Hey

Hi people, been a long time since I posted. Also, to my friends who love pets and own pets, maybe this could help you :D

Found this site great!

Today's library, tomorrow's googlary?

I could not agree more wholeheartedly with the writer when he pointed out that the proliferation of e-books by Google will result in the demise of paper-based books. The intrinsic and sentimental value of reading will be gone forever, and so too will the joy of reading. I myself hope that the day where books cease to exist will never come, for that to me is as good as Armageddon. I do not mind if Google goes bankrupt and thousands go jobless, or that World War III erupts between people who want googlaries and people who libraries, or care if all the trees on Earth are stripped to make more books. All I care is that the book, with its rich intrinsic stays, whether we should be grateful to it or appreciate its beauty, for the Internet can never replace everything.

There is not even one way that books are inferior to the “googlooks” that Google plans to release. Take the value for instance. Books can be used as gifts between friends, presents from teachers to students, or tokens of appreciation from people to superiors, and just as e-cards are never appreciated as much as handwritten cards, the value of e-books is never the same as a proper book made with good paper. I am not the only person with these sentiments, as can be seen from the example of Straits Times readership. Though the Straits Times launched its e-newspaper at a much lower price, its readership for the printed copy still remains strong, and readership has not declined over the years. Maybe it is just me, or part of the joy one derives from reading is feeling the sound the crisp pages make when they turn, the sight of printed words and not pixels, and the smell new books and old books both give.

It is not just these reasons, but even the concept of convenience here. A common misconception is that e-books are convenient. True, they are more convenient regarding storage, but then again, that is not exactly an asset either. Many people like book collections, for showing off their refined tastes, or just for simple admiration. Nobody would be proud of their e-book or “googlook” collection, unless he has perhaps a million books or so. In addition, it is nearly impossible to bring an e-book out of the house at the moment, unless one has a phone with a wide enough screen so that his eyes are not strained terribly while trying to read a book from the 3 inch by 3 inch screen. Most people do not have phones with such capabilities, so it would be quite stupid if they do not own any books, because it would be impractical to lug their laptop along with them just to read the book, which is counter-productive as e-books are meant to safe space and give convenience to our lives. Or grief, desolation and despair coming in fact.

However, it would be unfair to say that the environmental benefits are not far-reaching. Imagine if these trees that will used to make books were used to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere! However, I do not see how using the computer for hours a day to read a book would help the environment either, by sucking up so much power. Furthermore, even if the environmental benefits are far-reaching and impactful somehow, I can just imagine the number of children who would take up reading. Taking up reading as an excuse to sneak into computer games in fact. Of greater concern to me are the eyesight of these little ones. When I was young, I read voraciously as I had an insatiable appetite for books, but imagine if I was reading “googlooks” instead. I would probably be half-blind by now as I would have been reading 5 or 6 hours a day during my formative years.

My view which probably everybody but Google echoes, is that pixels will never give us the experience reading as a real book. Google should abort their overly ambitious plans as it will come to naught—there is no conceivable advantage of reading online books, and there never will be.

A gift of a programme

What I remembered most regarding the GEP system in Hwa Chong, is what a senior said, “What GEP?” Hwa Chong has the Centre of Scholastic Excellence, a profound and cool sounding name given to its crème de la crème, and while the rest of the people are called the “mainstream”, the term GEP no longer applies in Hwa Chong. When I entered the institute in 2007, the consortium system already in a way diluted the GEP, as we had the “non-GEP” joining us, and by the time I was Secondary 3, the GEP term was obsolete, and even now, nobody from other schools asks me if I am from GEP.

Not that I mind, of course. While the article raised the concern about “elitism”, where the GEP would become snobs, knowing that they were the best of the best, my life was a cute opposite, where the GEP in my school were labelled “nerds” by the “mainstreamers”, a ironic case of reverse elitism. Of course, some of my friends who were at the lower echelons in the GEP, were very snobbish and haughty that they were in GEP, the most of us were just normal children, hoping to lead a peaceful life without conflicts with the mainstream. We weren’t much different from them, just either more hardworking, more creative, or more lucky (Famous cases of jokes who guessed their way into GEP). It has been a long time since I was in the Gifted Education Programme, but it is still of concern to me if the programme I was in is “a gift of a programme”?

True, the GEP tend to do better but perhaps it is not so much of the programme, but the children themselves. The true elite are able to adapt well and excel at anything regardless of the circumstances, surroundings or programmes they are in. I am of the viewpoint that with our without GEP, these people who have won coveted awards such as the Prime Minister’s Book Prize or being the Rhodes or President’s scholars. I have many friends who chose not to enter the GEP, and still did extremely well in PSLE, and are still aceing their subjects. While the programme is unique, with special features such as projects, debates, more in-depth discussions that help to further develop the talent of these gifted, the whole thing is quite a flop and nobody gives a hoot about it as we grow older and no longer feel our heart swell up in our chest when others ask us if we were from the programme. If they even ask, that is.

The horrible part about the GEP is not the concept of segregation, but the usefulness of the programme itself. The programme and the people are not effective usually. I have had my fair share of teachers who could not even answer the questions I posed, much less capture the class’ rapt attention, and have seen many of my friends ignore what makes GEP special from the rest. Projects were thrown aside, debates scripts were “crapped” out 10 minutes before the period, three line long reflections, paper planes and rubber bands constantly in the air while the teacher rumbled on incessantly. It is true that the GEP has exposed me to many opportunities that the mainstream would not present, which gives me the cutting edge over my peers in avenues such as forum discussions and projects especially, but many of my GEP friends are floundering in Hwa Chong and do not paint a good image of the “elite” in Singapore.

As we grow older, GEP fades from the mind, as it is finally marks that determine your calibre and definitely not whether you are GEP or not. With the best schools in Singapore such as Hwa Chong Institution and Raffles Institution nearly scrapping the Gifted Education Programme, the question is: How effective can such a programme be in nurturing and cultivating the nation’s elite if it ends before our secondary school life. The fact that GEP students have excelled is not because of the programme, but because of their own individual effort. GEP has done nothing much, as in the CSE, I share the same teachers, lessons and facilities as people who were not from the programme. It does not boil down to this programme that ceases its use by the time were are upper secondary, but the intelligence and diligence of the few GEP who obtained such honours. Whether there was this GEP programme or not, I am confident that nearly all of these top scholars would still have attained their scholarships, prizes and awards.

GEP to me has become a thing of the past, and truth be told, the word “GEP” has not been in my mind even once for the past few years until I read this article that brought it up in the first place. It is not the programme that nurtures the elite, but rather the elite that glorify the name of this ineffective programme, and make people think that it is still worth pining over. There is definitely no cause for alarm over elitism, as why would there be elitism in secondary schools and junior college, when there is no GEP in these institutes in the first place?

Don't slay the goose that lays golden eggs

I found this article rather insightful and though I found it highly amusing that no matter how persuasive an article is, it would not be able to sway Singapore’s government, known for its soft authoritarianism. However, that bit would probably have to be dwelled into in another blog post. For this blog post, I shall just comment on this article by Aletheia Chan. While I agreed with most of her points, there is one bit where I cannot agree with her.

Firstly, what I agree with most is the interesting point about “moral tainting” with Singapore’s soul and the soul of her citizens being stained and scarred. In my humble opinion that may be a tint biased, I find Singapore to be a country which ranks high on the “moralistic scale”. We have no civil wars, no twisted killers such as America or London with her infamous “Jack the Ripper”, are free of vices such as drugs and slavery and apart from Geylang, we are relatively prostitution free. However, while gambling is definitely not as “serious” as consuming drugs, and is not a crime either, it can also lead to moral degradation. Looking past just the act of gambling alone, the secondary sins caused by gambling include going to loansharks, extortion by loansharks, wife and children-beating, stealing money from companies or even stealing money from parents and family! As Aletheia Chan said, these ills caused by gambling cannot be coolly cast aside, with grand plans such as “counseling”, “financial aids” which may just come to naught, as they have in so many countries. Gambling, once it becomes firmly rooted in Singapore’s culture, will be hard to weed out.

Also, what horror if gambling becomes a new weekend pastime! While one in a million people who go the casino win big and become “richer than their richest dreams” as the cliché goes, the other 999,999 people usually end up squandering off a good portion of their salary or even their savings, as once one starts losing money in the casino, he just has to spend even more money in the vain hope that he can eventually recoup his losses! I myself know how much money a casino can drain, as I play some online games with casinos being one of the mini-games, and I always end up losing more and more money as I cannot stop myself from clinging onto that tiny hope that I will be that lucky person and win back money to recoup my losses. Thank goodness and thank God it is just virtual money! Sadly, the thousands I lose in the virtual world will become a reality in the real world for many real people who do not earn more than 5 grand a month and end up even poorer at the casino. How easy would it be for us Singaporeans to squander away our monthly pay packet, followed by our savings at the casino in just a few hours on a weekend! It would be disastrous to Singapore’s economy as how are people who have their savings wiped clean supposed to buy daily necessities, much less spend enough to churn on the economy?

However, while it is easy to predict things such as Singapore being knocked out from the World Cup’s qualifying stages for soccer in 2012; it would be overly presumptuous to assume that Singapore’s greed will lead to its demise. For one, a major “consolation” which is quite an irony, is that gambling has already been here for quite a long while, manifested in many forms such as Toto, jackpot machines, football and horse betting, 4d, or nearby casinos at Bintam. While these aren’t as convenient, or aren’t as cool as the new casino would be (The new casino would be the new “in” thing such as Cathay or Vivocity), Singaporeans have been used to gambling in a way. The hardcore gamblers will continue to be the scum of the Earth, still gambling at the casino, the less addicted gamblers may spend just a little more, but those who do not like gambling or are firmly against it will probably still stay away from the casinos. While there is the possibility as this article pointed out, that once we try gambling, we may be smoked on because of its addictive element, such as drugs or smoking, we can never know for sure what the future holds.

As of now, all we Singaporeans can do is just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.

Advance Medical Directive Act - a form of euthanasia?

 

An Advance Medical Directive Act is a legal document that one signs in advance to inform the doctor treating him that in the event he becomes terminally ill and unconscious, one would not want any extraordinary life-sustaining treatment to prolong one’s life. Definitely, this can be seen as a form of euthanasia, also known as “mercy killing”. While euthanasia is carried out to alleviate physical and mental suffering, this Advance Medical Directive Act can as an easy release from the suffering of being a vegetable, dead to the world but still breathing. However,

The horrible part about choosing the easy way out of suffering is that while one does need to undergo such anguish and torment be it emotional, mental or physical, it is extremely selfish to our loved ones. What about them? The emotional pain that we cause them will be so great, and the knowledge that we value the relief of the pain over being with them would hurt them even more. Furthermore, who are we to play God and decide when we want to leave this Earth? Euthanasia being mercy killing, and is still a form of killing; and killing ourselves equates to suicide which is murder. The killing can be for a good intention but killing ourselves is still a form of murder, which is the greatest possible sin.

Worse of all, this Advance Medical Directive Act and euthanasia both are equally horrifying in causing the dehumanisation of man and the desacrilisation of life. The sacredness of human life becomes viewed as mere sentimentalism, and expediency takes priority. Life becomes just a commodity, and can be thrown away when the going gets rough. The problem about opening the door to this form of assisted suicide is that more reasons will surface as to ending one’s life. First came euthanasia which gave the reason that physical and emotional pain was enough to warrant a merciful ending of one’s life, then came this Act which states that we have a right to end our lives if we are dead to this world. If this continues, perhaps next time there could be an Act stating that all people who recently lost a loved one could kill themselves also if they wish to.

In my opinion, unless the cost of life-sustaining treatment would be too much to bear for one’s family, nobody should even be given the option of signing this act to end their lives. Just as euthanasia is banned in all but four countries in the world, this Advanced Medical Direct Act should definitely also be banned by all countries. The decision to turn off the life-support machine should be made by the family, when after observing that there is no chance of every recovering for the person, then should they make the decision, and not leave the decision him.

Swine Flu

 

               Swine flu can be seen as a repeat of the SARS virus that swept the earth in 2003, hitting hardest in Asia and despite all the desperate measures taken by governments of various countries. Viruses are harder to control than terrorists, as even with quarantine of infected people, and use of vaccines, viruses can never be totally contained, as it is far too easy for these microscopic pathogens to slip through our safeguards and stopgap measures. However, though SARS took away thousands of lives, swine flu will not do the same, because of numerous reasons. Not only are we more prepared, united and hygiene conscious than the last encounter with a deadly virus, but the governments across the world are also more experienced in measures they take to contain the spread of this virus, also known as H1N1.

               As of today (28-5-09), there have been less than a hundred deaths caused by H1N1, but it is mostly in North America, where the virus originated from. However, as long as other countries keep up with measures such as quarantining citizens who travel to “hot-spots” of H1N1, such as Mexico, there would be a infinitesimally small chance of the virus spreading, even if one of her citizens is infected.  The only reason why Mexico has so many cases and deaths is because by the time measures were taken, the disease was already spread around the country, and it would be impossible to quarantine every possible person in the country.

               Another measure taken by the governments which I find effective is stocking up on flu vaccines, as if a mass pandemic breaks out, everybody can be quickly treated, averting a possible tragedy. The bright side about this virus is that as long as prompt treatment is sought, it is not potent, unlike SARS. Therefore, as long as everybody is alert to themselves showing symptoms of swine flu and seek immediate medical attention, and as long as the doctors treat all possible cases of swine flu seriously, the vaccines will hopefully not need to be used at all.

               However, is being over cautious good? The Mexican government was outraged over the way their citizens were treated by the Hong Kong authorities. As the saying goes “once bitten, twice shy”, so the Hong Kongers quarantined all Mexican tourists and treated them poorly, but one could hardly blame Hong Kong from being over-suspicious, looking at the number of deaths Hong Kong incurred at the hands of SARS. Also, many Mexicans were repatriated from China for fear of them being carriers of the swine flu virus. Thus, while being cautious, some countries end up being rude and causing unnecessary tension with other states.

               Also, swine flu poses as a double whammy to countries still reeling and trying to recover from the recent financial crisis. Not only are millions going to be spent on stepping up health-care measures and stocking up on vaccines, but the tourism industry is going to be dealt a sucker-punch. Countless flights to Mexico have been cancelled, be it for tours, business meetings or other events such as exchange programmes, and this greatly reduces Mexico’s revenue which already took a hit along with the United States in the financial crisis.

               Nevertheless, as long as the human race stays united, there is cause for hope and we will definitely triumph over this disease.  

HOTA

The recent amendments to the Human Organ Transplant Act resulted in an uproar in Singapore, with the major change being that unless one opted out of this scheme, once declared “brain-dead”, his organs would be harvested to give others. I have been thinking this issue over, and while it appears at the surface that this seems like a “win-win” situation, that one can do a good deed with organs no longer needed, and lives be saved, looking deeper into this issue reveals certain problems that are not obvious at first.

Firstly is the issue of ignorance. Not everybody in Singapore is literate, and among the literate, not everybody is well-informed. What if somebody is personally giving up his organs while he is still living, but is not aware of the amendment to this Act? Would not it be a terrible injustice to violate his rights as a human being? True, he is ignorant, but that is no reason to take away his organs. This could be as stupid as the government making a 100% tax policy, and you will get the normal tax rate only if you opt out of this scheme. Why make this scheme in the first place, where it would only inconvenience people who are well-informed, and do a grave injustice to people who are more ignorant?

Singapore has not done enough to make her citizens aware of the amendments to this Human Organs Transport Act, almost as if she is hoping to keep it silent. Perhaps keeping silent after drafting this Act is easier than launching campaigns to educate people about the merits of donating their organs after they are brain-dead or dead. Furthermore, why are the organs belonging to the state in the first place? Should not it be the right of the deceased or the “brain-deceased” family to decide if the organs should go to the state, or for other purposes. After these organs are harvested, what type of person does the family have to bury or cremate? An person without kidneys, livers, hearts and corneas?  Surely, this is too harsh a price for simply being ignorant. If people are ignorant, it is the duty of the state to educate them about this, and let the family and the person himself make the choice whether to sign the form, and not to OPT OUT of the form.

Also, what if the person certified “brain-dead” could eventually wake up at some point later on? While the chance is slim, it would be worth the long wait to the family. Without his organs, he is definitely and 100% dead. Miracles do happen and it is not uncommon for people in comas to wake up later on in their life. Doctors can never be truly sure that somebody is “brain-dead” and that he is ripe for harvesting. Foregoing consent and harvesting somebody’s organs is as good as foregoing consent and raping him, or foregoing consent and murdering him. Well the state may have the right to our property; it should not and will not have the rights to the body and organs of us citizens. We should have a right in deciding whether we want to keep our organs to accompany us into the ground or the flames. True, it may be selfish but it is for us to decide, and not the state.

The solution to this problem is probably to take the easiest and most effective way out. The scheme should be to let people “sign up” to donate their organs, based on their own goodwill and kindness, and not to let them “not sign out”, based on their ignorance. If the government truly wants people to donate their organs, they should step up on campaigns to inform Singaporeans about the merits of doing so, and not by resorting to such schemes.