I'm somewhat disturbed by trends.. there are two issues I wish to address here.
First, why is it that better educated Singapore youngsters 'shallower' than the previous generation?
Here's the background. We had been talking to some of our guys at work. It all stemmed from a simple case of bad attitude that needed correcting.. then it developed into a disturbing discovery that they find no meaning in their work. They do not feel that there is a need for defence, and that our politicians are doing such a great job that the defence industries are a waste of national resources. They feel that transnational security threats will not affect Singapore, even though an attempt had happened before; and even if it does happen again, our home team is more than capable of dealing with these.
Wes had a long talk with them. While doing so, we discovered that they know nothing about the history of Singapore. Of China, India, American and European history, they may be aces: all it takes for them to impress their interviewers for scholarships and big earning jobs. They know who's Obama and Clinton, and how different are the governing styles of Bush Jnr and Bush Snr. But they don't know who's our President before Mr Wee Kim Wee. They do not know that it is Singapore's credible defence that's bringing in the investment and cash. The diplomacy space and flexibility created by a strong deterrence force was a surprise to them. Or perhaps, they don't care. To them, the inclusion of the little red dot into numerous world organisations is simply, because "its fated to happen". So why can't our youngers see what the older generation can?
So what is wrong with the Singapore education or upbringing that makes Singaporeans.. well significantly less Singaporeans? I think our media had been debating this to the ground. They have no answers that satisfied me. And I have none either.
One of the guys I talked to is a "XXX" scholar. I asked him what he intended to study. No idea. I advised him that he should study something relevant to where he wants to work at. He agreed. So I asked him which department he wants to work at at XXX. He has no idea either. So did he take the scholarship for the scholarship, or for what the organisation had to offer? I had my own choice before. Between a (then) TDB overseas and (then) a local award, I chose the latter. After my masters in London, I was given the choice again: to serve my bond, or to earn big bucks with KPMG who's willing to buy my bond? I chose integrity. I may not be a slated 'talent' or scholar at my organisation despite any achievements, but I am with a bunch of guys whom I can fondly call bros. I have great bosses and colleagues. No back stabbing, no politics. I love my work. I am merely 6 years older than the guy I talked to. Is there really that vast a difference in the things we experienced and learnt at school? I'm perplexed..
