CLAUD

Saturday, April 10, 2010

To Lose and To Have Lost

What is it to Lose? What is to to have Lost?

We often link 'the lack of mental dexterity as an indication in a lack of character and value'. We hold stereotypes that if a person who has failed in an exam, necessarily JUST fails to put in enough effort, or worse still, is not smart enough.

I am some sort of a hypocrite to speak of this issue, because I truly have benefited from the system. However, that does not mean I turn my nose away from friends who did not. The cases I have met since primary school, gave me more than enough grievance that we must do something - and fast.

1) I once have a primary school mate who was superb at language. All she ever wanted to do, was to focus on Chinese and to do well. She always scored in Chinese exams, could read Chinese text beyond her age. She was marvelous and in a way, was in line with MOE's trajectory of increasing standards of mother tongue. Unfortunately, she did not like any other subjects that she was doing. In a sense, how would science appeal to her if she was a language-driven student? She dropped out of secondary school, and the system has betrayed her ever since.

2) I have friends in secondary school who knew more about managing politics than math. I didn't, and paid dearly for it. On the other hand of the spectrum, I have friends that studied so hard, but did not do well. They were subsequently labelled as 'losers'. They have lost, they are also seen as losers.

3) In JC, I have a friend confess to me that she finds no meaning in learning what she was learning. She did not do well, but it was not lack of effort. One thing that she was good at, was in GP. She could write - very well. She flunked her A's. In the eyes of the system, she has lost out to 'other' students. She went into nursing, and she excelled - I think she has found her aim and that whatever she was studying, had a purpose. Maybe that was the only purpose she needs.

4) Another friend in JC was average in her studies. She always tried her best, but somehow it was always lacking in the grades. But she has the heart of gold. She volunteers her time and heart to the diadvantaged. Never squirming from the lower-end jobs of helping children, elderly and the like. Who can say the same?

5) I have another friend who has artistic abilities which I have never seen before. She was poor, and could not afford a specialised education she wanted. However, she had a chance to take art in JC. She excelled. But not everything else. Since then, she has been scrapping to make ends meet for her brother and mother.

6) A friend told me that there's a girl who can go to any university she wanted, but she chose to stay in Singapore to study. She was rich enough to afford it all, but she chose to afford nothing.

7) There's a girl who made to the national team for karate at age 19. The youngest ever to make it that far. She was also the only student to date in my school to get 39/40 for chinese composition. She broke her arm in a training accident and got booted from the team. Her fabulous poems and essays were not enough to bring her through A'levels. She has been treated for mental disorders ever since.

8) I was accepted into Imperial College to read Geology. I received a partial grant from Lee Foundation but never went. I didn't have the money, neither could I have gone because of my mum's stroke which almost killed her.

No one chooses to lose when they can easily win. So if a person doesn't do well in academia, is it because they are losers?

I choose to believe that they have lost yes, but in circumstances beyond them. The social class they were born in, their gender (and the roles accompanying it), the family situation...there are so many things left to chance of which we cannot control.

I respect people who made it out of adversity not to glamourise the pain they went through - but to celebrate the fact that they have succeeded despite it all, and have also helped others along the way.

The musical Wicked tells us a lot about losing. It is not that the Wicked Witch of the West is a loser by being evil, but she has lost because she was not accepted in a society that places emphasis on looking good than on things that truly matter: friendship, love and truth. Musicals are the modern interpretation of greek Tragedies. They teach us losing is sometimes beyond human control. Because we have believed since the Enlightenment (17-18th century intellectual movement) that man is in the centre of our fate: consequently, any winning or losing is also entirely up to us.

Is it always true?

I don't propagate the notion that if you did not do well, it's all because of 'fate'. If one excuses oneself from success, then you truly deserve the name loser. Rather, I want to highlight the fact that losing, and winning, is not about personal justification. You can win, but winning doesn't justify everything about a person.

Those who have the ability to help, do not do so because they don't see the pain and turmoil. Those who want to help, do not have the ability and resources to do so.

It's time we reconcile the two.

_______________________________

Inspired by Alain de Bottom and the forum posts in SC2204 =)

If you are interested which musicals that highlight tragedy, they are...

Wicked, Les Miserables, Aida, Phantom of the Opera, Les Cage Aux Folles, West Side Story and Miss Saigon

12:28