“There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.” Comment. (Holiday Journal Topic 2)

I beg to differ with the statement: “There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.” While the statement may be true for international relations and the corporate world, it may not always be true down at the person-to-person relations. For nations and companies, interests are permanent while friends may not be so. However, for people, permanent friends do exist, even though interests may change.

Friends are formed when people with similar interests meet each other. While it may be argued that friends are forged as a result of similar interests and thus when interests change, friends also change, this argument is flawed. Interest is not the only binding factor among friends; fate is another factor. People have feelings, unlike entities like nations and companies. A friendship formed from the bottom of the heart is usually hard to break. True friends are those who go through thick and thin with you and stand by your side when you are down, not those who only make use of you and leave you when you cannot serve their interests anymore. Interests may change, but friendships can still last. You do not become enemies with your friends just because he developed a liking for a particular sport which you do not like, do you? There are indeed permanent friends, albeit rare. The have been cases where people do not mind getting themselves into trouble or even sacrificing their own lives in order to save their friends in times of need. This goes to show that there are people who put their personal interests behind them when it comes to helping their friends.

Nations do not become friends in the same sense that people do. The people of one nation may have good feelings for the people of another, such as people of US and UK, because of common cultural or familial links. But nations do not define their relationships by the feelings they have for one another. Instead, nations have permanent interests, for they have to further the well-being and security of their citizens. When nations perceive that an alliance with another nation will secure those interests, they enter into one. During World War II, even nations that are fundamentally hostile to one another allied themselves when their perceived interests dictated that they do so. That is how the USSR ended up allied with the US and Britain. Another example is the recent Iraq War in which France, a hitherto staunch ally of the US, did not support the US-led war. This was in stark contrast to the US-led war in Afghanistan a few years ago, in which France supported the US in their war efforts. Thus it is clear that when the interests of allied nations no longer converge, the reason for their alliance disappears, and the alliance splits apart. The former allies do not necessarily become enemies, but each becomes freer to pursue its own interests. The merger and separation between Singapore and Malaysia in the 1960s also serves to illustrate the point that friendships between nations are transient. Therefore, nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests.

In the dog-eat-dog corporate world where business interests come first, there is no such as thing as permanent friends or enemies. Sometimes rival companies may enter into a merger with one another if doing so is beneficial to their business interests. Such mergers between companies are not uncommon. An example would be the recent merger of two local media giants, MediaCorp and SPH MediaWorks. After several years of rivalry and competition for viewer-ship which left them bleeding in their finances, they decided that it was better to work together and tap on the synergy of the merger. Multi-National Companies, Sony and Ericsson, have also merged to jointly develop mobile phones. It is without doubt that companies only have permanent interests and no permanent friends.

In conclusion, the statement “there is no permanent friends, only permanent interests” does not apply to all levels of society. The statement is the defining equation in relations between nations and companies, but it is not so when it comes to person-to-person relationships.

Should gifted children be allowed to skip grades? (Holiday Journal topic 1)

I agree most with Dr Lee Siew Peng in not supporting grade-skipping for gifted children. I agree with her on the point that ‘gifted children are not spectacularly more successful than their peers who are of 'lower' intelligence as children.’ She also cited evidence from Mr Lewis Terman’s study who found out that 'children with very high IQ did not necessarily make any mark in science, business, arts or commerce'. Thus, I see no reason to allow gifted students to skip grades since doing so may not enable them to make a mark in any area.

If gifted children are allowed to skip grades, the only benefit they will get is that they get to complete their education and probably start work earlier. But why cram two decade’s worth of education into a span of several years for gifted children and deprive them of a wonderful childhood? Childhood should be a time when children can play and enjoy, not studying all the time. As Dr Lee has said “All-round development is important.” While a child may be academically gifted, he may not be good at his social skills. Development of social skills of gifted children is important for it will help him or her to network with others and this will become increasingly important as he grows up. What better way to develop a child’s social skills than to place him/her in a class of children his/her age and allow him/her to interact? Thus, I feel that gifted children should not be allowed to skip grades.

Allowing gifted children to skip grades is not without risk. If the child is unable to cope with the higher level of academic performance that is required of him when he skips grades, he might become too stressed and suffer from stress-related problems and depression. Worst still, he/she might have to revert back to the normal academic curriculum for his/her age and that would waste a lot of time. Surely, this risk is not worth it when the potential benefits of doing so remains obscure. Recently, there was news on The Straits Times about a gifted teenager currently studying at NUS and he has not done as well as he has expected and regretted taking things so fast. This goes to show that skipping grades does come with a price.

Some may argue that not allowing gifted children to skip grades may stymie their maximum learning potential. Thomas Anthony said that ‘sticking to the current curriculum would only cause such a whiz-kid to become laid-back and complacent and, in due course, he might become so complacent that his current level of achievement takes a dip.’ Mdm Lai Ee Sa said that ‘the gifted child spends many hours in school and these hours would be better spent doing work that challenges and intrigues him, rather than on lessons on topics that he already has a good grasp of.’ To prevent this from happening, special exceptions could be made for the gifted pupils such as allowing them to do their own self study in class at faster pace than their peers. This way, the gifted child can not only mix around with children of the same age and develop his social skills but also challenge himself/herself intellectually.