News review Omega - Lower ranked JCs, more A-Levels?

Lower-ranked JCs get more O level aces

The Straits Times, Home, March 3rd

As Singapore’s society progresses with increasing speed, the pressure on students to do better mounts. With our very competitive education system, some people succeed, but others do not. This article is a testament to the fact, that, under all that pressure, diamonds have been formed – once diamonds in the rough, but now shining gems. These are none other than student from so-called “lower-ranked” schools, who are becoming more and more prominent as their potential to outstrip their high-ranked counterparts continues to increase. This, clearly, is a marked improvement from before, and it shows the possible effectiveness of our country’s education system.

According to the article, students with more than 12 points in their O-levels are often discouraged to take more than three A-level subjects. This is a point of debate, for some who take four subjects churn out better results than those who only take three subjects. In my opinion, students should be allowed the free choice to choose what they wish – they should, at that age, have the intelligence to choose enough to do well, to know their own limits. If the students feel that they can cope with more, and would thrive under pressure, it is wrong to discourage them from doing so, or label them as people who didn’t make it, or to prejudice them, restrict their choices.

From the government’s perspective, of course, this is a completely different matter. I can only assume, for I do not know much, but perhaps the government feels that experimentation is over, and that it is time for those who do not do so well to build strong foundations on a few subjects rather than building castles in the air. Maybe the government knows that it would be difficult for these students to excel in so many areas, and thus let them concentrate on fewer areas, but more in-depth. Empathy on the students’ part is needed if the education system is to run smoothly.

Still, the jump in numbers of four A students in lower-ranked JCs, such as Pioneer JC, has increased exponentially. For Pioneer JC, it was a jump from 5 such students in 2005 to 23 today. This can be seen as an effort on the schools part to give students as god an education as is possible. Perhaps it is not just the students that are thriving under the pressure, but maybe the school systems as well – the way they are run, their policies, values, goals. Iron sharpens iron, and the results have shown.

(417 words)

News Review Alpha - Nude art?

Nude art? Not in public area

The Straits Times, Home, Feburary 28th

Whenever the word “nude” enters text or speech in the same sentence as words like “public”, controversy arises. This article, in summary, is a shallow report on an art gallery not being allowed to display a piece of nude art. However, it harbours very many more implications and questions about our society.

Acccording to the Media Development Authority, nude or erotic artworks should not be displayed in venues which are easily accessible to general audiences, including children and youths. The obvious, outstanding question is, “why”? It is understandable for children to be shielded from such art, but what about youths? Is it because the youths of today are so shallow, so unrefined that we cannot understand the history behind it, these paintings for what they are – art? The artist states that the painting carries no sexual connotations, but is that really the kind of light that youths of Singapore, today would view it in? I believe not. Too many times have we heard youths sniggering over some off-colour topic. Surely, this indicates a flaw in the “wholesome education” that we are supposed to have received.

From the government’s view, it is definitely justifiable for them to restrict such art from being displayed in public, but more important is the message that such an act carries, that the government is afraid, perhaps, for these paintings to affect the mindsets of youths. This may indeed be true, but from a different point of view, is it not the fact that we youths cannot appreciate such art that causes such worry on the part of the government, that we would see such art in a wrong perspective?

Of course, this may be simply a further step to discourage such misconceptions. With the rise of the internet, and the fact that much of this kind of art can be found on various public domains, perhaps this is a step forward on the part of the government to quell such bad influence on the youths and teens of today.

Once again, the question of the “youth’s fault” arises. If people of ages past could view it as a kind of art, why is it that we are unable to appreciate it, but instead view it in such a perverse light such that it requires governmental intervention? Perhaps the schools of today could make a move in that direction, to cultivate refined ladies and gentlemen instead of ruffians, with respect to art and culture.

The artist expresses her intentions as a celebration of independence and freedom, that it is a wholesome message. We cannot fault her for that. Perhaps she sees the liberation from material wealth and opulent clothing, to revert back to a biblical Eden of happy ignorance. Perhaps she does not. I do not presume to assume the artist’s message, but I feel that it is most likely a wholesome message. We have to empathize with the artist, consider our education, and at the same time reform our mindsets on this kind of art.

(500 words)