Invasion of the Grammar Nazis

Lesley-Anne's friend once noted, "you use correct grammar even in your sms-es!"

Yup. She generally doesn't use the teen lingo, such as:

"gr8! cu @ mall w8n 4 u cos dun wan get u d wrg ting."

Such messages drive me crazy and I find them simply incomprehensible. Call me a dinosaur but if being cool entails communicating like this, I'm perfectly happy with my kid being in the uncool crowd.

I'm not sure if it's due to my influence that Lesley-Anne escaped this endemic.  Her grammar obsession extends to other areas of English. In sec 2, some of her classmates did a project which involved testing kids on their pronunciation skills.  Among the words on the list were: rendezvous, lingerie, awry, debut, ensemble, reconnaissance and renaissance.  Apparently, some kids totally butchered the words eg. "ren-der-vouse", "aw-ree".  

Lesley-Anne was one of the few who could pronounce all the words and when her classmates asked her about her ability, she replied, "my Mum is a pronunciation Nazi".  When she recounted the story to me, I wanted to protest but I knew she was right because I had to suppress my urge to correct her pronunciation of "Nazi" ("nahd-zee", not "nah-zee").

It's probably because of our shared passion for reading and writing, that we take such offence to the mangling of language.  I'm not claiming that my pronunciation or even my grammar is perfect.  There are occasions when I've stared at a sentence so long that I can no longer tell if it's grammatical. Being a frequent user of Singlish doesn't help. (My blog probably contains lots of mistakes too but since this is a casual platform, I try not to be too anal about it).

But when I spot glaring errors, especially in the media, it irks me and it looks like Lesley-Anne has inherited this trait. I love this cartoon - it sums up our feelings.  

I think most mothers and daughters have a unique area that they can bond over, and for Lesley-Anne and I, it's the love of words. She frequently discusses books with me and approaches me when she needs help or advice for English or Lit.  It's something that I cherish and I know she does too (even though she may not admit it).  Incidentally, it's not just a one-way street - I'm increasingly seeking her opinion about the usage of words and phrases, and I find that she has a pretty intuitive grasp of what constitutes good writing.

It's far from being a perfect partnership though.  Lesley-Anne's weak spot is maths and in this area, I'm completely hopeless.  She related to me (rather enviously) that some of her friends, when unable to do some maths problems, would consult their mothers.  She told her friends, "you're so lucky. When I asked my mother about log, she said, 'err... log is to beaver'."

Lol. It's true. Ah well, one can only obsess over so many things.

Fruit loop

What I'm about to share will turn everything you've ever thought to be true in the world of fruit completely upside down.  So if you wanna live in blissful ignorance, stop reading now.

Lesley-Anne came home from school one day, sighing gloomily, "my life is a lie!"  What happened was that in biology, the teacher had taught them about the scientific classification of fruit and it turned out to be totally different from how we laypersons classify fruit.

For example, if I were to ask, among these four items - apple, lemon, grape, peanut - which of these is not like the other?  I'm sure most people would say peanut because it's not a fruit.  Well, if you did, you would be wrong.  The peanut IS a fruit.  The odd one out is the apple because although it's classified as a fruit, the part we eat is NOT the fruit. The fruit of the apple is actually the core. What we're eating is the modified receptacle of the apple flower.

In fact, many plants that we typically would not consider to be fruit are fruit. To scientists, fruit are products of flowers and usually develop as a result of a flower being pollinated.  This means that all grains, like wheat and corn, are fruit. So are sunflower seeds, green beans and hazelnuts.  

Mind blown yet? There's more. Among these next four items - avocado, strawberry, water melon, cucumber - which of these is not like the other? Now you've probably wised up and thinking, oh, it's a trick question.  Maybe the cucumber is a fruit. So maybe the avocado is not a fruit but a vegetable?  Wrong! All of them are fruit! The one that doesn't belong is the strawberry.  Because it's the only one that's not a berry!

Whaaaaatt?? Yup. That was my reaction too.  In botanical language, a berry is a fruit with seeds and pulp produced from a single ovary.   This means that the following are all classified under berries: all citrus fruit (eg. oranges, lemons, kumquats), grapes, bananas, cucumbers, pumpkins, squash, tomatoes, eggplants, water melons, papayas, guavas, bell peppers, avocados and coffee.  The silly fact is that not all fruit with "berry" in their names are true berries.  Blueberries, cranberries and gooseberries are indeed berries but not strawberries, raspberries or blackberries. 

Our brains can only take so much dissonance.  Still reeling, I asked, "so what's a tau geh?"  Lesley-Anne's classmate asked, disbelieving, "How can a banana and a watermelon be in the same fruit group?"  Lesley-Anne said indignantly, "To sum it up, a peanut is not a nut. A bean is not a bean. A strawberry is not a berry and in a way, an apple is not a fruit. I'm in the Fruit Matrix."

The next time you see a yoghurt label saying 'mixed berries', tell yourself it's all a lie.

A birthday bash with pumpkin fries and popiah

Lesley-Anne's birthday was in April but she flat out refused to celebrate it because it was in the middle of her exams. No cake, no birthday song, she even declined opening her presents.  I think us gift givers were more excited than she was that she was turning 16. I've honestly not met a teen more adept at delayed gratification than Lesley-Anne.

Anyway, the dreaded exams finally came to an end and we took her out for a belated celebratory lunch at House, a restaurant at Dempsey.

It was packed on 1 May, a public holiday. Several walk-ins had to be turned away.  They're doing a booming business.

This was our first time there and the brunch menu was pretty extensive, it was quite a task trying to decide what to order.  We had 6 in our party so in the end, we ordered several different items to share.

Charcuterie Plate ($24): included Ham hock terrine, salami, chicken liver pate, gherkins, walnuts, caramelised onions (yum!) and bread. This is a rather rich platter, can get jelat pretty quickly but for sharing, it's great. 

Pumpkin Risotto ($25). To me, this was the best dish we ordered. Creamy and sweet, and bursting with flavour. My kids loved this too.

House offers a variety of specialty fries. We ordered the pumpkin hazelnut fries ($12) and they were really delicious. Crumbly on the outside, soft on the inside and the paprika gave them a wowza kick.  Next to it is the Fish Basket ($29). It was ok but more run of the mill.

My kids ordered the Old-fashioned American Sliders ($24): a pair of mini burgers with sweet potato and truffle fries. The beef patties were juicy and well done but the fries were way too salty and over-fried. My recommendation is to order their specialty fries instead.

House claims to have Singapore's best tau sar pow and Andre loves red bean paste, so we ordered two of those. You can order them on their own ($2.50 each) or as a set ($8) that comes with a glass of teh tarik.  I'll say, skip the teh tarik.  That was the only item we tried that was a total letdown for me.  Real teh tarik doesn't have honey and I'm pretty sure the tea wasn't actually pulled. Don't mess around with the real thing!

The tau sar pows though, were truly not bad. They're served warm and soft, and the filling is very smooth and creamy. We gobbled them up before realising we'd forgotten to take a picture! A nice way to end the meal, on a sweet note.

That wasn't the end of Lesley-Anne's birthday celebration though.  Dinner that night was also a special treat - my mil's yummilicious popiah!  We only have this a couple of times a year because it's a mammoth preparation job that includes cooking the popiah filling the night before and waking up at the crack of dawn to re-heat and stir the mixture.

My sister and bil joined in the feast. And what a feast!

The belated birthday cake.  One of Lesley-Anne's favourite flavours - Oreo cheesecake.

Happy Sweet 16, Lesley-Anne! ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

Oh, to be bored

Recently, I was invited to a Singapore Conversation session on education and while I was there, I was asked to give a soundbite for an MOE video that's to be produced for teachers and staff.  There were many things I could have said but in the end, what I chose to say within the 2 minutes or so was the importance of letting kids have their free time.

This topic just happened to be topmost on my mind because Lesley-Anne was reading up on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and she became all excited when she came to Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.

"I wish my school knew this!"

When Lesley-Anne first started secondary school, she was full of anticipation.  By the end of sec 3, she was physically and mentally exhausted.  Don't get me wrong, it's not that she doesn't like her school.  It's because her schedule had become so intense she barely had time to breathe.  It's not just lessons. After school, if there wasn't some supplementary or enrichment class, there would be CCA.  If it wasn't CCA, it would be some excursion or project discussion. When there's the rare occasion that there's nothing on or a holiday coming up, you can be sure the teachers would pile the students with extra homework.  If the students protest, they're often told not to be lazy or have better time management skills.  School holidays are a sham. There's never one where my kids don't need to go back to school for something or the other.

CCA is almost on par with schoolwork in its demands.  In sec 1, Lesley-Anne was super psyched to be in band. She got to learn a new instrument and perform in a musical group.  It was fun.  By this year, she had grown thoroughly sick of it. Why?  Band practices are 3 times a week, 3 hours each time.  When the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF) draws near, rehearsals intensify to almost everyday.  The pressure placed on the band for SYF is intense. If they miss out on a Distinction, there is much hue and cry.  The students feel the loss keenly and the school demonstrates its disappointment by cutting the band budget.  Even during non-SYF years, the band is expected to put on school and other performances, again the justification for intensive practice.

This trend is not just for band, obviously. Lesley-Anne tells me that many students in the school choir over-practise to the point that they suffer vocal cord damage and have to go to the doctor to have a tube inserted into the throat to heal it.

Doesn't this strike anyone as ridiculous? I find that our culture is fixated on the maxim that if something is good, it's better to keep doing more of it. To the point where something that used to be fun and interesting becomes detestable and downright unhealthy.

We are grooming a generation of jaded kids.

I recently read a BBC News article on the importance of boredom and enforced solitude for creativity.  Through interviews with authors, artists and scientists, Dr Belton, an education researcher found that free time allowed people to tap into their latent creative energies.

If this is true, then it perhaps partly explains why Singapore seems to have so much trouble in this respect.  Our kids barely have enough time for rest, let alone time to be bored.  When Lesley-Anne was very young, about 3 or 4, I used to see her sitting on her bedroom floor, just staring into space. I never knew what she was thinking about, I like to imagine she was in some childhood fantasy land, maybe with flying teddy bears and talking dolphins.  She doesn't have time to daydream anymore. Today, when she has some free time, she catches up on sleep. She has learnt the art of sleeping anywhere - at the desk, on a cushion, on the bus.

My friend, Lilian, was recounting to me how at the International School in Bangkok, the students get to try out a diverse range of interests throughout their school life, eg in photography or music or art, and some emerge to be fantastic talents in these areas.

My belief is this: it's not that Singapore kids don't have talent, it's just that they don't have the time to discover them. Their schedules are so packed with academic work that any such activity is considered extra and comes out of their own time. Curriculum time seldom allows for non-core subjects, except in a cursory manner.  Typically, by the time the kids have finished studying, CCA, tuition, etc, they're so tired the last thing they want to do is fill their remaining time with more stuff.  All they want to do is veg out in front of the tv or computer because it's a shutting down mechanism. (Note that tv and computer time does not constitute boredom and does not increase creativity).

If children here are musical or sporting talents, chances are it's because their parents invested resources and made their kids carve out time to bear out these talents.  That's why I'm sometimes a little sceptical about the DSA scheme.  Although it tries to be more holistic by recognising talents other than academic, it focuses only on the end result and doesn't aid the nurturing process.

The truth is that passions and skills in areas like the arts and sports take time to develop.  It starts with exposure, discovery, and trial and error.  Then gradually, the child will come to see if he has a passion in it before the honing of the skill.  The process is slow and it requires an extensive amount of time, something our kids don't have the luxury of. Because of the DSA, some parents are pushing their kids to accelerate their artistic and sporting potential for the sake of admissions at pri 6. When we rob the kids of the natural process of creation and development, we risk killing the passion because the objective becomes a pragmatic one and it all becomes too much, too soon.

I feel strongly that schools, teachers and parents alike have to recognise the value of letting kids have their time and space.  What I said in the MOE video was that teachers (and parents) have to stop thinking that whenever the child has some time, they have to fill it.  At some point, we've got to realise that filling time doesn't improve learning, it impedes it.

Less really is more.

Life isn't fair. What do we do?

Here's a hypothetical situation:

3 students have to do a group project together. They agree on what each person has to contribute.  However, what ensues is this:

Student A doesn't do her part and disappears throughout duration of project, appearing in time only to put her name on project.

Student B doesn't really know what's going on, puts in a half-hearted effort that anyone can see is badly done.

Student C does her part and being a conscientious student, chases the others who don't respond. She now has the dilemma of wondering whether to take on Student A and Student B's share of the work, or just let the whole group flunk.

This is actually a very common scenario, I hear it from parents all the time (especially parents of kids like Student C).  As we all know, the world is made up of all kinds of people, so I'm not too surprised that this happens in schools.

What I'm astonished about though, is how frequently, if the group eventually scores a bad grade, the teacher will tell Student C that it was her fault, that she should have made sure the other two handed in the work.  The reasoning behind this logic is "that's what happens in real life, you have to make sure the work gets done. Real life isn't fair, get used to it."

I have a big issue with people who love to spout the "life isn't fair" cliche, as I often find that they're the ones perpetuating the belief.  I have an even bigger issue when that person is a teacher.  We all know life isn't fair, no argument there. And it's also true that when kids grow up and become adults in the working world, these are the challenges they will face.

However, the role of teachers is not to give our kids a dose of reality by reinforcing all that is bad about life and about people.  For example, we know facing failure builds resilience but that doesn't mean we set our kids up for failure. I saw this quote the other day that really shouted out to me:

“It’s not our job to toughen our children up to face a cruel and heartless world. It’s our job to raise children who will make the world a little less cruel and heartless.”
~ L.R.Knost

There's a gulf of difference between preparing kids for real life and training them for it. One teaches you how to deal with rats in the rat race, the other teaches you how to be a rat. The trouble is these days, we have become so obsessed with making sure that our kids are able to survive in the competitive landscape, that the focus of education has shifted from educating to training.  The former teaches you to be a better, more knowledgeable version of yourself.  The latter gives you skills to survive, to come up on top.  If your goal is the latter, it means that you only play to win, usually at the expense of someone else. Winner takes all.

That's where I feel many teachers and parents trip up.  I've heard anecdotal stories of parents who teach their kids how to get ahead by thinking only for Numero Uno.  If you have to lie on an application form, hide books, shove to get to the front, prey on the kindness of others, by all means, as long as you can get away with it.  After all, that's what life is like. It's a dog-eat-dog world.  It's called being street-smart. Life isn't fair.

The problem with this approach is that if everybody does this, nobody wins and society sucks big time.  Out of all the excuses, the lamest justification I always hear: "Everyone's doing it.  We have no choice!" That's right, another fantastic lesson we're teaching our kids - how to assign blame so we don't have to be responsible for our actions.

Back to project above - what did the students learn? Student A learns that you can do nothing and get away with it. Student B learns that it's ok not to try to try harder cos you can always ride on somebody's coattails.  Saddest of all, Student C learns that it really doesn't pay to be conscientious.  In fact, she's probably considered naive and stupid.

As parents and teachers, we need to understand that our role is to groom human beings who can make society better, not take advantage of it.  If kids don't learn about doing the right thing, how will they know this as adults?  The kind of messages we're sending to our kids is directly related to the kind of society we're creating.  We can't really complain about the moral decay of society if we're teaching children that they survive better if they leave their ethics at the front door.

We need to go back to basics and walk the talk.  Reinforce actions that demonstrate the age-old values of diligence, honesty, compassion and responsibility.  Show them that you can and should be kind in an unkind world.

Life is unfair. All the more we should try to make a difference.

More about introverts

This post is sort of a part 2 to the previous post.  The latter was too long so I decided to split it into two posts.

Some of my friends have told me that I sound forceful and forthcoming online, which seems surprising as I'm an introvert. I think that's part of the misconception of introverts, that we're quiet and docile, even in our outlook on life.

Being an introvert doesn't mean we don't have strong views. It just means we don't like to express these views in a room, in a loud voice, to a large audience.  In this sense, social media has given introverts a channel to express their opinions from their private space without the brash confrontation that is normally expected in a social setting. In other words, social media has given introverts a voice.

I can't tell you how many times I've been surprised when I meet people I've only corresponded with online, who debate topics intelligently and voraciously, only to find them quiet and mild-mannered in real life. 

In Susan Cain's video, she mentioned Dr Seuss who wrote all those fabulously tongue-in-cheek, over the top children's books.  He's a shy person in real life and didn't want to meet his fans because he was afraid they would be disappointed to see that he wasn't as charismatic as the Cat in the Hat.  Jack Nicholson's character in the show "As Good As It Gets", was a writer of popular, swash-buckling romance novels but in reality, he was a crotchety, old man with a bad case of OCD.

However, I hasten to condemn introverts to be stuck behind their pens and computers because that's a pretty limiting concept. As an introvert, I detest public speaking but as Susan Cain proves, this can be changed.  Lesley-Anne used to be extremely uncomfortable with presentations but since they do so much of it in school, she's more more at ease doing it now. Like with most things, it just takes practice.  I don't expect it ever to be the preferred activity of introverts but at least it can become one which doesn't paralyse you. 

Finally, here's a funny but very apt cartoon description of introverts.  Introverts are not unsociable folks but any prolonged social interaction can sap our energy. When I'm around an extrovert who can't stop talking for too long (especially a loud one), I often find myself getting increasingly irritable, physically exhausted and feeling like I need to crawl into bed and go into "recharge battery" mode.

It's not that introverts are social hermits, we just prefer more private and intimate gatherings.  I love going out with close friends, having a long catch up over a cup of coffee.  Kenneth, an extrovert, enjoys going to corporate events where he can meet new people, widen his social circle and chat with every Tom, Dick and Harry.  For me, making small talk among strangers is incredibly boring and more work than fun.  That's the part about being a PR practitioner that I hated most.   

So if you're an extrovert, that's something to take note of, especially if you have an introvert spouse or kids.  Be nice to your introverts today!

The power of introverts

I am an introvert.

Today, I embrace this but for a long time in my life, I've felt that it was a shortcoming. I was always envious of extroverts like Kenneth who can take the stand, speak off the cuff and command the crowd without going into brain freeze or feeling like they're gonna throw up.  If I am booked (reluctantly) for a public speaking event, I have sleepless nights and count the days till it's over.

An introvert friend of mine who's super bright, shared with me that in school, she would almost never raise her hand even though she knew the answers. She would fight an excruciating internal battle just to have the courage to volunteer information, by which time, some other less inhibited classmate would have beaten her to it, causing her to berate herself for her inaction.

I empathise completely.  When I was in sec 3, I was picked by the teacher to represent the class in a vocabulary competition. I turned it down because it was to take place in the hall in front of the entire school. Horrors. When the event took place, I was safely in the audience, quietly giving all the correct answers in my head, with mixed feelings.

It was therefore such an enlightenment to me when someone sent me a TED video last year featuring Susan Cain.  She had written a book "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking" and the video addresses the same topic.  It basically talks about the importance of introversion and how we should recognise its value instead of fighting it.  Do watch it, it's eye-opening.

Sharing her own story, Cain got the message growing up that somehow her introverted style of being was not ideal, so much so that she even became a Wall Street lawyer instead of a writer because she wanted to prove that she could pass off as an extrovert.

At work, introverts are routinely passed over for leadership positions even though they may actually be smarter and more likely to deliver better outcomes because they listen to other ideas more readily instead of "putting their own stamp on things".  We hear it all the time - Asians systematically lag behind their American counterparts in climbing the corporate ladder because the former prefer to work quietly behind the scenes (except perhaps for the more vocal Indians), while the latter, among the most extroverted personalities in the world, impress with their presentation skills.  In school, emphasis is now placed more on presentations and group projects instead of individual work - again the bias towards extroversion.

Cain goes on to explain how the world may be losing out simply because this bias causes us to suppress introversion which is critical to creativity.  She's not advocating that we all become introverts or that introverts are superior, rather that it's important to have a balance where we can come together to exchange ideas while still retaining the space and time for solitude and reflection.

Cain's message resonated strongly with me. In my corporate life, I accidentally ended up in public relations and marketing which often conjures up a gregarious, outgoing person, something I am not.  Where other PR personnel might attend social functions, meet as many people as possible and make their presence felt, I shied away from such events and preferred to take the personal approach, fostering deeper relations with each person. To me, the best compliment I ever received from a journalist was that I was "real".

However, when I was working at a polytechnic, my boss told me, "you seem to be rather introverted for a PR Manager".  He might as well have substituted the word "ineffective"  for "introverted" because that's what was implied.  I resented somewhat that my personality trait could predicate how well I did the job but a niggling part of me thought that maybe he was right, that I was inferior because I wasn't an extrovert. Not surprisingly, I left soon after.

Compare this with another boss - the one I had at the SSO - who being an extrovert, didn't comprehend my fears but accepted it as just a quirk that could be overlooked in light of my other qualities. In fact, she cleverly managed this to her advantage. She would undertake all the public speaking engagements if I would do everything else. I happily accepted. Win-win.

Why am I sharing all this?

Because as parents, I feel we're often guilty of the same bias towards extroversion, to our own detriment.  I used to keep telling Lesley-Anne, an introvert, to "speak up" and volunteer more for leadership positions. While I believe it's more than ok to nudge our kids out of their comfort zone, at some point, I realise that I was merely projecting my own wishes for her not to be an introverted as I am.  The danger with this is that our kids start to think that their introversion is a deficiency and try to force themselves into the extroversion mold instead of making the most of their introversion gifts.

It takes a good balance, as mentioned by Cain. I still want Lesley-Anne to step up but I also acknowledge that there is more than one way to be a leader.  Instead of say, trying out for student counsellor (which thrusts one into the limelight), she signed up for a community service stint to give tuition to needy kids.

Encouraging our kids to embrace the leadership style most fitting with their personality traits is by far, the most constructive way to go and leads to a healthier self-esteem because it plays to their strengths.  Ultimately, as Cain puts it, the world wins.   

Up to my eyeballs...

Warning: Graphic content ahead!

As part of her biology practicals, Lesley-Anne  had to dissect an eyeball to examine the different parts. The students were told to buy a mammal's eye because it's closest in structure to the human eye.  Most kids came with pig's eyes.

First, they cut away the muscles and fats surrounding eye, making sure not to sever the optic nerve.  Among the muscle, there should be a rigid portion which is eyelid.  According to Lesley-Anne, what's gross is that some of the eyeballs still had eyelashes still attached to them, so you can't really escape the notion that it's a real eye.

Once the eyeball is clean, they take a scalpel and carefully scrape at the side of black portion until the thick transparent layer (cornea) has a small hole.  Then they gently squeeze the eye until a blackish liquid emerges.

When the liquid is removed, a pair of small scissors is inserted into the hole to widen it.  That's when they have to squeeze very hard to remove a glob of white gel (vitreous humour).  This is what keeps your eye shape.  What also comes out is the lens which is a hard, transparent ball that looks like a glass bead.

With the inside of eye now empty, they must cut a sample of cornea and then make 2 incisions on side of eye.  It can then be turned inside out for the students to see inside of eyeball.  The inside surface is black and looks like it's stained with ink.  Amidst the black, there is a white spot that is linked to the optic nerve - that is the blind spot.  Near the incision, there is a portion of the inner surface that is black but streaked with whitish lines. This is the iris, the lines are radial muscles that control pupil dilation.

You paste the different parts on a labelled grid and as Lesley-Anne says, then you wash your hands a lot.  LOL.

This is a photo of the eyeballs prior to dissection, taken by her friend.

Last year, Lesley-Anne had to dissect a pig's heart.  She says the heart isn't as disgusting cos can psych yourself into thinking you're just handling a piece of meat. The eyeball, on the other hand, seems to follow you.  Even as she was relating the process of dissection, I felt squeamish and Andre kept saying "ewwwwww!!" as he covered his eyes as if protecting them.

On the other hand, at least an eyeball has no blood.  For the heart, the students had to spend a lot of time washing the blood clots out of it.  Anyway, Lesley-Anne says she'll much rather dissect an eyeball than a cockroach.  I totally agree.

Does this spell the end of literature?

Last month, there was some debate on the drop in number of students taking Literature at 'O' levels from 16,970 in 1992 to just 3,000 in 2012, and whether this signals a decline in appreciation of the humanities among students. You can read the news article here.

While the drop in numbers sounds terribly alarming, I always hesitate to take numbers at face value. Instantly, two "BUTS" came to mind:

1) BUT: Wouldn't the decline also be due to the drop in number of kids taking 'O' levels?  Today, with the IP and other alternative educational pathways, many kids no longer take 'O' levels.

2) BUT: There are more 'O' level subjects these days, compared to 20 years ago. Wouldn't the increase in choice automatically dilute the number of kids taking any one subject (except for compulsory subjects)?

MOE's reply shed more light.  With reference to my point 2), it seems that the drop happened most drastically at the 2001 point when Combined Humanities was introduced.  This is a social studies subject with an elective of Lit, Geog or History and became a popular alternative to the other pure humanities subjects - Lit, Geog and History.

With regards to point 1) though, it's still a little hazy. MOE reveals the percentage of sec 4 cohort that took Lit in 1992 (47.9%), 2001 (21.8%) and 2012 (9%) but it's important to note that a percentage of the Sec 4 cohort not the same as a percentage of the 'O' level cohort.

A drop in 'O' level Lit does not necessarily translate into an equivalent drop in kids studying Lit at sec 4. In many IP schools, Lit is a compulsory subject for sec 4 kids as they take Language Arts (which is a fusion of English and Lit).  For the IB programme, Lit is compulsory all the way to year 6.

Typically also, even from the 1990s, Lit has been considered the more challenging humanities subject (because it requires critical thinking and language skills, not something you can mug for it), so it is usually reserved for the more academic classes (usually the top science and arts classes).  If you postulate that these kids are now likely in the IP track at secondary school, then it's no surprise that Lit has fizzled out in the 'O' level arena.

Beyond the numbers

Nevertheless, it's hard to deny that the number of students studying Lit (whether at 'O' levels or not) has declined.  Perhaps not as drastically as the numbers suggest but still undeniable... and that's sad.  I won't bother to write all about the importance of Lit since I'd already done so previously.  Besides, I came across this passionate Facebook post by Joshua Ip, which laid out all the points very convincingly.  It's a little over the top (there's a little bit of theatre in every true blue Lit student) but the points are pretty solid and more substantial than any argument I'd read in the mainstream media.  Plus it's a highly entertaining read, which reflects well on his Lit background.
 
This decline in Lit is not just about Lit alone. Looking at the bigger picture, it reflects the persistent worldview that the humanities in general are the poor cousin to the firmly footed maths and science.  After 20 years, the triple science combination is still considered the most prestigious in your sec 3 choices. In some schools, only the "top" students are offered the combination. In Lesley-Anne's school, there's no real humanities combination - you either take triple science or double science. Double maths is compulsory.

Moving on to 'A' levels, this bias continues. The 'A' level syllabus now requires you to choose a contrasting subject to create balance, ie science students have to take at least one humanities subject and arts students have to take at least one science subject.  In theory, this is great but in reality, I find the practice flawed.

If you're in the science stream, you can choose from a long list of humanities subjects, eg. 3rd language, Geog, Lit, History, Music, Art and Econs.  I always felt that Econs was such a miscategorisation.  It's nowhere remotely near a true humanities subject that encourages the broadening of worldviews or right brain thinking.  It's about statistics and trends, and the analyses are more akin to the scientific type.  That's why many science students choose Econs as their contrasting subject - yet another "pragmatic" choice.

Whereas if you're in the arts stream, you're pretty much limited to one contrasting subject - Maths.  Don't believe me? Most JCs don't offer science subjects as a contrasting subject, meaning that if you don't like maths, you're pretty much screwed.  It also sends a very clear message - the most important subject in the Singapore education system is MATHS MATHS MATHS.

Don't misunderstand me, I acknowledge that maths is important.  However, I find this obsession with maths baffling. The maths proponents tend to play up the pragmatic value of learning maths but honestly, most people will never apply the kind of maths you learn at 'A' levels.  If you want to focus on pragmatics, I would have thought it's more important to learn about human geography (urban planning!) or human biology (understand your body!).  I suspect this practice is again linked to scoring - Maths is one of those subjects with the highest percentage of distinctions at 'A' level so it's attractive to JCs looking to raise their overall scores. 

Quality not quantity

I was chatting with a teacher friend recently and he mentioned that he happened to see one of his sec 3 student's Lit essays. He was perturbed to see it littered with grammatical errors that were not corrected by the teacher.  Upon questioning, she replied "Miss W said in Lit, we're not marked on grammar, only based on the points we give."

Stab a knife through my heart now, won't ya.  Is that how we're addressing the difficulty to score in Lit, by reducing it to a factual content subject?  I don't think the teacher recognised the irony of it - that a subject supposed to test your critical thinking and arguments is awarded marks according to a marking template.  Instead of embracing the humanities, we try to turn it into something more scientific.  And when English ceases to matter in English Lit, well... I've no words.

I was so appalled by this that I checked with Lesley-Anne if it was the same at her school.  Thankfully, she shared my disbelief and said no, her Lit assignments are marked on both language and content, where original arguments are valued.  Phew.  So maybe it's just that school or that teacher.  I hope and pray that's not how Lit is marked at 'O' levels these days.

It's a sad state of affairs.  It's the belief that education in Singapore is still primarily about scoring.  There's a lot of talk about holistic education, creativity and critical thinking but the truth is, so many educators, parents and students are still stuck in the old mindset that education is about amassing facts and A's.

Lesley-Anne had this to say: "The problem is many students are still learning things in isolation, so they don't understand the relevance of what they learn beyond the narrow confines of that subject. Even English becomes relevant only to the English subject in school. So many things in the world are linked.  When we are unable to see the inter-connectedness of different issues, we miss the big picture. How then can we innovate and solve problems?"

I love how a 15-year-old can have the wisdom to see this truth where many adults cannot. I couldn't have said it better myself.

SUP-er family fun!

If you're looking for a fun and meaningful family activity these March holidays (or maybe June), then here's an idea for you: Stand Up Paddling (SUP).

What's that, you say? Well, it's a new water sport that has hit Singapore shores and is quickly gaining momentum.  My very good friend, Isabelle, took the plunge late last year by quitting her job and setting up her own business, the Stand Up Paddling School in Singapore.  Completely borne out of passion, she started this with no fanfare and little marketing but within just a few months, she has already gotten unsolicited airtime on radio and magazine coverage.  News of good stuff spread quickly!

Isabelle invited us to try it out and always game for something new, we accepted her invitation last December.  When I say "we", I mean Kenneth and the kids.  I didn't go cos I can barely swim and knowing how to swim is a prerequisite.  Besides, somebody has to hold the camera, right?

The SUP School is located at Tanjong Beach, Sentosa, which is an ideal location as the waters are cleaner and calmer than at East Coast beach.  Plus it's gorgeous and far less crowded.  There are also parking and fantastic shower facilities right next to the beach.

First, you start with a lesson on land - how to paddle, where to stand, etc (there's the lao ban niang with the Santa hat).

Then you carry your board to the water.

And off you go!

They took to it like fish to water. I think we were all pretty surprised - we thought it would be quite a challenge trying to balance on the boards, but it wasn't.  Within 15 mins, they were on their feet and soon learning tricks like jumping and turning on their boards.  I must say, being at Tanjong Beach is a huge advantage.  There's an idyllic little lagoon which is very conducive for beginners to gain confidence before they venture out.

These are a couple of shots Isabelle took from her vantage point on the board. Don't my kids look pro?

My kids really, really enjoyed it.  Lesley-Anne said she could do this forever and Andre had so much fun he was begging to go back. We had plans to go SUP-ing again these March hols, unfortunately our schedules don't allow it.  But it's definitely on our to-do list.

SUP is not only a fun activity, it's also a healthy one - some people do this as a keep fit option, since you need to utilise lots of muscles, esp the core, for balance.  Highly recommended, if you're looking for something new to try out as a family.

You need to book in advance. Call Isabelle Malique-Park at 9638 5565 for appointments or check out the details on her website.