From my point of view, I think Singapore is predominated motivated by extrinsic motivation. Based on my own understanding and interpretation, extrinsic motivation means needing someone to kick my butt in order for me to do something and intrinsic motivation means I initiated my own actions, without any incentive in doing so. Thus, from my own definitions, I can derive confidently that Singapore is extrinsically motivated! This is very evident in us being labeled as a garden city, being lauded for our low crime rates and also our smooth traffic. Oh and of course the success of our education!
Our low crime rates are due to the harsh and no-nonsense judiciary. Locals dare not mess around with the law due to the hefty punishments for all crimes, even minor ones. Likewise, foreigners dare not commit any crimes in Singapore too after realizing Singapore tough stance against crimes in the case of Australia’s Nguyen and US’s Michael Faye.
Also, Singaporeans do not litter not because they want to keep the streets clean but because they are aware of the hefty fines facing them. Imagine paying a fine of fifty bucks for a cigarette butt? The fifty bucks can buy the offender another four packs of cigarettes!
Students work hard in their studies and score some tremendous and astonishing results. But, the driving force to do well is always materialistic stuffs such as a new MP3 or the latest Sony game.
Thus I think Singapore is extrinsically motivated and this is detrimental as Singaporeans are not doing what they are doing because they understand the rationale behind it, but are doing it for the rewards or for not being punished. Students do not comprehend the importance of an education and are studying for the sake of it.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
dealing with outflow of talent in singapore.
Loh raised a serious issue that has been around Singapore, which is the outflow of talent in Singapore. there are many reasons to this problem, to summarise it would be
1) to escape the stressful environment
2) they feel like their views are not being heard in singapore
3) they left the country to further their studies, thus would rather stay overseas
4) there are better job opportunites overseas
there can be other reasons, but those above are just a few of the main reasons
Loh also raised a 3-fold solution.
1) the authorities have to stop using the term “foreign talent”.
“It implies that all foreigners are talents, and the locals are not,”
2)“forget about nationalism and what it means to be a Singaporean”. He added: “Focus on the family — people stay with their families, they miss their families, and not the country state; a pro-family centered policy or work environment would help.”
3)And lastly, preserve buildings that Singaporeans grew up with. Said Dr Leong: “These are the places where our collective memories of childhood, courtships
and friendships were embedded.”
i agree with the first solution. it is quite irritating how the authorties place so much emphasise on these foreign talents. this makes the employess think that those foreigners are a notch higher than the locals, thus in a way stereotyping them, giving them more chances. being a singaporean, i would of course be unhappy.
the second solution seems a little weird though. If we dont actually have the love for the country, or the loyalty for the country, why would we even bother to stay. furthermore, with improving technologies, Skype, internet, we can easily contact out families and friends when we are overseas.
the third solution doesnt seem so good too. Singapore is known as a country which is always progressing. by preserving these buildings it would hinder our progress. these memories can be kept in photo albums, writing diaries and etc. just by preserving these buildings, would not prevent te outflow of talent.
i feel a more practical solution would be to provide adequate jobs for locals, and putting less emphasis on foreign TALENTS. also, would be to let the citizens be more heard. and of course to slow down our pace of life, since many of our talents are leaving because of singapore's stressful environment.
1) to escape the stressful environment
2) they feel like their views are not being heard in singapore
3) they left the country to further their studies, thus would rather stay overseas
4) there are better job opportunites overseas
there can be other reasons, but those above are just a few of the main reasons
Loh also raised a 3-fold solution.
1) the authorities have to stop using the term “foreign talent”.
“It implies that all foreigners are talents, and the locals are not,”
2)“forget about nationalism and what it means to be a Singaporean”. He added: “Focus on the family — people stay with their families, they miss their families, and not the country state; a pro-family centered policy or work environment would help.”
3)And lastly, preserve buildings that Singaporeans grew up with. Said Dr Leong: “These are the places where our collective memories of childhood, courtships
and friendships were embedded.”
i agree with the first solution. it is quite irritating how the authorties place so much emphasise on these foreign talents. this makes the employess think that those foreigners are a notch higher than the locals, thus in a way stereotyping them, giving them more chances. being a singaporean, i would of course be unhappy.
the second solution seems a little weird though. If we dont actually have the love for the country, or the loyalty for the country, why would we even bother to stay. furthermore, with improving technologies, Skype, internet, we can easily contact out families and friends when we are overseas.
the third solution doesnt seem so good too. Singapore is known as a country which is always progressing. by preserving these buildings it would hinder our progress. these memories can be kept in photo albums, writing diaries and etc. just by preserving these buildings, would not prevent te outflow of talent.
i feel a more practical solution would be to provide adequate jobs for locals, and putting less emphasis on foreign TALENTS. also, would be to let the citizens be more heard. and of course to slow down our pace of life, since many of our talents are leaving because of singapore's stressful environment.
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
From my point of view, countries really should not stick their noses into another country’s problems unless their help is seriously needed. But in recent times, countries intervened when they shouldn’t and when they should, they didn’t. This prompted me to infer that government intervention comes with a hidden agenda, sometimes not so hidden. In the case of Iraq, America invaded with intention of liberating ill-suffering Iraqis from the demonic but now-dead Saddam Hussein. Instead, it is reported that at least 650,000 innocent Iraqis ended up dead due to the invasion. So, was the invasion a sound decision by the Americans after all? Will the Iraqis be better off without the intrusion of the US? I think they will be.
Where were all the help when it matters most? Cyclone Nargis tore through Myanmar, taking along with it hundred of thousands of lives and stranding others to fight for their own survival. Why didn't countries pour into Myanmar with their aid? Some may argue that Myanmar's Juntas were resistive and cynical towards foreign help but why were other nations so concerned over the Junta's stand? Why didn't they just enter the countries with their aid? I'm sure countries can 'barge' into Myanmar on the account of human rights to aid those in need. After all, it is evident that other countries's aid can be very beneficial to the survival and reconstruction of a place devestated by natural disasters. Banda Aceh is one such example!
Thus, i am in favour of government intervention if help really can be rendered to those in need but i feel country should also be given the rights to solve their internal problems, but if they fall to do so, then they should allow others to do it for them. Unlike the old and stubborn Junta....
Where were all the help when it matters most? Cyclone Nargis tore through Myanmar, taking along with it hundred of thousands of lives and stranding others to fight for their own survival. Why didn't countries pour into Myanmar with their aid? Some may argue that Myanmar's Juntas were resistive and cynical towards foreign help but why were other nations so concerned over the Junta's stand? Why didn't they just enter the countries with their aid? I'm sure countries can 'barge' into Myanmar on the account of human rights to aid those in need. After all, it is evident that other countries's aid can be very beneficial to the survival and reconstruction of a place devestated by natural disasters. Banda Aceh is one such example!
Thus, i am in favour of government intervention if help really can be rendered to those in need but i feel country should also be given the rights to solve their internal problems, but if they fall to do so, then they should allow others to do it for them. Unlike the old and stubborn Junta....
Education- Elitism
Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern [1]. Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Elitism in the context of education is the practice of concentrating attention on or allocating funding to the students who rank highest in a particular field of endeavour, with the other students being deemed less capable of achievement or as holding less promise for the society's future. For example, a politician who promotes specialized biochemistry classes for highly intelligent students in an effort to cure diseases might be accused of elitism.
I feel that formal education in Singapore does indeed breed elitism. Our education is based on meritocracy and thus, the best can climb the highest isn’t it? This is also why school rankings and cut-off points exists. Entry points and the ranking of schools are the reasons why elitism exists. Students from top-notch school feel a sense of superiority over students from other schools that are ranked lower. This will fester into despise and disregard and ultimately, disrespect. Elitists will think that what they do is always right and always the best as compared to those whom they presumed are weaker than them. This sort of education can indeed bring out the best of a student academically, but it will also result in developing a student with straight As but with zero humility and no EQ. So how do we measure the success of an education system? It is definitely not merely just academic results right? So yup, we have seen MOE abolished the Primary School streaming and this just shows that our government is realizing the problems of our education.
Elitism in the context of education is the practice of concentrating attention on or allocating funding to the students who rank highest in a particular field of endeavour, with the other students being deemed less capable of achievement or as holding less promise for the society's future. For example, a politician who promotes specialized biochemistry classes for highly intelligent students in an effort to cure diseases might be accused of elitism.
I feel that formal education in Singapore does indeed breed elitism. Our education is based on meritocracy and thus, the best can climb the highest isn’t it? This is also why school rankings and cut-off points exists. Entry points and the ranking of schools are the reasons why elitism exists. Students from top-notch school feel a sense of superiority over students from other schools that are ranked lower. This will fester into despise and disregard and ultimately, disrespect. Elitists will think that what they do is always right and always the best as compared to those whom they presumed are weaker than them. This sort of education can indeed bring out the best of a student academically, but it will also result in developing a student with straight As but with zero humility and no EQ. So how do we measure the success of an education system? It is definitely not merely just academic results right? So yup, we have seen MOE abolished the Primary School streaming and this just shows that our government is realizing the problems of our education.
Does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Sinagapore?
In the second article, it is stated that ‘a belief that the backward-ballcapped guy slumped in the back row of class are going to have attitude problems’. This shows that professors may discriminate and judge their students based on their appearance, perhaps, it may also mean that one’s abilities may be judged solely by their appearances. Is this fair?
From my point of view, I definitely feel that this is not fair but I am aware that this problem is affecting my country too. It is a sad fact that Singaporeans judge people by their appearances. Referencing from an online article by Singaporean Kelvin Tan, http://www.geocities.com/kelvintan73/articles/racism.htm, it is stated that ‘If you visit Bugis station on Sundays, you will see that many Indians spend their day off in the popular haunt, Serangoon Road. There would be some mobile railings segregating them from the rest of us, and the way the MRT staff shout at them or the expression in their faces, I was surprised to see that they were smiling at us now.’ This shows that Singaporeans, especially Chinese, discriminate against those of another skin colour, condemning them to be unfit to be near us. I feel this is embarrassing. I thought we were a multiracial society where all races were thought to live harmoniously with one another? After this stunning revelation by Mr Kelvin, I think we can all conclude that Singapore still has a long way to go before all races can live together harmoniously.
Worst still, racial discrimination is not the only form of discrimination in Singapore; there are still ageism and elitism present in Singapore. The old, despite their wealth of experience are finding it more and more difficult to hold on to their jobs or find another one. Also, there is a growing number of teenagers who think too highly of themselves, one example will be overly-outspoken RJC student Wee Shumin. These do not bode well for the future of Singapore. Imagine a country whose citizens avoid the aged like the plague and ostracized those they think are weaker than them?? It is a recipe for self-destruction!
From my point of view, I definitely feel that this is not fair but I am aware that this problem is affecting my country too. It is a sad fact that Singaporeans judge people by their appearances. Referencing from an online article by Singaporean Kelvin Tan, http://www.geocities.com/kelvintan73/articles/racism.htm, it is stated that ‘If you visit Bugis station on Sundays, you will see that many Indians spend their day off in the popular haunt, Serangoon Road. There would be some mobile railings segregating them from the rest of us, and the way the MRT staff shout at them or the expression in their faces, I was surprised to see that they were smiling at us now.’ This shows that Singaporeans, especially Chinese, discriminate against those of another skin colour, condemning them to be unfit to be near us. I feel this is embarrassing. I thought we were a multiracial society where all races were thought to live harmoniously with one another? After this stunning revelation by Mr Kelvin, I think we can all conclude that Singapore still has a long way to go before all races can live together harmoniously.
Worst still, racial discrimination is not the only form of discrimination in Singapore; there are still ageism and elitism present in Singapore. The old, despite their wealth of experience are finding it more and more difficult to hold on to their jobs or find another one. Also, there is a growing number of teenagers who think too highly of themselves, one example will be overly-outspoken RJC student Wee Shumin. These do not bode well for the future of Singapore. Imagine a country whose citizens avoid the aged like the plague and ostracized those they think are weaker than them?? It is a recipe for self-destruction!
does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Singapore?
as stated in article 2 by Batz, 'most people would say, "what, me discriminate?'" yet plenty of people perceive that others are bring discrimnatory towards them"
i agree with Batz, many people would think that they would not discriminate, but they dont realise that they are actually discriminating by 'default'.
'by default' could mean how racism becomes routine. whereby how we accept our home's computer settings by default and that these setting are standard and should be accepted.
this default setting is like set in our heads, whereby it is almost impossible to change our points of view because it is almose like we were brainwashed to think this way.
for example, Singapore has had a few advertisments about convicts. where they show a muscular man with tattoos all across his body, holding a knife. the first thought that comes to one's mind would be that he's going to do a crime. however, the next scene shows how the man is actually a chef working in a kitchen. thus it shows how it is natural that one discriminates, because it is impossible to get rid of the stereotypes in our minds.
thus i feel that discrimination arising from stereotypes does exist in Singapore since stereotypes exists in everybody, this will not just happen in singapore, but all across the world.
i agree with Batz, many people would think that they would not discriminate, but they dont realise that they are actually discriminating by 'default'.
'by default' could mean how racism becomes routine. whereby how we accept our home's computer settings by default and that these setting are standard and should be accepted.
this default setting is like set in our heads, whereby it is almost impossible to change our points of view because it is almose like we were brainwashed to think this way.
for example, Singapore has had a few advertisments about convicts. where they show a muscular man with tattoos all across his body, holding a knife. the first thought that comes to one's mind would be that he's going to do a crime. however, the next scene shows how the man is actually a chef working in a kitchen. thus it shows how it is natural that one discriminates, because it is impossible to get rid of the stereotypes in our minds.
thus i feel that discrimination arising from stereotypes does exist in Singapore since stereotypes exists in everybody, this will not just happen in singapore, but all across the world.
Friday, August 1, 2008
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, which method do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What are the impacts on the Singapore society?
according to dictionary.com, extrinsic is being outside a thing; outward or external; operating or coming from without: extrinsic influences. whereas intrinsic means belonging to a thing by its very nature.
Singapore also known as a "fine" city. thus i feel that Singapore uses more of an extrinsic motivation. as Lim has mentioned, he mentioned that Singapore uses the bonus methods to encourage singaporeans to procreate. he mentioned the baby bonus method.Singapore also has many other methods like fining if one spits, litters, smokes indoors, etc. other than the 'punishment' methods, there are also the bonuses methods. for example, longer maternal leave so as to encourage procreation, and etc. thus it seems like singapore uses more of an extrinistic motivation.
for this kind of motivation. there are pros and cons.
beginning with cons, as mentioned in the article, many have felt that by providing the baby bonus to encourage pro creation, feels more of an invasion to privacy rather than a bonus. thus, by using this method, it could be restricting our human rights in some way.
however there are pros too. singapore is one of the only countries that uses caning as a form of punishment. it actually acts as a kind of deterrence to prevent crimes. this form of deterrence is useful because crime rates have significantly decreased. with the most significant as drug trafficking.
thus after weighing the pros and cons, i feel that this method is useful to a large extent, since 'cash bonuses and fines might be a far more efficient way to drive human behaviour than allowing people to decide based on their inner inclinations.'
Singapore also known as a "fine" city. thus i feel that Singapore uses more of an extrinsic motivation. as Lim has mentioned, he mentioned that Singapore uses the bonus methods to encourage singaporeans to procreate. he mentioned the baby bonus method.Singapore also has many other methods like fining if one spits, litters, smokes indoors, etc. other than the 'punishment' methods, there are also the bonuses methods. for example, longer maternal leave so as to encourage procreation, and etc. thus it seems like singapore uses more of an extrinistic motivation.
for this kind of motivation. there are pros and cons.
beginning with cons, as mentioned in the article, many have felt that by providing the baby bonus to encourage pro creation, feels more of an invasion to privacy rather than a bonus. thus, by using this method, it could be restricting our human rights in some way.
however there are pros too. singapore is one of the only countries that uses caning as a form of punishment. it actually acts as a kind of deterrence to prevent crimes. this form of deterrence is useful because crime rates have significantly decreased. with the most significant as drug trafficking.
thus after weighing the pros and cons, i feel that this method is useful to a large extent, since 'cash bonuses and fines might be a far more efficient way to drive human behaviour than allowing people to decide based on their inner inclinations.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)