A gift of a programme

Today's library, tomorrow's 'googlary'?

Ever since computers were invented, the demand for the internet and computers has greatly increased over the past decade. As people enter the digital era, more conventional things have been often neglected due to the access of the internet. And one of the most common website one would turn to for information would be Google. Google is simply a search engine which would try to find the website with the content you want. It has become so common and easy to use such that the word “Google” has been used as a verb, and when people want to research on a topic on the internet, he will simply say “google it”.

While Google did bring a lot of convenience to people, the use of encyclopedia and research papers to the average person has dropped drastically. One would prefer to “Google” their research topic online rather than searching high and low for books which might be of use. Google leads us to a database of any kind of information we want, research, news, games, and practically everything else. However, the information Google is capable of leading us to is not totally credible and sufficient. Additionally, the experience one encounter would be totally different when compared if we read a book. Although the content might be the same, the method in which we acquire the information would have different impacts and consequences. Reading on the computer does not grant a lasting impact on the reader and would tire one’s eyes for staring in front of the computer screen for long hours. Even though it does brings convenience, the joy of searching for books one need can never be found while using Google. As mentioned in the article, researching in a library there is “always the shocked sense” and always too much information for one to read. Also, Google have changed the meaning of browsing. Browsing refers to looking through things, and in a library context, books which one might be interested in without any prior intention, while Google have no ability to meet that. Hence, we can see that Google can hardly replace a conventional library in every aspect.

While Google’s replacement for conventional libraries might be inevitable, there are always still positive sides about it. Millions of trees can be saved every year from being cut down, and might even help solve to a small extent the current problem of deforestation. And while more books are constantly being written and printed, libraries have to constantly expand as well to fill in more shelves for more recently published books, which might cause problems as well.

Get a JC diploma

I do believe that a JC diploma is a good way to differentiate the top amongst the best. It is given to the top 250 scorers of the year’s cohort amongst the thousand students in the school. A student can be smart, but neglects his health and physical self in order to score well for the exams, yet another excels in sports and did just as well. Who would be a better choice for top Universities? Or a student scrapes an A and another scored perfect. Who would be a better choice? A student could also have fantastic results, yet with a bad holistic record and does not contribute to the school or the society and might have a bad character. The JC diploma thus is able to reward those who excel in both academic and non-academic, or differentiate those with higher EQ and AQ then others. It would help motivate students to not only focus on their academics, but also to concentrate on their co-curriculum activities or other leadership skills to help others. It would indeed help top universities select students who might have scored equally well, and remove some competition over the limited spaces in top international universities, and also help them to select students, instead of creating another entrance test.

I do not believe that a replacement of diplomas for the A levels is a good idea. It might not be recognized in all top international universities and if different schools have different examinations, it would be hard for the universities to differ the intellectual abilities of the students. The very first school in Singapore which has started this system is the NUS high school of math and science. The students are awarded a diploma if they successfully completed the 6 year course and it prepares them to enter Singaporean Universities, mainly the NUS. However, it is not recognized by the world and would certainly reduce the student’s choices of overseas universities if they plan to study overseas. Also, what concerns the students and their parents is: what if the student does not pass the final year examinations? How would the student’s future be affected? Also, one must always think of those students who are unable to even cope with the curriculum, let alone ace it. It could have a disastrous effect on students who are unable to handle all their commitments at the same time, and might struggle to adapt to their changing school life.

However, it could also put on less stress on the students since they are always studying for the A levels and might neglect other aspects. The replacement would free up some time to build up their holistic and character development, which would be highly favourable to top universities.

Integrated Resorts- How far do you agree with PM Lee’s decision? Propose a solution to any 2 social repercussions encountered.

The prime minister of Singapore, PM Lee has decided to set up two integrated resorts in our country to boost the economy. This issue has been brought up numerous times but it has never been passed by the government. But why does PM Lee finally decided to set them up? And what are the most prominent advantages and disadvantages?

Firstly, I personally agree with PM Lee’s decision. I see no reason why the government would refuse to set up “money-making” centres, which ultimately brings benefits to our country’s economy and society. The two resorts together bring about an estimated 50000 jobs, a staggering figure for a small country, which would effectively solve employment problems, especially during times like the recent economic crisis. Also, the local gambling industry in Singapore alone generates about 5-6 billion dollars a year. This shows that the two integrated resorts are capable of generating more income for the country.

However, alongside all the benefits and disadvantages to the country, there are also several serious problems which the integrated resorts bring about.

Firstly, gambling is extremely addictive. While the target audience is foreigners and tourists it is impossible to prevent locals from entering the gambling centre. Hence, if locals do get addicted to gambling, it will create a series of social problems which are extremely unfavourable and undesired. Also, gambling is usually associated with smoking, drinking, prostitution, and several other illegal acts. Thus, the government has to go an extra step to counter these problems to ensure that the integrated resorts are safe and running legally and perfectly.

Therefore, to step up counter measures, I propose that Singaporeans could probably be barred from entering the casinos, or that there will be a limit of money for which a local can bring into a casino to minimize losses. Alternatively, the government could implement a system where the local must have a certain yearly income to enter the casino, such that the player is able to afford the possible losses incurred. The government could also bar people who are jobless or on the request of one’s family members, such that they would not get addicted to gambling. These measures would prevent addiction as locals are not the primary target audience for the casinos.

Also, to prevent illegal acts committed in casinos, the government has to set up a unit to watch over all the activities within the casinos. They might also need to set up a station at the entrance to scan through everything every person is bringing into the casino, such that illegal activities such as drug trading would not occur in the casinos. Thus, given these extra measures to solve the social repercussions, I believe that the integrated resorts should be open to aid our country’s economic growth.

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

National service has been made compulsory for all Singaporeans to protect the country from foreign threats since our independence. However, in recent years, a problem arises where many young men attempt to avoid the national service, and others have criticized that 18 years of age is inappropriate. On the other hand, others have praised the national service for “turning” boys into men. However, are they actually ways where the national service can be amended and improved to prevent males from dodging?National service has been made compulsory for all Singaporeans to protect the country from foreign threats since our independence. However, in recent years, a problem arises where many young men attempt to avoid the national service, and others have criticized that 18 years of age is inappropriate. On the other hand, others have praised the national service for “turning” boys into men. However, are they actually ways where the national service can be amended and improved to prevent males from dodging?

Let us first look at why many NS men actually want to escape serving national service. Firstly, many of them want to continue with their studies and view the NS as a “waste” of their time, especially those who just graduated from Junior colleges. Also, a 2 year break from studies might cause the students to “forget” some important facts they learnt in school, which might be essential in their university life. Also, as males tend to experience late puberty, at the age of 18 some boys might not be fully developed, hence they will not be ready for the intensive training during national service. National service is also a common problem for fresh university graduate men. Fresh graduates, due to compulsory national service, are 2 years older than the same batch of female students or foreign students. The government also encouraged private companies to give pre-NS men a higher salary to compensate for the 2 years where they have to serve the national service. Hence, in times of economic downturn, private companies might turn to fresh graduates foreign students because the salary they are entitled to would be lower than that of NS men. Additionally, NS men have to serve reservice until they are 40 years of age. And while they are serving reservice, the companies might be short of workers, yet they could not employ another worker or simply just sack the NS man. Thus, this poses a problem to private companies if they employ NS men. This, in turn, brings disadvantages to NS men when they enter the workforce.

Therefore, I suggest that perhaps the national service could be shortened to 1 ¾ years or 1 ½ years. This would allow the NS men to enter the workforce at an earlier age and reduce the various disadvantages which national service might bring to the NS men. Alternatively, national service could be postponed to after the men have completed all their studies. I believe that this would greatly reduce the amount of dodgers as many of them escapes from the NS simply to complete their studies. Also, the government should do their part to promote the national service to 17 and 18 year old boys before they enter NS, instead of imposing cold rules like subjecting all boys to report to the MINDEF if they were to leave the country for more than 3 months, and to fine them severely if they fail to abide to those rules. Also, I believe many Singaporeans despise the national service because the citizens have no national pride. Unlike the Japanese, many Singaporeans are not proud at all to be in Singapore. They don’t think highly of themselves and their country, but instead prefer the western world, which is probably caused by the media. Thus, I believe that building up the Singaporean culture and pride is essential, so that Singaporeans would take the national service seriously, and not dodge it as and wish they want to.

Science - a menace to civilisation?

I do not believe at all that science is a menace to civilisation. Science is an unknown fact being continuously explored by man, and even the smartest scientist is just like a child opening the doors to the laws of nature, limited only by the human brain. Science is the discovery and manipulation of the laws of nature, and to condemn science is to restrict mankind’s curiousity and abilities.

Medical science has been the key to increase our life expectancy, greatly. Since the invention of anti-biotic from world war two, many people, including you and I, have been treated with it and cured of our common bacteria infections within just a few days. Vaccination, surgery, genetic engineering are just some other products of medical science which helps improve and lengthen our lives. However, biological weapons such as germ-releasing bombs as well as other inhumane experiments were used by Unit 731, Japan during World War Two on the prisoners of war. With this we can tell that science have many uses, whether good or bad. But science is a law of nature. It cannot think and it cannot perform without the hands of a human being. Hence, it is really up to humans to decide whether to put science into good or bad use, to hold responsibility to control this great and dangerous power.

However, does a destructive power actually equate to being bad? Take the two atomic bombings of Japan in World War Two for example. The US president Harry Truman has been given too choices before he decided to drop the bombs: to sacrifice more than 500,000 allied lives to conquer every Asia pacific islands, then mainland Japan, or to use the newly researched bomb. The decision was simple, 500,000 innocent lives and millions other grieving for their deaths just isn’t worth it. Also, if such a powerful destructive force could be used to arm the United Nations to maintain world peace, I believe conflicts around the world would be severely decreased. Hence, if destructive science could be used in a good cause, and alongside with all the benefits it holds, it certainly wouldn’t be a menace to civilisation.

Scientific research has also genetically improved crops and animals. Most of the foods we eat now have been genetically modified to make it taste better; grow larger to meet the demands of the growing human population. If it wasn’t for genetic engineering the world would be in a shortage of food with the limited arable land the earth has. Imagine vivisection without anaesthesia. If it wasn’t for science to invent anaesthetics many would have to undergo the pain and sufferings to cure ourselves of serious illnesses. Child mortality rates have been severely decreased over the past few centuries thanks to science. If it wasn’t for improved medical conditions many of us would already be victims of it.

Science has also improved our living conditions, and has equipped us with various technological devices and has improved communications all around the world. Technological advances have only been possible because of various discoveries of scientific knowledge put into practice. If it wasn’t for science our knowledge of people living in other countries would be greatly reduced. Hence, science could not possibly be a menace to our civilisation with so many benefits it raised.

Many questioned science for experimenting on animals, violating animal rights. However, should our knowledge be hindered by the fact that animal experimenting is cruel and immoral? Should we take human experimentation over animals if this is the case, like the Nazis and the Japanese did in World War Two? Which would be more cruel and immoral? Refusing to use animal experimentations to develop cures for humans would be childish and stupid. Many people have been outraged by such experiments, yet they themselves have been using the cures once experimented on animals. Therefore, to condemn science is an act of idiocy and to command the powers it beholds is ultimately up to ourselves.

Explain the nature of pornography and give your reasons to why we should/should not exercise any form of censorship in this area.

Pornography refers to explicit sexual content which comes in many different forms of media with only one objective – to sexually arouse the viewer. Pornography has evolved throughout the past decades mainly from print to non-print. It has also become a huge profitable business and has been also called “recession proof”. According to the 2006 statistics, 89% of internet pornography was made by the US, with 4% made by Germany and 3% by Britain. Also, the average age of which a person first saw internet pornography is 11, an awful and obscene number. It is definitely not hard at all to accidentally “stumble” upon a pornographic website unknowingly, and others, out of curiousity, when they first view such materials, it would be very likely to be addicted to it, very much alike gambling. In the same statistics, the worldwide pornography revenues is at a staggering $100 billion, an amount no technology companies, even combined, could make. Much of the income generated is being given to the subjects of the content, mainly the female characters.

While most of us does not realize or experience how pornography have affected the lives of the individuals who perform in them, pornography actually bring about the most serious problems to their lives as well as to their relatives. A woman who decides to enter the adult industry would have to put their families, relations with friends, and more importantly, their future at risk. Many of a time we look down upon such actors, and would refer them as “dirty” and see no difference in them when compared to a prostitute, yet many people are active consumers of pornography. One might argue that it is the women’s fault for entering the adult industry in the very first place. Yet with the super high demand of pornographic materials, despite the hundreds of millions of websites available already, more and more innocent young women are being lured into this horrifying industry – because of the fantastic pay being offered to them, especially when no skill is required at all. It would result in a life-lasting effect since most of these actors have no other skills and thus would not be able to find another job when their youth is used up. I believe that almost no single parent would want to see their children ending up in the adult industry. Family relations are severely damaged when their children decides to enter the industry. And even if they regret joining the industry, many of them does not leave simply because they could hardly find a job that pays equally as well. Hence, I strongly believe that pornography should be censored to prevent harm caused to the actors and actresses. However, pornographic materials have been used to a small extent in the medical industry. Pornography is used when a couple decides to have children without the need to engage in sexual intercourse, to collect sperm from the male’s sexual organs.

Women in mainstream pornography are commonly being treated as “sex slaves”, and convey deceiving messages that all women want to be raped. In actual fact the actors are only told to do so, possibly to be paid more. This however may be very misleading to consumers. Statistics have shown that cases of rape have been increasing at a terrifying rate across the globe for the past few decades, where pornography was first introduced. Hence, pornography not only brings harm to the actors, but also to several other innocent victims who are not involved at all to this industry. Does pornography actually degrades women? I believe to a large extent yes. In most pornographic content women are treated as sex objects to satisfy man’s pleasure. Elements of hostilities are often present to appeal to the male viewers and the women are depicted as though they are lifeless creatures craving for the men, hence degrading them.

Therefore, I strongly believe that censorship of pornography should be firmly imposed such that it could prevent problems, emotionally and physically, to almost all women across the world, despite all other problems that might surface.

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore

I do not agree that political commentary should be allowed on the internet in Singapore. The Singapore government keeps a firm control over all Medias – newspapers, television, radio and of course, the internet. They set up very strict guidelines and they expect all the citizens to abide them. Censorship, fines and many other punishments are also imposed if one does not adhere to those rules, so we can literally say that we do not have the freedom of speech and political freedom, very much unlike America. But the government has its purposes and reasons. If the members of the public abuse the internet and put on false information to defame the government, others who do not check its credibility might unknowingly believe the false information and change their perceptions views, and may result in the change of decisions in the next parliamentary voting. Such rumours are easily to fabricate, very quick to spread around, and extremely hard to correct. Also, the internet is viewed by an increasing amount of people, especially the young generation, from all over the world. People from other countries might be falsely informed upon reading such information. Censorship is therefore strictly imposed to prevent such events from happening. Even though the government has been heavily criticized for their decisions to impose such censorships, I personally do feel that it is extremely important. It can prevent slander of political would-be and current candidates. Criticism will not change the government’s decisions and actions. The capability of the government and the outcome will not change just because of the few people’s discontent. The Singapore government has been running since independence with only one party but has been doing well and steady, despite some economic downturns at times. And even though a portion of the public has been angered by some of its actions, for example, they forced people to sell their private houses to build MRT tracks etc. the general life of the people of the nation have been consistently improved and pampered.

No one is perfect and definitely the government isn’t. The government has been criticized for regulating political comments on the internet because they restrict the people’s lives. The citizens want a government who understands their needs but not to try and cover up all their flaws to impose a perfect image of themselves. They want their government to know what is going on with their lives and the many difficulties they encounter in their lives. They want their government is work for the public and not for the benefits of oneself, and by restricting their political freedom could be a huge impact on what the citizens thinks of them. However, it is almost close to impossible to please everyone in the country. If the government seeks to solve the problems for some, another will soon arises out of the previous solved problem, so on and so forth, and the chain will continue on the on, no matter what the government tries to do.

However, we cannot say that they don’t have political freedom at all. Even though the Americans criticized us of the restrictions, the government is actually very flexible when compared with communist countries like North Korea, China, and Myanmar etc. where information is heavily filtered and restricted and people who do not abide with the government would be severely dealt with. However in Singapore, political content is only filtered thoroughly during election period to prevent biasness and defamation. Also, the government has allowed a few exceptions despite banning many others, and one fine example would be the website by Mr. Brown, “Talking Cock”.

Personally, I do feel that the government’s regulation of political commentary on the internet is actually helping us. Many of the citizens do not really know what politics is and how complex it works and would believe the many rumours which spread around very easily and quickly, and by regulating the internet such unpleasant things would not take place at all. Additionally, many internet users do not know their limits and often go way beyond the line which separates right and wrong, leading to many problems and misunderstandings. Thus, I agree to the government’s regulation of political commentary on the internet.

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

I do not agree at all to the need for artistes to perform stunts to encourage the audience to donate more. If one genuinely is aware of the misfortunate people and the hardships they faced, and is willing to fork out money to help these people, I believe that they would probably not donate through such means. However, I believe artistes performing stunts is used because it will appeal to people who do not understand or care about the lives of the people in need. Personally, I believe that money should not be involved at all. If we do care about the needy, I think the best way to show our efforts to visit their homes and bring them joy and laughter, or also giving them food items and daily necessities. Most of the time if money is involved corruption usually surface. Take NKF’s case for example. Millions of dollars were donated to NKF by the members of the public with the mindset that the financially weak patients are able to be treated. But in the end, almost half of the money donated went to the hands of greedy and wealthy people. Even though in the end he was finally caught, it severely broke the trust the nation had in the organization, and the people who truly suffer from it are the patients – they still lack the financial assistance. Thus I believe time and effort is worth more than money, even though money is still largely required.

Now, let us go back to the topic, artistes performing stunts. Artistes are taught by “professionals” before the shows for the stunts. And these “professionals” are paid to teach the artistes for such acts. Also, all the materials, costumes, props etc. all costs – at the expense of the donations. This amount though, is not really a huge sum. What is much worse is the fact that mediacorp brought in the lucky draw. I feel that this is outrageous and ridiculous. The top prize, which is a car, as well as all the other prizes is bought with the money gathered from the donations and a few “lucky” donators will be chosen to be given those prizes. They would then describe them as “kindness begets happiness” while I think that this is absurd. Imagine yourself, donating $10 thinking that it will help those unfortunate people who are physically and financially unwell, but instead a fraction of your contribution was instead used to buy the prize for another donator. Yes, even though you stand the same chance of winning the prizes and even though this did not occur in the President Star Charity show but in other charity shows, the mindset of the organizers is terribly wrong. If people really do donate more because of the lucky draw, then I think we should think about why we want to donate and where do our donations actually go to.

Also, if the artistes really are serious about helping the misfortunate, they should spend their time to help them out instead of training stunts to encourage others to donate. Or, I believe a live concert or a band performance could really be enough instead of difficult stunts and performances. If people are really aware of the poor’s sufferings then they would still donate. However, personally, I feel that what makes the greatest impact on the audience would be a parliament member of a rather high ranking post making a simple performance. I am sure the members of the public would be amazed by it!

Therefore, I believe that artistes performing stunts is not required or needed to milk the public’s compassion for the President Star Charity show, since if the people really care for the poor and the misfortunate, such charity shows would not be required at all. Also, it would be far better if we donate directly to the organization itself, and not through such charity shows, for you can minimize corruption and all other possible means part of your donations could be wasted, and secondly, no GST and call fees could be charged [every charity show take in more than a million!]