Our SG Conversation

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 12 Aug 2013 05:33:58 GMT

concern2 — Mon, 12 Aug 2013 05:33:58 GMT

Nebbermind:
http://www.oursgconversation.sg/reflections/OSC.pdf

But not sure if need to login to google first.

:thankyou:

Yes, can read.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 12 Aug 2013 03:32:11 GMT

Nebbermind — Mon, 12 Aug 2013 03:32:11 GMT

http://www.oursgconversation.sg/reflections/OSC.pdf

But not sure if need to login to google first.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 12 Aug 2013 03:05:47 GMT

concern2 — Mon, 12 Aug 2013 03:05:47 GMT

Nebbermind:
Have you read the Reflections of Our Singapore Conversation yet?

No. Can post it here?

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 12 Aug 2013 01:21:02 GMT

Nebbermind — Mon, 12 Aug 2013 01:21:02 GMT

Have you read the Reflections of Our Singapore Conversation yet?

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 08:56:23 GMT

Chenonceau — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 08:56:23 GMT

http://i47.tinypic.com/wqplbk.jpg\">

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:01:19 GMT

Chenonceau — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:01:19 GMT

Nice! I like! We vote them in for their brains too… not just their ears.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:43:27 GMT

mamago — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:43:27 GMT

Singapore - polls apart

Are opinion polls a good way to decide a nation's priorities for governance? Not when public policy has so many shades of grey

Published on Oct 30, 2012
Opinion
The Straits Times

By Raymond Lim

THE launch of the Singapore Conversation has seen many sessions to discuss what sort of Singapore citizens hope to see in the future.

In a recent session, participants were particularly excited by Yahoo! Singapore's online poll on what are the 10 most pressing concerns for Singaporeans. A total of 21,470 people cast their votes, with the cost of housing voted the No. 1 concern.

Many said this was a good way to feel the pulse of the people. And knowing the popular will, they said, is important as it helps the government set its policy agenda - more resources to housing (28 per cent) and less to public transport, since the public transport crunch received only 3 per cent of votes, coming in at No. 10.

But is this really a good way to govern? Even if we assume the polls or surveys are properly conducted - with proper sampling methods and so on - is governing by opinion polls and laws by referendums the way to go? One participant said it will mean greater democracy in Singapore. Will it?

California in the United States uses referendums and citizens' initiatives to decide on policy issues. The result has been to make the state well-nigh ungovernable as the government is tied up with a mishmash of popular demands, often contradictory and short-term focused.

For example, \"Yes, to more public services\" but \"No, to more taxes to fund them\". The problem is amplified on policy issues, where there is short-term pain but long-term benefits. This is not surprising as those who are adversely affected have every reason to campaign against it while the silent majority, well, stay silent.

And since most people are concerned with the present, the here and now, present pain will usually dominate future benefits when they cast their votes.

Ironically, introducing opinion polls to decide on policy issues does not necessarily mean giving more power to the people or greater democracy in practice.

Often, it is only a segment of the people, special interest groups, who hijack the referendum process to safeguard or promote their own interests. So it is not the will of the people that is being manifested but the organised, the well-funded and the vocal interest groups that rule the roost.

But populist law-making has a more fundamental drawback. Many public policy issues are not simply a binary matter of \"yes\" or \"no\". There are many shades of grey - if not 50, definitely several.

Take immigration, for instance. It is an emotive issue. Despite the valiant efforts of the National Population and Talent Division to educate the public on the issues, most participants in the sessions that we have held, from young and old, want restrictions to be even tighter on the already reduced flow of foreigners to our shores.

But the argument to be open to foreigners is a compelling one - if we close our shores far too much, it is not foreigners who suffer but Singaporeans in general as our economic growth will fall given our dwindling workforce. It will also take off much of the buzz, energy and excitement that come from being a cosmopolitan city that is intimately linked and opened to the world. So it is not an \"either or\" decision, a simple \"up or down\" vote.

It is, as in many public policy issues, a complex issue that requires debate, deliberation and compromise to decide on the flow of foreigners into the country that will not cause major social disamenities and economic dislocations to Singaporeans but that will ensure sustainable growth.

It is this deliberative process that ensures that the majority does not trample on the rights of the minority, that special interests are balanced by the general interests and that opposing views are taken into account when policies are decided and laws made.

Critically, this is what gives legitimacy to the policy process and negotiated outcomes even for those who disagree with the eventual decisions.

This argument that for effective governance in a democracy, we need to have debate, deliberation and compromise is also the reason those who demand that their MP should champion fervently their constituents' positions in the House are wrong.

We elect not a postman but a representative to the highest institution in the land to debate, deliberate and make laws that advance the national rather than individual interest.

As Edmund Burke, the British politician and philosopher, said: \"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion… You choose a member indeed, but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol but he is a Member of Parliament.\"

This is not to say that public opinion is not important. It is an important factor that your MP and government ought to hear and take into serious consideration, but it must never substitute for the exercise of judgment and thought on what is best for Singapore and Singaporeans as a whole.

As Winston Churchill said: \"I see it is said that leaders should keep their ears to the ground. All I can say is that the British nation will find it very hard to look up to the leaders who are detected in that somewhat ungainly posture.\"

I need say no more.

The article is from a speech by Mr Raymond Lim, Member of Parliament of East Coast GRC (Fengshan), at the Civic Forum @ Fengshan this month.

BACKGROUND STORY

It is an important factor that your MP and government ought to hear and take into serious consideration, but it must never substitute for the exercise of judgment and thought on what is best for Singapore and Singaporeans as a whole.

Source: The Straits Times.

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/opinion/story/singapore-polls-apart-20121030

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:25:29 GMT

Chenonceau — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:25:29 GMT

This is nice constructive feedback I think. Thanks for sharing Mamago. I have a tiny difference in opinion on the heavy Ministerial presence. I thought both Ministers were warm and welcoming. For once that they made an effort to reach out and build human contact (bucking the traditional view of PAP politicians as unapproachable and all cold logic) I thought we should support and encourage.

There were however an overwhelming number of media personnel and secretariat staff. This was quite daunting. I didn't lose my head until I spied a journalist frantically taking notes of what I said to Minister HSK. Talking to the Minister HSK was easy. He was warm and very gentle. Talking to Minister Tan Chuan-Jin was even easier because errrr... I didn't know he was a Minister at that time BUT he was very very very easy to talk to. So, even if I had known he was a Minister, I don't think I would have freaked out.

Maybe it was the first session so they had more media? Possibly future sessions will have less media presence.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:14:40 GMT

mamago — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:14:40 GMT

http://i50.tinypic.com/2crlzx0.jpg\">

POLITICS 360
Making citizens' dialogue productive

Vary the format, push for diverse views and let officials take back seat

Published on Oct 20, 2012
The Straits Times

By Toh Yong Chuan,
SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

THERE were two curious moments at the first citizens' dialogue of Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) last Saturday.

The 60 participants from a cross section of society were divided into six groups, and asked to imagine and write newspaper headlines about the kind of Singapore they would like to see in 2022.

There were lofty goals such as \"Singapore wins World Cup\" and \"Singaporean is new secretary-general of the United Nations\".

But when one group announced as its headline \"Minister seeks public opinion on housing issue\", I waited for someone to say: \"Don't have to wait 10 years. It is already being done now.\"

But no one did. Perhaps they were too polite to point that out, or too sceptical.

Another group had \"Freedom of Information Act passed in Parliament\". It explained that having Singaporeans debate openly without fear of crossing OB markers is a sure sign of political maturity.

This, I thought, went to the heart of having a meaningful dialogue and it ought to have sparked further discussion. But it did not. The discussion moved swiftly to the next headline.

The lukewarm reactions to these two contrasting headlines summed up my unease with the dialogue - there were too many people saying too many things with too little depth, and sometimes talking at the same time.

When Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced in August a plan to launch a national conversation, he said he wanted to have Singaporeans chart a direction for the country.

Spearheaded by Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, it was billed as a mass public engagement exercise.

Last Saturday's dialogue was a tentative start.

There are 29 more dialogues planned for the next six months. To get the process on an even keel, I suggest three ways in which the dialogues might be improved.

First, be sure to use a variety of formats for the discussions.

The committee has indeed said it plans to try out different approaches. It has cast its net wide and encouraged community groups to organise their own dialogues, to reach out to as many as possible. Two weeks ago, for example, there was a dialogue in Yuhua where 150 seniors spoke their minds at a hawker centre, mostly in Hokkien, a Chinese dialect.

Such an approach is to be welcomed and last week's session gave me a sense of how critical this might be.

The free-flowing and unstructured format of last Saturday's dialogue was novel. It resembled a scenario-planning workshop where company executives gather to brainstorm a firm's mission and vision.

It worked for some but others seemed lost. A Mandarin-speaking coffee-shop chain owner stared blankly as he struggled to keep up with the discussions, despite a volunteer interpreting the key points for him.

A senior investment executive lost interest when other participants got carried away sharing their life stories. Another participant wondered aloud how such exercises are \"useful\".

Mr Heng has acknowledged the hesitation of some with the unstructured format.

He promised that next year, the discussions would drill deeper into specific themes.

I would argue that this should come sooner rather than later, otherwise Singaporeans might soon grow impatient with open-ended dialogues.

The headline writing format can continue, but for those who want to cut to the chase and go straight into what frustrates them or what they aspire to, they can be invited to smaller focus group discussions to speak in whatever language they are comfortable in. There may also be people who are more at ease in closed-door settings.

Second, the organisers need to strive hard to tease out diverse views at these sessions.

To be sure, the team behind Saturday's dialogue appeared to have gone some way to do so. They had tapped personal contacts and other groups to ensure participants were from a wide range of backgrounds.

But more could be done. While it would be contrived to include dissenting views for the sake of doing so, it is vital to seek out the segments of society whose voices are rarely heard, whether online or in the mass media. These include housewives, the elderly and low-wage workers.

Conversations with members of these less vocal groups can throw up interesting insights into life here.

Two security guards, for example, told me they do not have time to attend dialogues as they work 12-hour shifts, six days a week.

Yet when asked, they did not hesitate to pour out their worries - the overwhelming use of English in society that shuts out the Mandarin speaking, and seniors struggling to keep pace with changes in society. Such issues are unlikely to surface at a dialogue like last Saturday's.

My third suggestion is that ministers and government officials can have a lighter presence at the discussions.

Many participants at last Saturday's dialogue were not perturbed by the sight of Mr Heng and Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin. But there were others who were a little nervous that so many officials were present at the session, perhaps because it was the first one that was held.

During the session with seniors in Yuhua, Ms Grace Fu could move about and \"eavesdrop\" freely on the seniors at the Yuhua session, because as their MP, she was a familiar face whom they were comfortable with. To ensure participants at future sessions are similarly at ease, officials and notetakers should take a step back and guard against too heavy a presence.

While the organisers did a credible job in pulling off this first session, there is scope for improvement.

There are 29 more dialogues to go. That means one each week for the next six months.

It also means 29 more chances for Our Singapore Conversation dialogues to get better.

tohyc@sph.com.sg

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:40:06 GMT

Way2GO — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:40:06 GMT

Civil servants can take part in dialogues with gag order lifted.

Although the gag order was lifted, civil servants have been reminded not to \"make controversial comments\" or \"publicly lobby for a different policy position\", as these would hurt the credibility of the civil service. \"Public officers are collectively responsible for government policies,\" the circular said.
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/civil-servants-can-take-part-dialogues-gag-order-lifted-20121016

Sm...ile, u r on candid camera,
BUT don't rock d boat. :slapshead:

If civil servants can't speak with an open mind, with their hearts n a clear conscience, n r bound to speak only to repeat wat r politically correct, d OSC will end up being another wayang. :imconstipated:

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:17:13 GMT

Chenonceau — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:17:13 GMT

3Boys:
Chenonceau:

To tell the truth, I have not been responding to your attempts to engage me in debate because I feel that you attribute polarised views or stupid views to me that I do not write (and therefore do not think).
My apologies then, but that's not how I see it....

In any case, I think a strong case has been made to the MOE through you and others who have been persistent and persevering, for which I sincerely congratulate you.

:thankyou: We couldn't have done it without the naysayers too. Naysayers allowed us to explain further... rebut more... refine ideas... and develop more bridges of understanding with silent readers from MOE.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:13:08 GMT

3Boys — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:13:08 GMT

Chenonceau:

To tell the truth, I have not been responding to your attempts to engage me in debate because I feel that you attribute polarised views or stupid views to me that I do not write (and therefore do not think).

My apologies then, but that's not how I see it....

In any case, I think a strong case has been made to the MOE through you and others who have been persistent and persevering, for which I sincerely congratulate you.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:01:25 GMT

Chenonceau — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:01:25 GMT

3Boys:
Ah well, Chen, we will have to disagree then.

If solutions are cost neutral, then fine.

But I am resentful of constant lobbying for additional resources for education, where there seems little regard for whether those resources will be effectively employed, or for where those resources will be taken from.

Singapore has many priorities, education is but one, and who is to say it is the most important? There will always be other things that will take pride of place, depending who you are. LGBT rights for instance \"Repeal 377A, or else.\", conservationists \"Bukit Brown, or else\", Financial whizzes \"Gold Standard, or else.\"

Where is the middle ground. I can pick on my own bugbear too, of which I have a few, but by definition, if EVERYONE votes along a narrow band of issues ONLY, the g'ment is out of power, its simple maths. I am therefore against it, not because I think our education system is perfect, but to drill on some narrow specifics to swing a vote, to me, is unreasonable....and dangerous to democracy.

That's where I am coming from. Why you would you say that it is unseemly?

To tell the truth, I have not been responding to your attempts to engage me in debate because I feel that you attribute polarised views or stupid views to me that I do not write (and therefore do not think). Often when we discuss, you seem to debate with someone that exists in your imagination because you rebut points I have never made... and don't acknowledge our points of consensus enough even when I explicitly concede your points.

I hear you but I fear you hear someone imaginary when you and I engage in debate. Since you weren't really dialoguing with me, it was better for me to avoid engaging you.

I have never advocated pouring additional resources. However, in really studying work processes at MOE, I realise that the set-up gives rise to too much duplication of work. There is no need to spend more. Use what you have to better effect. I can see that in reducing inter-school competition (i.e., taking away banding and school ranking), there will be more inter school sharing. This cuts down on duplication of work, frees up teachers' time, reduces teacher stress etc etc...

Improving textbooks requires a one time effort that will result in saving work for teachers all over the country and in every school. Developing an online portal (again a one-time cost) as a repository for learning materials accessible by every teacher and student in the country again helps sharing (and thus reduces work and costs). Less overworked teachers will not resign. Training costs of good teachers go down. Costs go down. Spend less and do more. We have been most unwise in how we deploy resources in MOE.

To attribute to me that I want the MOE to spend more on education is all in your own head.

At this point, I am even less interested to engage in a long debate since I think MOE has begun to take intelligent and measured steps to bring equilibrium back into the system. My writings here have never been targeted at persons. I wrote to convince MOE, and I don't see the point in spending anymore time lobbying since it is clear that MOE has woken up and taken charge. They're awfully intelligent people and I have faith in them.

So from now on, I will spend time to help this government build consensus and understanding because it has shown me that it desires to do so. It is a precious government and deserves that we speak to it... talk to it... and appreciate it.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:51:22 GMT

3Boys — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:51:22 GMT

Ah well, Chen, we will have to disagree then.

If solutions are cost neutral, then fine.

But I am resentful of constant lobbying for additional resources for education, where there seems little regard for whether those resources will be effectively employed, or for where those resources will be taken from.

Singapore has many priorities, education is but one, and who is to say it is the most important? There will always be other things that will take pride of place, depending who you are. LGBT rights for instance "Repeal 377A, or else.", conservationists "Bukit Brown, or else", Financial whizzes "Gold Standard, or else."

Where is the middle ground? I can pick on my own bugbear too, of which I have a few, but by definition, if EVERYONE votes along a narrow band of issues ONLY, the g’ment is out of power, its simple maths. I am therefore against it, not because I think our education system is perfect, but to drill on some narrow specifics to swing a vote, to me, is unreasonable…and dangerous to democracy.

The government crafts policies over many dimensions and many levels. Some of them will benefit you, some of them will disadvantage you. It is inevitable. It therefore behooves us to take a big picture view, in my opinion.

That’s where I am coming from. Why you would you say that it is unseemly?

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:21:30 GMT

Chenonceau — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:21:30 GMT

limlim:
What topic are the discussion about..? if on transport mebbe I might wanna take part..

It is a free flowing discussion. You can raise issues of Transport if you wish. Variously, the people around me raised...
(1) racism
(2) ageism
(3) elitism
(4) PSLE stress

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:19:59 GMT

limlim — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:19:59 GMT

What topic are the discussion about…? if on transport mebbe I might wanna take part…

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:16:12 GMT

Chenonceau — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:16:12 GMT

3Boys:
Laura02:
Thanks Chenonceau for posting your impression on Our SG Conversation.

I attended one of MOE's dilogue session recently. They gathered about 30 of parents from all over Sg, some with Pri kids, some with Sec or JC kids, and split us into 3 groups. Except for a married couple, I think that no other 2 persons had kids in the same school. Our topic for the night was : Teachers.
One of the things that struck me that night was the diversity of views and opinions from different parents. For instance, one dad wanted a return of the strict teachers he remembered from his Pri sch days. Another mom queried why the teachers were so strict to her P1 kids, and the VP in her kids school even presumed to lecture to the parents about how to bring up kids!!!
Another issue brought up was how comfortable we were with teachers being facebook friends with their Sec & JC students, and interacting with them socially. Some parents were all for maintaining a professional distance between student and teacher. Some were comfortable with teachers and students developing some social interactions, like myself.
At the end of the day, I found it instructive listening to the differing opinions expressed and found myself adjusting my own expectations of what the ministry can and should do, accordingly. Its quite different from discussing things online, where we can stridently uphold our opinions, safe in the annonymity behind pseudonames. When airing such diverse and often contradictory opinions in person, in an atmosphere that encourages conciliation and concensus, its difficult to become emotional, and are forced to admit that another person, legitimately, is entitled to a completely different point of view.
Bottom line : I think more people should make the effort to go for one of these \"Conversations\". Its a good experience.
If nothing, at least these are eye-openers to the fact that there is a diversity of opinion out there and that the g'ment will NEVER be able to satisfy everyone. Give and take is definitely in order, and those who hold the g'ment to hostage over a narrow band of issues, be it education or anything else, are out of line in my view.

I have no regrets for having as you would term it \"held the government hostage with my vote\"... and with the votes of the people who think like me. I was determined to see
(1) better flowthrough of learning resources
(2) less variance in quality of teaching between schools

We can vote in a government. We can vote it out if we think it no longer resonates with us on major concerns. So no... I don't at all think it is at all wrong to let my government know that unless it shapes up, we will vote it out. I am not even sure it is called holding a govt hostage... I and those who think like me, merely exercise our vote. It is part of the democratic process. To let the government know beyond all shadow of a doubt that we intend to vote against it is also fair to the government.

If I had to lobby for enhancements to education all over again... I would. This said, I believe in being
(1) reasonable
(2) constructive
(3) giving the govt some leeway too...
...because it has access to perspectives we don't necessarily have. I didn't suggest removal of banding but I can understand why it was done and I can acknowledge that it cleverly addresses my concerns EVEN though I did not suggest it. I wanted better textbooks but the government has gone the way of introducing rich stores of online resources and expanding Stellar. That's great too! It still addresses my concerns of uneven access to learning resources.

3boys, you may not have concerns about education but it is not seemly that you keep brushing away the perspectives of those who do have deep personal malaise. Our perspectives are not less valid than yours to be so lightly brushed away by the phrase \"hold a govt hostage. These are issues we consider important enough to give our vote to someone else. It matters to us and we are Singaporean too.

Certainly, I would like to see PAP stay and instead of shutting up and voting against it in 2016... I chose to give loud and clear feedback... give of my time... make constructive suggestions... offer the use of my skills. I chose to engage in dialogue. Dialogue can be difficult but strong relationships ensue from it.

Strange that not a single politician I have spoken to in the past 2 years have accused us (i.e., my interest group) of holding the government hostage even though it was clear to them that we had also met up with the opposition politicians on these issues important to us.

PAP politicians are mature people and recognise there is a need for conversation and dialogue. Sure... there were difficult moments in my dialogue with the government but their intelligence, composure and refusal to judge me has played some part in ensuring that from divergence of opinion, we reached convergence.

No one has held the government hostage. Voting out a government (or stating an intention to vote out a government) that no longer serves citizens' interests is part of the democratic process. To my understanding, YOU voted opposition in the last election without giving feedback on where the govt can improve so that you would have voted for the incumbent. I don't wanna do that. My relationship with the PAP stretches back too far and too long for me to just vote against it without attempting a dialogue... even if it is a difficult one...

... even if it is misconstrued as holding a govt hostage. I would rewrite everything I wrote in this forum and in my blog again if I had to do it all over.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:30:04 GMT

3Boys — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:30:04 GMT

Laura02:
Thanks Chenonceau for posting your impression on Our SG Conversation.

I attended one of MOE's dilogue session recently. They gathered about 30 of parents from all over Sg, some with Pri kids, some with Sec or JC kids, and split us into 3 groups. Except for a married couple, I think that no other 2 persons had kids in the same school. Our topic for the night was : Teachers.
One of the things that struck me that night was the diversity of views and opinions from different parents. For instance, one dad wanted a return of the strict teachers he remembered from his Pri sch days. Another mom queried why the teachers were so strict to her P1 kids, and the VP in her kids school even presumed to lecture to the parents about how to bring up kids!!!
Another issue brought up was how comfortable we were with teachers being facebook friends with their Sec & JC students, and interacting with them socially. Some parents were all for maintaining a professional distance between student and teacher. Some were comfortable with teachers and students developing some social interactions, like myself.
At the end of the day, I found it instructive listening to the differing opinions expressed and found myself adjusting my own expectations of what the ministry can and should do, accordingly. Its quite different from discussing things online, where we can stridently uphold our opinions, safe in the annonymity behind pseudonames. When airing such diverse and often contradictory opinions in person, in an atmosphere that encourages conciliation and concensus, its difficult to become emotional, and are forced to admit that another person, legitimately, is entitled to a completely different point of view.
Bottom line : I think more people should make the effort to go for one of these \"Conversations\". Its a good experience.

If nothing, at least these are eye-openers to the fact that there is a diversity of opinion out there and that the g'ment will NEVER be able to satisfy everyone. Give and take is definitely in order, and those who hold the g'ment to hostage over a narrow band of issues, be it education or anything else, are out of line in my view.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:24:35 GMT

Laura02 — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:24:35 GMT

Thanks Chenonceau for posting your impression on Our SG Conversation.

I attended one of MOE’s dilogue session recently. They gathered about 30 of parents from all over Sg, some with Pri kids, some with Sec or JC kids, and split us into 3 groups. Except for a married couple, I think that no other 2 persons had kids in the same school. Our topic for the night was : Teachers.
One of the things that struck me that night was the diversity of views and opinions from different parents. For instance, one dad wanted a return of the strict teachers he remembered from his Pri sch days. Another mom queried why the teachers were so strict to her P1 kids, and the VP in her kids school even presumed to lecture to the parents about how to bring up kids!!!
Another issue brought up was how comfortable we were with teachers being facebook friends with their Sec & JC students, and interacting with them socially. Some parents were all for maintaining a professional distance between student and teacher. Some were comfortable with teachers and students developing some social interactions, like myself.
At the end of the day, I found it instructive listening to the differing opinions expressed and found myself adjusting my own expectations of what the ministry can and should do, accordingly. Its quite different from discussing things online, where we can stridently uphold our opinions, safe in the annonymity behind pseudonames. When airing such diverse and often contradictory opinions in person, in an atmosphere that encourages conciliation and concensus, its difficult to become emotional, and are forced to admit that another person, legitimately, is entitled to a completely different point of view.
Bottom line : I think more people should make the effort to go for one of these "Conversations". Its a good experience.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:26:34 GMT

Lilac66 — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:26:34 GMT

Chenonceau:
limlim:
Sometimes.. it's not that the policies are no good in principle.. but maybe they need some tuning..

limlim... you have intelligent things to say. Go and sign up on their website. Just make sure you don't sign up on the same day as 3boys...

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: Also sign up when pirate is out at sea..

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:23:10 GMT

Chenonceau — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:23:10 GMT

limlim:
Sometimes.. it's not that the policies are no good in principle.. but maybe they need some tuning..

limlim... you have intelligent things to say. Go and sign up on their website. Just make sure you don't sign up on the same day as 3boys...

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:17:34 GMT

limlim — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:17:34 GMT

Sometimes… it’s not that the policies are no good in principle… but maybe they need some tuning…

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 01:57:11 GMT

jtoh — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 01:57:11 GMT

Thanks for sharing, Chen. I enjoyed reading your blog post too.

Reply to Our SG Conversation on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 01:41:27 GMT

Chenonceau — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 01:41:27 GMT

Hee hee! Quite cute. No one voted insincere.