Saturday, April 05, 2008
Dialogue Session with the Office of Student Affairs on the Hostel Allocation Problem
I have a lot of things I want to blog about, including Foodhunt'08, of course. But well, since Foodhunt ended, my mind is filled with the overwhelming desire to make up for lost ground during so many weeks of non-study, so I find myself with little spare energy to blog.
But I felt for this session if I didn't blog about it, I would not blog about it again.
Am super tired now, so I might not be as coherent as I can be.
Just came back from the dialogue session as mentioned in my title. I went with zhimin and michelle.
It was an eye-opener. Well, previously, for the previous forums I went to, like the DSC forum last year on press freedom in Singapore, or the forum with PM Lee a few months back, people discuss things, but none had that immediate sense of concern plus the level of passion from the ground.
Naturally, as mentioned in that email NUSSU sent to us NUS students, people were not happy that in spite of them getting the capped 40 points (mostly from organisational CCAs), they could not get accomodation stay on campus.
And of course, the strongest views came from the international students. From the statistics that were shown to us, the number of rooms allocated to senior students were roughly same as last year, the only reason that pushed up the CCA points needed for campus accomodation is that there was quite an alarming increasing in the number of applicants, both foreign and local.
Well, when everyone who had 40 points were able to get a room, they were happy. But once the minimum shot through this cap, people would then begin to rattle and rattle about the 'fairness' of the system.
I felt some bad points were raised during the dialogue.
1. 'It's not fair when some of us have 40 points, and we thought we were safe, but suddenly we don't have a room'
-- Well, to be fair to students, local or international, there is indeed a sense of grievance, and rightly so, that getting the 'maximum' points and doing so much for organisational activities for their clubs and societies still resulted in them not getting a room. However, to be fair to the OSA, we can't say it's 'not fair', when everyone is under the same situation. It just happens so that others are more kiasu than you, that this year a lot of people get more than 45 points. We did not expect the sudden jump in the cut-off point, but so did the OSA! You can't blame the prof if you didn't get an A if you score 90 marks, when others all get 95 marks, simple.
2. "It's not FAIR (again) to ask me to join dancing/singing activities when I don't like it! just to get the CCA points (to the applause of many)"
-- Well, as I said, when everyone got their rooms based on 40 points, they never complained about the system being unfair, as participation in one category (mostly organisational I think) will gurantee them room stay.
If this logic applies, it's also NOT FAIR when people are 'forced' to join CCAs just to get room stay.. but why weren't people saying it? It's only when you suffer by the rules due to your own actions, then you'll complain about the rules not being fair. When you gain by the rules, you applaude the rules. It's a lazier faire world, so live by it.
Also, some international students were fresh from their 2-year protection, and competing for accomodation on campus based on CCA points for the first time. Coupled with this unprecedented jump in the cut-off point, it's natural for people to feel angry about it. And because of it, seeing the statistics that slightly above 1000 local students got the accomodation, I can feel the strong anti-Singaporean students feeling on the ground.
One Singaporean student mentioned that some students really live quite far from campus, and immediately the ground was filled with "We don't even live in this country, hello?" sound from the ground, you know from who. While I have my utmost sympathy for them really, I was really pissed at this juncture.
Plus the black lady's (exchange student from Germany) example of how her university actually bars people who live near the university to live on campus, the feeling I got from the IS was that
"Come on, locals have a home! And Singapore isn't THAT big, and all we want is a shelter!"
There was a strong feeling of wanting to remove Singaporean students from the hostels, to accomodate all the IS. Yes, IS are poor things, far from the comfort of their families. However, we locals are already suffering so much to accomodate you guys!
I've been exposed to the fact the Singaporean students who go overseas to study have to find their own accomodation too, so I don't see why the big hoo-haa here, especially when they have a 2-year period to get used to local conditions, and I believe they will be able to find private rental near school.
Of course, the good suggestions came out.
1. The OSA website's portal for information on private rentals outside school is outdated, pathetic, and looks rather 'for show'. I hope they can really update the portal, and contact rental agencies to really be the link between private rentals and international students.
2. It's great that a Vietnamese student (I fell in love with her Cockney accent, she's cute too ;p) talking about better financial aid for international students forced to live off campus, as their costs of living may go up. Reasonable.
3. CCA points from halls, when student want to change from halls to residences, should not be counted as hall activities have an unfair advantage compared to residence stayers, due to their variety and proximity. I feel instead of not counting, it should be halved, as per hall-skipping.
4. Students should be allowed to bunk in legally (paying or not) as long as they are willing, to help increase the number of students staying on campus.
5. International students should be allowed a temporary place of stay on campus when they look for private rental.
6. Students should be told to report over-reporting of CCA points by any hall, club or society to the OSA to prevent unfair play.
7. Publish the CCA points cut-off of the previous years of the different halls and residences to let the students have a better feel of the competition. (Very good suggestion as previously what we know is all from hearsay, and never from official sources)
But well, this shortage of supply problem is only a short-term one. For now, I think the OSA would just bite the bullet for another 2 years and let people scold them, after which the problem would be a lot less severe. By 2010, when the University Town is completed (with a capacity of 6000), the problem will be entirely solved. As such, I do not think that any long-term changes will be implemented, as the long-term solution is already in place. In the short-term, the OSA should really consider the 7 points mentioned above, and implement them quickly, so to cater to the short-term needs.
Finally, other than the concrete details of the dialogue, I learnt something important, at least in the human relationship sense.
When people are faced with things that don't please them, they turn irrational, and think of all the selfish, best-case scenarios for themselves, without recognising the constraints and feasibility of things. In these circumstances, all people want is a comforting ear, to feel that someone cares for them, and is trying to do something for them.
Explanation of constraints at this juncture gets into the head, but never the heart. People will only get more frustrated with each explanation, as it's the human nature to not want to face or be reminded of the sad part of reality. At this juncture, all people want is simply some comfort, plus a channel to relieve their emotions.
(Just try quarelling with a girl when she's super emo.)
So, the best way to handle these things is, (truthfully or not) appear sympathetic to their cause, and promise to help them. Through time, the sad reality and constraints sink in, and people will just move on. Sounds political, but totally true.
It's just so us, it's just so human isn't it?
A big lesson about life indeed.
(P.S. I got a residence room for next year myself, so the views might be biased =))
lowtide blogged @
12:44 am
