Where every school is a "military" school

Foreigners can tell us more about a country than any native can. Foreign eyes see things in new ways, having evaluated them from a different perspective. That is why the wise listen to the comments of those from overseas: it is a chance to see one's country as it really is and not as it is said to be.

I have a friend from South America. He is living and working here, with his family. His attention is turning to the choice of schools for his daughter, since she is approaching that age. By chance, he visited my son's school (he lives in the same area as us), drank in the atmosphere, and had a look at the school rules. What he saw, surprised him.

The only type of school that bore comparison to the one in Singapore, that he saw, were MILITARY SCHOOLS back in Latin America. Only in such schools would there be so many school rules and so much restriction of behaviour. His first thought on entering the school was: "This is a military school". The strange thing is, it didn't call itself one: it is a typical Singaporean school.

The question is, therefore, are ALL schools in Singapore "military" by comparison to international standards of regimentation and regulation? Certainly, they seem so to South American eyes. They seem rather too regulated to my eyes, too.

Let us ask ourselves what is the purpose of a military school. It is to create absolute conformity of thought and action and blind, unthinking obedience to every command. It is to create little robots who won't mind getting themselves shot in the name of their country. Could it be, therefore, that the purpose of Singaporean schooling is to create absolute conformity of thought and action and blind, unthinking obedience to every command? What use would that be to a democratic society? None at all. However, it would be of great use if the purpose was to ensure that the population could never think for themselves and would be easy to manage.

I worry, therefore, for my children, receiving such regulated schooling. It is quite stifling to see the burden of rules under which they labour. Surely, there are better ways to educate children than to tie them down, too restrictively - so much so, that, to an outsider, they look like cadets in a military school?

Nothing is accidental in Singapore. I have come to learn that these past nine years. It is no accident, therefore, that Singapore's education ministers come from military backgrounds. They are all former staff of the armed forces. Clearly, they have been chosen for a reason. Clearly, they are expected to bring their military experience to bear on the task of guiding the nation's education. A military man is not to be put in charge of education, unless one wants that education to have a military flavour. That military men are always chosen, to be education minister, rather confirms the impression of my South American friend, that Singapore's schools are rather like military schools from overseas.

Indeed, it is most telling that the new education minister, whose name eludes me right now (he has just been appointed), is also, as I understand it, 2nd Minister for Defence. The connection between education and the military could not be more explicit, therefore.

There is, however, a problem in all this. Military people generally don't think too well. They act. In fact, thinking too much is counter-productive in the heat of battle: it might bring hesitation and that brings death. So, any school system which is militaristic in any way, would tend to suppress thinking in its people. Singapore's system is doing just that.

This is a foolish long term strategy for Singapore. Without a thinking people, Singapore is reliant on overseas talent. Yet, overseas talent will only come here so long as the offer is more attractive than the next place. That is an unsustainable situation, in the long term, because Singapore always has to fight to be more attractive than the next place. There are over 200 other places people could go. I don't see the odds being in Singapore's favour, in the long term. Other places will overshadow it. Other places will be able to offer more.

The answer is, of course, to encourage thinking in its own native population. To do that, one should drop the militaristic style of education here. A good start would be to begin to appoint education ministers who have actually been teachers - and good teachers at that. Preferably teachers who were not trained in Singapore, to teach in a Singaporean way. Then one might begin to get education that is actually about education - and not education that is about absolute conformity of thought and action and blind unthinking obedience to every command.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and one month, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and seven months, and Tiarnan, two years exactly, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)