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.