“Tablet or pen – when school digitalization goes too far”
Why should it take so many years for our politicians to realize that younger children in school first need to learn to write with pen and paper before they are given digital tools? Writes Lena Nilsson from Uppsala, Sweden.
Published 16 November 2024
Photo: iStock/dolgachov
Politicians should have listened to teachers' warnings 25 years ago, says the writer.
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.
In 1981 I started working as a primary school teacher. I had the privilege of working with the lower grades and every three years starting with a new first grade. In the first years of school, the pupils received a lot of training in shaping and writing both letters and numbers with a pencil. Many times we also used other materials to form and build letters, this to further train the motor skills and remember the letters in different ways, because we learn with the whole body.
In the fall of 1996, we got a computer in the classroom for the first time. It was placed at the back of the room and at the beginning it was only me and my colleague who used it to learn different programs. None of us were really that interested in bringing digital technology into the classroom. Even then, we thought it was more important for our students to get the letters and numbers “in hand” before they started writing on the computer.
Eventually, several educational computer programs, aimed at younger children, were published by educational publishers. There were many programs with exercises in, for example, preparatory reading. I had a few students who got a little help from some programs, to get started with reading and writing. But most of the class used the computer mostly for games in the afternoons, when after-school activities took over the classroom.
In 2001, the directive in our municipality was that every classroom in primary school should have two computers, and the call to us teachers was to ensure that those pupils who did not have access to a computer at home would have priority for the school computers. There was a great concern that these children would fall behind in digital development. That’s what they said at the end of the 20th century, that some students would miss out. Imagine if we had known then what it looks like today.
Today, many have realized that the decision to digitalize schools happened far too quickly. There was an over reliance on digitalization, and there was a strong desire for Sweden to lead in all things IT-related in education. Digitalization advocates argued that children learn better with computers and tablets. This may be true in some areas, but in other contexts, it can be entirely inappropriate.
While research shows mixed results on the place of computers in education, what happens if students do not learn handwriting is clear. What is the risk that students who are forced to write by hand, with pen and paper, will have to take courses on how to surf the internet later in life? Most likely, that risk is zero. The big problem today is all the pupils who have been given a tablet as early as first grade, instead of a notebook and pen. Many teachers are concerned that students who have been in school for several years have no functional handwriting. In other words, they cannot write by hand.
We take so much away from our children when they don’t learn to form letters with their hands. When they don’t practice their own handwriting, they also have trouble reading other people’s handwritten messages. Many of us will remember when SÖ (The Swedish National Agency for Education) introduced the new writing style in the 1970s. Students found it difficult to learn, and as a result, they could no longer read the handwriting of their elders. The new writing style had been developed by a calligrapher. However, many teachers criticized it without being heard. More and more teachers reverted to teaching the old handwriting style, which had been developed over so many years. The school board introduced the new writing style without listening to and taking advice from the experts, the teachers who worked in the school.
According to the Swedish Teachers’ Union, 95% of teachers believe it is important for children to be able to write by hand, yet a fifth of teachers say their pupils never do.
The Swedish National Agency for Education is now proposing a change to the curriculum, emphasizing that more time should be spent on writing practice in the lower grades. It also wants to remove the requirement for digital learning tools in preschool. This is exactly what so many teachers said 25 years ago, that children need to learn to write with pen and paper in the early years of school. Learning to write is a craft and it takes time to learn to write by hand.
As in so many other contexts, people forget or ignore to listen to those who are experts and have experience in a field. Debates on important issues and decisions are missing. Only one side is usually given the opportunity to speak, while the other side is silenced, mocked or ridiculed. We need to learn to speak up when things go wrong – to have the courage to speak out.
Lena Nilsson, Uppsala Sweden
TNT is truly independent!
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
Open cooperation represents the trend of history and mutual benefit is what the people want, writes WAN Degang, Charge d'Affairs of the Chinese Embassy in Sweden.
Published 11 April 2025
Photo: iStock/tawatchaiprakobkit
Aerial view of cargo ship carrying container running for export import near cargo yard port concept freight shipping.
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.
Recently, the United States has imposed tariffs arbitrarily on all its trading partners under various pretexts. This severely infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of all countries, violates World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, undermines the rules-based multilateral trading system, and disrupts the global economic order. People from many countries have pointed out that the U.S. overlooks the well-being of of its own citizens and the interests of other countries, which could ultimately lead to internal and external difficulties, resulting in losses for all parties involved.
First, the U.S. tariffs are widely criticized by international community.
The U.S. side claimed that it is being ripped off in international trade, and increased tariffs on all its trading partners under the pretext of reciprocity. This is in complete disregard of the balance of interests achieved through years of trade negotiations. It also neglects the fact that the U.S. has gained huge interests from international trade over the years. Such action is widely criticized and opposed by the international community. The European Commission, the European Central Bank, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and other institutions and countries have stated that the U.S. tariffs negatively impact the global economy, disrupt the trading system that has fostered great progress for humanity and undermine the global free trade order. Faced with such unilateral and bullying action, the only way to stop the U.S. from harvesting the world is for all countries to strengthen their solidarity and cooperation to jointly resist and oppose such action.
Second, the U.S. tariffs hurt the U.S. itself as well as other countries.
The U.S. unilateral policy of so-called “reciprocal tariffs” is bound to result in a “lose-lose” situation in practice, inflicting direct harm to the global economy and the interests of its trading partners, while negatively impacting its own economy, businesses and consumers. The day after the U.S. announced its tariffs plan, the S&P 500 index plummeted 4.8%, wiping out over $4 trillion in market value in a short span. Experts at JP Morgan estimated that the tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.3% for the year, down from the previous forecast of 1.3% growth. Meanwhile, the U.S. inflation level remains high. The Core Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) Price Index, which excludes food and energy prices, rose 2.8% year-on-year in February. Relevant U.S. agencies predicted that the new tariffs will cost Americans an additional $660 billion annually in taxes, with average local car prices expected to rise by $3,000 to $5,000. The impact won’t stop at the automotive sector; industries such as food, electronics, household appliances, construction materials and agricultural equipment will also be affected, leading to significantly higher expenditures for American households.
Third, the U.S. tariffs hinder global sustainable development.
The U.S. abuse of tariffs deprives countries, especially those in the Global South, of their right to development. The U.S. imposes tariffs on more than 180 countries and regions worldwide, including some economies classified by the United Nations as least developed. According to WTO data, given the disparities in economic development and strength, U.S. tariffs could further widen the global wealth gap, with less developed countries suffering a heavier blow. The Spokesperson for the U.N. Secretary-General warned that the trade war will adversely affect implementation of Sustainable Development Goals, and the concern right now is with the most vulnerable countries, which are the least equipped to deal with the current situation. The WTO noted that the U.S. tariffs could lead to an overall contraction of around 1% in global merchandise trade volumes this year, disrupting global trade and economic growth prospects.
Open cooperation represents the trend of history and mutual benefit is what the people want. Development is a universal right of all countries, not an exclusive privilege of a few. Countries need to uphold the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefit, and remain committed to true multilateralism. They should practice true multilateralism, jointly oppose all forms of unilateralism and protectionism, and defend the U.N.-centered international system and the WTO-centered multilateral trading system. We are confident that the vast majority of countries, committed to fairness and justice, will stand on the right side of history and act in their best interests.
WAN Degang, Charge d’Affairs of the Chinese Embassy in Sweden
“How to debunk the Chinese debt-trap narrative in 3 steps”
An investigative method can be applied to study any country allegedly victimized by 'China’s debt trap' and thus separate facts from fiction, write Hussein Askary and Li Xing.
Published 20 December 2024
Photo: William_Potter
Is there any substance to the 'Chinese debt trap' narrative? the article's authors ask.
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.
Our research into the Chinese “debt-trap” narrative, which the U.S. State Department has heavily promoted since May 2018 with substantial funding and media support, reveals no evidence to support such a claim.
The narrative serves primarily as a geopolitical propaganda tool to impede the progress of the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and damage China’s international reputation.
Our analysis of financial and economic developments in countries such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Zambia, Kenya and Montenegro over the past decade reveals a consistent pattern. This pattern indicates that their financial distress stems from a combination of internal and external factors, none of which are directly attributable to China or the BRI.
Through this investigation, we have developed a systematic method to highlight the main fallacies within this narrative. This investigative method can be applied to study any country allegedly victimized by “China’s debt trap” and thus separate facts from fiction.
… their financial distress stems from a combination of internal and external factors, none of which are directly attributable to China or the BRI.
Furthermore, this investigation will help policymakers determine sound policies for infrastructure development credit in the next decade of the BRI, building the cornerstone of economic development for their nation.
The method suggests that anyone who accepts the debt-trap narrative must address three fundamental questions:
1. What is the composition of the country’s debt?
2. What is the quality of the debt?
3. What is the source of the country’s financial distress?
1. Debt composition
What is meant by “composition” is how much of a country’s total foreign debt is owed to various creditors, expressed as percentages, see Figure 1. We immediately discovered that the portion owed to China represents only a fraction of the total debt (10% in Sri Lanka’s case in 2022 and 15.5% in Kenya’s case in 2024).
Figure 1. Total foreign debt of Kenya in 2024 and of Sri Lanka in 2022
Data: Kenya National Treasury, Sri Lanka Finance Ministry; compiled by the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden
However, Western think tanks and media deliberately manipulate the semantics by focusing on the “bilateral” portion of debt rather than the total. They frequently highlight that “China is Country X’s largest bilateral creditor”, see Figure 2. This selective framing creates a skewed perception of China’s disproportionate role in these countries’ financial problems.
Figure 2. Emphasizing Kenya’s bilateral debt with China rather than its total foreign debt
Data: Kenya National Treasury; compiled by the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden
Therefore, researchers should not rely solely on media or think tanks for information; instead, they should use publicly available official data from each country’s finance ministry or central bank. In Figure 2, we use information provided by the Kenyan National Treasury.
This selective framing creates a skewed perception of China’s disproportionate role in these countries’ financial problems.
The composition charts of total debt reveal that China’s share of Sri Lanka’s debt is merely 10%, while 80% to 90% is owed to Western institutions or entities related to Western states. More importantly, the data exposes the “elephant in the room”: 47% of Sri Lanka’s debt comprises commercial loans owed mostly to private Western bondholders such as American BlackRock and British Ashmore.
These bondholders own four times the amount of China’s loans to Sri Lanka. In Kenya’s case, the commercial loans exceed China’s share, and the multilateral loans, owed mostly to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are three times larger than China’s.
2. Debt quality
China’s loans under the BRI are almost exclusively directed toward building modern infrastructure in sectors like transport, power, water, education and health care. These projects are productive investments that increase recipient countries’ productivity.
By enhancing infrastructure, the loans contribute to the industrial, agricultural and service sectors, enabling economies to generate income and create capacity to repay the loans. In contrast, most financial resources provided through commercial and multilateral loans are directed toward resolving fiscal and trade deficits.
When countries face dire financial straits, like those mentioned above, they resort to heavy borrowing from international bond markets to solve immediate economic crises.
Countries borrow from bond markets to repay older bonds, often at much higher interest rates. In February this year, the Kenyan government faced a precarious situation as it lacked sufficient cash to buy back $2 billion in Eurobonds due in June.
It managed to raise $1.5 billion through a new seven-year bond, but at an interest rate of 10% compared to the previous bond’s 6%.
This piling up of new debt to pay back old debt at higher interest rates exemplifies a “poison pill”. Even if borrowed funds are used for infrastructure, borrowing short term for projects that are profitable only in the long term represents a classic mistake. This is one key cause of the real debt trap.
China’s loans under the BRI are almost exclusively directed toward building modern infrastructure in sectors like transport, power, water, education and health care.
Another key qualitative difference is that Chinese loans offer longer repayment periods and lower interest rates. For example, the loan provided by the Export-Import Bank of China for Montenegro’s Bar-Boljare highway offers a 20-year repayment term, including a six-year grace period, at 2% interest.
Similar rates and terms apply to the Mombasa-Nairobi and other railway projects in Kenya. On the other hand, commercial loans are shorter-term at five to seven years, with much higher interest rates of 6-12%.
China often provides debt rescheduling or relief for distressed countries, while Western bondholders resort to legal measures in Western courts to compel timely and full repayment.
Chinese loans have no political or economic strings attached, while Western multilateral loans often come with conditions such as currency devaluation, cuts to public infrastructure investment, enforcement of specific political changes and privatization of state-owned enterprises and natural resources. Cumulatively, these conditions lead to reduced economic productivity.
The privatization of copper mining in Zambia under IMF directives, now controlled by Western multinational companies, has returned very little of its natural wealth to the Zambian nation. Therefore, this qualitative difference must be considered when investigating different cases.
3. The real causes of these countries’ financial distress
Many of these countries were already in financial distress before the BRI was launched in 2013. Afterwards, various internal and external developments augmented their difficulties. The causes range from civil wars, terrorism, epidemics, pandemics, financial mismanagement to corruption and changes in the global financial and monetary system. None of these are related to China. We can list some key causes:
a. Many countries rely heavily on one or two primary income sources, making them vulnerable to price shocks or activity fluctuations. For example, both Sri Lanka and Montenegro depend heavily on tourism. When Sri Lanka was hit by terrorism in 2019, tourism declined dramatically. As soon as it recovered in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic struck. The pandemic also severely affected Montenegro’s economy in 2021 and 2022.
b. Sri Lanka’s economy faces low productivity challenges. Its textile industry relies on imported machinery, fuel and cotton, adding value only through low-cost labor. When fuel prices rose globally in 2022 after the Ukraine crisis began, profit margins eroded completely.
c. Many nations in this category depend on imported oil, gas, and fertilizers for agriculture. Some borrow from foreign sources to import food. When global prices increase, these nations are hit hard.
d. Currency devaluation significantly increases debt burdens. Because foreign loans, including Chinese ones, are denominated in U.S. dollars, currency devaluation forces nations to pay more in national wealth to repay the same dollar amount of dollar debt. When the Biden administration passed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, the U.S. dollar rose against almost all global currencies, dealing a severe blow to indebted countries.
Conclusion
Examining and addressing these three key questions can provide a more accurate and objective evaluation of these nations’ debt crises. China is not responsible for causing these problems. In fact, China’s approach of issuing productive credit to these nations will help them escape the debt trap in which they have been ensnared for a long time.
By providing favorable financing for infrastructure, these nations will be better positioned to increase productivity, rebalance finances and repay their dues to both China and other creditors. In this sense, China and the BRI are part of the solution to debt problems rather than their cause.
However, China alone cannot resolve all the problems faced by these nations. There is a need to devise new methods of financing infrastructure and development. This will be addressed in a separate article.
Hussein Askary
Vice Chairman of the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden
Li Xing
Yunshan Leading Scholar and Professor at the Guangdong Institute for International Strategies in China and Adjunct Professor at Aalborg University in Denmark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PalUbaZRWJg
This article is based on Hussein Askary’s presentation at the conference session The BRI and the Global South, chaired by Professor Li Xing at the 2024 International Think Tank Forum of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road.
Australian society is alarmed by the continuation of the same old foreign policy strategies determined by depraved domestic and foreign actors like the US, UK, the EU, NATO and Israel and the Zionist lobby, writes Ordan Andreevski on TNT Debate.
Published 3 November 2024
Photo: Thennicke, CC BY-SA 4.0
The Capital Hill parliament house in Canberra, Australia.
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.
The problem: There is cognitive dissonance between the launch in February 2024 in the Australian Parliament of the whole-of-nation approach to Australian foreign policy and the lived experience of most informed Australians and multicultural communities. Australian society is alarmed by the continuation of the same old foreign policy strategies determined by depraved domestic and foreign actors like the US, UK, the EU, NATO and Israel and the Zionist lobby.
The current approach to the creation of Australia’s strategic and foreign policy by the Albanese Government and the Opposition and foreign outlaw states and cartels is deeply concerning, unethical and unsustainable. In particular, to those who reject the unipolar world disorder and advocate for more nuanced and peaceful security and development architecture outside the G7.
At its basic level, the whole-of-government approach to foreign policy involves a wide network beyond government actors. These include stakeholders from civil society, business, academia, think tanks, the independent media, under represented diasporas, sports and cultural groups and state and local government engaged in international affairs.
The Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy and Defence (AP4D) Dialogue produced an excellent Options Paper which explains What does it look like for Australia to have a Whole-of-Nation Approach to International policy. It matters because we need to harness all tools of statecraft and national power such as economic, financial, industrial, scientific and informational power beyond federal government. We need to transform and significantly improve our foreign policy model and performance.
It is a systems thinking approach to creation and implementation of Australian foreign policy beyond core international policy actors in federal government and unelected oligarchs and corporate cartels from the military industrial, financial complex in Australia and the G7.
The consultation by the APFD identified many barriers in practice. These include the siloed nature of government, federalism, competing interests and perspectives, cultural barriers to public engagement in international issues, need for strong value proposition, the need for innovation of systems, mechanisms and budgets to support international policy collaboration.
The Solution: Australia needs to engage in deep and meaningful national, parliamentary and foreign policy debate on the relevance, importance and impact of the whole-of-government approach to international policy on a rotating basis. Way too little time and resources were committed to this democratic process.
Australian society must understand that we need a nuanced, open source and humanistic approach to creation and implementation of Australian foreign policy and our place in the world. We need to constantly innovate our foreign policies and strategies like we did in the 1960 – 1980 s when we rejected the White Australian policy, the Vietnam war, apartheid in South Africa and the US and the need for democratisation of policy making process from core to all key stakeholders.
We need to educate and empower all Australian citizens and under-represented communities with critical thinking skills, mobilisation and new narratives in relation to need for a new nuanced Australian foreign policy.
At the moment, Australian foreign policy is shaped by indoctrinated ideologues working in partnership with the military industrial and financial complex. Unelected oligarchs and corporate cartels must lose their dominant power, special influence and disproportionate role in shaping foreign policy. Sadly, some Australian Ministers and Shadow Ministers, federal MPs and Senators are not working in the national interest by appeasing the military industrial financial complex at great cost to our nation and regional and world peace and development.
The corporate media and oligarch think tanks in Australia are mouth pieces of the war profiteers in Wall Street and the City of London.
Our public broadcasters like the ABC and SBS also are tightly controlled by elected and unelected censors working under the control of the Five Eyes Intelligence network. As we have seen in the US and the UK, intelligence agencies, the POTUS and the US Congress are puppets of unelected oligarchs and corporate cartels producing dishonest, insane and unsustainable foreign policy determined by too few for too many.
Australia needs to develop a Foreign Policy Innovation Strategy which will deliver successful outcomes for us and the rest of the world as defined by the nation. We have talented people and communities that can make a positive and significant difference to Australia and the world. We need to be open minded and ready to use all our national power and capabilities to advance our national and international interests beyond serving as deputy Sherrif in the rapidly changing Asia-Pacific that is outperforming the G7.
We need to explore the full costs and benefits of current Australian and defence policies and outcomes and what is possible if we innovate and form coalitions outside of the G7. In particular, the BRICS+++, ASEAN, Shanghai Cooperation etc.
Ordan Andreevski, Advisory Board Member, Our Macedonia Australia
The resolution adopted at the last CCP plenary session states that China will continue to help build a common future for humanity. This, together with the five principles of peaceful coexistence, should henceforth be the criterion for international relations, writes Stephen Brawer, Chairman of BRIX Sweden.
Published 7 August 2024
Photo: Koke Cheng
Great Hall of The People: this iconic building in Beijing hosts many important government meetings, including plenary sessions.
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.
World history is being shaped by processes and events larger, more profound and more complex than most people can imagine. One such recent event was the third plenary session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. The resolution adopted at the plenum makes it clear China will continue to implement the Belt and Road Science, Technology and Innovation Cooperation Action Plan and redouble efforts to develop multilateral platforms for cooperation in green development, the digital economy, artificial intelligence, energy, taxation, finance, disaster mitigation, and other areas.
The third plenum also elaborated on how the CPC Central Committee has assessed China’s success and achievements in the new era, and emphasized the need to further deepen reform to advance Chinese modernization.
A new direction for global economic development.
Since the launch of reform and opening-up in 1978, China has made unprecedented, remarkable economic achievements. This, along with the Belt and Road Initiative, has helped the country chart a new direction for global economic development.
Incidentally, the initiative was proposed in 2013, the same year that the third plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee was held.
The resolution of the third plenum of the 20th CPC Central Committee states: “The present and the near future constitute a critical period for our endeavor to build a great country and move towards national rejuvenation on all fronts through Chinese modernization … We must purposefully give more prominence to reform and further deepen reform comprehensively with a view to advancing Chinese modernization in order to deal with the complex developments both at home and abroad, adapt to the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, and live up to the new expectations of our people”.
The emphasis on the need to pursue national rejuvenation and Chinese modernization, and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics is a unique aspect of Chinese policymaking, with the latter having more profound philosophical aspects, referring to Confucius. Chinese civilization has a long history of making efforts to maintain social and political stability, and pursuing development based on the principle of common good.
Despite the many transformations of Chinese society over millenniums, the country has maintained its salient socioeconomic features, which have allowed it to remain a proud and cultured society.
The proposal of the top Chinese leader to build a moderately well-off society by 2020, as part of his “four comprehensives” for good governance, was realized on schedule, facilitating the country’s pursuit of national rejuvenation and Chinese modernization. On the other hand, the goal of building a high-standard socialist market economy by 2035 is a relatively long-term pursuit. All of this will lay a solid foundation for building China into a great modern socialist country by 2049, when the country will celebrate the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China.
Besides, the resolution of the third plenum makes it clear that, contrary to claims of some Western media and politicians, China has no intention of closing the door on the global economy. Instead, it will continue to open up its economy to the outside world.
It’s time the West changed its attitude and policy toward China for the sake of global common good.
However, the international landscape is becoming more complex, with the United States, the European Union and some other Western economies resorting to trade protectionism and non-cooperation with China. They prefer to cynically ignore what China has achieved over the past more than four decades and perceive China as a threat.
Their short-sightedness and general ignorance are shaped by the Hobbesian view of being the dominant force under what can be called the law of the jungle. They wish to dominate the global economy and global governance system by brute force because they lack the insight and long-term development policy necessary to achieve sustained development, eliminate poverty and continue to create new jobs. It’s time the West changed its attitude and policy toward China for the sake of global common good.
As the resolution of the third plenum says, China will continue to help build a community with a shared future for mankind. As such, building a community with a shared future for mankind, along with the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, should become the criterion for international relations.
Stephen Brawer, Chairman of BRIX Sweden – Belt and Road Institute in Sweden
BRIX Sweden - the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden, is a non-profit association formed by the organizers, speakers and participants of a seminar in Stockholm on 30 May 2018 on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its economic and strategic importance for Europe and Sweden. The seminar was jointly organized by the Schiller Institute and the China-Sweden Business Council.
BRIX members include entrepreneurs, economists and strategic experts with a wide range of expertise in Swedish and Chinese economic issues. Their common conclusion is that BRI is not only of importance for a good economic and political relationship between China and Sweden, but fundamentally beneficial for economic development and peace between all countries.
