Upgrading Education – levelling up society [ National Day Rally 2007 ] The Prime Minister put forth several ideas and plans regarding education in his National Day Rally. How realistic do you find these plans and to what extent are they important to the future of Singapore?
In his national rally for this year, our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has put forth several ideas and plans regarding education in Singapore. Firstly, freedom to be given to principals and teachers to allow them to try out new ideas for teaching. Secondly, resources for schools with good ideas, so that they will succeed with the government’s help. Thirdly, provide opportunities for needy students through the Opportunity Funds. And lastly, adopt the “more learning, less teaching” scheme. Mr Lee also mentioned about the need to expand our intakes for universities to prevent the outflow of talents to other countries or if there’s a need to build a fourth publicly-funded university. I think that to teach less and learn more is one way to form a pool of critical thinkers. I welcome the idea of building a fourth publicly-funded university and think that it is the best solution to the growing demands for a degree - if only it is not to be done heedlessly and willy nilly in all aspects. However, the plan to introduce the “third language special programme” in secondary schools is not effective. This is reflected from the ineffectiveness of our bilingual policy here.
The main aim of the “learn more, teach less” scheme is to develop our students into critical thinking and innovative young leaders. In the past, students were confined to classrooms where they listened and absorbed whatever the teacher taught in classes. They were given very little time and opportunities to voice out their own opinions and let alone be there group discussions. In this modern society, the world is ever challenging, what could really make us shine from the norm is to acquire a critical mindset and be creative and innovative. The world where we reside in is ever changing; new technology is evolving every second. By staying inert and exam-smart will only let us see the world disappearing before our very own eyes. We will then have nothing to compete with all the talents out there. On the other hand, if schools were to teach less and students to learn more - not through books but critical problems – we would be able to lead the others from the world wide. This does not only help the individual to achieve what he or she is capable of but also help in boosting the economic growth of our country. Thus, the idea reinforced by Mr Lee is feasible and of a paramount importance to Singapore’s future.
Next, PM Lee also mentioned about the need to build a fourth publicly-funded university to accommodate the growing number of students entering universities. The high standard of living in Singapore has permitted many of us to receive a better education and continue to upgrade ourselves. It was prestigious achieving a degree in the past but not in the 21st century today. In the world today, degree holders are omnipresent. The students going to universities are on the increase via all routes. However, due to the limited vacancies here, many go abroad to further their studies. Like what Mr Lee said, Out of those who went, few returned to contribute to our society. This is bad for our own growth as it means there is actually a pool of talents being attracted to help foreign countries in their development. If this continues to take its way, our own economy would be crippled. Hence, to retain the group of professionals in Singapore, we should open the door of universities to them. For instance, the number of students going to universities from polytechnics is experiencing an exponential increase – 15 percent. Since the demand for a vacancy in the university is high, I do see an urgent need in building a fourth university to cater to the needs of our people. By building a fourth publicly-funded university here, each year 2400 more talents would be appreciated and their knowledge would be tackled for the benefit of the country. However, this should not be done heedlessly and willy nilly. Mr Lee said in his rally, that “some countries have produced large numbers of graduates without regard for either the quality or the employment opportunities. Lots of universities, some of them paper printing machines and so, they face big problems -- graduates unemployed or under-employed.” He added, “It’s better not to have graduated but to have a good job than to have graduated with a skill which is not useful and then you spend your time feeling unhappy.” Yes, it is true that in Taiwan, only as low as 6 out of 100 mark is qualified for entry into a university. This means that very few students will appreciate the place they have taken up and do not put in effort in their studies. This causes social problems listed above. However, in the context of Singapore, building another university is solely to cater to the real needs of our people. As such, lesser such problems would be encountered. Thus, for the sake of our students and the need to improve our economic growth, we should build a fourth university here.
Lastly, our sophisticated education system and our bilingual policy are well recognized in the world. However, many Singaporeans are apathy towards the bilingual policy and are still suffering with their Mother Tongue. Many students find it hard to learn two languages at one time. The result is either they suffer one at the expense of another or they do poorly in both, it is very sad to add on that, very few are strong in both. Since they cannot even juggle both languages, introducing a third language will only show a negative side of the idea. This plan, to a very great possibility, will not turn workable. Hence, I think that the government should not work on this plan though it may be helpful for the future of Singapore. However, if none is able to perform well in two languages, how are we going to expect them to be trilingual?
In conclusion, plan like the introducing of the “learn more teach less” scheme is welcoming since it has shown a remarkable feasibility in both Jurong Secondary School and Mayflower Primary. In both cases, students are able to think out of the box and are innovative in their way of learning. Also, the building of another university here should be encouraged since this helps to retain talents in Singapore and minimized the educational wastages. It also means more of the students’ knowledge and skills will be made use of to accelerate the development of our country. So, why not? However, the idea of introducing the special programme is not practical since we are sure that very few of us is to be benefited from the policy. It also won’t be much of a help for our future.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Term 3 Week 9 Task 4
Commentary on blog winner: Giving Birth to Your Sister - Right or Wrong? - Jeremy Su
Source from : http://www.acidic-fiery-salamander.blogspot.com/
The article was first published in Straits Times on 11 July 2007. It is about a 35 year old Canadian mother who has decided to freeze her eggs so that her seven year old daughter, Flavie, who suffers from Turner's syndrome, can one day be a mother through pregnancy.
7 year-old Flavie is suffering from the rare Turner’s syndrome which is a genetic disorder that affects a girl's development. The cause is a missing or incomplete X chromosome. Girls who have it are short, and their ovaries don't work properly – mostly infertile. Put it simply, they are not able to conceive and have children naturally. In concern about it, Ms Melanie Biovin, has decided to freeze her eggs as to give her daughter a chance in becoming a mother one day.
This, like what Jeremy Su has mentioned in his blog entry, brings about many ethical questions on motherhood and parenting. For example, would the child be considered as Flavie's daughter (or son) or her sibling? Biologically speaking, they should be siblings since they both come from the same woman’s eggs. However, when one gives birth to one's sibling, psychologically the relationship is mixed. I think that it will be an awkward situation for both Flavie and her “child” in the future. There would be no perfect answer to whether is the child her sibling or her child? It would be difficult to identify their true relationship.
In years to come, problems may also occur during parenting. What do you think the child will respond if he or she were to know that her mother is actually his or her sibling? When this happens, parenting would be hard for Flavie. For instance, her child may regard Flavie as his or her sibling rather than mother. Respect for the mum would lessen. The child will then tend not to be as obedient and think that Flavie has no right in controlling him or her. This will seriously mess up the family and rapture their bonds.
In addition, this would be a laughing stock when the child’s genetic mum becomes his or her grandma while the sister becomes the mother. What is the world becoming? It is, by and large, unethical. I know that there’s no ill intention for Ms Melanie Biovin to do this, her love and care for her daughter is noble and honourable. However, I think that she has expressed it in a wrong way. Personally, I think this would bring about inevitable problems between her daughter and the future child. This totally defeats the purpose of her act. Worst still, Flavie may even grow up hating her mum’s decision.
Frankly speaking, a woman is not categorized by whether is she able to bear a child. Thus, I think that Falvie should just accept the fact that she is unable to conceive and that there are many ways to shower her love for children apart from having her own.
Source from : http://www.acidic-fiery-salamander.blogspot.com/
The article was first published in Straits Times on 11 July 2007. It is about a 35 year old Canadian mother who has decided to freeze her eggs so that her seven year old daughter, Flavie, who suffers from Turner's syndrome, can one day be a mother through pregnancy.
7 year-old Flavie is suffering from the rare Turner’s syndrome which is a genetic disorder that affects a girl's development. The cause is a missing or incomplete X chromosome. Girls who have it are short, and their ovaries don't work properly – mostly infertile. Put it simply, they are not able to conceive and have children naturally. In concern about it, Ms Melanie Biovin, has decided to freeze her eggs as to give her daughter a chance in becoming a mother one day.
This, like what Jeremy Su has mentioned in his blog entry, brings about many ethical questions on motherhood and parenting. For example, would the child be considered as Flavie's daughter (or son) or her sibling? Biologically speaking, they should be siblings since they both come from the same woman’s eggs. However, when one gives birth to one's sibling, psychologically the relationship is mixed. I think that it will be an awkward situation for both Flavie and her “child” in the future. There would be no perfect answer to whether is the child her sibling or her child? It would be difficult to identify their true relationship.
In years to come, problems may also occur during parenting. What do you think the child will respond if he or she were to know that her mother is actually his or her sibling? When this happens, parenting would be hard for Flavie. For instance, her child may regard Flavie as his or her sibling rather than mother. Respect for the mum would lessen. The child will then tend not to be as obedient and think that Flavie has no right in controlling him or her. This will seriously mess up the family and rapture their bonds.
In addition, this would be a laughing stock when the child’s genetic mum becomes his or her grandma while the sister becomes the mother. What is the world becoming? It is, by and large, unethical. I know that there’s no ill intention for Ms Melanie Biovin to do this, her love and care for her daughter is noble and honourable. However, I think that she has expressed it in a wrong way. Personally, I think this would bring about inevitable problems between her daughter and the future child. This totally defeats the purpose of her act. Worst still, Flavie may even grow up hating her mum’s decision.
Frankly speaking, a woman is not categorized by whether is she able to bear a child. Thus, I think that Falvie should just accept the fact that she is unable to conceive and that there are many ways to shower her love for children apart from having her own.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Term 3 Week 8 Task 4
Can poverty ever be eradicated?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
Affluence creates poverty. The world is unbalance, there are about a billion people in the world who don't have reliable access to drinking water or enough food and health care; at least another two billion people live in slums or rural areas and have the basic means of life, but almost nothing beyond that; many certainly meet their basic needs, but are not part of mainstream society - they can't participate in cultural or educational life, and have little job security. Despites that, I think that poverty can ultimately be eradicated if the rich countries are willing to lend a helping hand to the poor ones.
Like what Eli Khamarov, says, “ Poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn't commit.” We cannot blame the poor nations for being poor; they themselves do not ask for it too. We should and ought to help them out of poverty by giving humanitarian aids. Since Gandhi had said, “To a man with empty stomach food is God”, we can help the destitute by providing food and clothes for them. If everyone cares to spare a thought for them and help by donation or by voluntary work, poor countries will be able to tackle on the help they receive and work on to improve their standard of living. If this is achieved, poor countries will be soon out of poverty, if not, for a betterment.
Kamala Sarup mentioned in the commentary that, “Geography is important in determining whether a country has any prospects of becoming richer.” I beg to defer. A nation does not depend solely on its geographical location for its wealth status. Take for example, Switzerland has too many mountains and too few navigable waterways but is rich; Singapore does not sit above any precious natural resource but is considered a rich developed country too. I think that for a country to be rich, it must first have a pool of robust citizens who are willing to work for their own benefit. If the people are blessed with natural resources but are not hardworking, they may abuse the usage of the resources and find them to be depleted one day. On contrary, if a country has a pool of diligent workers working for its economy to increase its per capita incomes, the nation would be able to climb out of poverty. Since no man would like to be poor, I am sure they would be motivated to work hard if the rich countries are willing to lend them the “seed money” for them to start the fundamental development. If this were to be done, poorer countries would then be able to boost their economy and become rich, if not, merely out of poverty. Thus, I believe that problem of poverty can be solved one day.
Furthermore, Kristina Tom has suggested ways of improving the poor people’s lives. You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money as there are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread. But, not only do we can donate food to them, daily materials like clothes and mosquito nets would be enough to save many lives. In nations where malaria has been a pandemic, like in Africa, a mosquito net would be essential to keep the destitute from diagnosing with the fatal malaria. Financial markets and businesses are not going to solve poverty on their own. If the public understands that the poor are poor because they're afflicted with diseases, drought and environmental difficulties that they can't face on their own, then people are much more ready to support the things that will make a difference. Hence, poverty would be removed with the warmth help from the people around the world.
"From the moment you wake up to the time you turn in today, 20,000 people would have died of hunger," says American thinker Jeffrey Sachs. “And at least 20,000 more will die tomorrow, and the day after, and in the days after that - just because they are poor.” To solve the problems resulted from poverty, the United Nations has been working very hard in the Millennium Project which makes it possible for people to donate US$6 for a mosquito net that will be sent directly to Africa. Such citizens' involvement may provoke our politicians to act. One day they may be ready to stand up and contribute more tax revenues' so that there's big money available to really make this fight. This, I firmly believe, would eradicate poverty sooner or later.
In conclusion, we must treat the world as our nucleus family where different nations are different families and the people are cousins. We must help one another whenever there is a problem. By donating money alone is not enough, we must give humanitarian and health aids. Every man has a right to be poor. If everyone does a little to help the poor countries, we will see a big difference in someone else’s live – climb out of poverty. Thus, I find it possible and hopeful for poor countries to become richer, but it is a mater of time.
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
Affluence creates poverty. The world is unbalance, there are about a billion people in the world who don't have reliable access to drinking water or enough food and health care; at least another two billion people live in slums or rural areas and have the basic means of life, but almost nothing beyond that; many certainly meet their basic needs, but are not part of mainstream society - they can't participate in cultural or educational life, and have little job security. Despites that, I think that poverty can ultimately be eradicated if the rich countries are willing to lend a helping hand to the poor ones.
Like what Eli Khamarov, says, “ Poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn't commit.” We cannot blame the poor nations for being poor; they themselves do not ask for it too. We should and ought to help them out of poverty by giving humanitarian aids. Since Gandhi had said, “To a man with empty stomach food is God”, we can help the destitute by providing food and clothes for them. If everyone cares to spare a thought for them and help by donation or by voluntary work, poor countries will be able to tackle on the help they receive and work on to improve their standard of living. If this is achieved, poor countries will be soon out of poverty, if not, for a betterment.
Kamala Sarup mentioned in the commentary that, “Geography is important in determining whether a country has any prospects of becoming richer.” I beg to defer. A nation does not depend solely on its geographical location for its wealth status. Take for example, Switzerland has too many mountains and too few navigable waterways but is rich; Singapore does not sit above any precious natural resource but is considered a rich developed country too. I think that for a country to be rich, it must first have a pool of robust citizens who are willing to work for their own benefit. If the people are blessed with natural resources but are not hardworking, they may abuse the usage of the resources and find them to be depleted one day. On contrary, if a country has a pool of diligent workers working for its economy to increase its per capita incomes, the nation would be able to climb out of poverty. Since no man would like to be poor, I am sure they would be motivated to work hard if the rich countries are willing to lend them the “seed money” for them to start the fundamental development. If this were to be done, poorer countries would then be able to boost their economy and become rich, if not, merely out of poverty. Thus, I believe that problem of poverty can be solved one day.
Furthermore, Kristina Tom has suggested ways of improving the poor people’s lives. You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money as there are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread. But, not only do we can donate food to them, daily materials like clothes and mosquito nets would be enough to save many lives. In nations where malaria has been a pandemic, like in Africa, a mosquito net would be essential to keep the destitute from diagnosing with the fatal malaria. Financial markets and businesses are not going to solve poverty on their own. If the public understands that the poor are poor because they're afflicted with diseases, drought and environmental difficulties that they can't face on their own, then people are much more ready to support the things that will make a difference. Hence, poverty would be removed with the warmth help from the people around the world.
"From the moment you wake up to the time you turn in today, 20,000 people would have died of hunger," says American thinker Jeffrey Sachs. “And at least 20,000 more will die tomorrow, and the day after, and in the days after that - just because they are poor.” To solve the problems resulted from poverty, the United Nations has been working very hard in the Millennium Project which makes it possible for people to donate US$6 for a mosquito net that will be sent directly to Africa. Such citizens' involvement may provoke our politicians to act. One day they may be ready to stand up and contribute more tax revenues' so that there's big money available to really make this fight. This, I firmly believe, would eradicate poverty sooner or later.
In conclusion, we must treat the world as our nucleus family where different nations are different families and the people are cousins. We must help one another whenever there is a problem. By donating money alone is not enough, we must give humanitarian and health aids. Every man has a right to be poor. If everyone does a little to help the poor countries, we will see a big difference in someone else’s live – climb out of poverty. Thus, I find it possible and hopeful for poor countries to become richer, but it is a mater of time.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Term 3 Week 6 Task 4
Woman Candidate Favored in Upcoming Election
Source from: http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2859.cfm
Pratibha Patil, the newly elected president of India has proved to the world that women, too, have the ability to be the dominating leaders above all. In July, the lawyer has won the election and becomes the first female president in the history of India. This reveals the change in mindset of people about women and their roles in today’s society.
In the past, it is almost impossible for a traditional country to be ruled by a female nominee as the female leaders were seen less powerful and did not acquire the necessary qualities as men. However, this statement is proven as over-generalizing as in this case, the female candidate, Pratibha Patil, was in favored during Indian presidential election.
Women in this modern society do not only take the roles of housewives but also many other aspects in political and excel in their own career. As women get educated, the idea that they are to remain in the home is atavistic. Women possess knowledge that is almost equal to or higher than that of men, thus, they are as deserving of a job as men do. Since women can contribute to the society, we should not waste their talents and expertise. This not only boosts the economic of a country but also improve the financial problem of the individual. There are also many examples to note of successful female professionals in the world. One example would be the founder of the 77th street fashion retail stores in Singapore – Miss Elim Chew. The business prospered and now, under her management, there are 14 outlets island wide and some in UK and China.
Furthermore, as the world undergoes globalization, more job opportunities are created and the obligations of the government and companies to attract female workers have caused an influx of women entering the work force. Some women join the workforce seeking extra income to aid the sole breadwinner of the family, to provide financial support for their loved ones. For a single woman to think like the man is a cultivated trait and it takes a bit of training. For instance, women, unlike men, buy things not only for themselves but also the children, husband and her parents. This depicts that both male and females think and act differently. Both have different abilities. Obviously, it shows that, women should be encouraged to take up a job.
To sum up, a woman should not be regarded as the lower class of the citizens. Like the article mentions, it is a waste of their talents not to explore the outside world. Women being more outstanding in certain aspects are expecting to ace. They are at times better than men and are more detailed and responsible so they should display these values and contribute to the society. Also, by allowing females to step out of their kitchen, we can taste the benefits and expertise of the women.
Source from: http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2859.cfm
Pratibha Patil, the newly elected president of India has proved to the world that women, too, have the ability to be the dominating leaders above all. In July, the lawyer has won the election and becomes the first female president in the history of India. This reveals the change in mindset of people about women and their roles in today’s society.
In the past, it is almost impossible for a traditional country to be ruled by a female nominee as the female leaders were seen less powerful and did not acquire the necessary qualities as men. However, this statement is proven as over-generalizing as in this case, the female candidate, Pratibha Patil, was in favored during Indian presidential election.
Women in this modern society do not only take the roles of housewives but also many other aspects in political and excel in their own career. As women get educated, the idea that they are to remain in the home is atavistic. Women possess knowledge that is almost equal to or higher than that of men, thus, they are as deserving of a job as men do. Since women can contribute to the society, we should not waste their talents and expertise. This not only boosts the economic of a country but also improve the financial problem of the individual. There are also many examples to note of successful female professionals in the world. One example would be the founder of the 77th street fashion retail stores in Singapore – Miss Elim Chew. The business prospered and now, under her management, there are 14 outlets island wide and some in UK and China.
Furthermore, as the world undergoes globalization, more job opportunities are created and the obligations of the government and companies to attract female workers have caused an influx of women entering the work force. Some women join the workforce seeking extra income to aid the sole breadwinner of the family, to provide financial support for their loved ones. For a single woman to think like the man is a cultivated trait and it takes a bit of training. For instance, women, unlike men, buy things not only for themselves but also the children, husband and her parents. This depicts that both male and females think and act differently. Both have different abilities. Obviously, it shows that, women should be encouraged to take up a job.
To sum up, a woman should not be regarded as the lower class of the citizens. Like the article mentions, it is a waste of their talents not to explore the outside world. Women being more outstanding in certain aspects are expecting to ace. They are at times better than men and are more detailed and responsible so they should display these values and contribute to the society. Also, by allowing females to step out of their kitchen, we can taste the benefits and expertise of the women.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Term 3 Week 5 Task 4
Embracing Otherhood - [ST 17122005]- What do you think are some of the challenges facing Singapore as the country plays host to more people from different backgrounds and cultures?
Being in a state of high living standard and social stability, Singapore has attracted many visitors who are speaking different tongues and have different beliefs here in the past few decades. This flock of people from all around the world coming to Singapore is on the increase. Some of us welcome them with warmth opening arms; others are mean-spirited towards their presence in our country. However, what exactly are the challenges faced by Singapore as we host to more people from different backgrounds and cultures?
First and the foremost, the local may be unwilling to accept our guests wholeheartedly. Many locals are grumbling for being substituted by foreigners who show greater ability in their work force. Some of them are reported as being hostile towards the foreign maids and construction workers here. For instance, as raised in the article, the death of the illegal Myanmar worker, Maung Soe Thein. Mr Chua, the local employer of Maung not only did not save him but also, rejected to provide him a proper burial. As mentioned in the article, this tragedy did not cause an outrage ripple from the public, it shows clearly that, Singaporeans at this stage are not giving our fellow foreign friends (or to be precise, guests) enough care and attention. In the past, continual cases of maids being tortured by their employers were surfaced. The number of maids being bullied and ill-treated is still a social problem in our society today. The question is: exactly how many of us did show our compassionate towards these lowbrow cases?
As the growth of our birth rate here is not promising, we need the talents to help boost our economic growth. As a result, we must learn to accept them and not think that they are here to compete with us with our resources and job opportunities.
In recruiting foreigners, including professionals and people who take the blue-collar jobs, many problems flow in. The most common example would be the stereotypical view about the Chinese "Study Mama" here. They are being labelled as “prostitutes” who aim to rupture couple’s relationship and prey on the men for their money. However, this is a sweeping statement as not all China women here are behaving in the same way as the black sheep of China are doing. We must be grateful for those who are contributing to our country’s development especially in the case of low paying blue-collar jobs. They are the ones building nice and cozy flats where we are sheltered from rain and shine. If we do not welcome their arrival, who will be there to build our homes, to take care of our household chores and to bring Singapore’s economic growth to a greater height?
To conclude, we must learn to be compassionate and less prejudiced; not judge these foreigners by their skin colours, their different language and their cultural practices. Only if both parties tolerant and do their part to understand and appreciate each other will we have a peaceful and harmonic society to reside in. Let’s start to help ourselves by accepting the immigrants to join our big family.
Being in a state of high living standard and social stability, Singapore has attracted many visitors who are speaking different tongues and have different beliefs here in the past few decades. This flock of people from all around the world coming to Singapore is on the increase. Some of us welcome them with warmth opening arms; others are mean-spirited towards their presence in our country. However, what exactly are the challenges faced by Singapore as we host to more people from different backgrounds and cultures?
First and the foremost, the local may be unwilling to accept our guests wholeheartedly. Many locals are grumbling for being substituted by foreigners who show greater ability in their work force. Some of them are reported as being hostile towards the foreign maids and construction workers here. For instance, as raised in the article, the death of the illegal Myanmar worker, Maung Soe Thein. Mr Chua, the local employer of Maung not only did not save him but also, rejected to provide him a proper burial. As mentioned in the article, this tragedy did not cause an outrage ripple from the public, it shows clearly that, Singaporeans at this stage are not giving our fellow foreign friends (or to be precise, guests) enough care and attention. In the past, continual cases of maids being tortured by their employers were surfaced. The number of maids being bullied and ill-treated is still a social problem in our society today. The question is: exactly how many of us did show our compassionate towards these lowbrow cases?
As the growth of our birth rate here is not promising, we need the talents to help boost our economic growth. As a result, we must learn to accept them and not think that they are here to compete with us with our resources and job opportunities.
In recruiting foreigners, including professionals and people who take the blue-collar jobs, many problems flow in. The most common example would be the stereotypical view about the Chinese "Study Mama" here. They are being labelled as “prostitutes” who aim to rupture couple’s relationship and prey on the men for their money. However, this is a sweeping statement as not all China women here are behaving in the same way as the black sheep of China are doing. We must be grateful for those who are contributing to our country’s development especially in the case of low paying blue-collar jobs. They are the ones building nice and cozy flats where we are sheltered from rain and shine. If we do not welcome their arrival, who will be there to build our homes, to take care of our household chores and to bring Singapore’s economic growth to a greater height?
To conclude, we must learn to be compassionate and less prejudiced; not judge these foreigners by their skin colours, their different language and their cultural practices. Only if both parties tolerant and do their part to understand and appreciate each other will we have a peaceful and harmonic society to reside in. Let’s start to help ourselves by accepting the immigrants to join our big family.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Term 3 Week 4 Task 4
World in a balance - [Channel News Asia 15072007]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/ - In your view, what are the likely political and socio-economic impacts of the demographic changes we see in the world today? Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from the video “World in the Balance” as well as your own knowledge and experience.
In the past few decades, large families were the norm especially in poorer countries where manpower was needed extensively. However, as the world shifts to technological advancement, the standard of living improves and nuclear families are preferred. In many countries, ways of controlling the birth rate evolved everyday. China, the world’s most populous country, has implemented the one-child policy to curb the increase in birth rate. However, in Singapore, incentives are given to encourage births. The change in world’s demography affects the world as a whole and individual country – both negatively and positively.
Firstly, let’s look at the negative impacts of the change in demography. As there is a decrease in the world’s population, more countries would face the problem of ageing population and thus results in a less robust workforce. A less productive workforce equates a stagnant economy. This also implies that there may be an economic downturn in the country and ultimately affects all other countries since all countries depend on one another for trades. For example, in Japan, women are declaring their independence from marriage and motherhood to pursue professional careers. This rapid decrease in population decays the country’s economic productivity. As the decrease in population brings about unbearable economic disadvantages, some countries begin to encourage more births. For instance, Singapore, with population that forms an inverted pyramid, has yet to meet the replacement rate of 2.1. Incentives and bonuses are given to attract people to give more births.
Politically, less young leaders would be there to rule the country and thus, may lead to the collision of a government. Furthermore, when a country faces ageing population, more healthcare and public facilities are to be given. This strained on the country’s resources which would otherwise be used for its development. Therefore, the country may be deprived of further development and unable to keep up with the world’s growing competitiveness. At the same time, the high living standard allows people to have a much longer lifespan. This means that more old people are needed to be supported by the decreasing young population. Hence, the young people would then have to be taxed more heavily to support the old ones. As a result, people may be unhappy with the government and this is where emigration comes in. The change in demography in this case, disadvantages the country and the world adversely.
Alternatively, by looking at a more positive perspective, the change in the demography can be beneficial both to the affected country and the world. China, the world most populous country, has taken the initiative to bend large families. The stop-at-one one-child policy is an effective one for the fact that it helps to reduce the population by more than one million. This lessens the world’s load exponentially. As a result, resources can now be channelled more to other parts in the world to solve social problems like poverty and famine. This transforms the earth for betterment.
However, we must also not forget, this implementation often accompanied by a vast array of illegal and unethical activities. In China, the implementation of the one-child policy has caused a growing number of female infanticides. As males are more sought after, due to the fact that they carry on the family surname, parents of female infants often kill their baby girls so they can try again to get a baby boy. This posts problems like infant smuggling and illegal adoption. There would also be more male working adults than female ones, causing a largely imbalanced pyramid.
In conclusion, the change in world’s demography may not necessarily a bad one for it brings the redistribution of resources among countries. However, many more negative impacts surfaced. For instance, the growth in emigrations, high taxes on the working adults, stagnant economy and infanticides. Since the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, more should be done to curb this demography change from further deteriorating.
In the past few decades, large families were the norm especially in poorer countries where manpower was needed extensively. However, as the world shifts to technological advancement, the standard of living improves and nuclear families are preferred. In many countries, ways of controlling the birth rate evolved everyday. China, the world’s most populous country, has implemented the one-child policy to curb the increase in birth rate. However, in Singapore, incentives are given to encourage births. The change in world’s demography affects the world as a whole and individual country – both negatively and positively.
Firstly, let’s look at the negative impacts of the change in demography. As there is a decrease in the world’s population, more countries would face the problem of ageing population and thus results in a less robust workforce. A less productive workforce equates a stagnant economy. This also implies that there may be an economic downturn in the country and ultimately affects all other countries since all countries depend on one another for trades. For example, in Japan, women are declaring their independence from marriage and motherhood to pursue professional careers. This rapid decrease in population decays the country’s economic productivity. As the decrease in population brings about unbearable economic disadvantages, some countries begin to encourage more births. For instance, Singapore, with population that forms an inverted pyramid, has yet to meet the replacement rate of 2.1. Incentives and bonuses are given to attract people to give more births.
Politically, less young leaders would be there to rule the country and thus, may lead to the collision of a government. Furthermore, when a country faces ageing population, more healthcare and public facilities are to be given. This strained on the country’s resources which would otherwise be used for its development. Therefore, the country may be deprived of further development and unable to keep up with the world’s growing competitiveness. At the same time, the high living standard allows people to have a much longer lifespan. This means that more old people are needed to be supported by the decreasing young population. Hence, the young people would then have to be taxed more heavily to support the old ones. As a result, people may be unhappy with the government and this is where emigration comes in. The change in demography in this case, disadvantages the country and the world adversely.
Alternatively, by looking at a more positive perspective, the change in the demography can be beneficial both to the affected country and the world. China, the world most populous country, has taken the initiative to bend large families. The stop-at-one one-child policy is an effective one for the fact that it helps to reduce the population by more than one million. This lessens the world’s load exponentially. As a result, resources can now be channelled more to other parts in the world to solve social problems like poverty and famine. This transforms the earth for betterment.
However, we must also not forget, this implementation often accompanied by a vast array of illegal and unethical activities. In China, the implementation of the one-child policy has caused a growing number of female infanticides. As males are more sought after, due to the fact that they carry on the family surname, parents of female infants often kill their baby girls so they can try again to get a baby boy. This posts problems like infant smuggling and illegal adoption. There would also be more male working adults than female ones, causing a largely imbalanced pyramid.
In conclusion, the change in world’s demography may not necessarily a bad one for it brings the redistribution of resources among countries. However, many more negative impacts surfaced. For instance, the growth in emigrations, high taxes on the working adults, stagnant economy and infanticides. Since the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, more should be done to curb this demography change from further deteriorating.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Term 3 Week 3 Task 4
Does It Pay to Combine Work with Studies? source from: http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2005/9/29/161124/526
It is not surprised to hear of any student nowadays working as part timer while schooling. In fact, many think that they should be independent and not ask money from their parents any more.
Many do have the working experience, either from part time jobs or full time ones. Some may take up a part time job during their long year end holiday because they have nothing better to do. They find working during the school holidays much more meaningful than sitting in front of the television set everyday. In addition, they get to taste the life of working adults and thus, gain valuable experiences. Not only have that, by working as part timers, the students themselves get a chance to earn their own pocket money. Some students work while schooling because of their humble family backgrounds. Students from such families have no choice but to work and study simultaneously. Others may think that they are old enough to be financially independent. They do not want to ask money from their parents any more. They think that by working as part timer, they can earn their own allowance and reduce the burden of their parents. However, some people work during study years simply because they want to have the experience which may be helpful for their future. In this ever challenging world, one will only get a good job (after graduation) when she or he has the required related working experience. For instance, reported years ago in
However, does it pay to combine work and study?
In a survey, many working students complained about the lack of sleep due to school work and the part time work they take. These students always end up dozing off during lectures and classes. They also said that they did not perform to the best of their abilities for their examinations. Others said that by taking up a part time job, they have very little time for their school work; let alone be there for hobbies and families. As a result, many students are losing their role as a student – play and study. They get no leisure time and not being sociable in school. Gaps between their friends and themselves widened. They also said that their part time job is not related to the subjects they are studying. Thus, not of much help in their studies.
On the other hand, some find working and studying help them in one way or another. For instance, a student who gives tuition to someone may gain some knowledge in the process. You teach while you earn – not only money but knowledge and experience. Why not then? Some people think that by working, they are better in time management. They can now treasure time better and making their every second more meaningful. What is more, there were a few, who told the questionnaires that now, having a job; they feel better because of more independence. And there were several who mentioned that one more benefit is the ability to meet other people, they find themselves being more sociable in the working force. Only one student asserted that he gets better skills in the field of his studies.
In conclusion, full time students are able to study and work at the same time. Most of them have a part time job, and only some - a full time. And those who do not work are, for the most part, willing to. And it can be seen that students look realistically to the combination of working and studying simultaneously. They have no dreams of such co-ordination being easy and effortless. I think that students work as part timers during school periods is not advisable. As a student, our job is to study and not to work. By working and studying together, we will sure lose the precious time we have for revision and homework. I think that students who intend to work as part timers better to do so only during their school vocations.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Term 3 Week 2 Task 4
Star Search - a meaningful event or a time wasting endeavour by the television network?
Overwhelming response from idol search (America Idol) spearheaded by America has brought about the rise of similar competitions, calling out for talents from all around There is the replica of America Idol locally known as. However, is this project really meaningful and beneficial to both the country and the contestants?
To me, it is not a beneficial process for Singapore to follow suit. First and foremost, Singapore, unlike America, does not have a big market to accommodate the talents discovered. Thus, star search like Singapore Idol might turn out to be taxing on Singapore’s market. By comparing Singapore’s market to Malaysia’s - we both have a relatively small market – local singers are not highly recognized. The best examples would be, Taufik Batisah and Chen Wei Lian, winner of Singapore idol and Project Superstar respectively. As a result, many local-born celebrities are venturing out of Singapore into Taiwan, China and Hong Kong for further development and betterment. From this, we can infer that star search here has limited benefits, or in fact, no benefit unless the champs are prepared to step out of Singapore for his or her endeavours.
I do not see the need for such talents-searching contest for a few reasons. Star search is a time-consuming commitment for all the contestants; they have to put in lots of time and efforts in the trainings, rehearsals and performances. This alone is enough in bringing the worrying negative impacts on the individual such as the negligence in work and relationship. For some, worse still, they skipped meals and sacrificed sleep for their competition as mentioned in various interviews with the contestants. This causes inevitable damage on their health. Ultimately, there will be only one outcome: one winner and many losers. For the winner, the time and effort pay off; for the later, all the hard work and time they invested dearly in the competition go to waste. Radically, we can clearly see that the amount of time you devote in the competition does not guarantee you anything in the contest; you may have the entitlement of loser in the end. Hence, I do not see the advantages of this contest to be launched here.
Star Searching in Singapore is seen more of a time wasting endeavour by the television network. In the contest, audience is to judge their own winner by voting through short message service [SMS] or calls. This large amount of money hauled from the voting goes to the pocket of the television network and the organization. The media is in fact trying to use this readily fast method to earn the quick money from the supporters of the contestants. Thus, from my point of view, I think that the contest is more of an economically profit-driven event for the television network.
For everything good, there is always a price to pay. The Singapore Idol is a double-edged knife for the contestants. Before the contestants are able to enjoy the privileges of an idol, they are already restricted to carry on with their normally way of life. Every single word they make, action they do is closely observed. Intrinsically, they are deprived of privacy and freedom and are refrained from being themselves.
Ergo, I do not think that the contest is a worthy and meaningful one for contestants to maximize their potential talents. Some may argue that it is the process that matters and not the end result. They claim that many contestants gain valuable experiences and make many friends who share the common interest. I do not deny that this is indeed the best take-away of this whole contest, however, as I have mentioned, the cons of the contest far outweigh the pros. Furthermost, in a competition, everyone hopes to win, there is inadequate proof to show how genuine the new friend can be. Hence, I am against the Singapore Idol contest and firmly believe that Singapore Idol is not an meaningful event but a plot of the television network.
Overwhelming response from idol search (America Idol) spearheaded by America has brought about the rise of similar competitions, calling out for talents from all around There is the replica of America Idol locally known as
To me, it is not a beneficial process for Singapore to follow suit. First and foremost, Singapore, unlike America, does not have a big market to accommodate the talents discovered. Thus, star search like Singapore Idol might turn out to be taxing on Singapore’s market. By comparing Singapore’s market to Malaysia’s - we both have a relatively small market – local singers are not highly recognized. The best examples would be, Taufik Batisah and Chen Wei Lian, winner of Singapore idol and Project Superstar respectively. As a result, many local-born celebrities are venturing out of Singapore into Taiwan, China and Hong Kong for further development and betterment. From this, we can infer that star search here has limited benefits, or in fact, no benefit unless the champs are prepared to step out of Singapore for his or her endeavours.
I do not see the need for such talents-searching contest for a few reasons. Star search is a time-consuming commitment for all the contestants; they have to put in lots of time and efforts in the trainings, rehearsals and performances. This alone is enough in bringing the worrying negative impacts on the individual such as the negligence in work and relationship. For some, worse still, they skipped meals and sacrificed sleep for their competition as mentioned in various interviews with the contestants. This causes inevitable damage on their health. Ultimately, there will be only one outcome: one winner and many losers. For the winner, the time and effort pay off; for the later, all the hard work and time they invested dearly in the competition go to waste. Radically, we can clearly see that the amount of time you devote in the competition does not guarantee you anything in the contest; you may have the entitlement of loser in the end. Hence, I do not see the advantages of this contest to be launched here.
Star Searching in Singapore is seen more of a time wasting endeavour by the television network. In the contest, audience is to judge their own winner by voting through short message service [SMS] or calls. This large amount of money hauled from the voting goes to the pocket of the television network and the organization. The media is in fact trying to use this readily fast method to earn the quick money from the supporters of the contestants. Thus, from my point of view, I think that the contest is more of an economically profit-driven event for the television network.
For everything good, there is always a price to pay. The Singapore Idol is a double-edged knife for the contestants. Before the contestants are able to enjoy the privileges of an idol, they are already restricted to carry on with their normally way of life. Every single word they make, action they do is closely observed. Intrinsically, they are deprived of privacy and freedom and are refrained from being themselves.
Ergo, I do not think that the contest is a worthy and meaningful one for contestants to maximize their potential talents. Some may argue that it is the process that matters and not the end result. They claim that many contestants gain valuable experiences and make many friends who share the common interest. I do not deny that this is indeed the best take-away of this whole contest, however, as I have mentioned, the cons of the contest far outweigh the pros. Furthermost, in a competition, everyone hopes to win, there is inadequate proof to show how genuine the new friend can be. Hence, I am against the Singapore Idol contest and firmly believe that Singapore Idol is not an meaningful event but a plot of the television network.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Saturday, June 9, 2007
June Holiday Task 1
Freedom of speech and social responsibility.
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
Freedom of speech is one of the greatest freedoms we possess. It is the fundamental human right and therefore should be recognized. In America, freedom of speech is not granted by the constitution but is practiced by its people as a primary right. I think we should be given the basic right to voice out our own opinions. Freedom of speech is one of the ways that allows the people to be able to exchange ideas and feedbacks with the authorized personnel. However, freedom of speech should not be abused in any way.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, freedom of speech should be regulated. Like what Peter Singer has mentioned, “We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have the right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense.” In Singapore, with no natural resources, our people are the country’s only treasure. We should deter any would-be speakers from commenting on any explosive speeches that may ignite the spark of conflicts between any communities. To continue enjoying the peaceful and harmonic society we are now, freedom of speech in Singapore ought to be reviewed meticulously.
Freedom of speech is a two-edged knife. Peter Singer says, “Without freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” Yes, there is nothing to be skeptical about the importance of free speech. However, the media should feel obliged to censor any harmful articles. In a democratic country where much freedom is given, the media should take the role of a government using legitimate reasons to regulate speech and censoring any defaming reports. In addition, they themselves should not abuse the freedom they possess in writing. Take a counter example, in the wake of September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on America, the media should be more cautious about the news and rumors they report. The media has jeopardized the lives of American soldiers when reported the American military plans. They must be objective and report only the facts, instead of dangerous speculation. Viewing from this, the media seem to be held responsible for the terrorists' attacks. This happened due to the freedom of speech in America. This calls to the world the consequences and danger of free speech.
There should be no ambiguity on the point: free speech is not an absolute. I agree with Szilagy that “the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom.” In a country, the people are able to comment on anything especially with the advancement of technology. Nothing seems possible to stop them from publishing their personal comments. Now, the media should not report reports that are malice or iconoclastic and are offensive to any community in our society. Only in this way that our society will not be affected by the usage of freedom of speech.
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
Freedom of speech is one of the greatest freedoms we possess. It is the fundamental human right and therefore should be recognized. In America, freedom of speech is not granted by the constitution but is practiced by its people as a primary right. I think we should be given the basic right to voice out our own opinions. Freedom of speech is one of the ways that allows the people to be able to exchange ideas and feedbacks with the authorized personnel. However, freedom of speech should not be abused in any way.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, freedom of speech should be regulated. Like what Peter Singer has mentioned, “We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have the right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense.” In Singapore, with no natural resources, our people are the country’s only treasure. We should deter any would-be speakers from commenting on any explosive speeches that may ignite the spark of conflicts between any communities. To continue enjoying the peaceful and harmonic society we are now, freedom of speech in Singapore ought to be reviewed meticulously.
Freedom of speech is a two-edged knife. Peter Singer says, “Without freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” Yes, there is nothing to be skeptical about the importance of free speech. However, the media should feel obliged to censor any harmful articles. In a democratic country where much freedom is given, the media should take the role of a government using legitimate reasons to regulate speech and censoring any defaming reports. In addition, they themselves should not abuse the freedom they possess in writing. Take a counter example, in the wake of September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on America, the media should be more cautious about the news and rumors they report. The media has jeopardized the lives of American soldiers when reported the American military plans. They must be objective and report only the facts, instead of dangerous speculation. Viewing from this, the media seem to be held responsible for the terrorists' attacks. This happened due to the freedom of speech in America. This calls to the world the consequences and danger of free speech.
There should be no ambiguity on the point: free speech is not an absolute. I agree with Szilagy that “the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom.” In a country, the people are able to comment on anything especially with the advancement of technology. Nothing seems possible to stop them from publishing their personal comments. Now, the media should not report reports that are malice or iconoclastic and are offensive to any community in our society. Only in this way that our society will not be affected by the usage of freedom of speech.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Term 2 Week 8 task 4
Is globalization a panacea for world economic development? - source from www.Worldpress.org
According to dictionary.com, globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, ecological and political spheres. Many countries accredit the benefits from globalization and the word ‘globalization’ has become the buzzword mentioned in many countries. So, is globalization more of a blessing to the world as a whole?
Firstly, globalization helps to promote cultural exchanges between different countries. With the skyrocket rate of globalization, goods from various countries that are once out of reach are now emerging into the markets globally. Customs and cultures of the countries are unveiled; people from the world are able to learn more about a country’s cultures. This aids in promoting cultural exchanges globally and contributing to international communications. People who are interested in the goods or the country may even visit places that have never crossed their minds. It thus results in a global movement of people and the visitors, contributing to cultural exchanges, will expose local cultures.
With the improvement in cultural exchanges, it also brings about free trade between nations. Goods can be sold freely between nations; trade and capital flow across borders with unprecedented energy. As a result, more jobs will be created and countries will harbour the fruit of economy prosperity. This generates revenue for the country, boosts its development and improves the standard of living. This brings the steeping down from poverty for the poor nations.
However, globalization does not guarantee a promising betterment for one country. It has become painful, or rather, controversial to the developing world. For instance, it could result in widening the gap between the developed and developing countries and between the rich and the poor in countries. With the global shift, developed countries get to enjoy the cheapest labour forces from the developing countries. Agriculture products – which account for 30 to 60 percent of poor countries’ gross domestic product-, will be imported to rich countries, leaving inadequate food for its own people. This does not help the population to climb out of undevelopement. Adversely, deepens poverty and inequality — prosperity for a few countries and people, marginalization and exclusion for many — and implications for social and political stability, among as well as within nations. It thus not benefiting the world, but in fact, may be a disaster to some poorer countries.
Take for example, While China and India are now rejoicing the success of advance development, millions of their citizens are still living in poverty. They do not climb out of destitution. Ironically, globalization provides a rare platform for the rich to prosper. In fact, forty of the poorest nations, many in Africa, have had zero growth during the past twenty years. Ergo, what can we actually conclude from the beneficial of globalization?
Next, human labour forces would be depleted by the richer world. Rich companies from wealthier countries will take advantages of the cheap labours there. They will make use of the large pool of already available human forces. In developing countries, the literacy rate is low; people receive low education. As a result, they may not be a pool of skillful labour, and alternately end up in low wages. Poor countries will thus face a shrink in the work force and debilitates its own development. People may even migrant to other countries, deteriorating the already worsened condition of the nation. All these could cripple the economy, not flourishing otherwise.
Concisely, globalization is an advantage to the rich developed countries. It causes disastrous consequences in poor nations: widening the gap between the rich and the poor. This brings only social and political instability. Economic growth for the global will be distorted. To enjoy economic growth, globalization is not the must-route. Thus, I strongly think that it is not a panacea for economic development.
According to dictionary.com, globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, ecological and political spheres. Many countries accredit the benefits from globalization and the word ‘globalization’ has become the buzzword mentioned in many countries. So, is globalization more of a blessing to the world as a whole?
Firstly, globalization helps to promote cultural exchanges between different countries. With the skyrocket rate of globalization, goods from various countries that are once out of reach are now emerging into the markets globally. Customs and cultures of the countries are unveiled; people from the world are able to learn more about a country’s cultures. This aids in promoting cultural exchanges globally and contributing to international communications. People who are interested in the goods or the country may even visit places that have never crossed their minds. It thus results in a global movement of people and the visitors, contributing to cultural exchanges, will expose local cultures.
With the improvement in cultural exchanges, it also brings about free trade between nations. Goods can be sold freely between nations; trade and capital flow across borders with unprecedented energy. As a result, more jobs will be created and countries will harbour the fruit of economy prosperity. This generates revenue for the country, boosts its development and improves the standard of living. This brings the steeping down from poverty for the poor nations.
However, globalization does not guarantee a promising betterment for one country. It has become painful, or rather, controversial to the developing world. For instance, it could result in widening the gap between the developed and developing countries and between the rich and the poor in countries. With the global shift, developed countries get to enjoy the cheapest labour forces from the developing countries. Agriculture products – which account for 30 to 60 percent of poor countries’ gross domestic product-, will be imported to rich countries, leaving inadequate food for its own people. This does not help the population to climb out of undevelopement. Adversely, deepens poverty and inequality — prosperity for a few countries and people, marginalization and exclusion for many — and implications for social and political stability, among as well as within nations. It thus not benefiting the world, but in fact, may be a disaster to some poorer countries.
Take for example, While China and India are now rejoicing the success of advance development, millions of their citizens are still living in poverty. They do not climb out of destitution. Ironically, globalization provides a rare platform for the rich to prosper. In fact, forty of the poorest nations, many in Africa, have had zero growth during the past twenty years. Ergo, what can we actually conclude from the beneficial of globalization?
Next, human labour forces would be depleted by the richer world. Rich companies from wealthier countries will take advantages of the cheap labours there. They will make use of the large pool of already available human forces. In developing countries, the literacy rate is low; people receive low education. As a result, they may not be a pool of skillful labour, and alternately end up in low wages. Poor countries will thus face a shrink in the work force and debilitates its own development. People may even migrant to other countries, deteriorating the already worsened condition of the nation. All these could cripple the economy, not flourishing otherwise.
Concisely, globalization is an advantage to the rich developed countries. It causes disastrous consequences in poor nations: widening the gap between the rich and the poor. This brings only social and political instability. Economic growth for the global will be distorted. To enjoy economic growth, globalization is not the must-route. Thus, I strongly think that it is not a panacea for economic development.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Term 2 Week 7 task 4
Can Singapore go car-less? The newspaer. march 2007.
In view of the global warming, many countries are doing their part to conserve the environment. The main problem of global warming is the emission of carbon dioxide, a poisonous gas evolved from the burning of fuels. In car engines, petroleum burnt to produce carbon dioxide. This contributes to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, ultimately, the result of global warming.
Global warming brings only harm to the people. It affects people’s health by increasing the global climate. People may even diagnose with skin cancer if expose to too much sunlight. Increase the global climate means that in general, countries near the equator will face problem of drought while countries near the brim of the world will encounter floods. Glaciers and icebergs will melt, causing an increase in sea level. Many small islands may even submerged. This brings disaster to the world.
To minimize cars in Singapore, is that possible? Yes, ii think that if everyone tries to take public forms of transport, like buses and the mass rapid transmit [MRT], the number of vehicles on the road would be brought down.
In my own opinions, I think that Singapore government should exercise the “no-car-day” more often, for instance, once a month, instead of the currently once a year. In this way, it does not only help in reducing the emission of carbon dioxide, but also prevents any traffic congestion in the near future. It is predicted that by the year 2020, Singapore would be clogged. If the cars in Singapore are arranged in bumper to bumper, it is estimated that it may stretch all the way to Beijing, China. This is breathtaking, are we sure we are going to live in a place like this where there’s no room for pedestrians; we have to squeeze our way out through the vehicles lying on the roads. How would this look like?
To solve the urgent problem of global warming, we should do our little part to conserve the earth. We can help in reducing the usage of plastic bags and anything that can cause the emission of carbon dioxide.
Cutting down on the usage of vehicles in Singapore would be an effective way. Singapore has always set high standards in managing the car populations here. She has won many countries’ compliments. In Singapore, her people have received top education and know what the root to global warming is. They would of course do their part to prevent global warming, if not, at least reduce the emission of carbon dioxide. Singapore has a well established transport network system. Getting the commuters from places to places within minutes means more people are willing to give up their own cars to board the public transports. If more and more people are willing to do that, I am sure there will be one day Singapore goes car-less.
However, there will be case when this does not work in Singapore. Many Singaporeans may find it a chore to haul a cab or run after the public transports, they would just stay in this way – drive their own cars. To many Singaporeans, driving their private cars would mean that they can go to their destinations at one go. Singaporeans living in a cosy city here would not want to squeeze in the bus with the city dwellers. They prefer their own private cars. Some people refuse to take public transports because they are some public figures and they do not want to expose their identity in the public transport. Some may owe cars due to the inaccessibility of their working places.
I think that the government can encourage its people to take the public transport by limiting the number of cars sold. The car ownership should be reviewed so that people do not get a car easily. These can help in bringing down the number of cars on the road. Thus reducing global warming and prevents traffic jam.
In view of the global warming, many countries are doing their part to conserve the environment. The main problem of global warming is the emission of carbon dioxide, a poisonous gas evolved from the burning of fuels. In car engines, petroleum burnt to produce carbon dioxide. This contributes to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, ultimately, the result of global warming.
Global warming brings only harm to the people. It affects people’s health by increasing the global climate. People may even diagnose with skin cancer if expose to too much sunlight. Increase the global climate means that in general, countries near the equator will face problem of drought while countries near the brim of the world will encounter floods. Glaciers and icebergs will melt, causing an increase in sea level. Many small islands may even submerged. This brings disaster to the world.
To minimize cars in Singapore, is that possible? Yes, ii think that if everyone tries to take public forms of transport, like buses and the mass rapid transmit [MRT], the number of vehicles on the road would be brought down.
In my own opinions, I think that Singapore government should exercise the “no-car-day” more often, for instance, once a month, instead of the currently once a year. In this way, it does not only help in reducing the emission of carbon dioxide, but also prevents any traffic congestion in the near future. It is predicted that by the year 2020, Singapore would be clogged. If the cars in Singapore are arranged in bumper to bumper, it is estimated that it may stretch all the way to Beijing, China. This is breathtaking, are we sure we are going to live in a place like this where there’s no room for pedestrians; we have to squeeze our way out through the vehicles lying on the roads. How would this look like?
To solve the urgent problem of global warming, we should do our little part to conserve the earth. We can help in reducing the usage of plastic bags and anything that can cause the emission of carbon dioxide.
Cutting down on the usage of vehicles in Singapore would be an effective way. Singapore has always set high standards in managing the car populations here. She has won many countries’ compliments. In Singapore, her people have received top education and know what the root to global warming is. They would of course do their part to prevent global warming, if not, at least reduce the emission of carbon dioxide. Singapore has a well established transport network system. Getting the commuters from places to places within minutes means more people are willing to give up their own cars to board the public transports. If more and more people are willing to do that, I am sure there will be one day Singapore goes car-less.
However, there will be case when this does not work in Singapore. Many Singaporeans may find it a chore to haul a cab or run after the public transports, they would just stay in this way – drive their own cars. To many Singaporeans, driving their private cars would mean that they can go to their destinations at one go. Singaporeans living in a cosy city here would not want to squeeze in the bus with the city dwellers. They prefer their own private cars. Some people refuse to take public transports because they are some public figures and they do not want to expose their identity in the public transport. Some may owe cars due to the inaccessibility of their working places.
I think that the government can encourage its people to take the public transport by limiting the number of cars sold. The car ownership should be reviewed so that people do not get a car easily. These can help in bringing down the number of cars on the road. Thus reducing global warming and prevents traffic jam.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Term 2 week 6 task 4
Should guns be banned in the United States?
Should guns be banned in the United States? On the 16 April 2007, Cho Seung Hui, a South Korean American permanent resident, shot 32 fellow schoolmates and wounded many before turning the gun at himself. Before the gunman shot himself, he handed over a video type to the media. This video has broadcasted globally. This gunshot had left the world crying. Many have being debating over the loose freedom of American citizens and whether or not the video should be broadcasted across countries. In America, the legal age for possessing a gun is as young as twelve of age. It is such a young age that, even in Singapore, it is consider a child. So the question is: are children allowed to have guns? Is this a sensible way of self-defending? I personally do not agree. Let us put it this way, does a child know what a gun can do? Does he also know that the gun they possess is not a toy? Many may even treat it as a toy gun and start to play with their friends. Young children possessing a personal gun may just shoot at their friends over minor issues as a form of “punishment”. Little do they know how danger it is to carry a gun with them? In the perspective of the adults, having a gun, be it self-defense or otherwise, is a threat too. Adults though know that it is illegal to shoot someone may just do it at the expense of impulsion. They usually cannot control their emotions and commit crimes that are irreversible. This totally defeats the purpose of possessing a gun.
To defense oneself, it does not necessarily have to carry a gun. Learning of martial arts or other protective exercises do help. In addition, image if everyone in the United States carries a gun around, they may just use it in an inappropriate way, resulting in more and more killings. This will only bring about social unrest. Thus ii think that the possessing of guns in America should strictly prohibited by law.
Next come the controversial topic: should the video and images of the victims be shown to the public? Personally, I am against the idea. The video, self-recorded by the gunman, contained violent speech that is a negative example to many young audiences out there. Audiences who do not have a strong will may think that what the gunman did was right. Some may even take pity on him for committing the deadliest offence. Young kids watching the video may think that it is “cool” to operate a gun. Others may find the images gross and disturbing. To the loved ones of the victims, it is just like spreading salt on their wounds, contributing more to their sorrow. I think this is very unfair to the families and friends of the victims. Watching the video and images of the victims can be disgust to many because of the bloody bodies captured.
Next, broadcasting the images and video of the incident will lead to many potential melancholies from carrying out the same dreadful offence. People who are unhappy with the society or are being discriminated will think that it is an effective way to vent their anger. It acts as a villain to others. Since the gunshot had brought the world together in discuss the incident, autistics who are sick in the mind may find it a way to draw the attention of the whole world. This is bloodcurdling. Ergo, I see an immediate withdrawal of the images worldwide.
According to CNN, Cho Seung Hui was suspected to be suffering from depression and autism. His fellow classmates were to hold responsible for the gunshot. They called Cho names like “china guy” and “question mark kid”
. The classmates of his did not show care and concern for him, worse still, discriminated him and ostracized him. The tragedy would not have taken place if the students were to be more sensitive towards their friend. If at the minimal, not to call him names or make fun of him. All the 32 lives would have saved if the Cho were to give enough love from the society. Thus, I urge the government and schools to educate on their people to be more empathy and caring.
Should guns be banned in the United States? On the 16 April 2007, Cho Seung Hui, a South Korean American permanent resident, shot 32 fellow schoolmates and wounded many before turning the gun at himself. Before the gunman shot himself, he handed over a video type to the media. This video has broadcasted globally. This gunshot had left the world crying. Many have being debating over the loose freedom of American citizens and whether or not the video should be broadcasted across countries. In America, the legal age for possessing a gun is as young as twelve of age. It is such a young age that, even in Singapore, it is consider a child. So the question is: are children allowed to have guns? Is this a sensible way of self-defending? I personally do not agree. Let us put it this way, does a child know what a gun can do? Does he also know that the gun they possess is not a toy? Many may even treat it as a toy gun and start to play with their friends. Young children possessing a personal gun may just shoot at their friends over minor issues as a form of “punishment”. Little do they know how danger it is to carry a gun with them? In the perspective of the adults, having a gun, be it self-defense or otherwise, is a threat too. Adults though know that it is illegal to shoot someone may just do it at the expense of impulsion. They usually cannot control their emotions and commit crimes that are irreversible. This totally defeats the purpose of possessing a gun.
To defense oneself, it does not necessarily have to carry a gun. Learning of martial arts or other protective exercises do help. In addition, image if everyone in the United States carries a gun around, they may just use it in an inappropriate way, resulting in more and more killings. This will only bring about social unrest. Thus ii think that the possessing of guns in America should strictly prohibited by law.
Next come the controversial topic: should the video and images of the victims be shown to the public? Personally, I am against the idea. The video, self-recorded by the gunman, contained violent speech that is a negative example to many young audiences out there. Audiences who do not have a strong will may think that what the gunman did was right. Some may even take pity on him for committing the deadliest offence. Young kids watching the video may think that it is “cool” to operate a gun. Others may find the images gross and disturbing. To the loved ones of the victims, it is just like spreading salt on their wounds, contributing more to their sorrow. I think this is very unfair to the families and friends of the victims. Watching the video and images of the victims can be disgust to many because of the bloody bodies captured.
Next, broadcasting the images and video of the incident will lead to many potential melancholies from carrying out the same dreadful offence. People who are unhappy with the society or are being discriminated will think that it is an effective way to vent their anger. It acts as a villain to others. Since the gunshot had brought the world together in discuss the incident, autistics who are sick in the mind may find it a way to draw the attention of the whole world. This is bloodcurdling. Ergo, I see an immediate withdrawal of the images worldwide.
According to CNN, Cho Seung Hui was suspected to be suffering from depression and autism. His fellow classmates were to hold responsible for the gunshot. They called Cho names like “china guy” and “question mark kid”
. The classmates of his did not show care and concern for him, worse still, discriminated him and ostracized him. The tragedy would not have taken place if the students were to be more sensitive towards their friend. If at the minimal, not to call him names or make fun of him. All the 32 lives would have saved if the Cho were to give enough love from the society. Thus, I urge the government and schools to educate on their people to be more empathy and caring.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Term 2 Week 5 Task 4
Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in the two articles and substantiate your ideas with examples of your own. Your response should consist of at least two content paragraphs and be at least 300 words long.
Torture, a both physical and mental form of punishing criminals and terrorists should be deterred. Punishing the offenders by torturing them is unethical. It is harsh and inhumane. By torturing them, we can neither guarantee them to turn over a new leaf non guarantee it an effective way to deter any crimes from happening. The criminals though violated the law are still human beings. They should not be tortured for they are not animals. It is morally against the human rights. This method of punishing them is not necessarily productive and effective. It is a cruel act though it is used to punish the criminals. Torturing the criminals may in turn become the root to social riots. Supporters of the terrorists would not want their heroes to suffer in great pain and may even retaliate and become anti-government. This defeats the ultimate aim of torturing the criminals. It also does not serve as a deterrent to crime rate. Thus, to effectively deter any potential offenders, torturing of criminals should not be the main solution.
In some cases, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted; they have been raped, tortured and murdered. This is totally truculent. The authorities are apparently abusing their power to commit "legal" crimes. They have reacted in a way that has violated the international law. I personally think that the criminals and terrorists should be given a second chance. They can be punished by serving community involved programmes, corrective work order or treat them as coolies. By torturing criminals is not an ideal solution as criminals or terrorists may harbour a hostile attitude towards the authority. This will eventually result in a negative impact on the country and its population. Also, it is the government's responsibility to bring all the prisoners 'under the protection of the law' so they should not be torturing the criminals. Therefore, I think that the use of torture is not justified to a huge extent.
In some places, prisoners were tortured by using microwaves to, literally, heat the water molecules in their skin, causing horrific pain. This causes injuries. The wounds may not be able to be cured. They would be hurt mentally which may even warps their character. Torturing can also ended up killing the criminals. This is not the main purpose of torturing the criminals. thus, the use of torture in dealing with terrorists is not justified.
However thinking of how devastated the loved ones of the victims are, torture becomes acceptable. For instance, the 9/11 was an awful carnage and a nation's broken heart, people were screaming. This made the torture sounded justified. Yes, imagine that if your loved ones have been murdered, what will you feel? The only answer is to take revenge by making the murders suffer? However, though it may be acceptable in the sense, the standards of acceptable torture should be handed carefully. There should not be over limit to the degree of torture. It should only include reasonable application of pain. Otherwise torturing becomes a cruel act and the authority will be taken as sick in the mind.
In conclusion, to punish the terrorists and criminals may not be necessarily need to torture them. Torturing is against the international laws and is morally prohibited. We should be given the basic human rights, including the offenders. When one does something wrong he should be given a second chance to turn over a new leaf. If he were to be tortured, he would then harbour hatred and repeat his mistakes again after he is released. Thus, to prevent any social unrest and to obey the international laws, the use of torture should not be practised in dealing with criminals and terrorists.
Torture, a both physical and mental form of punishing criminals and terrorists should be deterred. Punishing the offenders by torturing them is unethical. It is harsh and inhumane. By torturing them, we can neither guarantee them to turn over a new leaf non guarantee it an effective way to deter any crimes from happening. The criminals though violated the law are still human beings. They should not be tortured for they are not animals. It is morally against the human rights. This method of punishing them is not necessarily productive and effective. It is a cruel act though it is used to punish the criminals. Torturing the criminals may in turn become the root to social riots. Supporters of the terrorists would not want their heroes to suffer in great pain and may even retaliate and become anti-government. This defeats the ultimate aim of torturing the criminals. It also does not serve as a deterrent to crime rate. Thus, to effectively deter any potential offenders, torturing of criminals should not be the main solution.
In some cases, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted; they have been raped, tortured and murdered. This is totally truculent. The authorities are apparently abusing their power to commit "legal" crimes. They have reacted in a way that has violated the international law. I personally think that the criminals and terrorists should be given a second chance. They can be punished by serving community involved programmes, corrective work order or treat them as coolies. By torturing criminals is not an ideal solution as criminals or terrorists may harbour a hostile attitude towards the authority. This will eventually result in a negative impact on the country and its population. Also, it is the government's responsibility to bring all the prisoners 'under the protection of the law' so they should not be torturing the criminals. Therefore, I think that the use of torture is not justified to a huge extent.
In some places, prisoners were tortured by using microwaves to, literally, heat the water molecules in their skin, causing horrific pain. This causes injuries. The wounds may not be able to be cured. They would be hurt mentally which may even warps their character. Torturing can also ended up killing the criminals. This is not the main purpose of torturing the criminals. thus, the use of torture in dealing with terrorists is not justified.
However thinking of how devastated the loved ones of the victims are, torture becomes acceptable. For instance, the 9/11 was an awful carnage and a nation's broken heart, people were screaming. This made the torture sounded justified. Yes, imagine that if your loved ones have been murdered, what will you feel? The only answer is to take revenge by making the murders suffer? However, though it may be acceptable in the sense, the standards of acceptable torture should be handed carefully. There should not be over limit to the degree of torture. It should only include reasonable application of pain. Otherwise torturing becomes a cruel act and the authority will be taken as sick in the mind.
In conclusion, to punish the terrorists and criminals may not be necessarily need to torture them. Torturing is against the international laws and is morally prohibited. We should be given the basic human rights, including the offenders. When one does something wrong he should be given a second chance to turn over a new leaf. If he were to be tortured, he would then harbour hatred and repeat his mistakes again after he is released. Thus, to prevent any social unrest and to obey the international laws, the use of torture should not be practised in dealing with criminals and terrorists.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Term 2 Week 4 Task 4
New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in the two articles and substantiate your ideas with examples of your own. Your response should consist of at least two content paragraphs and be at least 300 words long.
New media of the new age gives people a say in everything under the sun. With the new media, people are able to write online diaries - blogging. Blogging promotes freedom of speech. It allows people to voice out their own opinions and to argue for any controversial topics raised. Political issues which are once out-of-topic to mouths of many are now openly discussed in blogs. Bloggers are given a room to shout out their point of views. Living in this IT-dominating era, we have more choices of what to do and what to say. People possess the power to say anything they want "freely". This new media brought to us not only convenience but also promotes decision-making. Through online forum, people are now able to participate in decision making and offer their ideas. It serves as a platform to press freedom and an opportunity to develop media careers. Feed backs and comments can be exchanged through blogs and forum.
Another form of new media, the Short Message Service (SMS) are omnipresent. In advance developing country like Singapore, almost everyone carries a mobile phone. People use mobile phone to keep in touch with their loved ones or business partners locally or globally. SMS is even more commonly in use by teenagers. Informative and entertaining messages are sent via the SMS. New media helps in connecting the people in the universe together. It is a power to the people.
However, new media brought not only pros but cons too. With the new media, people are free to express their feelings on anything and everything. They may be insensitive towards what they post and end up being sued. For instance, last year, two teenagers posted some religious remarks on their blogs and they got fined by Singapore government. Many countries also start to imprison cyber-dissidents. For example in the article, some bloggers and journalists were imprisoned for posting materials found offensive to Islam. Some had being sentenced because of posting political issues online. This acts as deterrence to many potential cyber-dissidents.
Due to the increase in fake news and untrue articles, some countries come out with the government censorship which blocks or closes any websites or blogs containing trace of untrue information or offensive contents. Take for example, China demanded Google to filter off any anti-government websites before it is allowed to be set up in China. More examples are the banning of all political websites advocating Western Sahara's in Morocco and publications mentioning women's rights in Iran. In some places like Ethiopia, blog hosting servers are appearing. They are inaccessible to many. This is to completely wipe out the place for any dissident discussions.
I think that new media is more of a power to the people than threat to stability. The number of people using the media as personal leisure and for business purposes far outweighed the number of people for illegal usage. Thus I think the government should not block the blogs entirely. They should encourage its people to post more online thoughts so that they are aware of how its population thinks of them. Creating disorder in the country by bloggers should be deterred but that's only a handful of them. Therefore, in conclusion, I strongly think that new media is a power to the people not a threat to stability.
New media of the new age gives people a say in everything under the sun. With the new media, people are able to write online diaries - blogging. Blogging promotes freedom of speech. It allows people to voice out their own opinions and to argue for any controversial topics raised. Political issues which are once out-of-topic to mouths of many are now openly discussed in blogs. Bloggers are given a room to shout out their point of views. Living in this IT-dominating era, we have more choices of what to do and what to say. People possess the power to say anything they want "freely". This new media brought to us not only convenience but also promotes decision-making. Through online forum, people are now able to participate in decision making and offer their ideas. It serves as a platform to press freedom and an opportunity to develop media careers. Feed backs and comments can be exchanged through blogs and forum.
Another form of new media, the Short Message Service (SMS) are omnipresent. In advance developing country like Singapore, almost everyone carries a mobile phone. People use mobile phone to keep in touch with their loved ones or business partners locally or globally. SMS is even more commonly in use by teenagers. Informative and entertaining messages are sent via the SMS. New media helps in connecting the people in the universe together. It is a power to the people.
However, new media brought not only pros but cons too. With the new media, people are free to express their feelings on anything and everything. They may be insensitive towards what they post and end up being sued. For instance, last year, two teenagers posted some religious remarks on their blogs and they got fined by Singapore government. Many countries also start to imprison cyber-dissidents. For example in the article, some bloggers and journalists were imprisoned for posting materials found offensive to Islam. Some had being sentenced because of posting political issues online. This acts as deterrence to many potential cyber-dissidents.
Due to the increase in fake news and untrue articles, some countries come out with the government censorship which blocks or closes any websites or blogs containing trace of untrue information or offensive contents. Take for example, China demanded Google to filter off any anti-government websites before it is allowed to be set up in China. More examples are the banning of all political websites advocating Western Sahara's in Morocco and publications mentioning women's rights in Iran. In some places like Ethiopia, blog hosting servers are appearing. They are inaccessible to many. This is to completely wipe out the place for any dissident discussions.
I think that new media is more of a power to the people than threat to stability. The number of people using the media as personal leisure and for business purposes far outweighed the number of people for illegal usage. Thus I think the government should not block the blogs entirely. They should encourage its people to post more online thoughts so that they are aware of how its population thinks of them. Creating disorder in the country by bloggers should be deterred but that's only a handful of them. Therefore, in conclusion, I strongly think that new media is a power to the people not a threat to stability.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Term 2 Week 3 Task 4
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in this article and substantiate your arguments with your own examples.
In this modern world, media has played a crucial role in our daily life. It is not only a source of entertainment but one to educate and enlighten the audience. The news media in Singapore is controlled by the government. The media is not free to comment on any political issues and all the criticisms are muted by the media.
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? I think that it can be relied only to a small extent. Here are the reasons for my argument.
The media has always been providing information to educate the public. They provide information and facts which are almost error-free. These messages will then be conveyed to the public in high accuracy. Through this, the public rely upon the media to feed them with news and facts. The working adults have a hectic schedule; they will approach the media to find out what's happening in the country and in the whole world. People generally invest high trust in the media. They seldom doubt about the level of reliability of the sources published.
According to the article, the author mentioned that the media can be labeled as the 3 Ps, Popularity, Prejudice and Profit. The source says that to avoid any arguments, the media has continuously ignored articles that could educate or enlighten. It has been keeping important news until it is safe to publish. Sometimes, when it is "safe" to announce to the public, those news may not be relied upon as there maybe some changes made. Thus the news will not be true to a large extent.
The journalists may be biased when writing news reports. They will add in their own opinions and comment on them. Some may even choose to publish only the good points of the celebrity but dilute the bad side. As a result, not the both side of an issue are addressed, this is highly biased. The media will not be true. This is prejudice. Thus the media cannot be relied upon for conveying truth.
The media also makes profit when the news is published. Sometimes, in order to make high profit, or to attract the public attention to the news, the media will try to fabricate news. Thus I think that the media is not fully reliable. The reporters may be hypocrites; they report news which they themselves do not like. However for the sake of the profit, they have to do it. This may cause unreliable in the sources as the reporters may be biased. Their articles may be subjective.
Interviews which are not aired in live are subjected to changes. The responder and the interview are able to change their lines if they find the answers offensive. This results in inaccuracy of the reports. The news is not original, they are not purely written. The truth thus cannot be conveyed through the media.
Some news is simply propaganda. There is no freedom of speech in Singapore. For instance, the news media in Singapore are not allowed to publish news about the politics and things which will cause harm to Singapore Government. Also in China, the websites criticizing China Government are removed from the Internet to ensure that there are no anti-government groups.
Reading from only one source is not enough as it may not reliable to get the necessary information one needs. We have to widen our reading horizon if we were to be fed with true news.
In this modern world, media has played a crucial role in our daily life. It is not only a source of entertainment but one to educate and enlighten the audience. The news media in Singapore is controlled by the government. The media is not free to comment on any political issues and all the criticisms are muted by the media.
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? I think that it can be relied only to a small extent. Here are the reasons for my argument.
The media has always been providing information to educate the public. They provide information and facts which are almost error-free. These messages will then be conveyed to the public in high accuracy. Through this, the public rely upon the media to feed them with news and facts. The working adults have a hectic schedule; they will approach the media to find out what's happening in the country and in the whole world. People generally invest high trust in the media. They seldom doubt about the level of reliability of the sources published.
According to the article, the author mentioned that the media can be labeled as the 3 Ps, Popularity, Prejudice and Profit. The source says that to avoid any arguments, the media has continuously ignored articles that could educate or enlighten. It has been keeping important news until it is safe to publish. Sometimes, when it is "safe" to announce to the public, those news may not be relied upon as there maybe some changes made. Thus the news will not be true to a large extent.
The journalists may be biased when writing news reports. They will add in their own opinions and comment on them. Some may even choose to publish only the good points of the celebrity but dilute the bad side. As a result, not the both side of an issue are addressed, this is highly biased. The media will not be true. This is prejudice. Thus the media cannot be relied upon for conveying truth.
The media also makes profit when the news is published. Sometimes, in order to make high profit, or to attract the public attention to the news, the media will try to fabricate news. Thus I think that the media is not fully reliable. The reporters may be hypocrites; they report news which they themselves do not like. However for the sake of the profit, they have to do it. This may cause unreliable in the sources as the reporters may be biased. Their articles may be subjective.
Interviews which are not aired in live are subjected to changes. The responder and the interview are able to change their lines if they find the answers offensive. This results in inaccuracy of the reports. The news is not original, they are not purely written. The truth thus cannot be conveyed through the media.
Some news is simply propaganda. There is no freedom of speech in Singapore. For instance, the news media in Singapore are not allowed to publish news about the politics and things which will cause harm to Singapore Government. Also in China, the websites criticizing China Government are removed from the Internet to ensure that there are no anti-government groups.
Reading from only one source is not enough as it may not reliable to get the necessary information one needs. We have to widen our reading horizon if we were to be fed with true news.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Term 2 Week 2 Task 4
Teens playing rape games on Net. reported by THE NEW PAPER, 10 MARCH 2007.
I read with shock that there are many teens playing rape games on the internet. According to THE NEW PAPER [10 March ], one of the secondary school teachers interviewed said that 35 out of his class of 40 knew about these online rape games. The "victim" in the brutal game who is drawn in anime style is being tied up and blindfolded. The worried issue is that about 20 admitted to having logged on to the websites. It brought to us this question : will the teens grow up with warped values?
It is very sad that teens are playing such unhealthy games. It is worse than pornography! Teens are not mentally matured, they see games like these fun and exciting. Once teens get hooked to such immoral games, there may get addicted. This imposes potential danger on the teens as they may act out what they have played in the games in real life. This is terrifying. Just imaging how the world will be like in twenty years' time if teens were to take raping as an "exciting activity"?
Playing of rape games brings only cons to the players and the society. The players are apparently sick in the mind, they may do inevitable harm to the society and create social disorder for all of us. This is something none of us would like to experience in the near future.
Rape games must be banned in the shortest possible time. Parents should keep close track on what do their children do online. If necessary, restrict the websites their children go to or install mechanism in place that automatically stops the access to such websites. They should also spend more time communicating with their children and instill in them the right values.
As most teens themselves are not aware of the effects they may get from playing these type of games, teachers can assist them by opening up consultations or give them more lectures on moral values. Should there be any changes shown by students, teachers must act fast to detect if they are indulge in such games.
The government can also punish anyone from uploading these games on the internet. It can also filter off those ferocious games from gaining entry into Singapore websites. Lastly, the government can also take some kind of measure to block teens from playing the games.
In conclusion, playing rape games is inhuman. If we would like to continue enjoying the current low crime rate and peaceful society we have in Singapore, it's our role to barricade the rape games now.
I read with shock that there are many teens playing rape games on the internet. According to THE NEW PAPER [10 March ], one of the secondary school teachers interviewed said that 35 out of his class of 40 knew about these online rape games. The "victim" in the brutal game who is drawn in anime style is being tied up and blindfolded. The worried issue is that about 20 admitted to having logged on to the websites. It brought to us this question : will the teens grow up with warped values?
It is very sad that teens are playing such unhealthy games. It is worse than pornography! Teens are not mentally matured, they see games like these fun and exciting. Once teens get hooked to such immoral games, there may get addicted. This imposes potential danger on the teens as they may act out what they have played in the games in real life. This is terrifying. Just imaging how the world will be like in twenty years' time if teens were to take raping as an "exciting activity"?
Playing of rape games brings only cons to the players and the society. The players are apparently sick in the mind, they may do inevitable harm to the society and create social disorder for all of us. This is something none of us would like to experience in the near future.
Rape games must be banned in the shortest possible time. Parents should keep close track on what do their children do online. If necessary, restrict the websites their children go to or install mechanism in place that automatically stops the access to such websites. They should also spend more time communicating with their children and instill in them the right values.
As most teens themselves are not aware of the effects they may get from playing these type of games, teachers can assist them by opening up consultations or give them more lectures on moral values. Should there be any changes shown by students, teachers must act fast to detect if they are indulge in such games.
The government can also punish anyone from uploading these games on the internet. It can also filter off those ferocious games from gaining entry into Singapore websites. Lastly, the government can also take some kind of measure to block teens from playing the games.
In conclusion, playing rape games is inhuman. If we would like to continue enjoying the current low crime rate and peaceful society we have in Singapore, it's our role to barricade the rape games now.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
self - introduction. --- GP
Hi, I am Wang Yajuan [ Kathy ] from PDG 08/07. I was from Riverside Secondary School which is in Woodlands. I spent my first three months in Nanyang JC and find it a dynamic and warm college. My CCA in Riverside was symphonic band. I played the flute. Currently I am still in symphonic band in AJC. However I will quit band after SYF and join the Guitar Club as I would like to learn something new.
I think that I am a bubbly [though sometimes too talkative] and responsible person. I take my schoolwork serious but I am definitely NOT a mugger. I love to study yet like to play. I love Maths, Bio and Chem, but for some practical reasons, I take Phys at H2 level instead of Bio.
Life in JC is a tremendous change as compared to secondary school's. We are tied with our hectic schedules and always have not enough sleep. This is very unhealthy for students like us.
*beaming*
Since young I have been dreaming of becoming a teacher. However I changed my ambition till the out broke of SARS. It was only then I was aspired to be a doctor [ or a gynaecologist]. I want to save people and hope to make a difference in someone else's life. I love babies as they are so innocent and adorable. Though it is my dream, I know I cannot make it. I am not being pessimistic. . . I am easily intimidated by the sights of wounds, blood and even little creatures like worms and lizards. . .
The doctor-wanna-be?
I think I am just building castle in the air! My hobbies are collecting stamps, shopping, sleeping, dancing, playing musical instruments swimming and playing badminton. I love the sea and mountain where I can indulge in a state of tranquil.
Sad to add, I am very careless and always unpunctual for appointments.
I think that I am a bubbly [though sometimes too talkative] and responsible person. I take my schoolwork serious but I am definitely NOT a mugger. I love to study yet like to play. I love Maths, Bio and Chem, but for some practical reasons, I take Phys at H2 level instead of Bio.
Life in JC is a tremendous change as compared to secondary school's. We are tied with our hectic schedules and always have not enough sleep. This is very unhealthy for students like us.
*beaming*
Since young I have been dreaming of becoming a teacher. However I changed my ambition till the out broke of SARS. It was only then I was aspired to be a doctor [ or a gynaecologist]. I want to save people and hope to make a difference in someone else's life. I love babies as they are so innocent and adorable. Though it is my dream, I know I cannot make it. I am not being pessimistic. . . I am easily intimidated by the sights of wounds, blood and even little creatures like worms and lizards. . .
The doctor-wanna-be?
I think I am just building castle in the air! My hobbies are collecting stamps, shopping, sleeping, dancing, playing musical instruments swimming and playing badminton. I love the sea and mountain where I can indulge in a state of tranquil.
Sad to add, I am very careless and always unpunctual for appointments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)