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!
Saturday, August 18, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
