Whining boys?

right. i really can't take this bullshit anymore. there's this article in today's papers: Philip Yeo's 'whiner and wimp remark whips up howls of protest.

and there's this girl (Ms Chng Zhengzhi) who pretty as she is, who made some horribly idiotic statements. she said that "It's quite obvious that female scholars are more aggressive, Type-A go-getters types, while the males are more soft-spoken and tend to be bullied by females." and then she goes on to say that "Once they enter NS, they complain a lot." and she concludes with "The female scholars I hang out with - we know that getting a scholarship is not an entitlement but a privilege. People start complaining when they don't understand that it's a privilege - that they don't automatically deserve a scholarship."

A whole load of rubbish (i actually had half the mind of using stronger language... but i decided against it...).

Can Ms Chng prove scientifically and statistically that the female scholars are indeed more aggressive? or is she just basing it on her anecdoctal experience? cos i do know many many male scholars who are very aggressive and outspoken, who do not get bullied, not by females, not by anyone, even if that person happens to be Dr Andrew Chew. and i do know a helluva lot of girls, sholars and non-scholars, who are spineless airheads.

And about males complaining when they entre NS, perhaps Ms Chng (or anyone who has not done NS who would like to make such comments) would like to to go through the oh-so-enriching experience of NS. or more importantly of being forced to do something that you don't want to (i.e. being conscripted).

finally. i think that getting a scholarship IS an entitlement. insofar as it is the entitlement of the talented, of the creme de la creme, to be rewarded with the best forms of incentives (in this case a scholarship).

perhaps these males speak up because they really feel that there are somethings wrong with the system. and perhaps their whining whining today makes for better treatment of scholars and a better scholarship system tomorrow. perhaps girls don't speak up because they dare not or rather prefer to suffer in silence (and hence not contributing to improving the system).

also, what if only males break bonds? i would like to think that that means that the males are actually of better quality. so much so that they are offered much better prospects than what the scholarship can offer them. and these bond-breakers actually HAVE THE BALLS to seize the opportunities that come their way and rise up to their destiny. unlike some of the other scholars who would rather just take the safer path of just keeping to the scholarship that is given to them, slogging it out and hoping for a stellar rise through the civil service.

so perhaps the fact that only males break their bonds mean that only male scholars are given enticing offers by MNCs or world renowned institutions. and the females have NO CHOICE but to stay in Singapore and slog their guts out. or perhaps it means that the females DON'T HAVE THE BALLS to grab their own future cos it means having to break their bonds. talk about being a GO-GETTER. i think that breaking their bonds in order to get what they want is a great demonstration of how these male scholars are GO-GETTING.

and if these bond-breakers go to another country, work in some MNCs, make it big there then bring in these MNCs to Singapore, or if they break their bonds and do research in some world renowned institution and win a Nobel Prize and tell the whole world that they are Singaporeans and then bring their expertise and what they've learnt back to help our institutions become world renowned as well, wouldn't that still be contributing to our nation? shouldn't we be praising them for their entrepreneurial instincts than slamming them for lack of morals? isn't the latter a bit too myopic? yes, the scholarship board might have lost a scholar, but must Singapore lose a potentially outstanding citizen by our chastising them? should we not rather celebrate these people for their guts of going to get what they really truly want in their lives? and if we don't shame them, but rather let them go amicably, i believe that these people would come back to Singapore and serve Singapore better than if they were made to stay with their scholarship agency.

but to be fair. yes. we do need some of our bright minds to stay in Singapore, remain as civil servants, or work in our Stat boards. then let these scholarship boards find some way of enticing the best and brightest to stay. and not result to despicable means of shaming these talented people (and thus chasing them away from Singapore). and we must also be fair, there are still a lot of scholars who do come back and serve, because they know that that's where their calling is. our PM is a great example. and i do know of a few more recent scholars. but i don't think many poeple would know them yet. wait till they all become famous then say who they are.

anyways, back to the point. i think that Ms Chng has been most unfair in her statements, not unless she can produce some robust scientific evidence, with significant statistical correlation and strong causal link between gender and being a go-getter.

and of course, the press was really biased in that article. they only presented one person's (i.e. Ms Chng's) comments and made it sound like because ONE scholar agrees with Mr Yeo, therefore, the scholars themselves agree to Mr Yeo's assessment. why didn't the papers interview more scholars, get a few more opinions, find out what the scholars in A*Star are really like? perhaps a study of what the male scholars 'whine' about and how exactly do they 'whine' as well as whether or not the female scholars 'whine' would be useful.

one last thing that i'm wondering about. i wonder whether Dr Andrew Chew faces the same problems with his PSC scholars. are the male PSC scholars whiners as well? or is this a problem specific to the agencies that Mr Philip Yeo faces?

so. before we jump to conclusions about whether male scholars are more whiny and therefore boys in singapore are more whiny, stop and think about what 'whining' actually means. think about it from other angles.

i think Straits Times did a very bad job with this story. very disappointed.

Sigh.