National Service

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

               Despite all the propaganda about National Service being a glamorous and macho way of showing one’s devotion and loyalty to our homeland, many young men would rather skip National Service, if possible. While this rite of passage may be deemed by young boys to be cool, the older we grow, the more we feel that our two years spent in National Service is a total waste of time. With modern values, and as due to higher standards of living, why should spoilt young men waste time and energy on something that does not benefit them? The pay is meagre, the training extremely intensive, the hours long. Thus, many young men choose to ‘dodge’ National Service by staying overseas and not coming back to serve National Service.

               This problem of dodging has led the government to mete out stiffer punishments for draft dodgers, as ‘If we (the government) don’t come down hard on those who default, it would undermine the dedication and commitment shown by those who have gone through NS.” While the government is right in this punishment of dodgers as this is only fair to those who had to go through the full two years of National Service, maybe sometimes the ‘stick’ is not the only approach to solving such problems. One possible drawback would be that to avoid the harsh punishments, dodgers might never dare to return to Singapore. Sometimes, some of the young men who skip National Service may in their later years, voluntarily return to Singapore in remorse over their actions, but even stiffer punishments would further discourage this group of people from returning to Singapore.

               Thus, I advocate amending the very root of the problem – National Service itself. You could hardly blame young men with bright prospects for placing their career and studies over National Service. Furthermore, with globalization, the new world order is now less about geographical borders and absolute national loyalties, and more about global movements of people and talent. National Service either chases away talent who refuse to come back for fear of being punished, or put these talents through 2 years of mundane training for a war which might never come in the next century, wasting precious hours that could go a long way to maximise the potential of these talents, which also benefits Singapore which relies on a knowledge-based economy.

               However, it would also be unrealistic for elitism to decide who goes through the two years of living hell and who does not. Where do you draw the line between talent and average people? Will people who failed at studies in their teens never be successful in their later life? What if Bill Gates went through National Service? Would Microsoft still exist, and would computers be as advanced as today? There would definitely be public out-cry against this elitism and people who do not make the cut may out of anger at the system; decide to skip National Service also. It is terribly unfair to see fellow countrymen being able to skip the two hard years that one underwent, so it would be understandable that people who went through National Service expect others to do the same.

Another solution is for the appeal system, which could be on a case-by-case basis. If one wants to skip or rather, postpone National Service because of issues pertaining to furthering studies, then perhaps if he does seem serious and is not skipping National Service for other reasons, then perhaps permission could be granted. Such cases will have to be dealt with care, as like I said, it is hard to draw the line. To prevent public grievance, National Service should remain as it is, and the stricter laws should stay. It is impossible to please everyone, but it is possible to please the majority.  

Are IRs a boon or bane to Singapore?

               In 2 more years, Singapore’s hotly debate integrated resorts should be up and running. Before I make my stand, I think that it is more important to define the topic, rather than foolishly misinterpret it and distort its meaning.  Since this proposal burst forth in 2003, many discussions or debates have been centered around mostly on are casinos a boon or bane to Singapore, while the term IR is ignored. True, a IR without a casino is not a proper IR, but we have to remember that an integrated resort comprises of many amenities, such as theme parks, cinemas, hotels, shopping malls, exhibition and convention spaces, theatres and even museums. To forget about this wide range of other facilities and just focus on the casino itself would be misleading.

               While the building of two integrated resorts will pose many problems to Singaporeans, we have to look into the long term. In globalization, with many countries opening up to the world, spending billions of dollars to reinvent, repackage and revamp themselves, complacency could very well result in the elimination of Singapore’s status as a vibrant city. London and Hong Kong have already begun giving themselves a face-lift, and are full of drive and energy just like Singapore. Both cities have been looking into casinos, with Hong Kong seeking to compete with Macao by building a casino, after their successful launch of Disneyland. We are not the only global city that is developed in just Asia alone, with Seoul, Tokyo, Beijing and Hong Kong proving themselves to be vibrant and cosmopolitan cities.

               Thus, in this rat race, only the strong survive. Unless we find ways to continually keep up with this relentless pace of improvement, we will be bypassed and left behind many other countries. Already, Singapore has lost ground in tourism over the past years. We need something other than the Singapore Flyer and F1 among our newest additions to tourist attractions. Already, we have not been blessed with beautiful scenery unlike many large countries and we need manmade attractions to resist tourists flocking to the new and rising powers such as China and India. Thus, the main case for the integrated resort is this very point. In short, the economic merits to Singapore that these integrated resorts bring could revive and revise Singapore’s global image and whether we get eliminated in this race could depend on this.

               The sentiment of most Singaporeans is that the integrated resort is a bane to Singapore. While the other amenities are harmless, unless people want to bring up the issue of shopaholics or theme park addicts, the main bone of contention is irrefutably the casinos.  In every country, just as there will be murderers and thieves, there will be gambling addicts. What better way for these addicts to sate this insatiable appetite then to just take a bus down to the casinos conveniently situated in Singapore itself? Many other problems come with gambling, such as breakdown of family, spouse and children abuse, loansharks, money laundering or even thefts. True, this problems are by no means trivial, but if these gamblers are that hardcore, they would already be gambling in Macau or nearby countries. Why not let them spend their money here? The government has already made a regulation whereby families can ban a family member or themselves from entering the casinos, to counteract this threat.

               The casinos will not actually make gamblers, but would rather convert gamblers. Gambling is not altogether illegal in Singapore, with illegal and legal forms of gambling, such as mahjong, horse racing, betting on soccer, Toto and 4D, to name a few. Thus, speaking of the casinos as if Singapore has no other forms of gambling can distort the actual picture. Furthermore, the government has taken measures to provide a better safety net against these gamblers. Firstly, a high entrance fee will be charged, so the casinos will be catered more to the tourists than locals. Thus, casual gamblers will be deterred. Furthermore, the casinos will not be allowed to extend credit to locals, thus it is harder for us Singaporeans to lose more than we can afford.

               With these safety measures, I am sure that the integrated resorts will help to boost Singapore’s image and tourist numbers, and at the same time safeguard its citizens effectively.

Question

In the passage, the author argues how advertising can work to our benefit. To what extent do you agree with his arguments? Examine the impact of honesty and integrity in the world of advertising.

Imagine that you were a Creative Director of an advertising agency which has been assigned to design an advertisement for a tobacco company. How far would you compromise on honesty and integrity. 

 

        I agree with the author’s statements to a certain extent.  What I disagree with him is that through advertisement, we consumers get information at no extra cost. This is not wholly true as firstly, the information may be false, and that would be lies and false statistics already, and not information as it does not increase our knowledge about anything.  Also, he said that consumers benefit from lower prices due to price-advertising. True, prices may be lower but do consumers benefit? Is this ‘lower’ price low to begin with? Take branded goods such as Adidas and Nike. They rival each other in selling sport apparel and the money they spent on advertisements go up to tens of millions or even hundreds, but do we consumers benefit? Even if the prices are lowered slightly, do we benefit if this price is still high?

 

         Another point that I find contentious is that advertising related to health will provide a storehouse of significant observations on the ways in which the benefits of advertising extend beyond the interests of advertisers to include the interests of the public at large. Firstly, advertisements like to be ambiguous about what they say. More of the effect than the figures are used, such as if a sports drink merely boosts the performance of athletes by 1%, this trivial amount will not be mentioned, but rephrased into a catchy and still correct slogan which perhaps says ‘gives you the cutting edge over fellow competitors’ or ‘feel energised with our sports drink which has been proven to boost your performance during competitions’. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that while the welfare of the public is taken into account, their interests are never, are not, and never will be taken into account substantially. The role of the consumer or buyer is not to stay healthy, but to stay spendthrift, and to buy things that benefit mostly the advertiser.

 

         I do agree with the writer on his point that information sells therefore people will research on more information so that products will sell together with information. Advertising companies require research, so they will employ people to research on these information for them, and people will want to research on this information. Thus, it can be seen that the more products needed, the more information wanted, thus products sell together with information. Also, I agree that advertising also elicits additional information from other sources.

                             Moving on to the world of advertising, honesty and integrity are not of vital importance for some companies as long as nobody knows that they are faking information and still fall into their scam and they are still raking in profits. Of course, there will be other companies that would rather lose profits then lose their customer’s face in them, and will never fake information, as it is not only unjust to the consumer, but could possibly endanger his or her lives. Companies have to get their priorities right: to fake information, keep their fingers crossed, and get as much profit as possible or to ensure that honesty and integrity are maintained, and keep their fingers crossed that they will still make a profit.

               If I were the Creative Director of an advertising agency that has been assigned to design an advertisement for a tobacco company, I will not compromise on honesty and integrity as if I am found out by my consumers to have been providing false or misleading information, this would be disastrous and I might face prosecution charges which is not worth such a risk. Instead of facing ways to falsify information, it would be more beneficial for me to focus on inventing tobacco that provides less health risk through measures such as reducing the nicotine and tar content or inventing more efficient filters, not only will more people buy more product, I will win their trust as my information will have proven to be accurate and useful to them. 

Is Science a Menace to Civilisation?

While I agree whole-heartedly with Text A, it is more correct to say that man’s use of Science is a menace to civilisation. The atrocities of war and weapons of mass destruction were made possible with such developments in Science. Because of man’s misuse of Science, countless innocent lives are lost in bombing raids, were lost in the gassing chambers and atomic bombs in World War II, and will be lost in the future with new advanced chemical, nuclear and biological weapons that have the capacity to annihilate an entire country. Also, the invention of explosives and guns has been misused. Dynamite was invented to help build roads through mountains, but instead, we human beings transformed it into weapons to kill and maim other people or animals. Because of Science, Man built technology-intensive industries, power-consuming appliances and other ‘luxury’ goods such as cars and air-conditioners. Because of this, we humans have selfishly caused the global warming effect, which may soon reach a point of no return, unless we manage to find a way to capture carbon dioxide in the future.
Scientific research has without doubt lowered mortality rates, with life-saving discoveries such as antibiotics, surgeries, transplants or vaccines. Previously, man was nearly defenceless against such potent microorganisms, and could die over a mere cold. True, these inventions are greatly beneficial to mankind. However, with these developments in Science, human beings have turned these weapons which fight viruses and other micro-organisms against ourselves, and because of our negligent use of antibiotics, we have ironically created new strains of resistant super-bugs that have developed resistance against nearly all antibiotics. Furthermore, for each vaccine invented, countless innocent lab animals are sacrificed. Their live bodies are used as tests, and if the experiment fails, they are just cruelly killed without a second thought. How could these inventions be hailed as life-saving, if they take the lives of other creatures?
                 Another example is the Internet, which was considered to be a huge leap for mankind, with it being among the most significant inventions of the 20th century. Sadly, what was meant to convenience the lives of mankind instead has turned into a hazard to its users. Be it viruses, rampant proliferation of pornographic material in the net, paedophiles lurking in the chatroom, or addictive computer games, this great breakthrough in Science which was meant to connect people around the world has ironically achieved the contrary. There are countless cases of people, being addicted to online gaming, have estranged themselves from the people around them. They are more comfortable chatting with faceless acquaintances on the web, than with their own family. These technologies threaten to numb the brains of each new generation, killing social skills and the art of communication over time.
                 Of great concern to me, is also the menace that Science presents to moral ethics. Recently, even the United States has instead of opposing stem cells research has decided to fund it. Are we trying to realise the horrors presented to us in Huxley’s ‘Brave new world’. What is next then? Are we going to let parents programme what they want their child to be then? Furthermore, two of the world’s most destructive ideologies in the 20th century-Communism and Nazism were both inspired by Science. Science can thus be seen to in some cases, violate moral ethics and can be detrimental to society.
                     We must also rethink our perceptions of life with science and life without science. Is life without our luxuries bleak and dull? Will we die without our cars or computers? Can its benefits ever outweigh its heavy costs? Of course, while science is argued to be just like religion or philosophy, these two cannot ever be as destructive as science, because they are abstract. I personally, as a Christian, also find Science the major stumbling block in people accepting Christianity. Be it through Darwin’s theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory which had a one in one with 81 zeroes behind chance of happening, some people choose to believe in Science to explain everything, as it is tangible and concrete, unlike religion. Worse still, Science, or man’s use of Science could be worse than just a menace to civilisation, if science is used to substitute religion in people’s lives.
                             In conclusion, there is little doubt that Science is indeed a menace to civilisation and Man himself.

Explain the nature of pornography and give your reasons to why we should/should not exercise any form of censorship in this area.

In my interpretation, pornography is content that morally degrades man’s opinion of women, as its male-centred content creates the false impression of women’s sole purpose being to be sex slaves for man, and to be treated as sex toys, and worse of all, that they actually enjoy being raped or subjected to sexual abuse. While human rights activists and many other people are actively pushing for equal rights for both men and women, pornography is quite detrimental to this noble effort as it conveys the impression that women are meant to be subservient to man, or that women are ‘whores’. Either way, pornography is derogative towards women, and thus should definitely be censored if the image of women is to be preserved and respected.

 

The foundation of the pornography industry is based on the lustful fantasies, poor self-control and the horrible sexual tastes of males. If the foundation of the drug industry is based on addiction to drugs, and poor self-control, the pornography industry is also fuelling a sinful addiction, and a stumbling block to many men, causing them to be caught up in their fantasies.  The attitudes and behaviour that pornography supports is very unhealthy. Furthermore, pornography brings about lustful thoughts and feelings in man, and is unaccompanied by the many other aspects to sex such as affection, long-lasting relationships and responsibility. This money-driven industry is just like the drug industry, where people actively support and industry that is extremely unhealthy and can ruin people’s lives and degrade the image of some.

 

Definitely, there is a counter-argument that pornography is just a mere expression of sexuality, thus there is nothing wrong with it. Some people say that pornography is a reflection of sexual fantasies and promotes sexual experimentation. Also, it is a substitute for sex as not everybody will get to experience sex in their life, so there is no wrong in using this visual experience to substitute sexual experiences. To me, this argument is terribly flawed as if one wants an expression of sexuality, then he can look at nude art, which is not pornography. Nude art tries to convey the beauty of the human body, while pornography just conveys the notion that women are subservient to men. If one’s real purpose in reading pornographic material is to appreciate sexuality, then it means that he has a terribly warped interpretation of those degrading images.

 

 Furthermore, the very fact that pornography reflects sexual fantasies and promotes sexual experimentation is wrong enough. Sexual fantasies are brought about by lust, and lust is one of the seven cardinal sins, so how a reflection of sexual fantasies became a plus point is a mystery to me. As for promotion of sexual experimentation, does that mean that sexual experimentation itself is good? Sexual experimentation can mean trying out other forms of sex, or treating women as sex toys. It is too ambiguous, and is hard to interpret. The argument that pornography is a substitute for sex for people who may be too shy, ugly or physically disabled is not very convincing either. If a shy young man spends time flipping through pornographic magazines instead of trying to ask a girl out, or if a ugly woman is convinced that all ugly women will never get married and resorts to spending the rest of her life reading pornographic material, how is this right? They should not be willing to settle for something less, much less degrade themselves to read such material.

 

In conclusion, pornography should be censored as it degrades the image of women and the respect of men towards them, encourages lust and is in no ways beneficial to anyone. 

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

 

Singapore’s government keeps a firm grip on the media in Singapore, be it the presses, television or the Internet, and is especially cautious regarding the Internet, and regulates the political commentary on the Web in Singapore. With strict guidelines that they expect the people to adhere to, and punitive measures such as doing time, censorship or fines, it would be impossible for anybody to say that we Singaporeans enjoy political freedom. Of course, we have the right to vote among other rights, but regulating the content on the Internet could be seen as either a defensive stance, or a cautious stance taken by the government. Thus, these measures have been quite controversial, and have been heavily criticized by people from Singapore and other countries.

While I do not welcome such measures and view them as defensive manoeuvres by the PAP, it cannot be denied that the Internet can indeed inflict serious harm on anyone, much less a ruling party. Rumours are easy to fabricate, quick to spread, and hard to disperse. In an article by the Straits Times, the PAP defended this regulation by stating that if a false rumour was spread, it would be impossible to make sure that every chatroom, every forum and every website corrected it even when it was proved to be fabricated. Slander can hurt political candidates and inciting videos may have dire consequences, as what one sees can change his perception of things.  Even if some content on websites are not meant to hurt a candidate’s chances in elections, falsified content or heavily satire videos and cartoons may subject him to public ridicule, eroding the respect that the public has for him. Thus, while such strict political regulations could be a mite too rigid, there is indeed some sense in this and the government does have a point. Of course, there are some exceptions and not all satirical or political websites are banned, as can be seen from the famous Mr. Brown or the website ‘Talking cock’.

In my opinion though, I feel that these measures stifle the freedom of us Singaporeans, and while the government defends itself by saying that as long as we abide by these rules, there is nothing to fear, these political regulating actually achieves the opposite effect. With the ‘fine-print’ easily allowing for loopholes, and without the wherewithal to fully comprehend what do the guidelines mean, most of us Singaporeans decide that we would rather quench this desire to voice out our thoughts on political issues and rather play safe by not blogging or writing at all. After all, even if what we say is beneficial to the country, if it is not phrased correctly, we face legal action and a jail term. While there is no denying the talent and capability of our government, there is no refuting the fact that Singapore also has many people who are not only gifted, but genuinely want to improve our country and share their views not because they want to undermine confidence in the government, spread false rumours about political candidates, or humiliate anybody. With this system, these voices that the government would do well to heed are silenced and this would not be beneficial for Singapore in the long run.

Singapore’s government should lax these a bit as only then will more Singaporeans dare to comment on political candidates, the government or the way Singapore is being run, and no matter how smart the government is, it is the citizens who elected them and it is these points of view that should be respected. The government and the citizens can adopt a symbiotic relationship, as long as each does not cross the line: We can offer constructive feedback to keep the government in check, and they grant us the freedom of speech and more political freedom.

Such as how almost everybody is respectful in ‘Meet-the-MP’ sessions, we Singaporeans will respect the government and strive in helping Singapore to improve, but first, we need and want more freedom of speech on the Web.

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

 The president’s star charity show held annually stars MediaCorp celebrities such as Zoe Tay, Fann Wong, Fiona Xie, Gurmit Singh, Adrian Pang amongst many others, and also other household names such as Hardy Mirza.  Without doubt, these names a long do not generate revenue for the show, and even impassioned pleas will not convince most Singaporeans to donate, even for a good cause. Thus, these artistes resort to perform stunts to persuade the public to donate, and also appeal to their compassionate nature for more generous donations. Such stunts include contorting themselves to fit into tight boxes for a period of time, walking on tightropes across buildings, eating fire and other stunts that are extremely dangerous. In my opinion, while such stunts may be perilous despite all the safety precautions, it is quite sad that there may actually be a need for artistes to perform such stunts to raise money.

 

                       Singaporeans are a complex people to understand. While their compassion can be seen from the outpouring of money and daily necessities donated, and the heart-felt condolences for the tragedies of the Sichuan earthquake and also the 2004 Tsunami that ravaged many countries of the world. However, the quintessential Singaporean turns a deaf year to the pleas of beggars, buskers, or physically handicapped who are trying to make a living. Perhaps, while we will not hesitate to offer a helping hand to people who we can see helpless, dying and needy, through the television or newspapers, but it could be different for us to make a donation to a charity hotline if we do not actually feel that our efforts are worth it. Words are usually meaningless and if a picture is a thousand words, then a stunt where the celebrity puts himself or herself in jeopardy is worth a thousand impassioned pleas by anybody, even a famous artiste. When one sees the blood, sweat and tears that one sweats for a cause, then the cause must be a good one, and worth contributing to and fighting for.

       

        Furthermore, the artistes sign up of their own free will, not only because they genuinely want to help the less fortunate that the money from the show goes to, but also these stunts while dangerous, is a test of their courage, willpower and also prevents an invaluable experience. Also, while some people may argue that they are not actually putting themselves at risk because there are far too many safety measures, thus proving that these stunts are just an act meant to milk public compassion. However, I dismiss these arguments as ludicrous. Firstly, I do not see how will it make anybody feel better and more willing to donate if any person, much less a celebrity, walked atop a narrow walkway connecting two twenty-storey buildings without a safety harness. Also, while contorting oneself into a box for ten full minutes may not be life-endangering, but it is still extremely painful for celebrities who have had undergone mere months of training.

              

        Lastly, there are always needs and there is no reason why getting more money for a good cause is a sin. If such stunts encourage people who have money to spare to give more money, why discourage this? It is hard to define if there is need for artistes to perform such stunts to encourage the public to give more generously, because when it is for a good cause, there is always room for more money. Everybody benefits: The public has done a good deed, the artistes have also contributed to a good cause and the needy of course benefit greatly. As long as the artistes’ intentions remain pure, the public are not coerced into giving donations, the money goes to the needy, then there will always be a need for artistes to perform stunts to appeal the compassionate side of the public for more generous donations, as the more donations received, the better it is.

(653 words)