; otherwise, they will all go to the private sector. This is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, ministers are not paid paltry sums of money. S$1.2m per annum is already an obscenely large sum for any profession, even high finance: any increase is morally unjustifiable. The money culture that now pervades the civil service is the first sign of decline.

Secondly, let’s compare our country’s leaders with the leaders of great corporations. Exceptional companies are formed by people with vision, drive and enthusiasm. Companies that overpay their CEOs (like Enron2 normally don’t have a large chance of long term survival. Here in the Bay area, you have places like Google where CEOs are paid a mere $1 per year with almost all of their assets tied to stock options. Yes, they can make tons of money but they also risk losing all of it. Great people like these live and die by the company and that is something that deserves respect. But do the ministers “live and die” by the country? Their salaries are guaranteed, regardless of how the economy or society is doing.

Thirdly, reports on ministers’ performance are hopelessly one-sided. When the economy seems to be doing well, the national press immediately reports the good news, attributing the success to our ministers. The converse, however, is always blamed on “globalization, outsource, growing superpowers of China and India” and other such stock excuses. It’s never the ministers’ fault when things go wrong.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.

Fourthly, raising ministers’ salaries undermines the government’s moral authority to lead. By focusing on the money one can make in the public service rather than the actual service to the country, the public service will have a harder time recruiting people who truly want to serve instead of just greedy people looking for a high salary. The PAP has has been in power for such a long time partly because of its perceived moral authority. There was a time long ago where that was probably the case. Projecting this image of highly paid public service elites merely reinforces the image of an insensitive, aloof, and mercenary government. This is dangerous because public service is a glue that holds society together. Right now, that glue is losing its grip and things are falling apart.

Fifthly, raising ministers’ salaries widens the income gap between rich and poor, which has already widened rapidly in the past five years. An increment in ministerial salaries might be minuscule relative to our GDP, but that hardly compensates for the destabilizing effect this will have on a society already plagued with various inequalities. Modern Singapore arose out of the swamps and kampungs of the 1960s not just because of the Old Guard of the PAP, but also because people then lived lives full of hope, even while they lacked material wealth. Successful companies today value their employees who do well; top executives understand that no matter how much vision and talent they possess, it is their people who actually get things done.

Today’s leaders of Singapore need to learn to appreciate what the common man does for his country. Without this basic courtesy, there is no reason for Singaporeans to remain hopeful.

--

in summary,

FOR:
- to keep politic talent from running away.
- without good leaders, singapore will be in the pits
- attract the brightest people and to prevent corruption.
AGAINST:
- magnitude of raise & untimeliness
- ministerial pay was not paltry to begin with
- existence of widening income gap
- singapore's achievements also in part due to workforce w/ vision, drive, enthusiasm, hope, productivity
- perpetuates the image of aloof, insensitive & mercenary govt
- neglects redeeming intangibles
- undermines the govt's moral authority to lead
- unfair to compare govt job to private sector: fundamentally different
- should wait for more public consultation and concordance

(others)
- the six lucrative professions on which ministers' salaries are based do not reflect the country's economy or the government's performance.
- the prosperity and security enjoyed by Singaporeans are not that different from other Asian first-world economies such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan, where government ministers do not command such high salaries.
- Finland, for instance, beat Singapore in the WEF and Transparency International polls -- as second-most competitive and most corruption-free country -- but its Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen earns about a sixth of Lee's estimated salary.
- the million-dollar salaries are only accessible to members of Lee's ruling People's Action Party. Opposition politicians have been crippled by defamation lawsuits brought by government ministers and no opposition party has ever held a ministerial post.

THE PETITION
currently has 3200+ signatures: http://www.petitiononline.com/paypap1/petition.html

National Kidney Foundation Singapore Scandal
source: wikipedia.

The National Kidney Foundation Singapore scandal, also known as the NKF saga, NKF scandal, or NKF controversy, was a July 2005 scandal involving National Kidney Foundation Singapore (NKF) following the collapse of a defamation trial which it brought against Susan Long and Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). This caused a massive backlash and fallout of donors to the charity, and subsequently resulted in the resignation of Chief Executive Officer T.T Durai and its board of directors.

Allegations surrounding the scandal included the false declarations on how long NKF's reserves could last, its number of patients, installation of a golden tap in Durai's private office suite, his salary, use of company cars and first-class air travel. Former NKF patron Tan Choo Leng, wife of Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, sparked further outrage when she remarked that T.T Durai's pay of "S$600,000 a year is peanuts".

President of the National Council of Social Services, Gerard Ee, has since been appointed as interim chairman of the organisation. A full independent audit on its finances was conducted by KPMG, and a 442-page report released on 19 December 2005 revealed several malpractices by the former NKF board and management. Durai was arrested on 17 April 2006 and charged under the Prevention of Corruptions Act by the Police. A S$12 million civil suit to recover funds by the new NKF board against Durai and four other former board members began on 8 January 2007.

1. NKF vs. SPH

• SPH published editorial called "NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?" by Susan Long.
• A retired contractor alleged Durai wanted "a glass-panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl and a (S$1,000) gold-plated tap" installed in his office
• NKF demanded apology, retraction, payment of damages from SPH
• 4 days after publication of article, NKF and Durai served a writ on Long and SPH for defamation, demanding S$3.24mil
• Claimed the article implied mismanagement of donors' funds
• Trial began 11 July 2005
• Cross-examination revealed Durai collected a monthly salary of $25,000 and collected a 10-month bonus in 2002 and a 12-month bonus in both 2003 and 2004, for a total of $1.8 million over three years; had access to a fleet of eight chauffeured cars and the NKF paid the taxes and maintenance costs of his personal Mercedes-Benz.
• The case was dropped by Durai on 5 PM on the second day of the trial.

2. Aftermath

• public backlash: focus of scandal turned to revelation of Durai's S$600,000/year pay
• widespread feelings of outrage, anger, betrayal amongst public
• 3,800 regular donors cancelled their contributions; NKF's headquarters vandalised with graffiti
• tan choo leng, goh chok tong's wife, commented that "for a person who runs a big million-dollar charitable organisation, with a few hundred million in reserves, S$600,000 a year is peanuts.". was met with immense public backlash.
• 14 July 2005 - TT Durai and NKF board resigned en masse.
• Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan appointed Gerald Ee as CEO.
• KPMG, commissed by new NKF board, found that only 10 cents out of every dollar raised were used for dialysis costs.

3. Long Term Effects

• Raised questions about the level of transparency in other institutions in Singapore
• 4 people linked to SDP picketed for transparency from GIC, HDB, NKF and CPF in July 2005
• http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlekhaw.html

--

Collection of articles
http://www.geraldtan.com/medaffairs/misc-nkf.html

Good Government matters more than 'democracy'
It seems there are some out there who believe "democracy" does not really exist in Singapore. Frankly, the concept fo democracy is not relevant. What is crucial is whether people feel they have a good government and live in a good and safe environment.
We can argue about what democracy means in theory, but what good will that do us, other than to create bickering camps?
Geographically, we are a small nation. Yet we are respected far and wide. This did not come about by chance. Our early leaders dared to tell a big foreign power that they could govern the island. As it turned out, that was no small talk: Their actions spoke louder than their words.
Since 1965, not one sensible person can deny that the people and the nation have prospered. Sensible people will also not deny that our nation is a relatively safe place to raise a family.
Where are the rampart secret societies of yesteryear? Or the atrocities of war and meaningless riots?
Our elder leaders and the present team led by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong have acted when they needed to act for the nation's sake - no matter that the policies might appear at first to be unpopular with some sections of the people.
We can see for ourselves that there has been no sluggishness of action when they have needed to act for our sake.
We cannot deny that the party in government has been put there by us. It is the will of the people that the party succeeded in every free and uncorrupt election that was held.
Surely this is the ultimate law for all. Instead of basking in its glory, the Government has pushed us to greater heights of achievement, and today we hear of very talented and extraordinary people, far and near, who have made Singapore their home. They wish to contribute to a greater tomorrow for the nation and its people.
It is uncommon to hear of a disenchanted or discontented few, or even of a majority who may disagree with one or two policies of the Government.
But who can say that governing a nation of multi-racial and energetic people is a simple tasks?
Our leaders are no ideologues or theorists. They are both thinkers and people of action, and we have already seen the good they have done over the years.
To really undrsetand this one simply has to look at the suffering of other states.
We have to be fair and realistic when we make a critical assessment of any government. We have to look at matters in totality and not in isolation.
We have to study issues seriously, instead of making only a cursory perusal, if we are to be constructive in expressing feedback or viewpoints.
We are not in the age of technology. There are plenty of websites we can visit to update ourselves. We ought to respond with critical intelligence and not allow ourselves to degenerate or to fall by the wayside.
We are all, in many ways, participants in the govenring process, and we ought to be proud of that fact, instead of lamenting the absence of what the Western media touts as "true democracy" - whatever that means.
PREM SINGH

Democracy is basis for good government
I stirred uneasily in my seat as I read Mr Prem Singh's letter, "Good govt matters more than democracy" (ST, Sept 14). The letter writer seems to have overlooked the basic fact that it is democracy that puts a good government in power.
He suggests that "the concept of democracy is not important". What is more important to him is that Singaporeans are led by a capable Parliament and have a safe place to live in.
I would like to ask Mr Prem Singh how Singaporeans can be guaranteed of a good government with the demise of democracy.
Even if our climate is unsuitable for what the Western media touts as "true democracy", Singaporeans not only must persist with the right to vote with interest and continue to have a genuine choice in the form of an opposition.
It is incorrect to imply that true democracies invariably degenerate into "bickering camps".
Whiel it is true that we have prospered much as a nation since 1965, the fact that democracy played a pivotal role cannot be over-emphasised.
"Democracy" means rule by the people and MPs are our representatives. It empowers Singaporeans to elect the most capable of the crop into Parliament.
If we should rest on our laurels and take a disinterested approach to our democratic rights, as Mr Prem Singh seems to suggest, it would be too late when a "bad government" comes into power.
Mr Prem Singh's argument can only stand in a society where all men are angelic since it is based on a ssumption that a good government will always continue to be a good government.
In the parliamentary debate of Aug 17, Senior Minster Lee Kuan Yew warned that "those who were born after the PAP formed the government, and provided growth and schools and better facilities year after year may come to believe that it is the natural order of things."
It is dangerous to assume that Singapore will forever be blessed with a good government. Signaporeans must cherish and defend their democracy.
While I do not advocate the mindless chanting of slogans in the streets and the forming of opposition just for the sake of it, it is hoped that we will never forget that it was democracy that brought us here in the first place.

Who defines what good government really is?
I refer to Mr Prem Singh's letter (ST Sept 14). His opinion is that good government matters more than democracy, that as long as people feel that have a good and safe environment, democracy does not matter.
While I agree that a good government is important to a nation and its people, the term "good government" has no set standards. How would one define good government and who should define it?
There are governments which may not have undergone an election process and yet still claim to be good governments and representatives of the the people.
There are examples of self-proclaimed "good governemnts" which result in the people suffering.
I believe good government cannot come about without democracy. It can only emerge though a fair system of election and a good electoral environment where the people's will can be realised without fear.
The basis of democracy is power of the people. People elect a legitimate government of their choice. This basic function of fair elections ensures that the government of the day implements policies to benefit the majority of the population or face the consequence of not being re-elected.
The assumption is that voters are free to choose during elections and there is a choice of candidates from different parties.
The election mechanism forces the government to respond to the nation's needs and to be accountable to the people. Without the challenge of opposition parties, if the ruling party fails to deliever its promises, a "good" governemnt may not remain for so long.
A more refined form is the Parlimentary Democracy system that we practice here. Parliamentary Democracy is based on the concept of separation of powers between the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. This provides some checks and balances.
The core of the system is the election of the people's representatives to Parliament, the legislative body.
The government of the day not only has to acount for what it does during elections, it also has to account to Parliament as and when policies are introduced.
This system assumes Parliament consists of represntatives from different parties representing different segments of the society and that minority interests will not be sacrificed by the majority that forms the government. A more advanced form of democracy involves not only politicians but also an active citizenry advocating its views through organised groups and lobbying to shape government policies.
This process of participation helps develop a good government and ensures that government policies are more responsive to the people.
It also results in a more active people sector where people are part of the governing process and develop higher awareness on natioanl matters.
This, in turn, would help forge a more cohesive society and therefore a strong nation.
Hence, democracy is not only about good government. It is a practice and value that would help to shape the nation and develop a good government by involving the people.
It manifests the concept of government of the people, by the people and ofr the people.
LOW THIA KIANG
MP of Hougang


---

Singapore Government:

• Elections every 5 years
• Transparency International ranked it 4th (of 179) in the world on the corruption perceptions index in 2007, with only 0.1 points behind the 3 nations tying for 1st place. Means low domestic corruption, prosperity, low crime rates.
• Has received significant criticism for electoral intimidation, and freedom of speech violations
• Parties:
- People's Action Party, PAP
- Worker's Party of Singapore, WP (Low Thia Kiang holds hougang seat)
- Singapore People's Party, SPP (Chiam See Tong holds potong pasir seat)
- Singapore Democratic Party, SDP (Chee Soon Juan, currently incarcerated)

• From the 1963 general elections, the PAP has dominated Singapore's parliamentary democracy
• In the 2006 Singapore general election, the PAP won 82 of the 84 elected seats in the Parliament of Singapore while receiving 66.6% of total votes cast.
• PAP ideology: social democracy, asian values, meritocracy, centrism
(in reality: according to Diane Mauzy and R.S. Milne, most analysts of Singapore have discerned four major "ideologies" of the PAP: pragmatism, meritocracy, multiracialism, and Asian values)

Are we really free?
Democracy is a matter of degree. But there are four sets of criteria that a truly democratic society should fulful, says David Beetham.

Democracy is a simple idea. It can be expressed in the twin principles of popular control and political equality. The rules and policies of any group, association or people should be subject to control by its members, so that they reflect their choices and preferences; the members should each have equal influence and equal consideration in the framing of these rules and policies.
In a small group or association these principles can be realised directly, thorugh its members taking part in person in decisions. In a larger association, they can be realised only indirectly, through the agency of chosen representatives. Here, popular control means control over decision-makers.
At the level of a whole country this control requires a complex set of institutions and practices. These include the regular election of members of parliament and government by the whole adult population under free and open competition; arrangements to ensure those who are elected remain continuously accountable to the public and guaranteed rights for citizens (of expression, association, etc) so they can make their voices heard and influence the government on an ongoing basis.
Democracy is not an all-or-nothing affair, which is either realised completely or not at all; it is a matter of degree of the extent to which the principles of popular control and political equality are realised in practcie.
We therefore need a set of criteria for democracy that will not only establish minimum standards but will also convey a sense of best practice.


1. Free and fair elections

• Regular election of the main political offices (legislature/parliament and head of government) by universal suffrage in open competition is the chief instrument of popular control over government
• More effective to the extent that the election process is not under the control of the government of the day: and insofar as the electorate has a reasonable choice between candidates, parties and programmes.
• Elections also constitute a key test for the principle of political equality: in the equal ease for all citizens of registering and voting, in the equal value of each vote, regardless of where the voter lives or which party they vote every few years, but a system of continuous public office.

2. Open and accountable government

• Democracy requires not merely a vote every few years but a system of continuous public accountability of government to the people who have elected it. So a government should be accountable to the legislature/parliament for its policies and expenditure of public money and to the courts for ensuring that all public officials, elected and non-elected act within the powers granted them by the law and the constitution.
• These forms of public accountability depend for their effectiveness upon the degree to which the legislature and the courts are independent of the government of the day, and upon the extent of the powers of scrutiny available that are to each.
• Also depend upon the amount of information that is publicly available about what the government is up to and this in turn depends upon the degree of freedom of information and a lively tradition of investigative journalism.

3. Civil and political rights

• A key feature of democracy is the ability of citizens to organise and communicate with each other independently of the government, essential if they are to bring their continuing influence to bear upon government policy, and to gain effective redress in the event of any maladministration by public officials or the government's agencies.
• Without a secure income and a useful social role, people are unlikely to have either the ability or the confidence to exercise their civil and political rights and will become effectively disenfranchised.

4. A democratic society

• A final dimension of democracy concerns with the quality of democratic life within the social, cultural and economic spheres, quite independently of government. Although there are not any such clearly agreed standards here as there are in the other critical areas we should expect a democratic society to display the following characteristics:
• A wealth of self-governing associations
• A vigorous artistic life offering a critical reflection of the society
• The opportunity for all social groups and points of view to find public expression according to their numbers
• Effective education for citizenship provided in the school curricula and organisation
• Rights of trade union membership and co-determination at the workplace
• Celebration of the country's democratic moments and achievements in its ceremonial and public holiday

examples
extinct - dodo, thylacine, steller's sea cow, stephens island wren,
threatened - tigers, lions, cheetahs, blue whales, kakapo, great panda,

--

from wikipedia

Conservative Biology
Biodiversity is the variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome or for the entire Earth. Biodiversity is often used as a measure of the health of biological systems. The biodiversity found on Earth tomorrow consists of many millions of distinct biological species, which is the product of nearly 3.5 billion years of evolution.

threats to biological diversity
Presently the Earth is undergoing the Holocene Mass Extinction, an era of unprecedented number of species extinctions. Human influence over the Earth's ecosystems has been so extensive within the last 10,000 years, that scientists have difficulty estimating the total number of species lost in this era; that is to say the rates of deforestation, reef destruction, wetlands filling and other human acts are proceeding much faster than human assessment of the Earth's species. The matter of ongoing species loss is made more complex by the fact that most of the Earth's species have not been described or evaluated for endangerment. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) has found that 23 percent of vertebrates, 53 percent of invertebrates and 70 percent of plants that have been evaluated are designated as endangered or threatened.

importance
Biologist Bruce Walsh of the University of Arizona states three reasons for scientific interest in the preservation of species; genetic or medical resources, ecosystem stability, and ethics, and today the scientific community "stress[es] the importance" of maintaining biodiversity.
Biodiversity provides many ecosystem services that are often not readily visible. It plays an essential part in regulating the chemistry of our atmosphere, pollinating crops and generating water supply. Biodiversity is directly involved in recycling nutrients and providing fertile soils. Experiments with controlled environments have shown that humans cannot easily build ecosystems to support human needs; for example insect pollination cannot be mimicked by man-made construction. The total value of ecosystem services may amount to trillions of dollars in ecosystem services per annum to mankind. For example, one segment of North American forests has been assigned an annual value of 250 billion dollars; as another example, honey-bee pollination, a small segment of ecosystem services, is estimated to provide between 10 and 18 billion dollars of value per annum. The value of ecosystem services on one New Zealand island has been imputed to be as great as the GDP of that region.

past prelims questions on education:

1. censorship is a hindrance to education. discuss.
2. everything, everyone around you is a teacher. discuss.
3. can education solve all problems?
4. education can be both a cause of, and an answer to the social and economic problems in a country. do you agree?
5. it would be a mistake for education in the technological age to ignore the Humanities. discuss.
6. should the study of literature or history be made compulsory in schools?
7. real education is more than just obtaining paper qualifications. it is key to achieving individual freedom. discuss.
8. the main aim of education should not be knowledge of facts but knowledge of values. do you agree?
9. education should be concerned with development rather than achievement. do you agree?
10. teachers will have a less critical role in the school of the future. do you agree?
11. discuss the possibility and consequences of the computer replacing the teacher in the future.
12. is formal education over valued?
13. parents are more important than teachers to a child's education. do you agree?
14. any change in society begins in school. discuss.
15. education does not necessarily promote equality in society. discuss.
16. is there a case for the abolition of examinations in a modern education system?
17. "education kills curiosity." how fare do you agree with this statement?
18. "paper qualifications have little value in today's world." do you agree?
19. "schools teach too much that is unnecessary and too little of what is interesting". discuss.
20. "enabling the individual to cope with failure should be the main aim of education". do you agree?
21. "the most important challenge facing education is to develop a love for learning and questioning". do you agree?
22. how far would an education system that is flexible and varied contribute to an education worth having?
23. to what extent is the education system in your country churning our efficient but mindless clones?
24. "only the educated are free". discuss.

note that to answer questions about education, these have to be known thoroughly:

• the meaning & purpose of education: to answer q1, q5, q6, q7, q8, q9, q20, q21, q22, q24
• the role of the teacher: q2, q10, q13,
• the role of the school & singaporean education: q19, q23
• alternative education/impact of technology: q5, q11, q12, q16
• education in relation to society/economy: q3, q4, q14, q15, q18
• and drawbacks of a homogenised, one-size-fits-all education: q12, q13, q17

--

past a level questions on education:

1. 'education does not develop individuality but conformity.' is such a statement always valid? (1998)
2. discuss the advantages and disadvantages of being educated abroad. (1997)

disturbing to note: education only came out only 2 times in 12 years, and not any time recently.
education is also grouped under social issues, and not one by itself.

view high quality: ABC News

answering techniques to be assimilated & applied to geepee!!! answer a question with another question! elizabeth hasselbeck, in my understanding, has been supporting sarah palin because she is a woman (oh love those girlpower gungho feminazis). i've been watching multiple episodes of the view and i really like this video which touches on racism, it reminds me of this south park episode titled with apologies to jesse jackson which encapsulates the whole argument and maybe that's what elizabeth should watch.

here is a young white woman, unfortunately blonde+doe-eyed with a teenybopper voice, sounding endlessly naive and ignorant by proclaiming that "we live in the same world". the only way we're going to have a colorblind society is if we were all physically colorblind; of course that doesn't mean we should let racism permeate/pervade but there is NO MERIT in kneejerk voluntarily expunging our vocabulary and sweeping elephants under rugs, the importance is to understand and ACKNOWLEDGE the histories and the connotations of the word. humpty dumpty theorem. this is why i think hasselbeck is diametrically wrong, and basically, whoopi goldberg has it summarized: "you don't understand!"

The Problem With Feminism
Written by Candace
Source: Fermilicious.com
29 September 2005

The use of the term “feminist” inhibits the goals of the movement for equality. In her article “Why I’m a Feminist,” Lauren Anderson describes some of the many negative stereotypes associated with “feminism” and “feminists” like “hairy-legged, bitchy, [and] lesbian” (Anderson 32). According to this stereotype, feminists are destructive, hateful, selfish and angry. These stereotypes are created and reinforced in and by our culture, and are very difficult to change. The semantics of a word are determined by its usage. Regardless if a dictionary or encyclopaedia defines feminism as the “belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language qtd. at www.dictionary.com), popular use interprets feminism as a radical movement, full of militant extremists.

Some self-defined feminists choose to struggle against this popular definition, in a quest to open the eyes and ears of society to the important work of the women’s movements. They claim that the purpose of feminism is to open doors and break socially constructed barriers erected to maintain the patriarchal power structure and keep women out of the public sphere. They say nothing about hating men, only about an imbalance in the power structure of society. This challenge seems insurmountable. It is time to re-evaluate what the feminist movement stands for and find a less stigmatized vocabulary capable of describing the goals and purposes of the movement while at the same time maintaining an open and receptive audience in present-day society.

Feminism has grown in its mandate, to the point that the word “feminism” is insufficient to describe the broad scope of its concerns. No longer is feminism exclusively about the issues of white, middle class women of privilege. In its effort to escape its origins of representing an exclusive portion of the population, feminists have tried to recognize and give voice to the needs of other marginalized groups. By recognizing the diversity of women’s identities and experiences, feminism seeks to expand its scope and repair the damage of its historical narrow focus. In spite of the great progress towards equality accomplished by women during the first and second wave of feminism, many women, like Susan B. Anthony, have acted with “unexamined racist attitudes” (Rich 136-137). Feminism has ballooned to include experiences of discrimination in regards to race, ethnicity, age, class, sexuality, and ability and fueled the debate regarding the social construction of both gender and sex. Feminism is too narrow a term to encompass all these issues. The word “feminist” limits the scope of one’s concern to issues specific only to women’s oppression.

There is a danger in “ism’s”. Identifying with an “ism” or as an “ist” can prevent an individual from pursuing their own thoughts and drawing their own conclusions and plans for action. When a group reputation develops, members of the group are automatically accorded this reputation and are no longer assessed as individuals. In the case of feminism, this leads back to the problem of language and stereotypes. It is very difficult for some people to accept that not all feminists are alike, like Anderson herself realizes (32). Identifying as an “ist” also creates in-group and out-group status. No longer is individual behaviour assessed, instead the question is asked whether an individul is “one of us or one of them?” When this happens the focus is no longer on issues of oppression and dominance but on belonging and rank.

People are holistic individuals with identities composed of multiplicitous determinants like age, class, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, ability, etc. When feminism is defined in terms of women’s oppression, it is difficult to include all these other factors, which affect an individual. It is impossible and unproductive to rank oppression and this is what the concept of feminism does. Maintaining a focus on gender issues divide an individual’s struggle so that at one moment she fights against gender discrimination casting aside her race and sexuality while at another moment she may be challenging sexual discrimination, but ignoring issues of class or age. There should be no hierarchy of oppression, no saying that gender discrimination supersedes racial or sexual discrimination. All people are entitled to equality as a basic personal freedom. Dividing the issues to address them from separate movements fragments people’s time, energy and physical resources. It is unfair to say that a woman who has white skin and lives in poverty with her children is more or less oppressed than a man with brown skin, a wheelchair and a same sex partner. Both experience prejudice and privilege and both have valid concerns in need of voice and action. Asking either to identify which piece of their identity causes them the most difficulty is unjust because societal bias needs to be addressed collectively, and the integrity of individual identities maintained. It is only through the collective address of all forms of discrimination that attitudes in society can begin to shift.

Although the field of women’s studies acknowledges and speaks to the diversity of individual experience, the word feminism by its root excludes other issues. Women suffer discrimination based on their sex and many activists fight or have fought for suffrage, the right to education, paid work, and control over reproduction and health. Because there are many issues that women continue to face, like childcare, the glass ceiling, the pink collar ghetto, gendered division of housework, violence, sexual harassment, and so on, there continues to be a need for activism. I support this but not to the exclusion of other issues. Because I do not want to participate in the ranking of oppression I reject the label “feminist”. By concentrating on practice rather than theory, the experiences and needs of real people: their “flesh, blood, violence, sexuality, [and] anger” (Rich 155) will be central to the movement for equality.

Works Cited
Anderson, Lauren. “Why I’m a Feminist.” Canadian Woman Studies. No. 4/1, Vol. 20/21: 32-34.
“Feminism.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2000. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 21 September 2005 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feminism.
Rich, Adrienne. “Resisting Amnesia: History and Personal Life” Bread Blood and Poetry: Selected Prose, 1970-1985. New York: W. W. Norton, 1986: 136-155.

From MOE's list of desired outcomes:

All Post-Secondary and Tertiary Students should:

• be morally upright, be culturally rooted yet understanding and respecting differences, be responsible to family, community and country
• believe in our principles of multi-racialism and meritocracy, appreciate the national constraints but see the opportunities
• be constituents of a gracious society
• be willing to strive, take pride in work, value working with others
• be able to think, reason and deal confidently with the future, have courage and conviction in facing adversity
• be able to seek, process and apply knowledge
• be innovative - have a spirit of continual improvement, a lifelong habit of learning and an enterprising spirit in undertakings
• Think global, but be rooted to Singapore

Potential leaders should:_____________________

My Opinion on the Problems of the Singaporean Education System
Written by Eric Chen
Source: Human Bean

Defining True Learning
How would we define true learning? Most of us would probably agree that:

1) Learning occurs in our whole life
One will always constantly learn about new knowledge and experiences. Learning does not stop at school. It has many beginnings but no end, as one can always aspire to acquire more knowledge and skills.

2) Learning has subject matter content, but the subject matter does not constitute the ends of learning
We still find content relevant, but it merely provides a medium for learning to take place. Much knowledge taught in school will go obsolete quickly, if they had not already gone obsolete. Teaching by content will hardly help students to cope with the developments.

3) Learning requires self-motivation
Learning takes place best in a situation when the student feels internally motivated to learn. The desire to complete a self-motivating project or the love of learning for a certain subject can work wonders.
It puts an end to irrelevant and counter-productive thinking in terms of doing the minimum necessary (e.g. teaching and learning to the test) and getting social approval from others.

4) Learning requires aggressive self-direction
The learner has to direct his or her learning actively, customizing it based on previous learnt material and interests.
Treating learning like a passive process where one can simply “download” data from the textbook and “install” it into the brain will only provide a sub-standard result. At worse, one will forget about the material in question after the exams. At best, one will fail to integrate the material with our knowledge and thus use it only for very restricted domains.

5) Learning happens via interaction
Learning takes place through conversation with others, with books, learning materials and the self. It requires self-examination via assimilating, adjusting and integrating these thinking.

6) Learning involves constructing meaning
Knowledge exists only when information takes on meaning. The learner must actively construct self-generated answers to relevant questions.

7) Learn to apply
Knowledge has no use if one keeps it unused in the attic of the mind. We should learn to apply knowledge and not learn it for social approval. We should bear in mind that someday, somehow, we might need to use it.

8) Learning changes the self
What we learn changes ourselves fundamentally. We would only know it fundamentally when it touches, changes and merges with ourselves.

9) With knowledge comes responsibility
Acquiring knowledge has its accompanying responsibilities. One should understand the implications of the abuse of knowledge and abide to these responsibilities. Learning without responsibility might make one a great genius, but with poorly developed morality.
The biologist might use his knowledge to kill, the physicist might only use it to conduct unethical experiments and the computer expert to conduct acts of malicious computer destruction. Training evil geniuses hardly helps our society.

Learning in the education system
The education system has written quite a lot in its own defense. However, actions speak louder than words. From my experiences in the system, it seems that the system has failed to offer a true learning experience.

1) Learning occurs only for tests and exams
When I express my desire to learn and explore outside subject materials, the teachers told me to concentrate and focus on the “important” subjects. This means that I should put all my effort into studying subjects related to my tests and exams. They promised me that I would have “all the time” I need once I finish my ‘O’ Levels. That promised time has never materialized. Fortunately, I did not heed their advice.
All the students I had encountered in my previous classes and nearby classes have no interest in learning beyond those they perceive useful for their tests and exams. Some rare forward-looking ones will look ahead at information they will need for jobs, but they will only target skills needed for more job interviews than to increase their competency at their jobs.
I had consistently found this pattern even into my Polytechnic experiences.

2) More often than not, the subject matter constitute the ends of learning
The teachers often teach according to textbooks. They expect students to memorize and regurgitate facts for tests and exams, even despite the fact that they often teach outdated information.
In my Polytechnic, an uncompromising teacher forced the class to buy a book on Excel 97 and taught that to us even though Excel 2000 has already arrived on the market for quite some time.
Even the apparent ability to do mathematics comes more with the memorization of the steps and common mistakes made in mathematical calculation and not the theory of mathematics. Few exceptions do exist, such as for creative writing.
In the field of Artificial Intelligence, one questions if the ability to arrive at the correct answer by mechanically following a set of rules constitutes true understanding. If the student merely memorizes heuristics and disconnected rules, and calls them into play when solving math questions, he or she cannot claim to have true understanding of the subject.
One would not find it easy to locate a student that understands the theory behind the abstract steps of calculus or the rules of physics while knowing how to apply these in real life situations. Yet, there does not exist opportunities to show such knowledge in tests and exams, as the testers merely want them to follow the textbook procedures and answers.
It makes one wonder what the education system wants to encourage.

3) Few teachers care about self-motivation
Most teachers only want the students to pass the test and continue with the system. A good number would like the students to score well, but they only feel concerned about the effort the students put in and not if they have any interest or liking in the subject or not.
For their part, the students like to pester the teacher for “tips” to score better in tests and exams. This seems like the only form of self-motivated ‘learning’.

4) Learning often requires aggressive memorization
Very often, the learner has to memorize facts, knowledge and figures to pass the tests and exams. Teachers frown on the use of creative interpretations and paraphrasing, and insist on textbook answers.
This also applies even if the learner has expertise in a certain subject. One would have to disregard inaccurate or outdated information so that one can memorize them for the tests and exams.
This extends beyond secondary education. In some modules in my Polytechnic course, one must learn the “correct” terms for mundane or useless information to pass the test, even if one can easily demonstrate a working knowledge of the subject in question. The memorization list sometimes includes marketing hype.

5) Certain learning occurs via misguided interaction
No teacher in the system had ever told me to thoroughly immerse myself in the mindset of the knowledge I will learn. I have to learn this myself. New teaching approaches seem to focus on superficial learning tools like flashy computer animations, peculiar games and more rarely, certain memorization tools like mind mapping and mnemonics. These seem more for impressing people than for helping students learn.
Such thinking confuses the meaning of interaction and targets external interaction rather than true internal interaction. They never taught about quieting the mind and thinking deeply about the issues involved and seem more content to provide a lot of activities and teaching other superficial techniques optimized for memorization. I had not seen the Socratic method or other techniques for contemplation in action there.
[Example: http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html]
In a misguided effort to promote “teamwork”, the education system forces me to worry more about my teammates than projects. The projects prove so much easier to do for myself. This practice severely hampers my ability to deliver a working project to my standards and contributes to a lot of wastage of my time.
I can only conclude that the system does not understand what it really means to learn.

6) Learning involves no meaning
Teachers rarely explain how the parts fit into the whole, and that task depends on the students and the textbook. Students often have to settle for memorizing fragmented and disconnected facts rather than understanding them.
One finds an extreme expression of this in classes that teach programming. The teacher merely provides some lectures on the basics of a programming language in a highly incomplete and incoherent fashion. They then assign students assignments on writing programs based on examples in the textbook, and maybe modifications to these assignments.
The students never learn the intrinsic structure of the code from the teacher. They never learn how to look up references for programming code and how to plan and design a moderately complex program. A few ones that are more gifted learn to do so by themselves. Does one ever wonder why programming most genius and hackers self-teach their computers skills?
When a student from another class asked me for help, he did not even know how to print a self-made piece of text to the screen or even about the basic concepts of debugging. After graduation, many of these textbook programmers then go to work with large programming textbooks. I had seen a few at work and the quality of their code. I can only wonder how much damage their incompetence will do to our economy.

7) Learn to regurgitate in tests
The teachers and students hardly care about application of concepts, except for certain projects in the syllabus. Since students tend to flunk such projects, the lecturers would kindly dumb down the requirements, give the students a second chance to redo or change the project to a more traditional “memorization” type.
I dislike doing most projects because they never gave me a chance to show my potential or skills. It tires me to do such mundane projects on top of the burden of “teamwork”.

8) Learning changes the grades, not the self
Students learn to score, not to understand. It treats someone with a higher grade as superior to another person with a lower grade, not taking into account true understanding and knowledge.

9) With knowledge comes tests
Teachers hardly mention responsibilities, except in special classes with names like Civics and Moral Education, Nation Education and Social & Community Values. Even more strangely, because the students “don’t take them seriously”, they also test students on these topics. Students also have to do at least 6 hours of “voluntary community service”.
It makes one wonder if the students really understood the issues affecting our society. When the class has debates or opportunities to express such knowledge, it seems that they fail to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the basic issues by expressing their concepts poorly and with little information or logic to back them up.
They fail to track the logical direction of their presentation. Instead, they often use a technique called “bombing” when they run out of things to say. It works by using obfuscating statements to express a simple, usually illogical concept and chaining as much of these together as possible to give an impression of knowledge.
When they do not even understand these basic issues, I wonder how they will understand the concept of that knowledge comes with responsibility.

Education's Goal
Source: Inquirer.net
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:24:00 04/08/2008

The current graduation period and the opening of school two months from now should prompt students, their parents, their teachers and education officials to think again about the goal of a university education.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, in “The Idea of a University,” stated the aim of a university education clearly. He said it is to develop in the students “the force, the steadiness, the comprehensiveness and the versatility of intellect, the command over our own powers, the instinctive just estimate of things as they pass before us,” which are the fruit of rigorous training and noble influences.

Educators say that the function of education is both social and individual. Its social function is to help people become more effective members of society by passing on to them the collective experience of the past and the present. Its individual function is to enable them to lead more satisfying and productive lives by preparing them to handle new experiences successfully.

In the contemporary world, the practical objective of a university education is often stressed; it is seen as a means for social and economic advancement. The presupposition is that people live in a competitive environment and that the aim of a university education is to help them become winners. This is now the predominant thinking in the Philippines: A university education is seen primarily as a means for getting high-paying jobs and an aid to social mobility. What is often forgotten is that a university education should also develop in the students emotional intelligence, a broad cultural outlook and the right moral perspective.

In the effort to obtain the all-important diploma, it is often forgotten that a liberal education in a university is supposed to have a liberating and liberalizing influence on the lives of the students. To be educated is not only to have private enlightenment but also to have the ability to reach rational public agreements and thus become a productive member of the community. When you come down to it, a university education should develop a mind open to truth and a heart which loves the truth.

At no time in the history of the country is the need to develop a moral perspective in the youth more urgent. The bad examples of many high government officials and politicians and the nation’s culture of forgetfulness and impunity could make the impressionable youth adopt the wrong values. Students may amass a lot of knowledge of facts, theories and techniques, they may acquire cognitive skills, but if they have no moral and ethical perspective, they will not be good members of society.

*

liberating vs liberalizing?

• liberate: to set free, as from imprisonment or bondage.
• liberalize: make liberal = free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant, open-minded; freedom of action (speech, thought, belief, expression etc). politically/religiously: favorable to progress or reform