JC Diploma

Recently, Hwa Chong Institution (HCI) and Raffles Junior College (RJC) have been issueing non-academic "JC diplomas". What is a JC Diploma, you may ask. Simply put, it is a "degree" for outstanding students in non-academic areas to distinguish the best from the better. 

I believe that such a JC Diploma system is rather feasible as it could likely be the differentiating factor between students. With more and more students scoring over 8As in their 'A' levels, universities all over the world find it hard to choose students to admit. This may likely be the answer for universities as this JC diploma separates the best from the best. 

Furthermore, the university level of studies no longer aims for solely academic excellence, but also co-curricular talents. JC diplomas are able to identify these groups of more gifted students as it looks out for both academic excellence but also excellence beyond the text books. 

However, though a viable bonus to students' portfolio, I believe that this JC diploma cannot completely replace the ‘A’ levels. If ‘A’ levels were to be removed and JC diplomas become the only education certificate JC students can obtain. As such, JC diplomas would have to be moderated to a certain level so that majority of the students will be able to obtain a college degree. However if more and more students gain a JC diploma, the dilemma of choosing students surfaces once again, thus bringing us back to square one.

On the other hand, if the requirements for obtaining a JC diploma were to be cranked up a notch, many of the JC students would only have a ‘O’ level certificate, effectively wasting two years of life in junior college.

Hence, I believe that the initialising of a JC diploma is not a bad idea. However, I personally feel that it would not be able to replace the ‘A’ levels, but instead act as a higher level of achievement and as I earlier mentioned, a differentiating factor between students, separating the cream of the crops from the others. Also, I believe that only a selected number of students can be awarded these JC diplomas thus increasing the uniqueness of such diplomas.

The Googlary

Google (n): An online search engine important to users worldwide.
 (v): The act of researching online using the online search engine, Google. 

A trip to the online oxford dictionary enlightened m e on the very meaning of “Google”. What appals me is that the verb “Google” isn’t even classified as a slang. However, I cannot deny that I myself am responsible for excessive usage of the Google search engine. But, I do enjoy being at the library. Hence, in this blog post, I would like to share my view points on the article “Today’s library, tomorrow’s ‘googlary’.” 

Though, it is true that libraries are irreplaceable, both the word and its function. However, it definitely is much more convenient. With a few clicks and we have access to almost any knowledge we desire. However, “Googlers” still have to learn to be wise and selective towards the vast information provided by the internet. 

But, this cannot be blamed entirely on the users of Google; “credit” should also be given to Google themselves. They are by far the only search engine that provides an extensive search for websites, videos, blogs, news etc. You name it, they have it. Google even has a satellite imagery program that allows users to view any location in the world. It is no wonder that it is the most popular search engine all over the world, with the exception of China who banned Google. 

There is, however, one competitor of Google’s that too has gained much recognition. It too, has become a verb widely used by people. That competitor is none other than the online encyclopaedia: Wikipedia. Even teachers are using “Wiki” as a verb: “Got a question, just wiki it!” Furthermore, if you were to try Googling a certain topic, more often than not, the first hit would be from Wikipedia. Some claim that this is a conspiracy. 

Bringing the topic back to libraries, what exactly would happen to these libraries? I personally feel that they would not change. As stated in the article, libraries will always have a difference between the internets, have you ever tried browsing through the vast internet of websites, a mere word search of “I” would garner you more than a million hits. Furthermore, this already involves the narrowing of the spectrum, browsing through the internet would be insane. 

Hence, I believe that there is certainly nothing wrong with having both libraries and Googlaries. What exactly is stopping us from having both?

GEP Programme

It is with great irony as I read the article “A gift of a programme”, seeing how the author praises and emphasises on the importance on the GEP system. However, only 5 years after this article was published, the GEP system was taken down, so much for the GEP being the very foundation of Singapore education. The past is the past I guess. 

I personally do not agree with the author on the GEP system. He claims that these “special GEP students” are able to mix with the non-GEP students during their Co-curricular activities, otherwise known as the CCA. However, with so many school specialised and labelled as a GEP school, the dominating student population would consist GEP students only. Having GEP students mix with other GEP students during their CCAs would just defeat the purpose of letting GEP students mingle during their CCAs. 

On the other hand, the author also stated that there is little or no separation between GEP and non-GEP students, that there is certainly no such thing as differentiation between the two parties. However, he contradicted himself at the start of the article saying how superior these GEP students were, taking up a large percentage of scholarships, awards and other honorary titles. It would seem rather obvious that the author himself was a former GEP student, from my point of view at least. 

The author also included a paragraph on so called “non-snobbish” GEP students, quoting how these students were able to give back to the society and take part in all sorts of volunteer work. I personally feel that this statement is far off the point, is getting into GEP the only way to gain an epiphany on the importance of gratitude towards the country? Only GEP students are dense enough to love the nation? Non-GEP students, too, partake in such volunteer work! Moral education isn’t a GEP-only syllabus after all. 

In fact, I believe that the removal of the GEP system to be a good call. Giving students a sense of differentiation at the young age of 10 would seem highly inappropriate. Children of that age not only like to compare but anything that they have and others don’t have, becomes a privilege to boast about. Parents force their children to go for special GEP test tuition since Primary 1 just to get their children into this programme. Is it really necessary to subject young children to such stress at such a young age? Definitely not!

Being a non-GEP student, I have been called jealous and bitter multiple times by these students, but I accept that. However, some of these GEP students already have an in-built attitude that others are inferior, totally oblivious that the gap between the two parties is not much different. I do not bear a grudge against GEP students; I just believe that it is with such articles that GEP students gain their snobbishness. 

The Casino Debate

An Integrated Resort, otherwise known as the IR, is finally coming to Singapore. However, most people have mixed feelings towards the IR. Being underage and unable to neither gain entry to the casino or even gamble, I will be posting merely as a bystander. 

Based off the current situation, I believe that the biggest disagreement that the public had, has already been removed. The issue was that the upcoming IRs would not allow entry to the Singaporeans. This seemed like a very unreasonable decision. Naturally, Singaporeans all over the country created a great hoo-ha over this. The decision later made to allow Singaporeans, was in fact a wise one. 

One thing that I noticed was that there were quite a lot of articles on how the structure of the IR was planned to fit the “feng shui”. Having some interest in such topics, I noticed how the building was centred on bringing in wealth, similar to the design of the Suntec City “Fountain of Wealth”. However, the very design sparked off some controversy. Gamblers believed that this meant trouble for them as they would lose money in the IR, “bringing wealth” to the IR literally. 

Most of the opposition believes that the opening of the IR would increase the number of gamble-holics in Singapore, greatly damaging the image of Singapore and also bring about many social problems. The number of underground loaning groups like “loan sharks” would increase exponentially. This not only affects the person addicted to gambling, but also everyone around him. The opening of an IR was even labelled to be a waste of resources, though the revenue gained would be astounding, but the problems that come with this package would be devastating. 

However, I personally believe that there is more than enough measure put in place. One prominent example would be the family decision act, whereby family members are allowed to “ban” their relative from entering the IR even before it sets up to remove potential gamble-holics. The government has also started a series of advertisements on how to prevent being addicted to gambling and even set up help-lines for gamble addicts. 

Having so many measures already in place, I believe that the IR issue has been given much thought and that the benefits would outweigh all the potential problems.