The History of the South East Asian Peninsular Games,1959–1975

After the Second World War the Southeast Asian countries of Burma (1948), Laos (1954), Cambodia (1955), South Vietnam (1955), Malaya (1957), and Singapore (1959) sought independence from the British, French and Japanese colonialists. The first post Second World War and post-colonial biannual multisport Southeast Asian Games was held in Bangkok in 1959 among these countries (and Thailand) although they were relatively poor developing countries. Referring to official reports of the eight bi-annual SEAP Games and other sources of information this research studies how the organization of the eight SEAP Games since 1959 contributed to the nation building process of each country and shaped the political landscape. This was carried out by creating a national identity through sports in each country as well as creating a sense of regional cooperation during periods of war, shifting boundaries and identities. This was done through rituals to legitimize newly ascended constitutional monarchies and heads of states, national flags and athletes' national identity during competition. The SEAP Games also gradually opened avenues for women's participation similar to female athletes in the Olympic Games. It also provided opportunities for promising athletes to shine, improve and compete at higher levels at the Asian and Olympic Games.     

Does prior mathematics knowledge really lead to variation in elementary statistics performance? Evidence from a developing country

A model incorporating prerequisite mathematics performance and other variables deemed to be associated with learning elementary statistics (ES) is developed. The relationship between ES performance and the explanatory variables is well represented by the logistics form. Aptitude, effort and motivation are the only significant explanatory variables of ES performance. Since prerequisite mathematics is not significant, statistical thinking at the tertiary level may be mostly intuitive and non-mathematical. Students with low aptitude experience increasing returns to effort over the first half of the feasible effort interval, while high-aptitude students experience diminishing returns at all levels of effort. The levels of effort required to achieve a minimum pass are interpreted.