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.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)