I was reading this article on the Net (http://www.yawningbread.org/guest_2005/guw-101.htm) about the history of the gay scene in Singapore, and it touched briefly on the historical evidence (from the 1880s) of widespread uninhibited public exhibitions of homosexuality in the Southeast-Asian region, which shocked the predominantly Christian Westerners. Assuming that the evidence cited by the author is true - but it shouldn’t be too far from the truth, since I have read of Emperors in Ancient China who had a penchant for pederasty - it makes me wonder how Asia morphed from a people, regardless of social position, who embraced homosexuality to one that abhors it so irreverently now. My hunch is that it might have been the Christian values that were propagated by the Western settlers which planted the seeds of the current intolerance towards gays in our Asian societies today.

On a side note, it is also interesting that as the East became increasingly homophobic, the West became increasingly gay-tolerant – relative to the East that is. I wonder what prompted the rise of gay-tolerance in the West. Could it have been the influx of Asian migrants in the recent century? LoL…I highly doubt that’s the reason, but I’d be interested if anyone can proffer me suggestions. The metamorphoses of societal norms and the catalysts behind them are intriguing.

Keeping to the theme of this entry, "random reflections", I am reminded of the new school ranking system so proudly trumpeted by the government. I've no qualms about it; it's high-time they shifted their focus away from academic achievement. But in one of the interviews cited in the Straits Times, of which the details are a little murky to me now, I was perturbed by a comment made by a teacher from a neighbourhood school which had performed well under the new ranking system. The comment was (not verbatim but the general drift is there): “I hope that with the raised awareness of the value-addedness that our school can bring, we’d be able to attract better and brighter students.” Now, isn’t there a hint of disaffection for less able and dimmer students in that statement? The teacher’s feeling is palpable; after all, which self-respecting teacher wouldn’t relish the opportunity to work with brighter and better students? They are the ones who can challenge the teachers intellectually. They are the ones whom the teachers can learn from while teaching. But still, why this sentiment? Shouldn’t teachers accord the same passion in teaching to all types of students? Oh well…maybe it’s just my excessive anal-retentiveness that is misconstruing the intent of her statement. Then again, even if I'm not, I shouldn't be overly critical; teachers are human after all.

Extrapolating this a little further, if we are to assume that the parents of subsequent batches of bright students begin to realize the value-addedness of the school and send their children there, wouldn’t it then follow that gaining entry to the school would become more competitive, and ergo lead to the marginalization of academically disinclined students. A group which has, in recent years, benefited from the guidance of the school, would then be deprived of an opportunity to better themselves. It’s tragically ironic. The students whom the school so zealously strove to help could possibly turn out to be the victims of the school’s success in future.

No matter how we tweak it, this is the inextricable effect of the school ranking: the brighter and abler students will always have a buffet of schools to choose from, while their lesser counterparts are left with the scraps (if any). Perhaps, it’s time to examine the feasibility of revising the school admission criteria. There’s the direct admission which selects students based on their non-academic talents like the arts or sports, but I believe we can extend that idea further. Why not give priority entry for certain schools like the aforementioned value-added neighbourhood to the academically disinclined? After all, it seems that the teachers there are apt at motivating such students. This measure is not only allocatively efficient (to borrow an economics term) but aids in social mobility as well, since the affirmative action policy (aargh…I hate this phrase; it’s dreadful) would mitigate the possible marginalization of the academically disinclined students. This is bound to controversial, but I’m sure with our stellar educationists, certain refinements can be made along the way to iron out the kinks.