Should scientific research be largely driven by commercial interests?

In 18th century Britain, an infectious disease, the smallpox virus, had taken the lives of many. Almost one in three who were infected were killed, while the rest were badly disfigured by the resultant scars left by the the infection. All that came to an end when a country doctor, Edward Jenner, created the first vaccine that was to rid the world of this disease. By the late twentieth, the smallpox has been extinct based on the World Health Organisation, but that again, Edward Jenner's gift to the world. After the discovery, he had refrained from patenting the vaccine as he feared that the cost of producing vaccines would be increased by his patent and the vaccine out of reach from the average person. Today, it would be unimaginable that any pharmaceutical conglomerate would squander millions on research and clinical trials just to leave out the opportunity to file patents and secure its revenue. Indeed, living in a world described as such, it is no wonder many lament that the pursuit of science has been commercialised at the expense of the welfare of society. However, to undermine the positive role of commercial institutions would be naive as we should also realise that all organisations exist to serve a purpose in society.

Some may argue that scientific research driven by commercial motives would make the products of scientific research too expensive for majority of society. There is some truth in the statement, as we frequently hear from opponents of certain fields of bioethics. Intellectual property rights that restrict the use of scientific discoveries and their associated products made in the corporate world have created monopolies that, given the freedom to make the most of their investments, have sold off their products at prices that more than cover for the cost of research and production of drugs, further widening the income gap by rewarding the rich with profits at the expense of the poor who are unable to obtain treatment. This was the basis when India disallowed the patenting of drugs in its domestic market, allow an Indian firm to produce generic drugs that have gone on to become the greatest supplier of drugs to fight HIV in poorer nations. While the move probably gained much support from the layman, this has removed the incentive for pharmaceutical corporations to invest in the research of drugs in India. If this had been done in more countries, it would be possible that corporations may no longer see any possible gain in researching into new drugs that would result in better cures, causing them to each wait for an opportunity to free ride on others efforts, which is especially notable in India where drug research is anemic, if even existent.

Opponents for profit driven scientific research also bring up the argument that profit motive degrades the moral values of researchers. History has shown us that it is not a far-fetched claim. Thomas Edison, known for his works in physics, most notably in the discovery of the direct current which brought electricity to households, was ruthless in his competition with George Westinghouse. Westinghouse's push for the alterating current threatened to rival and even take over his direct current supply lines as the dominant form of supplying electricity to households. This drove him to hold public campaigns on the dangers of the alternating current. Many would have heard of his famous experiment where he executed an elephant that had killed its carer, simply for the purpose of demonstrating the potential dangers of using his rival's works. These days, news of unethical practices in the research sector comes in the form of falsified research documents and experiments. These practices taken together are counter productive in the the pursuit of knowledge in the academic arena and are indeed a hindrance to the progress of science. However, many also fail to realise that in the business world, there is no place for incompetent work. Businesses eager to create new products and production methods are almost always open to scientific research that best suits their needs. In the example of Thomas Edison, Westinghouse's alternating current eventually became the staple for distribution of electricity due to its ability to transmit electricity across long distances to reach out to more households. Also, researchers who flaunt their falsified work are quickly discovered, just as the truth behind South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk's fraudulent experiments had been made know to the world soon after its release that had many crown him a great scientist of our times. In cutting edge times we live in today, we should never doubt the efficiency of the world to quickly sieve out the best solutions to our problems, as well as isolate and condemn those that threaten to halt our progress.

On the contrary, the ability of commercial organisations to increased rate of research has not been acknowledged enough. Corporations, with their great financial might, are able to command the wealth of societies and invest them into the development of new technologies and drugs. Corporate research and development efforts today account for over 70 percent of all research work done worldwide. Indeed, it is notable that militaries worldwide, with their push for more effective communication devices have been less successful than their counterparts in the corporate world, who have developed water resistant, dust-resistant and scratch proof phones more than capable of carrying out communication functions. Few can dispute that corporate research has been much too successful in this arena.

Also, the participation of commercial organisations ensures that scientific knowledge is turned into usable products. The pursuit of science by itself is only a process of gaining knowledge to catalogue the workings of the physical world. The business world, however, is more concerned with creating products to supply the need of society. After all, only products needed by society will be able to sustain corporations and bring in profits. By combining the two, we are able to ensure that the pursuit of knowledge is translated into progress in society when the knowledge gained by scientists are in turn used to build new objects with practical uses in society. For example, the understanding of the basis of cancer is a subject of research in many universities, as much as it is a widely researched field in corporate research. However, until now, not a single drug for treatment of cancer has originated from universities. This is because universities are institutions of learning and exploration of the frontiers of our understanding of the world but it does not play a role in, or have a responsibility to help solve the problems of mankind. Corporations, however, are sustained by the continued patronage of customers. This ties them in with the needs of the community and makes their work skewed towards the needs of the people. Thus commercial interests are not necessary for scientific research to take place, but it is almost always necessary for scientific research to benefit society.

Finally, commercial interests help in the democritisation of technologies. Few organisations in the world take on research and development roles. Other than universities and educational institutions, it could be argued that the only other organisation that undertakes scientific research at a large scale are governments, being one of the few organisations with the incentive and financial might to do so. However, unlike governments, commercial organisations help to spread technologies to more communities around the world in order to increase its profits. Many of us would be familiar with the development of military technologies by governments worldwide, especially in the field of unmanned aerial drones for surveillance. These technologies have played a crucial role in the wars against insurgents. However, their usage in civilian populations has not seen much of an increase despite rapid development of such technologies, and their possible applications in fields such as crowd surveillance by private security firms and land surveillance by investment firms. This is because countries that have developed these technologies feel that the technologies are strategic and should not be "leaked" to the public. Profit motive of corporations, however, would bring about the widespread use of any product from scientific research undertaken by corporations. This is because corporations are not bound by obligations to restrict their sales to interested individuals or organisations which are viewed as rivals, being protected by intellectual property rights. Hence, it is only when scientific research is driven by commercial interests that it would be truly possible for there to be widespread use of developed technologies.

To take all views into perspective, scientific research should be largely driven by commercial interests, but actively monitored by organisations accountable to the people. Commercial interests are crucial in guiding scientific research towards improving the lives of people and not simply be for the intellectual pursuits of scientists not accountable to the general population. However, as with all systems, corporations have their Achilles heel, which is their susceptibility to dishonest practices. This is why there is a need for them to be monitored. After all, in a world where more than half of the world's largest economies are transnational corporations, it would be easier to ride the wave of corporate expansion and tap on their plentiful resources rather than attempt to fight them.

Is the poor an inevitable feature in every society?

The dust has finally settled. Disgruntled men and women who rallied on the streets in demonstrations unseen in western societies in recent years have been displaced from news headlines as other conflicts like the territorial disputes in East Asia, and the aftermath of natural disasters on unprecedented scale hog the attention of the media and investors. But we should not stop pondering about the rich poor divide that has segregated nations of peace loving people and thrown societies into chaos. Have the poor really been compromised on certain grounds that should warrant a makeover in the way we run the capitalist free society? Indeed, it has brought about problems that stem from the inequity supported by this system, but in my opinion, there are few other ways to promote efficient societies that bring us the material standard of living that has lifted the masses out of abject poverty that was the characteristic of the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Income inequity does bring about problems. Income inequity has the potential to destabilise societies, putting the economic engine to a halt. When faced with great income inequity, workers who take a smaller share of the economic pie often lose their productivity by taking part in strikes call for by labour unions, be it the white protesters in Wall Street or the blue collar workers in the Foxconn plant in China. Most modern economies are built on the assumption that welfare of people in society should be supported by a basic level of material wealth that promises to relief them of problems like malnutrition, sickness and exposure to the elements of mother nature. This is the most basic goal of most governments even though it is never written in any charter or constitution. All that is threatened when the state of the economy is thrown into a standstill by the unhappiness of men and women who feel the have been left behind by the affluent high society.

Also, income inequity can translate into a setback to the aim for equality among men. For ages, men of great financial clout have been able to bend the will of fellow men, to subject groups of people to their control and to force those around them into submission. That is why the French Revolution was founded upon the principles of "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity", to reverse the grossly imbalanced world that had lasted through centuries. Today, that revolution is being reversed by the ridiculous inequity that exists in capitalist societies. The free market was never a place for equality. In the free market, businesses follow the lead of the "money vote", of which each man holds unequal amounts of depending on their purchasing power. Even political systems have become slaves to money. In the super PAC of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson - the CEO of a major player in the global gaming industry - had donated a stunning USD 36 million, and was quoted saying "I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing politics, but as long as it's doable, I'm going to do it". It seems even democratic systems that had hoped to represent the voices of most if not all citizens equally through a system of "one man, one vote" had failed to rid itself of the influences of the wealthy.

However, we should also realise that inequality is an important driving force for progress in society. In capitalist societies, inequality arises because individuals are paid differently depending on their ability to carry out tasks assigned to them as well as the number of tasks they are willing to devote their time to completing. Such tasks usually aim to create value in society, as individuals work as an integral part of a firm that supplies society with the goods and services that improve the lives of people. But without an incentive, few individuals would probably have chosen to work less or give up on working as not all share this inspired vision. Inequality of income gives people the reason to work harder to achieve a better life, depending on their goals. By promising a greater share of the country or organisation's financial gains, people are motivated to work harder than their peers as they realise that society recognises their additional contribution and rewards them proportionally.

Also, job prospects are different for every job, and the nature of jobs themselves vary. In occupations that demand high level of skills or intelligence, high salaries are given to attract people to undergo the necessary training and to enter the field. For example, the training process of a doctor is notoriously long, spanning at least 5 years at a university. Some jobs also require talented individuals due to the large impacts of their decisions. In a study where CEOs were followed and their daily decisions studied, it was found that an average CEO makes 120 decisions a week of which around 50% are done within 9 minutes.This represents a tremendous strain on the concentration and analytical capabilities of individuals in such posts, where they have to make possibly multi-million dollar decisions within time constraints dealt to them by the large number of problems competing for their attention. Without the possibility of making up for the losses involved in terms of taking up a less taxing job or spending the lengthy training time on leisure activities or on an alternative career, few would be willing to devote themselves to these jobs.

To put all views into context, the poor is indeed an inevitable feature in society, if poor is to be defined in relative terms with their counterparts of the same day and age. It is impossible and even dangerous to imagine a world where everyone enjoys the same material wealth in spite of differences in their contribution to society. At the same time, it would foolish to think that high income inequality can be sustained in the age of the individual, where people are more vocal about their personal needs and wants. To walk the fine line between both is perhaps the eternal challenge of developed nations. But more importantly, while it may be true that sentiments against the rich in the countries mentioned are worthy of our attention, we should also remember that these same protesters are probably enjoying a much higher material standard living than our predecessors. After all, the industrial revolution had done so much to lift humanity out of poverty that even with the inequality that exists, the poorest of today might well be richer than some of the richer individuals of the past. In that aspect, all of us in the developed world are the same.

Is history anything more than the study of warfare?

If one were to ask the man on the street about historical events, many would probably build on their knowledge of the wars fought in the past. Indeed, warfare is one of the few events that span the history of all cultures, and more often than not, one that is remembered and discussed by individuals in the years after the  warriors who waged it have passed on. Yet it would be foolish to simply think of history as the study of warfare alone. History is the attempt by man to record the events of a generation to preserve it in our cultures so that those who come after us would be able to relive our times through the lenses of historians. History at its best is the story of the progression of mankind from simple existences shaped by nature's will to the sophisticated beings who have learnt to change the world around us. It is the collection of such revolutionary events that forms what we now know as history.

The history of mankind is one of his triumph over more than himself. History shows us how mankind has learnt repeatedly over the centuries about pandemics, from the black death plague that wiped out more than 30% of the population of 14th century Europe to the 1918 flu pandemic that killed between 20 to 50 million people. These catastrophic events have shaped the world in profound ways, teaching mankind lessons that served as guidelines for the generations that came after. For example, it was not until the peak of the 1918 flu pandemic that medical practitioners realised that the flu virus was spread via droplets of body fluid inhaled by individuals near a patient. Prior to that, masks worn by physicians had only covered their mouths but not their noses, rendering them vulnerable to the disease. By studying history teaches us to review the events and the knowledge that our forefathers had sacrificed their lives to learn as they soldiered on to adapt to the fickle mood of mother nature.

History is also a study of the cultures of the world. More often than not, it is the events of the past that shape the mindsets of conservative member in society, who make up the bulk of many societies even in the western world that most consider to be modern and liberal in embracing new age thoughts on alternative lifestyles, innovation and immigration. The conflict between Israel and the Arab states may be a relatively recent conflict, but its roots in religion is not. The competition of opposing forces to gain control of Jerusalem had been an ancient conflict that runs back to medieval times, into the crusades, and into the rise of Islam and Christianity. In and East Asia, the powerful thoughts of Chinese philosopher Confucius still defines social norms such as the young taking care of their retired elders. Around the world, it could be argued that almost every region works on a patriarchal society because the social norms had become part of society since the invention of agriculture which put women out of their roles as gatherers and effectively made men the providers of the family. If we are to explain the trends of today few would argue that the best place to begin searching from is the very texts that describe our humble beginnings.

History is also a source of inspiration for individuals and states. Nation states with a rich history are known to tap into their wealth of historical achievements to forge a national identity and establish the a sense of national pride that unites the nation. It is understandable that if history was to serve as a reference for our cultures, it would also reflect the common ancestry shared by majority of the people in nations due to the geographical limitations to immigration until recent times. At the individual level, the use of characters displaying heroic qualities have often been used as a motivation for people in sectors like the military, governance and healthcare. 

Finally, the study of history is the study of human nature. History, through its collection of stories on characters and organisations, reveals to us the way people think and act. The study of warfare mentioned previously is but a portion of this. The study of warfare shows us how conflicts arise from the contrasting views and conflicting interests of different civilisations and nations. It has shed light on the rational and irrational behaviours of people that have lead to changes in society. The Taiping revolution in Qing dynasty China, an example of warfare, would be an example of how irrational behaviours have fuel conflicts that had such a profound impact that a page in history had been specially dedicated to it, while the intricate twists and turns of strategies employed in warfare the epitome of the potential of the human mind. It is no wonder that students who study history are taught about conflicts and their resolutions (if any has been reached), for history is the very embodiment of what the humanities aim to do: to reveal to us more about ourselves.

Thus, the study of history is not merely about warfare. Warfare is but a rich source for us to understand and extract lessons to apply to our current contexts. Warfare is only studied in history because we have understood that history is about the developments that have shaped the world of man that we see today, and wars are arguably the strongest forces that have pushed us to the pinnacle of all organisms, forcing us to innovate and create in order to best our opponents and promote development of our societies. History by itself is more subtle, yet more profound. It is the collection of all that has made the world what it is today.

Adverse selection and the Civil Service

As the USA inches its way out of its financial meltdown, further crippled by the Eurozone debt crisis, the finance sector that once fed its staff with million dollar bonuses seems to be the last place people are hoping for a piece of the economic pie. Instead, many have started considering having stable jobs as opposed to high paying "hire-and-fire" jobs that give workers sleepless nights filled with the unease and fear from being put out of the jobs they loathe dragging themselves to on Monday mornings. With the exception of high salaries, the public service has become one of the most desirable workplaces, especially in the battered Eurozone. Youths in Spain now see the public service as a great place to work because or decent albeit stagnant pay, and little fear of being laid off. This is what I would like to voice my opinion on in this blog post.

The civil service is the organisation that manages the very issues that affect the lives of all who are related to the nation in one way or the other. The movement of capital, of corporations, and people depend on the policies they enact and the performance of each ministry. Competent leaders are able to set the path that a nation should pursue in order to best satisfy the material and spiritual needs and wants of its citizens and residents. That is why the need for the brightest minds to run nations is ever present.

That need is not being satisfied today. The civil service is increasingly being seen as a sanctuary for incompetent men and women who would not survive in the wilderness of the corporate world. In Greece, where unemployment rate among youths is notoriously high, many youths have expressed interest in the civil service for reasons such as job stability. Meanwhile, competent minds who are confident of their prospects in the corporate world which offers incredible paychecks and bonuses see a future in the civil service as a cap on their potential to achieve their definition of success, the most famous of measurements being the "5 Cs". Combining these 2, we should be expecting a brain drain from the civil service to the corporate world. How then, are we supposed to expect nations to continue being efficient when those with the potential to empower nations have been lost to the new nations of the 21st century, the multinational corporations that now fill up more than half of the list of the world's largest economies.

There is no silver bullet for reversing this trend. In fact, I do not think there is a solution at all. There have been nations that tried innovative ways throughout the course of history. In ancient China, it was preached to one and all that scholars, who more often than not work in the courts or civil servants, were at the top of the hierarchy. In many nations, entering politics is seen as a way to gain attention. In Singapore, the Public Service Commission Scholarships and other government scholarships are given out to the best students who share the inspired vision of the nation's leaders. This is done in hopes that students would be assimilated into the public service before corporations offering the excesses of the material world begin their race to arm themselves with the best human capital to ride out the shocks that define our volatile global economic climate today.

These have produced both failures and successes that have highlighted the imperfections they all possess. In ancient China, corruption was widespread as civil servants succumbed to their greed, which the government failed to satisfy unlike the business world. Some democratic nations have produced governors who failed to deliver promises because they were selected in a system that made politicians, rather than policies the centre of attraction (which is the reason why some politicians even decided to join politics). In Singapore, the high profile cases of civil servants being involved in scandals involving money (recall the NParks purchase of foldable bicycles) and lust (former PSC scholars in the Civil Defence force) serve as a reminder that even systems incorporating strong incentives and disincentives cannot cover all grounds.

Still, I believe the Singapore system has best achieved its objectives. Combining incentives of high income and scholarships to snap up the best minds, it has created a system in which the most capable desire to serve the nations albeit for possibly twisted reasons. But the outcome has been relatively positive in certain areas. Economic growth has been robust over the years, and Singapore was rated the most dynamic economy in Newsweek in 2010. However, on social issues, a better means of selecting capable men should be considered, seeing as the issues involved are starkly different from those handled by technocrats of the corporate world.

Modern day democracy: an over rated system?

The year 2012 is an important year for many countries. This year, numerous countries will be holding their elections and already, we have seen much turmoil in countries France and Greece as voters have "punished" their leaders for implementing austerity measures against the will of the people. As we step into the "season" of elections, it is worthy to note about the impact that the widespread adoption of democracy as a political system has on our world, and perhaps, more importantly, to re-evaluate the effectiveness of democratic systems in governing societies to ensure the welfare of individuals. Like every system, democracy is not without its flaws. The reason why authorities were created to maintain peace over dynasties and kingdoms of the past and countries of the present was because a society composed of individuals, without a powerful figure to provide an overarching direction, will end up in as much dispute and instability as the Euro zone of today, where sovereign countries pursue their own goals without considering the needs of other parties since they are not bound by anything other than their status as a zone using a common currency. Is democracy really worth the efforts of all the revolts of the Arab spring in the end? Surely no one will know at this point in time, but by studying the trends in other countries, it is not difficult to realise that democracy is a much over rated system, though it does have its strengths.

Democracy, for one, is a system where there is no hierarchy. Like the rule of law, it is a system where every individual is empowered, where economic and political clout hold less (though arguably not zero) influences on the system. Under democracy of today's world, every person in a country is entitled to one vote. This reduces the direct influence of an individual on the outcome of votes as the average man on the streets has the same number of votes as those who have amassed assets possibly many times that of the former. Democracy promotes the fact that every individual has equal rights despite differences in socioeconomic background, which is a stark contrast to the system of capitalism where the "dollar vote" is skewed towards the rich, or the communist and authoritarian regimes where decisions are the reflection of the will of the ruling elite in society. This allows fairness and justice to be upheld as no individual can twist the country's policies in his or her favour, and all laws and policies are true reflections of the public's needs and values.

Secondly, democracy allows peaceful change over of power. In the recent years, we have seen how much bloodshed it would take to remove governments that do not function under a democratic system, as the Arab Spring swept across Northern Africa and the Arabian peninsula. In the past, the dawn of new dynasties have always been accompanied by revolutions to topple inefficient rulers. With democracy, much of this is avoided as voters can simply reject government policies through referendums to signal to their governments that they do not approve of the current method of governance. During elections, incompetent leaders can also be removed from their political duties through the collective power of voters as we have seen in Japan after the devastating Tsunami last year, without the need for a bloodstained revolution to occur.

Thirdly, democracy introduces competition into the political system. As we study the turmoil of the Arab world, we realise that much of the inefficiencies in the government exist because there were no checks and balances to regulate the government. Like a monopoly, a system that does not follow democracy would have a government which eventually grows complacent because governors assume that they rule the country because they deserved to be part of the government. This is best evidenced by how rampant corruption is in China and the Arab states before the revolution, where lavish lifestyles of officials funded by public taxes are not uncommon. In democracy, however, governments have to aim to be efficient and work in the best interest of the people lest they lose their place in the government. In the end, it takes a constant threat to keep people on their feet, and governments are no exception.

Finally, it can be argued that if governments are working towards to good of the people, then the general public should have a say in governance. While it would be too laborious a process for every single citizen to be consulted when policies are being drafted, the election of representative voices into the parliament gives citizens a say on the matter through their elected rulers. These voices in the government, can be said to best represent the people, being the one who has won the hearts and trust of the majority with ideals that coincide with the majority. Of course, there remains some who will be under represented since no candidate really clinches all the votes in an election, but it is still the best outcome given the variations in the values of individuals in society.

However, democracy is not fool proof. In fact, it is so susceptible to failure despite it being able to achieve all that mentioned above. While democracy represents the rights of all individuals to vote, it does not empower minority groups in governments. This is otherwise known as "tyranny of the majority", where decisions made marginalise the minority in the pursuit of the satisfaction of the majority. The continued strife for minority rights is most evident in countries like Sri Lanka (Tamils and Sinhalese), southwest Europe (Muslim immigrants and native Catholics) and Northern Ireland (Catholics and Protestants). While the welfare of society can be "maximised" by pleasing the majority, we cannot say that justice can be served even as society experiences this "maximum welfare", as the needs, desires and values of the majority infringe on the rights of minority groups whose practices are often highly accepted in other societies.

Also, democracy makes the assumption that people know what is best for them. This might not be so as individuals in society may be too short sighted to see the long term gains of policies that require sacrifices on the current enjoyment of individuals. For example, in Singapore, the use of the Electronic Road Pricing and high prices of the Certificate of Entitlement has caused much unhappiness among motorists. However, the general reduction in traffic congestion is not recognised by the public. It has been shown that car ownership in most developed cities eventually dip as motorists become frustrated over traffic jams that make private transport inefficient, but for this phenomenon to take effect, great environmental damages will have to first occur as jams spew tons of greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere and tons of fossil fuels are burnt. The government, recognising this trend, aided in the transition through the highly unpopular policies. In Europe, we see something worse being played out, as political parties supporting austerity measures are ousted from the political scene. The citizens of these European nations reject austerity measures even though it is the most direct method of saving their debt riddled countries simply because they are too myopic to see the long term gains.

There is also the assumption that elected politicians will strife for the best interest of the people. But is that always the case? In the recent years, much of American policy making has been slowed down but opposition to bills that are eventually passed when much pressure is applied. This is because the current system of party politics creates an environment that tempts politicians to oppose simply because they are from the opposition, and in fact, get rewarded with praises not for fine tuning policies but for rejecting them without offering better alternatives. This is why the Chinese government has been able to keep up the rapid rate of modernisation and economic growth, because policy making in China is accelerated by the single party system that has no opposition to stall progress, but many technocrats that modify and fine tune policies.

Finally, there is the risk of pork barrel politics. If campaigning is going to be a stage preceding elections, then funds will definitely be needed for politicians to become governors. This translates to an opportunity for large corporations to use their economic clout to influence policies, but supporting candidates during elections in return for favourable policies after candidates have been elected. As Sheldon Adelson aptly put it when he announced that he may donate to Newt Gingrich's campaign, "I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections, but as long as it's doable I'm going to do it." In the end, it seems the fairness promised by democracy is not free from the clutches of those with the excesses of the world.

Democracy is definitely a system that has much improvement to increase the welfare of the people. However, we must note that in today's globalised world where countries are becoming increasingly diverse, few policies are able to please everyone and at times it takes good judgement by the government to understand where the people should compromise on their enjoyment for the benefit of all in future. Perhaps, with education of the public in subjects like economics, humanities and politics, it would be possible for citizens to better understand government policies and accept previously politically unacceptable policies that require compromise ranging from minority issues to economic policies so long as the policies are made in the public's best interest.

An overview of the education system

(As a starting post for the year, this post will be rather poorly structured, so do bear with me if the structure puts you off a little.)

Education has always been a hallmark of civil society. In imperial China, scholars participated in national examinations in the capital to be selected for positions in the government. The use of public schools was first seen in the Roman empire. Today, it has been hailed as a tool for social mobility, and a miniature society that prepares young minds for the rigours of adulthood. There is so much in education to discuss that all I can do is to give a mere overview, with my own personal opinion inserted within. This shall be my post of today. A personal view of the education system.

Education was first created as a method of spreading thoughts and ideas. The term "college" actually meant a gathering of intellectuals to discuss issues in depths that can only be reached by the most brilliant of minds. In the past, great thinkers used education as a means to spread ideas. Confucius used education to teach the masses about the way to live. Then came the use of education as a selection tool, as seen in today's world and in the ancient Chinese system. 

However, today, it seems that education has lost its purpose of empowering people through the availability of information. After all, with the world wide web and the exponential increase in computing speed and internet access, information is available to all, just a few keystrokes and the tap of a mouse button. Rather, education has become hijacked by corporations and industrialists to churn out competent young minds to feed the insatiable hunger of firms that seek to harness the youthful minds for growing capital and increasing production. It is no wonder that in many countries, like South Korea, students are crammed with hours in school followed by even longer study times in "cram schools", all because a good degree has become the greatest, if not the only determining factor of many youths' careers.

Also, in recent years, much attention has gone to the use of rote memory in the education system. It is generally know that Asians spend much time at their study desks memorising facts and practicing mathematical sums compared to their Western counterparts, who see this as counterproductive in promoting innovation, which has been the way forward for mankind since time immemorial. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an Ivy League college in the US, has even uploaded all of its lectures onto youtube because they value the innovative thought process cultivated in the institution rather than the contents that will still be available to everyone else through online means anyway.  

However, in my humble opinion, while the thought process is indeed important, we should not forget that thoughts should be grounded in the facts that are already present. When people speak of thinking out of the box, we should remember that students will only be capable of that when they actually have a well defined "box" that shows them the boundaries of technology in their time, and those of the time before them. It is my believe that only through the synthesis of our current knowledge and a thinking mind can we advance our understanding of the world around us. After all, how can one seek to break through the boundaries of our current knowledge when he or she has not even grasp knowledge itself?

The Asian system, though a system that strips the individual of the freedom to work as hard as he sees to be worth, does have its merits. This form of education prepares the individual for working life as it trains the young to work on assigned tasks for prolonged periods of time. This confers upon the individual the opportunity to reach his or her potential as they are able to focus on tasks through the years of "drilling" that has been a characteristics of their lives, other than a deprived childhood. Bill Gates once mentioned that on a ceremony to award and recognise individuals who have contributed to developments in Microsoft, he was only able to read one name out of the whole list of award recipients. What he meant was that Westerners were no longer the engine behind the developments of this world as they were in the old days. It was also recently reported that India now has the second largest number of people working as top corporate executives, just after the USA. In the end, there are few substitutes that are able to mimic adult life in the student context better than this tough system. 

Finally, I had come across an article that mentioned about the role of education in driving innovation. It raised the example of the founder of Paypal, who had made it big after he failed to secure himself a promotion in the Law sector. The article had mentioned that the education system of today trains people to compete rather than innovate. Though I do not have significant examples to prove this point, I do, however, feel that education is not the direct cause of this. Promoting competition does bring benefits as well. In economics, it is widely touted that competitive environments are the driving forces behind markets that provide goods of the best quality at the lowest cost. Even with the use of rote memory and repetitive drilling of concepts, the number of patents in the world is increasing even as we speak. In Japan, which is equally notorious for its cram schools is giving out more patents than it has in any other year. China has also seen an increase in the amount of new knowledge generated by its people. South Korea, evidenced by its strong automobile and electronics manufacturers, is a place where innovation is flourishing and in some cases, producing products that have outsmart their Western counterparts who continue to push for promoting innovation through education.

Today's education systems do have their strength and weaknesses but it is worth noting that as a one-size-fits-all approach, few other systems will have produced as good an outcome as the system of rote repetition and memorising that is but a characteristic of many education systems, even more so for Asian countries. As Asia begins to gain the global spotlight, perhaps, it is time we realise that this education system has indeed within it the potential to prepare the youths of today for the challenges of tomorrow by arming them with the box not to confine themselves with, but to show them the boundaries so they realise where their conquest really begins.