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.

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)