Old letters to the media

On this page are some old letters to the media. They are definitely outdated and do not represent my current views and opinions.

• Disclaimer
• "Target" the masses
• After Singapore Idol, Singapore Politician
• Peace is in our hands
• Flag Day not justified
• Young Entrepreneurs
• Say no to compulsory education
• Solving the software piracy problem
• Reply to Helicopter Vision
• Psychology Programme May Work

Title: "Target" the masses
Sent Date: Friday, 23 September 05
Sent to: The Straits Times
Result: Rejected

Dear editor,

Perhaps Singapore can stop the mosquitoes if everyone has Rentokil Initial's "Target" machine in their homes.

To make this realistic, perhaps we can create NTUC brand consumer versions of the "Target" machine, selling for less than $60. This should be something Singapore's R&D or Rentokil Initial is capable of.

To encourage the public to take up such machines, the government can subsidize or rent out such machines, perhaps one for every household. This action can be especially helpful in areas where the dengue epidemic is occurring.


I also suggest that the National Environment Agency (NEA) compile a list of mosquito trapping or repelling devices along with their measured effectiveness.

I still wonder if the popular ultrasonic anti-mosquito and ultraviolet bug capturing devices really work or not.


Your sincerely,
Eric Chen

Title: After Singapore Idol, Singapore Politician
Sent Date: Thursday, 12 August 04
Sent to: The Straits Times, The New Paper, Streats, Today
Result: Rejected

Dear editor,

I observe with interest the popularity of "Singapore Idol". I propose organizing "Singapore Politician" to promote political awareness and activism among Singaporeans.


Each political party will send representatives to challenge and query contestants, who will speak about their backgrounds, personal vision, and deliver proposals on how they can contribute to Singapore. We will have 2 elimination rounds to remove those deemed unsuitable.

To improve quality, contestants must have 3 people of different backgrounds, not from their family, school or workplace, second them.

In the final round, the roles will reverse - the parties will try to convince the contestants to join them. Contestants may also to start their own political party with help of a special fund from the proceeds.


The show can telecast monthly and attract many young Singaporeans into politics.

Title: Peace is in our hands
Sent Date: Monday, 7 June 04
Sent to: Today
Result: Rejected

I read with interest "Smirking at her wish for peace?" (Today, June 7). I believe that there is more than meets the eye on the issues of life than what we commonly understand.


Life shows us imperfection to express its perfection. Without leaking pipes, we need no plumbers. Without diseases we need no doctors. Without darkness, we cannot have light; without evil, no good; without war, no peace. In this, the world exists perfectly in complete harmony.

God did not give us free will and an intelligent, self conscious brain in vain - there exist for us to use. We do not have hands so that God can touch for us, or legs so that God can walk for us. We do not have problems so that God can solve them for us. We either choose to solve these problems, or let them continue. There is no in between.

Likewise, we do not have villains, but teachers. Osama and Hitler are actually great teachers who demonstrated negativity, much like how Mother Theresa demonstrated saintliness. Condemning negativity would only proclaim one's refusal to accept the world as it exists.

Life and living is a gift for us to use, both the desirable and the undesirable. If we do not see it as a gift, or a tool, it speaks volumes about how much more we can grow.


No one hurts for no reason, for we all have our world view and reasoning of right and wrong. Everyone sees their own attack as defense, no matter of their motherland, heritage, culture, or religion.

They truthfully believe that they must attack in order to defend what they stand for, justifying the injustice and horrors they inflict on others. They injure hoping to heal their hurts.

History has shown us that destroying one's enemies not only does not lead to peace, but always to more war. When something does not work, the wise tries another way. Let us make peace by seeing attacks as a call for help and healing our enemies.


We must take responsibility for war in order to have peace. We must own, so that we can disown. For who else has created the economical and political structures that ruined the lives of countless people around the world?

Who else has spent lavishly on a huge car and designer clothes when millions labor in sweatshops and concentration camps? Who else has tonnes of food to throw away, when poor children in Africa die of starvation? Who else has so much water to fill swimming pools, so much land to build golf courses, so much leisure time for windows shopping when many others can only dream of drinking clean water on a night without gunfire and explosions?

The people who suffer under the most terrible conditions see this behavior of the "haves" and this denial of even basic dignity for them. Of course, they will naturally feel angry and upset at their "oppression" and want to do something about it to "make it right", even if that means killing their "oppressors".


Let us stop blaming religious fanatics and militaries, stop dismissing peace as impossible and just face reality: we had contributed to our problems, and now let us all fix it together.

Stop war forever by bringing love, nourishment and hope to the suffering peoples of this world. Stop war forever by sharing our wealth and abundance now. Stop war now by embracing a new understanding of life and living to each other. Stop war forever by befriending those we call terrorists and understanding them as individual human beings just like you and me.

Make peace by seeing that we are one people, one race, living in one world. Make peace by choosing to express kindness, joy and forgiveness. Make peace by believing in, and trusting each other. Make peace by accepting our world as perfect, and seeing our lives as perfect moments for us to express ourselves as Who We Are.


We already have the answers to our problems. Simply choose peace, and peace is ours.

[Note: Neale Donald Walsch has written some excellent books addressing these issues: www.cwg.org]

------------

Original article: Smirking at her wish for peace?
Miss Universe is doing her bit for the world. It's time for us also to put in an effort.
Monday . June 7, 2004
Koh Buck Song

YET another Miss Universe has just been crowned. And no doubt, there would have been another round of chuckling and sniggering among TV viewers about air-head beauty pageant contestants wishing for "world peace".

Indeed, according to a report in The Australian, the new Miss Universe herself, Ms Jennifer Hawkins, had joked about wanting world peace when she was watching the contest on TV last year.

But the wish is no joke at all: The saddest irony about beauty pageants is that world peace is precisely the most pressing issue the world faces today.

As the fallout from the Iraq war continues to make headlines and skirmishes and terrorist attacks flare up in other trouble spots, the world wonders when the next major conflict will surface.

I recall one day in Singapore in 2001, when I was sitting-in on a meeting between a very senior official and a few newspaper editors. One editor in particular, sniffing a news angle in the air, was praising the official for expressing the view that with the end of the Cold War, the world would never, ever again see conflict on a large scale.

The editor, visibly impressed, even suggested running a story to make this point to "educate" the public on this "illuminating insight". Needless to say, this happened in that glorious age before 911. What a wonderful time it was, filled with hope and optimism!

It is now nearly three years since the World Trade Center attack, but the sober sense of reality still prevails.

The official's sense of finality was misguided. The enduring reality is that some level of conflict will always be with us. These continuing shock waves are actually coming out from the epicenters of global instability such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

And these disputes will never go away, because they are founded on absolute beliefs, which can never be settled except by divine intervention.

Why God continues to allow bad things to happen to good people and why He does not show Himself to settle things once and for all are questions no one has answers to.

Meanwhile, we are left with other questions such as: What can we, as helpless mortals, do to promote and preserve world peace?

It is unfortunate that our fates are in the hands of a few individuals. They are the ones with their fingers hovering over the "push" button on the weapons at hand, whether these are massive military forces or just homemade explosives.

But the opposite is also true: People have a power they are sometimes not fully aware of.

A good reflection of this is the drifting leadership in Latin America. Ecuador, for example, has had four different presidents in six years - with the democratic process throwing out anyone who is not seen to meet the people's expectations, which are demanding, impatient and unrealistic.

What kind of leadership should we, as voters and concerned citizens, support to give us all the best bet for world peace?

Do we need the "tough guy" who is patriotic and will not budge from an entrenched position on an issue and is ever-ready to pull the trigger to defend the status quo?

Or, are we better off with a leader who is willing to work towards compromise and consensus?

Someone who can and will be firm when needed, but who at least starts off thinking that the way to harmony is to win allies and expand the common ground?

Someone who seeks to settle differences not through the barrel of a gun or fist-thumping at the table, but through sincere negotiation - even if this has to be done over canapes and cocktails, or closer to home in South-east Asia, over satay and bandung?

Conflict is reduced each time someone gains a little more insight into another culture and, so, increases his own sense of empathy. This is something all of us, as individuals, can work on.

On a larger scale, the quality of empathy is something voters might want to look more closely at in their leaders. US voters will have to make this choice when they elect their president later this year.

Deciding which approach to back is a choice that each and every one of us always has a responsibility to make. 

Commercial motivations aside, the Miss Universe will be doing her bit to make this world a better place, with her drawing power to pull people to give to charity and focus on the needy and disadvantaged.

She is at least doing more than the people who laugh at her from their plush armchairs. It's time more of us did our bit for world peace.

The writer is a Mason Fellow at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. His most recent book is The Ocean Of Ambition. Do you have a view on this commentary? If so, email us at news@newstoday.com.sg 

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

Title: Flag Day not justified
Sent Date: Wednesday, 16 July 99
Sent to: The Straits Times
Result: Rejected

Dear editor,

I read with interest the recent letters to the forum page concerning selling flags for charity. As a student, this issue concerns me directly, as the educational institution I am and was in organised charitable events.

I wish to state my disapproval of the current process of selling flags, which is based on the assumption that 'volunteers' will develop a humble and sincere heart and that the activity will raise money efficiently enough to justify its existance. There is something wrong with this assumption.



Firstly, is the assumption that 'volunteers' will develop a humble and sincere heart. Certainly, if the volunteers are really willing to work for charity, then the assumption will hold true. However, this assumption is oversimplified and unrealistic.

The word volunteers is often misleading. For example, in secondary school students will have to serve at least six hours of community service. Even after I entered a polytechnic, one of the committees informed me that 'attendance is compulsory for a Flag Day event' and threatened me with severe disciplinary action if I do not comply. Almost all of my friends are unwilling to attend and would have stayed away from the event if given a choice. If volunteers are not really volunteers and do charitable work because they were forced to do so, how could they be expected to develop a humble and sincere heart?

This practice of 'conscripting' volunteers also imposes a net cost on 'volunteers', many of whom believe that their time could be better spent somewhere else and that charity work is not one of the best use of their time.



Secondly, flag days are not really worthwhile and are inefficient.

For example, if Charity X wishes to sell flags to the public to raise funds, they may try to increase the yield by:
1. Getting as many volunteers as possible
2. Positioning the volunteers in a crowded place
3. Getting volunteers to pester passer-bys to donate
4. Positioning a lot of volunteers in a 'must-pass' place to make it more costly (in terms of convenience) to avoid the volunteers

Point one may involve forcing people to be 'volunteers', and the educational system is supplying many of them, directly and indirectly. Points three and four are inefficient and ineffective, as people who wished to donate will donate without being asked. Other people who eventually donate (usually a minimum amount) do it to get volunteers off their backs (and get a negative impression of them for causing inconvenience).

In additional, persistent 'milking' of a place results in diminishing returns, and making it increasingly costly (in terms of time and effort) for charities to reach donation targets. This is just like a highly elastic market (as the economic benefit of donating to charity is likely to be negative and is usually unessential to the well-being of the less needy donating people) saturated with competitors.



Thirdly, there are better more practical alternatives to selling flags. For example, developing accountancy software for charities, networking their computers, helping them develop web pages, contributing practical and effective ideas to charities are many practical things which are often overlooked. Charities and educational institutes could also provide training to people, and include a hands-on session to allow students to apply their skills in the practical world and do charity work at the same time.



I wish to clarify that my friends (and I) are unwilling to attend these activities if we can choose, is more complex than lack of generosity. It is due to the fact that we are rational people, and we consciously or unconsciously know that selling facts is inefficient as well as ineffective. However, many of us will be most willing to help in a non-zero sum world, of which helping charity will benefit both volunteers and the charities. We already have enough problems such as insufficient time, and charity should help solve them instead of adding to them.

Title: YoungEntrepreneurs
Sent Date: Monday, 28 May 99
Sent to: The Straits Times
Result: Rejected

Dear editor, 

I wish to comment about how the government is encouraging and yet discouraging people to become entrepreneurs.

I am 16 years old and very interested in starting my own business. However, my enquiries show me that I have to be at least 21 years and above to do so. To many teens, alternatives to starting a business includes working part time for others, finding a willing and trusted proxy or, if they really want to, hiring a 'puppet CEO'.

To me, working part time is out, as the returns are lesser and one meets unpleasant bosses every too often. Hiring a 'puppet CEO' will add significantly to the already difficult situation. I have often found that I have too much work to do, especially research work, and there are hardly any willing partners nearby to assist.

Finding a venture capitalist who trusts teens is not an easy job too. All too often, you will find would-be investors who are not really committed when you want them to voice a yes or a no after telling them your idea.


I have a few suggestions to deal with the above problems:

1) Remove the age limit requirement for starting a business. For heaven's sake, this is the most obvious thing to do.

2) Remove the many barriers that prevent young teens from becoming doing business. For example, the age limit for opening current accounts and cheques should be reduced. The minimum age limit for driving a vehicle should be reduced too. Many minimum age requirements are actually unnecessary as they hinder teens, especially entrepreneurs, more than they help them.

3) Provide free or heavily subsided classes for those who want to learn to start their businesses.
. For example, equipping entrepreneurs who want to set up Voice-over-IP systems with the relevant technical knowledge will assist them greatly.
. I have to learn how to use and repair computers and TCP/IP networking mostly by myself. I wish I can learn them more easily.

4) Promote and the increase the awareness starting businesses along as an alternative to seeking jobs.
. In the secondary school I was in, getting a good 'O' level grade, going to higher education and finding a good job was the emphasised. Business between students were forbidden in school, and my ideas of starting my own business was drowned out by the mini-lectures of studying hard for a certificate and some job security.

5) Allow everybody access to information.
. Many institutions of education block some people from entering due to age or previous education. In my opinion, this is not a truly fair educational system because some people are denied the education they want. Remove these limits and build more of these institutions if there are insufficient places. After all, it is the government's responsibility to provide education when people need them.
. Letting people compete for places in educational institutions is unfair too. If there is demand, follow the law of economics and open up more classes of the popular courses. Personally, I find it unpleasant to be denied a place in IT or business courses in the JAE (Joint Admission Exercise) because of not-so-good 'O' level results. Luckily, I have discovered a good alternative course that I got in.
. Build more libraries and increase the variety of books in them. Maybe we can tie up with Amazon.com to supply more varieties of books. Anyway, we already have quite a number updated public libraries and I am proud of our government's thoughtfulness for this.
. The main reference section of the National Library is blocked to teenagers. How strange.

6) Set up an organisation to assist young entrepreneurs. This measure is long overdue. The many areas that the organisation can help include:
. Helping entrepreneurs to locate and get to know each other
. I can personally attest to how difficult it is to find fellow teens interested in starting a business, and willing to commit to it like me. So far, I do not think I have found any yet.
. Assisting entrepreneurs with advice with information
. This will include providing legal advice, the expenses of running a business, whether someone else has already thought of your prize idea. This variety of information is so difficult to come by.
. Providing market research to assist entrepreneurs in their decision, or at the very least, provide advice on how to do research.
. Helping to match entrepreneurs with potential investors, or providing capital for the best ideas.
. Capital is so difficult to come by, half-committed investors are too common. Currently, finding a suitable investor depends a lot on luck. There is also the risk of an 'investor' 'stealing' your ideas.


I believe these measure will assist many would-be entrepreneurs like me very much, as well as the economy of Singapore.

My view is that young people should learn by applying their knowledge in the practical world by starting businesses. Knowledge is not power, but knowledge in action is power. Much of the formal schooling I have been through was an inefficient use of my time. This is especially true when I compared what useful knowledge I have learnt by myself verses what useful knowledge I have learnt by formal schooling. However, all these are solely my personal viewpoints.

I hope the authorities will look into the points I have stated above.

Title: Say no to compulsory education
Sent Date: Wednesday, 27 May 99
Sent to: The Straits Times
Result: Rejected

I have read with interest previous letters to the forum page such as "Streaming goes against new vision" and "Allow more time for school projects". I was a Secondary 4 Express student who graduated last year and I am currently a first year student in a Polytechnic. I strongly believe that the school system needs to be improved from what I have experienced.

The MOE has done Singapore proud by helping Singapore achieve what it is today, equipping many Singaporeans with important skills such as literacy and being able to speak English. We have one of the best educational systems around the world and we ought to be proud of it.

However, even the best is not perfect, and the Chinese saying "There is always a mountain higher than any mountain" comes to my mind. Singapore should seriously consider rethinking the whole concept of education for the 21st century to change itself into a thinking nation. I hope my suggestions and opinions will be taken in the spirit of goodwill to help improve the education system. We should bear in mind that neither students, teachers, the MOE nor anyone else should be taken for granted. No one owes anyone else a living.



When students are asked to think about questioning peer pressure, or Western values that may corrupt them, we notice they do not seem to question
something: authority. I do not mean a situation such as having an anti-social teen hurling vulgarities at teachers. Instead, one could think about why one should listen to authority rather than just obeying blindly. An example would be such as finding out the reasons for setting up a certain rule, regulation or law and if there is a better alternative for it.

I always assume that the authorities have our best interests at heart, so their rules, laws and regulations are intended to help us. It would be counter-productive to assume otherwise anyway. However, when problems arise in spite of their kind intentions, we must be responsible enough to tell them about this and help them change for the better.

I have asked myself why I and so many students need to attend school. Indeed, school is intended as a place to learn, and many teachers are intelligent and friendly people who make good friends outside the classroom, if only students will take the initiative to befriend them. However, I find that learning is actually subordinate to obedience.



In school, one MUST pass up homework, MUST study for tests and exams, MUST finish projects and MUST many other things under the authority of the teacher. Many students, including me, find this an intellectual torture. To infer this, we can simply ask students if they like to take tests and exams, or do homework or even go to school. Many will give a resounding, "NO!". However, they see this as a duty they must commit to, as a way to do their family and nation proud, as a way to find a 'good' job which they can be employed in. Therefore, they will continue to study and work very hard. Is this not a good way of teaching obedience?

This problem is further complicated when teachers place emphasis that the content in the textbooks are always more important than other types of knowledge to student, wherever explicitly or implicitly. Veiled comments like "You can study those things you like once you gain a good foundation" are counted too. Are the PSLE, the GCE 'N' and 'O' levels not implying this too? An alternative will be to learn by directly applying knowledge for some relevant and useful means, including business and non-profit purposes.

There is an explanation why a passing grade is less than 100%. The reason is that grades are not a tool of the student to measure how much more there is to learn. They are a tool to punish those who do not do what they are told. If grades were a tool of the student, the student would continue to study the same subject until he or she could score 100% on a test of his or her knowledge, or until he or she was no longer interested in studying the subject.

For goodness sake, Singapore has too many followers. We do not need any more of them, and instead we need leaders.



There are of course some students who claim to like school, but it may just be that they really only enjoy the thrill of scoring straight 'As' and being praised by teachers and parents alike. 'Learning' can be an effective means to get more approval from the 'authorities', no matter if they are parents, teachers, the school or even the Singapore society itself. I do hope I am wrong about this, though.

Now, I do not wish to pin the blame on teachers. Teachers have to mark homework, write tests, handle project work and do a lot more than many students think they have to do. Teachers have to follow rules too, rules that may be as strict as those of students. Some claimed that teachers may not write to the newspaper on educational issues, which the MOE may like to comment upon and clarify. Teachers also have to attend courses and some of them do not like it too. Even a teacher with an aspiring powerful vision to help students will find his or her vision compromised by such activity and regulations. Most teachers have the best intentions of their students at heart, and wish to see them succeed in life. Therefore, they will have to 'motivate' students to do unpleasant things, like studying for the tests and exams, for the student's sake.

We can see a big misunderstanding within the educational systems around the world, not just in Singapore. Students see studying as a duty which they dislike and teachers have to make studying more of a duty to motivate students. If this continues, Singapore will find it an uphill battle to cultivate thinkers, entrepreneurs, scientists and capable leaders of Singapore.

Rather, the choice of what to study, when to study and how to study must lie in the hands of the students themselves. Only students themselves know what they really like and dislike, and no one else, maybe except God if God exists, will know. Therefore, forcing students to study the same content and the same things as their contemporaries will be counterproductive.

Using force will effectively nullify any value that could be obtained from textbooks, useful reference material and many accelerated learning techniques because the student does not really wish to study irrelevant facts. Excessive grading turns play into work. Right now, I am writing this letter in peace and I am enjoying writing it very much. However, if an overly-zealous teacher were to suddenly appear beside me and tell me while I am coming up with new ideas and exclaim, "Hey, your past tense is used wrongly here, and you have used too much passive voice here". Following this, he then proceeds to grade this letter a B- and tells me to work harder so correct all my grammar mistakes and use more 'chim' vocabulary, I may just give up writing this letter because the activity is no longer enjoyable.

The alternative way to help people to learn is to provide free or subsidised courses instead of typical classrooms. The courses are available for the whole year, and anyone with a need or interest to study can participate, regardless of age, sex, race, language or religion.



Many do not believe that students are hardworking enough to study on their own, to these sceptics it is like seeing the sun rise from the West if the students could learn independently. However, how do they explain why young children, especially before they go to school, are always overflowing with questions? If they do not believe people will learn by themselves, how would they explain the apparent ease of very young children picking up complex language and cognitive skills all by themselves, a feat that most of us had accomplished.

Some people also believe that everything and anything under the sun is potentially useful and therefore an ideal student must be well rounded in the 'kiasu' spirit of 'everything must learn', especially all the school textbooks. This is counterproductive at best and is most likely impossible. Would you consider parents who want their child to gobble up all the food in the world sane people?

Rather, when people are set free to learn independently, they will be well-rounded in the sense they will learn everything they need to achieve their goal, no matter if it is starting a business or formulating a theory to explain all theories, nothing less and maybe a bit more than necessary.



I have noticed that my ex-classmates and I occasionally have to write some letters to fictional newspapers, people or organisations in Chinese or English as an exercise, or as part of a test or exams. It seems amazing that hardly any student has really written letters to the Forum Page in spite of having more than ample practice (or do they?). Why is this so?

I have made some postings to newsgroups talking about certain topics, and there were many replies, some of which contain abusive language (not against me, though). However, when I attempted to write to those people who have replied to my postings, I found that most use a non-existent email address, and I may further infer that their given names are fake and their views not credible. The rest do not reply to me. Why is this so?



I notice anomalies in the school curriculum I have experienced. Should drawing apples be given a higher priority than drawing cartoon characters or other forms of art. Indeed, my younger sister would very much prefer to draw Anime style characters during art class. Should playing the recorder be given a higher priority than learning to analyse music styles and using computer programs to create music? Should choosing the right saw to saw your wood, or choosing the right file to file your 'masterpiece' be given a higher priority than building a water powered rocket that works or helping the school erect solar cells?

When I go for English lessons, is finishing the comprehension exercises given a higher priority than debating about Singapore economic policies or the purpose of certain Singapore laws. For Maths lessons, should finishing the homework and listening to the teacher be given a higher priority than trying to figure out a way to deflect a hypothetical rouge asteroid from hitting the Earth? For Science lessons, is observing the pendulum swinging to the nearest one-tenth of a second be more important than experimenting with ways to extract fresh water from salt water cheaply? For Literature lessons, is memorising how Macbeth killed King Duncan more important than writing a script for a movie that may even surpass "Money No Enough" in profits and popularity? The list goes on and on, and I believe a big change to shift towards an inventive spirit from a follower mindset is needed to set things right.

Thereafter, should preparing for and sitting for tests and exams be deemed more important than a thousand or more things a student can do with this amount of time? Earn a million dollars? Help save the whales? Help invent a new way to collect 'rubbish' for recycling more efficiently? Help start another Microsoft? Help to discover a physics theory that rivals Einstein's? The list is endless, if only there is enough time.

For those who do not know I scored only six points [just add another point to fail me] for my GCE 'O' levels in English (due to carelessness, I would say), and yet my letter is here in front of your eyes. I come from a non-SAP neighbourhood school. Looking at some of my results, I have no longer any faith that conventional schools can accurately declare one's level of intelligence and learning with grades and exams. Who says that one needs to attend school to succeed in life? An alternative is one can become an entrepreneur creating jobs for oneself, and thus can ignore bosses who stubbornly refuse to hire them citing lack of qualifications. Do grades really count? Must most Singaporeans use academic performances as the primary benchmark of one's intelligence and potential quality of life in the future?



For those who failed to live up to the teacher's expectations, or simply as a way for a concerned teacher to attempt to help students, students more often than not will have to stay back for remedial lessons. This just creates more headaches for students and teachers alike, and may actually achieve little because students can always learn at home. If students do not wish to learn, more remedial lessons, unless they are well presented to be compatible with student's learning, will only irritate the students and create dislike of the subject.

As for those who dislike English, many are forced to read at least a certain number of books per semester and will have to fill in a form to prove that they have read the books which many strongly detest. Even myself, a self-proclaimed bookworm, will not wish to bother to write about books I read. Instead of using force, teachers should seek to explain the relevance of reading to practical life, such as holding "Do you know?" sessions about some counter-intuitive science facts or perhaps a simple summary of what programmers must consider to program the computer game the students play with.

I have noticed that students are more often than not, treated to unnecessary talks and speeches, such as disciplinary matters and what one must do to study hard. The reason I put this so bluntly is many of these talks are repetitive. Maybe it is because some irresponsible people forgot to return their plates to the canteen owners again, or otherwise disobeyed school rules and the school wants to make it clear that it does not wish to ever see this conduct again. If the exams are near, the talks would most likely focus on how to study for exams and future educational opportunities. The problem is most of these talks are redundant, boring and they are compulsory to attend. The time spent on these talks can be put to much better use, especially for self-study.



I also observed that ECA's may actually become a waste of time rather than a good use of time. ECAs were created to encourage students to participate in activities outside the classroom and get more ECA points. Students in primary and secondary schools are forced to participate in at least one ECA, and ECAs do not always fulfil what they were supposed to do. Some students even resort to 'dirty' politics to get into a leadership position within their ECAs. Indeed, ECAs can better provide for students if the students are able to form their own ECA groups and be allowed to join as many ECA groups as they want or not to participate at all. Even shopping can be an ECA to study consumer habits too! Of course, if the ECA groups are of a destructive nature, the authorities can take action to ban them.

Many people I know do not take "Civics and Moral" lessons and related lessons too seriously. Somehow, it was decided that students must take exams, do projects and exercises to make them more serious about these. In the "exams", the answers are often relatively simple to complete and some may take it as an insult by viewing it a mockery of their intelligence. The projects are much more interesting. However, it is useless if the concern shown to those old people or whoever is the declared 'recipient' is empty, without substance. This is especially true when students have to do a number of hours of compulsory 'volunteer' work. Letting students take on projects by themselves, such as creating their home computer club to help the needy repair computers for free, would be more helpful and heartfelt.

Instead of creating an artificial psychological mold for students to fit in, we can introduce students to (but not teach them) basic psychology and sociology, such as those found in the textbooks in our National Libraries without National Education and 'Civics and Moral" within. Gaining an independently cultivated understand of oneself and the world is very important, and learning about these two subjects have changed a lot of my life and even prompted me to write this letter today. Once students had real understanding of themselves and others, they will think for themselves and will not be prone to peer pressure, authority pressure and will automatically become better citizens.



Unfortunately, the government seems to have mistakenly view younger people as less mature to handle things. I am only age 16 now and pity me; I have to wait two more years to be able to write a cheque and five more to start my own business. Why must I wait for such long periods without any good reason? Did the government mention that it wishes to encourage people to become entrepreneurs? If young people are not given support, but instead were provided with ample opposition, how could one succeed? The government would like to review the basis of the law which 'protects' as well as 'imprisons' them in a limbo which they are viewed as not too immature yet nor too mature.

It may just be the problem of insufficient trust, of not believing that a young person could achieve certain things in a decade that certain more 'experienced' people take decades to achieve.



Many aspiring young people are faced with another mountain to climb. When I applied to enter courses in the Joint Admission Exercise, I knew that it would be unlikely that I will be allowed into certain courses, like Business-related courses, based on the previous year's Cut-Off Point and my not too good 'O' level results. Encouraging competition is seen as a way to weed out those who are "not as able". However, in a truly fair educational system in which one can never be denied of educational opportunities, this is a gross injustice. This is especially true when one of my friends, who had a very strong interest in electronics and would surely do well in electronics, was rejected admission into Polytechnic Electronics courses on the grounds that he flunked his GCE 'O' level Maths.

There are some who aspire to be computer engineers, business leaders, doctors, lawyers and many more, but they know their efforts will at best be an uphill battle, if they are to believe in formal education. Some gave up any hope and end up in occupations they never intended to be in and possibly dislike.



If the MOE will kindly remove the age limits, as well as academic requirements for all courses, and allow free entry of all regardless of race, language, religion, age, qualifications and social status, this will be ideal to cultivate talents. Instead of studying for a decade or more in preparation for one's occupation, one can now study directly to achieve one' s dreams. Removing the huge waste of time spent doing irrelevant homework, studying irrelevant information and finishing irrelevant projects, one can now achieve more than another person burdened with these.

An additional problem caused by the misunderstanding of the educational system is that some people have stopped believing in authority. Instead, they openly defy authority in many ways. Some take drugs, other join gangs, some get into gangfights and commit other reckless actions that often land themselves in trouble. Some abuse those in authority with vulgar language in spite of knowing that they will face swift punishment. Some use physical or computer denial-of-service attacks to deprive others of a clean public toilet or to hack into other's computer. What a sorry sight indeed.

These would hardly have happened if the 'authorities' could truthfully tell the child with the knowledge that they will carry out their own promises: "If you want to fly, we will help you fly. If you want to be a doctor, we will help you be one. If you want to achieve world peace, we will help you too. Just tell us what you wish to do, and we will help you do it."

Instead of gang leaders, we will have people leading charities. Instead of vandals, we will have artists. Instead of con-men we will have salespeople. Instead of computer hackers, we will have computer security analysts.



If the Ministry of Education feels that it is not ready to undertake such changes, then I hope it will give the freedom to achieve this to the students. Let them study on their own with an ample supply of libraries and subsidised Internet access. Tell them that they can choose to 'unschool' themselves. Spread the word far and wide. I sincerely hope that no limits will be imposed that will block this self-learning avenue.

I assure all of you, if students are set free to learn, Singapore will have more entrepreneurs, Singapore will have more capable leaders, Singapore will have a better and more home-grown talent, and most important of all, Singapore will have a lot more people who really think.

As for the teens, we have a Singapore to help develop and improve upon. Each of us must be willing to take chances, and speak out with responsibility when necessary to help shape Singapore into a better world for all of us. I hope some of you will join me to write to the Forum Page too. All the best for the future!

Title: Solving the software piracy problem (Cheers to Linux and Open Source!)
Sent Date: Tuesday, 11 May 99
Sent to: The Straits Times
Result: Rejected

I am very concern about software piracy and the way many software are distributed. A quick stroll in Sim Lim Square will convince even sceptics that software piracy is active and alive in Singapore.

The reason is that software piracy is still active not just in Singapore but in many regions of the world shows that something is wrong with the conventional software distribution system. The conventional system is to package software titles in boxes and sell them in stalls (like Microsoft Windows 98) and/or sell online them as crippleware and shareware.

However, since software is so easily copied and many people do not wish to pay the additional cost of buying software on top of buying and maintaining their computer hardware, software piracy is inevitable. Other people, such as children without credit cards, could not buy certain software they need even if they wish to, so they will have to get them illegally. Copyright laws were enacted to attempt to solve this problem, but however, it does not resolve the fact that much cheaper ways of obtaining software are easily available.

There may be certain ways to resolve this problem. I believe that making software much more affordable will resolve this problem once and for all. Making software more affordable will also lower the cost of owing a computer and encourage more people to own one, increasing the size of the software market.

We can set up a physical or virtual software library system, much like how our libraries operate with books. Users pay a monthly fee which is not too high and they can have unlimited access or perhaps with access limited to how much they pay, to software in the library. $30 per month may be a suitable price. The software that users download from the library can be modified to invalidated itself when they no longer join the library.

We can also set up "software kiosks" in shopping malls much like the machines that print out sticker-size photos of users' faces. However, instead of printing photos, these machines will dispense software (limited by disk capacity or the number of software titles or price) on CD-ROMs to users on demand. $10 may be a suitable price to compete against software pirates.

The price paid to the software authors/publishers will be determined using a formula based on the number of downloads and users' ratings. The software with the highest download rate and most favourable user rating will get most of the profits provided by the users. This allows the profits made by the software author/publisher to be tied directly to the quality and usefulness of their products, as well as promoting free competition.

To encourage innovation in software, software authors/publishers can publish the software source code along with the software (though it need not be bundled with compiled software that users download and can actually be sold as a separate software). If another person improves the software significantly, it may be recognised as "user customised" software that is based on the original software design. To prevent 'cheating', a certain set of rules must be set to determined if the software is changed "enough" to be considered separate, like having at least 20% of the source code changed in some useful manner.

Of course, to be fair the author of this "customised" software must share a significant portion of his profits, like 25% with the original publishers of the software and must also publicly publish the source code of his software. The process can be repeated as many times as neccessary, yet the original
author(s) of the software will still benefit.

What the software authors/publishers lose in the amount of profits per paying user, can be offset by the sheer numbers of people paying smaller amounts of money to download their software.

As Sir Isaac Newton once said that he can achieve what he has achieved only by standing on the shoulders of giants. Software is no exception. A win-win game for software users and authors alike is achieved only when software is allowed to be freely modified to be improved upon, and when software prices can be freely determined by software users.

My suggestions are not fail-proof and may not work at all. However, they merit serious consideration for an alternative way of distributing software to consumers.

Title: Reply to Helicopter Vision
Sent Date: Wednesday, 19 August 98
Sent to: The Straits Times
Result: Rejected

Dear editor,

I am referring to the article "Helicopter vision can crash" (Life! August 18).

I would like to point out that the difference between the Mr Tan and Mr PhD is more than one of degree.

The problem of Mr Tan not able to access helicopter view can be solved by himself. He can simply find a generous Mr PhD who allows him into the helicopter free of charge. By analogy, this means anybody that has access to national libraries around Singapore or the Internet have the ability of attaining helicopter views cheaply.

However, not all Mr Tans want to ask for or to take a helicopter flight, as some of them have a fear of rejection or heights, though there are some dare to ride a space shuttle into Earth orbit when given the chance.

Yes, Mr Tan may see quite a distance just by taking lifts. However, from these relatively static viewpoints, many other viewpoints are overlooked, some of which are crucial to the eventual outcome of a situation. Because of this, our nation's leaders place less trust in his opinions than in Mr PhD' s.

If somehow Mr Tan shares the helicopter with Mr PhD, he will be able to analyse in detail the terrain and share the additional knowledge with other Mr Tans. Our nation's leaders will soon recognise Mr Tan's awareness and stop 'shouting' messages into his ears, allowing him to speak loudly instead, preventing the problems highlighted in the article.

We must also remember to look into our basements. We can convert the crude oil of History into fuel for helicopters. Due to the heavy usage, Mr PhD will often find his helicopter needing a lot of high-grade fuel.

Title: Psychology Programme May Work
Sent Date: Wednesday, 4 August 98
Sent to: The Straits Times
Result: Published on 6 Aug 98

Dear Editor,

I am referring to the letter 'Must we always punish teens?' dated 4th August 1998.

A certain sentence in the letter mentions that no individuals are born delinquent, and if they become delinquent it would be due to their environment. Accepting this opinion, just like accepting the opinion that some people are born delinquent, could give some people a reason for not taking responsibility to solve their personal problems. A more suitable opinion would be "No individual is born delinquent. His experiences TEND TO make him one. If this is true, how do we prevent bad experiences from influencing people and instead use or convert them into more useful ones?"

There is a suggestion that may not just solve the problem of delinquent behaviour, but also many of society's problems and improve our quality of living. The government could set up free or highly subsided NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) courses to encourage the public to participate. NLP is a fast growing development in applied psychology, which enables any person to understand himself or herself better and learn patterns of excellence from those more 'gifted' people. It was discovered in 1972 by John Grinder, then an Assistant Professor of linguistics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Richard Bandler, a student of psychology at the university. It has stood the test of time and given birth to many other fields, including Accelerated Learning. Though applicable in many situations, NLP is not a sure way to solve all problems.

Just as there are many ways to solve a mathematical problem, there are many ways to solve society's problem. Using the "carrot and stick" approach does not solve the problem effectively, and it is like trying to pull open a sliding door. Instead of "trying hard" the wrong way, NLP allows us to apply a slight force in the correct direction to open the door. I seriously hope that the relevant authorities will consider my suggestions.


Yours sincerely,
Chen Yixiong, Eric