Thinking a ‘bit’ more concretely about a Future Singapore
I don’t want to write about the usual stuff I’ve always written, not like climate change or social change or whatever. I want to move beyond those paradigm and move on to something else.
There are things happening around Singapore that should be of concern to us, but somehow they are not within our radar of focus.
An example would be the change in the neighbourhood atmosphere, like foreign workers coming to play soccer with the kids. Prostitutes and their clients chatting at HDB void decks, seeing the foreign workers dressed in their best on friday nights and the weekends hoping to fulfill their sexual needs. It must be lonely for the Bangladeshis, Thais and whoever else is coming here to Singapore and work. But they are disturbing my neighbourhood. If only residents in my neighbourhood bothered to come down more often and bothered to fill the social vacuum, and keep and eye on the kids playing as well.
And my neighbourhood? It’s a small place, 5-minute walk from the MRT, and a further 10-minute walk to the library, and the nearest community centre is another 10-minute walk away. But those timings are of a healthy young man in the prime of his youth, not an old lady who wants to just socialise. In other words, my neighbourhood is not a very socially friendly place. There are hardly any places of community, other than a market and a few coffee shops. My neighbourhood has the barest of amenities, as if the planners planned on people doing nothing else but holed up in their homes. What my neighbourhood essentially need, is a sheltered place for gathering, but I guess that’s what the coffeshops are for. But I’m thinking about something more, for want of a better word, interactive.
I think I’m really dreaming about how an ideal neighbourhood would look like, how ideal civic mindedness would look like, a thought experiment into the Singapore that we want as well. Is infrastructure enough? How would the schools look like? Have we ever, in our criticisms and complaints, ever think of the Singapore that we truly want? Defining Singapore in the image of Singaporeans, as unique as it is, a place that we can identify with, instead of the propaganda every 9th August.
The other challenge that I want to think of, is how to live in a sustainable manner, reducing our climate challenge but at the same thing, the core of the issue is really about reducing the costs of living, not just green for its own sake. It isn’t enough to have green infrastructure, but to have green mindsets as well.
So with all these considerations, how would neighbourhoods, schools, libraries, communities, even the whole country look like?
The obvious people to target are the housewives, the baby-boomers who are parents or even grandparents. They are really the core of the neighbourhood, their informal networks forming the social backbone for the entire community. My neighbourhood is an old one, well on the way towards its forth decade, and so people have been growing up, starting families here. My neighbourhood has gone through two generations of people, living here.
At evening time, the elderly come to the spaces and walk about, chatting with the other old folks they have met. Practically every knows everyone else. But the neighbourhood is well on its way to middle-aged irrelevance. And this might even be an analogy for Singapore. The reason is because the neighbourhood as it is now met the requirements of those who lived in 1976, when my parents got the house. It has been 32 years now, and despite the facelifts of upgrading, the core of the estate has not changed. Only the outside looks better, but the things inside are now different, and as such, my estate as it is now is barely moving into the 21st century. Sure, the plumbing, electricity, phone and internet cables have been improved or added, but these things are do not add anything of significant value to the way the community lives.
I think there might really be a need for a working space, with electricity, internet access, for kids to come and study. A comfortable room, much like the study rooms they have in community centres, except that my neighbourhood has hardly any space for a community centre, and when the nearest community centre is a 10-15 minute walk away. Or any other place where people can gather together in relative comfort, a mini-community centre of sorts, to complement the spaces already existing, a place where people can share , an information hub of sorts for the entire community - a space for health and exercises for the elderly, a space for the kids to come and play together, a place for students to gather and study together, a place for working adults to unwind.
The facade of the flats have been upgraded, but it doesn’t seem to matter much. Physical infrastructure matters, but the more important dimension should be the quality of social life that is happening as a result of the physical infrastructure. Community infrastructure - physical constructs where people can come together and catch up with each other - that’s is extremely important, obviously.
Starting at the micro/local level, I imagine my estates, as minimalist as it is, with the market that it has already, with the flats that it has, the open spaces and all. I see my mum, going to the market, chatting with the other aunties about the prices of meat and vegetables and all, and now they are talking about their families a little, about the grandkids they are helping to take care of. ‘Yes, its all rather tiring...’ Everything can be the same as they are, the current infrastructure. But for more enduring relationships, for a more vibrant place, it would require a formalised network to be in place, instead of being stored in just the auntie’s heads. That might mean a virtual neighbourhood to be in place, akin to Second Life, but a real Singapore with real neighbourhoods, with real people and profiles on the Internet. But of course, privacy issues would quickly end that. And clearly, an electronic/virtual system would be insufficient. But any infrastructure would have to consider all of these considerations, and examine how to facilitate their happening in order to make more close-knit communities. This is the foundation for a better neighbourhood. This is a design problem, a creative problem, but it is a problem with people at its core.
It would be great if barriers to civic participation can be lowered. Chief of these barriers would be the willingness to participate. I think this is where incentives can come in. Non-political, pure grassroots people can come together, maybe have some prize for most-active-in-organising-block-parties sort of thing. I hate to do this, but if it’s possible to put a prize or incentive on civic-mindedness, and when it becomes natural, it isn’t required after... It can all be done, really.
What can people do from the ground up? It’s a chicken-and-egg problem, really. People don’t want to participate because no one else wants to participate because no one else wants to participate. Maybe some kind of external push is required, but then people won’t want to commit to these projects. It really takes a lot of hard work...
This is simply a vision to work towards, and it’ll be great if a grassroots awakening of sorts can be apolitical and working purely for the local community, serving their needs, finding out what residents really want, like a safe place for their kids to grow up in, have places where the elderly can gather, where I might not have to see prostitutes using void decks at night...
The transformation of our communities would also require the transformation the way we teach our kids. I think in the world today, new tools exist already, and there is a need for kids to be empowered with the knowledge and the utility of these tools so they can work better in their own little groups they might form. Kids today swim in a giant ocean of information, and there is an ever more important need to teach the kids discernment with regards to the information that they swim in. Culture and values become more important as information becomes less important. It is not the mere passive intake and regurgitation of information, but the processing inside that leads to information become genuine knowledge and then on to application. A knowledge-based economy is going to require a knowledge-based society to create that economy. On this basis is the route for Singapore’s future growth.
How would that education look like? I envision textbooks being almost entirely references, not as teaching materials in themselves. Every student would have a 100-dollar-laptop or something similar, allowing for mesh networks and learning both within and between groups. Then, basic skills like handwriting and penmanship would still be taught. Key basics in languages, mathematics, and sciences would still be taught at the lower level. Moving on, students begin the in-depth studies required in whatever fields, be it music, biology, mathematics, language, dance or sports. A few subjects would be studied in depth, and then on, the key focus would be on cross-disciplinary topics and subjects, synthesis, not specialisation. Classrooms would be full of interactivity technology as teachers facilitate immersive learning experiences, bringing students in-depth into a particular, but then pulling out again to enable students to see the broader picture. This would utilise large multitouch screens that might only be available for large scale implementation sometime in the next decade or so. But with the availability of these technologies it is exciting to explore the possibilities that are being opened up as a result of advances. But multitouch is not the end-all or the be-all. Eventually, the technology is about new form of user interfaces that will enable greater interactivity between the user and the information. Multitouch is just another step along the way. Eventually something else will come along that will replace or supersede multitouch.
Talking about the education of the future, obviously the syllabus for the sciences will have major changes. As nanotech and biotech become commonplace, they would have places in the curriculum, just as really basic quantum mechanics will have their place in secondary school some few decades later. Students will learn the basics of nanotech just as we learn the basics of Newton’s Law. So will studies of complexity theory, where simple laws can cause emergent phenomena. All of these is just a matter of time, if I were to put a date, it would be sometime about the 2040s.
The end result, hopefully, would be to inculcate students with the core skills needed for the workplace, and for the kind of economy that is arising. Other intangible objectives would be students who are learning all the time, eager to explore fields and to find out more, because of the immersive learning experience. Students who are critical about the world around them, and are constantly thinking about making things better. These, I think is the kind of person that every education system truly wants to create, a person who is critical and at the same time, hopeful and optimistic about the world around them, that they can do something good in this world. Every education system has to come back to this somehow, or education would be meaningless in itself. But unfortunately, somewhere down the line, politics enters the picture and distorts the purpose and meaning of education.
The only ideology that should be present in education is the ideology of education and the belief in the values inherent in man, the acceptance of both weakness and strength, for his propensity for both good and evil, of the entire person, the belief that good - the cause for the welfare of the other, always triumph over the bad...
Sphere: Related Content
I don’t want to write about the usual stuff I’ve always written, not like climate change or social change or whatever. I want to move beyond those paradigm and move on to something else.
There are things happening around Singapore that should be of concern to us, but somehow they are not within our radar of focus.
An example would be the change in the neighbourhood atmosphere, like foreign workers coming to play soccer with the kids. Prostitutes and their clients chatting at HDB void decks, seeing the foreign workers dressed in their best on friday nights and the weekends hoping to fulfill their sexual needs. It must be lonely for the Bangladeshis, Thais and whoever else is coming here to Singapore and work. But they are disturbing my neighbourhood. If only residents in my neighbourhood bothered to come down more often and bothered to fill the social vacuum, and keep and eye on the kids playing as well.
And my neighbourhood? It’s a small place, 5-minute walk from the MRT, and a further 10-minute walk to the library, and the nearest community centre is another 10-minute walk away. But those timings are of a healthy young man in the prime of his youth, not an old lady who wants to just socialise. In other words, my neighbourhood is not a very socially friendly place. There are hardly any places of community, other than a market and a few coffee shops. My neighbourhood has the barest of amenities, as if the planners planned on people doing nothing else but holed up in their homes. What my neighbourhood essentially need, is a sheltered place for gathering, but I guess that’s what the coffeshops are for. But I’m thinking about something more, for want of a better word, interactive.
I think I’m really dreaming about how an ideal neighbourhood would look like, how ideal civic mindedness would look like, a thought experiment into the Singapore that we want as well. Is infrastructure enough? How would the schools look like? Have we ever, in our criticisms and complaints, ever think of the Singapore that we truly want? Defining Singapore in the image of Singaporeans, as unique as it is, a place that we can identify with, instead of the propaganda every 9th August.
The other challenge that I want to think of, is how to live in a sustainable manner, reducing our climate challenge but at the same thing, the core of the issue is really about reducing the costs of living, not just green for its own sake. It isn’t enough to have green infrastructure, but to have green mindsets as well.
So with all these considerations, how would neighbourhoods, schools, libraries, communities, even the whole country look like?
The obvious people to target are the housewives, the baby-boomers who are parents or even grandparents. They are really the core of the neighbourhood, their informal networks forming the social backbone for the entire community. My neighbourhood is an old one, well on the way towards its forth decade, and so people have been growing up, starting families here. My neighbourhood has gone through two generations of people, living here.
At evening time, the elderly come to the spaces and walk about, chatting with the other old folks they have met. Practically every knows everyone else. But the neighbourhood is well on its way to middle-aged irrelevance. And this might even be an analogy for Singapore. The reason is because the neighbourhood as it is now met the requirements of those who lived in 1976, when my parents got the house. It has been 32 years now, and despite the facelifts of upgrading, the core of the estate has not changed. Only the outside looks better, but the things inside are now different, and as such, my estate as it is now is barely moving into the 21st century. Sure, the plumbing, electricity, phone and internet cables have been improved or added, but these things are do not add anything of significant value to the way the community lives.
I think there might really be a need for a working space, with electricity, internet access, for kids to come and study. A comfortable room, much like the study rooms they have in community centres, except that my neighbourhood has hardly any space for a community centre, and when the nearest community centre is a 10-15 minute walk away. Or any other place where people can gather together in relative comfort, a mini-community centre of sorts, to complement the spaces already existing, a place where people can share , an information hub of sorts for the entire community - a space for health and exercises for the elderly, a space for the kids to come and play together, a place for students to gather and study together, a place for working adults to unwind.
The facade of the flats have been upgraded, but it doesn’t seem to matter much. Physical infrastructure matters, but the more important dimension should be the quality of social life that is happening as a result of the physical infrastructure. Community infrastructure - physical constructs where people can come together and catch up with each other - that’s is extremely important, obviously.
Starting at the micro/local level, I imagine my estates, as minimalist as it is, with the market that it has already, with the flats that it has, the open spaces and all. I see my mum, going to the market, chatting with the other aunties about the prices of meat and vegetables and all, and now they are talking about their families a little, about the grandkids they are helping to take care of. ‘Yes, its all rather tiring...’ Everything can be the same as they are, the current infrastructure. But for more enduring relationships, for a more vibrant place, it would require a formalised network to be in place, instead of being stored in just the auntie’s heads. That might mean a virtual neighbourhood to be in place, akin to Second Life, but a real Singapore with real neighbourhoods, with real people and profiles on the Internet. But of course, privacy issues would quickly end that. And clearly, an electronic/virtual system would be insufficient. But any infrastructure would have to consider all of these considerations, and examine how to facilitate their happening in order to make more close-knit communities. This is the foundation for a better neighbourhood. This is a design problem, a creative problem, but it is a problem with people at its core.
It would be great if barriers to civic participation can be lowered. Chief of these barriers would be the willingness to participate. I think this is where incentives can come in. Non-political, pure grassroots people can come together, maybe have some prize for most-active-in-organising-block-parties sort of thing. I hate to do this, but if it’s possible to put a prize or incentive on civic-mindedness, and when it becomes natural, it isn’t required after... It can all be done, really.
What can people do from the ground up? It’s a chicken-and-egg problem, really. People don’t want to participate because no one else wants to participate because no one else wants to participate. Maybe some kind of external push is required, but then people won’t want to commit to these projects. It really takes a lot of hard work...
This is simply a vision to work towards, and it’ll be great if a grassroots awakening of sorts can be apolitical and working purely for the local community, serving their needs, finding out what residents really want, like a safe place for their kids to grow up in, have places where the elderly can gather, where I might not have to see prostitutes using void decks at night...
The transformation of our communities would also require the transformation the way we teach our kids. I think in the world today, new tools exist already, and there is a need for kids to be empowered with the knowledge and the utility of these tools so they can work better in their own little groups they might form. Kids today swim in a giant ocean of information, and there is an ever more important need to teach the kids discernment with regards to the information that they swim in. Culture and values become more important as information becomes less important. It is not the mere passive intake and regurgitation of information, but the processing inside that leads to information become genuine knowledge and then on to application. A knowledge-based economy is going to require a knowledge-based society to create that economy. On this basis is the route for Singapore’s future growth.
How would that education look like? I envision textbooks being almost entirely references, not as teaching materials in themselves. Every student would have a 100-dollar-laptop or something similar, allowing for mesh networks and learning both within and between groups. Then, basic skills like handwriting and penmanship would still be taught. Key basics in languages, mathematics, and sciences would still be taught at the lower level. Moving on, students begin the in-depth studies required in whatever fields, be it music, biology, mathematics, language, dance or sports. A few subjects would be studied in depth, and then on, the key focus would be on cross-disciplinary topics and subjects, synthesis, not specialisation. Classrooms would be full of interactivity technology as teachers facilitate immersive learning experiences, bringing students in-depth into a particular, but then pulling out again to enable students to see the broader picture. This would utilise large multitouch screens that might only be available for large scale implementation sometime in the next decade or so. But with the availability of these technologies it is exciting to explore the possibilities that are being opened up as a result of advances. But multitouch is not the end-all or the be-all. Eventually, the technology is about new form of user interfaces that will enable greater interactivity between the user and the information. Multitouch is just another step along the way. Eventually something else will come along that will replace or supersede multitouch.
Talking about the education of the future, obviously the syllabus for the sciences will have major changes. As nanotech and biotech become commonplace, they would have places in the curriculum, just as really basic quantum mechanics will have their place in secondary school some few decades later. Students will learn the basics of nanotech just as we learn the basics of Newton’s Law. So will studies of complexity theory, where simple laws can cause emergent phenomena. All of these is just a matter of time, if I were to put a date, it would be sometime about the 2040s.
The end result, hopefully, would be to inculcate students with the core skills needed for the workplace, and for the kind of economy that is arising. Other intangible objectives would be students who are learning all the time, eager to explore fields and to find out more, because of the immersive learning experience. Students who are critical about the world around them, and are constantly thinking about making things better. These, I think is the kind of person that every education system truly wants to create, a person who is critical and at the same time, hopeful and optimistic about the world around them, that they can do something good in this world. Every education system has to come back to this somehow, or education would be meaningless in itself. But unfortunately, somewhere down the line, politics enters the picture and distorts the purpose and meaning of education.
The only ideology that should be present in education is the ideology of education and the belief in the values inherent in man, the acceptance of both weakness and strength, for his propensity for both good and evil, of the entire person, the belief that good - the cause for the welfare of the other, always triumph over the bad...
1 comment:
interesting post
Post a Comment