Of Children

Various people's opinion were sought for their wishes and ideas over the coming government budget. One professional cheek-in-tongue made a very creative suggestion to tackle the falling birth rate in Singapore. He remembered how decades ago to avoid a population explosion, one of the measures adopted by the government to discourage people from having more than 2 children was to suffer the third and later child a very low priority to enter primary school of choice. The method proved to be very effective as most parents worry that their would be "little Einsteins" were not given the rich breeding ground to develop their abilities. Hence this guy suggested that to reverse the trend of the falling birth rate the government should now allow the third or later child the highest priority to choose any schools the parents fancy. To make it even more effective, he toyed with the idea that as long as a mother has or is carrying a third or subsequent child, the elder siblings of the unborn child should also be given higher priorities for primary one application. Given that kiasuism is one of the icon of Singapore, albeit a negative one, I think his idea is brilliant.

However I personally think that this idea may only work with couples who already have a family or have intention to start one. It doesn't work with couples who choose not to have children. In fact the very observation of kiasu parents giving so much focus and energy into getting their kids to top schools may reinforce these couples' fear of producing children into the world just to suffer the stress of the rat race. It also magnifies the energy and time they themselves will have to put in should they choose to be parents. Nevertheless it is an idea worth further consideration.

Of late there is quite a lot of comments on nurture and nature following MM's observations that top schools have more students with graduate parents. The Straits Times subsequently interviewed 10 students from top schools who came from poor families. From these interviews the ST Editorial remarked that one crucial factor was largely forgotten admist the nurture vs nature debate which is the "determination to suceed and rise above the circumstances", hence the need to instil in the students from disadvantaged background the conviction that a better future is within their reach if they work hard enough.

A truly remarkable observation but I feel it is also easier said than done. Lets not forget that those student that made it to the top schools despite their disadvantaged backgroud is still a minority. I remember my shock when I found out that only about 40% of the previous Primary 6 cohort in my school (a neighbourhood school)got into the express stream which means that more than half land up in Normal Academic or Normal Technical. My interaction with these students often make me marvel/laugh at their intelligence/wit but accompanied with shock at their lack of command of English and poor foundation in other subjects. Most of the students in my school do not have tuition and struggle to find help in doing their school work. I often wonder how academically smart they would have been if only they have the same nurture as other little "Einsteins" in branded schools.