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.

June Holiday Task 2

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.

Term 2 Week 10 Task 4

Term 2 Week 9 Task 4

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.

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.