As a weapon of mass destruction, the nuclear bomb has been widely feared. It has only been used twice in the course of warfare: Two atomic bombs were dropped by the United States at the end of World War II in Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombings took away the lives of 200,000 citizens of Japan. One might think it was senseless civilian murder for the US to target Japan with atomic bombs, but compared to the death toll of World War II which was estimated from 62 million to 78 million, it was a good choice to make when so many other lives were saved and most importantly, the war was stopped.
The atomic bomb brought the war to a close. Although the war would have ended sooner or later, ending it earlier is always a better choice. Who knows how many more deaths would have been incurred? How many more buildings destroyed? How much more damage caused between the relationships of the countries? Furthermore, as we recall the strong spirit of the Japanese back in those times tell us that the Japanese will never surrender so easily, unless extreme measures were taken. To reinforce this, 67 cities have already been bombed - The ultimatum has to be used.
Then again, the US cannot be entirely blamed for this bombing. This is the first time any country is using the atomic bomb as a weapon, and hence the US were also not very clear about the effects of the atomic bomb. Even if it was a little too extreme, it brought an end to the massive World War II.
However, the US have no considered that the atomic bombs are dropped on the innocents that did not even participate in the war. What rights to they have to destroy the lives of the innocent, and destroy the lives of generations after due to the harmful radiation from the bomb? 145,000 people died on the impact of the bomb, and tens of thousands died later on due to the hazardous radiation leading to irreversible health problems. Is this death toll the true price to pay to end the war? The Japanese economy were already collapsing - The US should have known this earlier and might not even have resorted to the ultimatum of the atomic bomb. With the notion in mind that the war was going to end sooner or later, many lives might actually be saved!
It is a constant debate - But sends out a message to all countries: Never ever go to war so easily again... You might find yourself isolated, you might find yourself the target of an atomic bomb.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
How to Raise a Global Kid?
This topic has been an interesting one, and many questions have come to my head in the course of reading the article.
Is it necessary to be able to speak different languages in order to succeed in the later part of your life? This answer has been proven time and time again that the ability to speak various languages gives individuals a significant advantage over others. For example, the most obvious point are that certain jobs and employees are required to be able to speak a certain number of languages in order to host certain people from all over the world (who, of course, speak different languages) and communicate with them. Sometimes when kids grow up they wish to travel around the world, and with the aid of language understanding they are able to converse fluently, and hence gain a more in-depth understanding of the cultures all over the world.
When raising a kid, what are the essential pre-requisite attributes and abilities that the the children should have? By attributes I mean leadership, compassion, hardworkingness, etc. And by abilities I mean skills such as a musical understanding, or perhaps sports. As the Tiger Mom issue has shown, children certainly do benefit a lot from certain essential skills, and however frustrating and exasperating it is for the children in their teenage youth and childhood, they always grow up to be outstanding people. All these celebrities and successful businessmen or actors, etc, have one thing in common: They always look back and thank their parents for making them do this, do that. Students nowadays should think about this: If parents 'force' you to learn the piano, sometimes it is really good for you and you should listen to them. As for the issue of pre-requisite attributes, there is not really a correct or wrong answer. As long as the child is able to stand up for himself in life, to be independent and to be able to support himself then he is fine. To what extent is he going to live his life and 'support himself' will be another issue. Certainly, to be hardworking is important. As Einstein has said, success is 99% hard work and 1% genius. Einstein himself was a genius, yet he credited to much of his success to hard work. Americans give their children almost absolute freedom. This has to be limited in a way, because freedom can only be give to those with responsibility. Only when they are able to take care of themselves and make sure things are done can they be given freedom.
Then again, when children grow up what will they need in order to succeed? As Jim Rogers, a writer in America, has said, the level of knowledge in American is decreasing. America's education have been on a decline. It will "hurt" them in one way or another, and sooner or later the economy and eventually politics will be dominated by the East. The education in the East is distinctly different from that of America, and American will have to change that if they wish to maintain their position as the richest and strongest country in the world.
Is it necessary to be able to speak different languages in order to succeed in the later part of your life? This answer has been proven time and time again that the ability to speak various languages gives individuals a significant advantage over others. For example, the most obvious point are that certain jobs and employees are required to be able to speak a certain number of languages in order to host certain people from all over the world (who, of course, speak different languages) and communicate with them. Sometimes when kids grow up they wish to travel around the world, and with the aid of language understanding they are able to converse fluently, and hence gain a more in-depth understanding of the cultures all over the world.
When raising a kid, what are the essential pre-requisite attributes and abilities that the the children should have? By attributes I mean leadership, compassion, hardworkingness, etc. And by abilities I mean skills such as a musical understanding, or perhaps sports. As the Tiger Mom issue has shown, children certainly do benefit a lot from certain essential skills, and however frustrating and exasperating it is for the children in their teenage youth and childhood, they always grow up to be outstanding people. All these celebrities and successful businessmen or actors, etc, have one thing in common: They always look back and thank their parents for making them do this, do that. Students nowadays should think about this: If parents 'force' you to learn the piano, sometimes it is really good for you and you should listen to them. As for the issue of pre-requisite attributes, there is not really a correct or wrong answer. As long as the child is able to stand up for himself in life, to be independent and to be able to support himself then he is fine. To what extent is he going to live his life and 'support himself' will be another issue. Certainly, to be hardworking is important. As Einstein has said, success is 99% hard work and 1% genius. Einstein himself was a genius, yet he credited to much of his success to hard work. Americans give their children almost absolute freedom. This has to be limited in a way, because freedom can only be give to those with responsibility. Only when they are able to take care of themselves and make sure things are done can they be given freedom.
Then again, when children grow up what will they need in order to succeed? As Jim Rogers, a writer in America, has said, the level of knowledge in American is decreasing. America's education have been on a decline. It will "hurt" them in one way or another, and sooner or later the economy and eventually politics will be dominated by the East. The education in the East is distinctly different from that of America, and American will have to change that if they wish to maintain their position as the richest and strongest country in the world.
"Daughter, you're going to marry him!"
Arranged marriages are a common sight all over the world, but debates remain on the question of its justification.
I'm sure many youths base their relationships on their own free choice in modern society. Many a time parents do not even know about their relationships - Let alone decide for them. Although relationships do not certainly lead to marriages, it is a factor in which tells us who decides the marriages, the children or the parents. Youths have a right to choose their own brides - After all, it's their life. They choose who they want to marry. They choose how they wish to spend their adult life. They choose who they wish to spend the second half of their life with. Furthermore, the marriage is for the children anyway and only they will know how the bride or groom is like. Only they themselves know if the other half will make them happy, and live happily ever after.
However, one must come to realize that parents do have a couple of dozens years of experience more than the children. Children are not born to know the dangers and evil of the world, and it is up to the parents to guide them. Some children are caught up with infatuation of another, and in the end falls apart due to the cunning and slyness of the other person. Perhaps he wants to trick your money? Perhaps he just wants you to make love with you for the fun of it? To find true love and live happily ever after is not an easy task, and your parents can certainly help you. After all, they've have so many more years of experience. It will be they who can tell if your future wife or husband truly loves you or not. In order for yourself not to fall into the traps of others, listen to your parents.
I think parents should not have total control over the marriages of their children. The ultimate decision should still be made by the children themselves. However, in making the decision the children should consider all factors and the top priority of factors for them to consider would the reasonable advice from their parents. If they wish to listen or not, it's still up to them.
I'm sure many youths base their relationships on their own free choice in modern society. Many a time parents do not even know about their relationships - Let alone decide for them. Although relationships do not certainly lead to marriages, it is a factor in which tells us who decides the marriages, the children or the parents. Youths have a right to choose their own brides - After all, it's their life. They choose who they want to marry. They choose how they wish to spend their adult life. They choose who they wish to spend the second half of their life with. Furthermore, the marriage is for the children anyway and only they will know how the bride or groom is like. Only they themselves know if the other half will make them happy, and live happily ever after.
However, one must come to realize that parents do have a couple of dozens years of experience more than the children. Children are not born to know the dangers and evil of the world, and it is up to the parents to guide them. Some children are caught up with infatuation of another, and in the end falls apart due to the cunning and slyness of the other person. Perhaps he wants to trick your money? Perhaps he just wants you to make love with you for the fun of it? To find true love and live happily ever after is not an easy task, and your parents can certainly help you. After all, they've have so many more years of experience. It will be they who can tell if your future wife or husband truly loves you or not. In order for yourself not to fall into the traps of others, listen to your parents.
I think parents should not have total control over the marriages of their children. The ultimate decision should still be made by the children themselves. However, in making the decision the children should consider all factors and the top priority of factors for them to consider would the reasonable advice from their parents. If they wish to listen or not, it's still up to them.
Norway Deaths
In the Oslo Bombing and the Utoeya shooting, at least 93 people were dead. Caused by a young man named Breivik, it was one of the worst massacres that occurred in Norway in a very very long time.
Breivik based his actions on Eurabia: A theory in which states that Muslims invaded European society to take over the society.
The attacks have posed a few questions at our society. Are the other races and religions really invading and trying to take over the society? The killings have created this illusion and misbelief about other religions and races. Even now, those who were not affected directly are in some way more cautious and anxious around people of other races and religions. To them, who knows when some guy will pop out screaming, "To hell with the ****!" And start shooting everyone? Aside from that, Norway have also been warned and reminded of how the terrorists activities among other senseless violence and slipped past their defense and prevention. Simply because their history was slightly cleaner than most other countries, that Norway overlooked their security. A society based on the trust between the citizens and the government has been breached - This bond is no longer viable. The government knows that time and time again people will rise to execute terrorist attacks no matter what. Surprisingly, this might be the only minor benefit to not only the Norwegians but also sends out a message to countries all over the world.
Are we safe? This is a question that's been asked all over the world, in every country. The killings have shown how weak the World's society is now. Will this trigger even more terrorist attacks? Will this fuel the anger and hatred towards the society?
Apparently, in his manifesto his main adversary were the Muslims. Another irreversible effect would be that the killings have pulled the society apart, creating a impassable crevice: Muslims no longer have the trust of the Europeans, and the Europeans no longer have the trust of the Muslims as well. Who knows, questions might be rising in people's minds, wondering when will be the next terrorist attack and what will the Muslims do in response?
When will the bond be rebuilt?
The killings, although served as a message and exposed the weak security and defense against terrorism, have sparked off more hatred and controversy amongst the various races and religions. The killings have breached the bond of trust between members of the society, of different races and religions and nationalities, and might trigger the violent response from certain extremists and terrorists groups as well, placing citizens from all over the world in peril.
Breivik based his actions on Eurabia: A theory in which states that Muslims invaded European society to take over the society.
The attacks have posed a few questions at our society. Are the other races and religions really invading and trying to take over the society? The killings have created this illusion and misbelief about other religions and races. Even now, those who were not affected directly are in some way more cautious and anxious around people of other races and religions. To them, who knows when some guy will pop out screaming, "To hell with the ****!" And start shooting everyone? Aside from that, Norway have also been warned and reminded of how the terrorists activities among other senseless violence and slipped past their defense and prevention. Simply because their history was slightly cleaner than most other countries, that Norway overlooked their security. A society based on the trust between the citizens and the government has been breached - This bond is no longer viable. The government knows that time and time again people will rise to execute terrorist attacks no matter what. Surprisingly, this might be the only minor benefit to not only the Norwegians but also sends out a message to countries all over the world.
Are we safe? This is a question that's been asked all over the world, in every country. The killings have shown how weak the World's society is now. Will this trigger even more terrorist attacks? Will this fuel the anger and hatred towards the society?
Apparently, in his manifesto his main adversary were the Muslims. Another irreversible effect would be that the killings have pulled the society apart, creating a impassable crevice: Muslims no longer have the trust of the Europeans, and the Europeans no longer have the trust of the Muslims as well. Who knows, questions might be rising in people's minds, wondering when will be the next terrorist attack and what will the Muslims do in response?
When will the bond be rebuilt?
The killings, although served as a message and exposed the weak security and defense against terrorism, have sparked off more hatred and controversy amongst the various races and religions. The killings have breached the bond of trust between members of the society, of different races and religions and nationalities, and might trigger the violent response from certain extremists and terrorists groups as well, placing citizens from all over the world in peril.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
How more likely are Hwa Chongians to touch the lives of others?
As mere humans ourselves we are bound to be intertwined with other people's lives, be it a barber, bus driver, teacher or student. In other words, we are bound to "touch the lives" of others simply by existing. However, the degree in which you affect other people's lives could be measured by certain factors. Besides blood relations, acquaintance, your occupation and position could as well.
All Hwa Chongnians are part of a family. In fact, we're all part of 2 different families: Blood relation family, and the social family. Back at home, we have our father, mother, and even siblings amongst various other relatives from all over the world. As a family member, we are related to them in the most intimate way possible. When we grow up, we will even settle down and make a family as well. Therefore, Hwa Chongnians are constantly touching the lives of our families and relatvies from birth, literally. The other family, the social family, consists of our friends and everyone that we know aside from our family members. For example, school and classmates are a huge part of our social family. Be it students from other schools, neighbourhood friends you play soccer with, or even adults and some teachers. Therefore, throughout the span of your life you are constantly touching the lives of others. This number actually increases as time goes by.
When everyone grows up, they have to find a job. Hwa Chongnians have extremely good conditions of education and even better standards, so they have no reason not to stand out in the future. As facts show, Hwa Chong Institution has produced the most President's Scholars in the history of the scholarship. In the future, whatever occupation Hwa Chongnians choose to take up will make a difference in society and affect people differently. Some choose to be a singer: Singers entertain others and provide them with a time to relax and enjoy. Some choose to compete for the country: These people certainly are invaluable and important, and touches the lives of even the audience and the citizens of the country.
As it is, Hwa Chong Institution is one of the best Secondary Schools in Singapore. Being a student by itself can already affect others: Your friends, your classmates, your schoolmates and even your teachers. You could just be a normal student from just any neighbourhood school, but the question here is how MORE likely are Hwa Chongnians to touch the lives of others? As an outstanding student from one of the best schools in Singapore, Hwa Chongnians are more likely to touch the lives of others in every other way: Be it in morals, or social acquaintances.
All Hwa Chongnians are part of a family. In fact, we're all part of 2 different families: Blood relation family, and the social family. Back at home, we have our father, mother, and even siblings amongst various other relatives from all over the world. As a family member, we are related to them in the most intimate way possible. When we grow up, we will even settle down and make a family as well. Therefore, Hwa Chongnians are constantly touching the lives of our families and relatvies from birth, literally. The other family, the social family, consists of our friends and everyone that we know aside from our family members. For example, school and classmates are a huge part of our social family. Be it students from other schools, neighbourhood friends you play soccer with, or even adults and some teachers. Therefore, throughout the span of your life you are constantly touching the lives of others. This number actually increases as time goes by.
When everyone grows up, they have to find a job. Hwa Chongnians have extremely good conditions of education and even better standards, so they have no reason not to stand out in the future. As facts show, Hwa Chong Institution has produced the most President's Scholars in the history of the scholarship. In the future, whatever occupation Hwa Chongnians choose to take up will make a difference in society and affect people differently. Some choose to be a singer: Singers entertain others and provide them with a time to relax and enjoy. Some choose to compete for the country: These people certainly are invaluable and important, and touches the lives of even the audience and the citizens of the country.
As it is, Hwa Chong Institution is one of the best Secondary Schools in Singapore. Being a student by itself can already affect others: Your friends, your classmates, your schoolmates and even your teachers. You could just be a normal student from just any neighbourhood school, but the question here is how MORE likely are Hwa Chongnians to touch the lives of others? As an outstanding student from one of the best schools in Singapore, Hwa Chongnians are more likely to touch the lives of others in every other way: Be it in morals, or social acquaintances.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Speech
In this commencement speech Steve Jobs shared with the graduates his life and essentially 2 important messages to convey to the graduates in order for them to live a prosperous and colourful life. (:
His first message was that as youth graduates, you need to "follow your heart". What he meant was that you need to do whatever you want to do, and not waste your time doing things you're not interested in and hence does not have a value in it. Only by focusing on what you really want to do, will you be able to decide what your future will be like: A colourful and happy one to do what you want to do and be successful. By doing what you want to do and going off the well-worn path, will give you the confidence that later in life something will connect whatever you have gained over the years together, and give you a life that you have always transpired to have. (:
He also told the graduates they needed to treasure the time that they have. Quoting Steve Jobs, he came across a quote going: "If you live each day as if it was your last, some day you would most certainly be right." As it is, he's telling them that one day you might just lose everything that you have and face the disgusting prospect of death, so therefore make the most of whatever time that you have! Make the most of whatever you have left and "follow your heart". One day you are really going to die anyway since all humans die, so make the most of what ability you have and do everything to the best of your ability. No one wants to die. Death is the best invention of life... "Someday you will gradually become the old, and be cleared away." Don't waste your remaining time, have the courage to do whatever you want to do and become, and drown out everyone else's opinion. (:
His first message was that as youth graduates, you need to "follow your heart". What he meant was that you need to do whatever you want to do, and not waste your time doing things you're not interested in and hence does not have a value in it. Only by focusing on what you really want to do, will you be able to decide what your future will be like: A colourful and happy one to do what you want to do and be successful. By doing what you want to do and going off the well-worn path, will give you the confidence that later in life something will connect whatever you have gained over the years together, and give you a life that you have always transpired to have. (:
He also told the graduates they needed to treasure the time that they have. Quoting Steve Jobs, he came across a quote going: "If you live each day as if it was your last, some day you would most certainly be right." As it is, he's telling them that one day you might just lose everything that you have and face the disgusting prospect of death, so therefore make the most of whatever time that you have! Make the most of whatever you have left and "follow your heart". One day you are really going to die anyway since all humans die, so make the most of what ability you have and do everything to the best of your ability. No one wants to die. Death is the best invention of life... "Someday you will gradually become the old, and be cleared away." Don't waste your remaining time, have the courage to do whatever you want to do and become, and drown out everyone else's opinion. (:
Monday, August 1, 2011
Was assassinating Osama bin Laden a correct decision? Or should the Americans have put him on trial?
If you had to live each day worrying about your safety in the area, full of trauma and fear of the sudden possibility that you would lose your life for simply being yourself, how would you feel? Such is the effects and trauma of terrorism and its impact on not only the Americans, but also citizens from countries all over the world. By assassinating Osama bin Laden, it is another crucial step by the USA government.
If you are one who thought a trial for Osama was the correct choice, let me ask you: How many years have the Americans been fighting against terrorism? How many innocent lives have been lost as a result of terrorist activities? And when you think harder, we all know that Osama is the physical and spiritual leader of Al-Qaeda, a dreadful and massive terrorist organization. By the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the Americans not only managed to temporarily but effectively halt terrorist activities, they have also dealt a major blow to terrorism itself by achieving this symbolic victory. Through the assassination the Americans have also sent out a harsh message to the terrorists out there: Wherever you are hiding, you cannot do much more damage and WE WILL FIND AND STOP YOU. This assassination not only dealt a devastating blow to terrorism as they have no leadership, causing them to fall apart. It also acts as a deterrence to other terrorists in action. They will definitely realize that whatever they do have a consequence and the Americans will punish them for whatever they have done. Furthermore, the Americans have actually declared war against terrorism - It is sure and definitely true the legitimacy of the assassination of enemy leaders.
A comparison could be made between justice to Osama, or mercy by giving him a trial: One will come to realize that the Americans face a greater risk if they arrest Osama instead, in different ways. Firstly, Osama is kind of like a martyr, and will certainly go to great lengths to achieve his aims and religious principles. By arresting him, the Americans are giving him invaluable attention and hence giving him an invaluable opportunity to evoke more hatred towards the community from terrorist, and incur more controversy. Will this not bring the Americans more trouble? Hence one can deduce that by arresting Osama instead of killing him will become a backfire situation and the Americans enter deeper risk instead. They certainly need to consider the effects of this controversy and hatred when the arrest of Osama spreads around the world: Will it cost them more lives? Will it cost them another mis-step in their war against terrorism? The Americans just cannot let Osama live when he was still able to motivate his followers.
To further explain the thirst for justice from the Americans towards Osama and Al-Qaeda, we can bring the 9/11 attacks into the picture. The deaths of the citizens was another issue, but the attacks was a whole humiliation towards this super-power of the world, the top nation in the universe. The Americans will not be able to hold back their urge for revenge... Furthermore, if the Americans had captured him they didn't have a good idea of where to put him.
Osama had to be brought to justice. If the Americans were to show him mercy, he will never show the Americans mercy.
If you are one who thought a trial for Osama was the correct choice, let me ask you: How many years have the Americans been fighting against terrorism? How many innocent lives have been lost as a result of terrorist activities? And when you think harder, we all know that Osama is the physical and spiritual leader of Al-Qaeda, a dreadful and massive terrorist organization. By the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the Americans not only managed to temporarily but effectively halt terrorist activities, they have also dealt a major blow to terrorism itself by achieving this symbolic victory. Through the assassination the Americans have also sent out a harsh message to the terrorists out there: Wherever you are hiding, you cannot do much more damage and WE WILL FIND AND STOP YOU. This assassination not only dealt a devastating blow to terrorism as they have no leadership, causing them to fall apart. It also acts as a deterrence to other terrorists in action. They will definitely realize that whatever they do have a consequence and the Americans will punish them for whatever they have done. Furthermore, the Americans have actually declared war against terrorism - It is sure and definitely true the legitimacy of the assassination of enemy leaders.
A comparison could be made between justice to Osama, or mercy by giving him a trial: One will come to realize that the Americans face a greater risk if they arrest Osama instead, in different ways. Firstly, Osama is kind of like a martyr, and will certainly go to great lengths to achieve his aims and religious principles. By arresting him, the Americans are giving him invaluable attention and hence giving him an invaluable opportunity to evoke more hatred towards the community from terrorist, and incur more controversy. Will this not bring the Americans more trouble? Hence one can deduce that by arresting Osama instead of killing him will become a backfire situation and the Americans enter deeper risk instead. They certainly need to consider the effects of this controversy and hatred when the arrest of Osama spreads around the world: Will it cost them more lives? Will it cost them another mis-step in their war against terrorism? The Americans just cannot let Osama live when he was still able to motivate his followers.
To further explain the thirst for justice from the Americans towards Osama and Al-Qaeda, we can bring the 9/11 attacks into the picture. The deaths of the citizens was another issue, but the attacks was a whole humiliation towards this super-power of the world, the top nation in the universe. The Americans will not be able to hold back their urge for revenge... Furthermore, if the Americans had captured him they didn't have a good idea of where to put him.
Osama had to be brought to justice. If the Americans were to show him mercy, he will never show the Americans mercy.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Is War a necessary evil?
“War must not exist for it’s own sake, it must serve a purpose for the state.” As said by a military theorist. The effects of war have always been prospected as the cause of the deaths of many as well as health and economic problems. War has only brought about destruction to those involved and even the innocent. There are certainly different reasons in which countries engage in war, but have the leaders of the nations considered all the alternatives? Certainly they have – As leaders of a nation, they cannot afford to make rash decisions like engaging in war just like that.
Although one may think that war is a ‘destructor of innocent lives’ and a creator of the obscene and terrible deaths of many, as long as we are only human emotions and beliefs will always come into conflict with others. Humans are always selfish, and as leaders of a nation all they want is an idealistic country for them, and therefore have their own beliefs and ideas. Similarly, other nations hence have unique ideas as well. For example, the South Kordofan Conflict in Sudan as well as the civil war in Libya were both triggered by resentment from the citizens or organizations due to conflicting ideals for the country and for themselves. The only way for human leaders to successfully implant his ideals completely without the intervention and objection of others is to eliminate or oppress them when peace talks could not be reached.
Throughout history, there has been many cases and scenarios of country leaders being corrupted and morphing into a tyrant. If you allow a tyrant room to grow, his power starts to spread like disease and the oppression of the civilians will grow worse day by day – even lives would be lost. In the case of Libya, the government leader Gaddafi could not yet be considered a tyrant leader, but the civilians were already living in suffering, resentment and oppression. Had the rebels decided not to wage a war against Gaddafi many innocent lives would be lost and the lives of civilians in Libya will not improve for a very long time. Another historical example would be Hitler – Had the Americans decided to go to war against him earlier he would never have arrived at a stage where his corrupted power spread like bushfire and was nearly incorrigible. Even though he was eventually subdued, many innocent lives had been lost in the process. It was a sacrifice of thousands, to save the lives of a million more.
When a country’s resources, civilian lives and territory are at stake, the only two alternatives to resolve the situation will be to engage in a peace talk, or go to war. When a country is legitimately threatened, war is necessary. Due to the various conditions involved in peace talks and the already hostile and aggressive attitude between countries, peace talks have always been a failure. In the many wars that have occurred in the 20th and 21st century, how many times have peace talks succeeded? The percentage, if calculated, would have been meagre and minute. Peace talks fail, and countries need to find another alternative to defend themselves and resolve the situation. The only choice the countries have left is to go to war. As the saying goes, “No pain, no gain.” If countries do want something for themselves and alternatives such as peace talks fail, they only have to go to war – The dominant one will get things his way.
War is a necessary evil – We are ultimately humans and always have conflicting ideas, we are ultimately humans and corruption will always be a problem. When we are attacked, the only action what we can take when a compromise could not be reached would be to fight back.
Although one may think that war is a ‘destructor of innocent lives’ and a creator of the obscene and terrible deaths of many, as long as we are only human emotions and beliefs will always come into conflict with others. Humans are always selfish, and as leaders of a nation all they want is an idealistic country for them, and therefore have their own beliefs and ideas. Similarly, other nations hence have unique ideas as well. For example, the South Kordofan Conflict in Sudan as well as the civil war in Libya were both triggered by resentment from the citizens or organizations due to conflicting ideals for the country and for themselves. The only way for human leaders to successfully implant his ideals completely without the intervention and objection of others is to eliminate or oppress them when peace talks could not be reached.
Throughout history, there has been many cases and scenarios of country leaders being corrupted and morphing into a tyrant. If you allow a tyrant room to grow, his power starts to spread like disease and the oppression of the civilians will grow worse day by day – even lives would be lost. In the case of Libya, the government leader Gaddafi could not yet be considered a tyrant leader, but the civilians were already living in suffering, resentment and oppression. Had the rebels decided not to wage a war against Gaddafi many innocent lives would be lost and the lives of civilians in Libya will not improve for a very long time. Another historical example would be Hitler – Had the Americans decided to go to war against him earlier he would never have arrived at a stage where his corrupted power spread like bushfire and was nearly incorrigible. Even though he was eventually subdued, many innocent lives had been lost in the process. It was a sacrifice of thousands, to save the lives of a million more.
When a country’s resources, civilian lives and territory are at stake, the only two alternatives to resolve the situation will be to engage in a peace talk, or go to war. When a country is legitimately threatened, war is necessary. Due to the various conditions involved in peace talks and the already hostile and aggressive attitude between countries, peace talks have always been a failure. In the many wars that have occurred in the 20th and 21st century, how many times have peace talks succeeded? The percentage, if calculated, would have been meagre and minute. Peace talks fail, and countries need to find another alternative to defend themselves and resolve the situation. The only choice the countries have left is to go to war. As the saying goes, “No pain, no gain.” If countries do want something for themselves and alternatives such as peace talks fail, they only have to go to war – The dominant one will get things his way.
War is a necessary evil – We are ultimately humans and always have conflicting ideas, we are ultimately humans and corruption will always be a problem. When we are attacked, the only action what we can take when a compromise could not be reached would be to fight back.
Deadly train crash in China...
It was a day of tragedy when the two trains collided as high speed, but to he citizens of China it was more of a tragedy when the government tried to cover-up the incident.
Why did the government want to cover it up? It was simple. They just did not want the citizens to resent them and blame them for this mistake. However, they have not considered that it would backfire when the public finds out about this. How will the public view the government now then? It will become a kind of distrust and even larger resentment towards them. Imagine someone's relatives who passed away in the train crash, yet the government tries to cover-up and change the death toll. How would you feel?
Some things we have to consider: Is it right for the government to try to cover-up their mistakes? As far as I know, the government should try to keep the site untouched, and before figuring out the malfunction and mistake nothing else should be done to maintain their reputation. Now that their actions have backfired, one of the world's most expensive public work project's safety is now in doubt. Not only that, the government's trust from the citizens has been damaged - Who knows what will the government try to cover-up next? Who knows what will the government do, away from the public eye? After the incident, even the government's claim about the lightning strike that caused the first train to malfunction cannot be trusted anymore. Who knows if the government was simply corrupted, and had substandard work and maintenance?
So, what is the big deal here about the train crash in China? I'm sure accidents happen all over the world and are certainly inevitable. The public cannot blame the government for this if the government has tried their best, and it was due to nature (lightning strikes?) that caused the malfunction. The big deal about the issue here is ethics.
Ethics essentially is a set of principles of right morals and conduct. The government, instead of apologizing to the public and perhaps trying their best to discover the problem with their systems, has tried to abuse the trust of the public. The government has abused the rights of the public when they tried to limit media coverage of the incident. As one reporter said, "We have the right to know the truth!" Another expert exposed the problem: ""To get to the root of any problem, it's very important to keep the site as it is. You can't just move the train compartments around." This incident has only exposed the government's corruption...
Why did the government want to cover it up? It was simple. They just did not want the citizens to resent them and blame them for this mistake. However, they have not considered that it would backfire when the public finds out about this. How will the public view the government now then? It will become a kind of distrust and even larger resentment towards them. Imagine someone's relatives who passed away in the train crash, yet the government tries to cover-up and change the death toll. How would you feel?
Some things we have to consider: Is it right for the government to try to cover-up their mistakes? As far as I know, the government should try to keep the site untouched, and before figuring out the malfunction and mistake nothing else should be done to maintain their reputation. Now that their actions have backfired, one of the world's most expensive public work project's safety is now in doubt. Not only that, the government's trust from the citizens has been damaged - Who knows what will the government try to cover-up next? Who knows what will the government do, away from the public eye? After the incident, even the government's claim about the lightning strike that caused the first train to malfunction cannot be trusted anymore. Who knows if the government was simply corrupted, and had substandard work and maintenance?
So, what is the big deal here about the train crash in China? I'm sure accidents happen all over the world and are certainly inevitable. The public cannot blame the government for this if the government has tried their best, and it was due to nature (lightning strikes?) that caused the malfunction. The big deal about the issue here is ethics.
Ethics essentially is a set of principles of right morals and conduct. The government, instead of apologizing to the public and perhaps trying their best to discover the problem with their systems, has tried to abuse the trust of the public. The government has abused the rights of the public when they tried to limit media coverage of the incident. As one reporter said, "We have the right to know the truth!" Another expert exposed the problem: ""To get to the root of any problem, it's very important to keep the site as it is. You can't just move the train compartments around." This incident has only exposed the government's corruption...
Monday, July 25, 2011
Is Shylock a Victim or a Villain?
Shylock is a character from a play written between the years 1956 to 1958 called “The Merchant of Venice”. It was written by a famous English poet and playwright Shakespeare. Just to introduce the story, the play was actually intended as a tragic comedy written for the entertainment of the audience. To point out the main themes of the play: Prejudice, Mercy and Judgement, as well as the prospect of Money.
Shylock is a Jewish moneylender from a city-state Venice. Due to the prejudice against Jews by the mainly Christian-populated Venice at that time, a tragic portrayal of Shylock was written on purpose by Shakespeare for the entertainment of the people simply for the fact that Shylock was a Jew. Prejudice for Jews turns a tragic ending for Shylock into a funny and entertaining scene for the audience.
In my personal opinion, I believe that Shylock was a victim. I know there’s a difference in time, but if I were to step into the shoes of a Jew in the 14th and 15th century I would become a victim as well mainly due to the prejudice from the Christians. In the story, there is solid evidence of how the Christians have bullied him, both in social and daily life and in court.
For a start, Shylock has mentioned (and Antonio has confirmed) of how the Christians have been treating him. In Act One Scene Three, Antonio and Bassanio are attempting to borrow money from Shylock, and a speech by Shylock shows that the Christians call him “misbeliever” and “cut-throat dog”, and they spit on him as well. Antonio, as a non-profit moneylender criticizes Shylock’s way of earning money (to charge interest in moneylending). However he failed to think about the fact that Shylock is a Jew and hence unable to work or be employed anywhere in Venice. Shylock then has no other alternative to make money. Almost everywhere in the story where Shylock is mentioned there is always a relation to insults, even between Salerio and Solanio who called Shylock a ‘dog Jew’, and gave him a social standing where even beggars are fit to compare to him. Even the Duke calls Shylock a ‘stony adversary’ and an ‘inhuman wretch’. Constant mockery and insults would be what Jews in those years have to endure from the Christians. How are they then not victims? As for Shylock, things were worse as his only relative, Jessica his daughter eloped with a Christian, the people he had hated and loathed all his life. With no more joy and love of a family member, how could life be for Shylocks’ remaining years?
In the trial of Shylock, Antonio and their bond (Act Four Scene 1), Shylock is again a victim. The lawyer (Portia) had actually lured Shylock into a trap, and after playing with the words in the bond she managed to bring down Shylock and prevent him to getting a pound of flesh from Antonio. However, the conditions then would be to split Shylock’s properties in two, giving half to Antonio and half to Lorenzo and his daughter Jessica. The Christians actually felt that they were already merciful and hence were hypocritical of Shylock when they called him cruel for repeatedly attempting to gain a pound of flesh from Antonio. Another condition to let Shylock go was for him to convert to Christianity. To Shylock, this is horrendous and outrageous as Shylock was forced by the Christians to abandon and betray the principles and beliefs with which he had lived by since he was born. Not only was this very desolating for Shylock, it also cages and forces him to a corner in life. As a converted Christian, the Jews will no longer regard him as a friend and instead perceive him as an enemy. Similarly, as an ex-Jew the Christians of Venice will not accept him into society either. When the Christians decided to take away Shylock’s property, they are actually ruining his future life due to this change in social standing: Shylock is an ex-Jew, he will still have to burden the consequences like a Jew and be unable to work, etc, and therefore unable to earn money by working. Such were the cruelty and lack of mercy from the Christians towards Jews such as Shylock. It was a tragedy - Shylock was a victim.
Shylock is a Jewish moneylender from a city-state Venice. Due to the prejudice against Jews by the mainly Christian-populated Venice at that time, a tragic portrayal of Shylock was written on purpose by Shakespeare for the entertainment of the people simply for the fact that Shylock was a Jew. Prejudice for Jews turns a tragic ending for Shylock into a funny and entertaining scene for the audience.
In my personal opinion, I believe that Shylock was a victim. I know there’s a difference in time, but if I were to step into the shoes of a Jew in the 14th and 15th century I would become a victim as well mainly due to the prejudice from the Christians. In the story, there is solid evidence of how the Christians have bullied him, both in social and daily life and in court.
For a start, Shylock has mentioned (and Antonio has confirmed) of how the Christians have been treating him. In Act One Scene Three, Antonio and Bassanio are attempting to borrow money from Shylock, and a speech by Shylock shows that the Christians call him “misbeliever” and “cut-throat dog”, and they spit on him as well. Antonio, as a non-profit moneylender criticizes Shylock’s way of earning money (to charge interest in moneylending). However he failed to think about the fact that Shylock is a Jew and hence unable to work or be employed anywhere in Venice. Shylock then has no other alternative to make money. Almost everywhere in the story where Shylock is mentioned there is always a relation to insults, even between Salerio and Solanio who called Shylock a ‘dog Jew’, and gave him a social standing where even beggars are fit to compare to him. Even the Duke calls Shylock a ‘stony adversary’ and an ‘inhuman wretch’. Constant mockery and insults would be what Jews in those years have to endure from the Christians. How are they then not victims? As for Shylock, things were worse as his only relative, Jessica his daughter eloped with a Christian, the people he had hated and loathed all his life. With no more joy and love of a family member, how could life be for Shylocks’ remaining years?
In the trial of Shylock, Antonio and their bond (Act Four Scene 1), Shylock is again a victim. The lawyer (Portia) had actually lured Shylock into a trap, and after playing with the words in the bond she managed to bring down Shylock and prevent him to getting a pound of flesh from Antonio. However, the conditions then would be to split Shylock’s properties in two, giving half to Antonio and half to Lorenzo and his daughter Jessica. The Christians actually felt that they were already merciful and hence were hypocritical of Shylock when they called him cruel for repeatedly attempting to gain a pound of flesh from Antonio. Another condition to let Shylock go was for him to convert to Christianity. To Shylock, this is horrendous and outrageous as Shylock was forced by the Christians to abandon and betray the principles and beliefs with which he had lived by since he was born. Not only was this very desolating for Shylock, it also cages and forces him to a corner in life. As a converted Christian, the Jews will no longer regard him as a friend and instead perceive him as an enemy. Similarly, as an ex-Jew the Christians of Venice will not accept him into society either. When the Christians decided to take away Shylock’s property, they are actually ruining his future life due to this change in social standing: Shylock is an ex-Jew, he will still have to burden the consequences like a Jew and be unable to work, etc, and therefore unable to earn money by working. Such were the cruelty and lack of mercy from the Christians towards Jews such as Shylock. It was a tragedy - Shylock was a victim.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Who will listen?
The production from the Hwa Chong English Drama Club won Gold in SYF, and certainly deserves it. Titled “Checkmate”, the play was about a mayor and the last source of water in the world (the water station). To maintain the amounts of water left, the king executed devious plans and massacred the citizens. This secret was found out by the king’s son. Although he was constantly trying to persuade the mayor to change over, the mayor refused to change. Eventually the son leaked this secret out to the public, and participated in rebellions all around without the mayor’s knowledge. Only when the mayor captured his son did he know he was involved. However this was not enough to convince his father – he eventually drowned himself in the water station and contaminated all the water inside. Only then did the mayor realize his fatal mistakes, but it was too late.
This production was based on a simple theme: “Who will listen?” the play was actually an intense portrayal and an extreme example of the problems children face nowadays. I’m sure many of my friends face problems with their parents and even with their teachers. These problems arise when their parents always have an egocentric thinking, and teachers were always unreasonable. Some do not even have friends who were compassionate; neither do they have friends who even care about them. Then, who will listen?
Another play by the HCI English Drama Club was titled “Bang bang, it’s too late”, and was about a boy named Joshua unable to handle stress. In school, he was trying his best at studies, however his results were never good enough to please his Dad. Eventually he slipped into a complex situation where his friends laughed at him for slipping before even kicking an immobile ball; the counselor refused to help him; his teacher being unreasonable and pressurizing towards him. He had enough, and eventually he took a gun and shot everyone. Although it was also a rather extreme case, I have to say again it’s a perfect example of my friends and the problems they face: stress. In my opinion, to handle stress one needs to have friends, parents and even teachers who are willing to talk into their heart with them. When students are unable to handle their stress other challenges arise: Personalities change, hence behavior changes too. A chain reaction would lead to the same person losing friends and the trust of their teacher. Therefore, if we wish to help these people and solve the problems of stress, we need to be compassionate to other around us and always willing to talk with them.
The last play was from Clementi Town Secondary. Titled “Happiness.com”, it was about a boy who was also unable to handle stress and ostracism from his friends and had to resort to a pornographic website called “Happiness.com” to entertain himself. Eventually he reached a situation where he expended too much money from his mother’s credit card, and was too late to turn back. Yet another case of “Who will listen?”, the only difference was the outcome of inability to handle stress properly. To avoid all these, I reiterate that one needs to have friends who are willing to listen, and parents who will always be there for you when you need to pour your heart out to them. (:
This production was based on a simple theme: “Who will listen?” the play was actually an intense portrayal and an extreme example of the problems children face nowadays. I’m sure many of my friends face problems with their parents and even with their teachers. These problems arise when their parents always have an egocentric thinking, and teachers were always unreasonable. Some do not even have friends who were compassionate; neither do they have friends who even care about them. Then, who will listen?
Another play by the HCI English Drama Club was titled “Bang bang, it’s too late”, and was about a boy named Joshua unable to handle stress. In school, he was trying his best at studies, however his results were never good enough to please his Dad. Eventually he slipped into a complex situation where his friends laughed at him for slipping before even kicking an immobile ball; the counselor refused to help him; his teacher being unreasonable and pressurizing towards him. He had enough, and eventually he took a gun and shot everyone. Although it was also a rather extreme case, I have to say again it’s a perfect example of my friends and the problems they face: stress. In my opinion, to handle stress one needs to have friends, parents and even teachers who are willing to talk into their heart with them. When students are unable to handle their stress other challenges arise: Personalities change, hence behavior changes too. A chain reaction would lead to the same person losing friends and the trust of their teacher. Therefore, if we wish to help these people and solve the problems of stress, we need to be compassionate to other around us and always willing to talk with them.
The last play was from Clementi Town Secondary. Titled “Happiness.com”, it was about a boy who was also unable to handle stress and ostracism from his friends and had to resort to a pornographic website called “Happiness.com” to entertain himself. Eventually he reached a situation where he expended too much money from his mother’s credit card, and was too late to turn back. Yet another case of “Who will listen?”, the only difference was the outcome of inability to handle stress properly. To avoid all these, I reiterate that one needs to have friends who are willing to listen, and parents who will always be there for you when you need to pour your heart out to them. (:
Thursday, May 12, 2011
MRT Seats - For the Young or the Old?
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/tit-tat-exchange-over-reserved-mrt-seats-084554302.html
I'm afraid there are still people out there who just do not know how to give up their seats to those in need: The elderly or pregnant women, etc. In this case... Its a senior citizen. My personal belief is that the young man should have given up his seat for the senior, just because he needs it more. By staying on the seat he was just being inconsiderate and rude. Why does he think then, that the government places so much emphasis on the elderly? However, there are some people (as stated in the article) that believe the senior citizen should not have demanded the seat, and he had no right to do so. This is not an appropriate reason. What happens if the senior citizen asks nicely? If the young man does not give up his seat then, he's really being rude and does not give a thought for his fellow Singaporeans.
In the article, the young man actually posted on the forums to clear his name. In my opinion he did not handle the issue properly. He gave all sorts of excuses that one could possibly give, which included "1 contact lens dropping off" and "On drowsy medication". What he should have done is to accept all accusations, and make a formal apology to Mr. Jason Wang (The senior citizen), as well as to the general public of Singapore.
The problem with youths in Singapore nowadays, in my point of view, is that they lack social consideration and awareness. The reasons for this could be the lack of education on this area. For example, the child might not have been brought up properly by the parents, resulting in the attitude of the child, or the youth when he or she grows up, to be like that towards the rest of the society. To avoid this issue from happening again, parents should therefore pay more attention to the education of the child on moral values and social consideration. The child is the most easily influenced in his childhood years - strike while the iron is hot. Only in this way will Singaporeans all live a happy life. (:
The most important takeaway from this is that Singaporeans need to have a little bit more social awareness and social consideration, so that everyone can be happy. The young man did not actually think to himself: Would he lose much if he gave the seat up? In return, he could give a lot to the senior citizen. Does that not make him happy enough? Helping someone is always a pleasure.
I'm afraid there are still people out there who just do not know how to give up their seats to those in need: The elderly or pregnant women, etc. In this case... Its a senior citizen. My personal belief is that the young man should have given up his seat for the senior, just because he needs it more. By staying on the seat he was just being inconsiderate and rude. Why does he think then, that the government places so much emphasis on the elderly? However, there are some people (as stated in the article) that believe the senior citizen should not have demanded the seat, and he had no right to do so. This is not an appropriate reason. What happens if the senior citizen asks nicely? If the young man does not give up his seat then, he's really being rude and does not give a thought for his fellow Singaporeans.
In the article, the young man actually posted on the forums to clear his name. In my opinion he did not handle the issue properly. He gave all sorts of excuses that one could possibly give, which included "1 contact lens dropping off" and "On drowsy medication". What he should have done is to accept all accusations, and make a formal apology to Mr. Jason Wang (The senior citizen), as well as to the general public of Singapore.
The problem with youths in Singapore nowadays, in my point of view, is that they lack social consideration and awareness. The reasons for this could be the lack of education on this area. For example, the child might not have been brought up properly by the parents, resulting in the attitude of the child, or the youth when he or she grows up, to be like that towards the rest of the society. To avoid this issue from happening again, parents should therefore pay more attention to the education of the child on moral values and social consideration. The child is the most easily influenced in his childhood years - strike while the iron is hot. Only in this way will Singaporeans all live a happy life. (:
The most important takeaway from this is that Singaporeans need to have a little bit more social awareness and social consideration, so that everyone can be happy. The young man did not actually think to himself: Would he lose much if he gave the seat up? In return, he could give a lot to the senior citizen. Does that not make him happy enough? Helping someone is always a pleasure.
General Election 2011
Much has been debated over the choice of candidates and parties for the General Election 2011 in Singapore. Nearly every single GRC and SMC is contested by the 6 opposition parties this year. Here in my GRC, Choa Chu Kang which had been under the PAP for a very long time is finally contested by candidates from the National Solidarity Party (NSP). What does this mean for Singapore? There must be a certain importance, looking at the debate online? For all the voters out there, ask yourselves what have the PAP done for you, and what can the Opposition do better? Over here, I will make a slight analysis.
As I have learned in History lessons, Singapore has faced a never-ending string of problems and challenges, both economically and socially since their separation from Malaysia in 1965. Who has brought us through the rough tides over the years? It was the PAP. In 1965, we had a severe housing shortage, we had an over-the-roof population growth rate. Who solved these problems for us? It was the PAP. One might argue that the PAP has made many major mistakes. One of them could be the frustrating decline in birthrate, (which was lower than the replacement rate of 2.1), the escape of highly-sought-after Mas Selamat, and the 300% spending of the YOG Budget (The Government explanation for this was that it was the first time that any country has ever hosted the YOG, and therefore we had no experience in it). The problems that we face now can also, arguably, be the PAP’s fault. The skyrocketing HDB prices which are becoming more and more unaffordable to Singaporeans and the increased costs of living were all results from the PAP’s policies over the past years. Is this enough to convince the population of Singapore not to support and vote for the PAP? In my opinion, it is not enough. If Singaporeans were to think this way, they are actually thinking quite selfishly – they are thinking from a citizen’s point of view. What we need to do, as layman Singaporeans, is to consider it from the country’s point of view. For 50 years, the PAP have made unimaginable efforts to bring Singapore to what it is now, a metropolitan and worldwide-recognized city, and have also achieved extraordinary results. Compared to other countries, Singapore is a relatively wealthy, developed and young at the same time. Singaporeans therefore cannot neglect the fact that it was the PAP who brought us to this step in the world, and it was the PAP who made us into such a wealthy, peaceful and developed country. However developed Singapore is, we are continually developing and learning more and more. This all resulted from the PAP’s reign and the policies that they have implemented. The few of us still cannot vote, but what we can do is to make a good analysis of the PAP as well as a comparison of the other parties’ plans for the country and make our own decision.
Due to the GRC policy, each area in Singapore is ‘ruled’ by a group of representatives of a particular party. Another factor that should influence any voter’s decision to vote either party would be the candidates themselves. The most basic criteria would be for the candidate to have a clean track record, as well as integrity and honesty. Personally, I would like the candidate to have a nice personality and a good character, and a person who interacts with the citizens a lot. For the PAP candidates in my own GRC include the Minister of Manpower, Mr. Gan Kim Yong. I have not had the chance or fortune to speak to any of the candidates, but from what my father told me the candidates are nice and are good people, and the same goes for the NSP candidates here. If it had been me, I would still go for the PAP, for the simple reason that they fulfill the above criteria better than the NSP candidates, and Mr. Gan has also done a relatively good job for Singapore.
What we have done as ACE is a comparison of the separate manifestos, and we did a comparison of their policies and beliefs. We intend to come up with our opinion and our own decision on which party to vote for (if we could). This project had been quite beneficial to us because we acquired much knowledge about the politics in Singapore, the policies of the government and of course, we learned much more about the History of Singapore.
The PAP could no longer be the supreme ruler of Singapore anymore – After this General Election 2011, there will be more checks and balances for the PAP so that they would not go overboard, and I’m sure that together, the parliament and Singaporeans will work together for a better Singapore.
As I have learned in History lessons, Singapore has faced a never-ending string of problems and challenges, both economically and socially since their separation from Malaysia in 1965. Who has brought us through the rough tides over the years? It was the PAP. In 1965, we had a severe housing shortage, we had an over-the-roof population growth rate. Who solved these problems for us? It was the PAP. One might argue that the PAP has made many major mistakes. One of them could be the frustrating decline in birthrate, (which was lower than the replacement rate of 2.1), the escape of highly-sought-after Mas Selamat, and the 300% spending of the YOG Budget (The Government explanation for this was that it was the first time that any country has ever hosted the YOG, and therefore we had no experience in it). The problems that we face now can also, arguably, be the PAP’s fault. The skyrocketing HDB prices which are becoming more and more unaffordable to Singaporeans and the increased costs of living were all results from the PAP’s policies over the past years. Is this enough to convince the population of Singapore not to support and vote for the PAP? In my opinion, it is not enough. If Singaporeans were to think this way, they are actually thinking quite selfishly – they are thinking from a citizen’s point of view. What we need to do, as layman Singaporeans, is to consider it from the country’s point of view. For 50 years, the PAP have made unimaginable efforts to bring Singapore to what it is now, a metropolitan and worldwide-recognized city, and have also achieved extraordinary results. Compared to other countries, Singapore is a relatively wealthy, developed and young at the same time. Singaporeans therefore cannot neglect the fact that it was the PAP who brought us to this step in the world, and it was the PAP who made us into such a wealthy, peaceful and developed country. However developed Singapore is, we are continually developing and learning more and more. This all resulted from the PAP’s reign and the policies that they have implemented. The few of us still cannot vote, but what we can do is to make a good analysis of the PAP as well as a comparison of the other parties’ plans for the country and make our own decision.
Due to the GRC policy, each area in Singapore is ‘ruled’ by a group of representatives of a particular party. Another factor that should influence any voter’s decision to vote either party would be the candidates themselves. The most basic criteria would be for the candidate to have a clean track record, as well as integrity and honesty. Personally, I would like the candidate to have a nice personality and a good character, and a person who interacts with the citizens a lot. For the PAP candidates in my own GRC include the Minister of Manpower, Mr. Gan Kim Yong. I have not had the chance or fortune to speak to any of the candidates, but from what my father told me the candidates are nice and are good people, and the same goes for the NSP candidates here. If it had been me, I would still go for the PAP, for the simple reason that they fulfill the above criteria better than the NSP candidates, and Mr. Gan has also done a relatively good job for Singapore.
What we have done as ACE is a comparison of the separate manifestos, and we did a comparison of their policies and beliefs. We intend to come up with our opinion and our own decision on which party to vote for (if we could). This project had been quite beneficial to us because we acquired much knowledge about the politics in Singapore, the policies of the government and of course, we learned much more about the History of Singapore.
The PAP could no longer be the supreme ruler of Singapore anymore – After this General Election 2011, there will be more checks and balances for the PAP so that they would not go overboard, and I’m sure that together, the parliament and Singaporeans will work together for a better Singapore.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
All students in high school should be required to take at least 2 years of a foreign language.
Language is something that we all learn from young, and almost everything that we use to communicate. Some people think that out native language and what we learn from young is enough, but it is actually otherwise. Difficult as it is, language is ultimately a form of communication between people, and without a command of a language, what would happen to your life then? Language is also a form of art, as well as a factor which can change the course of your life after high school education.
For a start, language is the basis of communication and communication outside of our native country is crucial. It is universally recognized that there are hundreds of languages in the world, if not thousands. The fact that not everybody speaks English or Chinese also cannot be ignored. For example, if you happen to know a friend who does not understand the native languages of your country, what happens? Communication would fail and the friendship cannot develop. In Singapore, English and Chinese are the two official languages, but Malay is actually our National Language. In the context of the question, the language Malay (to Singapore) is not considered a ‘foreign’ language; However, if we take Malaysia into perspective, conversing over there would definitely be considered ‘foreign grounds’ and Malay would then be a foreign language. It is not often that you can find a student who is fluent in all three languages: Malay, Chinese and English, but you do find students who only speak good Malay and not English or Chinese. Would that not make conversing a problem if we do not command the Malay language well? Brought into the context of oversea conversations, it would be the same thing: Inability to communicate due to differences in language. With a good command of the language everything from just casual chat to official conferences would become so much easier. Would life not be more colourful if languages had been at your fingertips? Therefore I think all students in high school should be required to take 2 years of a foreign language.
Besides that, language is also a form of art. Art is always something for us to appreciate, and will always be something that is a never-ending source of knowledge and learning for us.
Moreover, the languages that are taught in schools are also counted as a ‘subject’, and that counts it as something to learn and master, just like other subjects such as Mathematics or Science. For example, in high schools, students have to take a core subject called ‘Language Arts’. This subject incorporates all the exams and tests and learning that all the other subjects have as well. So therefore it should be considered a form of art and therefore something we have to learn to master and appreciate, does it not? The whole point of the education system is to educate students, and by giving them more to learn achieves exactly this aim. By requiring students to take at least 2 years of foreign language, students would then be able to appreciate another language, just like Chinese or English. And as mentioned earlier, a good command of such foreign languages contains other benefits as well. Therefore, high school students should be required to take 2 years of a foreign language, just like another subject.
Lastly, language is part of our lives after graduation. Our lives do not simply consist of the classroom life of high school and the tense atmosphere of the exam hall. In fact, high school is, although important, barely five percent of your life. For the most of us there still is a long road ahead to our lives, and the command of a foreign language will be a substantial part of it. For example, some of us might want to take up a job overseas in a country like Switzerland or France; perhaps it might be a rather prestigious chance, and you do not want to lose it. And to avoid relinquishing this chance to the devil, you will need to have a good command of the language of that country. In France you will need to speak French; in Switzerland you will need to speak 3 different languages depending on which area you are staying in. As we progress from teenagers to adults, we will learn that money would become a big part of your future life, and as mentioned earlier money might come from overseas and that is where a good command of a foreign language comes in. Moreover, instead of learning the language when there is a need to, learning the language at the age of 13 might be a better idea – considering that at the age of 13 students are usually quite intelligent and learning would also be much more convenient than, let’s say, at the age of 30. Therefore, students should be required to take 2 years of a foreign language, so that they can have a better chance in life later on.
All the points that are listed above are all substantial evidence of how foreign language would be very beneficial to high school students.
For a start, language is the basis of communication and communication outside of our native country is crucial. It is universally recognized that there are hundreds of languages in the world, if not thousands. The fact that not everybody speaks English or Chinese also cannot be ignored. For example, if you happen to know a friend who does not understand the native languages of your country, what happens? Communication would fail and the friendship cannot develop. In Singapore, English and Chinese are the two official languages, but Malay is actually our National Language. In the context of the question, the language Malay (to Singapore) is not considered a ‘foreign’ language; However, if we take Malaysia into perspective, conversing over there would definitely be considered ‘foreign grounds’ and Malay would then be a foreign language. It is not often that you can find a student who is fluent in all three languages: Malay, Chinese and English, but you do find students who only speak good Malay and not English or Chinese. Would that not make conversing a problem if we do not command the Malay language well? Brought into the context of oversea conversations, it would be the same thing: Inability to communicate due to differences in language. With a good command of the language everything from just casual chat to official conferences would become so much easier. Would life not be more colourful if languages had been at your fingertips? Therefore I think all students in high school should be required to take 2 years of a foreign language.
Besides that, language is also a form of art. Art is always something for us to appreciate, and will always be something that is a never-ending source of knowledge and learning for us.
Moreover, the languages that are taught in schools are also counted as a ‘subject’, and that counts it as something to learn and master, just like other subjects such as Mathematics or Science. For example, in high schools, students have to take a core subject called ‘Language Arts’. This subject incorporates all the exams and tests and learning that all the other subjects have as well. So therefore it should be considered a form of art and therefore something we have to learn to master and appreciate, does it not? The whole point of the education system is to educate students, and by giving them more to learn achieves exactly this aim. By requiring students to take at least 2 years of foreign language, students would then be able to appreciate another language, just like Chinese or English. And as mentioned earlier, a good command of such foreign languages contains other benefits as well. Therefore, high school students should be required to take 2 years of a foreign language, just like another subject.
Lastly, language is part of our lives after graduation. Our lives do not simply consist of the classroom life of high school and the tense atmosphere of the exam hall. In fact, high school is, although important, barely five percent of your life. For the most of us there still is a long road ahead to our lives, and the command of a foreign language will be a substantial part of it. For example, some of us might want to take up a job overseas in a country like Switzerland or France; perhaps it might be a rather prestigious chance, and you do not want to lose it. And to avoid relinquishing this chance to the devil, you will need to have a good command of the language of that country. In France you will need to speak French; in Switzerland you will need to speak 3 different languages depending on which area you are staying in. As we progress from teenagers to adults, we will learn that money would become a big part of your future life, and as mentioned earlier money might come from overseas and that is where a good command of a foreign language comes in. Moreover, instead of learning the language when there is a need to, learning the language at the age of 13 might be a better idea – considering that at the age of 13 students are usually quite intelligent and learning would also be much more convenient than, let’s say, at the age of 30. Therefore, students should be required to take 2 years of a foreign language, so that they can have a better chance in life later on.
All the points that are listed above are all substantial evidence of how foreign language would be very beneficial to high school students.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Can students be given their own autonomy to develop their own curriculum?
The curriculum in school nowadays is developed and converged by the teachers and the principal. If the curriculum had been developed by the students, school life would be much different from what it is now. How different it is will be another thing: Is it good, or is it bad for the student population? I strongly believe that it’s good for the student population. I will be stating three reasons why the students would benefit from the right to develop their own curriculum.
For a start, we are currently Secondary Two students, and are mature enough to settle our own studies. At our age, many of us are already capable of handling our own studies. They are independent enough, and to proceed without the help and support of parents or anybody else. When we are able to handle our studies ourselves, why not give us the rights to develop our own curriculum? In that case, many students would be able to fit various commitments into their already stock-piled timetable. For example, students with heavy CCA time commitments would have trouble keeping up with the curriculum due to heavy time commitments. If the curriculum is modified to give these students a chance to recover, I think it is best for the whole student population. Therefore, I think at our age we have the ability to settle our own studies, and therefore should be given the autonomy to develop our own curriculum.
Besides that, we are also in the best position to understand our own studies and conditions. As the learners ourselves, we are in the optimum position and perspective to understand our own studies and our standards. With this substantial advantage, paired with the right and autonomy to develop our own curriculum would be doubly effective. For example, a student himself or herself might know how well he is doing at a particular subject exactly, but is having troubles voicing it out. If they are given the rights to develop their own curriculum, they can solve a prominent majority of their problems, and at the same time they can learn much more, either based on their interest or their strengths. Thus I feel that at the optimum position to understand our studies, we should be given the autonomy to develop our own curriculum.
(Lastly, the students that develop their curriculum will train various skills. Through the process of developing their own curriculum, these students train not only their life skills, but skills like research skills and organizing, etc. For example, when students are coming up with their curriculum they will need to strive for accuracy of facts, and the precision of other aspects. To achieve this they will need to conduct extensive research, as well as organize the gathered information before designing the curriculum. In this manner the various skills of these students are trained repeatedly, and therefore the overall standard of the school is improved. Thus, the students' skills can be improved because of the skills that can be trained.
As a conclusion, I state again that when students develop their own curriculum there are many benefits along with it, and therefore they should be given the autonomy to develop their own curriculum.
For a start, we are currently Secondary Two students, and are mature enough to settle our own studies. At our age, many of us are already capable of handling our own studies. They are independent enough, and to proceed without the help and support of parents or anybody else. When we are able to handle our studies ourselves, why not give us the rights to develop our own curriculum? In that case, many students would be able to fit various commitments into their already stock-piled timetable. For example, students with heavy CCA time commitments would have trouble keeping up with the curriculum due to heavy time commitments. If the curriculum is modified to give these students a chance to recover, I think it is best for the whole student population. Therefore, I think at our age we have the ability to settle our own studies, and therefore should be given the autonomy to develop our own curriculum.
Besides that, we are also in the best position to understand our own studies and conditions. As the learners ourselves, we are in the optimum position and perspective to understand our own studies and our standards. With this substantial advantage, paired with the right and autonomy to develop our own curriculum would be doubly effective. For example, a student himself or herself might know how well he is doing at a particular subject exactly, but is having troubles voicing it out. If they are given the rights to develop their own curriculum, they can solve a prominent majority of their problems, and at the same time they can learn much more, either based on their interest or their strengths. Thus I feel that at the optimum position to understand our studies, we should be given the autonomy to develop our own curriculum.
(Lastly, the students that develop their curriculum will train various skills. Through the process of developing their own curriculum, these students train not only their life skills, but skills like research skills and organizing, etc. For example, when students are coming up with their curriculum they will need to strive for accuracy of facts, and the precision of other aspects. To achieve this they will need to conduct extensive research, as well as organize the gathered information before designing the curriculum. In this manner the various skills of these students are trained repeatedly, and therefore the overall standard of the school is improved. Thus, the students' skills can be improved because of the skills that can be trained.
As a conclusion, I state again that when students develop their own curriculum there are many benefits along with it, and therefore they should be given the autonomy to develop their own curriculum.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Propaganda Analysis
The picture shows 3 children, and 1 of them has an American flag. The other 2 children are holding today, just playing just like a normal day, until the Germans came. In the background, there's a 'demonic' and 'evil' shadow of the Nazi's cross. In the caption it says 'Don't Let That Shadow Touch Them', and by buying War Bonds they could protect the children from the Nazi.
This poster is powerful and creates great impact in it's portrayal. The children, besides themselves been iconic American, what they're holding also has a significance for the US. The children are innocent, and this poster is meant appeal to the caring side of people and their instinctive protection for the young and those who do not have the strength to fight back.
This poster is one of the most common and one of the best posters (in my opinion) made. It's iconic, and it's impactful as well. As we all know, Uncle Sam was the government personification, as an old man in a goatee beard with clothing the imbued with the colour of the US flag (Top hat, jacket, etc).
The purpose of this poster was to attract and gather soldiers for the US Army. This poster carries this out very well, with the iconic American Uncle Sam, with the stern look on his face which signifies seriousness; the finger pointing at you, involving the reader. Readers also tend to think about who Uncle Sam actually is, and overall this is an impactful, and as much powerful it's also impactful.
This poster is from China. It's quite simple, without any words whatsoever, and the it depicts the portrait of Mao (Founder of the Republic of China), and several children. These children seem happy, and are all wearing a different costume. In my opinion, each costume represents a race, a culture. What this poster tells me is that the future China would be one united country, and all the cultures and races living in harmony, each with different 'expressions' and will live in happiness.
This poster is similar to the first 2, it's about war. The only difference is in possibly the message, and obviously the target audience. The character in the poster is female, and therefore my assumption would be the target audience is for women during the war. From my contextual knowledge, women during the war a that time were housewives, working at home and doing all the cooking and cleaning. The poster is trying to show that women are strong as well, and can do something for the nation. As this was a war poster, the intended outcome was to convince the women to help with the making of ammunition, etc - An impactful poster.
This is not exactly a propaganda video, but it achieves its effect. In the video, there are the infantry on foot, the tanks, and the helicopters. The SAF are clearly portrayed as 'ready' and 'equipped'. Inside the video, the soldiers' expressions are determined and show confidence and enthusiasm, alongside determination. All these are quite impactful, and it shows how ready the SAF are, as well as Singapore as a country, including all the other 'defenses' in 'Total Defence'. That is the message this video is trying to bring across to it's readers. Impactful, creative, entertaining and technologically effective.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Why should we care about what happens in places far away from where we live?
We are all living in this world where every continent and country is connected to each other, in some way or another, be it economically or socially. Such is the life that we live, and to ensure a safe and happy life for each and every one of us as far as possible, understanding the things that happen far away from where we live, the current affairs around the world, is important.
Firstly, these 'things' that happen could be something major like a natural disaster, and therefore a possibility of affecting our country's economy. For example, recently there was a 9.0-magnitude earthquake in Japan. These kind of disasters are important for our knowledge. Countries all around the world are all connected in one way or another economically, and as Japan's industries are affected, so are ours. Not only will these disasters affect your country's economy, it might also affect your social life. You will also be informed about the dangers that it may cause, and therefore take necessary precautions against it. For example, there is currently a nuclear radiation problem around Japan, and by taking necessary precautions against it (like obtaining certain chemicals for consumption) you can avoid being affected by radiation.
Secondly, the things that happen around you can be of a technological advancement. As we know today, technology is something of substantial importance to our lives. The computer is a good example. It could be used to create documents, and even for entertainment. By knowing what's going on around the world of Technology, we could keep ourselves updated about recent innovations, and therefore help ourselves out when we come across something that one needs to use, or perhaps just something to keep ourselves occupied.
Thirdly, these information that you gather from current affairs could always come in handy. If you are writing a report about, for example, Japan's earthquake and what could be done to help, everything that you know about Japan would become useful. When you have no idea what's going on in Japan because you're ignorant, then good luck with your report. Other documents also include blog posts. Even in school such information would be required. There might be components of your grades which consist of an assessment of your current affairs knowledge (For example, debates and discussions, or a Community of Inquiry). Next time when we grow up, and we want to become a lawyer or maybe a teacher, such information and knowledge would be something pre-requisite and would play a big part in your mission for a successful career.
Some would say knowing things outside of the country we live in is unimportant. They claim that their lives would not be affected either way, but as the recent earthquake in Japan as well as the rebellion in Libya has shown, this is not true. As I say again that countries are inter-connected through one way or another, one will be affected sooner of later by something as major as these. When one has no knowledge of current affairs, academic progress might be slower. In Hwa Chong graded components such as the Current Affairs Debate is going to require substantial current affairs knowledge. Some also say that maybe such stories will upset them or maybe make them depressed, or perhaps guilty. It's not really about the news, because sooner or later this person will have to go through this experience. Everyone has to, and it will be quite unlikely that one is sheltered his/her whole life without experiencing any much hardships.
In conclusion, knowing about things that happen far away from where we live is ultimately important, as it affects our lives either directly or indirectly, or even your future.
Firstly, these 'things' that happen could be something major like a natural disaster, and therefore a possibility of affecting our country's economy. For example, recently there was a 9.0-magnitude earthquake in Japan. These kind of disasters are important for our knowledge. Countries all around the world are all connected in one way or another economically, and as Japan's industries are affected, so are ours. Not only will these disasters affect your country's economy, it might also affect your social life. You will also be informed about the dangers that it may cause, and therefore take necessary precautions against it. For example, there is currently a nuclear radiation problem around Japan, and by taking necessary precautions against it (like obtaining certain chemicals for consumption) you can avoid being affected by radiation.
Secondly, the things that happen around you can be of a technological advancement. As we know today, technology is something of substantial importance to our lives. The computer is a good example. It could be used to create documents, and even for entertainment. By knowing what's going on around the world of Technology, we could keep ourselves updated about recent innovations, and therefore help ourselves out when we come across something that one needs to use, or perhaps just something to keep ourselves occupied.
Thirdly, these information that you gather from current affairs could always come in handy. If you are writing a report about, for example, Japan's earthquake and what could be done to help, everything that you know about Japan would become useful. When you have no idea what's going on in Japan because you're ignorant, then good luck with your report. Other documents also include blog posts. Even in school such information would be required. There might be components of your grades which consist of an assessment of your current affairs knowledge (For example, debates and discussions, or a Community of Inquiry). Next time when we grow up, and we want to become a lawyer or maybe a teacher, such information and knowledge would be something pre-requisite and would play a big part in your mission for a successful career.
Some would say knowing things outside of the country we live in is unimportant. They claim that their lives would not be affected either way, but as the recent earthquake in Japan as well as the rebellion in Libya has shown, this is not true. As I say again that countries are inter-connected through one way or another, one will be affected sooner of later by something as major as these. When one has no knowledge of current affairs, academic progress might be slower. In Hwa Chong graded components such as the Current Affairs Debate is going to require substantial current affairs knowledge. Some also say that maybe such stories will upset them or maybe make them depressed, or perhaps guilty. It's not really about the news, because sooner or later this person will have to go through this experience. Everyone has to, and it will be quite unlikely that one is sheltered his/her whole life without experiencing any much hardships.
In conclusion, knowing about things that happen far away from where we live is ultimately important, as it affects our lives either directly or indirectly, or even your future.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Dear Japan...
Block 459 Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4 #12-69 Singapore (680459)
22nd March 2011
Dear Nick Jones,
How're you doing? I have heard of the earthquake in Japan, and heard that you survived the earthquake. I have read through your article on Yahoo! SEA, I am worried about your well-being, and I have few words of encouragement to help you get over it.
As a survivor and someone who witnessed the disaster unfold, I'm sure you would have many things to say about this earthquake. This earthquake, as bad as it came, is a devil. Bringing the tsunami with it, it not only took away the lives of many, but destroyed properties as well has the homes of many thousands more. You decision to move to the west of Japan is a good one, as safety is always the first to consider. It also shows your care and concern for your family. As recent studies have shown, the radioactive plumes and clouds would not be of a problem for areas outside of a certain radius outside Fukushima, and they will dissipate quite quickly. So, you don't need to worry much about that.
After the disaster, I know that you and your family are wrecked. As a good friend, I'll try everything I can to help you get over this emotional crisis. Whatever you do, do not forget that your family survived the earthquake, and are fine. Try to take things from a different perspective, maybe thinking a little more positively. Something else that you can do is to offer your help to the major victims of this devastating earthquake. Offering your help might cause you come problems, especially the radioactivity around Fukushima, but you will definitely take joy in doing all this volunteering work. In that case, you would be writing the article in a different perspective. I'll do all I can to help you get out of this 'spiral of hysteria'. You just need to calm and settle down, and everything will be fine. Government executions are under way, and other countries are already offering much of their help to help Japan with this huge problem. Soon the problem will be largely solved, and you and your family can move back into your daily lives.
Please take care of yourself, and help me wish them to have a good stay, and stay healthy. I look forward to your reply and assurance about your own well-being (:
Stay healthy,
Your good friend,
Caspar
22nd March 2011
Dear Nick Jones,
How're you doing? I have heard of the earthquake in Japan, and heard that you survived the earthquake. I have read through your article on Yahoo! SEA, I am worried about your well-being, and I have few words of encouragement to help you get over it.
As a survivor and someone who witnessed the disaster unfold, I'm sure you would have many things to say about this earthquake. This earthquake, as bad as it came, is a devil. Bringing the tsunami with it, it not only took away the lives of many, but destroyed properties as well has the homes of many thousands more. You decision to move to the west of Japan is a good one, as safety is always the first to consider. It also shows your care and concern for your family. As recent studies have shown, the radioactive plumes and clouds would not be of a problem for areas outside of a certain radius outside Fukushima, and they will dissipate quite quickly. So, you don't need to worry much about that.
After the disaster, I know that you and your family are wrecked. As a good friend, I'll try everything I can to help you get over this emotional crisis. Whatever you do, do not forget that your family survived the earthquake, and are fine. Try to take things from a different perspective, maybe thinking a little more positively. Something else that you can do is to offer your help to the major victims of this devastating earthquake. Offering your help might cause you come problems, especially the radioactivity around Fukushima, but you will definitely take joy in doing all this volunteering work. In that case, you would be writing the article in a different perspective. I'll do all I can to help you get out of this 'spiral of hysteria'. You just need to calm and settle down, and everything will be fine. Government executions are under way, and other countries are already offering much of their help to help Japan with this huge problem. Soon the problem will be largely solved, and you and your family can move back into your daily lives.
Please take care of yourself, and help me wish them to have a good stay, and stay healthy. I look forward to your reply and assurance about your own well-being (:
Stay healthy,
Your good friend,
Caspar
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Future School - For Better or Worse?
Future School: Making use of technology and and 'futuristic' instruments to teach students.
Since it's implementation, there has been several pros and cons of the 'Future School' programme. The Future School programme mainly includes the use of computers and laptops during lesson time, for the purpose of promoting independent learning among the students, as well as making use of the World Wide Web. The internet has certainly been of help to increase productivity (Microsoft Word, etc) and the broader horizon of research and information available (Google, etc).
Then what are the pros and cons of Future School? I think the main factor and the most important factor would be the responsibility and discipline of the students. Some students are distracted all the time by games, such as 'DoTA' and 'Mousehunt'.
These games could affect the students during or out of lesson time. Some who are not disciplined will sidetrack during lesson time to surf other internet sites such as Facebook and might even game online. Such actions are intolerable as it would cost them to lose their attention in the subject, as well as decrease their productivity rate. This makes Future School redundant.What about outside of lesson time? Many students (evident in my class) come to school early and start gaming. They know its not allowed, but they do so anyway. Some arrive in school as early as 6.30 a.m., and when they realize they still have unfinished homework, they tell themselves, "its time for DoTA. Homework... I think I'll finish during recess." He was not supposed to have unfinished work, but still decides to procrastinate further. Such are the effects of addictive gaming. More often than not, these people cannot control themselves and continue to game, even though they realize its negative consequences. Down the road, their grades will drop.
In my own opinion, the Future School programme should be tweaked in a way such that students would not sidetrack for gaming. Such could be done, for example, by only allowing the students who are responsible and disciplined to bring and use their laptops during lesson time.
Otherwise, the Future School would do more harm than it does good. The things that we do on the laptop could also be done at home, and therefore it is not necessary to use them in school.
I have addressed the main problem (Gaming), and proposed two vague ideas of containing these problems. What do you think we should do...?
Since it's implementation, there has been several pros and cons of the 'Future School' programme. The Future School programme mainly includes the use of computers and laptops during lesson time, for the purpose of promoting independent learning among the students, as well as making use of the World Wide Web. The internet has certainly been of help to increase productivity (Microsoft Word, etc) and the broader horizon of research and information available (Google, etc).
Then what are the pros and cons of Future School? I think the main factor and the most important factor would be the responsibility and discipline of the students. Some students are distracted all the time by games, such as 'DoTA' and 'Mousehunt'.
These games could affect the students during or out of lesson time. Some who are not disciplined will sidetrack during lesson time to surf other internet sites such as Facebook and might even game online. Such actions are intolerable as it would cost them to lose their attention in the subject, as well as decrease their productivity rate. This makes Future School redundant.What about outside of lesson time? Many students (evident in my class) come to school early and start gaming. They know its not allowed, but they do so anyway. Some arrive in school as early as 6.30 a.m., and when they realize they still have unfinished homework, they tell themselves, "its time for DoTA. Homework... I think I'll finish during recess." He was not supposed to have unfinished work, but still decides to procrastinate further. Such are the effects of addictive gaming. More often than not, these people cannot control themselves and continue to game, even though they realize its negative consequences. Down the road, their grades will drop.
In my own opinion, the Future School programme should be tweaked in a way such that students would not sidetrack for gaming. Such could be done, for example, by only allowing the students who are responsible and disciplined to bring and use their laptops during lesson time.
Otherwise, the Future School would do more harm than it does good. The things that we do on the laptop could also be done at home, and therefore it is not necessary to use them in school.
I have addressed the main problem (Gaming), and proposed two vague ideas of containing these problems. What do you think we should do...?
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Nature VS. Nurture?
From my own experience, I believe that nurturing is more important than your nature. If the child is taken good care of from young, and taught all the values to be a good person as well as pursuing their interests and training them to do something from young.
What I mean is that if the child wants to excel in a certain sport, the most important would be to keep practicing and training to reach better heights. Although a bit of 'nature' would be required here (physical aspects), as long as we train and practice, we have a chance to excel. If the child is brought up by their parents pursuing their interests or a certain sport or music, then they would definitely excel at it when they grow up. For me, I regret not being able to train myself at swimming since young. I only started to train formally at Primary 5, and that costed me a lot of time and experience. If I had been training from young I woudl certainly have been better.
Even the famous scientist Albert Einstein said that, "Success = 1% genius and 99% sweat." He was a famous scientist that was very ahead of his time in terms of science, but then he was not very bright when he was young. He even skipped school. Such a person only relied on his hardworkingness and only a little bit of his 'genius'. I believe we can all achieve that too as long as we are hardworking, and of course as long as we are nurtured from young to be hardworking, among other values.
When a child is young, he/she will be easily influenced by his/her surroundings. We can make use of this to teach the child the correct things for him/her to learn. Such a method would be better than to let the child rely on his own 'genius' and 'nature', but not his hardworkingness. Next time, I would also do this for my children.
What I mean is that if the child wants to excel in a certain sport, the most important would be to keep practicing and training to reach better heights. Although a bit of 'nature' would be required here (physical aspects), as long as we train and practice, we have a chance to excel. If the child is brought up by their parents pursuing their interests or a certain sport or music, then they would definitely excel at it when they grow up. For me, I regret not being able to train myself at swimming since young. I only started to train formally at Primary 5, and that costed me a lot of time and experience. If I had been training from young I woudl certainly have been better.
Even the famous scientist Albert Einstein said that, "Success = 1% genius and 99% sweat." He was a famous scientist that was very ahead of his time in terms of science, but then he was not very bright when he was young. He even skipped school. Such a person only relied on his hardworkingness and only a little bit of his 'genius'. I believe we can all achieve that too as long as we are hardworking, and of course as long as we are nurtured from young to be hardworking, among other values.
When a child is young, he/she will be easily influenced by his/her surroundings. We can make use of this to teach the child the correct things for him/her to learn. Such a method would be better than to let the child rely on his own 'genius' and 'nature', but not his hardworkingness. Next time, I would also do this for my children.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Characterization: Chapter 5 & 6 - TKAM
https://docs0.google.com/document/d/1AVVxfI5qe9xaAvWgLWa-cniJt4L8wudkvxAIiVmpMUg/edit#
Saturday, February 5, 2011
En Bloc Sales: For Better or Worse?
The Sunday Times,
Home Section
Pg 10 / FOR BETTER OR WORSE, By Jessica Cheam
For a start, let me explain what 'En Bloc' sales are to those who are not in the know.
En Bloc sales are 'Collective Sales', in which instead of a single unit/apartment, the whole building is sold (Usually to a developer/company). So why do people want 'En Bloc' Sales? Firstly, they believe that they would gain more profits (a personal aspect). Then, some estates could also be in need of urban rejuvenation, especially in Singapore where land is scarce. Our land use should be maximized for housing uses, all the more so with our growing population.
So what's the issue here? It's about the dissatisfaction and emotional effect on the citizens who stay in the building. Especially for those who do not want to sell their unit, the MPs said that many residents would experience 'social and spatial' displacement, after being forced to move. Some cases were even brought to court, and usually the minority owners who refused to sell their homes won the cases, but after hefty costs and prolonged lawsuits. The Government supported these residents by passing new rules to clarify the collective sale process including the more strict requirements after a first failed collective sale attempt.
The question here is not about our economy, as collective sales actually are a sign of our progress and quest for land efficiency. We are actually addressing the social aspect of 'En Bloc' sales.
Older folks might not be able to cope with a move to a new environment, and it might also break up the friendship of neighbours and communities forged throughout the years (like me XD). Other factors to consider could include losing the ideal position of their homes and some had settle down for a lower quality of life. Although there are positive aspects as well - Some managed to settle down with a higher or similar quality of life, and could even get an even more ideal location of their new homes. These rule out the physical aspect problems therefore that brings us down to the social problems again.
In the article, there were various other articles written by the residents of the buildings sold collectively. These residents were affected negatively. For example, Mr. Reginald Tan, voiced his opinions when he had to downgrade to a smaller flat with a lower quality of life when his flat was sold collectively (Gillman Heights). They could not get a good price for their flat, and at the same time property prices increased. That dashed their hopes of getting a similar flat in the area. Other residents simply felt offended, and that they had to give up their home against their will. Some residents had also decided that they were going to stay at their home for the rest of their lives without moving. Mr. Alan Chow felt that life at his flat (Gillman Heights) was peaceful, and the grounds were big and exclusive. Everyone knew each other too. But as soon as the government decided to sale the flat collectively, Mr. Chow knew that they would lose the kinship with their neighbours and they would face the problems of finding a new home. They were part of the minority group who fought against the deal in court, but after spending lots of money, they still lost their home in the end. They also decided to downgrade to a HDB resale flat. They also remarked about the friendship of their new home not as good as of the then Gillman Heights. From all these we can see that Collective Sales actually bring about so many social problems when it helps us economically.
What I believe is that the government should always take into consideration the social aspects of the citizens before making decisions, as of the new rules passed for the clarity of the collective sales process. Collective sales definitely benefit our land efficiency, but what about it's residents? They're part of Singapore as well.
Home Section
Pg 10 / FOR BETTER OR WORSE, By Jessica Cheam
For a start, let me explain what 'En Bloc' sales are to those who are not in the know.
En Bloc sales are 'Collective Sales', in which instead of a single unit/apartment, the whole building is sold (Usually to a developer/company). So why do people want 'En Bloc' Sales? Firstly, they believe that they would gain more profits (a personal aspect). Then, some estates could also be in need of urban rejuvenation, especially in Singapore where land is scarce. Our land use should be maximized for housing uses, all the more so with our growing population.
So what's the issue here? It's about the dissatisfaction and emotional effect on the citizens who stay in the building. Especially for those who do not want to sell their unit, the MPs said that many residents would experience 'social and spatial' displacement, after being forced to move. Some cases were even brought to court, and usually the minority owners who refused to sell their homes won the cases, but after hefty costs and prolonged lawsuits. The Government supported these residents by passing new rules to clarify the collective sale process including the more strict requirements after a first failed collective sale attempt.
The question here is not about our economy, as collective sales actually are a sign of our progress and quest for land efficiency. We are actually addressing the social aspect of 'En Bloc' sales.
Older folks might not be able to cope with a move to a new environment, and it might also break up the friendship of neighbours and communities forged throughout the years (like me XD). Other factors to consider could include losing the ideal position of their homes and some had settle down for a lower quality of life. Although there are positive aspects as well - Some managed to settle down with a higher or similar quality of life, and could even get an even more ideal location of their new homes. These rule out the physical aspect problems therefore that brings us down to the social problems again.
In the article, there were various other articles written by the residents of the buildings sold collectively. These residents were affected negatively. For example, Mr. Reginald Tan, voiced his opinions when he had to downgrade to a smaller flat with a lower quality of life when his flat was sold collectively (Gillman Heights). They could not get a good price for their flat, and at the same time property prices increased. That dashed their hopes of getting a similar flat in the area. Other residents simply felt offended, and that they had to give up their home against their will. Some residents had also decided that they were going to stay at their home for the rest of their lives without moving. Mr. Alan Chow felt that life at his flat (Gillman Heights) was peaceful, and the grounds were big and exclusive. Everyone knew each other too. But as soon as the government decided to sale the flat collectively, Mr. Chow knew that they would lose the kinship with their neighbours and they would face the problems of finding a new home. They were part of the minority group who fought against the deal in court, but after spending lots of money, they still lost their home in the end. They also decided to downgrade to a HDB resale flat. They also remarked about the friendship of their new home not as good as of the then Gillman Heights. From all these we can see that Collective Sales actually bring about so many social problems when it helps us economically.
What I believe is that the government should always take into consideration the social aspects of the citizens before making decisions, as of the new rules passed for the clarity of the collective sales process. Collective sales definitely benefit our land efficiency, but what about it's residents? They're part of Singapore as well.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Should Gaming be Considered an Official Sport?
For all those that are lazy to read the article, here's a summary of the issue.
This is a very much debatable topic, and according to Mr. Wong, a professional and competitive gamer, gaming should be considered an official sport.
His opinion is that gaming is like chess, although it's not a physical aspect, it's still competitive and the reliance on strength (mental and not physical) is enough to consider it a sport. He also remarked how chess is recognized has an official sport by the International Olympic Committee.
So, should gaming be considered an official sport? What I believe is that gaming is harmful to the human body in one way or another. The most obvious and common problem is myopia. In the article, Mr. Wong only mentioned the positive sides and neglected those of the negative aspect. Gaming can cause myopia among other physical problems. Excessive gaming also causes addiction, and addiction will therefore cause other emotional and psychological problems. When worse comes to worst, addiction will lead to family problems and even to the point where the gamer cannot take the emotional stress. That's when suicide cases happen. There was a time when a scholar from overseas came to study in Singapore. His future had been bright - until gaming ruined it. He became addicted to gaming, and soon after he fell out with his professor and in the end killed himself. Such are the consequences of gaming, and if there are so many side-effects and problems to competitive gaming, why do it?
I know that this is not the majority, but as more and more people take up competitive gaming and become addicted, problems arise ever more quickly. Mr. Wong mentioned that a few gamers spoil their image and their reputation, and that actually they are reasonable people. Of course, if you can control your own time and your own life, gaming won't be a problem. But then again, most people cannot achieve that. Only people like Mr. Wong who can take care of themselves and at the same time game a lot, then it's up to him.
In the article, he also mentioned how competitive gaming can restrict one's salary. He mentioned that a gamer would be lucky to have a salary of more than 3k/4k a month. If somebody's vision is so small and he would only pursue his interest in gaming, I believe that's not very good. Everyone should try their best to return what they took from the society, and to help everyone else who helped them.
I believe there are more cons then there are pros in competitive gaming, but this is only an opinion. It's highly debatable, and if you guys have any comments please share (Y)
Monday, January 31, 2011
Who cares for Caregivers?
In this article, the author talks about the stress and problems that a patient's relatives would get by taking care of this patient. Although taking care of the patients would bring about stress and potential problems, I feel that it is necessary to take care of one's relatives/siblings, especially when he/she does not have the essential means or the ability to take care of himself. The author has experienced several consequences of these 'stress' and 'problems', like the one where the father of a patient attempted to kill the patient so as to relieve burden and the case where the sister of a patient remains single to take care of the patient. We are obliged to take care of them as they are part of our family and we should do anything that's in our hands and our ability to take care of him/her, regardless the consequences and the problems that you would face. We have to do our part in this society to help the needy. Such actions are highly commendable and will bring joy to everyone.
There are, therefore, measures from the government and other organizations to help and support these patients. For Example, setting up the CPF Special Needs savings system where financial support is given to the patients.
As quoted from the article, "We cannot claim to be a civilised society if the weakest and most unfortunate among us are not adequately taken care of, and their parents cannot even die with peace of mind."
There are, therefore, measures from the government and other organizations to help and support these patients. For Example, setting up the CPF Special Needs savings system where financial support is given to the patients.
As quoted from the article, "We cannot claim to be a civilised society if the weakest and most unfortunate among us are not adequately taken care of, and their parents cannot even die with peace of mind."
Thursday, January 27, 2011
All Summers in a Day
When a person is different from the rest, the students decided to ostracize him/her, let alone tease and mock him/her. I think this behaviour is not acceptable. Even though the person might be different from the rest, he is still your classmate, your friend, and a person living in the same world as you. With sympathy and care, I believe the child who is different can be friends with you and adapt to the changing environment. But still, biasness, prejudice and therefore discrimination cannot be totally exterminated from this wicked world. There will always be people who discriminate others. What we can do before we help others is to help ourselves, and listen to our moral values, and to treat other people equally.
The person who is different (Let's take Margot for example), has to try to fit into society for 'sympathy and care' to work. Although people around her may try to talk to her, she does not talk back and she expresses signs that she wants to be left alone. Margot should attempt at making friends with her classmates, and do things that they will be interested in.
The students have to learn how to sympathize with Margot/the person who is different and show care for him/her in order for her to fit into the society.
The person who is different (Let's take Margot for example), has to try to fit into society for 'sympathy and care' to work. Although people around her may try to talk to her, she does not talk back and she expresses signs that she wants to be left alone. Margot should attempt at making friends with her classmates, and do things that they will be interested in.
The students have to learn how to sympathize with Margot/the person who is different and show care for him/her in order for her to fit into the society.
Autumn
The golden trees stretched along the leaf-strewn road for as long as I could see and streaks of sunlight lit up the pebbled walkway. Golden leaves fell to the ground like snowflakes, and the blissful chirps of the mockingbird were pleasant to my ears. Squirrels scurried up and down, ever so agile. Strolling slowly along the path, I wondered if I was actually in a dream.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Oh, to be young and happy!
For one thing, I do have friends of other races, namely Indians and Malays. With friends of other races would expose you to their different cultures and I believe we can learn a lot from them. My belief is to be successful in life is to achieve happiness, and with a family to live with. Although the survey might not be reliable, the information should be of popular belief (of moral values instead of selfishness). How about spending time with parents? I think 10 hours a week is too little. Some parents might not be very free to stick around with children because of work (and that is their mistake), but we must try to talk to them and spend more time with them. At least 15 hours a week would be good.
(Y)
(Y)
Monday, January 24, 2011
Why Chinese Mothers are Superior
Firstly, I think the author is wrong to say that Chinese mothers are more strict than Western mothers. It might be more significant in Chinese culture, but there are also strict Western parents. And being strict does not always help the child, because it might be a fact that the child is unable to complete the task and not because of his/her self-esteem or confidence whatsoever. If the parent continues to drill the child but he's still unable to complete the task, then I think forcing the child to do things will be futile and will have a negative effect and forcing them will cause them emotional stress as well.
Secondly, not only strict parents will produce 'math genius' and 'music prodigies'. Let's take the American President for example. I do not believe his childhood was as 'strict' as those of the Chinese children. The truth is that his parents divorced when he was still quite young. His father died early in a car accident, and imagine the emotional impact on him. His achievement today is very commendable, being the first black president.
What I believe about parenting is that parents have to motivate the child and work their way towards academic success and the child's interest, rather than forcing them to do this and do that (e.g. Playing musical instruments). From young, even before the child had quite a mental ability to make decisions, parents should expose them to various things, like music and sports. Parents could either get them to learn music, and, or, pursue their interests from young. When I was young my parents saw that I enjoyed swimming and they pursued my interest by training me.
My parents are not like the author. They believe in motivation and not forcing me to do things. This has worked quite well for me and I also believe this is the right way.
Secondly, not only strict parents will produce 'math genius' and 'music prodigies'. Let's take the American President for example. I do not believe his childhood was as 'strict' as those of the Chinese children. The truth is that his parents divorced when he was still quite young. His father died early in a car accident, and imagine the emotional impact on him. His achievement today is very commendable, being the first black president.
What I believe about parenting is that parents have to motivate the child and work their way towards academic success and the child's interest, rather than forcing them to do this and do that (e.g. Playing musical instruments). From young, even before the child had quite a mental ability to make decisions, parents should expose them to various things, like music and sports. Parents could either get them to learn music, and, or, pursue their interests from young. When I was young my parents saw that I enjoyed swimming and they pursued my interest by training me.
My parents are not like the author. They believe in motivation and not forcing me to do things. This has worked quite well for me and I also believe this is the right way.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Comic Strip - Online Learning
This comic is about a soccer team, whose coach was changed to a black man. At the time in the comic, this racial prejudice was very evident. The team refused to play for their new black coach, and because of his skin colour, believed he could not even be a half-decent coach. Whenever the team met, they were always segregated into two groups, the whites and the blacks. These two groups could never accept each other, be it friends or soccer teammates, even to the extreme of acceptance as a person.
Because of the uncountable disputes, the team could not function properly. During their World Cup preliminaries, they lost to a team which they could have beaten easily, and the road became tough. Soon, they all realized their mistake, and all made up to each other and their coach by working together: And released their potential. They walked away with the World Cup trophy.
The theme of my comic is about 'Prejudice', and I feel this is quite a prominent theme. In many parts of the world, there are still people being discriminated against, be it gender or race. The message I'm trying to convey is that as long as we tolerate and show acceptance, we can achieve great heights and unleash our potential. With a united spirit and effort put in, we can do anything.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
'Mum, Singaporeans are very kind.'
Reflect on the issue at hand and let me know your response to this letter.
Some guiding questions:
What are your perceptions of the content?
Do you have any experiences or observations that are related to the issue at hand?
What you found inspiring, confusing, difficult, interesting and why.
Questions you have and conclusions you have drawn.
Comparisons and connections between what you are learning and :
- Your prior knowledge and experience
- Your prior assuumptions and preconceptions
Last year, our class faced a similar problem: Bullying and marginalizing one of our classmates. He was not a victim because of mild autism, but just about his personality and characteristics. He was a little anti-social and not the kind that people would normally enjoy sticking around with. Because of this, we started to bully him and pick on him. This was a rather similar case to that of the boy in the article, but just of a different reason. We found out that these could cause emotional stress to the victim, so we stopped bullying him, or rather tried to curb this problem.
What about the article? I think the story was touching, about how a boy overcame autism and his enjoyable education in Singapore. It probably is a true story, and I find it assuring that Singaporeans are so willing to help and not the kind who will marginalize and pick on people because of any disorders. I also want to know what the students did to help the boy that he became so happy and joyful, and is this forum post reliable (did it happen that way)?
Some guiding questions:
What are your perceptions of the content?
Do you have any experiences or observations that are related to the issue at hand?
What you found inspiring, confusing, difficult, interesting and why.
Questions you have and conclusions you have drawn.
Comparisons and connections between what you are learning and :
- Your prior knowledge and experience
- Your prior assuumptions and preconceptions
Last year, our class faced a similar problem: Bullying and marginalizing one of our classmates. He was not a victim because of mild autism, but just about his personality and characteristics. He was a little anti-social and not the kind that people would normally enjoy sticking around with. Because of this, we started to bully him and pick on him. This was a rather similar case to that of the boy in the article, but just of a different reason. We found out that these could cause emotional stress to the victim, so we stopped bullying him, or rather tried to curb this problem.
What about the article? I think the story was touching, about how a boy overcame autism and his enjoyable education in Singapore. It probably is a true story, and I find it assuring that Singaporeans are so willing to help and not the kind who will marginalize and pick on people because of any disorders. I also want to know what the students did to help the boy that he became so happy and joyful, and is this forum post reliable (did it happen that way)?
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Is it better to have never known something than to have known something but to ultimately lose it later?
Is it better to have never known something than to have known something but to ultimately lose it later?
In my own opinion, I would think that it is better to have known something but to ultimately lose it later than to never have known something. In this way, we would experience things and then, we learn from them. This way it's better than to never have known something because your horizon will be broadened through your 'experience', although there will definitely be a certain degree of agony or depression felt after your loss, but I think it is a worthy 'exchange'. Although you might be a little emotionally affected after your 'loss', the knowledge and experience you would gain would eventually lead to wisdom and your eventual success.
Actually, the decision would have to depend on the situation. Let's take 'love' for example: If you were attached but broke up, that would be much worse than to never have loved the person, because of the massive agony and depression that one would feel when you break up. But if the situation is something where a minor object is concerned, the degree of 'agony' and 'depression' would not be as bad, and since it's a minor object, knowledge of it would not be necessary.
In my own opinion, I would think that it is better to have known something but to ultimately lose it later than to never have known something. In this way, we would experience things and then, we learn from them. This way it's better than to never have known something because your horizon will be broadened through your 'experience', although there will definitely be a certain degree of agony or depression felt after your loss, but I think it is a worthy 'exchange'. Although you might be a little emotionally affected after your 'loss', the knowledge and experience you would gain would eventually lead to wisdom and your eventual success.
Actually, the decision would have to depend on the situation. Let's take 'love' for example: If you were attached but broke up, that would be much worse than to never have loved the person, because of the massive agony and depression that one would feel when you break up. But if the situation is something where a minor object is concerned, the degree of 'agony' and 'depression' would not be as bad, and since it's a minor object, knowledge of it would not be necessary.
Mindmap - The American Civil War
This mindmap is about the American Civil War, which was fought between the Union, which consisted of the free states, and the Confederacy, the Southern Slave States. This war was started all because of Slavery.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Have you ever been in part of a group of people...
Have you ever been part of a group of people who were unkind to one or some individuals? What was the circumstance? How did you act? What did you feel?
I have been part of such group before, and it actually only happened last year. Although it was not really a serious case, it was about the marginalizing of one of my classmates which I shall not name. Last year, our class was quite unkind and 'bias' against this person, and what we did was to tease him all the time and may even play different pranks on him, just because he's a quiet person, and a little anti-social. Except those who were more responsible, almost the whole class was involved in this case of bullying. They did things like sabotaging him in various situations and taunting him by clapping and cheering, for example, if he was chosen by the teacher to go up and do something or say something. In fact, to be honest, I was one of them. But after reflecting on my actions, my attitude changed.
What did I feel? I felt that we cannot do this to him just because he's so quiet and anti-social. He might just be a shy person and a person who does not really like to talk to people. Even if he's anti-social, we still have to respect him as a person and appreciate him as a friend. What's more, he's our classmate. We have to look out for each other don't we? I stopped my 'bullying' actions and actually tried to make friends with him. Although I tried without success, I believe one day when the class has changed their minds and are not 'unkind' to him anymore, he would change his mind as well and might even decide to befriend us and talk more.
What should we do then? We should really talk to him more, and show our care for him. As I mentioned earlier, we can even make him change his mind so that he will choose to befriend us and not be anti-social anymore.
Although my attitude has changed, not the whole class have decided to act like I do and help him out.
Bon Courage! :D
I have been part of such group before, and it actually only happened last year. Although it was not really a serious case, it was about the marginalizing of one of my classmates which I shall not name. Last year, our class was quite unkind and 'bias' against this person, and what we did was to tease him all the time and may even play different pranks on him, just because he's a quiet person, and a little anti-social. Except those who were more responsible, almost the whole class was involved in this case of bullying. They did things like sabotaging him in various situations and taunting him by clapping and cheering, for example, if he was chosen by the teacher to go up and do something or say something. In fact, to be honest, I was one of them. But after reflecting on my actions, my attitude changed.
What did I feel? I felt that we cannot do this to him just because he's so quiet and anti-social. He might just be a shy person and a person who does not really like to talk to people. Even if he's anti-social, we still have to respect him as a person and appreciate him as a friend. What's more, he's our classmate. We have to look out for each other don't we? I stopped my 'bullying' actions and actually tried to make friends with him. Although I tried without success, I believe one day when the class has changed their minds and are not 'unkind' to him anymore, he would change his mind as well and might even decide to befriend us and talk more.
What should we do then? We should really talk to him more, and show our care for him. As I mentioned earlier, we can even make him change his mind so that he will choose to befriend us and not be anti-social anymore.
Although my attitude has changed, not the whole class have decided to act like I do and help him out.
Bon Courage! :D
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Prejudice
I just did some short research about 'Prejudice', and here are my findings. Help me out guys by commenting on them? XD
Prejudice:
Types of prejudice:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Social / Political
- Appearance?
- Religion
The Definition of Prejudice: A prejudice is a prejudgement, an assumption made about someone or something before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy. Usually refers to a preconceived judgement toward a people or a person because of:
o Race
o Social Class
o Gender
o Ethnicity
o Age
o Disability
o Political Beliefs
o Religion
o Sexual Orientation
o Including other personal chatacteristics
Common Misconceptions?
Prejudices are abstract-general preconceptions or abstract-general attitudes towards any type of situations, object, or person.
Stereotypes are generalizations of existing characteristics that reduce complexity.
Discrimination is the cognitive and sensory capacity or ability to see fine distinctions and perceive differences between objects, subjects, concepts and patterns, or possess exceptional development of the senses.
There is a difference between these 3 words, as Ms. Soh said, and I hope these can help with the 'misconception'!
Prejudice:
Types of prejudice:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Social / Political
- Appearance?
- Religion
The Definition of Prejudice: A prejudice is a prejudgement, an assumption made about someone or something before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy. Usually refers to a preconceived judgement toward a people or a person because of:
o Race
o Social Class
o Gender
o Ethnicity
o Age
o Disability
o Political Beliefs
o Religion
o Sexual Orientation
o Including other personal chatacteristics
Common Misconceptions?
Prejudices are abstract-general preconceptions or abstract-general attitudes towards any type of situations, object, or person.
Stereotypes are generalizations of existing characteristics that reduce complexity.
Discrimination is the cognitive and sensory capacity or ability to see fine distinctions and perceive differences between objects, subjects, concepts and patterns, or possess exceptional development of the senses.
There is a difference between these 3 words, as Ms. Soh said, and I hope these can help with the 'misconception'!
Big Fish - Analysis
My analysis obviously isn't very accurate so can you guys help me out too by commenting! XD
Big Fish
1. What does the phrase “a big fish in a small pond” mean to you?
- Person with big ‘ambition’ or ‘potential’ but lives in a restrictive society, somewhere he cannot develop as well or perhaps act as he wants to in his ‘ambitions’.
- Someone who’s very important in a very small place.
2. What is the purpose of Edward Bloom’s tall tale about the big fish and the wedding ring?
- He probably wanted to talk about the story for his wife.
- With 100 Dollar notes fish didn’t take the bait, but with a wedding ring the fish took the bait.
3. How does William Bloom as a boy feel about his father’s telling of the tale? How does this feeling change as he gets older?
- When he was young he enjoyed the story.
- As he grew up, he didn’t like them, thinks they’re boring and annoying and he knew that it was never true, just to tell an entertaining ‘tall tale’ story.
4. Why does Edward Bloom feel the need to keep repeating the tale throughout his life?
- He lived a boring life and he wants to spice up his life with something entertaining.
5. What does the tale reveal about the relationship between Edward and William Bloom?
- It became increasingly strained...
- William believes his father has never been honest with him because Edward creates extravagant myths about his past to hide himself, possibly using storytelling as a avoidance mechanism.
6. Consider the following quote: “In telling the story of my father’s life, it’s impossible to separate fact from fiction, the man from the myth. The best I can do is to tell it the way he told me. It doesn’t always make sense, and most of it never happened, but that’s what kind of story this is,” What stories have you been told that match this description? What is the effect of telling a story in this way?
- Maybe the experience was to understand that our stories and the deeper reality of our lives may not be our truest self. These stories might give us a new reality or dimension that we all seek.
7. Does bending or exaggerating the truth for the purpose of conveying an entertaining story undercut the believability of such a story? Is a tall tale less valid than a straight reportage of the facts? Why and why not?
- An entertaining story should usually have a certain degree of exaggeration for the readers to share a similar experience, and more. A ‘tall tale’ won’t hurt for an entertaining story, but if one is giving a straight reportage of the facts then it wouldn’t really be a ‘story’ anymore, but rather telling the listener what happened to yourself.
Why do we tell story? To spice up our life and make our life more interesting.
The theme: Reconciliation between a dying father and his son
The plot: Edward Bloom, a former travelling salesman from the Southern United States with a gift for storytelling, now confined to his deathbed. Bloom’s estranged son, a journalist, attempts to mend their relationship as his dying father relates tall tales of his eventful life as a young adult.
Big Fish
1. What does the phrase “a big fish in a small pond” mean to you?
- Person with big ‘ambition’ or ‘potential’ but lives in a restrictive society, somewhere he cannot develop as well or perhaps act as he wants to in his ‘ambitions’.
- Someone who’s very important in a very small place.
2. What is the purpose of Edward Bloom’s tall tale about the big fish and the wedding ring?
- He probably wanted to talk about the story for his wife.
- With 100 Dollar notes fish didn’t take the bait, but with a wedding ring the fish took the bait.
3. How does William Bloom as a boy feel about his father’s telling of the tale? How does this feeling change as he gets older?
- When he was young he enjoyed the story.
- As he grew up, he didn’t like them, thinks they’re boring and annoying and he knew that it was never true, just to tell an entertaining ‘tall tale’ story.
4. Why does Edward Bloom feel the need to keep repeating the tale throughout his life?
- He lived a boring life and he wants to spice up his life with something entertaining.
5. What does the tale reveal about the relationship between Edward and William Bloom?
- It became increasingly strained...
- William believes his father has never been honest with him because Edward creates extravagant myths about his past to hide himself, possibly using storytelling as a avoidance mechanism.
6. Consider the following quote: “In telling the story of my father’s life, it’s impossible to separate fact from fiction, the man from the myth. The best I can do is to tell it the way he told me. It doesn’t always make sense, and most of it never happened, but that’s what kind of story this is,” What stories have you been told that match this description? What is the effect of telling a story in this way?
- Maybe the experience was to understand that our stories and the deeper reality of our lives may not be our truest self. These stories might give us a new reality or dimension that we all seek.
7. Does bending or exaggerating the truth for the purpose of conveying an entertaining story undercut the believability of such a story? Is a tall tale less valid than a straight reportage of the facts? Why and why not?
- An entertaining story should usually have a certain degree of exaggeration for the readers to share a similar experience, and more. A ‘tall tale’ won’t hurt for an entertaining story, but if one is giving a straight reportage of the facts then it wouldn’t really be a ‘story’ anymore, but rather telling the listener what happened to yourself.
Why do we tell story? To spice up our life and make our life more interesting.
The theme: Reconciliation between a dying father and his son
The plot: Edward Bloom, a former travelling salesman from the Southern United States with a gift for storytelling, now confined to his deathbed. Bloom’s estranged son, a journalist, attempts to mend their relationship as his dying father relates tall tales of his eventful life as a young adult.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Personal Targets 2011
Personal Target (Language Arts):
1. What went well for LA last year?
Lessons were interesting and engaging. Involvement of the class was evident as well. Although my grade was not that good, I think my progress in Language Arts was quite good and I enjoyed the lessons very much as well.
Due to some of my own mistakes, not much of other aspects of Language Arts went well last year.
2. What went wrong?
Not enough practice probably caused a drop in grades, and the quality of my work declined as well. Occasional lack of attentiveness in class probably caused me to miss out on some important details, which might have caused the drop in grades as well.
The strategy that I used to revise for the examinations was to ‘mug’ and cram information into my head at the last minute before examinations, instead of studying as well as revising often and regularly.
3. What is my LA target for 2011?
My target score for LA this year is A1 (XD), and to improve my comprehension and summary grades which I though were the ones which pulled my marks down. I hope to improve my overall attitude towards studies this year as well as rectifying some of my strategy mistakes (e.g. ‘Mugging’)
4. How do I achieve this target?
I believe I can achieve this target by practising much more often than I did last year. Maybe ‘Reading Rites’ might help? Getting help from friends can work too.
By changing my mistake of ‘mugging’, I would study often and regularly everyday. This probably includes revising contents of the lesson when I get home, and doing extra practices regularly outside of class.
1. What went well for LA last year?
Lessons were interesting and engaging. Involvement of the class was evident as well. Although my grade was not that good, I think my progress in Language Arts was quite good and I enjoyed the lessons very much as well.
Due to some of my own mistakes, not much of other aspects of Language Arts went well last year.
2. What went wrong?
Not enough practice probably caused a drop in grades, and the quality of my work declined as well. Occasional lack of attentiveness in class probably caused me to miss out on some important details, which might have caused the drop in grades as well.
The strategy that I used to revise for the examinations was to ‘mug’ and cram information into my head at the last minute before examinations, instead of studying as well as revising often and regularly.
3. What is my LA target for 2011?
My target score for LA this year is A1 (XD), and to improve my comprehension and summary grades which I though were the ones which pulled my marks down. I hope to improve my overall attitude towards studies this year as well as rectifying some of my strategy mistakes (e.g. ‘Mugging’)
4. How do I achieve this target?
I believe I can achieve this target by practising much more often than I did last year. Maybe ‘Reading Rites’ might help? Getting help from friends can work too.
By changing my mistake of ‘mugging’, I would study often and regularly everyday. This probably includes revising contents of the lesson when I get home, and doing extra practices regularly outside of class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)