Another letter I wrote was published in the Straits Times Forum :

I REFER to The Straits Times articles on the value of literature in the new economy (ST, Aug 23). Like the majority of those interviewed, I agree that literature is still relevant. 

What I find distressing is the way our society increasingly attaches value only to things that reap cold, hard material benefits. The reading and study of literature does not fall into this category. 

In fact, many students score poorly in the subject, and I believe certain schools have gone to the extent of encouraging their students to drop it. Others have taken it out of their O-level syllabus. 

This should not be the case. Knowledge empowers and literature, like any other subject, is worth studying for the knowledge it brings, no matter how amorphous that knowledge may appear to be. 

One reason for the creation of the core-curriculum programme at the National University of Singapore was the understanding that a broad, multi-faceted education which encompasses both the arts and sciences would stand students in good stead. 

Confucianism, which we often claim forms the core of Singapore society, emphasises the value of self-cultivation through the study of literature and the arts. 

It would not be right, therefore, to say that literature has no value. It helps us to speak and write better, broadens our understanding of history and culture, and teaches us to be sensitive to issues that go beyond the purely scientific or existential. 

On a more tangible level, literature deals with human character and human situations. The study of it is like a human-relations management (HRM) course, on an intuitive level. 

When reading a text, students are made to analyse the human characters and situations - to empathise with them, criticise their faults and commend their virtues. 

There is no scientific way of going about this "analysis”. A course in HRM or psychology may touch on this, but it is not every man in the street who takes up such courses. 

The skills picked up when studying literature help us to evaluate people and circumstances around us intuitively.  It boosts the EQ of the man in the street and, for that reason, should continue to be studied.

My letter to the Straits Times Forum was published today :

I refer to the issues raised by Mr Kelvin Tan in his letter, "Reading benefits kids even if it’s Potter" (ST, Aug 15).

He made a good point that negative influences can come in less desirable forms - computer games, television shows and movies - than books, specifically Harry Potter.

In the Internet age, where information flows freely and rapidly, it takes more than a ban on books by school libraries, or at thome, or verbal discouragement, to protect our youths from negative influences.

Firstly, we can never band everything.  A book that cannot be borrowed from the library can be purchased from the bookstore.

Even if it cannot be bought locally, I am sure it can be obtained online.

Secondly, we can never police the influx of information successfully.

The television series Charmed and computer game Diablo 2 were other potential sources of negative influence with Mr Tan cited.  I would add to that list games, shows and books which have violent, vulgar or sexual themes.  Parents and teachers might have overlooked these.

Worse, there may have been a double standard at play when the popular Harry Potter books were picked upon, while others were ignored.

A teacher or parent may be commended for making the difficult and unpopular decision of banning or discouraging children from reading Harry Potter, in the interest of the kids.

However, it would be far more ideal to impart life-long, positive values to our youth, so that they can discern fact from fiction, good from evil and right from wrong.

That way, come what may, our youth are unlikely to be swayed from the right path.