Today's Library, Tomorrow's Googlary

The Google search engine has revolutionised the way we search for information. In the past, to search for information regarding a particular topic, we had to take a trip down to the nearest library, sift through stacks of books to find potential information. Once we found the book of our interest, we need to sift through the book again to find probably the small paragraph relevant to whatever we are researching about.

Then the internet and search engines turn it into a much more convenient process, where you type keywords into the search engine, and at the press of a button, you are directed to a wealth of information, not limited to the scope of books found at the library, but all over the world. The information is vast and the process is convinient, changing the whole way things used to be. Now there are E-books online, which is the the book itself online, similar or completely the same as the actual book that you can find in hardcopy at the library. It has become a sort of Googlary, a library at your fingertips.

The library has seem to have lost its purpose, but this I do not agree to. The library is still a convenient, conducive place to study and do research at. Currently not all books found in the library are online, thus the library still has a wealth of information the internet cannot yet wholly replicate online. I believe that these two (Library and Googlary) should coexist as they compliment each other, providing a good platform for research to be conducted. The library is also no doubt a place of memories for many, and should not be replaced just like that.

Thus. in conclusion, i do agree that the internet and search engines are to an extent, "taking over" what the library used to be for, but this is not wholly so, because even though it might have the potential to replicate the library's technical aspects, it cannot replicate asethetic aspects, thus the library and "googlary" should and must coexist and complement each other to ensure a healthy balance

The Casino Debate

Aletheia Chan states that casinos will be Singapore’s own undoing, which will lead to its own demise. Her stand is that the casinos will erode the strong, family unit that brought Singapore success economically. According to her, it was this strong family ties that held families together both economically and emotionally. By having a casino, she argues that it would only destroy the morals of Singaporeans by trapping them in the deep abyss of gambling addiction. She thinks that the governments’ policies on the casinos would not achieve their desired effect. The policies would only affect a small minority of the population. These policies actually do not protect the higher and middle classes.

However, I would like to question Aletheia Chan’s view. I think it is a tad too exaggerated and the consequences of the casinos may not, in my opinion, have such a significant effect on our society. I agree with her that the casinos would bring about an erosion of values and morals and Singaporeans’ will to work. However, the degree at which this will happen may not of such significance and severity. In my opinion, I think that not a sizeable portion of Singaporeans would actually gamble their lives away at the casinos.

All along, Singaporeans have been lauded for their work attitude and their will to work. It is these two qualities that probably made Singapore such a bustling financial and trade hub. It is also these two qualities that made most Singaporeans’ lives comfortable and financially stable. If Singaporeans have a change in attitude, there may be significant and severe implications to Singapore and Singaporeans. Aletheia argues that these two qualities would be hard-hit by the opening of two casinos. She then links it to the demise of Singaporeans’ standard of living, which would drop due to increased numbers of gambling addicts.

I believe that many Singaporeans have control over their temptation to gamble. Even though we see hordes of Singaporeans betting on 4D and Toto, I think that most of these gamblers have their practice in control and would not sacrifice their standard of living for it. However, by opening a new casino, the government is giving itself an extra duty – to give more help to more gambling addicts. Aletheia stated that gambling addicts’ next-of-kin would be hardest-hit, not the gambler himself. I agree totally. However, with government intervention and help, I think that this situation would not spiral out of control that easily.

By saying that Singapore is starting its own demise by introducing casinos is an overly-exaggerated statement. Surprisingly, the casinos will actually form a small portion of Singaporeans’ spending on gambling. Singaporeans already spend millions of dollars on gambling presently. The two new casinos will only add a small portion to the gambling pie in Singapore. Judging from this, the addition of two new casinos would certainly not bring about the demise of Singapore. If gambling is really such a severe problem in Singapore, Singapore would have gone into self destruction years ago.

A Gift of a Programme

I fully agree with the Education Minister as well as Singapore's decision to implement the Gifted Education programme in the 1990s. As much as there is much skeptism surrounding this "elitist" programme. I personally feel that is very much neccessary if Singapore wants to remain on the world stage and stay competitive with powerhouses such as USA, China, Geremny and China. Nowadays, with the advancement in technology, more and more emphasis have been placed on youths as youths will one day be the leaders of tomorrow and education has grown to much more importance as compared to previous years.

The statistics have also shown the many successes in the Gifted Education Programme, with 22 out of the 48 President's Scholars from GEP and also taking 3 out of 16 Lee Kuan Yew Scholars for postgrudate students. Thus, the Gifted Education Programme will no doubt nuture the top talents in Singapore and strecth them to a higher level. We should also settle for nothing less as Singapore needs to set the highest standards for the most talented young for talents to be able to groom in Singapore.

It would also be very chilish to think that the GE Programme breeds snobs. This is a grave misunderstanding due to the competitive instincts in youths and adults nowadays. Instead, this programme will breed youths who think they owe Singapore a living for it is Singapore that has allowed them to achieve so much in life. It is also true that while the GE Programme is exclusive, it does not segregate its students from the others as both of these groups of students go through almost the same acadmic curriculum. The only difference being the pace of the learning and the slightly different styles of learning. GE Students also go through the same school activities and programmes as normal students in their school.

However, this is not to say that I am totally supportive of the GE Programme. I believed that it can still be further improved upon. For example, maybe more schools can be used to host GE students. This way, less students will have to transfer to another school just because they are GE students if they happen to be admitted to the GE programme in Primary 4. This will also remove part of the elitism feelings that some students may have towards the GE students. Futhermore, I think that although GE students are supposed to be trained as indpendent learners, more guidance can be given to them at the early stages of their admittance into the GE programme. Countless of my friends who have just been admitted to the GE programme have complained that the work load has increased significantly and they feel alone and lost.

Thus, in conclusion, although I think that the GE Programme is indeed a good programme that the government has put in place to nuture young talents in Singapore. More can be done to further improve upon it.

Swine Flu Measures

This year the world was, and continues to be, swept by an unprecedented outbreak of Influenza A H1N1 virus pandemic. The virus was initially known as “swine flu” as it was thought to have originated from pigs in Mexico. The virus initially spread through Mexico and USA but currently more and more cases are being revealed all other the world.

I would say that the world has been dealing the swine flu pandemic quite well. Most countries have taken the basic precautions such as stopping Mexican imports from entering, stocking up on Tamiflu, thermometers and facemasks. Preventive measures are in fact the best measures in the face of a pandemic. In Mexico, the country where the virus was first discovered, numerous schools have closed down and public facilities shut down. Officials have been called in to constantly screen citizens in order to ensure that potential patients are sussed out. Some countries like Egypt even prepared pandemic emergency plans before the swine flu outbreak, limiting the impact of the virus. Another type of safety measure would involve the airport, as the Japanese government booked 500 hotel rooms near the Narita Airport in order to minimise the risk of spreading flu. Many countries including Singapore have put up health screening machines at arrival gates to filter out those with flu symptoms.

As much as there has been immediate efficient response from around the globe, there are still some measures that I feel are overreactions. Take for example the Wan Chai incident, where many suspected swine flu patients were quarantined inside the hotel for a few days. This reflects a rather “kiasi” rationale: the fear that one among the many has contracted swine flu thus everyone must stay put. The incident certainly raised a few eyebrows when it was reported. Mexicans also felt rather offended that some countries such as China banned them from entering the country; they felt like they were to blame for the pandemic instead of the pigs.

Through this pandemic we have definitely seen the ups and downs of various governments; whether they rise to the occasion or crumble under pressure. It is only through these tough times that the fittest survive.

Human Organ Transplant Act

Personally I feel that it is 100% necessary to ask for consent when harvesting organs. With the "opt-out" system, it simply means that if one does not answer, the answer is immediately "yes". Normally we dislike it when someone tells us "silence means consent" so in this case when the effect is so large should we not be outraged? Furthermore, it is an outrage to human rights when the donors do not know where the organs really go to.

One major concern, as stated above, would be where the organs go to. Sure, many patients die everyday because they are unable to get an organ transplant, but the problem comes in when the donors themselves are unwillingly to donate for a very simple reason: they do not trust the doctors. Through the organ harvesting case in China, patients all around the world have heightened their guard; they do not want their organs to be used for illegal acts which disgrace them. If I were to see the way my organs were treated in the afterlife I would be infuriated.

Another major concern would be donors with religious backgrounds. To them, the removal of organs would mean that after reincarnation, they would be reborn with missing organs and limbs. This idea is largely propounded by Buddhism. Through the organ harvesting case in China, we have seen that many religious leaders were angered deeply when they learnt of the misdeeds of the surgeons thus it is not viable to forego consent in organ harvesting.

I would recommend the system in which the patient's next of kin will discuss and decide on the patient's decision whether to donate his organs. A patient near the end of his life may think irrationally hence it is important to bring in a second person in order to ensure no compromises are made. Also, I think it is important to educate the public about organ harvesting. This ensures that everyone is aware of the terms and conditions of organ donation and controversies will not arise due to one's dissatisfaction.

National Service- How can this be amended or improved further to alleviate the problem of dodging?

National Service is a compulsory service that all able bodied men has to go through at the age of 18. The true purpose of National Service back when it was started was simply to arm Singapore with an army to defend against its neighboring countries. However, the main purpose now is to instill a sense of loyalty to Singaporeans and make Singaporeans feel a sense of belonging to their home country, Singapore. Thus, it is this flawed reason that is somewhat contributing to Singaporeans to be more inclined to dodge National Service. They see no need for Singapore to have such a large army and furthermore, most of them would like to further their studies overseas.

Thus, I have a few suggestions and solutions to alleviate this problem of dodging. Firstly, The government and Singaporeans who wish to skip NS to further their studies overseas can come to a compromise. The government can allow the Singaporean to go overseas; however, there should be a statement that states that he has to return to Singapore to complete his NS. Thus, this is a win-win situation as both parties stand to win. The Singaporeans is happy as he gets to further his studies, at the same time, the government is also satisfied as this man will complete his duty to the country after he finishes his higher education and comes back.

Secondly, the government can try to work with the people in the army to improve the way of things and life in the army. This is because part of the reason why people skip NS is because they find NS useless and they just see NS as a place to torture them and drill them with countless of activities. Thus, the army can try to improve upon its training style and try to lighten the physical exercises. They can also try to include more meaningful stuff and less taxing activities such as war simulation or more trips to other neighboring countries to learn their fighting style and tactics. Furthermore, the army should try to explain to the college students in more detail about NS and clear any misunderstandings. This will prevent any dodging due to misconception or fear of NS. Thus, the government should work with the army to improve upon the army activities and try to explain the true benefits and meaning of NS to the teenagers before they serve their 2 years. There will thus be more understanding and more receptive towards NS, decreasing the chances of them trying to dodge NS.

Finally, the government can also resort to harsh methods to prevent people from skipping NS. One such solution would be extending their VISAS for only 2 years after they reach the age of 17. The government can then make a policy that the VISA can only be renewed in Singapore and if it is not renewed, that individual would not be counted as a Singaporean and will forever be barred from entering Singapore. Thus, this harsh move will alleviate the problem as it threatens the youths and prevent them from trying to escape to other countries for the fear that they will lose their Singapore citizenship. Thus, this suggestion can be implemented as a last resort if the government finds that this problem is getting out of hand.

In conclusion, there are many solutions as to alleviate the problem of dodging of NS. However, the government should always try the “soft” approach and try to reason with the youths before they are forced to use the harsh method.

Science: A Menace to Civilisation?

In the modern age of technological advancement, computers, televisions and other electrical appliances, the world has come a long way from conventional equipment like paper, radios etc. Whether science has contributed to civilisation, most of us are not sure, but I posit that it has given us benefits, although if used wrongly, may produce disastrous consequences.

In our current time, most of us take technology for granted. Every day, we wake up early in the morning, mostly with the aid of alarm clocks. Then we travel to school on buses that have mobile television and use computers in school learning. Everywhere we go, we make use of technology, whether we are aware of it or not. Even our education and what we learn in the syllabus has been impacted greatly by the introduction of technology in the late 20th century.

Due to the advancement in medical technologies, healthcare standards around the world have improved greatly. Previously deadly and lethal diseases such as small-pox and tuberculosis are now limited to just infection of humans as scientists develop various vaccines suitable for immunity against these diseases. There are also vaccines for minor illnesses such as flu and fever. Had there been no proper vaccines, many more people would have spread the flu bug and succumbed to it potentially, especially in the cases of the Hong Kong Flu and H1N1 Swine Flu.

In the field of natural disasters, technology has also helped early prediction of earthquakes and tsunamis. As a result of this advancement, many more lives have been saved, due to prevention systems being set up and established in countries with high risks of earthquakes and tsunamis, including Japan and Indonesia. Earthquake detection devices have helped governments be able to evacuate their citizens early in time. Also, rescue efforts in the aftermath of such natural disasters have also largely depended on technology, especially the use of helicopters in the rescue of stranded residents in Hurricane Katrina and in the Sumatra Earthquake. Without these initiatives, there would definitely be more trouble in the rescue efforts, and many more civilians would have lost their lives.

It is possible to go on and on about the benefits of science and made our lives easier and mroe convenient. However, the ultimate benefits or detriments that come from the use of science still depend on the people who make use of it.

Since the start of the 20th century, major developments have been made in the field of military armaments. It is definitely accurate to say that while science has been helping the majority of mankind, some people make use of it to develop weapons of mass destruction. Virtually all the countries in the world have military armies, meant for a sole purpose: defending their country. This process involves the killing of civilians and troops, causing unnecessary bloodshed. Armies nowadays are focused on development of their weapons and armaments for more formidable and strong troops that are capable of beating out any enemies. One clear example that comes to mind is the development of nuclear energy. In the Second World War, two atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan by US forces, effectively ending the war in the Asia-Pacific region. The bombs were newly developed by US scientists under the Manhattan Project, and were ordered for use by then-US president Harry Truman. More recently, countries such as North Korea, Russia and Iran have stockpiled their nuclear weapons, with North Korea infamously displaying their weapons and their power by launching nuclear missiles in the Pacific Ocean. Just as it can help, in medicine and electronics, science can also cause harm through warfare.

In conclusion, there is no definite decision on whether science is benefitial or detrimental to mankind. Despite the controversial debates ongoing, there is no confirmed or accurate conclusion to this issue. Instead, we should all come to recognise that science has both pros and cons, and that to fully make good use of science and not cause any problems, we should stop applying it wrongly and should start developing sciences in the right industries and in the proper methods.

Integrated Resorts- How far do you agree with PM Lee’s decision? Propose a solution to any 2 social repercussions encountered.

Currently, there has no doubt been numerous discussions on the construction of the Integrated Resorts (IR) in Singapore after it had been given the green light. For the past decade, Singapore has been very conservative with issues such as gambling. The IRs that are to be constructed will feature casinos, which sparked of the great debate on whether Singapore should allow the construction of such an Integrated Resort.

As PM Lee Hsien Loong put it, the government has already thought through extremely thoroughly and has examined both the pros and cons, and after great consideration, they decided to give it a go as the benefits that an IR would bring far outweigh the negative consequences. The IR would surely help boost the economy of Singapore, especially crucial in such time of economic downturn, and this would also be beneficial to the tourism industry in Singapore – with the Integrated Resorts and the attractive casinos, it is no doubt that more tourists would be attracted to visit Singapore.

However, as there are always two sides to a coin and the drawbacks of such a proposal cannot be overlooked. To begin with, many have expressed concerns regarding the casinos. Many, including Senior Minister Goh who is personally against the idea, are afraid that come the construction of the IR and hence casinos, Singaporeans could get hooked to gambling and this could become a serious problem. Take this scenario - Singaporeans who go there to gamble lose money, resulting in them wanting to gamble even more in hopes of recuperating the losses. They lose even more until they realize that they are completely broke. So what happens to their financial situation? They now have no choice but to turn to crime and unscrupulous means such as loan sharks to get their cash. As we can all see, this problem of gambling addiction is one that is extremely severe and cannot be looked upon lightly.

So, since the decision has already made, how do we circumvent the aforementioned problems from arising becomes the main question. I believe that the most important yet practical solution is education. Youth especially have to be educated from young and inculcated with the correct values to prevent them from going astray. Also, the government and other welfare groups should also hold more “no gambling” campaigns to let Singaporeans learn of the negative effects of gambling addiction, raising awareness in them on such an issue. This would no doubt reduce the possibility of problems arising due to the casinos in the IRs after they are constructed.

In conclusion, the possible scenarios of citiznes turning into addicts have to be addressed for any country wishing to construct a casino. In Singapore's case, both the citizens and government will have to work together towards maintaining the Singapore we have today.

Why we should/should not exercise any form of censorship on pornography

Pornography in the 21st century refers to online articles which conveys and embodies sexuality which may potentially influence one’s state of mind negatively. However, several had contested that pornography do not deserve the censorship and the nature of pornography may not be dismissive all the time. There is unquestionably more pornography available today than fifteen years ago. However, is it legitimate to assume that more is worse and thus pornography is detrimental to the society?

Many people ruled out pornography as a taboo to be left untouched, believing that pornography is detrimental to one’s life, family and society as a whole. Canvassing the impacts pornography has on the society, many failed to critically analyse pornography beyond a mere individual’s indulgence in sexuality thirst, only a few had identified it as a double-edged sword. The society today is conditioned to reject anything sexual as an immoral threat or a taboo. Religions, too, played a pivotal part in shaping the view towards sexuality in the society at large. While people actually believe that pornography encourages deviant sexual practices which may impede the society’s social stability, statistics have actually shown that with countries that are more liberal with pornography actually have a lower percentage of rape cases or crimes pertaining to acts of improper sexual conducts. This statistics point to one fact – it is paramount that pornography should be critically analysed. It may be necessary to censor it, but we should not ignore the its identity in the society that deviates one’s dangerous yet natural lust for sexuality. In fact, it could be drawn parallel to the role of prostitutes, which also played an indirect role to reduce sexual crimes in society at large.

Despite its unseen contribution to the social stability of our society, undeniably there exists a far more sinister and detrimental nature of pornography. It no longer acts as a substitute or alternative to sexual satisfaction. In today’s society, technology had engendered social problem, in which pornography is in the crux of this conflict. Many immoral businessmen had marketed pornography for economic benefits, ranging from a monthly subscription pornographic magazines to online pornographic website which charged by the rates of hours. As a source of materialistic wealth, the advertising technique adopted will inevitably lobbed unwanted attention from unsuitable audience. So often do we see newspaper reports on under aged children being exposed to inappropriate sexual material. All these are evident effects of pornography on the society. Although the problem of youths getting exposed to pornography do not have a influential impact on the society yet, there are speculations that it may engender to more social stumbling blocks which may impede our society progress towards a world-class city.

President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

For the past decades, we have seen numerous charity shows pleading the public to donate generously, helping organizations such as the NKF and Ren Ci Hospital. They showcase the different stunts performed by the artistes and video clips of those in need. It is undeniable that most of these charity shows achieved success and managed to rake in more than a million for those in needs. But is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous contributions?

Some people call and donate to show their loyalty for their idol when they are performing stunts. One example was when Ahjie Zoe Tay risked her hand and had to decide which cone had a knife underneath. This particular stunt raked in thirty thousand calls in that short period of fifteen minutes. We cannot deny that such performances helped these charity to attract and increase the viewership, hence the donations. They cause the audience to hold on to their seats, as the artistes perform stunt that seems dangerous and life-threatening. Through this, the audience would feel inspired and play a part by making the calls.

However, others question the need for these stunts. I personally feel that these charity shows do not require the artistes to perform stunts to increase their donations. They are also several reasons why I do not support the stunts. Firstly, it endangers the safety of the artiste, each artiste have a wonderful career ahead of them, by endangering themselves through performing unnecessary stunts, it is absolutely worthless. I believe other less risky performances such as singing and dancing would achieve the same result and hence, prevent injury of the artiste. Secondly, donation from the public comes from within the heart and not as a form of support for the artiste. Even if there was no show whatsoever, an advertisement would achieve the same effect on the public. Also any kind Samaritan or someone with the correct mindset would also donate without any reminder.

Lastly, to help those in need, artistes should start the ball rolling by donating a sum of money to the charity. This would in turn touch the hearts of the public and hence donations would start pouring in. Artistes could also be more proactive in generating funds and promoting the need of the needy to inspire others. I believe their fame would help spread the message further.

In conclusion, the aims of a charity show should be to touch the audience emotionally and appeal to them for donations, and I do not see how artiste performing stunts would help to achieve that.

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore- Refer to TalkingCock.com/ Mr Brown

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore- Refer to TalkingCock.com/ Mr Brown

Many people criticized the Singaporean government for constantly monitoring political commentary websites, which some view as limiting the right to freedom of speech. Political commentaries like talkingcock.com and mrbrown.com use articles to parody political issues and recent events. They do this in such a way that it is blindingly obvious to anybody who hasn’t been living in a hole what they are talking about, but at the same time cannot be implicated for slander or anything like that. For example, talkingcock.com’s column Annals of the Dragon King is a parody, focusing on the point of view of PM Lee Hsien Loong, whose name translated means dragon prince, or something to that effect, about certain political issues. In each article under this column, certain substitute names are used to refer to certain political figures. One of them would be Men In White, which I think probably refers to the PAP, with reference to their uniform white shirt and white pants combination that they are seen in every time they are seen in public. Another would be Peasantland, which is use to refer to Singapore. While these two substitute names are quite far from their original, we all know what they are referring to. These political commentaries like to comment on and satirize any incidents regarding politics. For example, there was mrbrown’s famous “mee pok ta mai te gua” podcast when an opposition MP forgot to submit a form and was caught on camera not doing so. This shows that many of these political commentaries are light hearted, and aimed at entertaining.

However, in the past, political bloggers have been brought to task for going overboard in criticizing the government, such as mrbrown. In 2006, he released a scathing, sarcasm-laden article, criticizing the government for attempting to sway voters in its favour by doing things such as introducing progress packages before the election, and leaving bad news only until after the elections, so as not to stress Singaporeans out about rising costs, “thereby affecting our ability to choose wisely” during the elections. He also criticised the government for unnecessarily raising the cost of living in Singapore. This article drew flak from the media and authorities, which furiously labelled him as a disturber of the peace, and promptly refuted his arguments. However, this sparked a debate as to whether the Singapore government was unfairly restricting free speech, or whether they really were justified, as mrbrown had gone too far, which raises the question of whether political commentaries on the internet should be allowed.

The government restricts citizens from expressing any grievances they may have towards the current political situation in other media, so the only avenue left is the online one. While blogs and other such online media are allowed to discuss politics, the authorities also keep a close eye on what is posted here, and the writers would be persecuted if any of their material is seen as being anti-government. I feel that the government should not have to regulate political commentaries as of now. Firstly, while political commentaries can introduce the idea that the government is not all that perfect, many Singaporeans read these websites for entertainment, and not really to read about politics. Besides, even if the population was disgruntled with the current form of government, the pros would far outweigh the cons, and there is also no credible opposition to challenge for the governance of Singapore. Thus, the current government’s position is relatively safe. Singaporeans, being Chinese, tend to be more rational and base their opinions on facts, and not so much on feelings. Hence, they would choose the government that they think would be best for them, and so as long as the PAP presents a strong case for itself, they are likely to win.

In a way, political commentaries can also be useful, as they allow the government to see some of the gripes and grievances the citizens may have, and thus take action based on these. These political blogs can be seen as a representative of the views of the people, and so the government can treat these as feedback, and find ways to improve. However, the writers of these blogs also have to take care not to be biased, and should try to take both sides of an argument when writing, to avoid being accused of being selfish. Also, it might help to have a disclaimer on the website. For example talkingcock.com, the first thing that one sees when logging on to that website, beside the striking picture of a cock’s head, is a disclaimer essentially saying that the website aims to entertain, and everything there is made up and nonsensical. This would lead the reader to read it purely for entertainment purposes, and not misconstrue it as a political website. It also helps that it states in capitalised bold words that it is not a political website.

In conclusion, I believe that political commentary in Singapore need not be regulated so much, as these political commentaries are mainly to satirise for humour purposes, and not to slander the PAP and encourage readers to vote for a nonexistent opposition party. Furthermore, the readers ultimately make their own decisions based on facts that they have, and are not likely to be swayed by one or two articles criticizing the government. Therefore, the government should just live and let live, and let Singaporeans in Singapore express themselves.