Question: The Prime Minister put forth several ideas and plans regarding education in his National Day Rally. How realistic do you find these plans and to what extent are they important to the future of Singapore?
The Prime Minister addressed several education issues and policies in his National Day Rally, among these are raising quality of all our schools in Singapore, including all of the neighbourhood schools and not just on a few top schools, developing young talents to the full, encouraging syudents to take up third language and providing more channels for Singaporeans have tertiary education.
" MOE has worked hard at this. I would say they have given you four “more” things. First “more’ -- freedom for principals and teachers to experiment. So, you can try out new ideas. Second “more” -- resources for schools with good ideas, so that if you succeed, well, we will help you build on that success. Third “more” -- opportunities for needy students through the Opportunity Funds. And fourth “more” is more learning, less teaching. "
Prime Minister mentioned that four "more" things will be given to the students and teachers, which are more freedom, more resources, more opportunities and more self directed learning. Suh changes can be felt in all schools. All schools are given more opportunity to make decisions that best suit their schools' culture. Also, students are encouraged to practice self- directed learning.
Recently, MOE strongly encourage students to take up third language; non-malays take up Malay as their third language. Malay language used to be the lingua franca in Singapore. Because it aspired to be a global city, it had no choice but to adopt English as the language of government, business and education. Still, we should be conscious of our losses. The demise of Malay as a lingua franca is one loss. Young Singaporeans today, unlike their parents and grandparents in the 1950s and 60s, cannot communicate in Malay. That means young Singaporeans are no longer in a position to communicate effortlessly with Malay Malaysians on Indonesians. In order to reverse this linguistic development, PM Lee is going to have two new initiatives in our secondary schools. First, the Malay Special Programme to study Malay as a third language. It’s there already in all the schools, but it’s not very popular. So, MOE is going to introduce incentives to encourage more students to do the Malay Special Programme. Singaporeans like incentives, so we’re going to have small incentives -- two bonus points for JC admission and a few more things.
However, PM Lee's decision to introduce incentives for non-malay students to study Malay as a third language will not make the language the lingua franca again. Some things in history are irreversible, this is probably one of them. The incentives PM Lee proposes to offer in schools can do only good.
PM Lee also aim to get every student into post-secondary education and as many as possible into tertiary institutions. The government has invested very heavily in our ITE, in our polytechnics, in our universities. Because of the investments, MOE has increased the intakes year by year and they've increased the upgrading -- more students progressing from ITE to poly, more students going from poly to university, more students going into the entire post-secondary and tertiary sector. And with good schools, more and more students want to go up and want to go to university.
I think such plans are necessary as there's growing number of students having difficulties in enrolling into the three state-funded universities, NUS, NTU, SMU. Thus, plan of building the fourth publicly-funded university is a must. Recently, There's an article which state that taiwan students who get grades as low as 5 % are eligible for tertiary education. This is because there's over supply of universities and demand is low. In order to fill the vacancies, Taiwan universities basically accept all sorts of students. Such decision will definitely ruin the future workforce in Taiwan as the quality has sacrificed in place of quantity. I am glad that students in Singapore are not facing such problems. It’s better not to have graduated but to have a good job than to have graduated with a skill which is not useful and then you spend your time feeling unhappy. The decision to build a fourth publicly-funded university is wise and they are important for the future of Singapore.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
A commentary
I have decided to write a commentary on Fiona Cher's blog. The entry that I have chosen is dated on August 10. The article Fiona referred to is 5 out of 100 points enough to enter varsity in Taiwan" published in The straits time.
I found this article very interesting because while students in Singapore are facing such tense competition in trying to enrol into an university, students in Taiwan are able to enter universities with academic grades as low as 5%.
According to the entry, Taiwan is having such problems because there is an oversupply of universities, but at the same time, Taiwan is facing a plunge in population. Thus, in order to fill up the vacancies in universities, universities allow all sorts of students to enrol in, including students who are incapable.
Such move is DEFINITELY going to have negative impacts on Taiwan's workforce and economy! If universities allow all kinds of students to enrol in and graduate, the workforce is going to be affected! This is because students who are incapable in obtaining a degree in the past are now able to obtain one. However, the standards is not as before. This means that the quality of Taiwan workers is going to deteriote. When the workforce hire incapable workers, economy will be affected. Thus, such move is not advisable!
I can understand that Taiwan is trying to fill up the vacancies in the various universities, but such move is not the solution. In fact, this solution is going to backfire in no time. It is important to nurture useful workers for the workforce, not simply producing incapable workers. Thus, I totally agree with Fiona that to solve such problems, Taiwan governments should close down some universities and raise the bar, make the requirements for enrolment into university higher.
I found this entry written by Fiona very insightful, thus I wish to congratulate her for clinching one of the top three blogs title!
I found this article very interesting because while students in Singapore are facing such tense competition in trying to enrol into an university, students in Taiwan are able to enter universities with academic grades as low as 5%.
According to the entry, Taiwan is having such problems because there is an oversupply of universities, but at the same time, Taiwan is facing a plunge in population. Thus, in order to fill up the vacancies in universities, universities allow all sorts of students to enrol in, including students who are incapable.
Such move is DEFINITELY going to have negative impacts on Taiwan's workforce and economy! If universities allow all kinds of students to enrol in and graduate, the workforce is going to be affected! This is because students who are incapable in obtaining a degree in the past are now able to obtain one. However, the standards is not as before. This means that the quality of Taiwan workers is going to deteriote. When the workforce hire incapable workers, economy will be affected. Thus, such move is not advisable!
I can understand that Taiwan is trying to fill up the vacancies in the various universities, but such move is not the solution. In fact, this solution is going to backfire in no time. It is important to nurture useful workers for the workforce, not simply producing incapable workers. Thus, I totally agree with Fiona that to solve such problems, Taiwan governments should close down some universities and raise the bar, make the requirements for enrolment into university higher.
I found this entry written by Fiona very insightful, thus I wish to congratulate her for clinching one of the top three blogs title!
Can poverty ever be eradicated?
Qn: Can poverty ever be eradicated?
Looking at some of the poor countries' situation like India; famine, drought, hunger, AIDS and all sorts of disadvantages it has, I must say that it is impossible to eradicate poverty in the short run. However, degree of poverty can be reduced with the aids from richer countries and world organisations.
In the article written by Kamala Sarup, Kathmandu, Nepal, titled "Can a Poor Country Become Rich?" dated on March 16, 2007, he concluded that technologies are necessary for a country to be rich. Kamala claimed that a lot of poor countries are unable to move out of the poverty cycle because they lacked the "ingredients" needed for technologies to take place. What are these ingredients kamala is referring to? These ingredients include poor geographical location of a country, culture, availability of education, forms of government and government's practices.
In Kamala's article, he claimed that geographical location is important in determining whether a country has any prospects of becoming richer. Countries that have poor infrastructures; which means that the countries are mountainous and waterless regions, are likely to be poor. Without access to navigable rivers and oceans, they are especially disadvantaged in their quest for wealth, since the capital and technologies to cross the rivers and get over the mountains are relatively expensive. With poor infrastructure means that the countries are unable to trade with other countries to aid its economy. This will result in the countries being relatively poor because they have no money to invest in technologies which means that they are unable to advance forward. The article states that the poorest people today are located in mountainous, waterless regions. Thus, it is impossible for a mountainous and waterless countries to undergo such massive revolution in the short run to totally eradicate poverty. However, their condition can be improved with the aids from richer countries. Countries with excellent infrastructure should send experts to these countries to help improve their transport systems. Such improvements in transportation will bring in more trade and revenue to these poor countries, thus enabling them to modernise their economy by introducing technologies.
Kamala also claimed that the availability of education determines whether a country will be rich or poor. Technologies depend on technical education. Without education, countries are unable to impart the knowledge on use of technologies to the people. Nations that have no basic schools will forever be stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty. How can you teach a farmer or factory worker to perform simple tasks efficiently if he/she cannot read or write?
The lack of education may be linked to the type of culture the country has. For example, India. Both the governments and people think that women do not need to have education. This forms of discrimination is affecting the progression of the country. The lack of manpower will means that rich and developed countries will have less confidence in investing in India. This point is being pointed out in the article on the interviews with Jeffrey Sachs, a Celebrity economist written by Kristina Tom, which states that reducing illiteracy to ending discrimination against women will help to solve the problem of poverty. Sachs is very confident and positive in eradicating poverty. However, I think that poverty cannot be eradicated in the short run as educating people with the right knowledge and removing the deep-seated gender discrimination will not be an easy task.
The lack of education is also related to the forms of government the countries have. Kamala claimed that democratic countries are likely to be richer than countries with leftist government. This is because people in countries under leftist government have no incentives to climb up the social ladder because there do not have one. Leftist governments practise equality. So Why work hard when you get the same reward as your dumb and lazy neighbor? This is why I feel that poverty cannot be eradicated in the short run because it is impossible to change the form of government in one country overnight and people need time to change their deep-seated mindsets.
Sachs also blamed environmental factors for the poverty in some countries. Sachs claimed that drought, famine and diseases cause one country to be poor. When one country cant even afford to have the basic necessities, how are they going to make a difference in their economies. For example India, both population and death rate are rising exponentially. The people do not have sufficient to eat, how are they going to work hard and contribute to the economy? Thus, it is impossible to eradicate poverty in countries like India. However, richer countries can help by setting up the foundation required for a economy to grow, for example helping the country to set up factories and invest in the country's economy.
Overall, I think that poverty cannot be eradicated. Even if it can be, it will take probably quite a long time before we can see the effects!
Looking at some of the poor countries' situation like India; famine, drought, hunger, AIDS and all sorts of disadvantages it has, I must say that it is impossible to eradicate poverty in the short run. However, degree of poverty can be reduced with the aids from richer countries and world organisations.
In the article written by Kamala Sarup, Kathmandu, Nepal, titled "Can a Poor Country Become Rich?" dated on March 16, 2007, he concluded that technologies are necessary for a country to be rich. Kamala claimed that a lot of poor countries are unable to move out of the poverty cycle because they lacked the "ingredients" needed for technologies to take place. What are these ingredients kamala is referring to? These ingredients include poor geographical location of a country, culture, availability of education, forms of government and government's practices.
In Kamala's article, he claimed that geographical location is important in determining whether a country has any prospects of becoming richer. Countries that have poor infrastructures; which means that the countries are mountainous and waterless regions, are likely to be poor. Without access to navigable rivers and oceans, they are especially disadvantaged in their quest for wealth, since the capital and technologies to cross the rivers and get over the mountains are relatively expensive. With poor infrastructure means that the countries are unable to trade with other countries to aid its economy. This will result in the countries being relatively poor because they have no money to invest in technologies which means that they are unable to advance forward. The article states that the poorest people today are located in mountainous, waterless regions. Thus, it is impossible for a mountainous and waterless countries to undergo such massive revolution in the short run to totally eradicate poverty. However, their condition can be improved with the aids from richer countries. Countries with excellent infrastructure should send experts to these countries to help improve their transport systems. Such improvements in transportation will bring in more trade and revenue to these poor countries, thus enabling them to modernise their economy by introducing technologies.
Kamala also claimed that the availability of education determines whether a country will be rich or poor. Technologies depend on technical education. Without education, countries are unable to impart the knowledge on use of technologies to the people. Nations that have no basic schools will forever be stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty. How can you teach a farmer or factory worker to perform simple tasks efficiently if he/she cannot read or write?
The lack of education may be linked to the type of culture the country has. For example, India. Both the governments and people think that women do not need to have education. This forms of discrimination is affecting the progression of the country. The lack of manpower will means that rich and developed countries will have less confidence in investing in India. This point is being pointed out in the article on the interviews with Jeffrey Sachs, a Celebrity economist written by Kristina Tom, which states that reducing illiteracy to ending discrimination against women will help to solve the problem of poverty. Sachs is very confident and positive in eradicating poverty. However, I think that poverty cannot be eradicated in the short run as educating people with the right knowledge and removing the deep-seated gender discrimination will not be an easy task.
The lack of education is also related to the forms of government the countries have. Kamala claimed that democratic countries are likely to be richer than countries with leftist government. This is because people in countries under leftist government have no incentives to climb up the social ladder because there do not have one. Leftist governments practise equality. So Why work hard when you get the same reward as your dumb and lazy neighbor? This is why I feel that poverty cannot be eradicated in the short run because it is impossible to change the form of government in one country overnight and people need time to change their deep-seated mindsets.
Sachs also blamed environmental factors for the poverty in some countries. Sachs claimed that drought, famine and diseases cause one country to be poor. When one country cant even afford to have the basic necessities, how are they going to make a difference in their economies. For example India, both population and death rate are rising exponentially. The people do not have sufficient to eat, how are they going to work hard and contribute to the economy? Thus, it is impossible to eradicate poverty in countries like India. However, richer countries can help by setting up the foundation required for a economy to grow, for example helping the country to set up factories and invest in the country's economy.
Overall, I think that poverty cannot be eradicated. Even if it can be, it will take probably quite a long time before we can see the effects!
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Capital punishment
Are you for or against the death penalty? Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
I'm against the death penalty under most circumstances.This is because I feel that executing one does not reduce the crime rates in any way. Most of the law breakers know that for all the wrongdoings they do, they will have to pay a heavy price for that, but yet they continue to carry out the misdeeds. One very good example is terrorists, those who use themselves as bomb to conduct mass murder. These "living bombs" are mostly well educated and they know exactly what will happen to them when they carry tons of bombs over their bodies. But they show no slight fear and worry, they are determined to use their lives to kill more people. i believe that all these living bombs know exactly that they will lose their lives but it does not stop them at all. So what makes us think that taking one's lives will deters brutal killing.
Another reason why I'm against capital punishment is that punishment must be not only retributive, but should also try to rehabilitate the criminal in order to enable him to live in society with other human beings. Executing the criminal means that the law and the community are denying the criminal a chance to turn over a new leaf. I must say that this applies only to those who repent over their wrongdoings and not the extreme cases. Some murderers may have realise their mistakes and they deserve a chance to turn over a new leaf. I am sure that benevolence can makes one to become a better person.
However, in certain cases, I agree to the use of capital punishment. When it comes to a case where it would be possible to save the life of an innocent victim by executing such a criminal, to me it is obvious that saving such a victim’s life must count for more than taking the criminal’s life. Capital punishment applies when the criminals are too outrages. For example, then committed a murder and was given a jail term but the jail term seems to have no effect on him and he committed another crime, such criminals should be served with the capital punishment.
Overall, I agree to the use of capital punishment only to a certain extent. This is because I feel and I think that executing criminals does not reduce the crime rates. However, when it comes to a case where the murderers constantly taking the innocents' lives despite several jail terms, such criminals deserve to end their lives.
I'm against the death penalty under most circumstances.This is because I feel that executing one does not reduce the crime rates in any way. Most of the law breakers know that for all the wrongdoings they do, they will have to pay a heavy price for that, but yet they continue to carry out the misdeeds. One very good example is terrorists, those who use themselves as bomb to conduct mass murder. These "living bombs" are mostly well educated and they know exactly what will happen to them when they carry tons of bombs over their bodies. But they show no slight fear and worry, they are determined to use their lives to kill more people. i believe that all these living bombs know exactly that they will lose their lives but it does not stop them at all. So what makes us think that taking one's lives will deters brutal killing.
Another reason why I'm against capital punishment is that punishment must be not only retributive, but should also try to rehabilitate the criminal in order to enable him to live in society with other human beings. Executing the criminal means that the law and the community are denying the criminal a chance to turn over a new leaf. I must say that this applies only to those who repent over their wrongdoings and not the extreme cases. Some murderers may have realise their mistakes and they deserve a chance to turn over a new leaf. I am sure that benevolence can makes one to become a better person.
However, in certain cases, I agree to the use of capital punishment. When it comes to a case where it would be possible to save the life of an innocent victim by executing such a criminal, to me it is obvious that saving such a victim’s life must count for more than taking the criminal’s life. Capital punishment applies when the criminals are too outrages. For example, then committed a murder and was given a jail term but the jail term seems to have no effect on him and he committed another crime, such criminals should be served with the capital punishment.
Overall, I agree to the use of capital punishment only to a certain extent. This is because I feel and I think that executing criminals does not reduce the crime rates. However, when it comes to a case where the murderers constantly taking the innocents' lives despite several jail terms, such criminals deserve to end their lives.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Why the Africans distrust Western medicine?
The article that I read this week is " Why the Africans distrust Western medicine ". This article interests me a lot because for decades America is seen as the most advanced country-in terms of technology, medicine and many other things.
Why the Africans distrust Western medicine? Well, this will bring us back to the groundbreaking news in May 2004. A medical worker, who in May 2004, intentionally infected hundreds of Libyan children with HIV virus. This worker supposedly was sentenced to death but was freed couples of weeks ago.
Unfortunate incidents were not new. For example, In march 2000, Werner Bezwoda, a cancer researcher at South Africa's Witwatersrand University, was fired after conducting medical experiments involving very high doses of chemotherapy on black breast-cancer patients, possibly without their consent. The most notorious one is Dr Wouter Basson,a former head of Project Coast, was charged with killing of hundreds of blacks in South Africa and Namibia, from 1979 to 1987, many via injected poisons. The worst part of it was that he was never convicted in South African courts, even though his lieutenants testified in detail and with consistency on the medical crimes they conducted against blacks.
Such article really saddens me because given the technology the world has today, such incidents should not have happened at all. Such tragedies highlight the challenges facing even the ost idealistic medical workers, who can find themselves working under unhygienic conditions that threathen patients' welfare. Well-meaning Western caregivers must sometimes use incompletely cleaned or unsterilised needles, simply because nothing else is available. These needles can and do spread infectious agents like HIV-proving that Western medical practices need not be intentional to be deadly. A 2003 study in The International journal of STD and Aids found that as many as 40% of HIV infections in Africa are caused by contaminated needles during medical treatment.
The distrust of Western medical of workers has had direct consequences. Since 203., for example, polio has been on the rise in Nigeria, Chad and Burkina Faso because many people avoid vaccinations, believing that the vaccines are contaminated with HIV or are actuallty sterilisation agents in disguise.
I feel that the world should pay more attentions to these third world countries. The people there face poverty and rampant diseases, but yet they have no one to turn to. The thought of relying on advanced countres was no longer true. Thus, it is important that we approach Africans' suspicions with respect, realising that they are facing a shortage of RELIABLE medical care.
Why the Africans distrust Western medicine? Well, this will bring us back to the groundbreaking news in May 2004. A medical worker, who in May 2004, intentionally infected hundreds of Libyan children with HIV virus. This worker supposedly was sentenced to death but was freed couples of weeks ago.
Unfortunate incidents were not new. For example, In march 2000, Werner Bezwoda, a cancer researcher at South Africa's Witwatersrand University, was fired after conducting medical experiments involving very high doses of chemotherapy on black breast-cancer patients, possibly without their consent. The most notorious one is Dr Wouter Basson,a former head of Project Coast, was charged with killing of hundreds of blacks in South Africa and Namibia, from 1979 to 1987, many via injected poisons. The worst part of it was that he was never convicted in South African courts, even though his lieutenants testified in detail and with consistency on the medical crimes they conducted against blacks.
Such article really saddens me because given the technology the world has today, such incidents should not have happened at all. Such tragedies highlight the challenges facing even the ost idealistic medical workers, who can find themselves working under unhygienic conditions that threathen patients' welfare. Well-meaning Western caregivers must sometimes use incompletely cleaned or unsterilised needles, simply because nothing else is available. These needles can and do spread infectious agents like HIV-proving that Western medical practices need not be intentional to be deadly. A 2003 study in The International journal of STD and Aids found that as many as 40% of HIV infections in Africa are caused by contaminated needles during medical treatment.
The distrust of Western medical of workers has had direct consequences. Since 203., for example, polio has been on the rise in Nigeria, Chad and Burkina Faso because many people avoid vaccinations, believing that the vaccines are contaminated with HIV or are actuallty sterilisation agents in disguise.
I feel that the world should pay more attentions to these third world countries. The people there face poverty and rampant diseases, but yet they have no one to turn to. The thought of relying on advanced countres was no longer true. Thus, it is important that we approach Africans' suspicions with respect, realising that they are facing a shortage of RELIABLE medical care.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Embracing otherhood
Qn:What do you think are some of the challenges facing Singapore as the country plays host to more people from different backgrounds and
cultures?
As Singapore plays host to more people from different backgrounds and cultures, the main challenge faced by the country is how to close the gap between the "others" and Singaporeans. According to the article, the population of foreigners is on a rise. Yet, Singaporeans still find it hard to hang out or see them as part of "US". Singaporean minds still finds it hard to imagine white person as an integrated resident and not some overpaid expatriate, and they just can't stop assuming that mainland women are all predators out there to seduce old men of their CPF savings.
Foreigners don't factor into our daily consciousness unless we are "forced" to recognise them. For example, Filipino, Indonesian and Indian women are often known as maids. When we mention Philippine and Indonesia, the first thing came into our mind is maid, not their cultures or backgrounds. Same goes to construction workers-they are all illegal Bangladeshi workers. We all see them in our daily lives but they are far from being one of "US".
Though these foreigners contribute to our economy, they do not get what they deserved. For example, an illegal Myanmar worker who fell to his death while working on a block of flats. his death was not reported by his employer who simply dump his body at a car park. The failure to provide this poor exploited worker a dignified end is stunning. Though he ended his life BECAUSE he's building nice flats for us to live in, yet the incident did not seem to register with the average Singaporeans.
Another challenge faced by Singapore when it plays host to more people from different cultures and backgrounds is that the population of citizens is declining.
The 2000 population census showed that more than one in four people in Singapore is a foreigner. The jump in population from 3.05 million in 1990 to 4.02 million in 2000 comes mostly from the influx of foreigners. Citizens now make up only 74% of the population.
Also, foreigners are having a difficulty with mixing around with Singaporeans. Each side persists in hanging out with their own kind and the gap widens as the population grows.
As Singapore plays host to more people from different cultures and background, Singaporeans must stop resenting foreigners as those who take away their jobs, who seduce the old men and see them as lower class citizens.
cultures?
As Singapore plays host to more people from different backgrounds and cultures, the main challenge faced by the country is how to close the gap between the "others" and Singaporeans. According to the article, the population of foreigners is on a rise. Yet, Singaporeans still find it hard to hang out or see them as part of "US". Singaporean minds still finds it hard to imagine white person as an integrated resident and not some overpaid expatriate, and they just can't stop assuming that mainland women are all predators out there to seduce old men of their CPF savings.
Foreigners don't factor into our daily consciousness unless we are "forced" to recognise them. For example, Filipino, Indonesian and Indian women are often known as maids. When we mention Philippine and Indonesia, the first thing came into our mind is maid, not their cultures or backgrounds. Same goes to construction workers-they are all illegal Bangladeshi workers. We all see them in our daily lives but they are far from being one of "US".
Though these foreigners contribute to our economy, they do not get what they deserved. For example, an illegal Myanmar worker who fell to his death while working on a block of flats. his death was not reported by his employer who simply dump his body at a car park. The failure to provide this poor exploited worker a dignified end is stunning. Though he ended his life BECAUSE he's building nice flats for us to live in, yet the incident did not seem to register with the average Singaporeans.
Another challenge faced by Singapore when it plays host to more people from different cultures and backgrounds is that the population of citizens is declining.
The 2000 population census showed that more than one in four people in Singapore is a foreigner. The jump in population from 3.05 million in 1990 to 4.02 million in 2000 comes mostly from the influx of foreigners. Citizens now make up only 74% of the population.
Also, foreigners are having a difficulty with mixing around with Singaporeans. Each side persists in hanging out with their own kind and the gap widens as the population grows.
As Singapore plays host to more people from different cultures and background, Singaporeans must stop resenting foreigners as those who take away their jobs, who seduce the old men and see them as lower class citizens.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Overpopulation in India
Last week, I watched a documentary on "world in balance". It talked about overpopulation in India and the trememdous drop in number of babies born in Japan. After watching the documentary, I went on to research on the overpopulation in India.
The world population reached 6 billion on October 12, 1999, and is expected to reach 9.3 billion by 2050. India is the second most populated country after China on this planet and is on it's way to being number one within the next fifty years. The government is very concerned about the size of India's population and has focused tremendous amounts of energy into combating India's growth.
India's population reached one billion on 1999. However, the poverty continues to bug India, 8 million people die each year because they are too poor to survive.
What is the cause of the population boom in India?
First of all, the education level. Most of the people in India are uneducated. They have no knowledge on birth control and spread of sexual diseases. In India, living standards is extremely low, thus the spread of diseases is very rampant. Families in India will thus demand the wives to give birth to more children as many could not survive to the age of adolescent.
Not only that, gender discrimination in India is still going strong. Husbands and mother-in-laws often demand the wives to give birth to only boys. When the can't produce male decendents, they are "forced" to give birth to more though they are reluctant about it.
Next is that most of the Indians have no knowledge on birth control. They are not taught how to use condoms and contraceptive pills to avoid getting pregnant.
To solve the overpopulation problem in India, the most important solutions is to educate them. WRONG MINDSETS must be changed. We must educate the people there, especiallt the males that giving birth to females is equally good. Not only that, wu must teach the people on birth control. Condoms and contraceptive pills must be made available to the public. Developed countries should help to educate the people from third world countries on how to use the birth control measures.
The world population reached 6 billion on October 12, 1999, and is expected to reach 9.3 billion by 2050. India is the second most populated country after China on this planet and is on it's way to being number one within the next fifty years. The government is very concerned about the size of India's population and has focused tremendous amounts of energy into combating India's growth.
India's population reached one billion on 1999. However, the poverty continues to bug India, 8 million people die each year because they are too poor to survive.
What is the cause of the population boom in India?
First of all, the education level. Most of the people in India are uneducated. They have no knowledge on birth control and spread of sexual diseases. In India, living standards is extremely low, thus the spread of diseases is very rampant. Families in India will thus demand the wives to give birth to more children as many could not survive to the age of adolescent.
Not only that, gender discrimination in India is still going strong. Husbands and mother-in-laws often demand the wives to give birth to only boys. When the can't produce male decendents, they are "forced" to give birth to more though they are reluctant about it.
Next is that most of the Indians have no knowledge on birth control. They are not taught how to use condoms and contraceptive pills to avoid getting pregnant.
To solve the overpopulation problem in India, the most important solutions is to educate them. WRONG MINDSETS must be changed. We must educate the people there, especiallt the males that giving birth to females is equally good. Not only that, wu must teach the people on birth control. Condoms and contraceptive pills must be made available to the public. Developed countries should help to educate the people from third world countries on how to use the birth control measures.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Daughter may give birth to mother's child?
I read a very interesting article this week titled "daughter may give birth to mother's child".
A girl aged seven has turner syndrome which makes her infertile when she matures. Out of motherly love, her thirty five year old Canadian mother had decided to freeze her eggs so that one day her daughter may become a mother herself.
This is the first time that a mother-to-daughter donation has been made, though there have been cases of sister donating to sister before. Donating eggs is nothing new, but there is a shortage of egg donors in Canada since legislation in 2004 prevented women from selling their eggs.
Some people are touched by the mother's act and agree with the donation. However, some strongly against this donation. Negativity has risen since this story was made public. The only negativity reaction had come from an ethics professor in Toronto who did not think that the interest of the unborn child had been taken into account. Experts who have spoken to the press have also expressed concern as to the psychological welfare of the yet unborn child.
I do not agree to such donation. I can feel the Canadian mother's love and concern towards her daughter but I am against to such donation.
If the daughter dives birth to a child using her mother's eggs, such a baby would be the sibling of the birth mother at the same time as the direct genetic offspring of the grandmother donor. we will be hearing more and more children suffering from identity problem. Giving birth to your own sister completely screws up the normal transition of life.
Furthermore, I feel that mother-to-daughter donation is not the only way to allow the daughter to experience motherhood. The daughter can get egg donation from people with no blood relation, this will solve the problem of identity.
Not only that, the daughter is only seven year old. By the time she reaches motherhood, technology may have been advanced enough to help her. This donation will not be necessary then.
A girl aged seven has turner syndrome which makes her infertile when she matures. Out of motherly love, her thirty five year old Canadian mother had decided to freeze her eggs so that one day her daughter may become a mother herself.
This is the first time that a mother-to-daughter donation has been made, though there have been cases of sister donating to sister before. Donating eggs is nothing new, but there is a shortage of egg donors in Canada since legislation in 2004 prevented women from selling their eggs.
Some people are touched by the mother's act and agree with the donation. However, some strongly against this donation. Negativity has risen since this story was made public. The only negativity reaction had come from an ethics professor in Toronto who did not think that the interest of the unborn child had been taken into account. Experts who have spoken to the press have also expressed concern as to the psychological welfare of the yet unborn child.
I do not agree to such donation. I can feel the Canadian mother's love and concern towards her daughter but I am against to such donation.
If the daughter dives birth to a child using her mother's eggs, such a baby would be the sibling of the birth mother at the same time as the direct genetic offspring of the grandmother donor. we will be hearing more and more children suffering from identity problem. Giving birth to your own sister completely screws up the normal transition of life.
Furthermore, I feel that mother-to-daughter donation is not the only way to allow the daughter to experience motherhood. The daughter can get egg donation from people with no blood relation, this will solve the problem of identity.
Not only that, the daughter is only seven year old. By the time she reaches motherhood, technology may have been advanced enough to help her. This donation will not be necessary then.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Race and the race
The article that i read this week is "race and the race". This article is saying that Americans appear prepared to elect either a black or a female president. But experience trumps both factors—and in a two-way race, Hillary Clinton, a women leads Barack Obama, a Black by more than 20 points.
2008 will be the next election year for America. Could 2008 be the year that Americans put an end to an unbroken 21woman or an African-American candidate for the office, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. But those numbers drop significantly when respondents are asked whether the country is ready to accept a black or a woman in the White House.
Although 92 percent of the NEWSWEEK Poll’s respondents claim they would vote for a black candidate, only 59 percent believe the country is actually ready for an African-American president. Similarly, 86 percent of voters say they would vote for a female commander in chief, but only 58 percent believe the country is ready for one.
To me, i feel that we should not consider one's race and gender when deciding to vote for a president. Instead, we should look at their ability to lead a country to further success and their experiences to govern a country.
It is good to hear that Americans are starting to accept Blacks and women as leaders after decades of racial and gender discrimination. Not many countries are able to do this yet.
However, there are still cases where women are voted to be leader. For example, Philippine first woman president Arroyo. America will be the first country to have a Black President if Barack Obama is elected.
I wouldn't mind voting for a woman president or prsident of other races as long they proved to be effective and are able to provide fair and uncorrupted government for the people.
2008 will be the next election year for America. Could 2008 be the year that Americans put an end to an unbroken 21woman or an African-American candidate for the office, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. But those numbers drop significantly when respondents are asked whether the country is ready to accept a black or a woman in the White House.
Although 92 percent of the NEWSWEEK Poll’s respondents claim they would vote for a black candidate, only 59 percent believe the country is actually ready for an African-American president. Similarly, 86 percent of voters say they would vote for a female commander in chief, but only 58 percent believe the country is ready for one.
To me, i feel that we should not consider one's race and gender when deciding to vote for a president. Instead, we should look at their ability to lead a country to further success and their experiences to govern a country.
It is good to hear that Americans are starting to accept Blacks and women as leaders after decades of racial and gender discrimination. Not many countries are able to do this yet.
However, there are still cases where women are voted to be leader. For example, Philippine first woman president Arroyo. America will be the first country to have a Black President if Barack Obama is elected.
I wouldn't mind voting for a woman president or prsident of other races as long they proved to be effective and are able to provide fair and uncorrupted government for the people.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
A commentary on Weixian's blog
This week we are suppose to choose one of our friend's blog entry and comment on it, I have chosen Weixian's blog because he was one of the top 3 blogs our class have chosen.
The blog entry that i have chosen is the one on the use of torture. I chose this entry becuase both of us share the same idea on the use of torture. In his blog entry, he said that the use of torture is justified when directed at adamant inhumane criminals for non-political agendas and such actions are not justified when political agendas are present. The latter serves only to undermine humanity. I totally agree to this because i think that the authority should not resort to torture unnecessary.
There are many debates going on these decades on the use of torture. Human rights groups have always voice out their disagreement to the use of torture. However, human rights groups are being unrealistic by their outright objection against torture when it comes to garnering crucial information pertaining to where a psychopathic murderer might have buried his victim, still alive and waiting borrowed time to be rescued.
The use of torture may seems cruel to some but when it comes to dealing with terrorists and murderers, i think the use of torture is adsolutely justifiable.
On the other hand, torture is never justified if such means were meted out to the will of a political power with intentions for political use. Many political leaders, since centuries ago, have been using torture to control the people and to garner support. Some famous examples are Adolf Hitler and Stalin. They used torture to control the way the people think, act and speak. This kind of torture is totally unacceptable. This is an inhumane act as the people have not committed serious crimes and yet they are treated in this inhumane ways.
Both Weixian and I share this common views on the use of torture- The use of torture is justified when directed at adamant inhumane criminals for non-political agendas. Again, such actions are not justified when political agendas are present. The latter serves only to undermine humanity.
The blog entry that i have chosen is the one on the use of torture. I chose this entry becuase both of us share the same idea on the use of torture. In his blog entry, he said that the use of torture is justified when directed at adamant inhumane criminals for non-political agendas and such actions are not justified when political agendas are present. The latter serves only to undermine humanity. I totally agree to this because i think that the authority should not resort to torture unnecessary.
There are many debates going on these decades on the use of torture. Human rights groups have always voice out their disagreement to the use of torture. However, human rights groups are being unrealistic by their outright objection against torture when it comes to garnering crucial information pertaining to where a psychopathic murderer might have buried his victim, still alive and waiting borrowed time to be rescued.
The use of torture may seems cruel to some but when it comes to dealing with terrorists and murderers, i think the use of torture is adsolutely justifiable.
On the other hand, torture is never justified if such means were meted out to the will of a political power with intentions for political use. Many political leaders, since centuries ago, have been using torture to control the people and to garner support. Some famous examples are Adolf Hitler and Stalin. They used torture to control the way the people think, act and speak. This kind of torture is totally unacceptable. This is an inhumane act as the people have not committed serious crimes and yet they are treated in this inhumane ways.
Both Weixian and I share this common views on the use of torture- The use of torture is justified when directed at adamant inhumane criminals for non-political agendas. Again, such actions are not justified when political agendas are present. The latter serves only to undermine humanity.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression
In the context of Singapore's multi racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, i freel that Szilagyi's view should be adopted.
Freedom of expression is essential to any democracy but social responsibility is more important.
According to Singer, freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else beliesves to be false, and even what many people find offensive. I do believe that freedom of speech is important in any democratis country include Singapore. However, i feel that freedom of speech will decrease the level of social responsibilty and people will be saying anything they want without thinking of the consequences. They will criticise parliament publicly and disttort racial harmony.
In a multi-racial society like singapore, this will bring about fatal consequences, people will start voicing out all their unhappiness and criticise one another reces. This is likely to cause another racial riots which everyone does not want.
Szilagyi raised the question that what is important for the democratic advancement of a society-to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens or to protect the collective interests of society. The former hails individual freedom while the latter places more emphasis on the media's responsibilty in leading an informed, high quality discussion, with the respect for minority rights.
Finally, i feel that media should practise social responsibilty. Media should not publish article or any resources that will provoke one or are not reliable. This will make our society more friendly to live in.
Freedom of expression is essential to any democracy but social responsibility is more important.
According to Singer, freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else beliesves to be false, and even what many people find offensive. I do believe that freedom of speech is important in any democratis country include Singapore. However, i feel that freedom of speech will decrease the level of social responsibilty and people will be saying anything they want without thinking of the consequences. They will criticise parliament publicly and disttort racial harmony.
In a multi-racial society like singapore, this will bring about fatal consequences, people will start voicing out all their unhappiness and criticise one another reces. This is likely to cause another racial riots which everyone does not want.
Szilagyi raised the question that what is important for the democratic advancement of a society-to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens or to protect the collective interests of society. The former hails individual freedom while the latter places more emphasis on the media's responsibilty in leading an informed, high quality discussion, with the respect for minority rights.
Finally, i feel that media should practise social responsibilty. Media should not publish article or any resources that will provoke one or are not reliable. This will make our society more friendly to live in.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?
The topic that I'm going to talk about today is on "Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?"
After watching the video in class last week, i realised that different countries have different way of punishing the criminals. Some of the ways seem ridiculous to me but they are effective for their country. I always thought that all the countries have the same form of punishments-which is fine, jail and serving community service. the video proves me wrong!
For example, in the rural town in Africa shown in the video clip, the villagers there practice "oil test" to determine whether the criminals are guilty. They believe that the boiling oil is able to scald the hand of the guilty one. Both the accused and the defendant are required to put their hand inside a pot of boiling oil. The one who is lying will get his hand burnt. I do not know why the people there will believe such "tricks" but somehow the practice has been there for decades and it seems effective in helping the village to maintain peace.
Another way of punishment seems more ridiculous to me. Criminals are required to carry a signboard indicating their crimes along the street. For example, a guy who ran over someone will have to carry a signboard stating "I ran over someone while i was drunk." The criminal will have to carry the signboard until they have finish serving their sentence. This form of punishment is known as public shaming. According to one of the prestigious judge there, this public shaming is effective in combating the crime rate which has plunged greatly after the introduction of public shaming.
The most ridiculous form of punishment is the one where the victim's families members are allowed to take revenge on the murderer by killing them. I totally disagree to this form of punishment as the vicious cycle will continue. No one would dare to step out of the house as they are constantly living in fear, fear of losing their lives.
I do not agree that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified to a certain extent. Different country has different ways in dealing with their criminals, the punishment may be effective for their country but not to the other country. For example, if we introduce fine and jail in Africa, it may not work there as the villagers are superstitious. This is why the "oil test" is so effective for them. They believe that the god will help them to track down the criminals. Thus, we cannot say that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is not justified. However, in the case of "revenge killing", it is definitely not justifiable no matter how effective it is. This form of punishment will only bring about more crimes.
Thus, it depends on what type of punishment a country practises before we draw a conclusion whether the punishment is justifiable.
After watching the video in class last week, i realised that different countries have different way of punishing the criminals. Some of the ways seem ridiculous to me but they are effective for their country. I always thought that all the countries have the same form of punishments-which is fine, jail and serving community service. the video proves me wrong!
For example, in the rural town in Africa shown in the video clip, the villagers there practice "oil test" to determine whether the criminals are guilty. They believe that the boiling oil is able to scald the hand of the guilty one. Both the accused and the defendant are required to put their hand inside a pot of boiling oil. The one who is lying will get his hand burnt. I do not know why the people there will believe such "tricks" but somehow the practice has been there for decades and it seems effective in helping the village to maintain peace.
Another way of punishment seems more ridiculous to me. Criminals are required to carry a signboard indicating their crimes along the street. For example, a guy who ran over someone will have to carry a signboard stating "I ran over someone while i was drunk." The criminal will have to carry the signboard until they have finish serving their sentence. This form of punishment is known as public shaming. According to one of the prestigious judge there, this public shaming is effective in combating the crime rate which has plunged greatly after the introduction of public shaming.
The most ridiculous form of punishment is the one where the victim's families members are allowed to take revenge on the murderer by killing them. I totally disagree to this form of punishment as the vicious cycle will continue. No one would dare to step out of the house as they are constantly living in fear, fear of losing their lives.
I do not agree that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified to a certain extent. Different country has different ways in dealing with their criminals, the punishment may be effective for their country but not to the other country. For example, if we introduce fine and jail in Africa, it may not work there as the villagers are superstitious. This is why the "oil test" is so effective for them. They believe that the god will help them to track down the criminals. Thus, we cannot say that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is not justified. However, in the case of "revenge killing", it is definitely not justifiable no matter how effective it is. This form of punishment will only bring about more crimes.
Thus, it depends on what type of punishment a country practises before we draw a conclusion whether the punishment is justifiable.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Does America need a bigger military?
The article that i read this week is "Does America need a bigger military?"
This article summarizes the problem and causes of small military in America.
The longer a soldier stays in Iraq, the more combat he or she sees, the greater the stress, the higher the psychological toll. A quarter of the U.S. soldiers and Marines enduring a second tour in Iraq showed signs of mental illness (versus 17 percent of those on their first deployment), according to the latest survey by the Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT). A disturbingly high 10% admitted mistreating Iraqi civilians or wantonly damaging their property are soldiers who screened positive for mental-health problems. They were twice as likely to admit to abusing Iraqis.
Why is there such problem? one reason is because the soldiers are not having more time at home between deployments. The MHAT recommends that ideally soldiers should deploy for six months, then spend 18 to 36 months at home. But that is impossible. The Army is so undermanned that soldiers are going to Iraq for a year, coming home for a year and heading right back to combat. This is because the U.S. military is too small to meet current needs or expected contingencies.
In 1990, the regular Army numbered 750,000, but it’s shrunk almost 40 percent since then. Congress has recently voted to increase Army strength by 65,000, up to 547,000 troops, but that’s probably not enough. Since 9/11, the Army has been using the Reserve and National Guard to bolster its force.
However, the root of the problem is the money issue. The government does not have enough funds to support the military size that it needs. The Army is spending millions just to maintain its all-volunteer force. Specialists are paid tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses and the baseline cost of national defense that is, excluding the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has gone up by a third since 1998 and will reach close to 50 percent by 2009.
Not only that, medical cost has been rising. Another reason why the American Army is unable to increase its numbers is that it needs money to replace equipment and buy new technology. Just repairing and replacing equipment chewed in Iraq will cost the army $13 billion.
Measured as a percentage of GDP, today America spends on its military less than half of what it spent during Vietnam (4.2 percent this year, against 8.9 percent in 1968). President Bush has not hesitated to ask for sacrifice from the soldiers he sends into combat. Now may be the time to ask for some sacrifice from the rest of America.
This article summarizes the problem and causes of small military in America.
The longer a soldier stays in Iraq, the more combat he or she sees, the greater the stress, the higher the psychological toll. A quarter of the U.S. soldiers and Marines enduring a second tour in Iraq showed signs of mental illness (versus 17 percent of those on their first deployment), according to the latest survey by the Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT). A disturbingly high 10% admitted mistreating Iraqi civilians or wantonly damaging their property are soldiers who screened positive for mental-health problems. They were twice as likely to admit to abusing Iraqis.
Why is there such problem? one reason is because the soldiers are not having more time at home between deployments. The MHAT recommends that ideally soldiers should deploy for six months, then spend 18 to 36 months at home. But that is impossible. The Army is so undermanned that soldiers are going to Iraq for a year, coming home for a year and heading right back to combat. This is because the U.S. military is too small to meet current needs or expected contingencies.
In 1990, the regular Army numbered 750,000, but it’s shrunk almost 40 percent since then. Congress has recently voted to increase Army strength by 65,000, up to 547,000 troops, but that’s probably not enough. Since 9/11, the Army has been using the Reserve and National Guard to bolster its force.
However, the root of the problem is the money issue. The government does not have enough funds to support the military size that it needs. The Army is spending millions just to maintain its all-volunteer force. Specialists are paid tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses and the baseline cost of national defense that is, excluding the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has gone up by a third since 1998 and will reach close to 50 percent by 2009.
Not only that, medical cost has been rising. Another reason why the American Army is unable to increase its numbers is that it needs money to replace equipment and buy new technology. Just repairing and replacing equipment chewed in Iraq will cost the army $13 billion.
Measured as a percentage of GDP, today America spends on its military less than half of what it spent during Vietnam (4.2 percent this year, against 8.9 percent in 1968). President Bush has not hesitated to ask for sacrifice from the soldiers he sends into combat. Now may be the time to ask for some sacrifice from the rest of America.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Should women go back to the workforce again?
Since mother's day is approaching, I will talk about an article related to our dearest mummy.
The article that I read is on the issue should mothers get back to the workforce?
This article states that the percentage of women in the workforce is declining from year to year. This year there's only 64% of women in the workforce compared to 76% last year.
Why is the percentage of women in the workforce declining? Well, there are several factors.
First of all, most of the women will quit their jobs when they have young children to take care with. No doubt, mothers can give up everything for their children. Many young mothers who just started the motherhood life will want to spend as much time as possible with their beloved babies or children. To be a full-time mother, most of the women will quit their job and work as housewives.
Secondly, more and more families are rising from middle-income to high-income family; this means that most families are ecomically-stable with men being the sole bread winner alone. Hence, more and more women get to enjoy an easy and carefree life. Women no longer need to work to earn extra salary for families. This is one reason why more and more women are leaving the workforce.
Now, we face the question that should women join the workforce again after their children has grown up?
Singapore government encourages women to join workforce. This is because being in the workforce, women will know how's the Singapore's economy doing and most importantly, women can be independent of themselves and do not need to rely on men for financial support. Also, Singapore depends greatly on human capital. Singapore has a small population; if Singapore's economy is solely run by men, the economy will definitely slow down. Thus we need both men and women to work together to boost Singapore's economy to the optimum. To encourage women to join the workforce again, Singapore government provides training for the older women to upgrade themselves. Women will get to learn a new skill during the training and government will help to get a job for women who wish to go back to the workforce. Also, more and more childcare subsidies are given to mothers with young children. This is to encourage mothers to stay in the workforce and subsidies act as incentives for parents to put their children in childcare centre while they are working.
In my opinion, I think that it is normal for mothers to quit their jobs for the sake of taking care of their children. If I become a mother next time, I will quit my job too and concentrate on taking care of my children if possible. I feel that it is important that parents spend enough time with their children. Spending insufficient time with children will affect their development. However, I think that a housewife should still continue to observe the economy and constantly upgrade themselves with new skills and knowledge so that they will not be left behind.
Here, I want to wish all mothers around the world a very HAPPY MOTHERS' DAY!
The article that I read is on the issue should mothers get back to the workforce?
This article states that the percentage of women in the workforce is declining from year to year. This year there's only 64% of women in the workforce compared to 76% last year.
Why is the percentage of women in the workforce declining? Well, there are several factors.
First of all, most of the women will quit their jobs when they have young children to take care with. No doubt, mothers can give up everything for their children. Many young mothers who just started the motherhood life will want to spend as much time as possible with their beloved babies or children. To be a full-time mother, most of the women will quit their job and work as housewives.
Secondly, more and more families are rising from middle-income to high-income family; this means that most families are ecomically-stable with men being the sole bread winner alone. Hence, more and more women get to enjoy an easy and carefree life. Women no longer need to work to earn extra salary for families. This is one reason why more and more women are leaving the workforce.
Now, we face the question that should women join the workforce again after their children has grown up?
Singapore government encourages women to join workforce. This is because being in the workforce, women will know how's the Singapore's economy doing and most importantly, women can be independent of themselves and do not need to rely on men for financial support. Also, Singapore depends greatly on human capital. Singapore has a small population; if Singapore's economy is solely run by men, the economy will definitely slow down. Thus we need both men and women to work together to boost Singapore's economy to the optimum. To encourage women to join the workforce again, Singapore government provides training for the older women to upgrade themselves. Women will get to learn a new skill during the training and government will help to get a job for women who wish to go back to the workforce. Also, more and more childcare subsidies are given to mothers with young children. This is to encourage mothers to stay in the workforce and subsidies act as incentives for parents to put their children in childcare centre while they are working.
In my opinion, I think that it is normal for mothers to quit their jobs for the sake of taking care of their children. If I become a mother next time, I will quit my job too and concentrate on taking care of my children if possible. I feel that it is important that parents spend enough time with their children. Spending insufficient time with children will affect their development. However, I think that a housewife should still continue to observe the economy and constantly upgrade themselves with new skills and knowledge so that they will not be left behind.
Here, I want to wish all mothers around the world a very HAPPY MOTHERS' DAY!
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Should Singapore legalise homosexual
The article that i read is "decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error".
The Home Affairs Ministry has indicated that section S377A of the Penal Code will be retained. S377A prohibits the commisson of gross indecency by one male person with another male person. However, opinions have been expressed that S377A may be unconstitutional because it discriminates against homosexual sex and not oral and anal sex committed by heterosexual or what we called the lesbians.
There are both advantages and disadvantages if homosexual is legalised. The disadvantages are more than the advantages. The disadvantages are that it is known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections and that an active homosexual agenda has endangered clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech and religious liberty.
In my opinion, i think that we should not legalise homosexual. It is not because i discriminate homosexual but i feel that legalising homosexual will bring many unneccessary and bad influence to the society. If homosexual is legalised, homosexuals must then be allowed to marry someone of the same sex and be given the benefits of marriage such as tax benefits and adoption of children. This will lead to greater number of sexually transmitted infections. Not only that, once homosexual is legalised,there will be demand for heterosexual to be legalised too. Homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens. Legalising homosexual would be divisive as Singapore is a multireligious and multiracial community.
Hence, i feel that legalising homosexual is not a right move in Singapore.
The Home Affairs Ministry has indicated that section S377A of the Penal Code will be retained. S377A prohibits the commisson of gross indecency by one male person with another male person. However, opinions have been expressed that S377A may be unconstitutional because it discriminates against homosexual sex and not oral and anal sex committed by heterosexual or what we called the lesbians.
There are both advantages and disadvantages if homosexual is legalised. The disadvantages are more than the advantages. The disadvantages are that it is known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections and that an active homosexual agenda has endangered clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech and religious liberty.
In my opinion, i think that we should not legalise homosexual. It is not because i discriminate homosexual but i feel that legalising homosexual will bring many unneccessary and bad influence to the society. If homosexual is legalised, homosexuals must then be allowed to marry someone of the same sex and be given the benefits of marriage such as tax benefits and adoption of children. This will lead to greater number of sexually transmitted infections. Not only that, once homosexual is legalised,there will be demand for heterosexual to be legalised too. Homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens. Legalising homosexual would be divisive as Singapore is a multireligious and multiracial community.
Hence, i feel that legalising homosexual is not a right move in Singapore.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Rampage at Virginia Tech
The article that i read is "Decision to broadcast US gunman video sparks controversy". Cho Seung-Hui,a Korean gunned down 32 students at Virginia Tech last week. The massacre shook the world dramatically. No one knew why the Korean fanatic did this. All we know is that Cho was an autistic and that he was extremely unhappy with the way his schoolmates treated him. After he gunned down 2 students in the hostel, he sent a package to NBC News and continued his rampage at Virginia Tech University. This article shows the public's opinions on the broadcasting of the video that the gunman sent and whether the NBC networks had crossed the line by airing the disturbing video.
NBC executives reportedly spent hours agonising over whether to broadcast the video and justified its broadcast in a statement that said the network would exercise restraint in how often it broadcast the material. Most of the public opposed the airing, saying that the airing didn't serve any purpose except to make them angry. The police commented on the broadcasting that the public should be shielded from these disturbing images. A former president of NBC News said that the public ought to have the information of the gunman and the decision to broadcast the video would be to publish, to allow people to see what kind of person the gunman was. He said of police comments that the public should have been shielded from such images.
In my opinion, i think that the NBC news should not have broadcasted the video. I feel that they have neglected the victim's families' feeling. They are adding to the trauma to the families. They should spare a thought for the people who wish to get over this incident as fast as possible. By airing the video, yes it did help to answer some people's curiousity but overall, it just terrorise the public with those disturbing images.
NBC executives reportedly spent hours agonising over whether to broadcast the video and justified its broadcast in a statement that said the network would exercise restraint in how often it broadcast the material. Most of the public opposed the airing, saying that the airing didn't serve any purpose except to make them angry. The police commented on the broadcasting that the public should be shielded from these disturbing images. A former president of NBC News said that the public ought to have the information of the gunman and the decision to broadcast the video would be to publish, to allow people to see what kind of person the gunman was. He said of police comments that the public should have been shielded from such images.
In my opinion, i think that the NBC news should not have broadcasted the video. I feel that they have neglected the victim's families' feeling. They are adding to the trauma to the families. They should spare a thought for the people who wish to get over this incident as fast as possible. By airing the video, yes it did help to answer some people's curiousity but overall, it just terrorise the public with those disturbing images.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Is the use of torture justified?
I feel that the use of torture is justified when it is against terrorists and in some domestic criminal situations,especially when it concerns saving innocent lives. For example,a murderer has buried an innocent girl alive,it is neccessary and justified to use torture on the criminal to find the girl's whereabout when he refused to disclose any information. Or in other case of terrorism,we need to torture the captured member of the terrorist group in order to save a couple of millions lives. In these conditions,i feel that it is neccessary to use torture although there were no gurantees that torture would work.
However,i feel that torture should not be so severe that it paralysed the criminals. The torture should be of an acceptable conditions. If the criminals refused to leak out any information after several tortures,i think it is useless to carry on the torture as the criminals are determined to "sacrifice" rather than to cooperate with the police. At such cases,i feel that the authority should use a different approach to obtain the information that they want. For example,the police can try to encouraged the criminals to repent through religious methods if the criminals are staunt religious man.
Overall,i feel that to a certain extent,torture is justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists provided the tortures are not too severe.
However,i feel that torture should not be so severe that it paralysed the criminals. The torture should be of an acceptable conditions. If the criminals refused to leak out any information after several tortures,i think it is useless to carry on the torture as the criminals are determined to "sacrifice" rather than to cooperate with the police. At such cases,i feel that the authority should use a different approach to obtain the information that they want. For example,the police can try to encouraged the criminals to repent through religious methods if the criminals are staunt religious man.
Overall,i feel that to a certain extent,torture is justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists provided the tortures are not too severe.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
New Media
After reading the articles, i feel that new media threat to stability.
According to the first article, today we are fighting the first war in the era of e-mail, blogs, blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras, the Internet, mobile phones, talk radio, and 24-hour news. The new media has allow terrorists skillfully adapting to fighting wars in today’s media age. The terrorists know that communications transcend borders, and that a single news story, handled skillfully, can be as damaging to our cause and can be as helpful as any military attack. Thus, they are able to act quickly with relatively few people, and with modest resources compared to the vast, expensive bureaucracies of democratic governments.
Media outlets in many parts of the world often serve only to inflame and distort, rather than to explain and inform. For example, al-Qaeda and extremist movements have used their forum for many years, further poisoning the Muslim public’s view of the West.
Not only that, media often produced false allegations For example, the false allegations of the desecration of a Koran last year. First published in a weekly news magazine, the story was then posted on Web sites, sent in e-mails, and repeated on satellite television and radio stations for days before the facts could be discovered. That false story incited deadly anti-American riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
While the second article focusses on blogs. Blogging has exploded in popularity to the point where there are now more than 20 million blogs being tracked around the world. Bolgs allow people to post theur comments ans share their point of views with people all around the world. Blogging do help people to voice out their comments, but it also teaches people to be less sensitive over certain issues, for example the religous issues. Many people in different countries have been jailed for criticizing official corruption, posting material deemed offensive to Islam and etc.
Hence, i feel that new media is a threat to the stability.
According to the first article, today we are fighting the first war in the era of e-mail, blogs, blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras, the Internet, mobile phones, talk radio, and 24-hour news. The new media has allow terrorists skillfully adapting to fighting wars in today’s media age. The terrorists know that communications transcend borders, and that a single news story, handled skillfully, can be as damaging to our cause and can be as helpful as any military attack. Thus, they are able to act quickly with relatively few people, and with modest resources compared to the vast, expensive bureaucracies of democratic governments.
Media outlets in many parts of the world often serve only to inflame and distort, rather than to explain and inform. For example, al-Qaeda and extremist movements have used their forum for many years, further poisoning the Muslim public’s view of the West.
Not only that, media often produced false allegations For example, the false allegations of the desecration of a Koran last year. First published in a weekly news magazine, the story was then posted on Web sites, sent in e-mails, and repeated on satellite television and radio stations for days before the facts could be discovered. That false story incited deadly anti-American riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
While the second article focusses on blogs. Blogging has exploded in popularity to the point where there are now more than 20 million blogs being tracked around the world. Bolgs allow people to post theur comments ans share their point of views with people all around the world. Blogging do help people to voice out their comments, but it also teaches people to be less sensitive over certain issues, for example the religous issues. Many people in different countries have been jailed for criticizing official corruption, posting material deemed offensive to Islam and etc.
Hence, i feel that new media is a threat to the stability.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?
The media can never be relied upon to convey the truth.
According to the article,America does not truly have a “free press.” Fear of losing readers, viewers and advertising dollars actually control the decisions made by corporate-controlled news media. These influences can also be labeled the three “P’s”: Popularity, Prejudice and Profit.
To achieve popularity, America’s corporate-controlled media selectively only allow certain news and articles to be advertised.To achieve popularity in recent years, news and articles are often twisted in favour of the government or to the favour of the editors,Great lies were created along the way to make people believe that America has freedom of press
The second “P” spurring the corporate-controlled news media is prejudice. Americans journalists often twist and turn their news in favour of the Whites instead of the African-American.This can be proved by the O. J. Simpson and Robert Blake cases.Both of them killed their wives but were treated differently by one of the journalist.The White was of course being interviewed after his aquittance but the African-American was not as fortunate.
The final, and most powerful, “P” driving corporate-controlled news media is profit.To increase profits, corporate-controlled media have decided to “manufacture” and “market” news.Most television or radio interviews, unless they are aired live, are usually subjected to editing.Even though an individual may provide several minutes of intelligent and well-reasoned analysis, the words are often condensed into a few seconds of “sound bites” that can be manipulated to give a deceptive, and even dishonest, impression of what was actually said.Media sacrifices truth, impartiality and ethics for the sake of ratings and profit.
Hence,i feel that news are often published for the sake of profits and to show to the public something that they are interested in.News are often published as a "propaganda tool" to brainwash and instill new information on people's mind.For example:the Iraq war.The media only show America's victory and triumph to the public,they will never show the number of innocent people and soldiers sacrificed.This show that media is only a tool used by the government to show the "approved" news to the public and can never be relied upon to convey the truth.
According to the article,America does not truly have a “free press.” Fear of losing readers, viewers and advertising dollars actually control the decisions made by corporate-controlled news media. These influences can also be labeled the three “P’s”: Popularity, Prejudice and Profit.
To achieve popularity, America’s corporate-controlled media selectively only allow certain news and articles to be advertised.To achieve popularity in recent years, news and articles are often twisted in favour of the government or to the favour of the editors,Great lies were created along the way to make people believe that America has freedom of press
The second “P” spurring the corporate-controlled news media is prejudice. Americans journalists often twist and turn their news in favour of the Whites instead of the African-American.This can be proved by the O. J. Simpson and Robert Blake cases.Both of them killed their wives but were treated differently by one of the journalist.The White was of course being interviewed after his aquittance but the African-American was not as fortunate.
The final, and most powerful, “P” driving corporate-controlled news media is profit.To increase profits, corporate-controlled media have decided to “manufacture” and “market” news.Most television or radio interviews, unless they are aired live, are usually subjected to editing.Even though an individual may provide several minutes of intelligent and well-reasoned analysis, the words are often condensed into a few seconds of “sound bites” that can be manipulated to give a deceptive, and even dishonest, impression of what was actually said.Media sacrifices truth, impartiality and ethics for the sake of ratings and profit.
Hence,i feel that news are often published for the sake of profits and to show to the public something that they are interested in.News are often published as a "propaganda tool" to brainwash and instill new information on people's mind.For example:the Iraq war.The media only show America's victory and triumph to the public,they will never show the number of innocent people and soldiers sacrificed.This show that media is only a tool used by the government to show the "approved" news to the public and can never be relied upon to convey the truth.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Ernst Ruska....the great inventor
The person that i'm going to write about is Ernst Ruska,the inventor of electron microscope.He is a German physicist,electrical engineer, and Nobel Prize winner for the design of the first electron microscope.
Electron Microscope is a microscope that uses electrons instead of visible light to produce highly magnified images of objects.This enable the scientists to use electron microscopes in many different fields of research like medicine,Chemistry,Biology and Physics.Electron microscopes enable us to see very small particles and atoms.Its resolving power and magnification power are factors that contributed to the high tech electron microscope.
Born in Heidelberg, Ernst August Friedrich Ruska earned an engineering degree from the University of Berlin in 1931 and a Ph.D. degree in 1933.In 1937 Ruska accepted a research position at Siemens-Reiniger-Werke. He remained there until 1955, when he became director of the Institute for Electron Microscopy of the Fritz Haber Institute. Concurrently, Ruska served at the institute and as professor at the Technical University of Berlin, from 1957 until his retirement in 1972.
I feel that he has contributed greatly to the society we are all living in today.Without him,there would not be electron microscope.Electron microscopes allow us to have a better understanding on the nano cells and how our organelles work.This allow the scientists and doctors to implement new medicine and cure for different diseases.Many different new medicines have been invented and diseases that were once consider deadly have been cured by these new medicines.
Hence,i feel that Ernst Ruska is a great physicist who have contributed greatly to the society.
Electron Microscope is a microscope that uses electrons instead of visible light to produce highly magnified images of objects.This enable the scientists to use electron microscopes in many different fields of research like medicine,Chemistry,Biology and Physics.Electron microscopes enable us to see very small particles and atoms.Its resolving power and magnification power are factors that contributed to the high tech electron microscope.
Born in Heidelberg, Ernst August Friedrich Ruska earned an engineering degree from the University of Berlin in 1931 and a Ph.D. degree in 1933.In 1937 Ruska accepted a research position at Siemens-Reiniger-Werke. He remained there until 1955, when he became director of the Institute for Electron Microscopy of the Fritz Haber Institute. Concurrently, Ruska served at the institute and as professor at the Technical University of Berlin, from 1957 until his retirement in 1972.
I feel that he has contributed greatly to the society we are all living in today.Without him,there would not be electron microscope.Electron microscopes allow us to have a better understanding on the nano cells and how our organelles work.This allow the scientists and doctors to implement new medicine and cure for different diseases.Many different new medicines have been invented and diseases that were once consider deadly have been cured by these new medicines.
Hence,i feel that Ernst Ruska is a great physicist who have contributed greatly to the society.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
About myself
My name is Joanne and i'm turning 18 this year.I'm from Malaysia and i came to Singapore at the age of thirteen.Being the third child of the family,i have two elder sister and one younger sister.Since young,our parents have showered with love and warmth.
I came from Orchid Park Secondary School.I stayed in Yishun with my younger sister as my parents are working in Malaysia.My elderst sister,24,worked as a banker and she stays in Clementi.As for my second elder sister,she helps my father to run his business in Malaysia.
Before i came to Singapore,i have stayed in Philippine for two years.Due to the nature of my father's work,our family have been travelling to different parts of Asia.
Pink and purple are my favourite colours.My favourite past time are listening to music and watching dvds.Since young,i have a passion for fashion designing but unfortunately,i do not have the opportunity to master the skill thoroughly.I hope to go NUS to further my study after my A'level.The course that i'm going to study is medicine.My dream is to open a pharmacy of my own and be a successful pharmist,as well as an entrepreneur.
During my two years in aj,i hope to do well academically and broaden my knowledge.Not only that,i hope to make lots of friends in aj and take part actively in my cca.
I came from Orchid Park Secondary School.I stayed in Yishun with my younger sister as my parents are working in Malaysia.My elderst sister,24,worked as a banker and she stays in Clementi.As for my second elder sister,she helps my father to run his business in Malaysia.
Before i came to Singapore,i have stayed in Philippine for two years.Due to the nature of my father's work,our family have been travelling to different parts of Asia.
Pink and purple are my favourite colours.My favourite past time are listening to music and watching dvds.Since young,i have a passion for fashion designing but unfortunately,i do not have the opportunity to master the skill thoroughly.I hope to go NUS to further my study after my A'level.The course that i'm going to study is medicine.My dream is to open a pharmacy of my own and be a successful pharmist,as well as an entrepreneur.
During my two years in aj,i hope to do well academically and broaden my knowledge.Not only that,i hope to make lots of friends in aj and take part actively in my cca.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
