Education Vs Training...Which Should Comes First?

Education in its broadest sense is any act or experience that has a formative effect on the mind, character, or physical ability of an individual. In its technical sense education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills and values from one generation to another through institutions ~ extracted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Training refers to the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and competencies as a result of the teaching of vocational or practical skills and knowledge that relate to specific useful competencies. It forms the core of apprenticeships and provides the backbone of content at institutes of technology ~ extracted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Today, much emphasis has been put into training our labour workforce so as to ensure that we keep up with upcoming technologies. We also have been encouraged to upgrade our skills every now and then, so that we keep up with our ever-changing society. It is a fact that learning is an on-going process which never shall ceased in life; from the minute we enter this world till the day we depart.

However, an individual who is equipped with various skills and knowledge, yet without a 'good' character, will still be considered an empty shell.

With so many various courses in the current market, our people have indeed acquired much knowledge and skills. BUT take a look at our daily newspapers articles: more commuters are caught eating/drinking in trains, cheating cases/misusing of company funds committed by professionals, rising cases in sex engagement with the underage, elderly in homes neglected by family members, etc etc.; all these committed by our so-called knowledgeable people.

Is there any use to put so much emphasis in training when one lacks the basic sense in humanity; when one choose not to behave during times when they know they are not being judged; when one basically have no EQ or perhaps is unable even to create harmony within his family, when one doesn't bother how another feel etc..

It is important that a mind receives the basic (life) education before any other training is provided. As when a mind is physically and mentally 'weak', that is when aspiration turns to greed, and when greed turns to crimes.

Growing, Grooming the Degree-Holders...Have We Missed Out On Our 'UNDER'-Grads??

Today, the basic academic-route starts from:
Nursery > Kindergarten > Primary Sch > Secondary Sch > Poly / Pre-U / JCs > University ...

Many years back, the emphasis was for one to at least complete his 'O' levels. As society progress, achieving a Diploma-cert. becomes the criteria for a job-seeker, and now - most employers sets their minimum requirement (for job openings) to a Degree-holder (in any field).

In our pursuit to engaging better and more qualified pool of people, have we, in some way, missed out on our 'UNDER'-grads; the 'O-level'-holders, Diploma-holders, and the 'Non-Degree-Holders-But-With-Much-Experience' group.

Everyone is encouraged to keep on upgrading but sad to say, not everyone can afford either the $ or the time to. Our younger generations now have the benefits to pursue their studies all the way, without having to worry on course fees or financial burdens as this part has been well taken care of by their parents. In fact, most parents starts investing in educational savings as early as their child is one year of age, hence providing their children with a guaranteed education for as far as one can pursue; at least till one achieve a degree. So they are somehow blessed, compared to those older generations (who wasn't blessed with such).

However, this doesn't give us the reason to outcast those non degree-holders; those who wished they can afford the time and $ for a degree course but CAN'T.

What makes one think that a non degree-holder does not have what it takes, does not have the knowledge or capability to take up that job opening (only opened for degree-holder)? For all we know, this person may, through his many years of working experiences, turn out to be even more suitable than a fresh-grad (with no relevant working experience).

Aren't we encouraged to give people a second chance? Why are we placing that much of emphasis on job applicants to be a degree-holder then? Why can't we open to those with relevant working experience and give these people a chance, get the employers to spend some sincere time to listen to what they can contribute rather than totally outcast them.

Or is it a BASIC requirement that certain job designations are to be held only by people with certain calibre?

Feeling Confused & Lonely?

We all find ourselves in the valley of despair sometimes. It may sometimes seem that we are forever worrying, learning lessons, suffering pain, and facing challenges. But we must try to remember that the fertilizer that helps us "grow" is in those valleys, not on the mountain tops.

During the times that we feel sad, lonely and confused, we will always end up wiser and we will grow more from the experiences. We will understand more about people and life, become more sensitive, and we'll be able to enjoy life more after we go through the hard times.

We have to experience sadness so that we may better measure joy. Life has a way of balancing the sorrow with the joy, the disappointments with the hope, and the emptiness with the meaning.

"Follow your heart" ~ it will lead you to where you will be happier ;)

Who Takes Charge of One's Life ~ The Individual (Himself) Or The Government?

Hey people, WAKE UP!

What has the government got to do with:
1. How you manage/lead your life
2. How you plan for your future
3. How you bring up your kids
4. How you treat your parents
5. How you eat, sleep, talk, or even shit.

Why do we need the government to set laws for us with regards to caring for our own parents? Every human is made up of flesh and blood, if these people doesn't have any common sense nor filial piety, perhaps somewhere down the road, during their development period, the emotional or sensorial part was never developed at all; that is why they now have no feelings and no sense.

By setting regulations for children to keep up maintenance for their parents, we are merely cleaning up the primary issues. The secondary issue here is: Every individual must understand their position as a child, as a human being. If we always have to rely on regulations to make one 'move', what is the difference in having a robotic-society?

Let's be fair and look at things from another angle.

Living standards, compared to our kampong days, have changed tremendously, not to mention the high cost in living. Our parents have been through the hardest time, they have painfully slogged to make ends meet and finally created a happy family of their own. Now they have aged, and we, their children, are faced with the high cost of living, trying to make ends meet, and also it is our turn to try create our happy family. Thirty or forty years back, it is fine when parents feed their parents with simple meal like congee and salted vegetables or salted fish. Now, if one were to feed their parents with the same food, I believe sarcasm remarks will come flooding in within seconds or maybe parents will start complaining (they may have forgotten that their parents never complain then).

Look ~ society change, people change, expectations change. So who is right or who is wrong?

The cost of private nursing homes can come up to an average of ~1.5k per month. Government nursing homes do provide subsidies for patients and levels of subsidy depending on patient's family total income. Most children sent their parents to nursing homes because:
1. their parents are unwell and requires consistent medical attention,
2. no one is available to look after their elderly when all is at work, etc.

Everything is about $ now.

Agree, if you say, what the elderly need is just that little care and concern from their children.
But what about those who expects more and the children are unable to live up to their expectations?

Who doesn't want to lead a carefree life (like the kampong days), when the whole family sleeps under the same roof, eat simple meals and laugh over the smallest jokes, when one doesn't have to worry on the high living cost, when one cup of kopi cost just 15cents.

Since time has changed, perhaps it is also time to re-educate people's minds? Rather than depending on our children for our future maintenance, perhaps we should learn to depend on ourselves, and strip off this unnecessary burden off our children's shoulder.

We decide to have children as they bring joy and happiness to our family, not so that we will be taken care of when we aged. It is not the responsibility of our children to take care of us; the responsibility lies with our partner (husband/wife) or ourselves. Our children will have their own responsibilities they have to take care of when their time comes; i.e. when they in turn set up their own family.

Filial Piety, is greatly emphasized in our Chinese Culture. It should be performed willingly from the heart of a person, rather than being forced to.

Eventually, one have to show filial piety towards their parents, before they can expect their own children to show the same to them.

It is one's own call; not the government's, to pass down the notion of filial piety.
Learn to take charge of your own life now and live it to the fullest.
Let the children decide what they think is best for their parents, because, they should know best!

May all be blessed!

Minds Become Curious When...

'Curiosity is an emotion related to natural inquisitive behaviour such as exploration, investigation, and learning, evident by observation in human and many animal species. The term can also be used to denote the behavior itself being caused by the emotion of curiosity. As this emotion represents a drive to know new things, curiosity is the fuel of science and all other disciplines of human study...it is generally curiosity that makes a human being want to become an expert in a field of knowledge.'

If there is no cause, there will be no issues, hence no curious minds.

When information is fed to a human brain, it allows one to think, dream, reason and experience emotions; leading on to one's curiosity (into wanting to know more about what lies beneath the end-result).

Hence, one should not feed information (from the beginning) if he feels that it does not concern any. As once the mind becomes curious, it is not the fault of the curiosity mind, but the mistake of the feeder.

On the other hand, if information has been fed (from the beginning), the feeder thus becomes responsible for arousing the curious minds, and therefore it is his duty to satisfy the curious minds.

As feeders, we ensure that our information is genuine and prepare ourselves with answers for any doubtful minds. If one merely cast the doubtful minds into the category of curiosity, because he suddenly feels that the end-result now is no longer the concern of those in doubts, eventually, he not only loses the trust of his once-believers, but also his integrity as a human being.

"It is better to think twice before feeding any information, as once minds are aroused, curiosity sets in and when doubts are left unanswered, trust will be lost."

What's The Point of Worrying When Decision Has Been Set?

Is there really a need to worry NOW, when the IRs are already surfacing before our eyes.

It is true that (addictive) gamblers not only caused miseries to their family, they also distraught their own lives.

(Addictive) Gambling may lead to social issues when gamblers:
- turn to loansharks for money;
- become violence to family members for money;
- neglect family needs;
- resort to stealing, etc..

Gamblers indeed are bad examples for youngsters, as well as very young children who are in their growing stage: 'What they see is what they learn".

With everyone else Q-ing at islandwide Singapore pools for 4D, Toto, Big Sweep, Horse-Racing, Soccer, and F1 Races on every Mon, Wed, Thu, Sat and Sun, can one not pick up gambling easily?

Even in schools, we hear children saying: I dare you to.... ~ this is also a sign of betting which may lead to gambling in their later stage.

Even if we set a minimal fee for those entering the casinos or even if one is restricted to enter due to family's objection, will the problem be solved? People can still travel to other countries or to 'gambling cruises' to satisfy their gambling urge. There are also 'underground' gambling dens islandwide in our own country (and all over the world). With all these 'conveniences', don't you think our worries are very unnecessary??

How many of us, when engrossed in a certain 'interest', heeds the advice of another? Not unless we get the 'wake-up' call ourselves. Not unless we become the 'victim' ourselves. Most importantly, not unless we ourselves 'decide to put a stop to whatever we have engaged in'.

We can go around telling people how 'bad' gambling is - a hundred times, a thousand times. If they do not think likewise, even a billion times of saying deems useless.

Every individual has to be accountable for and be aware of all consequences arising from their decisions and behaviour. For those with children in their learning-stages, be prepared that one day, your child may either grow to be exactly like you or even 'better' than you.

Ultimately, it is your own choice - to make your life for better or for worst.

Keyhole Surgery 'Not Suitable for all'???

At times I wonder if updates on certain issues relating to medical fields come a little too late.
Information on the various surgical procedures should be at the finger-tips of specialists or medical departments; whether or not the chosen procedure is suitable for their patients. The 'Keyhole-Surgery' is not new. Why is it that only until yesterday that such important information is released to the public? I believe way before this was publicize, hundreds or even thousands of patients (with different diagnosis) have undergone the keyhole-surgery. And I also believe that many who underwent this surgery does not even have the basic knowledge about the procedure and whether or not it is suitable for their then diagnosed condition.

Many of us are ignorant, when it comes to surgical procedures. We trust that doctors knows best. Hence most of the time, patients, as well as their immediate family members, leave it to their doctors to decide on which surgery is best for the patient. Some of us would have taken a step further to do our research on the proposed method before committing to any surgery, either for themselves or for their loved ones. But then again, if the doctors have recommended option 1, would one not think that the 'doctor knows best'?

Take for example, if an immediate family member has doubts on the Doctor's recommended procedure for their elderly parent, do you think it would be easy for the family member to convince their parent that 'perhaps another type of method is more appropriate for you'. Between a qualified doctor and one with no medical knowledge - whom would the elderly choose to believe in?

If articles on such medical-related were published soon after the emergence of such methods, wouldn't it have given many a rough idea and assist in their decision-making on the type of procedure suitable for them (when the time comes)?

I am saddened by the late publicity of the 'keyhole-surgery' article because 2 years back, my mom, diagnosed with 4th-stage colon cancer, with a lump (considered BIG), was recommended the key-hole surgery. I did seek 2nd opinion from another colon-specialist, and was advised that the normal open-up surgery was more appropriate (considering the lump size). I wasn't able to convince my mom because 'Doctor knows best', and furthermore she was assured of a faster recovery, plus lesser pain. As family-members, we also do not want her to go through too much pain either.

IF this article were published long time before, citing that key-hole surgery is not suitable for all condition and that patients with lumps considering 'big', should go for the norm procedure, things may have changed then. My mom would not have to go through FOUR surgeries within a short period of 6months, with the last one ending her life journey. Few days after her key-hole surgery, she came down with complications and had to undergo the norm 'open-up' procedure. IF the 'open-up' procedure was used from the very start, wouldn't she be spared of one surgery and spared from those one-after-another complications which set in concurrently.

Do I agree with 'Doctors knows best' - not anymore.

What I believe:
Every surgery, minor or major, stresses a patient's body and brings the patient's immunity to the lowest level, to a certain extent.

Perhaps 2 doctors should be allocated to patients requiring to undergo all major surgeries; at least the life of a patient does not lies in the hands of just ONE doctor.

Is it very necessary for a patient, diagnosed with cancer and a lump, to undergo the 'knife' OR is it just the norm???

H1N1: Tamiflu - How Do We Know If It Really Works (for ALL)?

H1N1; first identified in April 2009 (commonly called "Swine flu"), launched a a surprise attack on human life in early June 2009. Since then, the virus has spread globally, leading to tremendous increase in the numbers infected, as well as fatal deaths.

The virus typically spreads from coughs and sneezes or by touching contaminated surfaces and then touching the nose or mouth. Symptoms, which can last up to a week, are similar to those of seasonal flu, and may include fever, sneezes, sore throat, coughs, headache, and muscle or joint pains.

Tamiflu - the prescribed drug for H1N1, has been used globally to treat patients diagnosed with the influenza virus. (link on Factsheet Tamiflu: http://www.roche.com/med_mbtamiflu05e.pdf)

While worldwide researchers are currently 'on their heels' in trying to produce a vaccine to contain this virus, the health sector (in most countries) are having theirs hands 'full' with the increasing numbers of infected patients.

Having following the news updates regularly and noting the increased number of fatalities, I began to wonder and worry: If Tamiflu really works (for ALL).

Intially, deaths were mostly linked with patients with underlying health problems. Gradually, deaths occured even for patients with no known medical history.

Acceptable - when we were told that those (dead) with underlying health problems are at a high risk when down with the virus. How about those without then? As there is no vaccine as yet, I presume that all patients (non-critical or critical) down with the H1N1 virus were treated with the one-and-only, Tamiflu.

If the prescribed drug is meant to 'curb' the virus, why does fatality include those with no known medical history? Are we going to put it that their immunity is low?? Just exactly what are the treatments administered for those in critical conditions, those in ICU and how do we justify 'If It Really Works'.