What's in a name?

Growing up, I was intrigued by names. As a teenager, I had a Baby Names book (even though having a baby was the furthest thing from my mind). The vast variety of names with their corresponding meanings fascinated me. Hilary means "cheerful"! Nigel means "champion"! Cilla means "blind"? Oh dear.

Some names I instantly liked (Heather), some I disliked (Cybil). Some grew on me (Sophie). I didn't mind my own name but back then, if I had to pick one out of the sea of names, Monica probably wouldn't have made the top ten list.

Piece of trivia: My parents named me after the room I was born in at Mount Alvernia hospital - St Monica. When I first heard that my name was decided on in such a cavalier fashion, I shuddered. Imagine if I were born in the St Bernadette room! I'm so not a Bernadette.

So when I was expecting Lesley-Anne, one of the first things I did after discovering it was a girl, was mull over the name. It was definitely more fun than and a distraction from the heartburn, morning sickness and prospect of a crying infant.

I didn't want too common a name (I've lost count of how many Rachels and Ryans there have been in my kids' classes) but at the same time, I was careful not to choose anything too outlandish because I know how much anguish it can cause kids in school when teachers and students butcher any name remotely exotic. The romantically Irish moniker Siobhan (pronounced "Sher-von) in Andre's kindy class was reduced to a terribly unglamorous "Sio-bahn".

In primary school, my best friend was a girl prone to daydreams called Angele (pronounced "On-jel"). She was called anything from Angela to Angel to An-jelly by confused teachers (till today, her Sunday School kids call her Aunty Jelly). She was so traumatised that when she eventually had kids of her own, she named them no-nonsense John and James.

The problem is that in Singapore, the bar for "exotic" can be set pretty low, especially when it comes to Chinese educated teachers or those more accustomed to local names. Even the innocuous Sean (pronouned "Shawn") can cause problems. A friend with a son Sean laments that he has been called "Sian". Lesley-Anne has two Maths classmates named Sean and her teacher persisted in calling both of them "Seah". They quickly figured that she wouldn't remember even if they corrected her so they ended up answering to Seah Heng and Seah Koh. For a long time, Lesley-Anne actually thought those were their names! Until she heard them called outside of class. ROFL!

So back to my child: I'd decided on Lesley very early on in my pregnancy. In my fickle and ever-changing world of favourite names, it was the name that stuck. In fact, Lesley was often the starring protagonist in my school compositions. But as I shared the name with curious friends and family members, I encountered so many "Lesley? Isn't that a boy's name?" A female colleague of mine back told me that growing up with a name that everyone thought was male (her name was San) was a pain. So in an effort to spare my would-be daughter the ambiguity, I added "Anne" to Lesley.

Little did I know that it would create other problems. Lesley-Anne is constantly being asked, "So is your surname Anne?" which then leads to the next question, "Are you Chinese?"

When it came to Andre, the decision was harder. There were so few boys' names I liked compared to girls'. A couple of names that were tossed around were Elliot and Timothy. In fact, Andre was Timothy (which I was never too convinced was right) up to the eighth month in my pregnancy. Then one night, I dreamed that I had a son named Andre and the next morning, I declared, "this boy shall be called Andre!" I don't think Kenneth and my in-laws were too keen because they had already gotten used to an impending Timothy, but by then, I was extremely grouchy and bloated (from too many McDonald's chocolate milkshakes) and they knew they would be protesting at their own peril. So Andre it was.

The first Andre I ever met was actually my friend Angele's older brother and I'd loved the name from the day I heard it. Till today, I still love the name and I'm so glad I chose it. I don't think it's too unusual a name but Andre tells me his teachers have a tendency to call him "An-dree" (it should be "On-drey") or Andrew or change his gender to Andrea. One even called him Audrey. Needless to say, not his favourite teacher.

Pronunciation is a pain but with exotic names, spelling is also an issue. For some reason, people can't seem to spell Lesley-Anne's name correctly. I've seen Leslie-Ann, Leslie-Anne, Lesley-Ann, Lesly-Anne and so on. I can understand why if you've only heard the name but sometimes, people writing her name next to where it is clearly featured IN BOLD (like on her book) can still get it wrong! Even extended family members persist in spelling her name incorrectly. Maybe they think we're the ones who've gotten it wrong. Grrrr.

And finally, even if your name is easy to pronounce or spell, you can still get lots of unwanted attention. I read a Facebook post where a girl named Vanna said she's constantly being asked, "Can I buy a vowel?" and another called Isis who's tired of being asked why she's associated with a terrorist group.

Choosing a name has consequences. So choose wisely!

If you have a unique name, you will totally identify with this buzzfeed post. I would check it out for the hilarious gifs but if you're too lazy to click on it, here's the text:

16 Things Only People With Unique Names Will Understand

1. You have a mild panic attack when a restaurant hostess asks for your name. 
2. You immediately raise your hand as soon as there is a pause in roll call. 
3. You still get birthday cards from your extended family with your name spelled wrong. 
4. People on Facebook continuously spell your name wrong even when it is listed mere inches from the comment box. 
5. People actually ask you if you are a foreigner. 
6. When giving your name, you just automatically spell it out of habit. 
7. You repeatedly get asked why your parents gave you “that name.” 
8. Literally 95% of your mail is spelled wrong. 
9. You’ve had to redo, reapply or resubmit official documents because your name is spelled wrong. 
10. You take extra care to spell people’s names right and take it personally when others do not. 
11. It actually makes your day when a stranger pronounces your name correctly. 
12. People actually question if you have misspelled your own name. 
13. Name tags give you nightmares. 
14. When wearing said nametag people still call you “hey you!” 
15. You have given up correcting people, but you keep a running list and misspell their name at the next opportunity. 
16. You will never name your children, dogs, fish or stuffed animals anything weird.

Day in the life of a newly minted 15-year-old

Andre turned 15 last Friday! Because the SA2 is still currently ongoing, we couldn't plan an elaborate celebration. Not that we would have anyway because Andre is a simple boy with simple needs.

Morning: Went to school and sat for his Principles of Accounts exam. Was very happy when he came home, he found the paper doable which was a nice change from all the other "impossible" exam papers he had been moaning about. A very good start to his birthday.

Afternoon: For his birthday lunch, we bought him a Subway roast beef sandwich. You might think this sounds terribly run-of-the-mill but the background to this is: Andre loves Subway sandwiches and usually, he shares a foot-long with his sister. So a week before his birthday when asked what he wanted to eat on his special day, he declared, "I want a foot-long all to myself!" Told you he has simple needs. So Subway it was. He devoured the sandwich in the time I whipped out my phone to take a photo. Too late. Hence the photo of a Subway outlet instead.

Evening: Because we're not such mean parents, we did bring Andre out for a slightly-more-upmarket-than-Subway dinner, even though he didn't ask for it. Ended up at Tony Roma's to satisfy his meat passion. We hadn't been here in years and the food was still pretty good.

Half onion loaf

Pulled pork sliders

Grilled spinach chicken stack (another huge piece of chicken breast not shown)

Original baby back ribs

One very happy boy.

After dark: What's a birthday without cake? One of Andre's favourites - strawberry shortcake from Four Leaves. A simple sponge with cream and strawberries but very light and delectable.

This was his second helping! We grabbed our share when we still had the chance.

And then presents. Beautifully wrapped by the thoughtful sister.

This is from us - a carrom board! It's such an old-school game that even the seller was surprised when he learned that it was our Millennial son who requested for it.

A wholesome family game that totally reinforced gender stereotypes (ie the females in our home cannot aim to save their lives).

My char siew bao is, incredibly, now 15. Even as I marvel how fast the years zip by, I'm always cognisant of how fortunate I am. He will still happily kiss and hug me every day, and let me do needy-mum things in public, like linking arms with him or taking wefies. How many 15-year-old boys would let their mums get away with that? Not many, I reckon.

A very happy birthday to you, dear boy. May your sweet nature continue to be a blessing to many others all through to adulthood.

Helping kids overcome the fear of failure

Recently, a mother wrote to me after reading my book, The Good, the Bad and the PSLE, to say that her daughter has the same fear of failure as April in the book. She asked me how she could help her child overcome this. In case you didn't know, that reference in the book was based on Lesley-Anne and an incident I wrote about way back in 2008.

The fear of failure is very common, especially among high achieving kids. Some people feel this is so because high achieving kids have never tasted failure. It's probably true but that's only part of the picture. High achieving kids don't just seldom taste failure, many of them systematically go out of their way to AVOID failure. In other words, for this group of kids, not failing may have started as the cause of the fear but it also became a calculated outcome.

When Lesley-Anne was much younger, she would shy away from trying anything new. It took us a while to realise that anything new was frightening because she didn't know if she would be good at it and somehow, being good at whatever she did was so important to her (even if it was something as inconsequential as trying a new piece of equipment at the playground).

We constantly told her it was fine not to be good at something (who cares if you can't work the monkey bars??) Just try lah. But she wouldn't. She felt she would be judged for failing and the impending shame (which to us was imaginary) was too overwhelming. Contrast this with Andre who would give everything a go with gusto, and if he fell down or failed, he would just cry and blame the obstacle for being "too haaaaaaarrrd". Lesley-Anne internalised the failure whereas Andre attributed it to external circumstances.

According to this article, the fear of failure is one of the biggest fears in modern society among children. I'm no psychologist but I believe that this fear has to do with self-identity. In today's modern society where a person's self-worth seems to be wrapped around how smart/popular/beautiful/sporty/arty we are or how many trophies we can chalk up, failure is like a bad word.

Compounding this problem is our ridiculously narrow definition of success. In Singapore's context, it usually just means good academic scores. Kids here are almost always singularly judged by their academic achievements, which is so limiting for personal growth. Children who have consistently done well in school and regularly told how smart they are, run the danger of accepting this label thrust on them. They tend to fear bad grades like the plague because that threatens their self-identity.

Lesley-Anne, who is in a "branded" school, tells me she sees this around her all the time. After the release of exam results, there will always be students found crying, sometimes for a B grade. Like it's the end of the world. Whereas in Andre's neighbourhood school, it's a less common occurrence.

I can picture parents blaming the schools and education system for this. While I don't deny that our system plays a part in reinforcing the kiasu competitive spirit, I want parents to face the brutal truth: we are complicit in entrenching the fear of failure in our children.

I often hear of parents setting ridiculous standards for their children, like "you have to score 95/100 for Maths!" If the kid slogs enormously hard and amazingly manages to achieve this feat, the parent starts to think, "There, see? It's achievable!" And that then becomes the standard the kid has to thereafter live up to (or even improve on - "if you can get 95, you can get 100!") or forever be considered under-performing. We not only set them up to be afraid of failure, we set the bar for failure at such an unrealistically high level so anything less than perfection is considered failure. Any wonder our kids turn out this way?

Incidentally, once we set goals this way, we are undermining our teaching of other values like honesty and compassion. If we define the measure of success as a finite grade, then we're sending the message that this is the goal to be reached at any cost. Even if it means cheating in an exam. Or even more incomprehensible, if the benchmark for success is based on someone else's: "You have to beat Aaron in Science!" I've seen kids hate their smarter classmates or view them as rivals because their parents have unwittingly painted them as the obstacles to their own kids' success. It's terribly sad.

So if you're the parent of a child who's afraid of failure and want to break the cycle, what do you do? First, do understand that the fear of failure is largely internalised. You can't simply tell your child that failure is part of life and he needs to get over it. (Just like you can't tell me to get over my fear of lizards and expect it to magically happen. I'll smack you.) You need to create the environment that de-stigmatises failure and reinforce this through everyday lessons. Like I wrote previously in my article on affluent parenting, instilling values is a long-drawn process. It will take time.

Here are some suggestions based on my own experiences and articles I've read:

1. Praise the effort, not the outcome. Eg. if your kid worked hard for an exam, praise that, regardless of the result. That's right, see the second part of that sentence underlined. For my kids, when we see that they have worked hard, we praise them before the results are released. Even if the results turn out to be less than satisfactory, we want to reinforce the lesson that it was the hard work that mattered. After all, one could also do well in an exam without studying, just due to luck. That's not something to reward.

2. Praise your child for the values he demonstrates, like diligence and perseverance, not for his smarts. A kid who's constantly told how smart he is tends to internalise the "smart" label and feel the pressure to live up to it. There's a lot to lose and his self worth can come crashing down if the results don't reflect that label (hence fear of failure). Also, don't overpraise for every little thing. Kids know when the compliments are fake and these don't give them a sense of accomplishment. In fact, they do the opposite.

3. When your kids fail at something, resist the scolding and the nagging. Scolding reinforces the message that failure is BAD and something to be avoided. By all means, help them see where they went wrong but instead of harping on the failure, help them get back up on their feet and encourage them try again. And if they fail again, help them try AGAIN. Seriously. No matter how many times it takes. In this interview with the South China Morning Post, I talked about how I responded when Lesley-Anne failed maths in school. I know not scolding is hard. We're human (and Asian parents!) Even if we don't scold, our kids can still sense our disappointment. So I know it can be a struggle, but do try.

4. Encourage your child to try new things. Like a new sport. For young kids, this could be as simple as trying out a new contraption on the playground. If they resist, don't force or criticise. Just try again next time. If they do make an attempt, remember Point 1 - praise the effort. Then go back to point 3 - if they fail, resist the scolding. Even better, try it with them. Some articles I've read say to use encouraging phrases like "you can do it!" but I would proceed with caution because it depends on the kid. For Lesley-Anne, saying "you can do it!" didn't encourage her one bit, it only added more pressure and increased her fear of failure. So know your child and adjust accordingly.


Over the years, Lesley-Anne has definitely made lots of progress and she's a lot more self-assured now. When she was in sec1, she loved dance but refused to try out for the school dance CCA despite my prodding because she was convinced she wasn't good enough. High chance of failure = don't try. But by the time she entered JC1, she was prepared to give the dance CCA a go, even though she knew her chances were slim (because she wasn't in a dance CCA in secondary school). That gave me great comfort as I saw how she had matured in this area. The fact that she made it to the CCA was a bonus but I would have been proud of her even if she hadn't.

I wouldn't say her fear of failure is entirely resolved because even to this day, issues occasionally crop up. Lesley-Anne tends to downplay her achievements so as not to raise expectations. Whenever I express delight over her performance in some exam, she would dismiss it with something like "oh, I just got lucky" which I have to admit, sometimes annoys me. But I understand it's her way of not putting pressure on herself because she already tends to do that. It's her coping mechanism and her way of distancing achievements from her self-identity, something I've grown to understand.

The fear of failure has implications not just in school but on life itself. Kids who fear failure will almost never take risks. In school, they will choose the "safe" subjects. Their singular goal is to pursue good grades and enter prestigious universities, studying prestigious courses because that is the definition of success. Read this article about how to some kids, not getting into the top university is considered a total failure. Upon graduation, they will go for the prestigious or "safe" occupations.

Which is such a pity. For these people, life isn't a journey of discovery but an obstacle race fraught with hurdles to safely cross. They miss out on life's adventures because they are afraid to try new things (which is instrumental to discovering one's passions or interests). And they will be terrified of making mistakes at work. At the end of the day, how fulfilling is this life? I've met many adults who told me they regretted not being more adventurous in their youth and that they wished they had found their life's passion earlier. How can you find your life's passion if you are too busy staying on the tried and tested path? The fear of failure is incredibly limiting.

Many entrepreneurs didn't get good grades in school. While it is also because they tend to have a very different mindset that doesn't fit in with structured curriculum, I believe part of the reason could be that entrepreneurship is too far too risky for high achievers who fear failure. There's just too much to lose.

Bill Gates famously said, “I failed in some subjects in exam, but my friend passed in all. Now he is an engineer in Microsoft and I am the owner of Microsoft.” Something to think about.

A 9-course meal to remember

Remember last month when I wrote about how doctor-turned-chef Chan Tat Hon invited me to his restaurant for lunch at The Bento People? Well, not long after that wonderful experience, he invited me back again for his 9-course Omakase degustation menu at the Snack Culture Company. This menu has already taken Singapore by storm since it began earlier this year, winning rave reviews from food critics and bloggers for its creativity and taste.

Before I went, I was very curious, partly because degustation meals are not my usual food scene. My family is the type who would eat a lot of the one type of food we like, not mini plates of many dishes. For us, a fancy dinner is one that features Peking duck or some French dessert that we can't pronounce. But we do love food (sometimes too much) and as far as adventures go, the culinary type is our favourite!

I decided to bring Andre as my date because I thought it would be nice for him to experience something different and it was rare for us to have mother-son bonding time that didn't involve me yelling at him to study. Although once we were there, I wondered if I'd made a mistake bringing Vacuum Cleaner Boy who might inhale each dish within seconds.

Arrived at 7.15pm and the place was comfortably filled (as in not too many that we had to share tables but not too empty that you felt you were being watched). Tat Hon's wife, Janice, served us drinks first. One of their specialties is the Yuzu Italian Soda but since we don't like aerated drinks, she made us the non-fizzy version. Nice!

Before dinner started, a fellow diner approached me and asked if I was the author of the Danger Dan books. Her son was a big fan. Wow! Dinner was off to a good start and I hadn't even eaten yet! Heh.

Ok, enough of the preamble and on to the food!

#1 Japanese Edamame with Thai Tom Yum Espuma

You're supposed to eat this by dropping the edamame peas into the tom yum broth and eating it together. The natural lightness of the peas was a bright contrast to the spiciness of soup. Even though Andre has an extremely low spice threshold, he slurped this up and declared it very good (as beads of sweat appeared on his nose).

#2 Mini Korean Mandu (Pork Dumplings) in Chilled Singapore Bak Kut Teh Consomme

I had serious doubts about this dish when I first read about it. Chilled bak kut teh? Sacrilegious! But I was instantly ashamed of my scepticism when I had my first taste of the broth. It was sublime. The peppery flavour was subtle, not overpowering - it was akin to chilled beef consumme. And the dumplings were equally fantastic (I wanted more). That's when I began to have an inkling as to why food reviewers were hailing Tat Hon as a budding new talent.

#3 Chilled Black Fungus and Mushroom Salad in Nonya Belachan Mayo Dressing

How pretty is this dish? Inspired by nonya chap chye, it was bursting with a myriad of mushrooms. The creamy dressing and chilled serving made this yet another harmonious East-West creation. The little bowl on the left contains the belachan mayo.

Unfortunately, Andre is not a fan of black fungus so he ate everything else except that. Silly boy. When Tat Hon came around and saw the black fungus untouched, he exclaimed, "You don't like? I'm so hurt!"

#4 Ter Kar Chor Scotch Egg

This is a Scotch quail's egg. According to the chef's instructions, we were supposed to take a bite of it plain (like a regular Scotch egg) and then dip it in the vinegar, eat it with the deep fried ginger and experience it as Ter Kar Chor (vinegared pork knuckle typically served to women during their confinement after childbirth).

Dutifully, I took a bite. It tasted fine but a little bland. Then I dunked it in the vinegar, tried it and my brain exploded. It was brilliant. The Scotch egg had magically transformed itself from a score of 7.5/10 to a 10,000. I LOVE the unexpected pairing and the ignition of flavours. I immediately wished I hadn't eaten half the egg without the vinegar. I wished I had a bigger egg. My advice if you're going to the Snack Culture Company for dinner - ignore the chef's advice! Eat the whole egg with the vinegar! You're welcome.

#5 Asian Trio: Beef Bulgogi Shabu Shabu in Vietnamese Rice Paper Roll, Ayam Buah Keluak Wanton, Laksa Prawn on Haebee Hiam Cookie

By this time, we were almost halfway through the dinner and Andre whispered to me that he wasn't even half full. Aiyoh. Patience! The bulgogi beef wrap was tender and very tasty, especially with the sweet chili sauce. The buah keluak wanton was so, so unique. The nutty, almost liver-like flavour packs a punch in its deep fried casing. I thought the sour spiciness of the laksa prawn battled a little against the sweet spiciness of the haebee hiam (dried shrimp) cookie but it was extremely tasty nonetheless

#6 Pen Cai Parcel

Pen Cai is a popular Chinese New Year dish where fresh seafood and other expensive ingredients are usually lined with cabbage and steamed in a pot. We opened this neat little parcel to reveal a mini abalone, shiitake mushroom and a fantastically scrumptious scallop. The soup was rich, yet light (this seems to be Tat Hon's signature ability - extracting maximum flavour from ingredients without overloading your palate).

It was at this time that Tat Hon went round from table to table, asking diners to guess the secret ingredient in the soup. Red date? Nope. Kelp? Nope. Beef? Nope. Nope Nope. After several dead ends, Andre's competitive streak kicked in and he called out, "chicken feet!", making Tat Hon stop dead in his tracks. Just to be clear, Andre has no clue what chicken feet tastes like. He probably figured that since everyone else had gotten it wrong, he would just make random guesses. Tat Hon did tell us what it was in the end (no, it's not chicken feet!) but so as not to spoil the fun, I'll not reveal it here.

#7 Kaffir Tomato Capellini Pasta + Cantonese 'Har Jeong' Soft Shell Crab Pasta

Andre's eyes lit up when this was served because he is a huge fan of carbs, especially pasta. The crab, with the prawn paste that's typically used for chicken, is very tasty. The pasta sauce however, was too acidic for us. I think most Singaporeans are accustomed to the sweeter (albeit less authentic) version of Italian pasta sauce.

There were some crispy pieces in the pasta which we enjoyed and couldn't figure out what they were. When I asked a server, she gave me a strange look and replied, "bacon". That triggered a bout of giggles in both of us. Our palates so hopeless lah! Can't even tell we're eating bacon. All those hours of watching Masterchef wasted. Food critics we will never be.

Anyway, Tat Hon mentioned that we were the last diners to sample that dish. Following feedback, he would be changing it to something else.

#8 Seafood En Papillote

This is the piece de resistance, Tat Hon's masterpiece if you will. Fresh seafood baked in parchment with Cajun spices and loads and loads of garlic. This was a generous serving of large prawns, mussels and clams - moist, buttery and delicious. Best of all, it was served with this:

That's right - light, fluffy and crispy prata! This was a stroke of genius. A local twist to an American dish. Andre wasted no time in wolfing down the prata, using each piece to mop up the addictive garlic sauce. Tat Hon even topped up our prata, which was much appreciated by Andre. After this dish, the bottomless pit that is Andre was finally full. He was a happy camper.

#9 Chendol Panna Cotta

First, let me say that Andre doesn't like chendol. And I never understood the big deal about panna cotta. It's just a custard, isn't it? So we were prepared to be underwhelmed. Then we both tried a spoonful and we almost didn't stop for breath as we guzzled it down. I know I should have tried to savour it more but I couldn't stop. It was THAT good. The panna cotta was amazingly rich and satisfying. I actually didn't think it tasted that much like chendol, it was more gula melaka, and the gooey gula melaka was an oh-so-perfect complement. A very satisfactory end to an exceptional meal.

You know how people say you remember a meal based on how it ended? Going by that, I give it 5 stars. If you're looking for a different dining experience that doesn't burn a hole in your wallet, the Snack Culture Company is the one to try. At $59 per head, it's pretty good value compared to other degustation meals on the market.

Andre was so impressed he pestered me to buy a jar of hae bee hiam cookies for dear old dad. So we did. As the official hae bee hiam lover in our household, Kenneth approved!

A parting photo with Tat Hon and Janice, because I totally forgot to do this the last time I was here.

The Snack Culture Company
#02-17, CT Hub, 2 Kallang Avenue
Singapore 339407
Tel: 6443 2006  / 8218 8700 (after hours)

Thursday, Friday & Saturday Nights
‘Around The World in 9 Small Plates’ Degustation Menu: 7.30-10pm. 

By reservation only, limited to 20+ diners per night.

$59+ per person, minimum 2 persons

For reservations and more information, visit here.

Confessions of a middle-ground voter

I am a classic middle-ground voter. I am not a die-hard supporter of any party - I support the one with the most rational and convincing plans. In the past, I've voted both for white and for opposition. Over the past 9 days, I've been bombarded with all sorts of rhetoric and passionate pleas on my feed.

But for a want-to-be-rational voter, many of the posts annoyed me tremendously. When you hurl attacks, act yaya papaya, it makes me want to vote your party less. When opposition supporters accuse Ministers of doing nothing but collect their $1m paycheck and shake leg, it makes me want to vote white. (Seriously, they make it sound like we live in North Korea). Conversely, when people tell me to "vote wisely", it makes me want to vote blue. When will people learn that trying to arm-twist others into following your political beliefs has the OPPOSITE effect?

I hear a lot of opposition supporters say they need change, for action. PAP is no action, talk only. This makes me laugh. You only need to talk to people on the ground, the everyday folks, to know that the ruling party had been very busy working their asses off since GE11. I've spoken to so many people who told me that while they want opposition, their MP helped them in this and that. In other words, while the keyboard warriors have been making assumptions about the MIW, painting them as ivory tower caricatures, the MIW have been quietly winning the hearts and votes of their electorate over the past four years. It's very difficult not to vote your MP in when they helped you get a HDB flat or a job.

Using the same argument, what did the opposition DO over the past four years? For many silently watching by the side, WP did nothing, at least nothing that could be chalked up as significant in Parliament. In GE11, people voted WP because they felt PAP was getting too big for their britches. In GE15, many people felt that WP had taken over those britches. A vote is a pledge of trust, not a prize. When people feel that you don't measure up to what is entrusted to you, they take it away the next time. It's a very level-headed decision.

What I'm saying is this was no freak result. No, people didn't vote white because they were scared PAP would not form gahmen. No, it wasn't the new citizens. Don't flatter yourself. As it turned out, the gerrymandering was needless anyway, the swing was so big it wouldn't have mattered. As Cherian George said, Singaporeans are a very pragmatic electorate. People can talk till they're blue in the face about more voices in Parliament but guess what, a voice is just that - a voice. The vast majority of Singaporeans have indicated that they don't want empty talk. They want people who DO. Stop posturing with your big words and your grand ideas. How will you make those ideas happen?

I have since last night, come to realise that majority of Singaporeans are inner rebels. We don't like confrontation so we may not respond to arguments we don't agree with. But it doesn't mean we don't have our own minds. We make our own assessments. The more you shout, the more I'm convinced you are a lunatic and I will show it secretly in the polls. In fact, all the sour grapes by candidates and supporters that have since appeared online only prove to those who voted white that they've indeed made the right choice. Amchio-ing, they are. Incidentally, threatening fellow Singaporeans that they will pay for this decision is akin to LKY threatening Aljunied they will have to repent. See how well that worked out?

Do I wish there are more alternative voices in Parliament? Yes. Do I think it was an unfair playing ground? Yes. But do I think this result is therefore invalid? Not at all. Again, the Singaporean electorate is pragmatic, not stupid. Don't be so bloody condescending. It would do well for the opposition to realise that the best way to win votes is simply to WORK for them. The MIW figured this out the last GE. That's why they're back.

The superpower of teachers

I've always believed that few people impact on others as much as teachers. Good or bad, they can leave a deep impression that influences attitudes and behaviour, even years later.

Lesley-Anne and I have dedicated quite a few Danger Dan books to teachers - it's our way of publicly showing our gratitude. Since it's Teachers' Day this Friday, I thought it would be fitting to pay tribute to teachers in this post, specifically, two of Lesley-Anne's teachers who have been inspiring mentors in her writing journey.

The first is Ms Heng, Lesley-Anne's JC1 Lit teacher. This teacher basically grew Lesley-Anne's appreciation of Lit ten-fold with her intellectually stimulating lectures and tutorials. Apart from that, she intuitively understood Lesley-Anne's reflective temperament and encouraged her to express herself. When I first met her at the parent-teacher conference last year, I was struck by how she seemed to "get" Lesley-Anne, despite having taught her only for a few months.

Titbit: we dedicated Secrets of Singapore to her!

Here she is at her own book launch which she invited us to. She's a poet and writer herself and had published a book co-authored with three other writers.

The second teacher is Lesley-Anne's p6 English teacher, Ms Lee. There's a heart-warming backstory to this one. Before p6, Lesley-Anne actually found writing dreary, thanks no less to all those "model compositions" and the "good phrases" she was told to emulate. Bleaaah. Instant formula for killing the love of writing.

Thankfully in p6, Ms Lee advised her to put aside the model compositions and to find her own voice. Even though Lesley-Anne's language use was much simpler than the generally preferred bombastic language at p6, Ms Lee recognised her potential and continued to encourage her efforts. From there, Lesley-Anne's love of writing bloomed and she developed her personal writing style, which till today, leans towards simplicity and clarity.

Lesley-Anne credits Ms Lee in her school talk when she speaks about her writing journey. However, we had long lost touch with Ms Lee as she had left Lesley-Anne's primary school and we didn't know where she had gone.

Then in July, we conducted a talk at North Vista Primary School. After the talk, a teacher excitedly bounded onto the stage. It was Ms Lee! What serendipity! It was a very special moment for both of them.

These are just two teachers who made a difference in Lesley-Anne's life. We have the opportunity to thank them publicly through our books and our talks, but there are many, many more students whom I'm sure are privately thanking teachers for their own lives and successes. The teachers who disregarded their own safety to protect their students during the Sabah earthquake earlier this year come to mind.

For this, I would like to wish all teachers a very heartfelt and happy Teachers' Day. May your work continue to inspire and bless those who cross your path.

Look beyond the numbers when talking about the decline in Literature

Today in the Straits Times is an article on the decline of Literature students. It's not the first time they've reported on this and it always annoys me to read about this topic on MSM because they tend to skim the surface without digging deeper. There's no analysis to speak of and they focus superficially on the numbers as if that gives legitimacy to the story.

No doubt, Lit has become less popular but WHY? Fewer kids taking Lit means kids are not interested? More schools offering Lit suddenly means the situation is improving? They interviewed one student who said she didn't take Lit because Lit was hard and they thought that explained everything? Many kids, even in my generation, found Lit hard. That hasn't changed.

1) The more basic flaw when looking at numbers: You can't look at the decline in the absolute number of students taking Lit at 'O' levels over the years and simply conclude that Lit is less popular because the NUMBER OF 'O' LEVEL STUDENTS HAS DECLINED OVER THE YEARS. Duh.

In 2012, 37,267 students sat for the 'O' levels. In 2014 just two years later, the number had dropped to 30,964. All numbers found on the MOE website. In other words, the "worrying drop" in Lit students reported in the Strait Times article over the same period from 6,000 to 5,500 Lit students was just a corresponding drop in cohort size.

Even I, who's hopeless in Maths, can tell you that if you insist on harping on figures, looking at the percentage of Lit students over the total number of kids sitting for 'O' levels would at least be a more accurate reflection of reality.

Do you know why the 'O' level cohort has been systematically falling? Apart from the corresponding fall in birth rates, it's also because from 2004 when the IP programme was introduced, the PSLE top scorers have been siphoned off to IP schools, where kids skip the 'O' levels. The number of students going into IP schools increases every year, hence the 'O' level cohort continues to shrink. And because Lit is typically considered a hard subject, ie only top students would take it, these students are likely in your IP schools, so the potential target audience has already been reduced.

2) The more complex issue: The way the education system is structured locally for 'O' levels is not conducive to kids taking up Lit and this is something I suspect many in the literary world who are trying to promote Lit in schools may not be aware of.

Let me share how 'O' level schools typically work. When you choose your subjects at sec 3, schools often offer only a few combinations. There are no more "Science" or "Arts" streams as in the past because in current day 'O' levels, you have to take at least one Science, one Maths and one Humanities subject. Quite commonly, a school would offer a Triple Science combination, a Double Science combination and a Combined Science combination. To fulfil the humanities criterion, most schools make students take Combined Humanities, which is half Social Studies and half an elective (Lit, Geography or History). In other words, when MSM reports that students prefer Combined Humanities over full Lit, it's not true. For most schools, Combined Humanities is COMPULSORY. The students don't have a choice. (I dare say many students absolutely abhor Social Studies).

So let's do a count of subjects: These would be your mandatory subjects: 1) English 2) Mother Tongue 3) E. Maths 4) Combined Humanities 5) one Science. That's 5 subjects. Many kids are told that if they want to increase their options at JC level, they should take another Science and A. Maths, so that makes 7 subjects. Many students take a total of 8 subjects so they may either choose yet another Science subject (hence Triple Science) or a less common subject (eg. Music, Design & Tech, Principles of Accounts) or another full humanities (Lit, History or Geog). This is where a student can choose to take full Lit as a subject if the school offers it.

However, many kids take only 7 subjects to lighten their workload, especially if they're looking to enter the Poly route (which requires only the calculation of 5 subjects for entry). Some schools even offer a 6-subject combination to help their weaker kids cope. Taking Lit as a subject is not an option for these kids, even if they're interested.

In other words, where would be the opportunity to take Lit? It's all very well to glibly say more kids should take Lit without understanding the constraints of the education system. In my generation, more kids took Lit but it wasn't so much that more kids were interested in it. We just didn't have a choice and we took all subjects imposed on us depending on the stream we were put in.

Whereas nowadays, Lit is usually an option and a small one offered only to students in the better classes. While more schools offering the subject is a good thing, it doesn't necessarily translate into significantly more students taking it up. And with 'O' level grades more critical than ever for entry into competitive JCs and Polys, coupled with the perception that Lit is terribly difficult to score well in, you have your answer as to why Lit is unpopular.

To me, trying to force Lit down the 'O' level track is an uphill task because of the limitations of the education structure. Where I think we can make a bigger impact promoting Lit is among the IP schools. Lit requires analysis and higher order thinking, and on paper, the IP students have the ability. IP schools also have the advantage of not having to put their students through the 'O' levels, so they can focus on subjects that develop the mind instead of teaching to the test. Yet many IP schools don't practise this.

Lesley-Anne was from the IP track. I was constantly frustrated at how her secondary school was narrowly exam-focused, despite IP touting freedom of academic and intellectual pursuit. At sec 3, the students were only offered two tracks: Triple Science or Double Science. In Triple Science (which formed majority of the classes), you had ZERO opportunity to take Lit (or any other full humanities subject). The combination was fixed as: English, Higher MT, 2 Maths, 3 Sciences, Social Studies. If you chose the Double Science combination, you could take one Humanities subject in place of the third science. This was the only option where you could choose Lit.

Lesley-Anne is clearly humanities-bound and she loves both Lit and Geography. But as you can see, her secondary school is so Science-biased (reinforcing the ancient fallacy that Science is superior) that there was no option for her to study both Lit and Geog. The best she could do was take up Double Science and she chose Lit. Oh, there was a very selective Humanities Programme where she could have studied a variety of arts subject but in order to get in, you had to score top marks in all your exam subjects at sec 2 (a large portion of which comprised Maths and Science subjects). Nothing about identifying those with special talent or interest in the humanities at all. What a farce.

The reason Lesley-Anne is enjoying JC so much more than secondary school is that at the JC level, you're allowed to study the subjects you enjoy. I'm not dissing the importance of Maths and Science, by the way. I'm rejecting the notion that they're considered so important that every kid has to study these at an advanced level whereas the Humanities are dubbed the inferior "can't do Science then I bopian do Arts" option.

I don't know if it's the same for all IP schools. I'm saying that there's a lot more potential for Lit to be taken up by students in these schools and if the obstacle is the schools' attitude towards the Humanities, then this is the area we should be looking at. If those looking to promote Lit in schools can engage IP school Principals and teachers, and change their mindset towards the Humanities, we might actually get somewhere in the long term.

And it's not just attitudes towards the Humanities, it's attitudes towards learning in general. As mentioned, IP schools should be focusing on learning more than scoring because that's what eliminating the 'O' levels was meant to do. Yet the legacy of this obsession over scoring dies hard. When Lesley-Anne decided to choose Lit in sec 3, her friends thought she was crazy. They felt she should have chosen Geog because she had topped her class in Geog in sec 2 - go with the "easier to score" option. But Lesley-Anne chose Lit because she decided that she loves Lit more and she enjoyed the lessons tremendously. I guess she had the last laugh because at the end of sec 4, she topped the level in Lit in her school.

It's a nice end to that chapter in her life but my point is that in our education system, there are more obstacles to taking Lit than just interest. The kids have to be very sure, they have to have support at home to go against the grain, because sometimes, the school doesn't encourage it. If kids, parents and teachers continue to view education as a numbers game obsessing over scores, Lit is fighting a losing battle.

Lit opens up our worldview and perspectives, and helps us see how language is used as an artform to influence emotion and shape opinions. Appreciating Lit takes time and that's part of the process of learning. If we are to promote Lit in schools, we need to jolt educators out of their misconception that there's more value to teaching a tangible concept like how molecules work than teaching about the depths of a human soul. We really have to move out of this rut of equating education with training, something I've written about before.

Back to the ST article, when journalists look at the numbers and think they tell the whole story of the state of Lit, they're ironically no different from the Maths/Science proponents. Delve deeper and ask the question why, beyond the numbers and without jumping to conclusion. Lit will teach you that.

Everyday slap the copywriter

In an embarrassing piece of news, MAS gets the name of first president Mr Yusof Ishak wrong on the folder and booklet of a $50 commemorative banknote. It even attracted the attention of BBC News.

Photo: Channel News Asia

Some people have wondered how the copywriter could have missed this. I have a couple of theories:

1) MAS didn't engage a copywriter. They might have engaged a design agency or printing agency to design and produce the folders and booklets, and included copywriting in the contract. The agency then got someone in-house, who's likely not a professional copywriter, to write the text. This is a common practice done to save costs. But how the error could also have been missed by MAS, who presumably would have to proof-read the text and give the final go-ahead, boggles the mind.

2) The more horrifying possibility is that both the copywriter and the person in charge of this project DIDN'T KNOW the name of our first president. One website did some sleuthing and actually found a list of instances where "Yusok Ishak" was erroneously published in mainstream media and government publications, including *horror of horrors* MOE and MINDEF! So did the MAS incident happen because someone conveniently cut-and-paste the info from another source and didn't know it was wrong? I really hope not because that would be too sad for words.

Anyway, in my line of work, I come across loads of writing errors all the time. While some of them are simply grammatical or typographical errors, my writers and I constantly lament that there's a lot more blatant usage of words without thought these days. Remember earlier this year when SingTel came under fire for using the tagline "Let's make everyday better"? The error: "everyday" as one word refers to the routine things we do each day but if that's the meaning SingTel had intended, the tagline should have read "Let's make the everyday better".

But fine - I can accept that not everyone is able to distinguish between "every day" and "everyday" (although an ad agency most certainly should). However, when I visited a SingTel shop a couple of weeks ago, I saw this emblazoned on the wall:

 

What a massive line of gobbledegook. Apart from the very strange sentence structure, what are they promoting? The fertility rate? Toothpaste? It's like someone ran a random slogan through Google Translate. Incidentally, the sentence below is wrong as well. It should be "family's" (singular) not "families'" (plural). Otherwise, I should be able to bundle my family's mobile plan with 10 other families and maybe get 100% discount.

One of my writers retorted, "Everyday better slap the copywriter." When I shared the photo on Facebook, a friend posted this pic:

Oh look - the same copywriter! Groan.

Actually, I don't know if it's just the copywriter who's inept (it baffles me how many people think just because they can string a grammatical sentence together, they are qualified to offer copywriting services) or the client who insisted on going with something unintelligible. But there are just too many ads that dress up gibberish with mood photography or fancy videography. I still remember a Capitaland tv commercial a few years ago that made me cringe. One of its lines was: "A good building is like a good person - you can't have one without the other." Whaaaaaat? Newsflash: Just because you use a manly, authoritative voice-over doesn't mean what he says makes any sense.

In the past, few organisations outsourced writing - most of the writing was done in-house by their own PR departments. However, from what clients and friends tell me, the art of writing has today become an elusive skill that eludes even communications staff. Hence, most writing is now outsourced. Yet we are still surrounded by bad English (I previously wrote about bad English being used in official channels in this post). Haiz.

In the quest to be original and capture attention, organisations and copywriters sometimes embark on English gymnastics. The trouble is if you're not an expert at it, you might end up in a tangled heap. Often, simplicity is best. No need to try so hard to be clever. Just be correct.

Elitism vs meritocracy

Last week, the RI Principal gave a speech exhorting Rafflesians to guard against elitism. Which was welcomed by the community at large but all goodwill was undone when ex-RI boy, Russell Tan wrote a forum letter yesterday in response, claiming that elitism had its place in society.

I wonder if Russell realises that he unwittingly proved the RI Principal's point about some RI kids being insular.

Meritocracy is about rewarding the most outstanding and people like Russell believe that because the measurement for "outstanding" is standardised for all, it's only fair to reward purely based on who can complete the checklist. In Singapore, this checklist would include someone who does well in national exams, shows leadership, brings in medals for their CCA, etc.

In the past when the educational landscape wasn't so competitive, it worked to a certain extent. You had kids who could climb their way out of an underprivileged background just by working extra hard. Education was truly the social leveller then. But today, when competition is super keen and standards have been raised to differentiate the best from the best, working hard is no longer enough.

If you have tutors in every subject to clarify your every doubt and help you learn beyond what teachers teach you in school, you're most certainly likely to do better in your exams. If your parents can engage a tennis coach for you from age 5, you would clearly be a better tennis player able to lead your school team by the time you hit secondary school. If you have well-educated, English speaking parents who can bring you overseas on holiday to expose you to different cultures, read to you from when you were an infant and have connections to help you land internships, you would undoubtedly have a better looking portfolio and participate more confidently in interviews than a kid who doesn't even have internet at home.

And so on. In other words, just ensuring that the finish line is the same for all is no longer enough to attain meritocracy because the start line is so unequal. The unlevel playing field greatly affects the outcome and the problem arises when people don't realise that and believe that they are where they are purely on their own merit. And everyone else who didn't achieve what they did was somehow either incapable or didn't work hard enough. That's elitism.

The thing is, I find that many students who feel like Russell may not be deliberately elitist, just ignorant, and the education system contributes to this culture. In my time, parents too wanted their kids to go to "good" schools but in general, a "good" school was defined as one which had an ok academic reputation and was relatively near your home. Hence, there was a more diverse student population in each school.

Today, everyone clamours to go to the very top ranked school based on their cut-off points, failing which they would go to the next ranked school, etc. As a result, students are streamed very narrowly into schools based on their PSLE scores and you have pretty much a tiered system with all the best PSLE scorers congregating at RI/RGS/HCI/NYGH/ACSI and so on.

What happened then was that schools became much less diverse, especially among the top rung schools. If you're in a school which takes in the top 2% of a PSLE cohort, everywhere you turn, you find people similar in ability and background to you. (That's why these kids also tend to have a warped sense of who's good and who's not academically). Unless you run around with kids in your neighbourhood who are of different abilities, or you do a lot of community work with the underprivileged, you will simply not be aware of what other people are like. At that tender age, you take your cues from people around you and if all those you meet are the top 2% at RI, the same privileged kids at high end enrichment centres, and your neighbours in Bukit Timah, then you would inevitably think that's what typical society is like that.

And that's the danger I find not just with kids but adults. We can be lulled into oblivion because we tend to mingle only with people like us and can start thinking that we're the norm. Some time back, I had lunch with a group of friends, all mums. Quite typically when mums meet, we talk about our kids and some of the mums complained about how unmotivated their kids were and how they were doing badly for certain subjects.

Later, I commented to a close friend who had also attended the lunch, that this particular social circle was so skewed. Among the 6 of us, we have 13 kids, of which 8 were from GEP. That's a whopping 61%, compared to the national average of 1% GEP over the general student population. I have to qualify that these mums are super nice and easy going, and I like hanging out with them because they're not your kiasu *simi sai also send to Learning Lab* parents. But we probably have no clue what "doing badly" really meant to the general population. For that circle, it meant not getting an 'A' grade at ACSI or RI whereas I have another friend who told me her son was doing really well, ie he got into the Express stream in sec 1.

Maybe I'm just more conscious about it because I have one child (Lesley-Anne) in a branded school and another (Andre) in a neighbourhood school. Here's the contradiction: despite being in the "better" school, more of Lesley-Anne's friends have tuition than Andre's friends; and the attitude towards academic achievement couldn't be more different.

That's where I feel people are coming from when they express their concern about "ivory tower" civil servants or that those in government may not understand how people on the ground feel. It's a valid concern if all those in decision-making positions come only from a small and homogeneous pool. I'm not discounting their ability or their intentions. Both may be fantastic. But sometimes, ability and intentions are not enough. We need different perspectives.

So if we say we stand for meritocracy, we need to either diversify the student population in our schools or consciously widen the pool from which we scout talent. Does that mean we are creating unequal yardsticks for "outstanding"? Yes. But in today's context, perhaps that's what it takes to achieve true meritocracy.

This is home, truly

I hope everyone had a relaxing Jubilee weekend! Well, except for the upcoming PSLE kids whose parents must have thought, "aha! Four extra days to study!" My condolences.

I thought this year's NDP was especially well done. The orchids on LKY's seat were an understated and poignant touch. I'm sure many Singaporeans wished he could have lived to see the SG50 celebration.

So many wishes have already been published for SG50, I don't want to be cheong hei about it. I just have one thought - a lot has been said about unity and how as we come of age, we need to be united as one people. I notice though that some people have a superficial definition of unity, ie we have to share the same views. To me, unity goes much deeper than that. It is knowing that even though we may look different, like different things and hold different views (even argue heatedly about them), we firmly believe that each one of us has a place in Singapore. Even as we celebrate our common love of food, bond over our use of Singlish and laugh at each other's kiasu-ism, may we also come to see our differences as something not just to tolerate but to embrace. Unity is made beautiful in diversity.

Back to the NDP, watching the show segment reminded me how many historical facts we covered in Secrets of Singapore. Am glad Lesley-Anne and I took the time to write that book. So I recently found out that there's a Danger Dan fan club in Temasek Primary school (which thrilled me to bits)! Their wonderfully supportive parents sent me photos of their kids reading Secrets of Singapore, which is such apt reading for National Day:

We received a glowing review of the book from Sassy Mama Singapore, who describes the book as: "Informative on all aspects of Singapore history and society, it has an eye for the telling anecdote, does not shy away from a pun and a chummy reading voice that never patronises."

Yay! Early responses to the book from kids are promising and we're really excited about that. Popular Bookstore has invited Lesley-Anne and me to an author meet-and-greet this coming Saturday, 15 August 2pm at their main store at Bras Basah.

If you would like to meet us and get your book autographed or have any burning questions for us about Secrets of Singapore, do come down! The wonderful Epigram Books has printed new Danger Dan stickers and all kids will get one.

See you on Saturday and Happy National Day, Singapore ♥