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.
Friday, July 3, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)