apparently everyone needs tuition

Singapore is a "tuition nation" as there are expectations and the need to excel and achieve. There is also the fear and shame of being in a worse class, stream or school. There is the belief that education is the only ticket to success and happiness in life, and maybe rightly so, because society is structured in a way where the quality and property of education are primed and prioritised.

Because having good grades is of a certain priority, parents indulge in the belief that having tuition will be a means to helping them and their children to attaining success. It also does not help that we are a society that is obsessively result-oriented due to the way the economy is structured.

We have become obsessed with the prestige that accompanies having good grades - good school, better friends and social environment, good scholarship and good professional opportunities. Who doesn't want that?

My question is this. Why do we want it? Is our self-worth measured by how others see us? Why is our esteem intertwined with socio-economic structure?

I believe the sole purpose of having tuition is so that one would eventually not require it. Many will point the finger at unreasonable parents who indulge in such beliefs and practices, who make the final decision as to whether their child would require tuition or not. I say society is the problem, not parents.

If our education system was not competitive, would there be a need to "up the ante"? Would there be a greater fear of failure?

Students themselves are not wanting to have accountability and responsibility for what they learn. I have heard of students complaining about how bad or poor a certain teacher is, or how useless a tutor is. They blame bad grades on these mentors. "I failed my science because my teacher isn't good enough!"

Having tuition lessons is not conformity, but having good grades is. It is the society and usually those in power, that decide what are the "subjects" for our "examination". In the Singaporean syllabus, the most important subject is education, not to mention monetary and material success. Sports and the arts are just extra-curricular activities that hold no weightage.

We thus see having tuition lessons as a necessity. It has become an accessory that few have come to question its true purpose. Many believe having tuition lessons will translate to good grades. We are a society of flawed logic and methodology - believing in cause-and-effects. For example, more ERP gantries will lead to lesser traffic congestions. Why is this like that? Why have society come to think this way?

In having the belief that tuition lessons are integral to one's development, we have become a mechanism of discipline ourselves. We effect a certain behaviour, a certain mindset, all aimed towards a specific and desired outcome. Our over-dependence on tuition lessons is not a problem on its own, but a manifestation of societal norms and expectations.

I believe we should seek help for any expectation we have. At the same time, we should at least try to regulate our expectations. I have seen children with tuition for all subjects, have 2 extra co-curricular activities in school, piano lessons and some other sporting lessons or courses outside school. It seems that the society and families are trying to engineer an all-rounded child.

As for tuition, I think we should have it so that we would need to have it. The purpose of tuition is to fill gaps, instill confidence and achieve realistic goals within the current ability of the child.

Moreover, most tuition lessons reproduce a top-down mode of communications between mentor and student. I believe they should be geared towards creating an interest in the student in asking questions and developing that passion and responsibility for learning. Tuition lessons should teach one how to fish, not only just give you the fish.

yet another death

I feel sad and angry every time I read about a death in Singapore Armed Forces. Among the deceases are both Full-time and regular National Servicemen. Among those that have been reported, there lies many other deaths, accidents and mishaps that remained unreported and unexplained.

We have all been sucked and suckered into believing in the honour of our men dying for a larger cause - the courage and nobility and all, the whole macho sacrifice for a symbol that is a flag and for a people consisting many persons whom one may have never met before.

Additionally, we are steeped into believing that life consisted of rigid phases, every one of which marking a rites of passage to the next phase. For men, we see national service as a transition to their manhood, a very much coveted masculine position. If a boy complains, it would not be considered manly. The overall message delivered to and internalised by all Singaporean sons is "Be a man!", and this message effectively legitimises every decision, position, action and atrocity of the establishment.

The message is not a motivation for men to serve the nation, but a fear most of them harbour. Their mind and consciousness have filled and threatened them with the fear of ridicule, social disapproval and stigmatism. This disciplines their behaviour that is oriented towards the need of acting on behalf of the nation.

In this time of age, SAF and the Ministry of Defence are faced with many challenges they can do without. Thanks to our improved educational standards and the prevalence of media technologies, people are smarter. The hunger to know is greater now than before. Moreover, people know they have some rights they could exercise when aggrieved. Training-related deaths or deaths in camps and training grounds can now no longer be covered up.

At most, the authorities could impose legal sanctions and gag orders, implement more clauses, to do what it does probably most of the time: Covering one's behind.

There is no incentive in this society to do good, or "better than enough". There are only punishments and negative sanctions for doing less than enough. This is a punishment-punishment system, and not a reward-punishment system, where one is punished for doing something "wrong", but not rewarded for doing something "right".

The reason why Singaporeans are inclined to feel this way rather than feel a strong sense of belonging is because they have little say in how things are to be run in this tiny island-state. The growing apathy is both a welcome and at the same time a concern for our leaders. On the one hand, ordinary Singaporeans will not give two hoots and stand in their way. On the other hand, the same ordinary Singaporeans have to be bribed and threatened into conformity and action.

And for men who really love this country and serve as its soldiers, what has the government done to them? There is no war, yet they have died. Can peace be obtained if training-related deaths and suicides have reached a significant level?

I believe that it is time Singapore invested more in love than in instilling fear.