Reviewing my London experience

I think I meant to put these up some time ago, but somehow slipped my mind until yesterday. The following are responses to an evaluation form, with regards to my learning experience in my four years in London.

Learning from the English education system:

I believe that an aspect that may be good about the British education system is the availability of space for independent growth.

British school hours are shorter than Singapore’s. Their holidays are far longer. Their afternoons and weekends are not packed with de facto compulsory ‘co-curricular’ activities (CCA). This is similarly true for the British university experience: at the LSE, there was an average of 10 hours of classes and lectures per week, while at the IOE, most students take two modules per term, making up just 6 hours of class per week. British students are expected to be independent. At university level, lecturers and tutors are more of guides and facilitators than purveyors of knowledge and information to be consumed just for the examinations, as it appears to be significantly so in Singaporean universities and schools.

With more time, it seems that the British have more space to grow independently, to building up their own interests, whether it be in playing sports and games, in going to the theatre and concert halls, in developing aspirations for the arts or the sciences, etc. There is far more space to consider going for unique experiences: instead of spending excessive time chasing points from officially recognized ‘co-curricular’ activities, Singaporeans may for example benefit more from working while studying. Friends in London are far more likely to work for catering companies, libraries, charity organizations, research groups, etc., and through their jobs, they become more confident, gain vital socialisation skills, especially with others from different socio-economic and educational background, and grow as individuals. From a macro perspective, surely this attainment of self-confidence and socialisation skills would be beneficial to social cohesion.

The creation of space for independent growth would not be easy. A starting point would be to re-consider the set of incentives that have been used pervasively throughout the education system. For example, Singaporean school students need CCA points to help them get into better schools or to get scholarships. Therefore, they are perhaps induced to participate in activities that yield the necessary points, and arguably not because of the good of the activities itself. These activities are beneficial, but also tend to be time-consuming, and if not committed to for the right reasons, would not only be unproductive but also tend to crowd out any other activities that may be equally good or even better for the independent growth of the person.

These incentives point out the desired direction that Singaporean students should aim for. However, they may also be disincentives: for Singaporeans to do the necessary community service that are not recognized, for Singaporeans to think instead of merely following the incentive signposts, for Singaporeans to become individuals rather than stressed sheep jumping through hoops.

Then, in the absence of bureaucratic-induced incentives, some Singaporeans may become lost and directionless. Upon leaving an educational system where institutional carrots and sticks are omnipresent, Singaporeans may lack both the initiative and the courage to think for themselves what they want and how they should go about achieving their goals. This may be a contributory factor to the ‘quarter-life crisis’ that some of my friends who have recently graduated from Singaporean universities are facing.

On learning from London:

Observation 1: London is generally more supportive of diversity.

The city of London is extremely diverse, and its people are generally not just tolerant but also accepting of other ethnicities, cultures, sexualities, etc. In fact, difference is actually celebrated, with various parades and festivals held regularly in London, including the Chinese New Year Celebrations in Trafalgar Square, the London Pride March through central London and numerous ethnicity festivals at Coin Street on the South Bank. People with disabilities are also very visible in London, and are included in many of London’s activities, including the aforementioned festivals.

This mutual tolerance, acceptance and celebration encourages interaction, open discussion and understanding between groups, and therefore helps to promote social cohesion.

Singapore is also a multicultural, multiethnic city. However, there are limits to mutual acceptance and prejudice still looms large. The allegedly racist comments made by a scholar on his weblog and reported by Channel News Asia earlier this year is not unique. I doubt that most grandparents and parents, including my own, would be too happy about their grandchildren and children marrying someone of another (Asian / African) race, or entering a relationship with someone of the same sex. Contracted workers from Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh, etc., in Singapore are sometimes still treated as second class homo sapiens or low status Oompa-Loompas[1]. Club parties for homosexuals are disallowed on the basis of public disapproval in the form of phone calls to the police, or ostensibly their propensity for spreading HIV[2]. The existence of people with disabilities in Singapore appears to be largely unknown, since they seem to have been segregated from the rest of the community.

If Singapore is to be not as divided as it is today, to be truly diverse and to reap the benefits of diversity, some measures, perhaps radical, would be needed. More socialisation may be a starting point. If Singaporeans interact with the Filipinos, the Indonesians, the Chinese, the British, the Bangladeshis, etc. in a social space away from the work place, it would probably help to bridge the gap of understanding, and know each other as people, instead of just superiors and inferiors, employers and employees in the hierarchy of work. Also, people who are homosexual should be allowed to speak out in public forums, instead of being shut up, shoved into the closet or chased abroad, at least so that they can be seen as people, not uni-dimensional alien abnormalities with ‘alternative lifestyles’, so that they can grow and live a fuller life, and not remain as stunted, dysfunctional individuals. The ban on homosexuality has meant and will continue to mean that gays, lesbians and bisexuals, who are not insignificant in their numbers, spend too much of their lives, hearts and minds on not being themselves, probably trying to reconcile the irreconcilable and end up being disillusioned, neglecting other parts of growth, and being unproductive outcasts from mainstream society. Then, it might be desirable to consider integrating more people with disabilities into schools and society as well. The socialisation of all children at primary school level[3] might be critical to further promote mutual understanding. Another vital step would be to make public transport as accessible as possible to these people, to facilitate their stepping out into the world, so that they become and feel more included in Singapore society.

However, perhaps such an increase in socialisation should happen from the bottom up, and quietly and implicitly encouraged by policy-makers, such as by facilitating more ethnicity and even sexuality based cultural, music and food festivals. Certainly, a hypothetical Socialise Singapore public campaign along the lines of the top down Romancing Singapore campaign would probably be seen as paternalistic and counter-productive.

[1] Servants in Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory
[2] Surely, if the club parties move abroad to neighbouring countries, as the Fridae organized Nation and Snowball parties have done, the Singaporean authorities and charities would have little opportunity to ensure that date rape drugs and alcohol are not used and abused respectively, and to distribute contraceptives and messages calling for safe sex, which are far more sensible and pragmatic methods of tackling the spread of HIV.
[3] Instead of having separate mainstream and special needs schools, for example


Observation 2: London-ers are generally more willing to challenge themselves.

This observation is closely linked to my other two on the British educational system and on the diversity of London.

London-ers appear generally to be more willing than Singaporeans to want to challenge themselves, in their minds, in their aspirations, in their hopes for the world, in their perceptions of themselves and of others. I would attribute this willingness to the confidence, socialisation skills and initiative derived from the space they have for independent growth, and their embrace of diversity.

Over the course of the last academic year, I have gotten to known quite a few entrepreneurs and freelance artists, and they are especially inspirational. They take up all sorts of commissions, not knowing at the beginning how they would perform the tasks required, and instead learning while doing. These jobs include the running of workshops for families at Somerset House, the production of theatre sets for drama productions targeted at children with Special Educational Needs, the design of floats for the London Mayor’s Parade, the building of a floating sculpture on the river Thames, the decoration of schools with thematic sculptures and pieces of children’s art produced during specially run workshops, etc.

They follow their hearts. They dream, and dare to follow their dreams. They challenge themselves to follow their hearts and their dreams, to go beyond their own boundaries and to try new experiences.

If Singaporeans are to become as willing as London-ers to want to challenge themselves independently, the suggestions I have made with regards to my other two observations are perhaps necessary: a re-evaluation of the system of incentives prevalent in the educational system, and the fostering of greater socialisation such that Singaporeans become more self-confident and better developed as individuals.

If Singaporeans are to follow their dreams, they must firstly be allowed the space to dream, and also be supported in their pursuit of their goals. In the arts, for example, more and targeted funding should be considered, alongside with encouragement to communities to take part in public art works[1], as well as a sincere attempt to understand the needs and dreams of artists.
[1] Instead of having ‘public art’ works designed, made and installed by a government body, without significant public involvement, which has seemed to happen in a Clementi housing estate.