Before, how do universities identify students who are the cream of the crop? Answer: They look at the student's grades.
Now, how do universities identify students who are the cream of the crop? Answer: They look at student's achievements outside his studies.
With more and more people achieving As for their A Levels, it is more difficult for universities to select the best out of the best, as the place is limited. Now with JC diplomas given out to students who are exceptionally good in certain areas, it allows universities to have a better view of which of the students are the ones that they need.
However, even with the JC diploma, I do not feel that it can completely replace A Levels altogether. This is because the purpose of A Level is to test whether a student is prepared for the examinations and whether the student can graduate from JC.
To start off, it is a fact that one has to have good grades in order to get into top universities. Universities want all the top students studying in their institutions so as to boost their reputations and also to attract all the best talents to their universities. The A levels hence is a verification of one’s concepts that one has learned in school.
On the other hand, the JC diploma is a guage to verify the student's achivement other than his studies for example research and electives. However this cannot replace A Levels as the JC diploma is used more for scholarships and universities when everyone is as good as the other. Only during such situation can JC diploma be used to separate the cream of the crop from the rest.
Hence, I feel that JC diploma cannot replace A Levels and can only be used to compare other achievements with equally good students.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Today's library, tomorrow's 'googlary'?
With the technology of the internet improving day by day, we can now even check about information on online libraries and even read articles online. Many people thus wonder whether this would be the end of libraries and the beginning of the online reading age. My thoughts and feelings, never.
Closing down libraries just because online reading can replace it is nearly the same as closing down museums because you can see the pictures of the artifacts online. Reading is never solely about staring at the words and let it go into the brains. Reading also requires the atmosphere and environment. For example, no point reading a romance story is someone is blasting "womanizer" beside you. It simply spoils the mood. Thats one of the reasons why a library exists: in order to provide with the reader a comfortable environment for him or her to read.
As for why not using the internet as a source of reading. There are a few simple points as in why. Firstly, internet is completely distracting. When you are reading a real book, its only the world, the book and yourself. You can spend hours enjoying that book and without anything around you that can possibly distract you, assuming that you are in a suitable environment. As for internet, there is the world, the book, youtube, wikipedia, myspace, facebook, hotmail, msn, google.....and maybe you. The number of distractions is too great for a person to read a book online and in peace, any moment the reader may just go to wikipedia and attempt to get a summary out of the story so that it spoils the entire mood, or google some sites which will tell you all the spoilers you want about the story.
The second and most obvious reason, it hurts your eyes. You can read a book for hours and only feel a slight tiring of the eyes, but more than 30minutes on the computer reading words would affect your eyes greatly. There are research which found out that reading a lot of words on the computer, and especially continuously scrolling up and down, affects the eyes way more than reading a real book for hours. And by the time you come back from resting your eyes to the computer, you may have already lost interest and decide to go for spoilers instead.
A third reason is that many people feel that comparing reading a real book and reading an online book. The mood created and the "hook" towards the book is greater when reading a real book compared to an online one. Thus many people who read books online may not have been fully enjoying themselves compared to reading a real one.
Hence, libraries getting closed down? Dream on. At least in my era that will not happen.
Closing down libraries just because online reading can replace it is nearly the same as closing down museums because you can see the pictures of the artifacts online. Reading is never solely about staring at the words and let it go into the brains. Reading also requires the atmosphere and environment. For example, no point reading a romance story is someone is blasting "womanizer" beside you. It simply spoils the mood. Thats one of the reasons why a library exists: in order to provide with the reader a comfortable environment for him or her to read.
As for why not using the internet as a source of reading. There are a few simple points as in why. Firstly, internet is completely distracting. When you are reading a real book, its only the world, the book and yourself. You can spend hours enjoying that book and without anything around you that can possibly distract you, assuming that you are in a suitable environment. As for internet, there is the world, the book, youtube, wikipedia, myspace, facebook, hotmail, msn, google.....and maybe you. The number of distractions is too great for a person to read a book online and in peace, any moment the reader may just go to wikipedia and attempt to get a summary out of the story so that it spoils the entire mood, or google some sites which will tell you all the spoilers you want about the story.
The second and most obvious reason, it hurts your eyes. You can read a book for hours and only feel a slight tiring of the eyes, but more than 30minutes on the computer reading words would affect your eyes greatly. There are research which found out that reading a lot of words on the computer, and especially continuously scrolling up and down, affects the eyes way more than reading a real book for hours. And by the time you come back from resting your eyes to the computer, you may have already lost interest and decide to go for spoilers instead.
A third reason is that many people feel that comparing reading a real book and reading an online book. The mood created and the "hook" towards the book is greater when reading a real book compared to an online one. Thus many people who read books online may not have been fully enjoying themselves compared to reading a real one.
Hence, libraries getting closed down? Dream on. At least in my era that will not happen.
Leader: GEP
Basically the moral of the story is: woots to elites, sucks to elitism.
Who are the elites? The elites are the leaders of Singapore's future society, who are vital for the progress of the country. When we talk about elites, we mean leaders who truly leads the country, who is able to command the people to work as one, who is willing to serve the people of Singapore. This are the type of true leaders, unlike some "leaders" whose job is simply to order his workers around and his secretary would do the job.
When people look at students of GEP in Singapore, they tend to view the students as the very hardworking, knowledgeable, and often the muuger type. True, to a certain extent. Some students are naturally talented in a certain area of studies, thus they do not require to spend as much time on that subject as other students need to. Also, students may not necessarily be the "mug" type, they may develop special methods to help in their studies and to make learning less stressful. Nowadays, purely mugging is never the correct method in facing studies. Through purely mugging you MAY be able to have good results for tests which are tested only in that area. But what about outside the classroom? Students who are pure muggers could only gaze blankly because they only remember what the textbook says, and are not knowledgeable about other topics outside the textbook.
Take for example in my class, it is mainly divided into 4 groups. The muggers, the talented muggers, the talented slackers, the slackers. It is very easily understood. Students who study subjects a lot and sometimes requires hard memorising before he can understand a topic, like me towards mathematics. Students to are talented and also spend a lot of time studying subject. Students who are talented but does not study subjects to THAT extent. And students who spend their time relaxing. For me, I feel that the last group would not be very efficient if they do not at least start by revising their homework. The first type would only lose to the rest of those who studied felxibly when he competed with them for scholarships and competitions. Some students may think that following one's own hobbies instead of preparing themselves for tests by endless studying is wrong. What I can say is that such nursery chain of thoughts would only bring harm to the person. In this society nowadays, everyone is good in tests, and can be good in tests. When students compete for scholarships, nobody would bother to look at their test results anymore - they have good results anyway. What does people look at? Their talents, their hobbies. What differs one student from another is exactly the hobbies and interests that student has. For example, a student who is interested and good in science would of course have a better chance when competing with another student who is only interest in getting good results for his tests and is good in tests.
Secondly, I would like to bring up the issue of "relaxing", as some students may say when they saw their classmates taking time out of their stressful studies to take a break. Relaxing is the best way to make a student learn better as it gives the brain time to cool down. Endless mugging would only affect the student more if he does not know how to relax properly.
Hence, I feel that Singapore should have elites, but elites who are really elites, not muggers.
Who are the elites? The elites are the leaders of Singapore's future society, who are vital for the progress of the country. When we talk about elites, we mean leaders who truly leads the country, who is able to command the people to work as one, who is willing to serve the people of Singapore. This are the type of true leaders, unlike some "leaders" whose job is simply to order his workers around and his secretary would do the job.
When people look at students of GEP in Singapore, they tend to view the students as the very hardworking, knowledgeable, and often the muuger type. True, to a certain extent. Some students are naturally talented in a certain area of studies, thus they do not require to spend as much time on that subject as other students need to. Also, students may not necessarily be the "mug" type, they may develop special methods to help in their studies and to make learning less stressful. Nowadays, purely mugging is never the correct method in facing studies. Through purely mugging you MAY be able to have good results for tests which are tested only in that area. But what about outside the classroom? Students who are pure muggers could only gaze blankly because they only remember what the textbook says, and are not knowledgeable about other topics outside the textbook.
Take for example in my class, it is mainly divided into 4 groups. The muggers, the talented muggers, the talented slackers, the slackers. It is very easily understood. Students who study subjects a lot and sometimes requires hard memorising before he can understand a topic, like me towards mathematics. Students to are talented and also spend a lot of time studying subject. Students who are talented but does not study subjects to THAT extent. And students who spend their time relaxing. For me, I feel that the last group would not be very efficient if they do not at least start by revising their homework. The first type would only lose to the rest of those who studied felxibly when he competed with them for scholarships and competitions. Some students may think that following one's own hobbies instead of preparing themselves for tests by endless studying is wrong. What I can say is that such nursery chain of thoughts would only bring harm to the person. In this society nowadays, everyone is good in tests, and can be good in tests. When students compete for scholarships, nobody would bother to look at their test results anymore - they have good results anyway. What does people look at? Their talents, their hobbies. What differs one student from another is exactly the hobbies and interests that student has. For example, a student who is interested and good in science would of course have a better chance when competing with another student who is only interest in getting good results for his tests and is good in tests.
Secondly, I would like to bring up the issue of "relaxing", as some students may say when they saw their classmates taking time out of their stressful studies to take a break. Relaxing is the best way to make a student learn better as it gives the brain time to cool down. Endless mugging would only affect the student more if he does not know how to relax properly.
Hence, I feel that Singapore should have elites, but elites who are really elites, not muggers.
The Great Casino Debate
After reading the article, I feel that I would like to disagree with the author about Singapore not setting up a casino. Indeed, what the author fears is also what the majority of the Singaporeans are worrying about, about people getting addicted to gambling, about families broken up because of gambling, about people neglecting their work for gambling, so on and so forth. But in the end it still brings us to one problem, the issue of self-control.
Firstly, the author compares the setting up of a casino as killing the "goose" for the "golden eggs", however, I feel that the casino is never a "once-gain" issue. Once the management work of the casino is stable, continuous amount of cash will flow into Sinagapore. It does bring continuous help to Singapore's economy, the only problem is whether or not Sinagporeans would be tempted to go to the casino for the quick cash which would usually result in loss of money. This brings us to the issue of self-control. If the Singaporeans have self-control in them, they would know when is the time for them to stop gambling and go back to their daily lives. Only those who are unable to control themselves will be hooked on to the casino and continue destroying their lives - and this is why the government made sure that only those people who have the amount of money could go into the casino. Why? Because the government feels that these people had plenty of money just due to the fact that they can control themselves and thus did not spend all of them the moment they got their hands on the money.
Also, I feel that casino by itself is not a bane to Singapore society. Take for example Las Vegas, why would people want to go there? It is exactly because Las Vegas is the "heart" of casinos and thus people are willing to spend the money to go there, it is exactly the casinos that attracts the people. If there is a casino in Singapore, at least more people in the Asia region would visit Singapore's casino, this would greatly help Singapore's economy. Also, the setting up of the casino also provides job for many more people - nobody can deny this fact. Furthermore, it gives Singapore more experience in casinos as it is the first time that Singapore set up a casino.
Hence, I feel that the setting up of a casino in Singapore is not as much as a bane to its society as other people would think.
Firstly, the author compares the setting up of a casino as killing the "goose" for the "golden eggs", however, I feel that the casino is never a "once-gain" issue. Once the management work of the casino is stable, continuous amount of cash will flow into Sinagapore. It does bring continuous help to Singapore's economy, the only problem is whether or not Sinagporeans would be tempted to go to the casino for the quick cash which would usually result in loss of money. This brings us to the issue of self-control. If the Singaporeans have self-control in them, they would know when is the time for them to stop gambling and go back to their daily lives. Only those who are unable to control themselves will be hooked on to the casino and continue destroying their lives - and this is why the government made sure that only those people who have the amount of money could go into the casino. Why? Because the government feels that these people had plenty of money just due to the fact that they can control themselves and thus did not spend all of them the moment they got their hands on the money.
Also, I feel that casino by itself is not a bane to Singapore society. Take for example Las Vegas, why would people want to go there? It is exactly because Las Vegas is the "heart" of casinos and thus people are willing to spend the money to go there, it is exactly the casinos that attracts the people. If there is a casino in Singapore, at least more people in the Asia region would visit Singapore's casino, this would greatly help Singapore's economy. Also, the setting up of the casino also provides job for many more people - nobody can deny this fact. Furthermore, it gives Singapore more experience in casinos as it is the first time that Singapore set up a casino.
Hence, I feel that the setting up of a casino in Singapore is not as much as a bane to its society as other people would think.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
How far would you consider the measures taken by various countries to contain the spread of swine flu adequate and effective?
Now we are all very concerned about our health ever since the outbreak of the swine flu or H1N1 virus. It is a virus which first took its place in Mexico and caused chaos all over the world and countries immediately took safety measures against it.
In Asia, where many countries had past experience of battling with the H5N1 bird flu and SARS, began taking steps in ensuring that H1N1 virus will not penetrate the countries as easily as previous cases of other viruses. Some countries began quarantining foreign visitors suspected of having or being in contact with others who may have been infected. In late May, the Chinese government confined 21 U.S. students and three teachers to their hotel rooms because a passenger on their plane to China, suspected of having swine flu, had been seated within four rows of the students. In Hong Kong, an entire hotel was quarantined with 240 guests after one person staying there was found to have swine flu. Countries have used many methods such as quarantines, closing down of schools, closely monitor those people who are having high fevers or had been to countries that were affected by flu for the past few days.
However, one down side about all these preventions is that no matter how preventive the measures, there are still many people who got infected after they flew from one country to another country without being noticed. I feel that the best method to solve this problem is that people themselves should observe good personal hygiene and take up preventive measures should they observe other people around them is suspicious of having the flu. Also, if the people should see a doctor should they feel unwell during this period, so as to ensure that they themselves will not be a carrier of the deadly flu.
Also, there are some desperate measures such as containment which will serverely affect other countries' tourism and economic development in general. I feel that the method of containment will not work as no matter how the government tries to prevent people from going to other countries, its still up to the people themselves to take care of their health. Thus, I feel that the best way to defeat the swine flu is that all the people knows how to take care of themselves properly.
In Asia, where many countries had past experience of battling with the H5N1 bird flu and SARS, began taking steps in ensuring that H1N1 virus will not penetrate the countries as easily as previous cases of other viruses. Some countries began quarantining foreign visitors suspected of having or being in contact with others who may have been infected. In late May, the Chinese government confined 21 U.S. students and three teachers to their hotel rooms because a passenger on their plane to China, suspected of having swine flu, had been seated within four rows of the students. In Hong Kong, an entire hotel was quarantined with 240 guests after one person staying there was found to have swine flu. Countries have used many methods such as quarantines, closing down of schools, closely monitor those people who are having high fevers or had been to countries that were affected by flu for the past few days.
However, one down side about all these preventions is that no matter how preventive the measures, there are still many people who got infected after they flew from one country to another country without being noticed. I feel that the best method to solve this problem is that people themselves should observe good personal hygiene and take up preventive measures should they observe other people around them is suspicious of having the flu. Also, if the people should see a doctor should they feel unwell during this period, so as to ensure that they themselves will not be a carrier of the deadly flu.
Also, there are some desperate measures such as containment which will serverely affect other countries' tourism and economic development in general. I feel that the method of containment will not work as no matter how the government tries to prevent people from going to other countries, its still up to the people themselves to take care of their health. Thus, I feel that the best way to defeat the swine flu is that all the people knows how to take care of themselves properly.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Advance Medical Directive Act
Advance health care directives, also known as advance directives or advance decisions, are instructions given by individuals specifying what actions should be taken for their health in the event that they are no longer able to make decisions due to illness or incapacity. This means that for example the person signs an agreement, sometimes in the form of a will, saying that if one day he had an accident had went into a coma, his doctor would do what is stated on the agreement, either give him treatment or give him euthanasia. The plus side about AMD is that it is an agreement entirely of the person's free will, so he decides on what will be done to him should he face an event that disables his ability to make decisions.
The main difference between AMD and euthanasia is that AMD stops the prolonging of a human's life, but does not necessarily mean that it will end the person's life, while euthanasia is the process in which the person's life is ended.
The main good point abou AMD is that many seriously ill persons are not competent to make decisions about their care. For this reason many states have passed laws that encourage advance health care directives. By means of such a document, you are able to determine now about the kind of treatment you wish to receive should you become incompetent to make those determinations at the time of your illness.
However, the negative side of AMD is that firstly, the terminally ill person may still want to live on although he wrote he would be put to sleep in a will that's, say, 2 years ago. One possible negative side about AMD is that even when the person changes his mind, he may be unable to tell the doctor about it and what will happen to him next may not be what he really wants. Also, there are many drama series which simply loves to show scenes of people being forced or blackmailed into signing the AMD so that the blackmailer or the person's children can claim the money in the will. Although it sounds ridiculous, it is still possible that in thrid world countries people will be forced to sign the AMD so that certain gains can be claimed by another person. Although it is a criminal offense, people could settle it under the table without anyone else's awareness and this could avoid the law easily.
Hence, I feel that the issue of AMD should be considered seriously as it is really a matter of life and death.
The main difference between AMD and euthanasia is that AMD stops the prolonging of a human's life, but does not necessarily mean that it will end the person's life, while euthanasia is the process in which the person's life is ended.
The main good point abou AMD is that many seriously ill persons are not competent to make decisions about their care. For this reason many states have passed laws that encourage advance health care directives. By means of such a document, you are able to determine now about the kind of treatment you wish to receive should you become incompetent to make those determinations at the time of your illness.
However, the negative side of AMD is that firstly, the terminally ill person may still want to live on although he wrote he would be put to sleep in a will that's, say, 2 years ago. One possible negative side about AMD is that even when the person changes his mind, he may be unable to tell the doctor about it and what will happen to him next may not be what he really wants. Also, there are many drama series which simply loves to show scenes of people being forced or blackmailed into signing the AMD so that the blackmailer or the person's children can claim the money in the will. Although it sounds ridiculous, it is still possible that in thrid world countries people will be forced to sign the AMD so that certain gains can be claimed by another person. Although it is a criminal offense, people could settle it under the table without anyone else's awareness and this could avoid the law easily.
Hence, I feel that the issue of AMD should be considered seriously as it is really a matter of life and death.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Human Organ Transplant Act
Human Organ Transplant Act. From the surface of it I would say that legalizing human organ transplant (HOT) would be a great help to many people's lives, especially those who are in desperate need for their organ to be transplanted, eg. liver, kidney.
Imagine that you are terminally ill due to...for example liver failure. You are in desperate need to have a liver tranplant. But so does other patients (who are not at all patient) who shares the same ward with you. To find the right person (since not anyone's kidney can be transplanted to you), you have to wait from a few months to even a few years. And during the period of waiting you will be either suffering, or too weak for the transplant, or give up hope, or dead. The best way, obviously, is to buy a liver from a willing person. But since life is so unfair, it is illegal. So what should you do?
This is what many patients face when they are waiting for a donar to donate their organs to them. This is also the reason why HOTA is debated so much, because people feel that since by legalising it it will bring so much joy to these people, why not? As said before, from the surface of it it looks as though it is very "nice, good, cute and sweet", but this is based on everyone does not have any "tricks up his sleeves" and all the people in the world is not greedy.
Firstly, if HOT is legalised, there WIll be incidents where the poor will be exploited by the rich, who simply uses a small portion of their salary to buy organs from the poor, who even needs that small portion of salary. Also, there will be a rise in black market trades where human organs will be sold at high prices as though they are pieces of meat sold at a butcher's shop. You might be surprised at how willingly poor people of third-world countries will sell their organs for money, due to the fact that they are so poor that selling organ is the last possible way to maintaining a living.
Also, there will be people who are deeply influenced by Mammon and decides that they shall make use of ignorant or desperate third-world poor people as their "harvest" and reap a gigantic profit from the rich people who need the human organs. This can result in a chain of events where poor people may just be kidnapped on the streets and forcefully have their organs removed (and die in the process) so that these Mammons can reap their reward. This can be very scary where people just literally disappear on the streets and people did not even realise that they were gone. There are already live examples of such events in the US, where there is this doctor who takes away people's organs after they were dead, so that he could sell them to the black market.
I feel that if HOT is legalised, there must be strict rules for such trades. Firstly, the willing traders must sign a contract that claims that they ackowledge that they are having an organ trade. Also, the person who is giving away his organ must be fully aware that he is doing so and that he is comepletely willing to do so. Anyone who were caught attempting to harvest on the organs will immediately face the loop and rope, without any excuse, because kidnapping people and forcefully taking away their organs is morally wrong and there is no reason why anyone would do it. Furthermore, the organ transplant operations have to be conducted in a legal hospital and has to be documented by the hospital.
In conclusion, I feel that is is best not to legalise HOT, as even with precautions and laws involved, there will still be people who will abide the law just for the sake of cashing in more money.
Imagine that you are terminally ill due to...for example liver failure. You are in desperate need to have a liver tranplant. But so does other patients (who are not at all patient) who shares the same ward with you. To find the right person (since not anyone's kidney can be transplanted to you), you have to wait from a few months to even a few years. And during the period of waiting you will be either suffering, or too weak for the transplant, or give up hope, or dead. The best way, obviously, is to buy a liver from a willing person. But since life is so unfair, it is illegal. So what should you do?
This is what many patients face when they are waiting for a donar to donate their organs to them. This is also the reason why HOTA is debated so much, because people feel that since by legalising it it will bring so much joy to these people, why not? As said before, from the surface of it it looks as though it is very "nice, good, cute and sweet", but this is based on everyone does not have any "tricks up his sleeves" and all the people in the world is not greedy.
Firstly, if HOT is legalised, there WIll be incidents where the poor will be exploited by the rich, who simply uses a small portion of their salary to buy organs from the poor, who even needs that small portion of salary. Also, there will be a rise in black market trades where human organs will be sold at high prices as though they are pieces of meat sold at a butcher's shop. You might be surprised at how willingly poor people of third-world countries will sell their organs for money, due to the fact that they are so poor that selling organ is the last possible way to maintaining a living.
Also, there will be people who are deeply influenced by Mammon and decides that they shall make use of ignorant or desperate third-world poor people as their "harvest" and reap a gigantic profit from the rich people who need the human organs. This can result in a chain of events where poor people may just be kidnapped on the streets and forcefully have their organs removed (and die in the process) so that these Mammons can reap their reward. This can be very scary where people just literally disappear on the streets and people did not even realise that they were gone. There are already live examples of such events in the US, where there is this doctor who takes away people's organs after they were dead, so that he could sell them to the black market.
I feel that if HOT is legalised, there must be strict rules for such trades. Firstly, the willing traders must sign a contract that claims that they ackowledge that they are having an organ trade. Also, the person who is giving away his organ must be fully aware that he is doing so and that he is comepletely willing to do so. Anyone who were caught attempting to harvest on the organs will immediately face the loop and rope, without any excuse, because kidnapping people and forcefully taking away their organs is morally wrong and there is no reason why anyone would do it. Furthermore, the organ transplant operations have to be conducted in a legal hospital and has to be documented by the hospital.
In conclusion, I feel that is is best not to legalise HOT, as even with precautions and laws involved, there will still be people who will abide the law just for the sake of cashing in more money.
National Service- How can this be amended or improved further to alleviate the problem of dodging?
Once again we bring our attention to NS dodging, where certain NS men-to-be attempt to escape from their "fate" of serving the country AND training themselves for the better.
Firstly, the reason why these men wanted to dodge their NS in the first place needs to be examined. Some people may feel that the NS is too tough for them, and reports of how NS men suddenly collpased during training or getting drowned or got struck by lightning often strike fear in these people's hearts as well. There are also some people who feel that national service is a waste of time for them as they can always use the two years on more "useful" things such as working part-time or further their studies. There are also some who, out of anger at themselves needing to go for NS, blame the foreigners for not needing to serve in national service and yet enjoys the fruits of Singapore's economic success.
But obviously, by looking at these "excuses" the best I can say is "BS" also known as bullsh*t. Firstly, the "danger to self" excuse for dodging NS is just as stupid as saying "I'm afraid to be bitten by mosquitoes in the forest." Of course when you go for national service, you are expected to train your body and mind, it is not as though people are going for holiday chalet or something. The main problem NS-men-to-be have is that they expect national service to be not so harsh.
I feel that there are several things the government can do to improve the current situation where many people just "kiss Singapore goodbye" due to them having to go for national service. One way is the "punishment method", in which the government makes the punishment for dodging NS harsher, so that people will think twice before they decide that they are going to run away from their destiny. Also, when people are punished they tend to remember the incident more clearly, so they will always remember that if they try to dodge NS they will just be faced with harsh consequences.
The second method is the "special case method", which mainly targets those Singaporean talents that have to spend two years on NS instead of having the opportunity to further their abilities. This "special case method" mainly ensures that these talents will have their NS at a later age, or for certain cases, are allowed to not attend their NS. These helps keep Singapore's local talents as there are cases in which some local talents chose the scholarship over NS and in order to prevent themselves from being punished, just leave Singapore completely and become the citizen of another country.
The third method is the "cliched fluff method", in which the government tells the NS-men-to-be how national service is able to help them in their physical and mental development and also rewards those outstanding NS men for their service in the army. However, I don't really think this method will work much as the government is using it all the time and yet there are people who just ignore the words from the government and dodge NS if they want to.
One last point is that a major part is still the NS-men-to-be's own choice. If they choose not to take their NS, there's not much the government can do to really stop them. So the main objective is still to convince the people that they should take NS seriously as it is still the people who will be protecting Singapore in times of need.
Firstly, the reason why these men wanted to dodge their NS in the first place needs to be examined. Some people may feel that the NS is too tough for them, and reports of how NS men suddenly collpased during training or getting drowned or got struck by lightning often strike fear in these people's hearts as well. There are also some people who feel that national service is a waste of time for them as they can always use the two years on more "useful" things such as working part-time or further their studies. There are also some who, out of anger at themselves needing to go for NS, blame the foreigners for not needing to serve in national service and yet enjoys the fruits of Singapore's economic success.
But obviously, by looking at these "excuses" the best I can say is "BS" also known as bullsh*t. Firstly, the "danger to self" excuse for dodging NS is just as stupid as saying "I'm afraid to be bitten by mosquitoes in the forest." Of course when you go for national service, you are expected to train your body and mind, it is not as though people are going for holiday chalet or something. The main problem NS-men-to-be have is that they expect national service to be not so harsh.
I feel that there are several things the government can do to improve the current situation where many people just "kiss Singapore goodbye" due to them having to go for national service. One way is the "punishment method", in which the government makes the punishment for dodging NS harsher, so that people will think twice before they decide that they are going to run away from their destiny. Also, when people are punished they tend to remember the incident more clearly, so they will always remember that if they try to dodge NS they will just be faced with harsh consequences.
The second method is the "special case method", which mainly targets those Singaporean talents that have to spend two years on NS instead of having the opportunity to further their abilities. This "special case method" mainly ensures that these talents will have their NS at a later age, or for certain cases, are allowed to not attend their NS. These helps keep Singapore's local talents as there are cases in which some local talents chose the scholarship over NS and in order to prevent themselves from being punished, just leave Singapore completely and become the citizen of another country.
The third method is the "cliched fluff method", in which the government tells the NS-men-to-be how national service is able to help them in their physical and mental development and also rewards those outstanding NS men for their service in the army. However, I don't really think this method will work much as the government is using it all the time and yet there are people who just ignore the words from the government and dodge NS if they want to.
One last point is that a major part is still the NS-men-to-be's own choice. If they choose not to take their NS, there's not much the government can do to really stop them. So the main objective is still to convince the people that they should take NS seriously as it is still the people who will be protecting Singapore in times of need.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Free Will's a Gamble - IR
The debate on whether Singapore should open a casino has been a hot topic nowadays. The main reason why people are talking about it so much is because people feel that the government is trying to improve Singapore's economy by sacrificing at least some of the Singaporean's way of life. On one hand, by building a casino in Singapore, Singapore's economy can improve, as more people will be attracted by Singapore's IR and sometimes especially the casino, and would want to stay in SIngapore longer. On the other hand, by building a casino in SIngapore, it will encourage Singaporeans to gamble as well, seeing the amount of people queuing up to buy 4D everyday, it is imaginable that they will do the same at the slot machines and the gambling tables.
To start off, I think that there's nothing wrong with setting up the IR in Singapore (which features a casino), since it is able to help Singapore in its economic growth. Based on a survey done around last year, the average number of days tourists would stay in Singapore is around 3 to 4 days. From the government's point of view, 3 to 4 days does not help much in Singapore's economy, since there's nothing much the tourist can spend his money on within that 3 to 4 days. (it's not as though he is going to buy a house or a car in Singapore anyway) With the IR, it is expected that tourists would stay a longer time in Singapore compared to before. (since the thought of throwing money to gain more money simply attracts people.) So the more money tourists throw in, whether its in the casino or the hotel he stays in, the money can help Singapore improve its economic growth.
The main reason why so many people are opposing the idea of the buildup of the IR is because they are afraid that Singaporeans themselves will be attracted to the IR and start gambling, leading a great variety of consequences in which the most simple one is losing all the money and turn to alternative sources for money, such as loan sharks or even stealing and robbery. This in turn affects both Singapore's image and social well-being, since nobody likes a country with thieves roaming about. As a matter of fact, nobody likes a country with casino(es) because they often link casino(es) with bad image and negative consequences.
However, instead of opposing the buildup of the IR like the rest of the people, I would like to question why people want to go to the casino is they know that they will be "losing all their money, causing their family to be harrassed by loan sharks, themselves having low morale and often ends in jail or in grave." Firstly, I would like to separate the types of people going to the casino into 3 types: 1) The optimistic ones: they go to the casino as a form of entertainment and are not bothered whether or not they win or lose money. 2) The lazy ones: they go to casino hoping to win some money because they are simply not bothered to get money through the right method which is basically their jobs, in the same way they hope to strike the 4D. Upon losing money they would often put in more money hoping to get back the money they lost. 3)The desperate ones: they are the ones that rush to the casino and praying to whichever gods they know, because if they still do not return the debts (either from the bank or from the loan sharks), the bank or the loan shark will confiscate/burn down their houses. This type of people are usually the "evolved" form of people from type 2, because of constant put-in-and-put-more-in treatment of money.
So now after analysing the 3 types of people, I would like to point out the the typical casino aims at the first type of people, the ones that come, lose money, and forget about the whole incident and carry on with their lives. Since the government cannot simply put a ban on people type 2 and 3 from stepping into the casino, obviously there are and will be some sneaking inside in order to achieve whatever they want to achieve. I feel that what the people is complaining about is that they are concerned about these types of people who will end up destroying their lives just because of the casino. HOWEVER, I MUST EMPHASIZE that its not the casino that destroyed the people's lives, its THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES that ruined their own lives. Nobody told you to go to the casino, but why did you still go there? Because of your own free will that destroyed yourselves, and now the people expect the government to restrict the people' own free will when ironically everywhere people are talking about freedom of speech and all those freedoms. Its just like if you want to commit suicide, the best the government can do is to save you when you are going to jump/cut and arrange psychologists to help you, but they CANNOT sit beside you everyday to prevent you from jumping/cutting. What people now lack is slef-control. If they know that they will lose control if they start gambling, then don't start at all. The casino is not just built for you to get money, as many people often thought, which result in the stupid consequences that they can always choose to avoid.
All in all, I do object to the idea of the setting up of the IR, because it really helps SIngapore's growing economy a lot. And for those people who think that they need the government to babysit them until they grow old, because they will lose control if the government won't, TOUGH LUCK. Face it, self-control is part of life. If you don't have it, too bad.
To start off, I think that there's nothing wrong with setting up the IR in Singapore (which features a casino), since it is able to help Singapore in its economic growth. Based on a survey done around last year, the average number of days tourists would stay in Singapore is around 3 to 4 days. From the government's point of view, 3 to 4 days does not help much in Singapore's economy, since there's nothing much the tourist can spend his money on within that 3 to 4 days. (it's not as though he is going to buy a house or a car in Singapore anyway) With the IR, it is expected that tourists would stay a longer time in Singapore compared to before. (since the thought of throwing money to gain more money simply attracts people.) So the more money tourists throw in, whether its in the casino or the hotel he stays in, the money can help Singapore improve its economic growth.
The main reason why so many people are opposing the idea of the buildup of the IR is because they are afraid that Singaporeans themselves will be attracted to the IR and start gambling, leading a great variety of consequences in which the most simple one is losing all the money and turn to alternative sources for money, such as loan sharks or even stealing and robbery. This in turn affects both Singapore's image and social well-being, since nobody likes a country with thieves roaming about. As a matter of fact, nobody likes a country with casino(es) because they often link casino(es) with bad image and negative consequences.
However, instead of opposing the buildup of the IR like the rest of the people, I would like to question why people want to go to the casino is they know that they will be "losing all their money, causing their family to be harrassed by loan sharks, themselves having low morale and often ends in jail or in grave." Firstly, I would like to separate the types of people going to the casino into 3 types: 1) The optimistic ones: they go to the casino as a form of entertainment and are not bothered whether or not they win or lose money. 2) The lazy ones: they go to casino hoping to win some money because they are simply not bothered to get money through the right method which is basically their jobs, in the same way they hope to strike the 4D. Upon losing money they would often put in more money hoping to get back the money they lost. 3)The desperate ones: they are the ones that rush to the casino and praying to whichever gods they know, because if they still do not return the debts (either from the bank or from the loan sharks), the bank or the loan shark will confiscate/burn down their houses. This type of people are usually the "evolved" form of people from type 2, because of constant put-in-and-put-more-in treatment of money.
So now after analysing the 3 types of people, I would like to point out the the typical casino aims at the first type of people, the ones that come, lose money, and forget about the whole incident and carry on with their lives. Since the government cannot simply put a ban on people type 2 and 3 from stepping into the casino, obviously there are and will be some sneaking inside in order to achieve whatever they want to achieve. I feel that what the people is complaining about is that they are concerned about these types of people who will end up destroying their lives just because of the casino. HOWEVER, I MUST EMPHASIZE that its not the casino that destroyed the people's lives, its THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES that ruined their own lives. Nobody told you to go to the casino, but why did you still go there? Because of your own free will that destroyed yourselves, and now the people expect the government to restrict the people' own free will when ironically everywhere people are talking about freedom of speech and all those freedoms. Its just like if you want to commit suicide, the best the government can do is to save you when you are going to jump/cut and arrange psychologists to help you, but they CANNOT sit beside you everyday to prevent you from jumping/cutting. What people now lack is slef-control. If they know that they will lose control if they start gambling, then don't start at all. The casino is not just built for you to get money, as many people often thought, which result in the stupid consequences that they can always choose to avoid.
All in all, I do object to the idea of the setting up of the IR, because it really helps SIngapore's growing economy a lot. And for those people who think that they need the government to babysit them until they grow old, because they will lose control if the government won't, TOUGH LUCK. Face it, self-control is part of life. If you don't have it, too bad.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
How advertising informs to our benefit
Advertisement has been with us for an extremely long time. It exists everywhere, in various forms, ranging from shopping and food to beauty products featuring "hot babes" smiling and saying "It works!" We watch them, and we learn from them. However, before the people who got "seduced" by the advertisement and decide "NO, I'm going to get the television NOW." they probably need to think how much do they really know about the product based on the advertisement.
It is very common to see advertisements featuring 1) Mouth-watering food that makes your jaw drop just by thinking of it. 2) Body centres or products that features models with astounding figures (whether its the face, the legs, the arms, the waists or the erhem chests) which will sometimes attract people to try it even though they all know that it won't work so easily. 3) Continuous blasts of "Mega-Sales" and offers which will always remind you that no matter how bad the economy was, is and will be, there will always be shops which are kind enough to bring the prices "down" for the customers' sake. So now the main question is: How true are these advertisements?
Firstly, there's the issue of truthfulness in the showing of advertisement. People with the correct mindset will know that the selling end will never lose money, otherwise there's no point selling them. Hence no matter how "magnificent" the prices may be, the selling end will always get some profit. The exception is that the economy is so bad that they would rather sell the things then letting the things "stone and rot" at their storage houses, or its the kind of strategic way of selling which mostly occurs in TV dramas in which by selling something at low prices, you can get more buyers and after that even if you raise the price the buyers will not mind as long as your product is good. And considering both "options", the economy crisis is less likely as you don't see Wallstreet crashes everyday. The second one is more likely but as based on a quote from a piece of IHC homework, "Singaporean managers do not dare to take risks." hence oh-so-sad.
Back to the point on truthfulness, people often get attracted to the colourful pictures and impossible sounding bargains from the advertisements, but no all times the advertisement shows the whole truth of the product. For example, a food-advertising advertisement will probably feature the food as a large serving, looks good, taste good, is nutritious and does not contain some chemicals that people will try to avoid. (e.g. MSG) Naturally, people are attracted. Who won't want to buy such good food that is literally overall goodness. However, as people do not know what the product really are, especially when the advertisement only talks about the positive side of the product, the end result is sometimes unhappy buyers because they believed they were "scammed" of their money. Usually the deluxe example will be food advertisement, in which the size is smaller than shown on TV, leading to some people who went all the way just to buy the food saying, "Its a scam".
From the buyer's point of view, I feel that the advertisement should be comepletely transparent to the viewers, as in all the terms-and-conditions and the dates and other information that I would want to know if I would like to buy the product. It is better for me to know the whole picture of the product before I buy it, its features, its weaknesses and the effect on me (if it is a consumable) and such will be of very important informations to me, compared to a 10 second advertisement featuring two hot babes smiling and saying, "It works".
However, from the product seller's point of view, it is nearly impossible for me to sell a product if I reveal everything about it, since other competitors will simply point to my product's weaknesses and claim that theirs is better, leading to my product being more difficult ot be sold.
Hence, I feel that advertisement itself is imperfect. No matter how it is changed, it will surely affect one side (whether it's the buyer or the seller). The only way is to completely abolish advertisement, but then in this world nowadays where there's even online advertisement, there's no way of "abolishing" it and by doing so affects both buyers and sellers. So for those customers who complained that they were "scammed" of their money, tough luck, face it. That's life.
It is very common to see advertisements featuring 1) Mouth-watering food that makes your jaw drop just by thinking of it. 2) Body centres or products that features models with astounding figures (whether its the face, the legs, the arms, the waists or the erhem chests) which will sometimes attract people to try it even though they all know that it won't work so easily. 3) Continuous blasts of "Mega-Sales" and offers which will always remind you that no matter how bad the economy was, is and will be, there will always be shops which are kind enough to bring the prices "down" for the customers' sake. So now the main question is: How true are these advertisements?
Firstly, there's the issue of truthfulness in the showing of advertisement. People with the correct mindset will know that the selling end will never lose money, otherwise there's no point selling them. Hence no matter how "magnificent" the prices may be, the selling end will always get some profit. The exception is that the economy is so bad that they would rather sell the things then letting the things "stone and rot" at their storage houses, or its the kind of strategic way of selling which mostly occurs in TV dramas in which by selling something at low prices, you can get more buyers and after that even if you raise the price the buyers will not mind as long as your product is good. And considering both "options", the economy crisis is less likely as you don't see Wallstreet crashes everyday. The second one is more likely but as based on a quote from a piece of IHC homework, "Singaporean managers do not dare to take risks." hence oh-so-sad.
Back to the point on truthfulness, people often get attracted to the colourful pictures and impossible sounding bargains from the advertisements, but no all times the advertisement shows the whole truth of the product. For example, a food-advertising advertisement will probably feature the food as a large serving, looks good, taste good, is nutritious and does not contain some chemicals that people will try to avoid. (e.g. MSG) Naturally, people are attracted. Who won't want to buy such good food that is literally overall goodness. However, as people do not know what the product really are, especially when the advertisement only talks about the positive side of the product, the end result is sometimes unhappy buyers because they believed they were "scammed" of their money. Usually the deluxe example will be food advertisement, in which the size is smaller than shown on TV, leading to some people who went all the way just to buy the food saying, "Its a scam".
From the buyer's point of view, I feel that the advertisement should be comepletely transparent to the viewers, as in all the terms-and-conditions and the dates and other information that I would want to know if I would like to buy the product. It is better for me to know the whole picture of the product before I buy it, its features, its weaknesses and the effect on me (if it is a consumable) and such will be of very important informations to me, compared to a 10 second advertisement featuring two hot babes smiling and saying, "It works".
However, from the product seller's point of view, it is nearly impossible for me to sell a product if I reveal everything about it, since other competitors will simply point to my product's weaknesses and claim that theirs is better, leading to my product being more difficult ot be sold.
Hence, I feel that advertisement itself is imperfect. No matter how it is changed, it will surely affect one side (whether it's the buyer or the seller). The only way is to completely abolish advertisement, but then in this world nowadays where there's even online advertisement, there's no way of "abolishing" it and by doing so affects both buyers and sellers. So for those customers who complained that they were "scammed" of their money, tough luck, face it. That's life.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Science - A Menace to Mankind?
Since the "successful" progress of science, from the theory of evolution to the development of super computers, many people have developed the concern of whether science is really a help or menace to mankind. People have critisized science from a great variety of ways, from biology to physics to chemistry, science often appear as something negative that often result in a dystopian society or as the reason of mass destruction on Earth.
Just as an example, many books and films often depict the future world in one of the three basic situations:
1) Technology is so advanced that
a) It takes over the roles of humans completely
b) it is even more advanced that it takes over the human race, leading a minority of humans left, or controls over the humans and became the world's ruler
2) Biology is so advanced that
a) Every human being is simply created through cloning or test-tube experiments
b) Somehow a deadly virus that is horribly contagious is realised into the world, resulting in the majority of the people either dead or deformed.
3) Chemistry is so advanced that
a) Humans are simply made from particles (which in a sense even worse than cloning)
b) It is frequently used in warfare for victory (normally the use of biological weapon is more often)
So people question the purpose of science altogether because of the possibilities that science can be used in such immoral way.
However, I do not agree to what these people feel about science. Yes, because of science we are now in the nuclear age. Yes, because of science cloning is made possible. But, we should also consider what "good" things science have done for us. Because of the development of science, we can communicate through more alternatives other than letters, although this does not mean that we no longer use letters as a way of communication, as some people who ironically use the internet themselves. Also, the progress of science made what originally thought to be the "uncurable dieases" curable. Whenever you go to the hospital for something as simple as a cough, imagine what people may have to go through hundreds of years ago, where even a cough will need complicated and sometimes bizarre ways to treat.
As many people realise by themselves, humans are mostly made up of pessimists who see the world around them filled with danger, thus they would rather critisize on the bad side of science than the good side. Also, human beings have a natural urge to be recognized, thus the fear of being dominated by machines which they feel are not alive.
Science by itself is not the menace. The main culprit is the humans behind the scene. I feel that science by itself is sacred, because it is a mixture of all the most basic knowledge that no matter humans want to deny its existence or otherwise, still exists in various ways. The main reason why people are afraid that science would be a menace is because they are afraid of some people who will make use of science out of greed, which often result in the rest of the world suffer due to that few people's greed. On the other hand, a person who makes use of science in order to save people's lives would be hailed by the public.
For example, Alfred Nobel, then inventor of dynamite, invented dynamite in order to help people to clear mountains in order to buil railways. However, people found that dynamite, being so detructive, is able to be used as a weapon. This shows that the original intention of Nobel is good, but there are some people who made use of the product to achieve other purposes that is evil. This shows that the main issue is not science itself, but the person who is making use of it, of what he is using it to do.
All in all, I feel that science by itself is not a menace to mankind, but instead is the people who are using science to achieve a certain goal who is responsible for what will happen if science is being used that way.
Just as an example, many books and films often depict the future world in one of the three basic situations:
1) Technology is so advanced that
a) It takes over the roles of humans completely
b) it is even more advanced that it takes over the human race, leading a minority of humans left, or controls over the humans and became the world's ruler
2) Biology is so advanced that
a) Every human being is simply created through cloning or test-tube experiments
b) Somehow a deadly virus that is horribly contagious is realised into the world, resulting in the majority of the people either dead or deformed.
3) Chemistry is so advanced that
a) Humans are simply made from particles (which in a sense even worse than cloning)
b) It is frequently used in warfare for victory (normally the use of biological weapon is more often)
So people question the purpose of science altogether because of the possibilities that science can be used in such immoral way.
However, I do not agree to what these people feel about science. Yes, because of science we are now in the nuclear age. Yes, because of science cloning is made possible. But, we should also consider what "good" things science have done for us. Because of the development of science, we can communicate through more alternatives other than letters, although this does not mean that we no longer use letters as a way of communication, as some people who ironically use the internet themselves. Also, the progress of science made what originally thought to be the "uncurable dieases" curable. Whenever you go to the hospital for something as simple as a cough, imagine what people may have to go through hundreds of years ago, where even a cough will need complicated and sometimes bizarre ways to treat.
As many people realise by themselves, humans are mostly made up of pessimists who see the world around them filled with danger, thus they would rather critisize on the bad side of science than the good side. Also, human beings have a natural urge to be recognized, thus the fear of being dominated by machines which they feel are not alive.
Science by itself is not the menace. The main culprit is the humans behind the scene. I feel that science by itself is sacred, because it is a mixture of all the most basic knowledge that no matter humans want to deny its existence or otherwise, still exists in various ways. The main reason why people are afraid that science would be a menace is because they are afraid of some people who will make use of science out of greed, which often result in the rest of the world suffer due to that few people's greed. On the other hand, a person who makes use of science in order to save people's lives would be hailed by the public.
For example, Alfred Nobel, then inventor of dynamite, invented dynamite in order to help people to clear mountains in order to buil railways. However, people found that dynamite, being so detructive, is able to be used as a weapon. This shows that the original intention of Nobel is good, but there are some people who made use of the product to achieve other purposes that is evil. This shows that the main issue is not science itself, but the person who is making use of it, of what he is using it to do.
All in all, I feel that science by itself is not a menace to mankind, but instead is the people who are using science to achieve a certain goal who is responsible for what will happen if science is being used that way.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Pornography
Pornography, as described by Wikipedia the un-scholarly paper, "is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer."
I feel that pornography is a very sensitive topic, and since it is able to cause both positive and negative impacts on the public, I find it very difficult to decide whether pornography is "entirely right" or "entirely wrong". Thus, I can only say that pornography is like a coin: it has both the rights and the wrongs, depending on the target that it is affecting.
Most people view pornography as a very delicate question of human psychology, in which it carefully skipped or lightly touched. However, a great percentage of the human population would view pornography as something bad, as firstly they feel that pornography is demeaning towards the female gender. This is due to the fact that a great portion of pornography "features" females, in different suggestive positions and strange sexual behaviours (e.g. bondage). Many people who objected pornography feel that by featuring females on porn magazines and other forms of visual entertainment, it gives the feeling that the female is being dominated and humiliated by the male, and consider it both as a sexist type of behaviour and (sometimes) also violence towards the females.
Also, most parents that opposed pornography give the reason that pornography distorted the true meaning of sex and love and when other people, especially teenager who are still developing both mentally and physically, will be greatly affected by pornography. This may result in cases such as the recent one, in which a 13-years old girl was pregnant after having sex with a boy of the same age. Pornography is especially disastrous to teenagers nowadays, who are literally unstable concoctions ready to explode at any time. This, when combined with pornography as the catalyst, would often result in teenagers practising premarital sex and other behaviours due to the fact that they are "curious". Thus, I feel that pornography is as dangerous a material as drug itself when the target audience is the teenagers, as they do not know the true dangers of pornography.
However, on the other hand, when the target audience of pornography became the more mature adults, it appears that pornography helps reduce rape cases, as it can be seen in Japan, which is noted for its large output of rape fantasy pornography, has the lowest reported sex crime rate in the industrialized world.
Hence, I feel that pornography affects different people of different age differently, thus its level of harmful-ness also varies. Thus, I feel that the best way is simply teach teenagers about the bad effects of pornography, as they are the age group which is the most easily affected.
I feel that pornography is a very sensitive topic, and since it is able to cause both positive and negative impacts on the public, I find it very difficult to decide whether pornography is "entirely right" or "entirely wrong". Thus, I can only say that pornography is like a coin: it has both the rights and the wrongs, depending on the target that it is affecting.
Most people view pornography as a very delicate question of human psychology, in which it carefully skipped or lightly touched. However, a great percentage of the human population would view pornography as something bad, as firstly they feel that pornography is demeaning towards the female gender. This is due to the fact that a great portion of pornography "features" females, in different suggestive positions and strange sexual behaviours (e.g. bondage). Many people who objected pornography feel that by featuring females on porn magazines and other forms of visual entertainment, it gives the feeling that the female is being dominated and humiliated by the male, and consider it both as a sexist type of behaviour and (sometimes) also violence towards the females.
Also, most parents that opposed pornography give the reason that pornography distorted the true meaning of sex and love and when other people, especially teenager who are still developing both mentally and physically, will be greatly affected by pornography. This may result in cases such as the recent one, in which a 13-years old girl was pregnant after having sex with a boy of the same age. Pornography is especially disastrous to teenagers nowadays, who are literally unstable concoctions ready to explode at any time. This, when combined with pornography as the catalyst, would often result in teenagers practising premarital sex and other behaviours due to the fact that they are "curious". Thus, I feel that pornography is as dangerous a material as drug itself when the target audience is the teenagers, as they do not know the true dangers of pornography.
However, on the other hand, when the target audience of pornography became the more mature adults, it appears that pornography helps reduce rape cases, as it can be seen in Japan, which is noted for its large output of rape fantasy pornography, has the lowest reported sex crime rate in the industrialized world.
Hence, I feel that pornography affects different people of different age differently, thus its level of harmful-ness also varies. Thus, I feel that the best way is simply teach teenagers about the bad effects of pornography, as they are the age group which is the most easily affected.
Friday, March 20, 2009
President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?
As anyone in Singapore would know, somehow every year, there will be more than one charity show that asks people to donate money to the needy and all those, while an artiste will be doing some kind of dangerous stunt. Then while been crushed between two blocks of ice, or walking on shattered glass, or climbing a building, or walking the ropes, they will be saying something like, "the pain/hardship/feeling I am feeling now is nothing compared to the pain/hardship/feeling those people in need will be having, so please donate money for them to help them." sounds cliched doesn't it?
So now the main issue that comes up is: is there such a need for the artiste to perform this kind of stunts in order to receive more donations from the public? I feel it quite unnecessary for these types of dangerous actions.
As my parents had said after one night of debate, the artistes’ performance of all the dangerous stunts is a double negative issue. On one side, if the artistes were really in danger when they performed such stunts, they were playing with their own lives, and of course this kind of playing-with-your-own-life stunts should not be encouraged, so people should not donate more, since donating would mean the public wanted more of such stunts to be performed. On the other side, if the artistes were not in real danger, then by making them look as though they are in real danger would be considered as acting in order to gain the public's sympathy, and of course nobody would donate to these type of stunts as its "scamming". So in the end whether or not the artistes were in danger when performing the stunts, they were still in their wrong.
Also, to put it very simply and BLATANTLY, the audience no longer donates because they sympathize with the needy. Instead, they donate because the artistes are performing a show for them to see. So in the end the whole point of donation became “paying to watch a performance” instead, and this completely changed the purpose of the Charity Show, which is to make the audience donate BY making them sympathize with the NEEDY, not the ARTISTES.
To begin off, why would the artistes do such dangerous stunts? to milk the audience's sympathy. why would they milk the audience's sympathy? to get more donations. why get more donations? because the donation is not enough. why not enough? because the public does not want to donate. why does the public not want to donate? because they were afraid that the money they donated would be used for some other purposes that has nothing to do with the purpose of the donations. Ahah, here is the main problem that came up!
Then comes the issue of transparency. Ever since the issue brought up with NKF, where the donations were used for other purposes apart from helping the needy, a lot of people in Singapore became suspicious of where their donations would go to. This often results in people not wanting to donate to any organisation in case the money went to the wrong place and resulted in "massive wastage" of the people sympathy. If different organisations would like the public to donate, they should make it clear what the money is used for, or even make a report once per year on how the donations have helped the needy in various ways. This improves the transparency of the whole donation issue, as when the public knows that the money is indeed used to help the people it is intended to help, they would surely donate more.
So now the main issue that comes up is: is there such a need for the artiste to perform this kind of stunts in order to receive more donations from the public? I feel it quite unnecessary for these types of dangerous actions.
As my parents had said after one night of debate, the artistes’ performance of all the dangerous stunts is a double negative issue. On one side, if the artistes were really in danger when they performed such stunts, they were playing with their own lives, and of course this kind of playing-with-your-own-life stunts should not be encouraged, so people should not donate more, since donating would mean the public wanted more of such stunts to be performed. On the other side, if the artistes were not in real danger, then by making them look as though they are in real danger would be considered as acting in order to gain the public's sympathy, and of course nobody would donate to these type of stunts as its "scamming". So in the end whether or not the artistes were in danger when performing the stunts, they were still in their wrong.
Also, to put it very simply and BLATANTLY, the audience no longer donates because they sympathize with the needy. Instead, they donate because the artistes are performing a show for them to see. So in the end the whole point of donation became “paying to watch a performance” instead, and this completely changed the purpose of the Charity Show, which is to make the audience donate BY making them sympathize with the NEEDY, not the ARTISTES.
To begin off, why would the artistes do such dangerous stunts? to milk the audience's sympathy. why would they milk the audience's sympathy? to get more donations. why get more donations? because the donation is not enough. why not enough? because the public does not want to donate. why does the public not want to donate? because they were afraid that the money they donated would be used for some other purposes that has nothing to do with the purpose of the donations. Ahah, here is the main problem that came up!
Then comes the issue of transparency. Ever since the issue brought up with NKF, where the donations were used for other purposes apart from helping the needy, a lot of people in Singapore became suspicious of where their donations would go to. This often results in people not wanting to donate to any organisation in case the money went to the wrong place and resulted in "massive wastage" of the people sympathy. If different organisations would like the public to donate, they should make it clear what the money is used for, or even make a report once per year on how the donations have helped the needy in various ways. This improves the transparency of the whole donation issue, as when the public knows that the money is indeed used to help the people it is intended to help, they would surely donate more.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore
There has indeed many issues brought up on the matter of freedom of speech in Singapore. Singapore’s government had strict guidelines for the discussion of such matters. Sensitive topics about politics could land the person right into a fine or sometimes direct prison admission. Such examples could be seen from websites such as talkingcock.com, Mr Brown Shows, where many political issues were brought up often in a satirical manner. Although Singapore’s government does allow comments on Singapore’s politics to be published online, such as in blogs and websites, or even made into videos, they were strictly controlled, especially during the election period, in which such ways of “expressing” yourself is BANNED.
I feel that the main reason behind the strict control of such political podcasts is that the Internet is a very powerful tool that can be used to spread a lot of information around rapidly. Even if the information is only partially true or even stories that were spun up, the Internet can make thousands of people see these “tales”, and people tends to believe what the Internet says, as they feel that “if it is wrong, why would it still exist?” This could often lead to chaos as it is nearly impossible to completely get rid of the stories, and even by succeeding in doing so would often lead to more stories being written.
{
X: eh, you know why that blog was being banned anot?
Y: huh? why hah?
X: cuz what it says is true what! Otherwise why the government wan ban it for? of course is they guilty then go remove lo!
Y: eh possible leh! I go tell my friends.
}
Such simple dialogs can create another brand new story, which is worse if either X or Y post it onto his/her blog, then the story will spread…
Also, there’s the issue of “edit and pass”, in which what one passed to another, may not be completely “copied and pasted” from the source, as everyone knows if a simple sentence if passed from one person to another, the end “product” will often be completely different from the beginning sentence. For example:
{
A: I have a pen.
B: I have a pen.
.
.
.
Z: ‘I’ has a pen.
}
The above example is when somebody in the row understood the “I have a pen” wrongly and took it as the person ‘I’ has a pen and passed it down. So the simplest result would be someone saying someone else has a pen when the original sentence is “I have a pen”. Just imagine somebody passing around chunks of rumour around and the whole thing just “screwed up” to give something even more “rumourous”, which maybe went back to the person who passed the rumour, who took it as a new rumour and passed it on, only turning it into even newer rumours. GET CONFUSED MUAHAHAH.
However, I feel that the government should not be that strict on such issues. The most basic saying is if you have done nothing wrong, why fear about anything at all? All the government has to do is to be “nice and sweet” to its people and tada, nobody complains.
That of course only happens in a Utopian society, every government has its rights and wrongs. Even so, the government should take these bunch of “mixed up crap” as suggestions for improvements and criticizes from the public could help the government to be a better one. If the citizens are not satisfied with a certain political plan, most of them will leave a commentary to criticize it. Thus, the leaders can find out what is wrong with the plan and try to improve it. In fact, most people will choose to tell their actual thought on the Internet since they feel safer in the virtual world, until they realised that their IP address could be checked that is…
Hence, I feel that political podcasts should not really be restricted so tightly, since this is a good way for the government to learn about any flaws in their plans or any “mistakes” made in which the public is not happy with.
I feel that the main reason behind the strict control of such political podcasts is that the Internet is a very powerful tool that can be used to spread a lot of information around rapidly. Even if the information is only partially true or even stories that were spun up, the Internet can make thousands of people see these “tales”, and people tends to believe what the Internet says, as they feel that “if it is wrong, why would it still exist?” This could often lead to chaos as it is nearly impossible to completely get rid of the stories, and even by succeeding in doing so would often lead to more stories being written.
{
X: eh, you know why that blog was being banned anot?
Y: huh? why hah?
X: cuz what it says is true what! Otherwise why the government wan ban it for? of course is they guilty then go remove lo!
Y: eh possible leh! I go tell my friends.
}
Such simple dialogs can create another brand new story, which is worse if either X or Y post it onto his/her blog, then the story will spread…
Also, there’s the issue of “edit and pass”, in which what one passed to another, may not be completely “copied and pasted” from the source, as everyone knows if a simple sentence if passed from one person to another, the end “product” will often be completely different from the beginning sentence. For example:
{
A: I have a pen.
B: I have a pen.
.
.
.
Z: ‘I’ has a pen.
}
The above example is when somebody in the row understood the “I have a pen” wrongly and took it as the person ‘I’ has a pen and passed it down. So the simplest result would be someone saying someone else has a pen when the original sentence is “I have a pen”. Just imagine somebody passing around chunks of rumour around and the whole thing just “screwed up” to give something even more “rumourous”, which maybe went back to the person who passed the rumour, who took it as a new rumour and passed it on, only turning it into even newer rumours. GET CONFUSED MUAHAHAH.
However, I feel that the government should not be that strict on such issues. The most basic saying is if you have done nothing wrong, why fear about anything at all? All the government has to do is to be “nice and sweet” to its people and tada, nobody complains.
That of course only happens in a Utopian society, every government has its rights and wrongs. Even so, the government should take these bunch of “mixed up crap” as suggestions for improvements and criticizes from the public could help the government to be a better one. If the citizens are not satisfied with a certain political plan, most of them will leave a commentary to criticize it. Thus, the leaders can find out what is wrong with the plan and try to improve it. In fact, most people will choose to tell their actual thought on the Internet since they feel safer in the virtual world, until they realised that their IP address could be checked that is…
Hence, I feel that political podcasts should not really be restricted so tightly, since this is a good way for the government to learn about any flaws in their plans or any “mistakes” made in which the public is not happy with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
