This evening, an Indian tourist from Tamil Naidu walked into our Visitors' Centre.
After a few mundane queries about power sockets in the airport, he asked me a question that took me by surprise: in a world economy where India's software engineers alone are 5 times the population of Singapore, how will a resource-poor Singapore survive in the future? I was taken aback, and am still a little.
We had a short debate, where I found myself less and less convincing. I am now hoping I was lacking conviction only due to my lack of knowledge, and not because of the truth in his question. I will perhaps have to do a little more research into this, but my faith in Singapore's economy has definitely been shaken.
He went on to substantiate using examples from the financial sector. Why would any global bank like Citi, for instance, find talent in Singapore when it can get a selection of any kind of talent from China and India for half the price? What would make Singapore's human capital any more special than an Indian or a Chinese? A Singaporean's competitive advantage is slowly disappearing as the millions of Indians and Chinese close the gap.
Indians and Chinese are graduating by the droves from the top universities in the world; I recalled seeing countless Indian students wearing sweatshirts of Cornell and the likes of American colleges flying from Bombay airport just 2 weeks back. A Singaporean's bilingual asset is slowly being eroded as learning languages are facilitated by information technology and the Internet. The Singaporean's diligence and efficiency is no doubt still globally respected, but my question is for how long? How long more before these competitive edges we blunted by the pace of growth in India and China?
Again, I must spend more effort in looking at the possibilities that Singapore's economy may continue to grow in the future, in a global milieu that has to deal with the reality of the Goliaths of India and China. Whilst other countries may counter this Chindian rise with their own natural resources, Singapore has none to fall back on.
Is anyone interested in joining me in pondering this fearful but necessary question? Do drop me a line if this hits you as well, and see if we can be part of a solution.
Uncle T
20 Jan 2010
18 Jan 2010
when being different becomes the same 10:59 pm
Below is an excerpt from the speech Ho Kwon Ping gave at SMU's 10th anniversary as a university. Without realising, it indeed has been 10 years since it was the new-kid-on-the-block. Without realising, a decade has passed since I was pondering whether I should give SMU a go. Have a read of the excerpt.
I thought it was a well-written piece, especially how it articulated the founding premise of SMU, of how Singapore's education system needed an institution that would give our students added "initiative, creativity and entrepreneurship". The candour in which it was written is also refreshing, especially if you know the background of Ho Kwon Ping of being a bad-boy-turned-good. I must say I felt proud to have SMU in Singapore as Mr Ho articulated its vision, and paying tribute to Dr Tony Tan's contribution in setting that vision from the outset.
They wanted to build a university that was "different".
Over these past few years, SMU has been churning out impressive numbers; the average starting pay of their graduates float above national averages, the quality of jobs their graduates get etc. SMU's early-days marketing efforts to be different were hugely impressive to people like myself when I was deciding on a university back in the day. The jump-shots of the early marketing campaigns were effective.
Now, I find it quite amusing how being "different" has a more mocking undertone as peers and I exchange jokes about SMU friends, and how we all do our own "jump-shots" in a parody of being different; all this in good fun. My point is to perhaps ask if being different has become so "same" that being different has become so paradoxical in itself.
In the past, speaking up in class, project-based learning, getting jobs at top consultancies, doing community work beyond the classroom were possibly attributes of the "different" university student. Today, everyone is similarly "different" that there is no telling how unique each student is. You are possibly seen as inferiorly "different" if you don't chase the IB job or the Big Four-job after SMU today.
My intention is in no way to play down the great work SMU does nor discredit the very many successful SMU grads. Rather, I am just concerned that sometimes we often allow ourselves to get entrenched in a system without ever stopping to think and question the structure and the outcome of the system; we then allow the system, even if it is a system to produce "different" outcomes, to create very similar products.
Perhaps I am starting on a flawed assumption; I am assuming that in an institution that wanted to be different, it would be a system that would celebrate diversity and learn to tap on such diversity to reinforce itself as a leading institution. Does the SMU today celebrate such diversity? Probably not for me to say yes or no, but I think it is a relevant and timely question to ask on its 10th birthday.
A bigger question I'll like to ask is when will Singapore become a society that will celebrate diversity the way perhaps New York does? If anyone can tell me how I can be part of a solution, please show me the way.
Enjoy the read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"IN THE history of societies, defining moments occur when fundamental social conditions are ripe for change, and visionary men and women read the times, seize the moment and create change. Whether it be a political revolution or a movement in the arts or, as in our case, a new approach towards university education, defining moments are the confluence of initiative and opportunity.
As we commemorate the 10th anniversary of Singapore Management University, I'd like to look back. And in reviewing our past as a guide to the future, I'd especially like to pay tribute to one individual whose vision, unwavering commitment to quality and openness to flexibility has, more than anyone else, made SMU what it is today.
Singapore has justifiably earned its reputation as a nation that places education at the very top of its priorities - as not just a basic human right but also a strategic investment critical to our very survival in a competitive world. Because of this, our national educational system has been academically rigorous and pervasive.
But though it has been a resoundingly successful and critical factor in our economic development, by the 1990s, when Singapore started moving towards knowledge-intensive industries, it became apparent that the attributes of initiative, creativity and entrepreneurship were not exactly in abundant supply in our young people.
It was against this backdrop that I received a call in late 1997, some 13 years ago, to see Dr Tony Tan, then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister-in-Charge of Higher Education. I had been an armchair critic of what I considered to be an overly rigid educational system, so it came as a total surprise when he asked me to head up a new university.
The only thing I still recall from our conversation was the word 'different'. Dr Tan wanted a different university from our two existing universities. I had to infer that since I was one of the most unlikely candidates to start a new university, 'different' was a polite way of describing my lack of qualifications.
I literally was given a blank sheet of paper on which to start a new university. There was no White Paper produced by a blue-ribbon committee of experts. There was only Dr Tan giving me guidance in bits and pieces, not expounding in one go his grand vision, but sharing with me his views on tertiary education in Singapore, as he critiqued our changing proposals.
The various concept papers that finally led to SMU as it is today should be kept in our library archives, if we can find them. They will provide interesting reading on how any start-up goes through very different permutations before a final business model is adopted.
I hope that our early pioneering faculty will also give to the library their various photos of SMU as it evolved. For example, SMU's pioneering faculty and management were housed in small cubicles on the ground floor of Banyan Tree's offices. The first batch of undergraduates occupied a temporary structure - now torn down - in the car park of the Bukit Timah campus. We then occupied Bukit Timah campus for a few years until the beautiful city campus was completed.
Dr Tony Tan encouraged us to be different. He encouraged the idea that SMU be a public-funded but autonomous university, governed not like a statutory board but more like an institution of public character. That is now the model for the other universities.
When we decided to be audacious and to award our own degrees from the outset rather than seek a joint degree with the Wharton School, Dr Tan supported us. When we wanted to have social science and law schools rather than just business, he encouraged us.
Dr Tan's guidance has enabled us to grow rapidly in a short span of time and do many things differently - from university governance to staff recruitment to the way we admit students holistically.
Some observers have said that SMU has redefined the university landscape in Singapore in the last decade. We have been dubbed a 'change agent' and a catalyst for innovation.
SMU was founded upon the vision of developing a new generation of leaders: bold, articulate, resourceful and independent thinkers. Through a highly interactive pedagogy and broad-based curriculum, SMU's approach has produced the type of graduates the Singapore of the future will need.
It is almost inevitable that an institution like ours will be subjected to the conventional quantifiable indicators of success, such as how many job offers our fresh graduates receive, how much they earn, and what the university's ranking is, according to various publications.
Such quantitative measures may perhaps provide an objective assessment of our performance, but they provide far too narrow definitions for success. We should be asking ourselves: Are we transforming the lives of our students through the education and opportunities we provide? Have we instilled in our students a sense of social responsibility, recognising that business success and social improvement are complementary? Are we advancing knowledge through our research and leaving a meaningful footprint within the community?
As we look ahead, we need to remember that just as a life well-lived cannot be measured by conventional indicators of success, so too should it be for a university. We must not become a conventional institution cast in a new mould. We must remember who we exist for, who we serve and what we stand for.
Just as I had told our 10th batch of freshmen at the start of the new academic year last August, a decade may seem like a long time when it spans nearly half a lifetime of our undergraduates. But it is just a blip in the history of a university, even in a country that is as young as Singapore.
We have just started on a long journey where our conduct along the way will be as important as the destination itself. As the poet T.S. Eliot wrote: ' Fare forward, voyagers.'"
Uncle T
I thought it was a well-written piece, especially how it articulated the founding premise of SMU, of how Singapore's education system needed an institution that would give our students added "initiative, creativity and entrepreneurship". The candour in which it was written is also refreshing, especially if you know the background of Ho Kwon Ping of being a bad-boy-turned-good. I must say I felt proud to have SMU in Singapore as Mr Ho articulated its vision, and paying tribute to Dr Tony Tan's contribution in setting that vision from the outset.
They wanted to build a university that was "different".
Over these past few years, SMU has been churning out impressive numbers; the average starting pay of their graduates float above national averages, the quality of jobs their graduates get etc. SMU's early-days marketing efforts to be different were hugely impressive to people like myself when I was deciding on a university back in the day. The jump-shots of the early marketing campaigns were effective.
Now, I find it quite amusing how being "different" has a more mocking undertone as peers and I exchange jokes about SMU friends, and how we all do our own "jump-shots" in a parody of being different; all this in good fun. My point is to perhaps ask if being different has become so "same" that being different has become so paradoxical in itself.
In the past, speaking up in class, project-based learning, getting jobs at top consultancies, doing community work beyond the classroom were possibly attributes of the "different" university student. Today, everyone is similarly "different" that there is no telling how unique each student is. You are possibly seen as inferiorly "different" if you don't chase the IB job or the Big Four-job after SMU today.
My intention is in no way to play down the great work SMU does nor discredit the very many successful SMU grads. Rather, I am just concerned that sometimes we often allow ourselves to get entrenched in a system without ever stopping to think and question the structure and the outcome of the system; we then allow the system, even if it is a system to produce "different" outcomes, to create very similar products.
Perhaps I am starting on a flawed assumption; I am assuming that in an institution that wanted to be different, it would be a system that would celebrate diversity and learn to tap on such diversity to reinforce itself as a leading institution. Does the SMU today celebrate such diversity? Probably not for me to say yes or no, but I think it is a relevant and timely question to ask on its 10th birthday.
A bigger question I'll like to ask is when will Singapore become a society that will celebrate diversity the way perhaps New York does? If anyone can tell me how I can be part of a solution, please show me the way.
Enjoy the read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"IN THE history of societies, defining moments occur when fundamental social conditions are ripe for change, and visionary men and women read the times, seize the moment and create change. Whether it be a political revolution or a movement in the arts or, as in our case, a new approach towards university education, defining moments are the confluence of initiative and opportunity.
As we commemorate the 10th anniversary of Singapore Management University, I'd like to look back. And in reviewing our past as a guide to the future, I'd especially like to pay tribute to one individual whose vision, unwavering commitment to quality and openness to flexibility has, more than anyone else, made SMU what it is today.
Singapore has justifiably earned its reputation as a nation that places education at the very top of its priorities - as not just a basic human right but also a strategic investment critical to our very survival in a competitive world. Because of this, our national educational system has been academically rigorous and pervasive.
But though it has been a resoundingly successful and critical factor in our economic development, by the 1990s, when Singapore started moving towards knowledge-intensive industries, it became apparent that the attributes of initiative, creativity and entrepreneurship were not exactly in abundant supply in our young people.
It was against this backdrop that I received a call in late 1997, some 13 years ago, to see Dr Tony Tan, then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister-in-Charge of Higher Education. I had been an armchair critic of what I considered to be an overly rigid educational system, so it came as a total surprise when he asked me to head up a new university.
The only thing I still recall from our conversation was the word 'different'. Dr Tan wanted a different university from our two existing universities. I had to infer that since I was one of the most unlikely candidates to start a new university, 'different' was a polite way of describing my lack of qualifications.
I literally was given a blank sheet of paper on which to start a new university. There was no White Paper produced by a blue-ribbon committee of experts. There was only Dr Tan giving me guidance in bits and pieces, not expounding in one go his grand vision, but sharing with me his views on tertiary education in Singapore, as he critiqued our changing proposals.
The various concept papers that finally led to SMU as it is today should be kept in our library archives, if we can find them. They will provide interesting reading on how any start-up goes through very different permutations before a final business model is adopted.
I hope that our early pioneering faculty will also give to the library their various photos of SMU as it evolved. For example, SMU's pioneering faculty and management were housed in small cubicles on the ground floor of Banyan Tree's offices. The first batch of undergraduates occupied a temporary structure - now torn down - in the car park of the Bukit Timah campus. We then occupied Bukit Timah campus for a few years until the beautiful city campus was completed.
Dr Tony Tan encouraged us to be different. He encouraged the idea that SMU be a public-funded but autonomous university, governed not like a statutory board but more like an institution of public character. That is now the model for the other universities.
When we decided to be audacious and to award our own degrees from the outset rather than seek a joint degree with the Wharton School, Dr Tan supported us. When we wanted to have social science and law schools rather than just business, he encouraged us.
Dr Tan's guidance has enabled us to grow rapidly in a short span of time and do many things differently - from university governance to staff recruitment to the way we admit students holistically.
Some observers have said that SMU has redefined the university landscape in Singapore in the last decade. We have been dubbed a 'change agent' and a catalyst for innovation.
SMU was founded upon the vision of developing a new generation of leaders: bold, articulate, resourceful and independent thinkers. Through a highly interactive pedagogy and broad-based curriculum, SMU's approach has produced the type of graduates the Singapore of the future will need.
It is almost inevitable that an institution like ours will be subjected to the conventional quantifiable indicators of success, such as how many job offers our fresh graduates receive, how much they earn, and what the university's ranking is, according to various publications.
Such quantitative measures may perhaps provide an objective assessment of our performance, but they provide far too narrow definitions for success. We should be asking ourselves: Are we transforming the lives of our students through the education and opportunities we provide? Have we instilled in our students a sense of social responsibility, recognising that business success and social improvement are complementary? Are we advancing knowledge through our research and leaving a meaningful footprint within the community?
As we look ahead, we need to remember that just as a life well-lived cannot be measured by conventional indicators of success, so too should it be for a university. We must not become a conventional institution cast in a new mould. We must remember who we exist for, who we serve and what we stand for.
Just as I had told our 10th batch of freshmen at the start of the new academic year last August, a decade may seem like a long time when it spans nearly half a lifetime of our undergraduates. But it is just a blip in the history of a university, even in a country that is as young as Singapore.
We have just started on a long journey where our conduct along the way will be as important as the destination itself. As the poet T.S. Eliot wrote: ' Fare forward, voyagers.'"
Uncle T
sharing quiet moments 9:42 pm
It felt almost unreal sitting there.
There was hardly any earshot chatter, just Monteiro's CD on repeat mode; even good jazz is an overkill when you listen to it on repeat-mode for 9 hours. I sat there, Killiney dinner in front of me and today's newspapers.
I cannot recall how long back since I last had such a quiet moment to read the newspapers. Somehow, this moment reminds me of quiet mornings at the Warwick Arts Centre. I miss those moments, moments I don't think anyone else might understand. Is there a need for others to understand to justify this nostalgia? Oh well.
Nevertheless it was nice to immerse myself in the newstories, hearing only the chatter of electrodes racing through my cranium matter as I try to make logical links in a rusty cerebial mess. I think I literally heard myself think; turning on a rusty machine which has been unused for sometime is often a noisy affair.
I think I need abit of countryside once in awhile. Despite needing to tap on the buzz of the city, I need the magnificance of nature to tame my excitable spirit. Or more than that, I perhaps need a lady to do just that. I possibly met one such personality in India recently.
Ironic as it may be, I prefer to share quiet moments with the right person than have it alone. Quiet moments alone can sometimes be lonely; shared solitude can be uplifting. I recall sharing quiet moments with her in Kala Ghoda and the road to Goa.
Anyhow, such moments don't last forever. I would be worried if they did; poignancy of such moments would totally disintegrate if they each lasted forever. And so I slowly finish up my already-cold kopi, tuck the newspapers under my arm, adjust my thick specs and slowly lumber back to my night shift at the airport.
No wonder they call me Uncle; the sentimentality and mannerisms just say it all.
random sharing 9:04 pm
"The day you learn to surrender yourself totally to God, you will discover a new world, just as I am experiencing.
You will enjoy a peace and a calm unknown, surpassing even the happiest days of your life.
- Blessed Jaime Hilario (1898-1937) Priest, Martyr
Uncle T
You will enjoy a peace and a calm unknown, surpassing even the happiest days of your life.
- Blessed Jaime Hilario (1898-1937) Priest, Martyr
Uncle T
what she had to say... 12:29 am
And another blogger had her comments about our exhibition: http://www.whitericeculture.com/?p=2893
Uncle T
Uncle T
17 Jan 2010
my|4-walls: this is what he had to say... 9:59 pm
And so the launch weekend of the exhibition is over. After months of work and anticipation, it came and went. But the exhibition continues till 21 Feb, and so does the thrill of finding out the impact of the show. Who will it inspire? Will the photographs sell? Will this show spark debate that will help the art scene here? Perhaps only time will tell.
Yesterday, a certain personality visited the gallery. Tan Ngiap Heng. He is one of Singapore's foremost fine art photographers. Naturally, I didn't know that when he walked through our doors and in characteristic fashion, I made a fool of myself. Check out his work: http://pondimages.blogspot.com/2010/01/genee-2009.html. I then admitted to being a photography noob, and a noob art curator as well.
But I am so proud of the artists I've worked with on this show. Humble craftsmen, engaging personalities, every single one of them. And what better tribute, and hopefully more to come, to the intent of the show then the review that Ngiap Heng himself gave of the exhibition. I can only pray that this is but the start of an adventure worth embarking. And my heartfelt thanks to the many people who have made this possible.
Thank you.
This is what he had to say:
This is a nice and fresh exhibition in a new exhibition space. Apparently this is an exhibition of six photographers who are showing their work for their first time. It includes award winning photographers Elaine Lim and John Heng. The other photographers are Fusheng, Genevieve Ding, Nicholas Foo and Wong King Leong.
I met the curator, Nicholas Foo, who is new to photography but very enthusiastic. He calls himself a noob and has his work on the wall too as the owners of the gallery asked him to put up his work. He tried shooting dinner for the photographers who were gallery sitting, Fusheng and King Leong. I passed him a paper napkin to soften his flash. Amusing yeah?
Anyway, I enjoyed it because the images were fresh and unpretentious. I hope to see more work from these photographers, including the noob curator!
Source: http://pondmusings.blogspot.com/
Uncle T
Yesterday, a certain personality visited the gallery. Tan Ngiap Heng. He is one of Singapore's foremost fine art photographers. Naturally, I didn't know that when he walked through our doors and in characteristic fashion, I made a fool of myself. Check out his work: http://pondimages.blogspot.com/2010/01/genee-2009.html. I then admitted to being a photography noob, and a noob art curator as well.
But I am so proud of the artists I've worked with on this show. Humble craftsmen, engaging personalities, every single one of them. And what better tribute, and hopefully more to come, to the intent of the show then the review that Ngiap Heng himself gave of the exhibition. I can only pray that this is but the start of an adventure worth embarking. And my heartfelt thanks to the many people who have made this possible.
Thank you.
This is what he had to say:
This is a nice and fresh exhibition in a new exhibition space. Apparently this is an exhibition of six photographers who are showing their work for their first time. It includes award winning photographers Elaine Lim and John Heng. The other photographers are Fusheng, Genevieve Ding, Nicholas Foo and Wong King Leong.
I met the curator, Nicholas Foo, who is new to photography but very enthusiastic. He calls himself a noob and has his work on the wall too as the owners of the gallery asked him to put up his work. He tried shooting dinner for the photographers who were gallery sitting, Fusheng and King Leong. I passed him a paper napkin to soften his flash. Amusing yeah?
Anyway, I enjoyed it because the images were fresh and unpretentious. I hope to see more work from these photographers, including the noob curator!
Source: http://pondmusings.blogspot.com/
Uncle T