Me. Myself & i

just sent another email to the mailing list of yj alumni
i proposed an idea of soccer charity to the school, the school started a poll on the idea.
That shows how much faith the school has of the student body. It is undeniably pragmatic to gauge the participation level, but it's really demoralising to start things on such low level of faith..
And even more disappointing, is the fact that less than 10% of people voted and the deadline is either tml or the day after tml. They are just proving the school right, that it was right to speculate the level of participation, that yjcians, past or present, are an indifferent bunch.
There's no room for improvement given such frame that we are being put into, there cannot be a breakthrough.

if they weren't for the idea, it is understandable. i mean everyone is entitled to their view and if the idea of soccer charity does not appeal to them, den very well, go to the poll to say "no, i do not wish to join".
However, the main problem is the indifference embedded among the alumni and students alike. They sit around and wait for things to happen, if it so happens, yay good for us. If it doesn't, well it's like dat.
I post them a question "if you cannot even afford that, then why did you subscribe to the mails?"
I'm not expecting everyone to come up with a brilliant idea overnight and cry "we love yj". Not even my level of participation, ie writing proposal and participating in discussion. But at least when someone shows the initiatives, agree or disagree. It's as easy as nodding or shaking the head. if 90% of the people did not vote, i don't see the point of the mailing list at all. What is the point of keeping 180 people updated about things they cannot be bothered with?

maybe i'm over reacting, but it's simply disappointing to see this.

Anyway, i was discussing euthanasia with my little brother. He happened to be online cos he took MC from school today. Apparently i was telling him i could help them with GP (topics, not grammar..) if they needed any help, and he asked me what to tutor for GP. Then initially post him a qn of inter-racial relationship. I wasn't too satisfied with his ans, i have to admit. Then i asked him "what do you think of euthanasia? are you for it or against it?"
These are things that should crop up in your mind as you read the papers, esp the forum where alot of people voice their views. You look at their views and decide whether you agree or disagree with them. Then ask yourself, why do you agree? Why not? Make out an argument of your own.
He was rather interested in the discussion and by the end of it, he decided that GP was fun after all.
More of such discussion should be done in school instead of emphasis on the form of writing an argumentative that they have currently. I suggested that he could initiate such a discussion among a few mature friends and propose to the school for a supervising teacher. At the end of the discussion, a report of the different views can be written and circulate among the larger student population. This can benefit the large group of student body at the same time, impress upon them the need to be aware of their surroundings and current affairs. It will definitely benefit their GP grades and their ability to interlink across discipline..
I need to realise all these ideas, but i noe if i go to teacher, the school won't be too receptive, not to mention it'll take some time for me to become a qualified teacher.

Talking about teaching, brings me to another topic:
Japan has accepted the new syllabus of History textbook As reported by TST 6th april, the new syllabus claim that it was not Japan who started the war and the comfort woman issue was diluted with no mention of the phrase "comfort women".
I am not about to fan anti-japanese emotions here. I think that a country has the sovereignty to teach their younger generation the way they wish it to be. China is also guilty of whitewashing their own history text of cruelty - e.g. Tiananmen Massacre. I believe in every country, a certain level of dilution of facts because: first, the history is written by the victors. in the case of a civil war, the party winning that civil war will choose which version of truth to teach the young. Second, a certain level of white washing is essential to maintain the pride of the nation, the pride of the citizens. For them to be proud to be of their origin. I wish to address the whole of such white washing issue, not particularly on any issue and definitely not taking sides.

What is the basic objective of education?
to prepare the younger generation to contribute to the society, imparting knowledge
The idea of imparting knowledge, has it become a mere passing on of norms within the society? the subjective knowledge from one generation to another, reinforcing the societal norms?

Is education merely for social engineering? that we tell the younger generation "it is a joy to be parent" when we need more babies, "this is the country's glorious past" when we need more patriotism among the people. I tend to believe such alterations, as long as they're not totally untrue, ie teaching young kids smoking is good, or as long as they do not impeach on friendly relations between countries, should be fine.
The former is obvious.
The latter can be a bit controvesial.
Why must an independent country craft their syllabus in order to make another country happy?
Let's take for example Japan's change of syllabus -
as i have learn in my secondary school history lesson, Japan started WWII in the Asian region, this i've checked up in CNN.com in their interview with the late author of The rape of NanKing
http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9905/25/nanking.salon/. Notwithstanding that, there is also the Singapore Museum that told me how Singaporeans suffered under the cruelty of Japan. Hence it is not difficult for us to accept the tragedy that occured in Nanking and Korea. I do not deny that i may be another product of subjectivity of history, however, there are many pictures, accounts of victims that can support this. These aren't things that victors of war make up just to blame another country for starting the war.
The subject of their alterations happened to involve their wrongdoing towards another country. It implies that they do not admit their mistake and their part in the war. It is one thing to say "yes, we started the war, we were wrong, we learn from it, we are strong today." it is another to say that "No, we were defending our rights, we are strong today". Telling a completely different story (note: i did not say "wrong story") is different from omitting the story, departing even further from what the evidences point to.
I am not even proposing to have a full account of what we have learnt on the receiving end of the cruelty. A mention and acknowledgment of these accounts could suffice. It is not the intention to shame the younger generation, to make them feel apologetic towards the other countries. It is to teach the younger generation the mistake that was made in the past and ought not to be repeated once again.
By protecting the people from such knowledge will only harm them, shock them even more when they eventually find out on their own, shame them even more with the full impact of reports from outside the country. With the current trend of globalisation and accessibility of information over the internet, the possibility of that happening is very high.
One can only imagine the growing differences such an act would create, the misguided younger generation, not understanding the anger every has against them.

Someone asked me "So you think we should continuing bashing them with the crimes their fore-fathers committed, make them feel ashamed and continue to make reparations? do you know why Germany started WWII then? it was because they were made to pay so much reparations that they couldn't bear the sufferings."
So what is the solution? To not even tell them what actually happened? This will only tighten the tension between those countries involved and evolve into more complicated misunderstandings eventually. When those misguided generation lead the country, they will not be able to appreciate the situation and in worst case senarios, another war may break out.

A civilised approached ought to be taken..

but den again, does civilised means "he who has the power, has the say"?

Politics, never get involved...