Category: Design

From efficient to more effective policies

There are signs that Singapore is embracing diversity in society. The government’s latest move to replace streaming in the education system with a grouping system based on subject competency acknowledges that students have diverse interests and capabilities.

It also allows for a mix of students in classrooms, unlike the previous system that bred a sense of elitism when students were streamed solely according to how well they did academically.

In the same vein, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong’s initiative to review sentencing guidelines also recognises the many types of criminals the court has to handle. The current set of tools of imprisonments, caning and fines is based on the assumption that criminals are all the same and will respond similarly to such punishments.

With a wider variety of sentencing guidelines, judges can mete out punishments that will better help criminals rehabilitate and re-integrate with society.

These shifts in thinking in our education and judicial systems are models for how Singapore society develops. They recognise diversity among individuals and promote a gentler and more inclusive society — as envisioned by our Prime Minister and many Singaporeans. They also represent a shift from efficient towards more effective policies that can better address social issues.

Our political sphere can also benefit from such a change in mindset. The issue of ensuring politics is kept serious exluces more than it includes. It empowers certain individuals to this level of discussion, making politics apart from Singaporeans’ lives rather than a part of them.

With more diversity, there may be some loss in efficiency in governance and policy implementation but it might also be more meaningful and effective.

The Nanyang Chronicle, 9th Oct 2006

Union for university, U for Union?

E-mails are being circulated among NTU students about possible protests soon. Teng Kie Zin and Gary Goh, a first-year School of Communication and Information student and a second-year Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering student respectively, have separately attempted to organise movements to express dissatisfaction with the school.

Their decision to work without the Students’ Union (SU) has highlighted the failure of the SU to “provide a recognised means of communication between members of the Union and the University” as mandated in their constitution. This is despite the SU’s efforts to organise channels of feedback, like the dialogue session.

Most importantly, the SU has failed “to promote and safeguard the interests of the members of the Union within the University” as stated in its constitution.

Its inability to get the support of the students can be attributed to the fact that it cannot change things.

For instance, why was it unable to negotiate an earlier release of the news of the fee hike even though they knew beforehand? It would have helped to diffuse much of the unhappiness felt by the students now.

One of the problems is that the administration did not engage the SU enough in decision-making and instead left it the job of appeasing and explaining decisions like the fee hike to the students. Thus, the SU acts like the official voice of the school more than the voice of the students.

With the means of communication between the administration and students monopolised by the former, many students have turned apathetic, feeling that it takes too much to change things. Others, like Teng and Goh, have instead chosen to bypass the SU and speak directly to the administration instead.

The Nanyang Chronicle, 6th March 2006