In New York City two Sundays ago, the daughter and I walked around the picturesque part of town abutting the Brooklyn Botanical Garden and Brooklyn Museum, looking fo…
Every year after SEA results are released we go through the recurring cycle of debating the impact of the examination on children. Twenty-one years since the SEA repl…
The earthy language of Phillip Alexander may make his commentaries unattractive to some people. It is useful, however, that he repeatedly sticks it to the establishment, revealing a far better understanding of socio-economic reality than many of our rulers, even though he might not get many votes at the ballot box.
I had hoped to write about another aspect of the Foster Cummings debate, but other questions arose since last week which means I have to clear a lot of ground before I continue these observations.
Reading (or the explication of texts) is not so easy as many people believe it to be. A theologian goes to theology school to learn how to interpret theological texts (we call it exegesis). The lawyer goes to law school to learn how to read legal texts (whether the original intention or from a contemporary setting). Literary scholars go to graduate school to learn the most fortuitous way to examine literary texts.
The decision by a High Court judge that the revocation in 2015 of former Central Bank governor Jwala Rambarran’s appointment was illegal seemed fair, balanced and sound, given the issues upon which the court was required to adjudicate.
I have had a lifelong love for curries. When I was a child, my favourite meal was rice, dhal and curried chicken. It was actually the rice and the curried chicken, but we were made to have the dhal on it. It felt like an interloper, interrupting the concentrated taste of the other two, and though I endured it, I think it made me resent dhal. In fact, although I came to love dhal, I tend to have it as a soup, a side dish to be savoured for its own loveliness without distracting from any other flavours.