my ajumma notes

I don't know if it's just me but there seem to be more articles in the papers these days reporting people stating the obvious. Nothing else to report or what? In yesterday's Sunday Times, there was this article entitled 'Make roads safer for the elderly, say experts'. Ground-breaking, isn't it? The paper interviewed the elderly and experts on the issue of elderly pedestrians and their road-crossing habits and came to this intelligent conclusion: "Most felt that pedestrian crossing lights should stay green longer, and that there should be more traffic light crossings instead of overhead bridges." Duh. The problem of the elderly jaywalking is nothing new. The fact that older people take longer to cross the road is nothing new. The fact that older people prefer road crossings to overhead bridges is nothing new (Wah, don't say older people. I also avoid overhead bridges.) This guy from the National Safety Council so kindly said that "many elderly

Today, I want to say 'It's okay' to two groups of people. First, the parents who were interviewed about the possibility of there being no exams for primary 1 and 2 kids (Sunday Times article). A significant number actually want exams for their children. I think it is really okay for young children not to have exams. It's okay if they don't take exams seriously at first. It's okay if they only have four years (i.e. minus primary 1 and 2) of 'exam practice'. I mean, does 'practising' taking exams for another two years actually help you do better at the PSLE? It's okay to have mini topical 'tests' (in place of semestral exams) IF they are designed with the children in mind. I'd rather they were 'assessments' of different types. You don't need a pen-and-paper test to see what/how much/how well a kid has learnt something. But I do agree with the person who said that if nothing changes for the remaining four years of prim