On foreign workers' lodging:

was reading the Sunday times when i came across the article saying that 2 foreign workers' dorms are slated to be built near the LCK cemetery. For those who are blissfully unaware, the LCK cemetery is isolated from the rest of singapore and is the last major landmark that you'd come across before approaching the trg area of SGC, TVMA, and other wilderness that non-NSmen cannot possibly imagine exist in urban sg. having called that establishment home in the last 1.5 years, i have personally experienced the dread and inconveniences of living in literally the western tip of our tropical paradise.

the whole affair reeks of social alienation of the foreign workers. even though a survey may have indicated that most of them do not mind living next to a cemetery, a significant number have voiced that they would prefer to live elsewhere if given a choice. they are after all migrant workers and have to make do with the living arrangements made for them by their employers; they cannot possibly protest living next to a cemetery, with repatriation being a not-so-remote possibility. with their livelihoods at stake, it's only natural that they would not mind living next to a cemetery, seeing that employment beats hunger and destitution hands down anytime. so what happens in the times of an emergency, say myocardial infarction??

superstitions and supernatural beliefs are arguably prevalent throughout all races and cultures. im sure that the man on the street can easily relate to the reluctance of living next to a graveyard. that seldom are homes built next to cemeteries attests to that fact. by letting them live on a site shunned by local people, are we not letting our actions speak for ourselves? are they not in a way exploited by arranging for them to live in a place that noone else would want to? how would we feel if the HDB built some flats next to a graveyard and that is the only place where homes are available, anything else priced beyond reach?

it is a fact that that most migrant workers are looked upon with disdain by locals, especially so if they are taking on menial tasks that are similarly shunned by the locals. in creating a KBE with a highly-skilled workforce and making education compulsory for everyone, we have created a social gap that is currently filled with migrant workers, especially in an age of hedonism and instant gratification. before we banish those who take on such undesirable jobs to the fringes of society, let us remember that we have our roots as a migrant society and our forefathers came to take on jobs that were beneath our colonial masters. currently, without foreign workers, who would sweep the roads, take out the trash, build our HDB flats, just to name a few? ther'd no booming construction industry if we do not have enough banglas, as we so affectionately call them, to help with the tedious and laborious processes. whatever happened to good old CME when we learnt that everybody had their role to play and we shld appreciate the niche roles that each person plays?

one foreign worker commented that Singaporeans want them to build the flats fast and yet be invisible at the same time. if that is indeed the case, shouldnt we be concerned with the snobbish, unappreciative way we treat migrant workers? or is it a case whereby the money does all the talking and if you dont want to do it, someone else will? i can understand why the authorities chose not to place the workers' quarters in the centre of HDB heartlands (think integration issues) but being social creatures just like you and me, being isolated in the wilderness of sg will isnt being totally fair to them and will only serve to continue the alienation of migrant workers. what can be done is creating an environment where we can get to know each other better and where the workers can have easier access to basic amenities (instead of more mud and shrubs). the rest is up to the community-at-large to determine which direction to head and such social pressures inadvertently form the human-o-sphere that we call home.

On money:

after having worked at a minst. and in a school, i have decided that the equation time = money is not homogenous. for the price that i have to pay for working like there is no night or day, the remuneration is simply not worth it. the time can always be better spent to build better relationships with other people, in a form of non-materialistic investment that is definitely more satisfying. it is difficult to trade my human-ness for a bigger paycheck and i shall keep reminding myself that. more money is good but it cannot be a guiding principle of life. perhaps being bonded isnt so bad after all; at least i get proper development and reasonable challenge, i hope. aiming big isnt always abt the moolah.

On the 6 year IP programme:

Vincent was saying what happened to the good old days when no one cared wad CCAs you took in pri sch. and i second that. i see pri sch as a lab, where children can experiment with the myriad of activities available so that they can clearly identify their interests. if u havent noticed, im an interests-first person. if a person has to plan at such a tender age or be left behind, im guessing that speaks volumes of the society we live in and the pressures we are placing on the next generation. and we only seriously thought about such problems at 18, let alone 12. isnt expecting someone to know what they want in life at 12 a bit unreasonable, or is it again a case of parents know what is best for their children? i guess to a certain extent, it plays both ways even though im more inclined to believe that the move is played more to the adults. moreover, we are assuming that the programme has and will be a brilliant success to want to commit to it in its infancy. the old system has been tried-and-tested and with the recent revamp, it cannot be said to be totally obsolete. so wad's so bad about going through the mainstream system compared to the IP? for one, having gone through the O levels exams will pitch students at a more adequate level to face the A levels. that being said, i cant deny the fact that some ppl think that the A levels is merely an extended version of the O levels and prepare for it in the same way, only to be struggling through it all and lamenting their fate. however, that is simply a matter of a paradigm shift and compared to the dangers of not having gone through a major exam before, i want to belive that having gone thru the O levels warrants its merits. the recent spectacular showing at the IB results release may disagree with what i believe but only time will tell if a thru train programme for the A levels is indeed viable. moreover, those 2 systems are not exactly identical so a gd showing at the IB doesnt necssarily mean that this year's A levels will be gd. however, i do believe that eventually, it boils down to how badly the individual wants to do well and how much effort was put in nurturing the fruits of his education.