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...?

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.

Characterization: Chapter 5 & 6 - TKAM

https://docs0.google.com/document/d/1AVVxfI5qe9xaAvWgLWa-cniJt4L8wudkvxAIiVmpMUg/edit#

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.

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)