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.

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

National Service is a part of every boy’s life. Many people view it as good opportunity to buff up, and when they are out of there, they can impress girls with their heightened physique. There are those who view NS as a necessary before heading on the study in University. And then there are those who find NS as a complete waste of time, and it is these who dodge doing National Service. This problem is becoming more and more common in Singapore, and I hope that the problem can be solved before it further aggravates.

I feel that the reason why people dodge doing National Service is because they do not see and know the need to. To them, time is of essence, and they rather complete their studies than to spend time confined in a cage. Furthermore, many are influenced and threatened by their peers' complaints about NS life, how tiring and torturous the regime can be, instilling fear in them. Moreover, the bigger problem is the parents who, by any means, try to allow their sons to escape doing NS, even if it is only for a couple of days. Youths in NS start to feign illnesses, and with the heightened security and paranoia after several incidents that left families devastated and sad for the loss of their son, the camp-in-charge cannot possibly say ‘no’ to the ‘sick’. This exploitation, as well as unwillingness to serve and defend the nation, must be reversed before matters get out of hand. What these youths do not realise is that NS can serve as a remedy for unemployment. Many people, after serving just a year in NS, decide to sign in full time.

Firstly, a way to reduce the problem would be to implement a stricter law against these NS dodgers. Youths would, as a result, not risk dodging NS and exposing themselves to an unbearable consequence such as imprisonment and hefty fines. However, this method of solving the problem is not very good, in a way because the government is actually threatening all youths to adhere to the rules. Rather than deciding on the consequences, we should tackle the root of the problem, which is why youths are dodging NS. I believe that the reason why youths dodge NS is because they do not see the need to, henceforth the government can educate youths on the importance of defending one’s nation, especially with growing threats, like North Korea, around the world. Also, parents have to be educated on NS life, and how it is not as torturous as it may seem, and how it is more important that it may seem.

Also, I feel that another way to curb the problem would be to allow more benefits for the youths in NS. Instead of increasing their pay, more scholarships can be awarded to NS-men who are keen on going overseas to study and are capable of doing so. This way, it serves as an incentive for the youths, rather than threatening them to avoid dodging NS. Also, awards and merits should be awarded to further enhance the youths’ resumes, allowing them to get jobs more easily.

In conclusion, I feel that it is better to tackle the root of the problem rather than threatening youths to stop dodging NS. This way, youths will not view the government as an authoritative, paternalistic, sovereign power.

Free Will's a Gamble / Integrated Resorts- How far do you agree with PM Lee’s decision?

Should Singapore 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.

Advertisements: Do they actually benefit us?

Advertisements are like traps, and traps come in different shapes and sizes. An example would be the more glamorous it is, the more attractive it becomes. Another example would be the more secretive it is, the harder it is to avoid it. Over the years, advertisements have evolved, from simple but subliminal slogans, to printed pictorials, and then to online and television animated clips with catchy jingles that make a lasting impact. I feel that advertisements are nothing more than a little mind game that entices innocent viewers into buying the products. Many companies cross the line by conning the viewers, either by overstating the products’ advantages, or by understating its disadvantages. Indeed, such compromising of integrity is deemed essential for one to make a mark in the ever competing industry.

Advertisements may not always work for our benefit. Companies with only themselves in mind choose profits over integrity and morals. These companies manipulate true information and bend it in such a way that consumers will believe what they say. An example would be tobacco companies; some of them claim that their products are healthier and even contain less harmful ingredients than others in the market. However, this may be contradicting to the real ingredients they use. Indeed, ingredients might have changed and one could smoke twice as many sticks to die, but the fact that it is harmful cannot be changed, and declaring it as a “healthier” choice shows a lack of integrity. Hardcore smokers who trust what their pack of cigarette say would believe that their daily fix of cigarettes contain less nicotine, for example, even when the nicotine level is in fact, unchanged, and equals that of other brands. This irresponsible play on words not only leaves consumers in the dark, but can also lead to the deteriorating health of the smokers. In this case, consumers are on the losing end, while the companies enjoy the benefits of having naïve consumers.’

Although this type of advertisements lacks integrity, but I believe that it cannot be actively restricted. The purpose of advertising is to draw in more consumers, and by restricting such advertisements which cons its viewers, not only will the company suffer, so will the economy. In the first place, consumers should think about what advertisements say before buying the product. By simply accepting facts that advertisements push across, consumers are the irresponsible ones. The government, however, can send warnings to companies who do not adhere to guidelines on advertising. I believe that the government should not ban products just because advertisements do not put across the products in a morally right way. People should get the freedom of choice when it comes to a free market, and hence, the only things the government can do is to educate the public on choosing products wisely, as well as warning companies that utilises advertisements which lack integrity.

If I were a creative director in an advertising company, I would see the situation before deciding on whether to compromise on honestly and integrity. I believe that, in times of crises or need for funding, compromising integrity is one of the only solutions to push a product across for higher profits. Indeed this lack integrity is selfish, but only this way, can my company actually make a mark in the industry. By doing this, my company will gain, and so will the economy. Of course, if my company is doing well already and require no further financial support of any kind, I do not see the need to be dishonest when it comes to advertising. I firmly believe that creating products is all about creativity, and that if one’s product is creative enough to stand out, one would naturally do well.

Science: A Menace To Civilisation?

More than a century ago, men thought of flying as merely a fantasy, and a joke. Back then, whenever people had minor infections, they suffered amputations of their appendages. However today, anaesthesia and advancements in medical sciences has allowed curing illnesses, diseases and infections to be made safe and possible. Commercial airliners, jet planes and space shuttles roam the borderless space above the ground, and satellites thousands of kilometres up in space connect everyone around the world into one seamless world – the Internet. Science is progressing at an alarmingly fast rate; just ten years ago, people were staring into bricks they called the “computer”. Back then, it was a man-made marvel, as it could perform hundreds of calculations per second. In modern times, many large commercial technology-based companies compete for the top spot in the industry. Microsoft, Apple, IBM… the list goes on; these companies develop revolutionary technology that turns heads. Computers can now perform millions of calculations per second easily, and with integrated technology like the USB and graphic cards, computers are no longer “super(large)-calculators”, they are men’s best friend – entertainment, information, service, all packed into one nifty little box. As science advances, Artificial Intelligence is also developed. As technology progresses, powerful nuclear weapon are developed and utilised in warfare. Such developments lead to one question: Is science a menace to civilisation?

Centuries ago when gunpowder was first invented, many nations utilised it to gain sovereign power over the lands. Killing people had never been so easy – bullets travelled at such high speed it could kill with one single shot. Compared to modern times, nuclear warheads could easily annihilate a whole nation. Bombs and missiles had the capability of levelling millions of square miles of land easily, equating to millions of lost civilian life. Even so, scientist still set on a mission to discover even more dangerous alternatives to this. Why do they do so? Because it is in men’s nature to fight; it is in men’s nature to be the strongest; it is in men’s nature to want everything. The current total amount of nuclear weaponry in existence is more than enough to wipe out the whole entire Earth; in fact, it is enough to wipe out another 50 easily. Yet, the mystery of nations creating more nuclear weaponry is inconclusive, but I believe that this whole problem lies with numbers. It is analogous to little kids comparing who had more candy. One boasts to the other his hand, directly taunting his friend. His friend responds by buying more candy and boasting back. The game of tug-and-war is blatantly obvious in our modern world. America builds hundreds of nuclear warheads, and Russia responds back by constructing more than what America possesses. The sole purpose of this game is to make peace; however, I do not feel that this leads to peace. Why can’t these nations put away their nuclear warheads and make peace, instead of holding guns at each other’s temples and calling quits. Also, present “freedom fighters”, also known as terrorists, can easily buy weapons and ammunition from external sellers. Advancement in technology and science effectively meant that supply of such weaponry has increased, and is more available to the “bad guys” as it is available to the “good guys”. Because of this, I feel that science and technology poses a threat to civilisation.

However, advancement in science and technology has led to revolutionary changes in how doctors and scientists look at viruses, diseases and mutations. Gone are the days of painful amputation due to an inflamed limb. Nowadays, cures can easily be found, and many diseases can be countered. Not only has this increased chances of survival for civilisation, it has also increases lifestyle of many people around the world. This goes to show that science and technology can be put to good use as well. Also, technological advancement has led to the globalisation of the world. Every part of the world is accessible by land transport, air transport and sea transport. Goods can be transported in the whim to maintain freshness and to appeal to the customers. Decades ago, people had to travel by boat for months to reach a destination hundreds of miles away. Nowadays, this can be done in hours. The Internet serves as a platform for millions of people around the world to communicate, disseminate and share information. Books can be replaced by the “e-book”, while games can be played with others around the world. Such convenience brought about by science and technology also goes to show that science and technology is beneficial to civilisation.

Advancements in science and technology have also widened the range of entertainment that is available. Online games that can be played with others around the world have become very popular amongst our society. Cinemas and movie theatres are also erected for people to screen movies. Such advancements has allowed our society to keep in touch, updated and entertained.

In conclusion, I feel that science and technology serve for a greater good. Indeed, science and technology has posed as a danger to civilisation as nuclear weapons are exploited. However, science and technology has led to many breakthroughs as well brought about many advantages. Advancement of science and technology has greatly affected our lives by making our way of life better, hence I am more inclined in thinking that science and technology is more good than it is bad.

Pornography

Pornography is defined as any material, be it visual or textual, which invokes sexual arousal. There are debates on whether pornography is good or evil, whether it should be allowed or abolished. This raises certain questions and issues – pornography does pollute the mind, causing one to be absorbed and hooked, also, addicted and hardcore pornography viewers can bring their fantasy into their real life, resulting in assault and rape cases; however, pornography is a billion dollar industry, providing jobs, albeit promiscuous, and helps the economy.

Many people feel that pornography should not be viewed as it pollutes your mind. A stereotypical way of looking at pornography is that it is harmful for one’s mind and is strongly advised not to be viewed. Such views are indoctrinated into the younger generation of our modern times. If one views any pornographic material of any sort, one is deemed “unclean”, “ill-bred” and “perverted”. Henceforth, such mindset is present in many people of our society particularly that of the older generation – those unexposed to the powers of the Internet when young. Also, many people find pornography as a way to satisfy one’s desire, a lust so strong and out-of-the-world it cannot be fulfilled in the real world. The addiction to pornography is comparable to that of drugs. Once you put your feet onto the boat, you cannot want out. Christianity, as well as many religious groups, dislikes pornography as it shows how lustful one is, in contrast to the required abstinence of any sexual thoughts.

Objectification of women is also present in pornography, because women are depicted as tools for men to utilise. Such depiction is not only morally degrading for women, but is also a rather perverted concept. All men and women are equals, and to place them on unequal fronts through perverted means is unreasonable.

However, contrary to prior belief that pornography bears no benefits, pornography is a large industry, where many porn stars are groomed, and total revenue is high. Pornography, over the years, has become an official career option, however obscene it may be. The pornography industry is every growing, and the benefits the economy stand to gain is high. Also, pornography may not be totally harmful; Pornography can be a beautiful art form, where one expresses his/her feelings through nude art. The reason why pornography is deemed morally wrong is because the society itself has made pornography a taboo, where practising or viewing it is considered vile. This suppression of feelings that is resulted is undesirable, as it is human for us to have sexual urges.

Also, pornography can be an outlet of one’s sexual urges. This can also help to reduce stress, by making the body release certain substances that make one experience “high” like that of taking drugs. Henceforth, pornography should not be just regarded as something wrong, but rather, men should learn to explore the good sides of pornography.

I believe that there is no particular way to curb or banish pornography from the face of the Earth. Reason being, that pornography is widely sought after, and available, online. The Internet is a portal so liberal and discreet at the same time, it is hard to track down every source of pornography. Even if action is taken and pornography is removed, people would just continue to post more up. There is no effective way of countering pornography; instead, censorship is employed in many countries. There are two forms of censorship, one being self-disciplined viewer’s discretion, and the other being politically-controlled censoring of obscene materials.

In conclusion, I feel that there should be a certain level of censorship to pornography, however, I feel that people should not just believe what they are told – pornography is purely bad. Pornography has its good and bad points, and I hope that everyone would come to realise that.

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

Charity shows are not uncommon nowadays, each raising millions of dollars per show. Charity shows employ different methods to draw audiences and increase viewership as well as the number of calls made to donate. Methods include making artistes perform outrageous stunts, getting choirs (especially children choirs) to sing songs, and lastly, holding marathons for people to join.

Personally, I feel that a charity should revolve around true concern and love; concern of others’ welfare, love for helping the needy. Many people around the world suffer from a diversity of malaises, ranging from cancer to paralysis; on top of this, many people do not have money for lodging, food and clothes, let alone money for treating illnesses. The love to help is something that can be instilled in an individual, but making artistes perform stunts on national television is not the way to do it. Firstly, it does not inculcate the sense of generosity and love in the audience. I do not see how people dangling from harnesses, climbing tall towers, balancing on cartons of eggs and even lying on a bed of nails have anything to do with the needy. Instead, these charity organizations make use of entertainment as a means to “milk” the audience of their money.

Singaporeans are known to be “kiasu” (fear of losing, though in current times, this word is used more loosely), hence making them call in to donate to charity can be hard. This I do not deny, yet there are other acceptable ways of rallying support for the donation. Examples are a choir singing a sad song, relevant to the needy of course, as well as a marathon. These examples show that people actually care and support the needy. Participating in the marathon shows one’s support to the needy; being moved by a sad song also shows one’s feelings for the needy.

Performing stunts on national television reminds me of Fear Factor, though charity shows have nothing to do with it. By calling in to donate after watching your favourite artistes perform acrobatic, somewhat graceful stunts in midair, only goes to show that one does not truly care for the needy, but rather, called in because of the spectacular display happening in the box right in front of them, vaguely like paying for a movie. I feel that the right way to conduct a charity show would be to invite choirs to sing songs about the needy and their sad plight and employ people to perform a skit. A good example of the former would be “American Idol Gives Back”, whereby American Idol candidates and previous winners sing songs to raise money for the needy elsewhere in the world.

There is no need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion and money, as this defeats the purpose of a charity. Indeed, one of the purposes of a charity would be to raise money for the needy, but the main purpose, the purpose that many people do not see, is to help instill a sense of love, care and concern in the audience. There are those who argue that getting artistes to perform stunts is essential, as viewership will shoot up, and the money donated will sharply increase. We cannot deny that artistes will attract audiences, but people donate only because the artistes have put in a lot of hard work, instead of taking pity on the needy.

In conclusion, charity shows should reach out to the hearts of the audience, invoking emotional response. I do not see the point of getting artistes to perform stunts just to increase viewership. I believe that everyone has a heart, and the proper way to conduct charity show would be to melt one’s heart. To put it shortly, the subject of pity should not be the artistes, but the needy.

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore

Technology - a useful yet dangerous product of many years’ trial and error. First came the telephone, communication through wires. Then came the radio, which revolutionised communications nationwide. The television, the first computer, the digital camera and the hand-held phone followed soon after. Communication had never been so convenient and quick, and the Internet only made it quicker. Technology is an important element in disseminating information, and it would not take long for the information to be accessible by nations worldwide. Henceforth, the privilege of technology can be abused to spread lies, defamatory accusations and rumours. As such, the Singapore government has limited the posting of such information. Such information, which can take the form of podcasts, videos, pictures or just plain text, can only be posted on the information as long as it adheres to certain guidelines.

Politics is what governs a country. It does not only decide how a country should be run, but it also decides the lifestyle and living conditions of the people. Hence politics plays a huge role in the society we live in, and it should not be tampered with. The regulation of political commentary on the Internet has been employed in Singapore mainly to prevent defamation of political candidates. This is to ensure fair competition between political candidates, as a wrong, and influenced, choice of candidates would affect how the country is governed.

I believe that this rule does have its reason behind it, but it does restrict our freedom of speech. By imposing such guidelines on us, we Singaporeans cannot voice our opinions on the leadership of the government freely, but instead, sugar-coat our words to avoid free lodging in a jail cell. Yes, this rule does prevent defamation of political figures, especially those of the ruling party, yet, this rule does prevent the government from improving as criticisms are limited by the guidelines imposed. Indeed, the government helps to run the country, but what constitute the country would be both, the people and the government. As the people are the ones who vote the political party to power, I personally feel that the people should have the rights to criticise the government. The government can be seen as an orchestra pulling the strings on stage, and the people are the judges, critics and most importantly, the audience. Would it be rational to ban the audience from criticising the performance? If this was so, the orchestra would never improve and learn from their mistakes. There is no denying of the capabilities of the orchestra, but the audience comes from a general point of view, and they want nothing else but to help the orchestra to improve.

Of course, this rule prevents the kindling of false rumours. As the Internet is widely available, anyone can post defamatory remarks on the Internet. To make matters worse, it is difficult to trace the people who post such remarks. Such remarks can create discord between the people of our country, resulting in chaos. These kinds of restriction help Singapore to maintain political stability that countries elsewhere have troubles attaining. Examples of countries without political stability would be Thailand. The lack of regulation of political commentary has resulted in different groups of people with varying ideologies, leading to riots and strikes. We cannot deny the presence of trouble-makers, people who have nothing to do but make silly and unbacked statements. Also, I feel that people who want to express their discontent at the government should not make outrageously cynical remarks, podcasts or videos openly, as this will ultimately stir up much debate between citizens.

Singapore is, ultimately, only a partially democratic country, unlike America. There are certain restrictions placed to help our country remain stable, and our economic growth can be a testimony to it. Such restrictions have their pros and cons, and by comparing both sides of the argument, we can judge whether such a restriction should be imposed. Personally, regulating political commentaries should not be employed as the people deserve the rights to voice their honest opinions, that is, if the government has nothing to hide. If the government has nothing to hide, I do not find reason in regulating political commentaries on the Internet, henceforth I feel that we Singaporeans deserve more freedom of speech.