Reflective Journal 2

Both the Chinese and Western perceptions of oneself have affected my life greatly. The Chinese perceives that one should abide to the social hierarchy of the society, whereby the individual listens to his father and others of the higher authority than himself, and respect these people. In my life, I have been always respectful of my father, who seems to be the strict and authoritative person in the family, and thus I would invariably listen to his lectures and instructions. I think that this is because my father had left a strong impression that he was fierce and fearful when I was young, which made me respect him since young. Even though today, my father had long stopped caning and changed from scolding to persuasion, and I had learnt to understand that my father is not as strict as he presents himself, yet, I still respect him, but this time, it is without the element of fear, with the knowledge that he teaches me well and making me the person today.

I am also rather respectful of my teachers, although it was more during my primary school life. I always listened attentively to teachers, and rarely rebut to them. I think this is also because since young, my father had told me of the importance of having respect for teachers, and how the older generation had respect for teachers. He told me that even if I did not like the teacher, we should at least feel grateful for the simple fact that teachers teach us knowledge, thus they rightfully earn our respect. Thus, I would say that I never have been disrespectful to teachers before.

The Chinese also emphasizes on respect and “li”, which could be said as etiquette, courtesy and manners. I also uphold these values, of which I think could be found in most traditional Chinese families. In my family, we, as children, would always be polite and invite our parents to eat first, and this, in turn, is also a way in which we children show respect and gratitude to our parents. In Singapore, it is also emphasized in schools that students greet teachers in classrooms when they enter, and also bow to teachers when students see them in the school compound. We also address them with proper manners by adding a mister, missus, miss or madam in front of their surname. This is very unlike how schools function in some Western countries, whereby students call their teachers by their name directly.

I think that the Western perception of self only started to influence me, or impacted me when I was more exposed to their ideas in the secondary school, when I first heard words like human rights and democracy. It was during this age when I started to question the reason for sticking to social norms, and the Western philosophy greatly appealed to me since it advocated ideas related to liberty and freedom.  As it was also this age when I was becoming increasingly aware of Singapore and its politics, I thus began to think about the policies implemented by the government, whether is it good for us Singaporeans. I found out that many a times, what the opposition party said about the downsides of any policy is very true, and it is actually good to have opposing voices which serve as a check-and-balance. Therefore, with the introduction of Western perception into my life, I have begun to question myself more about governmental policies and matters regarding human rights, especially those pertaining to Singapore. I think that Singapore is generally more democratic as compared to other Asian countries, of which quite a number are led by totalitarians, yet the degree of democracy in Singapore is still incomparable with countries like America, since in American, the citizens have more freedom, liberty and human rights, and they easily voice their concerns to the government.

Another way that the Western perception of self had greatly influenced me is the stimulation of the question of what I wanted to do with my life. In the Chinese society, I rarely thought of questions as such because we are told to do, rather than we initiate it ourselves, since Chinese social structure is generally more rigid. Hence, I am rarely led to do the simple notion of thinking and questioning. The Western society, however, is greatly different. It calls a lot upon self-initiative, and it advocates more on self-learning and passion, such as Google’s 20 percent rule, which allows employees of Google to pursue their passion in 20 percent of their work time instead of completing assigned tasks and works. Of course, it is not only the Google’s 20 percent rule which stimulated my thought of my future, but my general understanding of the Western perception of what is expected of a person. Hence I have also benefitted a lot from the Western perception, namely human rights, since it led me to think that it not up to others to determine what we want to do, it is up to ourselves.

(827 words)

Reflective journal 1

All BSP students were forced chose between Cultural Differentiation Elective (CDE) and AACS after we were promoted to secondary 3. It was a tough time choosing between both electives, but I finally settled on CDE after finding Asian-American literature not that appealing to me. My expectation of SES is to understand more about the economies of China and America, which serves as a continuation from PPE we had learnt last term. I also hope that CDE would satisfy my thirst for knowledge, and I could find out more about the cultural or economic or social differences between the East and the West. Hopefully, CDE could provide me with a basic foundation on all this knowledge so that it is easier for me to read up on extra readings. I could then be better prepared for BSP activities such as the BSC trip at year end, or even further in the future, like working at companies in China or America.

We had an enjoyable first lesson. Mr Karplus said that there would be a lot of discussion going on and there is no right or wrong to an answer, which was relieving to hear. Also, CDE course is an eye-opener to me. We talked about 'Why the hype over the "Google Way" to management and innovation?', and Mr. Karplus introduced us to a lot of new information and exposed us to a lot of interesting facts about company management. In class, Mr Karplus showed us a video regarding the way Google managed their company. I never heard about Google's way of management, and I was shocked. Google is simply the best place you can ever work at, as Mr Karplus had said. I never heard that Google's company was managed in such a free and easy way, and employees could have that much time and liberty to pursue their own passion!

I gained a lot from the video. One of which is the manner Google's company ran. In Google company, employees could have 20% of their free time dedicated to their own research and projects where they had a burning passion in with the other 80% of their time used to finish up their work. Free food and many facilities are provided, such as volleyball courts and massages. Why did Google do this? The reason is simple. Google encourages innovation, and through this method, employees tend to work and think more creatively in a relaxed mood. Furthermore, they would be able to work in a less stressful environment. Many might say that many employees might be easily distracted by these many high-class facilities. However, time is not wasted at all. During meals, employees from different departments are allowed to share their work and discuss, and this might be able to spark off new ideas, or even collaborate to create something new. Furthermore, a peer review policy is set up for personal projects to be reviewed by their peers.

Fantastic it may seem. But I actually doubt how practical and efficient Google's method is. Employees who did not have the responsibility and gratitude might easily take advantage of the situation and exploit the facilities provided. They might simply take the facilities for granted and fool around, Google, would then collapse. Let's put that aside first. Another issue is that the 20% rule might just be a fancy show, since the rate of new production is not really rocketing high. It is at most on par with other top companies. Employees would not have the brains of Steve Jobs. Not everybody could create something new. Does that mean that the 20% of the time is wasted and it could be better utilized? All the new initiatives also suggest a dilution of the focus on the main money source for Google which is what got them so far, as such, if no second ups are made, it might hurt them financially in the long run.

Mr Karplus then led us to compare Google's management with how Apple governed, or rather, controlled their company. It was the total opposite of Google. They restrict their employees, does not allow them to discuss, and only let them be responsible for the making of a new product, thus not allowing them to know the whole construction process, in prevention of the information leaking out. This had got them successful thus far, with them having a great head start ahead of other companies. However, I did not like the way Apple managed their company. To me, it is like working in a place full of conspiracy.

I think that "Google Way” very much matches the more carefree and liberal mindset of westerners, thus their way is more suited to be applied in America. People in U.S. would prefer to have freedom of choice and take pride in working at Google. In America, people believe this way, thus, they would be self-motivated and naturally want to excel in the things, resulting in the success of Google. This would not work in China, as the management method largely depends on trust and reliance between employees and employers. It is a give-and-take situation. I reckon that the Apple approach to management and innovation is more acceptable in China as there had been a significant number of records of corruption and dishonest employees in China who are not exactly trustworthy. Because “The Google Way” of management depends ultimately on trust in workers to reciprocate for what Google has been providing for them, so they would work hard and innovate in return, it is not exactly feasible in China as the Chinese might just take advantage of the excellent facilities which are not cheap. Thus, the expense may be greater than the profit, and the company would suffer. The workers, having no self-discipline, would need an overall in-charge to exert control over them, and set strict rules and regulations, which are provided in the Apple way of management.

On the following lesson, our class also learnt about the Chinese way of organizing companies. Unlike more decentralized Western companies, which are currently dominating the international sphere, Chinese organizations are generally run by a powerful CEO who gives orders to a hierarchy of workers, who typically follow them to the letter without raising questions. Chinese have little trust in impartial Western systems of performance measurement or executive development, and disapprove of lower-level employees proposing ideas to their superiors. As creativity is the core principal that ensures one to survive in the international sphere, China’s companies are unable to survive since their method is of suppressing the innovative ideas of lower-level employees, and not encouraging ideas to flow around would simply deprive the company of more creative ideas. I think that Chinese companies, which only depend on the high-level executives to generate ideas and income, would fail at the international sphere since two heads are still, better than one.

In the next lesson, I learnt about Confucianism, with a vibrant discussion among the class. I was able to better learn from the discussion as I read up on all the articles. For example, I had a better understanding of Confucianism. Confucianism advocates the avoidance of conflict, a vertical social hierarchy that values seniority and patriarchy, reliance on sage leadership that locates its safeguards against the abuse of power not in political institutions but in the moral commitment of leaders. It also speaks for the overarching notion of "ren" (humanity, “compassion” or “loving others”) that assumes human nature to be essentially benevolent. Confucianism also keeps political protest, and encourages Chinese, under Chinese leadership's simplistic mantra about China's unwavering love of "Confucian" stability, to protect the harmonious state, which would help stave off economic stagnation and social upheaval.

I think that the reason the Chinese government now suddenly embraces the Confucian philosophy is not to be attributed to the moral significance of Confucianism. Rather, it is because they want the Chinese to follow Confucianism so brainlessly such that the Chinese would follow the proposed social hierarchy, and respect the government  fully. I feel that this is similar to brainwashing, and Confucianism is only being twisted into a political tool which helps the government achieve his aim, which is to strengthen the Chinese government's authority. It is through the name of Confucianism that the Chinese government seeks their self-interest. I think it is similar to how explosives, which are originally meant to improve the lives of human race by clearing large plots of forest, are being altered into bombs which only threatens the world.

All in all, I think that the CDE lessons have been very interesting so far. I enjoy learning the different pros and cons of the different management styles of companies, and it has stimulated a lot of thoughts. For example, I pondered on which management way is better, Apple or Google, and I concluded that it ultimately depends on where the company is at. Lessons are going at a reasonable pace, not too hurried such that we could catch up with what is being said in class. Through class discussions, I also was able to see an issue from different point of views, which altogether, helps me to perceive the world from different perspectives.