The Library vs The Internet

Decades ago before the Internet was invented, students and scholars spent hours in libraries researching on what they needed to know. Books had to be hand-picked like fruits in a courtyard, and had to be manually analysed to obtain required information. In modern times, the Internet connects everyone globally into a seamless cyber room. All information is stored in a cupboard infinity times higher than its tangible counterparts, and can be instantly accessed with the click of a mouse. Nowadays, books can be read online, like ordering fruits from an online store. Information can be obtained online, and with the revolutionary search engine Google, information can be accessed and found easily, as well as stored intangibly, saving on space, but compromising on credibility. In this essay, I will explore the advantages and disadvantages of an “online library”.

The total number of books takes up lots of space on Earth, and if stored as data in an intangible place, space consumption would immediately decrease over a thousand fold. The internet has countless advantages over the library, as information is highly accessible, and using the search function is easier and more convenient than manually sifting out books and information one needs. Information stored on the Internet is so abundant that anyone would be spoilt for choice; also, information from others can be shared on the Internet as well. Rather than taking a long trip down to the Internet, one can just seat in front of his desk, staring at his computer screen, reading through countless of websites.

There is certainly no doubt that the Internet offers many online resources, of which it is inevitable to find contrasting sources and information. The Internet is a free place, where anyone is free to post up whatever information he/she wants to. However, because information can be posted up by people who are not professionals in that particular field of research, or by any uneducated person, information on the Internet is not credible. It is to the viewer’s discretion whether or not he or she wants to use the information, regardless of true or false. It is common in the Internet to find “spam” on the web, a term used to classify useless, false or crude information. A good example of a non-credible website would be Wikipedia; Wikipedia, though it is an online encyclopaedia of knowledge, all the information up there is posted by random people around the world.

Also, many credible sources of information on the Internet are not free, and one must pay membership fee for access to certain information. In a library, all the books are free to view, and information is free to access. Because of this, the library is a far more credible source of information, as books require much real research to produce, while the credible sources of information on the Internet are not free to view.

Also, the Internet has no proper organisation. Unlike a library, the Internet is separated based on websites, and not classified into different categories based on information type. The library, on the other hand, offers convenient classification of information. If one wanted to research on a particular subject, he just needed to look up the subject code, find the allocated shelf, and the information he needed was there. However, on the Internet, if one wanted a particular type of information, he might have a tough time finding what he was looking for. Also, the library offers services such as librarians, where queries could be directed to.

An issue raised with the Internet would be copyright infringement. This is very common in schools; when a student has to do up a research paper, he can simply lift information off the web without even understanding what he just copied. The library, however, offers students a selection of books for him to read through, understand the subject matter, and rewrite what he has learnt. Because of this, dishonesty and a lack of integrity can be a result of dependence on the Internet.

In conclusion, I feel that the Internet will never replace a library as a storehouse of information, as this is due to the fact that the Internet is full of dishonest, immoral people who irresponsibly put things up, and copy others’ works. The library offers an authentic store of information, catering to a wide range of needs. I believe that it is of utmost importance for one to strike a healthy balance between surfing the Internet and reading through books for information. The Internet can bring about convenience, but the library is the one which always brings about credibility!

The Gifted Education Programme

The Gifted Education Programme (GEP) is offered to the top 1% of the entire cohort, and students have to go through two rounds of challenging tests at the end of their year in Primary 3. Those chosen will be given choices to be enlisted into the top primary schools offering the Gifted Education Programme. The GEP explores the student’s capabilities by increasing and enhancing the education syllabus, stressing on the student’s abilities to learn and absorb everything. The GEP can be seen as an “elite” programme, where only those who can cope and have the ability are chosen. I am in favour of the GEP; however, there are complaints that are raised, of why only certain students get the privilege of an enhanced curriculum, and also of why curriculum is so stressing.

The GEP is an almost-experimental programme, enhancing the education of the intellectually more gifted. Eventually, this programme will provide future leaders and professionals through better educational resource, facilities and syllabus. The GEP serves to nurture future leaders to their full potential, by taxing them with extra work, this way, they will learn to handle increased workload faster than other students do, as well as learn to handle high level education too. Rather than just academic-based learning, the GEP stresses on creativity, values as well as project-based learning.

Many parents, as well as students complain about why the curriculum and workload is far heavier than that of the main-stream. I feel that if they were not prepared to suffer for the sake of learning, then they should not have chose to enter the GEP, and even worse still, it was the programme’s fault for choosing them. The GEP is all about enhanced learning, and without suffering, how can effective learning take place? Many parents of main-streamers argue that only the selected ones have benefits like enhanced curriculum, whereas main-streamers are deprived of such an opportunity. Firstly, the chosen GEP students have been streamed in such a way that they are the ones capable of handling such a workload, hence GEP should be viewed as an add-on if one is capable enough. Secondly, Singapore’s education system is very effective and also very enhanced, and because of that, many other countries, like the United States of America, model their education system like ours. Our math standard is among one of the top in the world, and many countries envy us. Thus, Singapore’s education is already at a very high-level, and GEP is just an extra add-on for those who can cope with it.

The GEP as well as its students have been criticized and labelled as “elitists”; this has even been in the headlines before. The issue of this enhanced curriculum has been raised many times, and GEP students are viewed as arrogant and snobbish people who “think they are very smart”. Being a “product” of the GEP, all these feel very familiar to me. As if being labelled a “nerd” is not enough, main-streamers continue to put GEP students as the centre of prejudice, making crude comments about them, for example, claiming that GEP students only know how to study and do not spend time for recreation and sports. Though many GEP students choose academic-based co-curricular activities, there are also GEP students who are keen in sports; hence the stereotype does not stand true. I feel that the reason why main-streamers make such comments is because they feel that they are left out of the enhanced education system, but what they fail to realise, is that Singapore’s education system is very enhanced and holistic too.

The GEP, however, inculcates arrogance in their students, albeit subliminally. GEP students themselves think that they stand out from the rest in terms of intelligence quota, as well as academic results. Such display of pride is not only unacceptable, but will lead to the downfall of those who succumb to it. I believe that GEP students should feel a sense of patriotic pride for the GEP, as the GEP has offered them countless opportunities to learn more and experience more, and not to feel a sense of selfish pride.

Although the GEP does bring about some repercussions, I feel that the advantages that come with it outweighs the disadvantages, thus I am in favour of the GEP as it nurtures young minds to think like adults, and also, it helps to cultivate future leaders amongst them.

The Great Casino Debate

I agree with the author when he states that “when we get impatient with slow but steady yield from honest labour and decide to take a short cut to instant wealth, we slay 'Thrift' and 'Industry' with the 'Knife of Pragmatism'.”

There has been a real hot debate on whether Singapore should open a casino? This would be the first, and by the looks of things, it would not be the last too. Building a casino on homeland does have its repercussions, and such social and economic impacts have to be carefully analysed and overlooked. Will building a casino really help Singapore’s economy? This essay explores the different views of opening a casino.

By opening a casino, there is no doubt that the sole purpose in mind is to make money. Indeed, the casino might draw gamblers from overseas and even from Singapore herself, but will it really be an investment worthwhile? Gamblers actively seek for newer places to gamble, the more unique the place is, the better the sensation, regardless of winning or losing money. I feel that only in the near future, once the casino has completed its construction, will the casino make money to offset the costs of the project of building the casino itself. However, as time goes by, gamblers want newer experiences and would “migrate” to other casinos elsewhere. Of course, social impacts are not negligible. By constructing a casino on homeland, as if one in Genting is not enough, it greatly increases the risk of Singaporeans getting addicted to gambling. Singapore is already close to facing an aging population, and our working class is already lacking manpower. If the casino is constructed and people from our working class get addicted, only our economy will suffer. Although the government has set up preventive measures to mitigate these problems, the long term social impact can only worsen if the casino is still here.

Of course, the government has set up measures to prevent our dear residents from being addicted to gambling. I disagree as more people will definitely gamble if the IR is built, leading to more people getting into trouble and more families will only suffer. There are also issues of Singaporeans complaining that there is no reason to exclude locals to gamble in the first place. This only goes to show that our own citizens have a desire to gamble, and by imposing an entrance fee of $100, the government is blatantly “banning” all middle and lower class citizens from entering the casino. Of course, hardcore gamblers would not mind such a small pinch from their pocket if it meant convenience, rather than travelling elsewhere to gamble. Having a high entrance fee of $100 or implementing the system of exclusions will only help remedy the problem for a short period of time, and only to a certain extent. Next, the government claims that some good social outcomes will come out of constructing the IR? By claiming that the money is used for charitable and worthy causes, I cannot help but remember all the past charity shows on television, where hundreds of thousands of people call in to show their support for the needy; however, how many percentage of the money actually goes the needy? Also, the money helps the needy, but it does not help those who lost money because of gambling. Because of these, I feel that the government is sacrificing those who fall prey to their desire to gamble for economic gains, and maybe some meagre social gains, that can barely outweigh the social repercussions building a casino brings about.

With such imposing restrictions like an entrance fee of $100, I believe that over time, many hot debates would be carried out deciding whether the “ban” should be lifted. I feel that in the near future, the entrance fee would definitely be lifted, and by then, Singaporeans would all gather around gambling tables betting their money away while the government laugh their way to the bank. However, this is merely an assumption, albeit possible.

I feel that a better counter to Singaporeans being addicted to gambling would be to utilise the media to educate the public on the social repurcussions of gambling. A good example of an advertisement would be of a little girl clutching on to her piggy bank for her dear life, while daddy promises that after "robbing" her of her savings, he would quit gambling. Certainly touching and impressive!

In conclusion, I feel that a casino should not be erected as simply, the social repercussions outweigh the economic gains that Singapore stand to gain. I feel that such a high-risk gamble on the government’s part should not be carried out; risking the lives of Singaporeans for economic benefits is unquestionably stupid.

JC Diploma

The A-levels year is always the busiest for all students. Why? It is the determining factor of whether you would be able to study abroad, get into a good university, get a scholarship, or just settle for a local university. The A-levels is a purely academic-based examination to gauge a student's academic capabilities. Yet, this does not truly reflect a student's abilities, as only the exam is taken into account. Other factors contributing to a student's true academic worth would be his academic achievements, be it in a competition, or a written SAT paper. A student's portfolio should be taken into account if a University were to select his applicants. Henceforth, junior colleges like Hwa Chong Junior College offers a JC diploma, which is a holistic portfolio of a student, encapsulating his academic results, as well as community involvement, co-curricular activities, skills (piano, guitar et cetera) and other factors as well. I believe that the JC diploma is a better gauge of one’s capabilities, and is more effective in choosing elites, because the JC diploma offers a holistic view of a student’s abilities, instead of just academically.

A-levels is mostly academic based, and such a gauge can be exploited simply just by studying hard and listening in class. If one were to work hard and balance his work and play, then he can easily excel in his studies, and pass the A-levels with flying colours. With this, one can easily obtain 6 A’s, or maybe even a perfect 9 A’s. Indeed, A-levels has included papers like General Paper, as well as Project Work, which gauges one’s general knowledge on current affairs, as well as determines one’s abilities to work on a project and how well it can be carried out. However, this does not give a full view of a student’s capabilities, including his skills, active involvement and even his testimonials.

I personally do not believe that the JC diploma can replace the A-levels, as the JC diploma is just an add-on to the A-levels, merely but an extension to consolidate a student's overall performance. But with the JC diploma, it can enhance one’s portfolio so that he/she can enter a good university more easily, and even get a good scholarship for studies overseas. The JC diploma is awarded to those who have performed well in all fields, and is an all-rounded character. Thus, students will work even harder to improve on their skills, community involvement and such.

The JC diploma gives students, of certain schools which have implemented the diploma system, an advantage, as a wider coverage of their performance can be analysed by the University when he/she applies to get in. Education is not only about academics, but rather an all-rounded character-based learning. However, the only repercussion of this system would be that students would have to "buff" up their portfolios in order to enter a University of their choice, hence increasing workload for the students; though, who wouldn’t work hard for a better future?

How far would you consider the measures taken by various countries to contain the spread of swine flu adequate and effective?

Swine flu (H1N1), when compared to the Bird flu (H5N1) or SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), is not as deadly, but undoubtedly equally as contagious. The death count of the swine flu is very low, when compared to the bird flu and SARS, and the treatability is also very high. Even so, countries around the world are taking many preventive measures, to ensure that the virus is kept contained and does not spread.

When the virus first surfaced, no one knew how deadly it could be. It could leave a devastating impact like that of the Black Plague, or it could just be an almost harmless strain of virus. Asia, having experienced SARS and the bird flu within the past five years, began to step up its security measures to ward off the virus, as well as to control it. Quarantines as well as self-quarantines has been heavily imposed to make sure that the virus gets contained within one host only. Safety checks at airports include heat sensors to make sure travellers entering the nation are not infected with the virus. Simply tests are also conducted on people arriving, for example, taking temperature. Travellers found with flu-like symptoms, even as minute as fever, are taken to hospitals for further check-ups as well as quarantine. People who have travelled to other countries within the past week are not allowed to school or work, and are to be self-quarantined at home. Many companies have stepped up prevention by allowing half the workers to work directly from home via the Internet instead of coming to work. This way, if any worker gets infected, it will not transmit, and if the whole bunch of workers at work gets infected, there is still a functioning half of the company. There is a step-up in the production of surgical masks, as well as flu vaccines. All these precautions have been well carried out, albeit out of paranoia.

However, even after the restrictions have been carried out, the virus still spreads throughout the world. It all started with one guy in Mexico, and then it transmitted to many others, who in turn, took the plane, and due to poorly conducted measures, the virus then transmitted past the borders of Mexico. This partly has to do with fact that flu-like symptoms only occur after the host has been infected for a period of time. There is no doubt that after the discovery of the virus, the measures carried out are by far, the most effective throughout the history of the Earth. However, the main problem that the virus cannot be contained is due to the fact that there were no precautions and preparations done before hand, hence the virus was allowed to spread and multiply.

I believe that communications between the nations was also very effective, as information regarding the virus was quickly disseminated to other nations for preparations and preventive measures to be carried out. Even so, there is no way the virus can be contained just by the government alone. Henceforth, individuals like us have to play a part in containing the virus, as well as preventing ourselves from catching the virus. Thus, governments have effectively come up with media campaigns which educated the public on proper hygiene, as well as the nature of the virus.

I personally feel that the preventive measures carried out by the different nations are very effective in reducing spread of the virus, though at the same time, compromising on economic factors like tourism. Indeed, the virus is of utmost importance, but if precautions and preparations were carried out before hand, then there would have been no problem dealing with the virus. The root of the problem is most important, and if the root of the problem was dealt with, then there would not have been such a spreading of the swine flu. Instead of targeting how to solve the spreading problem after the virus has spread, why not just make preparations before hand?

Advance Medical Directive Act- How is this different from euthanasia?

An Advance Medical Directive (AMD) is a legal document that you sign in advance to inform the doctor treating you (in the event you become terminally ill and unconscious) that you do not want any extraordinary life-sustaining treatment to be used to prolong your life. Making an AMD is a voluntary decision. It is entirely up to you whether you wish to make one. In fact, it is a criminal offence for any person to force you to make one against your will. New advances in medical knowledge and technology create new choices for both patients and health care providers. Some of these choices raise new ethical and legal issues. In this essay, I will discuss choices one can choose, as well as the issues raised.

The AMD applies mostly for people who are critically ill, usually in the terminal stage. There are 2 choices one can make: using modern technology to prolong one's life so that one can see his/her kin for as long as he can, compromising on comfort, or removing any life-sustaining treatment so that one can die naturally and not suffer as much.

One issue regarding AMD is that modern medical technology can technically prolong life in the final stages of a terminal illness. However, it cannot stop the dying process. In such situations, further medical intervention would be medically ineffective, and a decision has to be made whether to withdraw such futile medical intervention. Some terminally ill persons who are unable to express their wishes at that time, may want to be spared further suffering and be allowed to die naturally, in peace and with dignity.

An ethical issue raised would be that AMD is like euthanasia. It allows one the freedom of choice to die, hence drawing a link to suicide. Indeed, AMD does make one pass on faster if one had a terminal disease, but it is far different from euthanasia, and even more different from suicide. Suicide involves many different forms of violent deaths, be it jumping off a building, drinking toxic substances, slitting one's neck et cetera. However, euthanasia involves remedying suffering by injecting a lethal dose of anaesthesia of some sort to permanently put the body to sleep in a non-violent way. Euthanasia is basically a more unhealthy way of remedying pain and suffering, whereas AMD is a more natural way of doing so. AMD involves removing all life-support and all life-sustaining treatment so that one can pass away as though there were no treatment at all. I do not believe that this is unethical, as choosing not to accept treatment can have many reasons. One being that one does not want to suffer anymore, and two being that one does not want to waste any more money prolonging his life so that the money can be used by his family elsewhere.

Overall, I believe that AMD is nothing near euthanasia, as euthanasia is an assisted suicide, where as AMD removes all assistance so that one can pass on naturally and more peacefully, rather than endure the pains of being awake, being alive.

Human Organ Transplant Act- How far is it viable to forego consent in harvesting organs?

The Human Organ Transport Act (HOTA) saves many lives a year. Organs are high in demand, as many people suffer organ failures. Before the HOTA was passed, only 5 lives could be saved a year, and after HOTA was passed, a life could be saved a week. As such, the HOTA facilitates as a legal means to harvest organs for those who need it, and at the same time, it allows families to opt out if they want to. However, there is much debate whether the HOTA is ethical or not.

Indeed, it is true that the HOTA has saved many lives, and is a considerably important act for those who require organ transplant. Because organs come from deceased, it is definitely a must for the hospital to request consent from the deceased’s family before harvesting the organ. An important issue would be that it is not right for a person to use another person’s organ, albeit live-saving. Some people feel that it is alright, because there is a life involved, and that it is worth it to take organs from someone who has lost his life to replace someone who is on the verge of losing his. As long as permission is granted, there should not be any ethical issues regarding the matter of transferring organs. However, some others feel that it is not right as a human to take anyone else’s organs, even if he/she is deceased, reason being that one should preserve what is left of the deceased till she returns to dust.

Another issue would be that some people complain it is unfair to take their deceased’s organs and sell it off. The ones making a profit would not be the deceased’s family; instead, it is the hospital that makes the profit. However, it is also morally wrong for the family to request reimbursement for transplanting. It would be like selling of your deceased relatives organs, objectifying him/her. Also, issues have been raised on whether consent is needed for the harvesting of organs from deceased patients. I find this very ridiculous, as even though one is dead, it is almost as if you are stealing organs from someone. After all, it all points back down to integrity versus urgency. Should we compromise integrity to meet the needs of those who need organs, or should we seek consent and increase the risk of death for those who need organs? I feel that integrity is more important than urgency, simply because integrity is a value we must adhere to even in times of crises. We cannot put down integrity because we are on the brink of death; if we were fated to die earlier than others, there really is not much to do about it.

I want to raise an issue about the HOTA – the part of the act which states that one must opt out of the HOTA before he passes on. I believe that this is unreasonable, as one might pass away without one knowing, and the speed and how sudden one passes away should be taken into consideration. By disallowing family members to opt their relative out of the HOTA, it is like making them see their relative get “ripped” apart without being able to do anything. Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Clearly, this is not an entire freedom of choice, because firstly, not many people know about the HOTA before they pass on, and secondly, its purpose is selfish.

Indeed, the HOTA is very useful in times of need, but current rules like if one wants to opt out, he must opt out of the act before he passes on, or else after his death, his relatives cannot opt out for him. I feel that the permission of opting out should be agreed upon by him or his kin, rather than him alone. The HOTA has proved very life-saving, but if such selfish rules are put up, it does not reflect well on how the government rules.