Friday, July 3, 2009

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

I feel that for one to acquire best learning and obtaining information, we need both the sublime library and the convenient internet.

When we use the internet to find information, the onus is on us to decide which information is reliable and which is not. When we use the information sources that are provided by the library, I am sure that they have been selected with users' needs in mind and that they are reliable sources. Moreover, someone could get information on a subject off the internet and get it from a non-legitimate source. If you use the internet you do have a greater chance of finding false information, however, if you go to a library your resources are limited to whatever books or magazine articles that library might contain. I think that using a mix of the two to obtain and compare different information is strongly encouraged. If you do decide to use the internet to gather information then try to look for sights that may have trustworthy information such as organizations dedicated to the topic.

No doubt that the internet is much easier now. The internet has many advantages over the library or a set of encyclopedias where you can have a whole world of information right at your fingertips. Many sources are available on here and you stay right at your desk instead of looking for lots of books and flipping through them to do your research. However, some of the best online information sources are not free. I cannot afford to buy these services. But the library pays the access fee so that all patrons can use these online fee-based resources. Having information that is simply not available on the internet free, we limit our searching to free sources, missing a great deal of valuable information. Therefore, we should use both library sources and free internet sources for a comprehensive search.

The internet is not organized like a library is. Sometimes locating what you want on the Web is a trial-and-error process. I appreciate the ease with which I can find information in an organized library. I think that another major advantage of going to the library is the availability of getting assistance from a librarian. These people have been trained in how to do research. They know the best ways of locating information--stuff that most people don't know about. More than once, I have been referring myself to the reference desk and ask for assistance on certain information which I had been looking for hours with no luck. You would then be amazed when they show me how to find what I want in only a few minutes.

In regards to morality, many people resort to dishonesty when it comes to the convenient internet. Students or even adults often “copy and paste” information found on the internet and do not acknowledge it, furthermore, claiming it their own. It makes them believe that they can rely on internet for their future work which leads to continuous attempts to do so. This would be harmful to an individual when it comes to exams or tests where one would turn blank out of ideas and start panicking at the fact that it is only the first few times when he/she does his/her own work. Some may brush through them and still possess the wrong mindset.

All in all, it is important to strike a balance between internet and the library and always remember and adhere to the dos and ‘don’ts of an honest being.

Leader -- A gift of a programme

Overall, I am in favour of the Gifted Education Programme. It is an academic programme designed for the top 1% of pupils, identified in two rounds of tests at the end of Primary 3. Starting development of talents from young is very effective since the fact that if we realize our strengths and weaknesses earlier, we can more efficiently improve on or overcome each of them. All of us have a commitment to ensure that the potential of each Singaporean is recognized, nurtured and developed. It was recognized that there are pupils who are intellectually gifted and that there should be provisions to meet their needs.

The programme is a model of excellence in the education of the intellectually gifted. This will be achieved by providing professional expertise and exemplary resources to develop intellectual rigour, humane values and creativity in gifted youths to prepare them for responsible leadership and service to country and society. It also strives to nurture gifted individuals to their full potential for the fulfillment of self and the betterment of society. This is very crucial for a country like Singapore as her only resource is no other than human resource. Considerations of such factors, GEP is definitely beneficial to both individuals and society.

Going through the programme, some parents and pupils have argued that the stress is too great. In our lives, we always have to sacrifice for benefits. “No pain, no gain” is a very valid role model for us to push ourselves and put in our utmost efforts to achieve more and not complain about the tough journey. Sometimes the GEP students do not perform as well as those in mainstream and hence been interpreted as an ineffective programme. However, I think that such situations are very common and should not be blindly blaming the source rather than the user. For example, when we are bowling and have multiple gutters, you don't blame the bowling ball or the pins for being useless but reflect on the way you bowl.

The GEP and its students have been criticized by many, the programme as elitist. The issue of the GEP has been raised many times in Singapore, both online in blogs and in the mainstream media. GEP students are sometimes prejudiced against and insulted by others and portrayed as arrogant nerds and academic snobs who spend large amounts of time studying and have no interests in sports or other non-academic activities. While this perception may ring true for some GEP individuals, as a blanket stereotype of all GEP students it does not hold true as there definitely have been and still are GEP students who have been and are good in sports and have taken part in numerous sports competitions, being “cool” and stuff like that to be respected and admired. I think that they are just jealous of GEP students and just pouring out hurtful words that they don’t actually mean it at times. This is a form of verbal bullying and should be totally prohibited.

The GEP is often criticized to be elitist too. This might be true to some where GEP students prefer to mix with their own and despises non-GEP students. At these moments, it is the fault of the GEP individuals and it is against one’s moral values to do so. Equality and unity is always emphasized in schools and the whole nation itself. To encourage greater integration between GEP and mainstream students and combat elitism and encourage socialization, more lessons and activities are conducted with both GEP and non-GEP students.

All in all, such social problems should not deter us from developing our talents and it is encouraged to be promoted further.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

The Great Casino Debate -- Don't slay the goose that lays golden eggs

I agree with the author’s views on “when we get impatient with slow but steady yield from honest labour and decide to take a short cut to instant wealth, we slay 'Thrift' and 'Industry' with the 'Knife of Pragmatism'.”

The debate on whether Singapore should open a casino has been a current hot topic among Singaporeans. It is infused with issues such as moral values and social repercussions, on the one hand, and economic values on the other, to whether Singaporeans can be trusted to act responsibly. In my opinion, I personally feel that Singapore should not open a casino in her impatience of gaining economic benefits.

Firstly, I think that by opening a casino, no doubt there may be economic merits, but the social impact is not negligible. By making gaming more accessible and even glamorous, it could encourage more gambling and increase the risk of gaming addiction. A casino could also lead to undesirable activities like money laundering, illegal money lending and organized crime. Although one can try to mitigate these effects, the long term impact on social mores and attitudes is more insidious and harder to prevent.

The government claims to address the non-economic issues, but how effective are they? Does this mean that middle- and high-income earners can afford to gamble away their hard-earned money? Truly, it may be argued that the 'mature and discerning' will only be casual gamblers, not addicted ones. But let us not forget, as with drugs and cigarettes, it all begins with the first curious, 'innocuous' puff. More people will gamble if the IR is built, more people will get into trouble, and more families will suffer. This is the paramount and absolute issue for many who oppose the casino. There is no reason to exclude locals to gamble in the first place. Although they again claimed that they set restrictions to the locals and stuff, how far can these deter them from gambling? Having a high entrance fee of $100 a day or implementing the system of exclusions will only help the problem temporarily. For example those financially difficult people could pay others to help them gamble at the casino. Next, so what if they can ensure that some social good comes out of the gambling at the casino? Saying that the money is used for charitable and worthy causes, they would be usually be donated to the needies, the disabled or charity organizations, but who will help those who have lost all their money at the casinos? Looking from this point of view, are we advocates for the liberty of others who want to gamble or are we choosing to sacrifice those who would fall prey to the vice and destroy their lives for some economic gains we would receive? This is a very vital point that has to be taken note of.

Moreover, with all these restrictions and systems to minimize the social impacts, in my opinion, many debates about them will be raised after a period of time the casino is opened. By then, the government might remove these restrictions due to maybe the policy of democracy or liberty and the interests of the majority that the public would be arguing for. However, this is an assumption but it is a possibility. It is an issue that we cannot overlook.

Furthermore, it could tarnish our brand name which is probably the one of our most previous assets. Organized crimes, loan sharks and money laundering could hinder our current reputation of a safe and well-managed city. Besides, our values could be undermined, such as thrift and hard work. There could be rising number of Singaporeans thinking and submitting to that the easiest way to success is to be lucky at the gaming tables. The government is also neglecting the religious objections. Although it cannot enforce the choices of one group on others, or make these choices the basis of national policy, it clearly shows the tyranny of the majority where minority are silenced.

All in all, I feel that we should not be in such a rush to open the casino unless we are really prepared to be willing to solve the public's concerns and potential problems. Those in favour of a casino may argue that the gambling addicts, etc, are in the minority and it is their choice if they want to muck up their lives. I think that we should adopt a more "communist" view here and not leave anyone astray.

Get a JC diploma

So how viable is JC Diploma in choosing the elites?

I agree to a certain extent that the JC Diploma is a viable tool to pick the cream from the crop. In the current era, many students are acing their A-levels. They know what to mug for and are now much better prepared for it. Percentage of As are increasing every year and with people getting them all the time, we are unable to distinguish the best from the better. I feel that the A-levels only gauge how well you are able to memorize concepts, etc but it does not mean you can apply these concepts in life. Although the A-levels have introduced contrasting subjects like General Paper, Project Work and the optional offering of subjects at H3 level, it is still unable to determine the best because students could still be memorizing in general papers and in project work for example, many are acing it and you cannot determine whose A-star project is better then.

The JC Diploma hence strives to differentiate these better students as to get one, students must not only have great grades but also display a wider interest outside their studies. These students not only have excellent academics, electives, and research activities, but also participation and achievements in areas outside of academics like character, leadership, etc. This hence could help to draw a line between the best from the better and recognize the real elites.

However, with the introduction of this JC Diploma, students would definitely be excited to achieve that award and by limiting the number of awardees, people might resort to underhand means to achieve it. Besides, students would also be developing themselves according to the rubric for JC Diploma just for the sake of getting it. We are not grooming passionate leaders from this which passion I think is one of the most vital component of an exemplary leader. Moreover, despite its potential to distinguish the good ones, it could affect the weaker students' confidence and self-esteem when faced with such high expectations/criteria for an award which only the strong ones could get. However, not forgetting the motivational aspect in it but considering those who take it as a threat or an impossible mission, it would affect them negatively.

Considering both sides, I feel that the cons outweighs the pros. When we plan for something, we always strive to strike a balance in those who do and don't benefit, and even including those who could suffer losses from it. In this case, I think that it is unbalanced and bears an unfairness to those who do not benefit. However true that those who works hard have the right to reap what they sow and that deeming others being unfairly treated is ridiculous, we still have to consider the other negative factors stated previously.

Moreover, if we accept this, in the future when many can achieve the JC Diploma, it will be hard to differentiate the elites and more "in-between"s will be proposed again. We are not solving the core of the problem whereas we are just procrastinating the development of our youths, by including such unnecessary politics to them to fight for the awards with one another. We should just let this matter rest and continue with our current system of just O'levels and A'levels, it is one's freedom to beef up their portfolios and achievements themselves, performing well in interviews and strive to be in the best books in the interviewer's eyes.

An extra diploma is unnecessary and I think that current system is perfectly fine.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

How far would you consider the measures taken by various countries to contain the spread of swine flu adequate and effective?

Since the outbreak of the formerly known as Swine Flu, now the H1N1 virus, it has brought chaos to the world and many countries immediately took measures against it to contain the spread of the virus. Are they effective or adequate?

Asia, a continent that has battled deadly viruses such as the H5N1 bird flu and SARS in recent years, began taking steps over the weeks to ward off a new strain of flu virus H1N1. China's quarantine authority an issued emergency notices requiring people to report flu-like symptoms at ports of entry when coming from swine flu-affected places. The ministries of health and agriculture say they are closely monitoring the situation. The government of South Korea has stepped up quarantine and safety checks on travelers arriving from the United States and Mexico, as well as pork imports from these countries. Emergency quarantine system was up and running, with simple tests conducted on people arriving with flu symptoms at airports. Besides Hong Kong had stepped up surveillance at border control points and travelers found with swine flu symptoms will be taken to hospitals for further checks. Samples taken from people with flu-like symptoms and who had traveled in the affected places within seven days before the onset of symptoms will be tested in laboratories. People who develop respiratory illness within seven days after returning from the affected places should put on a surgical mask and seek medical consultation from public clinics and hospitals immediately. This is also implemented in Singapore. Europe and Africa has also taken precautionary steps being taken to combat the H1N1 virus.

The main and common problem in these countries are that people still get infected in the end. This clearly shows the ineffectiveness of the measures taken by the countries. Probably these are the best out of all other alternative measures against the pandemic but I think that the ultimate cause of the continual spreading of the virus is due to our lack of preparations and precautions before even the virus is founded. We have to discuss and defend possible future worldwide problems such as this. I am sure we have learned our lesson from SARS and should have anticipated and prepared for such other possible uprising pandemics. Although we have reacted very fast, implemented measures as soon as possible and communications was well done among the countries, I think we could have done even better if we had prepared beforehand.

Moreover, such measures are desperate ones whereby it affects many other areas of a country such as tourism, development and economy in general. There were many inconvenience made to people who traveled abroad probably due to lack of manpower so I think that we should have planned for all these beforehand. The measures taken are inadequate. If there were sufficient, it would have been much more effective and the virus would not spread so quickly.

Advance Medical Directive Act- How is this different from euthanasia? What concerns or considerations should be further refined so that's not abused

An Advance Medical Directive is a legal document that you sign in advance to inform the doctor treating you, in the event you become terminally ill and unconscious, that you do not want any extraordinary life-sustaining treatment to be used to prolong your life. Making an AMD is a voluntary decision. It is entirely up t you whether you wish to make one. In fact, it is a criminal offense for any person to force you to make one against your will.

I think that it is different from euthanasia to a certain extent. Assisted suicide is a form of euthanasia where the patient actively takes the last step in their death. It refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have been the focus of great controversy in recent years. Euthanasia is more direct whereby it aids in ending one's live whereas the AMD is an act whereby it only stops aiding to prolong people's live but not speed up the ending of one's live.

However, in terms of a life lost, it is definitely similar. Both are not considering the chances of living but ending it more quickly than it possibly could allow. I personally think that this issue holds a ambiguous viewpoints. Some might think that during the course of being seriously ill or met with any fatalities, AMD is the right decision for you so as to end your pain once and for all. However some think that we should live on and cherish every second of your life or even await for a miracle, but not to give up on yourself.

One issue is that modern medical technology can technically prolong life in the final stages of a terminal illness. However, it cannot stop the dying process. In such situations, further medical intervention would be medically ineffective, and a decision has to be made whether to withdraw such futile medical intervention. Some terminally ill persons who are unable to express their wishes at that time, may want to be spared further suffering and be allowed to die naturally, in peace and with dignity.

Moreover, AMD could be abused by people if not handled in the right manner. People might force people to opt for AMD so that they could claim their insurances and not waste money on further medication which are medically ineffective and this is illegal. Although it is a criminal offense, people could settle it under the table without anyone else's awareness and this could avoid the law easily. Hence, we must seriously consider and get to the bottom of the reasons why one would opt for AMD before certifying for him.

Human Organ Transplant Act- How far is it viable to forego consent in harvesting organs? What recommendations and guidelines would you implement to so

"Before HOTA, we could only save 5 lives a year. After HOTA, we now save a life a week. This is the reality of HOTA. HOTA is good both for the dead and the living. But we respect the wishes of those who want to opt out of HOTA. We will facilitate it. Every year, about 2,500 opt out of HOTA. The number went up soon after the SGH incident but has since come down to 80 a day. I respect the wishes of those who opted out but I worry for the poor patients on the organ waiting list.", said Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for Health.

However true that HOTA has saved many lives of people, it is definitely not viable to forego consent in harvesting organs. The act kicks in right after a person is certified dead. One of the main controversy here is ethical concerns. We are being unethical to take someone else's organs and let it be "used" in another person's body without permission. Some might argue that as long as it could save a life, as long as it does not affect the dead which is always true, the ethical concerns does not matter. But I think that it is not right as a person to take anyone's even the deceased organs without his/her permission, it is no different from stealing and this should not be the case which the government also must not encourage to do. Imagine a rich family who is so loaded that it could last them for thousands of years of living, indirectly meaning that taking some money from them would not affect a single bit of their living. If we support the HOTA, we are coming to an agreement where everybody is right to steal/rob from this wealthy family as long as you do it discreetly. This is totally wrong and unethical, so is HOTA. Even if the people would starve and die if they do not steal, it is still wrong as a person, as a man, as a human, to do so unless the family is willing to donate the money. Therefore, it is definitely not viable to forego consent in harvesting organs.

Currently, one must opt out for oneself, while one is alive and able to do so, meaning that one's family cannot opt out on one's behalf once one is in a coma,etc. Moreover, if you opt out of HOTA, you will receive lower priority on the organ transplant waiting list, if you ever need a transplant and this rule also applies to those not covered by HOTA (i.e. Age < 21 or > 60, and Muslims who have not opted in). Looking from these regulations, I wonder where have our democratic nation gone to. It is simply ridiculous to discredit those who are unwilling to carry out HOTA and give priority to those working classes if they ever need a transplant. I feel that this is a very unfair treatment. Besides, it also meant that HOTA can also be carried out even without the person's permission if he had a sudden death.

I recommend that if such cases occur, every action has to be agreed upon all the next of kin of the deceased. We never know if the deceased himself agrees upon it or not. Although some might argue that if he disagreed why did not he opt out earlier? If he opt out, it would meant that he will be given lower priority for organ tranplants if he ever need. Who would do something that would negatively affect themselves? I think that HOTA is playing mind games with the people and forcing and leaving us with the best choice which is not to opt out of it. Hence, I think that we must obtain the permissions of all the deceased next of kin before HOTA can be implemented.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

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

The problem of the NS dodging is getting more common and serious now. NS dodgers are viewing it as a waste of time and hindrance to their life and future plans. We have to tackle this problem as soon as possible before it worsens.

I think the main reason why people in the first place dislike serving the NS is because they do not understand the need to do so. Explanations saying that it would boost our country's defense, helping to keep one fit and also to be exposed to greater experiences and interactions are ignored by these NS dodgers. Furthermore, many are influenced by their peers' complaints and dreadful thoughts about NS, developing in them an aversion towards serving NS. It is somewhat like a widespread cycle where the 'aversion towards NS' virus spreads around the people. Some others find it a hindrance to their future plans such as studying overseas or pursuing a higher level of education instead of spending the next 2 years 'camping and marching'. Moreover, we should ask ourselves how they are able to escape. The ones who truly should be punished also are the parents who find ways and every means of 'contacts' that they have in order for their children to escape doing their NS. That attitude alone teaches those children that they can do what ever they want as the parents alone are the ones who are willing to do anything.

Firstly, I suggest that we implement a stricter law towards these NS dodgers. People would hence not risk dodging NS and exposing themselves to an unbearable consequence. However, this method of solving the problem is not the most effective way. Besides that, we need to tackle the root of the problem, which is the ‘aversion towards NS’ virus that I had emphasized above. I suggest that more road shows, talks, or exhibitions be organized to showcase the many benefits and fun that we can achieve from serving the NS. The main targets are not only the people serving the NS, but their parents as well. If even their parents think that serving the NS is also a waste of time, there is almost no way to change the viewpoint of their children already.

I also think that we should give them more benefits if they are actually planning to pursue higher levels of education but it actually clashes with their period of NS. We should promise him some compensation in terms of what the individual is pursuing after the NS and his circumstances. For example, if he is financially challenged, we should help subsidize his study fees. We must show to these individuals that they are not neglected for spending 2 years in NS instead of going to upgrade themselves in terms of education and other areas.

Lastly, I think that we must also implement a law towards the parents who helped their children to dodge NS. It is really unethical of them to do so. Instead of persuading them to accept NS, they actually encourage them to escape. I think that these parents are to be despised. Perhaps the parents themselves cannot bear to part with their children and thinking that NS is too tough for them to handle. I feel that we must assure them of their children’s safety and probably shorten the period of NS or allow them to go back home more frequently.

All in all, we must not only look into solving this problem on the surface but it’s tackling the roots which is crucial.

Friday, May 1, 2009

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

The debate on whether Singapore should open a casino has been a current hot topic among Singaporeans. It is infused with issues such as moral values and social repercussions, on the one hand, and economic values on the other, to whether Singaporeans can be trusted to act responsibly. In my opinion, I personally feel that Singapore should not open a casino in her impatience of gaining economic benefits.

Firstly, I think that by opening a casino, no doubt there may be economic merits, but the social impact is not negligible. By making gaming more accessible and even glamorous, it could encourage more gambling and increase the risk of gaming addiction. A casino could also lead to undesirable activities like money laundering, illegal money lending and organized crime. Although one can try to mitigate these effects, the long term impact on social mores and attitudes is more insidious and harder to prevent.

The government claims to address the non-economic issues, but how effective are they? More people will gamble if the IR is built, more people will get into trouble, and more families will suffer. This is the paramount and absolute issue for many who oppose the IR. There is no reason to exclude locals to gamble in the first place. Although they again claimed that they set restrictions to the locals and stuff, how far can these deter them from gambling. Having a high entrance fee of $100 a day or implementing the system of exclusions will only help the problem temporarily. For example those financially difficult people could pay others to help them gamble at the casino. Next, so what if they can ensure that some social good comes out of the gambling at the IR? Saying that the money is used for charitable and worthy causes, they would be usually be donated to the needies, the disabled or charity organizations, but who will help those who have lost all their money at the casinos? Looking from this point of view, I totally agree with the writer commenting that are we advocates for the liberty of others who want to gamble or are we choosing to sacrifice those who would fall prey to the vice and destroy their lives for some economic gains we would receive? This is a very vital point that have to be taken note of.

Moreover, with all these restrictions and systems to minimise the social impacts, in my opinion, many debates about them will be raised after a period of time the IR is opened. By then, the government might remove these restrictions due to maybe the policy of democracy or liberty and the interests of the majority that the public would be arguing for. However, this is an assumption but it is a possibility. It is an issue that we cannot overlook.

Furthermore, it could tarnish our brand name which is probably the one of our most previous assets. Organized crimes, loan sharks and money laundering could hinder our current reputation of a safe and well-managed city. Besides, our values could be undermined, such as thrift and hard work. There could be rising number of Singaporeans thinking and submitting to that the easiest way to success is to be lucky at the gaming tables. The government are also neglecting the religious objections. Although it cannot enforce the choices of one group on others, or make these choices the basis of national policy, it clearly shows the tyranny of the majority where minority are silenced.

All in all, I feel that we should not be in such a rush to open the IR unless we are really prepared to be willing to solve the public's concerns and potential problems. Those in favour of a casino may argue that the gambling addicts, etc, are in the minority and it is their choice if they want to muck up their lives. I think that we should adopt a more "communist" view here and not leave anyone astray. I do not agree with PM Lee's views and kindly urge to think twice before opening the IRs.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

How advertising informs to our benefit

In the passage, the author argues how advertising can work to our benefit. I agree to his point of view to a certain extent. Firstly, I agree that there is a useful connection between advertisement and information. The advertisement provides with information which acts to convince or persuade the viewer to buying their products. Considering the cost required to broadcast all the relevant information in their advertisements, the information would only come in bits and pieces, which then acts as an incentive to create new information through research. When the viewer becomes aware of positive effects of this product, example, this health product gives you calcium, protein and other vitamins, being health conscious hence interested, he/she would eventually research on the following to ensure its reliability and credibility, meaning they would get all the information then. Therefore, it can be seen that the advertisement though with the brief information plays a major role in selling a product.

Secondly, I agree to a certain extent that through advertisement, we get information at no extra cost. No doubt, when we watch advertisements on televisions, signboards on the streets, etc, we do not need to pay a single cent by looking at it and broaden our knowledge with the relevant information. For example, myself, an average-sized boy who has no reason for slimming, coming across an advertisement about the ways of slimming down effectively through pills, devices, eating plans, etc. The slimming-ignorant person I was before is never one anymore, after realizing about the many interesting ways of slimming down without any payment definitely. Don't we get information from them at no extra cost? However, think again, if the viewer is an obese person who is very eager to slim down, spots this advertisement, and immediately purchase the product or even buy books to research more on them, isn't this exploiting and manipulative of such people? Twisting the previous fact, where now consumers indirectly "pay" for the advertisements when they buy the products.

Thirdly, I agree that advertising also elicits additional information from other sources. For example, on the advertisements regarding slimming, it would benefit consumers or viewers by bringing attention to their regular eating habits and encourages exercises. Hence, bringing forward altogether the notion of good health.

Next, I also agree that consumers benefit from lower prices of products due to advertisement. What competitive advertising works for the public good is price advertising. Its effect is invariably to heighten competition and reduce prices which then the consumers could enjoy.

Lastly, I agree to a certain extent that advertising related to health will provide a storehouse of telling observations on the ways in which the benefits of advertising extend beyond the interests of advertisers to include the interests of the public at large so as to attract consumers. On the other hand, will the advertisers mention in detail about the side effects of such health products? Ultimately, considering how the harmful side effects will affect the market if they are made known, advertisers would not highlight them. A very obvious example is the rising cases of obese people falling ill after taking slimming pills and demand refunds thereafter. Prescription drug ads on television don't present a fair balance of information about the benefits and risks of drugs, according to a University study. On average, a 60-second advertisement devoted less than eight seconds to side effects while thirty-second advertisement contained less than 4.4 seconds of risk disclaimers and 15-second ones usually did not offer disclaimers.

Advertising is hard because you have to brag about your business without sounding like you're bragging. Talking about your honesty and integrity is one of those areas where you can easily step over the line. Integrity is perhaps the most important thing in business, besides having a product or service that people want. If people don't trust you, then they are not likely to buy from you if they can at all avoid it. But it's important to have integrity, not just because your customers desire it, but because it's the right thing. Concealing various harmful facts about a health product could lead to drastic consequences of the innocent consumer, especially to the less educated and gullible people.

As the Creative Director of a tobacco company, I would not compromise my integrity but try other means of advertising to compete with other companies such as price promotions and making known that our company's cigarettes have less nicotine or tar which are the harmful attributes.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Science: A Menace to Civilisation?

On the face of it, the statement “Science is a menace to civilisation” seems to be utter nonsense. Today, if we have a toothache, we can visit a dentist who can perform a painless extraction or make a permanent filling. A hundred years ago, dentistry was carried out by a barber with a pair of pliers, imagine that. Medicine, through science, has certainly made astonishing strides in improving the lot of mankind. Besides, it also promoted health and longevity, improving man’s whole way of life by allowing him or her to use the world’s natural resources to the full, etc. So what then?

However, yet today, something has to be said on the other side and I agree with this other end of view. The old proverb ‘knowledge is power’ has more truth than it will ever before, and in many advanced countries, we are reaching the position where the real power has fallen into the hands of nuclear scientists who possess the means of whole-sale destruction. Such brain-power often goes together with psychological immaturity and childish dreams of an “international society” in which all knowledge should be pooled. Such idealism, noble in the abstract, is dangerous in an imperfect world, particularly, when scientists reveal potentially dangerous secrets or defect from one political block to another. Today, science is indeed the enemy of civilisation in this sense.

Further considerations are the fact that science has made warfare easy for the unscrupulous. Any small or vindictive nation can purchase jet aircraft, poison gas or the high velocity rifle. Some of the more general results of science are also somewhat disquieting. Crop fertilizers taint the crops. Tampering with nature can produce imbalance or drought. Besides, animal experimenting, chemical research and farming techniques also rose in number. Only the uncivilised would allow such cruelty. But perhaps, the most important danger is that science seems to be gaining control over man himself, as it has produced what we call “modern life”, with all it nervous tension, ceaseless activity, worry and unbalanced living. City-dwellers tend to curse the machine like the computer which has forced them into a rigid pattern of restricted, high-pressure and yet monotonous living. Highly developed electrical entertainment and communication devices such as handphones, emails, etc, have posed a threat to numb our brains as it kills our life social skills and the art of conversation. So has science improved our lives? I doubt exactly so.

Charlie Chaplin’s old film “Modern Times” effectively satirized this tendency some forty years ago and, for most of us, life has developed along the lines he predicted. Science undermines the environment slowly, but still as ruthlessly in times of peace - through the technological developments of the industrial revolution (c.1750-1850) such as the coal-fired steam engine, and more recently through fossil- and nuclear-fuelled power stations. Even more recently, developments in genetic science have brought is to the brink of realising the nightmare scenarios of novels such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984.

All in all, I am more inclined to agreeing that science can be a menace to civilisation. However, it is actually neither man’s enemy nor his friend. Like the jungle, it is neutral. Everything depends on man’s use or misuse of it. Today’s signs are that its worst dangers are at least being recognized. To end off, there is hope for the future, provided science is made man’s servant and not his master.

“Our way of life has been influenced by the way technology has developed. In future, it seems to me, we ought to try to reverse this and so develop our technology that it meets the needs of the sort of life we wish to lead.”
PRINCE PHILIP

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Pornography

Pornography is a billion dollar industry; it is defined as any material depicting or describing the human body or sexual conduct in a way that arouses sexual feelings.

Many talk about the destructive nature of pornography, even in terms of morality. A stereotype way of looking at pornography is that it is a harmful tool which affects one negatively and is strongly advised not to participate in any forms. If you are using pornography, you are not morally clean, even if you haven't done anything else immoral. Objectification of women is prevalent in pornography where they are treated as sex objects instead of a sexual partner and people often look at it as a form of degradation of women. These media erotic fantasies become deeply embedded, commonly coarsening, confusing, motivating and addicting many of those exposed. The addiction is comparable to those of drugs like heroin. Pornography triggers myriad of endogenous, internal, natural drugs that mimic the 'high' from a street drug. As pornography became mainstreamed and pushed the envelope of moral sexual conduct, law enforcement reported that sex crimes mimicking comparable acts were being inflicted on women and children.

Pornography serves as a method to release sexual urges by giving the sexually frustrated a harmless outlet to relieve sexual tension. It could be said by some that pornography might serve to only worsen perversions and pollute people’s minds.

Looking at pornography in another way, it may not be totally harmful but in fact, rather healthy and worthy of appreciation. Pornography may be a beautiful art form. It is very human and portrays one of man's greatest strengths and driving force for live. Pornography also has a role as a form of expression. Pornography expresses human sexuality and represents a side of the human mind that that society otherwise ignores and declares obscene in normal settings. That, of course, is sexual desire. But its expression via pornography, some argue, is undesirable due to its absence of portraying healthy sexual relationships. This is because it displays sex for the sole purpose of pleasure rather than sex for emotional connection with another being. Societal norms and morals also serve as obstacles to the expression of pornography. Anti-pornography proponents have been calling for censorship for decades, which has brought forth the question: to what extent is pornography protected by the freedom of expression? Besides, because of unequal distribution of sexual experiences among different people, it could also be used as a substitute for those who could not experience sex for some reason. Furthermore, through reflecting and encouraging sexual fantasies, it exposes human to the most intimate form of expression and asserts the pleasure of human sexuality which makes human more humane, and enjoy to the fullest.

Considering that it is treated and recognised as an entertainment industry, pornography has no doubt groomed many notable porn stars, serving as an opportunistic and rewarding career for mainly women. On the issue of exploitation of women, pornography instead could arguably help some women to their road for success in life.

Regarding censorship, on the thought of the various crimes rose from pornography like rape or abuse cases, negative impacts that it could cause, it is radical. Anyway, censorship would be difficult given pornography's wide range of mediums such as magazines, movies, art, and internet. Some might argue that pornography may indeed have positive benefits as an instrument of crime control. Studies have shown that cases of voyeurism and rape, molest cases have dropped after pornography became readily available. However, we cannot risk the fact that some react negatively after interacting with pornography and even mimic actions from them on innocent women or children. Hence, instead of censoring pornography totally, we could mainly censor those hardcore ones and set age limits like the current systems in the world. Historically, it has evolved from softcore to hardcore, and it will evolve further. We should stop such unhealthy evolution before it influences all age groups. Earth is made up of humans, if the humans are corrupted, Earth would follow suit.

Monday, March 9, 2009

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

Firstly, considering the existence of the embezzlements of charity funds, The common response from people who are asked to donate when charity shows are on is, “What for donate to these charity shows because I don’t know who are going to benefit directly from them? I might as well, donate to that homeless and destitute guy who’s begging for money at the train station.”

Sad to say, I have that same mentality. What people and the charities really want is not a charity show that showcases different talents performing and flaunting their beauty and sexiness, (almost) ‘begging’ for donations and just plain wasting resources during the 2-3 hours of broadcast.

Rather, we need transparency and accountability in place before we are thrown off with such entertainments which are in the name of a good cause. So what if the most important person in the country paints calligraphy? People need him to show them how the money that they put into this charity show is being used in every single charity. Everyone knows it’s being use to help Charity Organization A, B, C… but how and in what ways?

Before the charity show can begin seeing a spike in donations and overwhelming compassionate response from the public to donate during a 3 hour entertainment show, there’s a need to treat people who part with the money like shareholders of these charities - account for what they are being used for, how and well, who’s benefiting directly from it. Without such transparency and proper accounting in place, nobody’s going to trust a man or even a monk with a few million dollars.

The event used to be a visual treat for the viewers with Mediacorp artistes and international starts like Jacky Cheung and Emil Chow, performing and entertaining for that charity dollar. Well, not anymore. The show has degenerated into an obstacle course of nails, swords, bees etc. In order to draw calls, one would have to risk life and limb, Fear Factor-style. Our very own Mediacorp stars had to perform stunts which demanded physical strength, concentration and lots of courage. One must wonder if the purpose was to raise funds or to out-do one another. Our artistes are professionals in acting, not stunts. Is charity work a justifiable reason for putting them at risk of possible deaths or permanent injuries? Having a high threshold for pain is not equivalent to having a big heart. Worse, the appeal of their grueling acts was ranked according to the number of calls made. I wonder if the calls were made because the audience cannot bear to witness their sufferings and bid to stop their acts, rather than out of goodwill to donate.

German playwright Berthold Brecht once wrote that a man who sees a beggar with only a stump of an arm will be shocked the first time. He'll give his six pence. The second time, it'll only be three-penny sympathy and if he sees him a third time, he'll have him handed over to the police.

Perhaps, there should have been more transparency and more communication. Charity organizations should have considered the opinions of the donors before embarking on the tie-up. Then again, will people want more information? How many of us bother to ask the school children holding donation tins outside MRT stations which charity they are helping or how the money will be distributed? Not that they would have the answers either. I remembered myself participating in a charity drive in my primary school days, and never had a clue about how my one single tin can was going to help. Which shelter home was I helping, what was the total amount rose by the school, how much went into buying medicine or food? These were the questions I should have asked, and not whether have I clocked enough hours for my community service.

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore- Refer to TalkingCock.com/ Mr Brown

There has indeed many issues brought up on the matter of freedom of speech in Singapore. Singapore government had set strict guidelines for the discussion of such matters. Topics of criticism could land you in troubles like fines or even imprisonment. There are hence regulations of political commentary on the internet in Singapore. Such examples could be seen from the www.talkingcock.com , Mr Brown Shows and singabloodypore.civiblog.org.

The Singapore government however do allow blog posts to comment on politics, etc, but it is strictly regulated. Now, this podcasting ban comes after the previous regulation of political content published online. From 'Singabloodypore', I learned of Yawning Bread’s must-read article entitled Blogging During Elections. There you’ll find a glimpse of our government’s regulations on the Parliamentary Elections Act, specifically related to the blogging of political content and the ease at which uninitiated bloggers can be prosecuted in Singapore. Throughout this legal document, three words kept repeating: “No election advertising”. There are also some well-known local blogs run by private individuals who have ventured into podcasting. The content of some of these podcasts can be quite entertaining. However, the streaming of explicit political content by individuals during the election period is prohibited under the Election Advertising Regulations.

Personally I feel that such political podcast or commentaries are not always harmful but actually healthy in various ways. Nevertheless, I feel that we should not hide behind anonymity. On top of this, we must ensure responsible use of the internet during campaigning as the free-for all environment of the internet is open to abuse. According to the same Channel News Asia report, the “government’s view is that people can have diverse views, but should not hide behind the anonymity of the internet, to manipulate public opinion.” This is a controversial issue since most opponents of online anonymity suggest that anonymity encourages illegal or dangerous activity (e.g. terrorism, sexual predators). However, the history of anonymous expression in political dissent is long and both honorable. In the tradition of anonymous British political criticism, the Federalist Papers were anonymously authored. Without the public discourse on the controversial contents of the U.S. Constitution, ratification would likely have taken much longer as individuals worked through the issues. While there is an intrinsic lack of control the government can have over the anonymous, perhaps the idea of anonymity leans more towards the western ideal that is freedom of expression. This might not appeal to the Singaporean government which subscribe to the so-called 'Asian Values'.

We must consider the fact that not all of them are commenting behind anonymity and sincerely wants to voice out their thoughtful inputs on the issues in their most humble and truthful opinions. So in a way, the opening political commentary could benefit a country like Singapore a lot. There are many innovative leaders in Singapore who sought to improve the systems and to give their creative ideas. For systems of a country to be successful, firstly, the government must make known to the masses that they care for them, before embarking on the systems they deem feasible. No matter how good the systems are, if you do not get the opinions of the people and force and brainwash them to submit to it, there will be many controversies raised then. Then chaos will be brought to the society which I think nobody would be pleased to see that. Having such stricter regulations and rules, many people are now reluctant to voice their own views, in fear that they would say something wrong and be landed in any trouble after which. In my opinion, this is an unhealthy approach.

Besides all of these, we have to consider the government’s point of view. As everyone knows, the Internet is a very powerful networking system of idea dissemination. For example once a rumour or false news is leaked onto the Internet, it could spread to hundreds and thousands within minutes. This has to be taken into consideration before opening the privilege of freedom of speech lest such possible false news result in fragmentation of the country.