Chua argues that there is a “…dawning realization in the government that the arts do have an important role to play, beyond the economic” What roles do the arts play in Singapore? How important are these roles?
Music is a form of art and almost everyone listens to music. The young listens to the upbeat pop or rhythm and blues (R&B), while the old prefer the soothing classical. However, not many see music beyond being just another form of entertainment. People do not realize that music does much more then entertain, such as aid in growth. The invention of the Mozart effect for instance, is a well-known example of how music aids in growth. According to Wikipedia, The Mozart effect is “a set of research results that indicate that listening to Mozart's music may induce a short-term improvement on the performance of certain kinds of mental tasks known as "spatio-temporal reasoning" Popularized versions of the theory, which suggest that "listening to Mozart makes you smarter", or that early childhood exposure to classical music has a beneficial effect on mental development.” This explains why pregnant mothers often listen to soothing classical music for the healthier growth of their to-be-born babies.
Arts, encompassing music, painting, literature, drama, play many roles in Singapore today. However, many just see arts as a form of entertainment. Not only does arts the many economic benefits arts bring such as the creation of jobs, as mentioned in the passage 8 by Chua, what many people are unaware of is that more importantly, “the value that the arts contribute to social bonding is ‘priceless’.”
Drama is one form of art today that has started to make a statement. There are an increasing number of playwrights and directors who make plays or movies depicting what they see the world as, often including many social values into their movies. For example, the movie “I Not Stupid” by the very popular local director Jack Neo has reflected the competitive society of Singapore today. He showed the high amount of pressure students today as well as businesses in Singapore face, as well as gave his perception on what would happen if nothing is done by the government to salvage the situation. Movies as such not only entertain the masses, they more importantly serve to educate the public on societal issues. By watching the movie, audiences can relate with the protagonists and hence reflect upon their daily lives.
In conclusion, the arts do play an important role in our society that helps us in one way or another, often subtly, in a way that we take it for granted. Hence, I feel that more should be done to enhance the many benefits arts can bring and so that more people see arts as something more significant than just merely entertainment.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
What roles do the Art play in Singapore? How important are these roles?
Singapore, in my opinion, is not a very artistic country as compared to a better counterpart like Venice. Arts were minimum in Singapore probably due to the government's emphasis on technical education in the 1960s and on explicit thinking skills in the 1990s. The awareness of the need for art was probably stronger when Singapore realised that their skyscrapers and city scape were not unique enough to attract tourists and that they have neglected art education. By Art here, I mean the performance of acting, dancing and music and last but not least, abstract sculptures and art pieces.
As in the passage, Art can sharpen the intellectual of the society, hence allowing people to have a better ability to think, understand and relate to things more easily. This benefit will help to ease racial differences as people are more able to think of the consequences and understand the need for maintaining racial harmony. If racial harmony ceases, Singapore withers too. Hence art is important to the survival of the country.
Art also plays an economic role in Singapore. It adds another feature to Singapore that further reinstates the "Uniquely Singapore" tourism slogan. For example, the durian-like theatre by the bay, also known as the Esplanade, attracts both tourists and locals. This enhances foreign revenue. The growth of new shops and eateries increased employment and expanded the job scope. Thus, this help to boost the economy of Singapore and therefore develop the country aesthetically.
In summary, Art plays vital roles in a country especially our cosmopolitan Singapore. We cannot afford to have racial disharmony and to imagine a place without arts. The society suffers, and so will the country.
As in the passage, Art can sharpen the intellectual of the society, hence allowing people to have a better ability to think, understand and relate to things more easily. This benefit will help to ease racial differences as people are more able to think of the consequences and understand the need for maintaining racial harmony. If racial harmony ceases, Singapore withers too. Hence art is important to the survival of the country.
Art also plays an economic role in Singapore. It adds another feature to Singapore that further reinstates the "Uniquely Singapore" tourism slogan. For example, the durian-like theatre by the bay, also known as the Esplanade, attracts both tourists and locals. This enhances foreign revenue. The growth of new shops and eateries increased employment and expanded the job scope. Thus, this help to boost the economy of Singapore and therefore develop the country aesthetically.
In summary, Art plays vital roles in a country especially our cosmopolitan Singapore. We cannot afford to have racial disharmony and to imagine a place without arts. The society suffers, and so will the country.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Loh explores several suggestions on how to deal with the outflow of talent from Singapore. Evaluate his suggestions.
When talking about fostering our talents, we would often think of other countries – when we talk about Singing, we think of Taiwan; when we talk about literature writing, we think of England. How often, do we ever think that it is possible to nurture our talent in Singapore? More often than not, Singaporeans feel that Singapore is too small to cater to their ambitions. As a result, many Singaporeans have been leaving Singapore is search for a larger stage to showcase their talents. What will then stop Singaporeans from leaving their homeland in search of greener grass? Suggestions mentioned in the article include giving Singaporean "greater political engagement and empowerment" and eliminating the usage of the term of "foreign talent". While these suggestions might just work, I feel that it would be the most effective if we change the mindset of Singaporeans.
Many talented Singaporeans have left the country because they feel that Singapore does not appreciate their presence. The constant emphasis for the need of "foreign talent" in Singapore does not help either. It makes them feel that their capabilities are being undermined and that their abilities are not recognized. Meanwhile, Singaporeans should be given "greater political engagement and empowerment" for them to have a greater sense of ownership. Hence, eliminating the usage of the term of "foreign talent" and giving Singaporeans a bigger a say, can make them feel less out-casted and therefore, give them less urge to leave Singapore.
However, what Singaporeans are more interested in is not about empowerment but about establishment and recognition of their interests. Many of those who have left Singapore are well aware that there is a higher chance they be discriminated in other countries. Yet, they are still willing to take up this challenge as long as the other country provides a window for their talent. Hence, we should try to change the mindset of Singaporeans, to make them believe that it is possible to foster their talent in Singapore as well. The Singapore Sports School is already a living prove that changing the mindset of people can help to deal with the outflow of talent from Singapore. The establishment of the sports school has shown Singaporeans that it is possible to pursue their passion for their sports of interest. As such, not only is there a smaller outflow of sports talent, there is also a greater in growth of sports talent in Singapore.
Stephanie Sun is a homegrown talent and Catherine Lim founded her writing career in Singapore – so who says it is impossible to foster talents in Singapore? Singaporeans have to recognize this and only then, the outflow of talents can be reduced.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Is there a case for affirmative action in Singapore today?
According to John F Kennedy the phrase “affirmative action” means the necessary measures taken to ensure equality of recruiting employees regardless of race, creed, colour or national origin. However in 1967, the meaning of the phrase was extended by Lyndon Johnson to include requirements that benefitted women. As we all know, Singapore is a cosmopolitan and multi racial country. No doubt about it. With reference to a research by Selvaraj Velayutham, from “Centre of Research on Social Inclusion” done on racism in Singapore, Multiracialism is a fundamental pillar of post colonial Singaporean society. By that token the main racial groups in Singapore are accorded official status and are granted equality. Up till now, the people in this country still exist peacefully among other races. This claim is further proved by the few racist crimes that make their way to the Singapore Crime list. Egalitarian values are becoming increasingly rooted into Singaporeans as the young gets more educated and aware of the fragility of these inter racial bonds. Avoiding discrimination of other races based on differences seemed to be more of an intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic. Hence, in my opinion, there is no case for affirmative action in Singapore currently.
Not to leave out the concern of the treatment of women under the phrase, Singapore has not dealt too badly with the balancing of gender equality. There is little discrimination of women today in Singapore. We can all see that women are as strong and capable as their counterparts in Singapore. According to a specific research on “Statistics teaching” in Singapore, between 1986-87, women already made up the majority of the graduates from National University of Singapore by an incredulous 60%. This shows that the Singapore government acknowledges the capability in the weaker sex too and is willing to utilize them in the local workforce by not setting any quotas on the university entry. As the fret over ageing population increases, policies and incentives for women to conceive more babies are also undergoing massive evaluation and enhancement. An interview with DPM Wong Kan Seng revealed positive effects of the introduction of Marriage and Parenthood package in August 2004, “Overall, we have seen some positive results - there were about 240 more births from January to June 2006 compared to the same period in 2005, and about 400 more births in 2005 compared to 2004 . This is a positive reversal which comes after four consecutive years of decline.” From this we can see that the government has not neglected women’s plight after being impregnated and continued to provide reasonable monetary compensation and tax redemption. Hence there is no stimulus for affirmative action in Singapore today.
Not to leave out the concern of the treatment of women under the phrase, Singapore has not dealt too badly with the balancing of gender equality. There is little discrimination of women today in Singapore. We can all see that women are as strong and capable as their counterparts in Singapore. According to a specific research on “Statistics teaching” in Singapore, between 1986-87, women already made up the majority of the graduates from National University of Singapore by an incredulous 60%. This shows that the Singapore government acknowledges the capability in the weaker sex too and is willing to utilize them in the local workforce by not setting any quotas on the university entry. As the fret over ageing population increases, policies and incentives for women to conceive more babies are also undergoing massive evaluation and enhancement. An interview with DPM Wong Kan Seng revealed positive effects of the introduction of Marriage and Parenthood package in August 2004, “Overall, we have seen some positive results - there were about 240 more births from January to June 2006 compared to the same period in 2005, and about 400 more births in 2005 compared to 2004 . This is a positive reversal which comes after four consecutive years of decline.” From this we can see that the government has not neglected women’s plight after being impregnated and continued to provide reasonable monetary compensation and tax redemption. Hence there is no stimulus for affirmative action in Singapore today.
Application Question 2 - Does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Singapore?
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." This can be rather true for how affirmative action against discrimination has worked in Singapore. It can be attributed to legislation that Singapore that discriminatory actions has been eliminated but, do note, only to a certain extent. As of how article 2 tells us that discrimination can occur unconsciously, discrimination arising from stereotypes does exist in Singapore, although unintentionally.
In the passage, Ms Wang brings out the idea of "situational racism" whereby "people discriminate based more on the situation rather than innate character". This seems to describe the situation that we have in Singapore. Most of the time, we choose to believe that we are trying to protect our beliefs but actually, we are acting on unconscious biasness. Since as early as the 1970s, Singapore has proclaimed itself to be racially harmonious. In that case, why is it that in 2005, there were still complaints from Indians and Malay job seekers about being discriminated by employers who ask if they are proficient in Chinese, not if they can do the job? This is an example of situation racism - Employers are making it seemed like they are looking for people who are proficient in Chinese but in truth, they are just seeking for Chinese employees. Hence, discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Singapore in the façade of egalitarian values and requirements.
Unfortunately, such cases of discrimination arising from stereotypes are hard to tackle due to the existence of "self-fulfilling stereotypes". People choose to stick to the status quo because "they want to believe the world is stable and predictable" as mentioned by the passage. By behaving what they are perceived to be, they actually find it easier to make decisions. For example, when it comes to picking representatives for a sports competition, a typical class in Singapore would instinctively fill up the names of the guys first as guys are perceived to be stronger and more fit. Meanwhile, the girls in the class would choose to take the backseat because they fear that challenging the status quo would mean disgrace and blame if they are unable to meet the standards they had tried to set for themselves.
In conclusion, discrimination arising from stereotypes exists in Singapore and from the likes of it, neither would it seem easy to be tackled.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
"Women will never enjoy the same rights as men." Do you agree?(Cam, Nov ' 06)
I do not agree that women will never enjoy the same rights as men. If we were in the past, I would say that women might not be able to enjoy the same rights as women as men. However, in the present context, i would say that it is possible for women to enjoy same rights as men. In fact we are already seeing it happen and gradually improving. Women have been enjoying same rights in different areas.
In the society, women have achieved more equality and their status are improving. More and more women are allowed to enter workforce instead of staying at home to be a housewife, taking care of the family. In Singapore, the government have been trying hard to woo back non- working women due to the need to take care of women as the government feels that by adding in these in the workforce, it would help in our economy. Thus we can see that the women are allowed to enjoy the same rights as men to work, and it is possible that it happens
In addition, in the workforce, women have increasing opportunities to not only work but also hold managerial positions. They hold the same rights to become executives. In the case of South Africa, thw women in executive position have been increasing. According to the Business women Asscoiation 2007 census of South African women. There were 298 women directorsholding 385 directorships. The number of women of CEOs and chairs have increase0.02%. This has shown that women are increasingly able to gain rights to me in a more powerful position than men. Therefore I would say that in time to come, not only would women be able to enjoy same rights as men but a larger amount of women too.
In the political arena, the number of women involved in the politics area have increased. Some countries have increasing number of women in the cabinet. Just this year, Spanish new cabinet has nine women and eight men. This is the first time women have outnumbered men. Thus, we can see from this example that it is possible not only for women to enter into areas that they have never done it before and also to enjoy the same rights if not more in these areas.
In conclusion, I do not agree that women will never be able to enjoy the same rights. Women's status have been getting better over the years with the efforts put in by associations to push for further equality. Hence, in my opinion, in the years to come, women might be able to enjoy same rights as men in more areas.
In the society, women have achieved more equality and their status are improving. More and more women are allowed to enter workforce instead of staying at home to be a housewife, taking care of the family. In Singapore, the government have been trying hard to woo back non- working women due to the need to take care of women as the government feels that by adding in these in the workforce, it would help in our economy. Thus we can see that the women are allowed to enjoy the same rights as men to work, and it is possible that it happens
In addition, in the workforce, women have increasing opportunities to not only work but also hold managerial positions. They hold the same rights to become executives. In the case of South Africa, thw women in executive position have been increasing. According to the Business women Asscoiation 2007 census of South African women. There were 298 women directorsholding 385 directorships. The number of women of CEOs and chairs have increase0.02%. This has shown that women are increasingly able to gain rights to me in a more powerful position than men. Therefore I would say that in time to come, not only would women be able to enjoy same rights as men but a larger amount of women too.
In the political arena, the number of women involved in the politics area have increased. Some countries have increasing number of women in the cabinet. Just this year, Spanish new cabinet has nine women and eight men. This is the first time women have outnumbered men. Thus, we can see from this example that it is possible not only for women to enter into areas that they have never done it before and also to enjoy the same rights if not more in these areas.
In conclusion, I do not agree that women will never be able to enjoy the same rights. Women's status have been getting better over the years with the efforts put in by associations to push for further equality. Hence, in my opinion, in the years to come, women might be able to enjoy same rights as men in more areas.
the world of the future will be a woman's world. what are your views?
i think the world of the future will be a woman's world.
Girls get better grades at school than boys, and in most developed countries more women than men go to university. Women, thus, are better equipped for the workforce in the 21st century. In Britain far more women than men are now training to become doctors.
Furthermore, the increase in female employment in the rich world has been the main driving force of growth in the past couple of decades. although there are fewer women in high positions in top companies, women will have more opportunities to prove their productivity in the coming years. this will increase their income and women will get paid more.
many people think that if women were to work and rule the world, they will neglect their traditional responsiblilities, such as doing housework and minding the children, leading to a lower birth rate. however, developed countries where more women work, such as Sweden and America, actually have higher birth rates than Japan and Italy, where women stay at home.
therefore, as women has the potential to contribute to the society and at home, the future wll be a woman's world.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723
Girls get better grades at school than boys, and in most developed countries more women than men go to university. Women, thus, are better equipped for the workforce in the 21st century. In Britain far more women than men are now training to become doctors.
Furthermore, the increase in female employment in the rich world has been the main driving force of growth in the past couple of decades. although there are fewer women in high positions in top companies, women will have more opportunities to prove their productivity in the coming years. this will increase their income and women will get paid more.
many people think that if women were to work and rule the world, they will neglect their traditional responsiblilities, such as doing housework and minding the children, leading to a lower birth rate. however, developed countries where more women work, such as Sweden and America, actually have higher birth rates than Japan and Italy, where women stay at home.
therefore, as women has the potential to contribute to the society and at home, the future wll be a woman's world.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723
'Women will never enjoy the same rights as men.' Do you agree? (Cam, Nov '06)
In my opinion, I agree to a large extent that women will never enjoy the same rights as men. Women can enjoy the same rights as men if only more can be done to improve the status of women today. Although much has been done since the past to demolish the traditional thinking that women should remain at home as only mothers and wives, and though today, some women do enjoy the same rights as men, this is only seen in some areas and in special circumstances.
Women do not always enjoy the same rights as men. As stated by Diane Siesly in Article 3, women’s contributions are being devalued as notion of men being the full-time breadwinner and his need to provide a family remains entrenched, as such, women’s achievements and efforts are not being recognized. This is supported by http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/WomensRights.asp#WomenWorkMoreThanMenButArePaidLess, where it is mentioned that "According to Inter Press Service, “On a global scale, women cultivate more than half of all the food that is grown. In sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, they produce up to 80 percent of basic foodstuffs. In Asia, they account for around 50 percent of food production. In Latin America, they are mainly engaged in subsistence farming, horticulture, poultry and raising small livestock.” Yet women often get little recognition for that. In fact, many go unpaid. It is very difficult for these women to get the financial resources required to buy equipment etc, as many societies still do not accept, or realize, that there is a change in the “traditional” roles."
Although conditions are improving, many women are still disadvantaged and discriminated against. As shown from a report done on the gender equality and discrimination in Singapore, http://www.warrenssingapore.com/un_report.htm, there are still fewer women in positions of power and there is still quite a significant difference between wages of the different genders. Even though the government has done much to improve the economic and social status of Singapore as a whole by raising employment rates and GDP, men have benefited more as compared to women.
Hence, I feel that much more can still be done for women to improve their status, especially through the media, to break down stereotypes of women.
Women do not always enjoy the same rights as men. As stated by Diane Siesly in Article 3, women’s contributions are being devalued as notion of men being the full-time breadwinner and his need to provide a family remains entrenched, as such, women’s achievements and efforts are not being recognized. This is supported by http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/WomensRights.asp#WomenWorkMoreThanMenButArePaidLess, where it is mentioned that "According to Inter Press Service, “On a global scale, women cultivate more than half of all the food that is grown. In sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, they produce up to 80 percent of basic foodstuffs. In Asia, they account for around 50 percent of food production. In Latin America, they are mainly engaged in subsistence farming, horticulture, poultry and raising small livestock.” Yet women often get little recognition for that. In fact, many go unpaid. It is very difficult for these women to get the financial resources required to buy equipment etc, as many societies still do not accept, or realize, that there is a change in the “traditional” roles."
Although conditions are improving, many women are still disadvantaged and discriminated against. As shown from a report done on the gender equality and discrimination in Singapore, http://www.warrenssingapore.com/un_report.htm, there are still fewer women in positions of power and there is still quite a significant difference between wages of the different genders. Even though the government has done much to improve the economic and social status of Singapore as a whole by raising employment rates and GDP, men have benefited more as compared to women.
Hence, I feel that much more can still be done for women to improve their status, especially through the media, to break down stereotypes of women.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Extrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation is predominantly used in Singapore. On the roads, for example, more Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantries are being introduced to deter traffic congestion and to motivate people to take public transport. In the steps taken to address the decreasing birth rate, the Singapore government has even used cash bonuses to give couples the incentive to have babies. In Singapore, almost everything is played by bonuses and fines – If you listen to the government, you will benefit; if you do not, you have to pay for it. So how does this set of extrinsic motivation exactly impact us?
One way extrinsic motivation can impact us is by resulting in greater inequality in the society. If you have read the comics strip CHEW ON IT!, published in The Sunday Times today, you would have seen it comment on the drop in bus-lane offences, following the installation of cameras on buses to catch errant drivers. According to the comic strip, the drop is not because many motorists now abide by the law but in fact, many of them now cannot afford to drive. Although this is not necessarily true, what the cartoonist is implying is that such external interventions may result in disadvantages instead. For example, ERP, high penalties, road tax, etc is making driving costly so expensive that it is unaffordable to the lower income group. So while the higher income group, who remain much unaffected by such costs, can continue with their lifestyle, the poorer ones are put at a greater disadvantaged and have to suffer much inconvenience. Hence, such extrinsic motivation in the form of fines would cause much unfairness to the lower income group as they are the ones who would have to undertake the greatest blow when it is probably not their fault to begin with.
Also, extrinsic motivation can "disarmed our inner moral compasses", as mentioned by Lydia Lim in the passage. The fact that the installation of cameras on buses is necessary to deter motorists from committing bus-lane offences just speaks it all. The same goes for the fact that the implementation of the Community Involvement Programme is needed to 'force' students to contribute to the society. Hence, extrinsic motivation plays a huge part in determining our actions. In other words, many Singaporeans are only doing actions only if they stand to benefit from it and not base on their moral compasses. Hence, extrinsic motivation has blind Singaporeans with realistic incentives and makes them fail to see the moral purpose of doing so.
In conclusion, extrinsic motivation may have been successful in reaching its aims but it also has several adverse sidekick impacts.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Extrinsic vs Intrinsic motivation
Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society of using such a mode of motivation?
In my opinion, Singapore predominantly uses extrinsic motivation.
As the author has mentioned, people have been "paid" to have children. Just a few years back, Singapore has implemented the "Baby Bonus scheme". Incentives and regulations has been given and changed to attract more couples to have more babies. An example would be tax rebate of $10K for the second child, $20K for the third child and the same for the fourth child. There are increase in the number of days of childcare leave for parents too. As of this year, we can see a slight rise in the number of babies born. Thus we can see that Singaporeans would need a "push" to see the need of having babies in their urbanised lifestyle.
Another distinct example would be how Singapore is a "fine" country. Singapore has been known to fine its own citizens to discourage them from not flushing the toilets and littering. Without these fines people would not be bothered or have no motivation to keep our environment clean. However, I feel that things like keeping our environment needs intrinsic motivation too. Although Singapore has implemented the fines, we can still see that people still do litter. Therefore, I feel that Singaporeans will need to have motivation in themselves to stop doing actions that destroys our clean and green environment.
We can see that the implementation of the fines have stop most of the littering problems from happening, thus in general, Singaporeans still need this extrinsic motivation.
I do agree to what Jinyi has said about the donations and prizes. By donating, people will stand chance to win prizes, thus, people who donate would have the main aim in mind to win those prizes but not to help those needy. The fact that these organisations have put in the "prizes" factor, would most probably due to them forseeing that those prizes would attract people to donate. Therefore, we see the extrinsic motivation in the donars of Singapore here again.
Just like what the author has said, this extrinsic motivations "invites calculativeness, discipline and professionalism." The "Kiasuism" concept of Singaporeans has proven the fact that without money being one of the factors, they would not have the drive to do things. People who want to earn more money would go in professionalism. The govenment would make policies aimed at using extrinsic motivation. I feel that by the ebd of everything it builds up a facade in individuals and brings about dishonesty. Just like what Jinyi has said, everybody will try to mask his or her true intentions.
In conclusion, Singapore uses extrinsic motivation predominantly.
In my opinion, Singapore predominantly uses extrinsic motivation.
As the author has mentioned, people have been "paid" to have children. Just a few years back, Singapore has implemented the "Baby Bonus scheme". Incentives and regulations has been given and changed to attract more couples to have more babies. An example would be tax rebate of $10K for the second child, $20K for the third child and the same for the fourth child. There are increase in the number of days of childcare leave for parents too. As of this year, we can see a slight rise in the number of babies born. Thus we can see that Singaporeans would need a "push" to see the need of having babies in their urbanised lifestyle.
Another distinct example would be how Singapore is a "fine" country. Singapore has been known to fine its own citizens to discourage them from not flushing the toilets and littering. Without these fines people would not be bothered or have no motivation to keep our environment clean. However, I feel that things like keeping our environment needs intrinsic motivation too. Although Singapore has implemented the fines, we can still see that people still do litter. Therefore, I feel that Singaporeans will need to have motivation in themselves to stop doing actions that destroys our clean and green environment.
We can see that the implementation of the fines have stop most of the littering problems from happening, thus in general, Singaporeans still need this extrinsic motivation.
I do agree to what Jinyi has said about the donations and prizes. By donating, people will stand chance to win prizes, thus, people who donate would have the main aim in mind to win those prizes but not to help those needy. The fact that these organisations have put in the "prizes" factor, would most probably due to them forseeing that those prizes would attract people to donate. Therefore, we see the extrinsic motivation in the donars of Singapore here again.
Just like what the author has said, this extrinsic motivations "invites calculativeness, discipline and professionalism." The "Kiasuism" concept of Singaporeans has proven the fact that without money being one of the factors, they would not have the drive to do things. People who want to earn more money would go in professionalism. The govenment would make policies aimed at using extrinsic motivation. I feel that by the ebd of everything it builds up a facade in individuals and brings about dishonesty. Just like what Jinyi has said, everybody will try to mask his or her true intentions.
In conclusion, Singapore uses extrinsic motivation predominantly.
Extrinsic vs Intrinsic motivation
Lim discusses the pros and cons of using extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society of using such a mode of motivation?
i think both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are used in Singapore. Extrinsic means it is not from within, from external aid. Intrinsic means it belong to a thing by its very nature.
In Singapore, many people donated generously to people are unfortunate. An example is the conjoined Nepalese twins girls who underwent an operation in Singapore. Singaporeans responded to their plight with overwhelming generosity - more than $660000 was raised from public donations, and doctors who were on the surgical team waived their charges. This shows that Singaporeans are able to respond to those who are in need and therefore, it is intrinsic motivation.
On the other hand, sometimes, Singaporeans may need a little push to make us realise that we ought to do more to help those who are in need. Throughout the years, there are many charity shows that feature artist braving dangerous obstacles to make viewers realise that there are people out there who are willing to help those in need. Viewers, touched by these acts, will be more willing to donate. This shows Singaporeans as needing a boost to make us donate.
I feel that no matter what approach, as long as the needy get the help they need, it's fine.
i think both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are used in Singapore. Extrinsic means it is not from within, from external aid. Intrinsic means it belong to a thing by its very nature.
In Singapore, many people donated generously to people are unfortunate. An example is the conjoined Nepalese twins girls who underwent an operation in Singapore. Singaporeans responded to their plight with overwhelming generosity - more than $660000 was raised from public donations, and doctors who were on the surgical team waived their charges. This shows that Singaporeans are able to respond to those who are in need and therefore, it is intrinsic motivation.
On the other hand, sometimes, Singaporeans may need a little push to make us realise that we ought to do more to help those who are in need. Throughout the years, there are many charity shows that feature artist braving dangerous obstacles to make viewers realise that there are people out there who are willing to help those in need. Viewers, touched by these acts, will be more willing to donate. This shows Singaporeans as needing a boost to make us donate.
I feel that no matter what approach, as long as the needy get the help they need, it's fine.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore of using such a mode of motivation?
Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society of using such a mode of motivation?
In my opinion, I think extrinsic motivation is predominantly used in Singapore. This mode of motivation essentially attracts both positive and negative social impacts on the society. I will further elaborate on the possible impacts in the following paragraphs.
In the past few years, the local artistes risked their lives to perform highly dangerous stunts in order to get Singaporeans to make donation calls to National Kidney Foundation(NKF). The organization of such events raises substantial amount of money from the public and revenue from one such event makes up more than 50% of the total donation received throughout the year. On top of that, there would be luxurious prizes e.g. Nissan Cefiro to be won. This eventually gave Singaporeans a mindset - By donating, I stand a chance to win prizes that can recuperate my losses! And my donation would help the needy. According to social psychologists in the article, external incentives cuts away at people's inner motivation for doing what they consider worthwhile. Extrinsic motivation will fuel a negative growing phenomenon in our country-Altruistic values are diminishing. This means that we are in great vulnerablility to live in a society where by compassion is devoid and everyone wears a mask above his true intentions, and Mother Teresa no longer influential and modelled after. This induces a chilling effect on the souls of the society thereby realising the phrase "No money, no talk.".
However, despite the negative impact extrinsic values bring about in our country, it still has its redeemable points. In an economic point of view, monetizing motivation can encourage a competitive arena such that goods of higher calibre will be produced. Take for example, the annual Singapore MAXA manufacturing award. The award aims to recognise outstanding efforts in the Singapore manufacturing industry. Organisations will also learn how their practices measure up to global best practices. This incentive maintains Singapore's industrial progress at a global standard, hence introducing professionalism into the country. As we can see now, Singapore is increasingly regarded as a business hub where many foreigners seek to invest in due to our highly skilled workforce. If there is no incentives of businesses and such, companies would have no motivation to train and upgrade the workers. In this context we can see for ourselves how important professionalism is for a small country like Singapore. It sets us apart from other rising powers like India and China.
In conclusion, extrinsic motivation serves good and bad for Singapore. With appropriate manipulation of using extrinsic motivation, Singapore can effectively reduce the negative impacts and hopefully amplify the potential positive impacts for the goodsake of the country.
In my opinion, I think extrinsic motivation is predominantly used in Singapore. This mode of motivation essentially attracts both positive and negative social impacts on the society. I will further elaborate on the possible impacts in the following paragraphs.
In the past few years, the local artistes risked their lives to perform highly dangerous stunts in order to get Singaporeans to make donation calls to National Kidney Foundation(NKF). The organization of such events raises substantial amount of money from the public and revenue from one such event makes up more than 50% of the total donation received throughout the year. On top of that, there would be luxurious prizes e.g. Nissan Cefiro to be won. This eventually gave Singaporeans a mindset - By donating, I stand a chance to win prizes that can recuperate my losses! And my donation would help the needy. According to social psychologists in the article, external incentives cuts away at people's inner motivation for doing what they consider worthwhile. Extrinsic motivation will fuel a negative growing phenomenon in our country-Altruistic values are diminishing. This means that we are in great vulnerablility to live in a society where by compassion is devoid and everyone wears a mask above his true intentions, and Mother Teresa no longer influential and modelled after. This induces a chilling effect on the souls of the society thereby realising the phrase "No money, no talk.".
However, despite the negative impact extrinsic values bring about in our country, it still has its redeemable points. In an economic point of view, monetizing motivation can encourage a competitive arena such that goods of higher calibre will be produced. Take for example, the annual Singapore MAXA manufacturing award. The award aims to recognise outstanding efforts in the Singapore manufacturing industry. Organisations will also learn how their practices measure up to global best practices. This incentive maintains Singapore's industrial progress at a global standard, hence introducing professionalism into the country. As we can see now, Singapore is increasingly regarded as a business hub where many foreigners seek to invest in due to our highly skilled workforce. If there is no incentives of businesses and such, companies would have no motivation to train and upgrade the workers. In this context we can see for ourselves how important professionalism is for a small country like Singapore. It sets us apart from other rising powers like India and China.
In conclusion, extrinsic motivation serves good and bad for Singapore. With appropriate manipulation of using extrinsic motivation, Singapore can effectively reduce the negative impacts and hopefully amplify the potential positive impacts for the goodsake of the country.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Do the past and present offer any guidance for the future? (2004) (+Sc + Politics + Economics)
In my opinion, I agree that the past and present offer guidance for the future. Lessons learnt from the past, as well as from our everyday lives allow us to prevent such incidents from happening again as well as make us better prepared to tackle similar obstacles faced in the future.
Take for example the case of the The National Kidney Foundation Singapore scandal which happened in July 2005, whereby the Chief Executive Officer T.T Durai and its board of directors misused the funds donated to the NKF for their own benefits. This caused a massive backlash and fallout of donors to the charity, and subsequently resulted in the resignation of Chief Executive Officer T.T Durai and its board of directors. A similar case happened recently whereby th former head of Ren Ci Hospital, Venerable Shi Ming Yi, a Buddhist monk, has been charged with forgery, conspiracy and misuse of funds.
These incidents caused widespread feelings of outrage, anger, and betrayal among the public. Moreover, the scandals raised questions about the level of transparency in other institutions in Singapore. This has led to better awareness on the public’s part as to where funds donated go to and hence the public would be more careful when donating money to charities in the future.
Another example would be the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950, sparked by a court decision to return custody of Maria, then aged 13, to her biological Catholic Dutch mother after she had been raised as a Muslim by her adoptive Malay family. Eighteen people were killed in those riots. In addition, what happened in India in 1947-48, just three years earlier when the British Raj began to be dismantled and people long suppressed found utterance. Singapore's founding generation witnessed Jawaharlal Nehru - a much admired figure in the anti-colonial movement and a forceful advocate of secularism - being stunned by the absolute ferocity of the Hindu-Muslim riots that accompanied the partition of British India. An estimated one million people died.
As stated in the article Secularism - not from theory but bloody history, “And in 1992, the Ministry of Education reminded mission schools of Article 16 (3) of the Singapore Constitution, which states: 'No person shall be required to receive instruction in or take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.' Students cannot be compelled to attend religious service, mission school principals were told. Why is it necessary to send such strong, unambiguous signals? Because religion is 'a very profound and fundamental tectonic divide', as MM Lee put it once. He did not learn that from Prof Rawls.” This has showed that Singapore has learnt from the past that religion is a very sensitive issue especially for the survival of peace in a multi-racial and multi-religion country in Singapore.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that the past and present offer precious lessons and guidance for us to follow and not to make similar mistakes again.
Take for example the case of the The National Kidney Foundation Singapore scandal which happened in July 2005, whereby the Chief Executive Officer T.T Durai and its board of directors misused the funds donated to the NKF for their own benefits. This caused a massive backlash and fallout of donors to the charity, and subsequently resulted in the resignation of Chief Executive Officer T.T Durai and its board of directors. A similar case happened recently whereby th former head of Ren Ci Hospital, Venerable Shi Ming Yi, a Buddhist monk, has been charged with forgery, conspiracy and misuse of funds.
These incidents caused widespread feelings of outrage, anger, and betrayal among the public. Moreover, the scandals raised questions about the level of transparency in other institutions in Singapore. This has led to better awareness on the public’s part as to where funds donated go to and hence the public would be more careful when donating money to charities in the future.
Another example would be the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950, sparked by a court decision to return custody of Maria, then aged 13, to her biological Catholic Dutch mother after she had been raised as a Muslim by her adoptive Malay family. Eighteen people were killed in those riots. In addition, what happened in India in 1947-48, just three years earlier when the British Raj began to be dismantled and people long suppressed found utterance. Singapore's founding generation witnessed Jawaharlal Nehru - a much admired figure in the anti-colonial movement and a forceful advocate of secularism - being stunned by the absolute ferocity of the Hindu-Muslim riots that accompanied the partition of British India. An estimated one million people died.
As stated in the article Secularism - not from theory but bloody history, “And in 1992, the Ministry of Education reminded mission schools of Article 16 (3) of the Singapore Constitution, which states: 'No person shall be required to receive instruction in or take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.' Students cannot be compelled to attend religious service, mission school principals were told. Why is it necessary to send such strong, unambiguous signals? Because religion is 'a very profound and fundamental tectonic divide', as MM Lee put it once. He did not learn that from Prof Rawls.” This has showed that Singapore has learnt from the past that religion is a very sensitive issue especially for the survival of peace in a multi-racial and multi-religion country in Singapore.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that the past and present offer precious lessons and guidance for us to follow and not to make similar mistakes again.
Discuss the importance of religion in the society today.
I believe that religion in the society plays an important role.
According to Adolf Hitler, "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life." (Taken from: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10). I do agree with him that religion would help to teach the human race moral values, just as lichun have said too. Religion would will help to educate the masses on how to be a better person, not to have evil intention on others. It also guide us to turn over a new leaf when we go onto the wrong path. An example in Singapore. The believe in Christianity( a faith) has allowed Glenn Lim (a former drug addict), to turn over a new leaf. He has now become a counseller and uses his own experience to help troubled teens.
Religion also plays an important role in marriage. Most marriages would be held in religious place such as church, temples etc, in the presence of a higher power. Different religion would have different ways of going through the ceremony and thus the ceremony holds much significance to a couple. It is a promise made between the two with the higher power.
Religion may dictate a set of acceptable standards and those who wish to remain in that society must adhere to those standards, within acceptable limits. Therefore, I believe that religion plays in important role in the society today.
According to Adolf Hitler, "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life." (Taken from: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10). I do agree with him that religion would help to teach the human race moral values, just as lichun have said too. Religion would will help to educate the masses on how to be a better person, not to have evil intention on others. It also guide us to turn over a new leaf when we go onto the wrong path. An example in Singapore. The believe in Christianity( a faith) has allowed Glenn Lim (a former drug addict), to turn over a new leaf. He has now become a counseller and uses his own experience to help troubled teens.
Religion also plays an important role in marriage. Most marriages would be held in religious place such as church, temples etc, in the presence of a higher power. Different religion would have different ways of going through the ceremony and thus the ceremony holds much significance to a couple. It is a promise made between the two with the higher power.
Religion may dictate a set of acceptable standards and those who wish to remain in that society must adhere to those standards, within acceptable limits. Therefore, I believe that religion plays in important role in the society today.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Discuss the importance of religion in the society today
With science and technology getting more advanced, more people, especially the younger generation, choose to worship the wonderments of technologies rather than Gods. As such, the importance of religion in today’s society has begun to pale. However, this does not mean that religion does not have a stand in society today. Religion plays important roles of teaching us moral values and governing people’s thoughts and beliefs. Hence, we still cannot neglect the importance of religion in our society today.
Firstly, religion is important for nation building and individual development. It teaches us moral values, to change the way we live in the world, not for our own sake but for the sake of others. Buddhism, for example, teaches us morality, abstaining from unwholesome deeds of body and speech. Likewise, Christianity teaches atonement, to repent one’s sin. Hence, religion helps us to clarify ethical and moral issues, especially in today’s fast changing world where we need something concrete to hold. Therefore, religion is important in incorporating human good in our society as the society progresses.
Secondly, religion is important as it wields a powerful influence over people’s life. As Karl Marx says, “religion is the opiate of the masses”. Religion plays a role of governing people’s taught and belief, helping people to seek solace and to reflect on the meaning of life. Hence, since religion is usually a reflection of one’s belief and therefore, people are willing to go all the way out to protect their religion. Evidence can be seen from past divisions caused by differences in religion, one of which is the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950 in Singapore. It was sparked by a court decision to return custody of Maria, then aged 13, to her biological Catholic Dutch mother after she had been raised as a Muslim by her adoptive Malay mother. Although it happened long ago, it is because that Singapore has kept in mind such a painful lesson that we have managed to maintain peace in today’s society. As such, religion still cannot be neglected from today’s society.
In conclusion, we cannot neglect religion as it plays a very important role in ensuring human good and has a strong influence over people’s lives.
Firstly, religion is important for nation building and individual development. It teaches us moral values, to change the way we live in the world, not for our own sake but for the sake of others. Buddhism, for example, teaches us morality, abstaining from unwholesome deeds of body and speech. Likewise, Christianity teaches atonement, to repent one’s sin. Hence, religion helps us to clarify ethical and moral issues, especially in today’s fast changing world where we need something concrete to hold. Therefore, religion is important in incorporating human good in our society as the society progresses.
Secondly, religion is important as it wields a powerful influence over people’s life. As Karl Marx says, “religion is the opiate of the masses”. Religion plays a role of governing people’s taught and belief, helping people to seek solace and to reflect on the meaning of life. Hence, since religion is usually a reflection of one’s belief and therefore, people are willing to go all the way out to protect their religion. Evidence can be seen from past divisions caused by differences in religion, one of which is the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950 in Singapore. It was sparked by a court decision to return custody of Maria, then aged 13, to her biological Catholic Dutch mother after she had been raised as a Muslim by her adoptive Malay mother. Although it happened long ago, it is because that Singapore has kept in mind such a painful lesson that we have managed to maintain peace in today’s society. As such, religion still cannot be neglected from today’s society.
In conclusion, we cannot neglect religion as it plays a very important role in ensuring human good and has a strong influence over people’s lives.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Do your think that human rights are universal???
The answer is no. The very first reason is that the interpretation of human rights is different in every countries.
Human rights viewed by westerns are different from those viewed by Asians. Also, in some other countries, human rights are not even granted. An example is in Afghanistan. Even today, women today are denied the vote and the right to drive cars in several Arab states. Also, women are not given the right to leave home except when accompanied by a brother or husband and forbidding them all access to public education. These are basic human rights everyone should be entitled to. Therefore, human rights are not universal.
Even in US, which is supposed to be liberal, Florida's government, after frying several prisoners in a faulty electric chair, has only reluctantly turned to other methods of execution to conform to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment." Yet when America's Western allies tell it that the U.S. system of capital punishment is barbaric, local politicians and courts reply that it is their way and no one else's business. This shows that even within the same country, human rights are defined differently, let alone universal.
Cultural differences also differently defined human rights in different countries. In Asia, people have a different set of values are are more conservative, making their idea of human rights different from their western counterparts.
References:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010101faessay4253/thomas-m-franck/are-human-rights-universal.html
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4142.php
Human rights viewed by westerns are different from those viewed by Asians. Also, in some other countries, human rights are not even granted. An example is in Afghanistan. Even today, women today are denied the vote and the right to drive cars in several Arab states. Also, women are not given the right to leave home except when accompanied by a brother or husband and forbidding them all access to public education. These are basic human rights everyone should be entitled to. Therefore, human rights are not universal.
Even in US, which is supposed to be liberal, Florida's government, after frying several prisoners in a faulty electric chair, has only reluctantly turned to other methods of execution to conform to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment." Yet when America's Western allies tell it that the U.S. system of capital punishment is barbaric, local politicians and courts reply that it is their way and no one else's business. This shows that even within the same country, human rights are defined differently, let alone universal.
Cultural differences also differently defined human rights in different countries. In Asia, people have a different set of values are are more conservative, making their idea of human rights different from their western counterparts.
References:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010101faessay4253/thomas-m-franck/are-human-rights-universal.html
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4142.php
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Do you think human rights are universal?
Till date, many efforts have been put in to enforce universal human rights – human rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union aims to protect human rights, claiming to 'fight violations of civil liberties wherever they occur', while the Human Rights Watch is dedicated to preserving and promoting human rights around the world. Despite that, there are still many people in the world suffering under inhumane treatment. So, I do not think that human rights are universal.
Human rights cannot be achieved in every country due to the different policies followed by different government systems. The government plays an important role of determining treatment received by the people. For instance, there are countries which followed the Sharia or Islamic law, which possible penalties includes amputation of limbs and stoning. Meanwhile, there are also countries which governments are endorsing a variety of interrogation techniques, dubbed 'torture lite', of which include rough treatment or psychological techniques to induce fear and confusion. Such are examples of how governments are enshrining the practice of torture into law although such cruelty clearly violates human rights legislation. Even if human rights groups try to intervene and stop such acts, the taint of hypocrisy still remains. As one official put it, "if you don't violate someone's human rights some the time, you aren't doing your job." Hence, despite efforts to enforce universal human rights, such efforts will still become futile as long as the government is not willing to support it and since there are many governments who are not willing to support such efforts, human rights are not universal.
In addition, universal human rights are still not guaranteed due to the inability to manage conflict, natural disasters, poverty and healthcare. In many parts of the world, the welfare of the people is not protected due to social problems. For example, having enough to eat is basic human right but every day, one in five of the world's population goes hungry. These can be due to epidemics, war, natural phenomena or bad government. While bad governance and war can still be dealt with, epidemics and natural phenomena are far beyond our control. Unfortunately, until we are able to solve all of these problems, universal human rights would not be achieved.
In conclusion, human rights are not universal because many people in the world are still suffering under inhumane treatment and there is still a long way before human rights would be universal.
Do you think there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed?
The issue of human rights has been a much debatable topic recently, not only in Singapore but worldwide as well. However, what exactly are human rights? As quoted from Wikipedia, “Human rights refers to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled. Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.”
In my opinion, I think that it is rather impossible for human rights to be achieved by everyone worldwide, mainly due to the fact that different people have different unique perceptions of human rights. Hence, I feel that there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed, especially so when the rights of a particular group harm those of another.
Let’s take for example the right of freedom of expression, which according to article 2 is most commonly championed by human rights groups in relation to Singapore. Freedom of expression is the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. However, this right is often abused by some, and exercised at the expense of someone else’s reputation. In such a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society as Singapore, freedom of expression must be limited in order to ensure the strong existence of racial harmony. For example, recently in Singapore, there has been a case whereby a Chinese made racist comments on the basis of freedom of speech. His action led to the unhappiness of many, especially those of the race he criticized. As such, in this circumstance, I feel that the right of freedom of expression should be curtailed so as to prevent people from getting hurt.
In conclusion, I re-emphasized my point that there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed, especially so when the rights of a particular group harm those of another. It is justified that humans deserve basic rights, however, this should never be done at the expense of others.
Do you think that human rights are universal?
In my opinion, I think that human rights are only universal to a small extent. Firstly, what are human rights? Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law. (http://www.answers.com/topic/human-rights?nr=1&lsc=true). The ‘universality of human rights’ is a concept. This concept holds that human rights belong to all human beings and are fundamental to every type of society. In this way, everyone has the same basic human rights. Individuals may exercise different rights, or exercise the same rights differently, depending on which group they belong to within society. (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4142.php)
Human rights are not universal because in some countries some groups of people are not granted their himan rights. One of the example would be Afganistan. The talibans which rule most of the Afganistan, denys women the right to leave home except when accompanied by a brother or husband and forbidding them all access to public education. Education is a basic right of a human. They should have the freedom to access to knowledge. Therefore I would say that the group of woman are not given human rights. Hence they human rights are not universal.
In Singapore, we have yet to sign the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights. As an Asian country, we claim that social and economic rights take prcedence over civil and political rights. We assert that civil and political rights are immaterial when people are destitude and society is unstable. Thus we can see that on Singapore is only supports human rights to a certain extent.We can also see that how a country view different human rights differently affects whether human rights are universal. Therefore, I believe that human rights are not totally universal.
In conclusion, we cannot say that human rights are totally universal but it is universal only to a certain extent.
Human rights are not universal because in some countries some groups of people are not granted their himan rights. One of the example would be Afganistan. The talibans which rule most of the Afganistan, denys women the right to leave home except when accompanied by a brother or husband and forbidding them all access to public education. Education is a basic right of a human. They should have the freedom to access to knowledge. Therefore I would say that the group of woman are not given human rights. Hence they human rights are not universal.
In Singapore, we have yet to sign the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights. As an Asian country, we claim that social and economic rights take prcedence over civil and political rights. We assert that civil and political rights are immaterial when people are destitude and society is unstable. Thus we can see that on Singapore is only supports human rights to a certain extent.We can also see that how a country view different human rights differently affects whether human rights are universal. Therefore, I believe that human rights are not totally universal.
In conclusion, we cannot say that human rights are totally universal but it is universal only to a certain extent.
Do you think there are circumstances where human rights MAY be curtailed?
According to wikipedia's definition, human rights are the basic rights and freedom to which all humans are entitled to. Human rights have many branched categories such as politics, social, culture, education and basic commodities. These different categories are subjected to various external and internal stimuli. In response, some of these categories might have to be limited and be subjected to control by the government. As a matter of fact, there are already situations whereby human rights (e.g. freedom of expression) have been limited. In my opinion, there are circumstances where human rights may be curtailed. The factors that affect the circumstances are the abuse of human rights and the exposure of the country to the world.
As mentioned earlier on, freedom of expression is a form of human right. However, we can see that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute in some countries (e.g. communist countries). This is because the extent of freedom of expression is very hard to control. Weak control of it might result in people crossing over the moral boundary. An example in this context is the defamation of political figures. It is no doubt a form of free expression, however, this right is done at the expense of another's reputation. This will call for government intervention set restrictions to freedom of speech in order to prevent the proliferation of such practices in the country. Another example is housing. Every human is entitled to have a shelter over their heads. However, if this right is abused such that people demand condominiums for basic housing (at the expense of the country's financial stability), then this human right might be curtailed for the good sake of the country. Hence exploiting of human rights may eventuallylead it being curtailed.
There is also a futuristic circumstance whereby human rights may be limited- degree of exposure of a country to the world. Current technology advancement has provided us with much more insight and information of the outer-world than we can ever imagine. Short Message Service (SMS) has reduced the time taken for the exchange of information from days by written letter to seconds. This fast and unprecedented access to information has resulted in the amplification of one's worldly desire as one would be overwhelmed by the wonders of the outside world. An ongoing example is the fashion bandwagon in Singapore. Because of the easy accessibility to information of the outside world, we get to familiarise ourselves with the latest fashion trends in Japan and Hong Kong. We will then start to import more and more foreign goods hence inevitably neglecting our local economy. At this point, the government will have to intervene by vigorously promoting local goods or limit imports. If the latter is considered, then Singaporeans would have been denied their rights to purchase their preferred goods. Human right in choice of consumption would be curtailed. So, what more to think when future technologies further enhance communications? The possibilties of a country being increasingly exposed to the world would be infinite. Thus, the degree of exposure to the world will create a circumstance where there may be a possibility that human rights may be curtailed.
Hence after examining the various factors mentioned above, there are circumstances where human right may be curtailed.
As mentioned earlier on, freedom of expression is a form of human right. However, we can see that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute in some countries (e.g. communist countries). This is because the extent of freedom of expression is very hard to control. Weak control of it might result in people crossing over the moral boundary. An example in this context is the defamation of political figures. It is no doubt a form of free expression, however, this right is done at the expense of another's reputation. This will call for government intervention set restrictions to freedom of speech in order to prevent the proliferation of such practices in the country. Another example is housing. Every human is entitled to have a shelter over their heads. However, if this right is abused such that people demand condominiums for basic housing (at the expense of the country's financial stability), then this human right might be curtailed for the good sake of the country. Hence exploiting of human rights may eventuallylead it being curtailed.
There is also a futuristic circumstance whereby human rights may be limited- degree of exposure of a country to the world. Current technology advancement has provided us with much more insight and information of the outer-world than we can ever imagine. Short Message Service (SMS) has reduced the time taken for the exchange of information from days by written letter to seconds. This fast and unprecedented access to information has resulted in the amplification of one's worldly desire as one would be overwhelmed by the wonders of the outside world. An ongoing example is the fashion bandwagon in Singapore. Because of the easy accessibility to information of the outside world, we get to familiarise ourselves with the latest fashion trends in Japan and Hong Kong. We will then start to import more and more foreign goods hence inevitably neglecting our local economy. At this point, the government will have to intervene by vigorously promoting local goods or limit imports. If the latter is considered, then Singaporeans would have been denied their rights to purchase their preferred goods. Human right in choice of consumption would be curtailed. So, what more to think when future technologies further enhance communications? The possibilties of a country being increasingly exposed to the world would be infinite. Thus, the degree of exposure to the world will create a circumstance where there may be a possibility that human rights may be curtailed.
Hence after examining the various factors mentioned above, there are circumstances where human right may be curtailed.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
Like what Jinyi said, "A definite right or wrong cannot fully reflect and justify the issue. This is because in ‘Right’, there would be a small extent of ‘Wrong’ and vice versa.", personally, I feel that it is neither ever right nor ever wrong for a country to become involved in the internal affairs of another, largely because situations differ from country to country.
As such, I believe that often, the intentions of the intervening country is right but their actions, or rather, the consequences of their actions, are wrong. To further elaborate my point, let's take for example the 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' mentioned in the article. The main intention of the American and British forces' "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was to invade Iraq and liberate the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's misrule. This intention for the better lives of the Iraqis was right. However, as a result to capture Saddam Hussein and to invade Iraq, 654,965 innocent lives were taken while hundreds of thousands fled the country. Therefore, the American and British invading forces were astounded when instead of being warmly welcomed by the Iraqis who would live happily ever after in a paradise of freedom and democracy, they were treated with hostility and rejection. Moreover, the Americans failed to take moral responsibility for their actions in Iraq, ensuring peace and stability before their troops withdraw. If intervention by the third party would cause more harm than good to the people, then of course it would not be right to become involved in the internal affairs of another. Would these dire consequences have happened if the intervening country had put thorough thought into their actions as well as the consequences to the other country?
On the contrary, there are situations in which intervention have proved to be right, and these cases usually come in times of disasters and calamities. In theses cases, other countries can step in and offer help to the country. Not only will the receiving country recover from the disaster more quickly, at the same time stronger international bonds can be forged as well. For example, when the earthquake happened in Sichuan, China recently, many counrtries have played apart in helping the people affected by the disaster. Rescue workers from all over the world including Britain and Russia flew in to rescue victims trapped under the rubble. Food and monetary donations were given to the victims of the earthquake. All these aids provided by other countries have greatly helped Sichuan to recover from the disaster.
Therefore, I reinstate my point that intervention can be right or wrong, depending on the situation of the country.
As such, I believe that often, the intentions of the intervening country is right but their actions, or rather, the consequences of their actions, are wrong. To further elaborate my point, let's take for example the 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' mentioned in the article. The main intention of the American and British forces' "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was to invade Iraq and liberate the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's misrule. This intention for the better lives of the Iraqis was right. However, as a result to capture Saddam Hussein and to invade Iraq, 654,965 innocent lives were taken while hundreds of thousands fled the country. Therefore, the American and British invading forces were astounded when instead of being warmly welcomed by the Iraqis who would live happily ever after in a paradise of freedom and democracy, they were treated with hostility and rejection. Moreover, the Americans failed to take moral responsibility for their actions in Iraq, ensuring peace and stability before their troops withdraw. If intervention by the third party would cause more harm than good to the people, then of course it would not be right to become involved in the internal affairs of another. Would these dire consequences have happened if the intervening country had put thorough thought into their actions as well as the consequences to the other country?
On the contrary, there are situations in which intervention have proved to be right, and these cases usually come in times of disasters and calamities. In theses cases, other countries can step in and offer help to the country. Not only will the receiving country recover from the disaster more quickly, at the same time stronger international bonds can be forged as well. For example, when the earthquake happened in Sichuan, China recently, many counrtries have played apart in helping the people affected by the disaster. Rescue workers from all over the world including Britain and Russia flew in to rescue victims trapped under the rubble. Food and monetary donations were given to the victims of the earthquake. All these aids provided by other countries have greatly helped Sichuan to recover from the disaster.
Therefore, I reinstate my point that intervention can be right or wrong, depending on the situation of the country.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
When another country is involved in the internal affairs of another, it is a type of intervention. Intervention is the interference of one country in the internal affairs of another or in its relations with other countries. Like what Jinyi has said, I share the same sentiments that a definite right or wrong cannot fully reflect and justify the issue. There are a few cases where intervention has brought about peace but during the process lives has been sacrificed. I would say that there is always a price to pay for in order to attain peace.
In my opinion, some of the intervention could have gone wrong due to the method being used to attaon peace. American and British forces have decided to invade Iraq and liberate Iraqis in an peration called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" without obtaing the authorisation of theUnited Nations Security Council. This method could possibly be to impulsive and lack of planning. Thus itlead to excess death of 654,965. In this example, we can see that the method used. has caused the situation to worsen and this has the the world to see the intervention as ineffective and useless. Therfore, the main aim of an intervention could be to bring peace which is good. However, the methods used could lead it to be protrayed as bad.
I would say in this case that i would support intervention as its main aim is to bring peace to another country. However, it would not be right if they would use impulsive methoods.
Another problem could be how willing the country that is being intervene to accept the assistance given. They have to understand that co-opeation between the two is needed and that for peace to be brought about sacrfices has to be made. Like Myammar, some countries put up resistance to interventions. If this intervention is to be continued, I believe that the situation would worsen as force will be needed to break the resistence put up. Thus, in this case, it would not be right for intervention.
In conclusion, there is no definite answer to this question. It really depends on different situations and other factors.
In my opinion, some of the intervention could have gone wrong due to the method being used to attaon peace. American and British forces have decided to invade Iraq and liberate Iraqis in an peration called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" without obtaing the authorisation of theUnited Nations Security Council. This method could possibly be to impulsive and lack of planning. Thus itlead to excess death of 654,965. In this example, we can see that the method used. has caused the situation to worsen and this has the the world to see the intervention as ineffective and useless. Therfore, the main aim of an intervention could be to bring peace which is good. However, the methods used could lead it to be protrayed as bad.
I would say in this case that i would support intervention as its main aim is to bring peace to another country. However, it would not be right if they would use impulsive methoods.
Another problem could be how willing the country that is being intervene to accept the assistance given. They have to understand that co-opeation between the two is needed and that for peace to be brought about sacrfices has to be made. Like Myammar, some countries put up resistance to interventions. If this intervention is to be continued, I believe that the situation would worsen as force will be needed to break the resistence put up. Thus, in this case, it would not be right for intervention.
In conclusion, there is no definite answer to this question. It really depends on different situations and other factors.
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
Sometimes, one country may not be able to handle its internal affairs and so would require the help of another. However, to judge if it is right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another, we have to look at the approaches undertaken by the 'outsider', as well as the best interests of the people in the country.
If intervention by the third party would cause more harm than good to the people, then it would not be right to become involved in the internal affairs of another. Sure, sacrifices have to be made before reforms and changes can be created. But if the intervention merely causes more trouble, especially since the people involved would be highly sensitive to pain, then it is not right to intervene. Take for example the 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. As much as it was meant to be a humanitarian project, the effects did not seem to imply so. To date, peace and stability has yet to be ensured in Iraq and the country is in a big mess with the United States entangled in it. In addition, no one has claim responsibility to ensure that Iraq is peaceful and stable before America withdraws. Also, the excessive deaths caused by the operation have caught the attention of human rights group, sparking off much protests. Moreover, the large amounts of money spent on the operation had resulted in people blaming the US for not putting the money in better use. These really leave us to question if everything would be better had US not intervene. As long as more people are getting hurt and there are no justifiable benefits gained by the people in the country, it would not be right for intervention of internal affairs by another country.
On the other hand, if intervention by another country can really bring relief to the people, then it would be right to become involved in the internal affairs of another. This would usually come in time of disasters that would devastate the lives of the people. In such a situation, the people's well-being should be placed as the utmost priority, and the country should open itself to humanitarian aid. An example of a country, which needs to understand this, is Myanmar. About two months ago, a cyclone in Myanmar increased the people's misery but the regime chooses to reject humanitarian help from other countries as it sees it as political interference aimed at prising it from power. In this case, the country would be wrong if it does not oblige to intervention and put so many lives in jeopardy. The regime has to understand that it is time to oblige to humanitarian aid and allow the involvement of another country, or problems with their internal affairs will soon go out of control. Hence, in such a situation where there are justified benefits that can be gained by the people in the country, it would be right to for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another.
In conclusion, I agree with what Jinyi said, "there is no clear distinction of right or wrong regarding a country's involvement in another's internal affairs. With pure good intentions, responsibility and the adequate receptivity of the country, it would be alright to have foreign intervention." Hence, the benefits that can be gained by the people in the country is the main determinant of judging if it is right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another is the benefits.
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
It is hard to judge if it is right for one country to interfere in the internal affairs of another. A definite right or wrong cannot fully reflect and justify the issue. This is because in ‘Right’, there would be a small extent of ‘Wrong’ and vice versa. Take for example UN’s peacekeeping in Ireland. You can say it is right that they interfere to prevent conflict between Protestants and Catholics. However it is also wrong as they cannot be held responsible for the innocent deaths caused during peacekeeping. However if they did not interfere, more deaths would have ensued.
Right or wrong depends on various factors like the receptivity of the country, responsibility that the interfering country is willing to bear and the intention of the interfering country. For example, sanctions imposed by the US and the EU on Myanmar since its 1988 aborted elections have not succeeded. Given Myanmar’s government low receptivity to such actions, it would do more bad than good if one country becomes involved in their internal affairs. Resistance to another country’s participation in its internal affairs put up by Myanmar might result in loss of lives. Hence if the receptivity of a country is low, it is not right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another and vice versa.
In another light, it would actually be appropriate for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another if the interfering country is willing to bear responsibility of the possible negative consequences. A failure example is the “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. As seen from the article, there was no concern about the responsibility to ensure Iraq is peaceful and stable before America withdraws. This does more harm to Iraq rather than stabilizing it. In my opinion, America should not have intervened Iraqi’s internal affairs in the first place. Iraqi might have been more stable compared to the aftermath of possible abandonment by America. Therefore, it would be right if one country decides to undertake full scale responsibility and give serious considerations to their every action.
The original motive or intent of a country’s intervention of another’s private affairs plays a big part in determining if the interference is right or wrong. The movie Fahrenheit 911 by Michael Moore screens a part whereby George Washington Bush claims to 'free the civilians' from the Iraqi government with the war in Iraq. Yet, they are killing civilians. If the true intention of America’s involvement in Iraq was to tap on its large resource of oil, then America’s involvement in the internal affairs of Iraq would be wrong.
In conclusion, there is no clear distinction of right or wrong regarding a country's involvement in another's internal affairs. With pure good intentions, responsibility and the adequate receptivity of the country, it would be alright to have foreign intervention.
It is hard to judge if it is right for one country to interfere in the internal affairs of another. A definite right or wrong cannot fully reflect and justify the issue. This is because in ‘Right’, there would be a small extent of ‘Wrong’ and vice versa. Take for example UN’s peacekeeping in Ireland. You can say it is right that they interfere to prevent conflict between Protestants and Catholics. However it is also wrong as they cannot be held responsible for the innocent deaths caused during peacekeeping. However if they did not interfere, more deaths would have ensued.
Right or wrong depends on various factors like the receptivity of the country, responsibility that the interfering country is willing to bear and the intention of the interfering country. For example, sanctions imposed by the US and the EU on Myanmar since its 1988 aborted elections have not succeeded. Given Myanmar’s government low receptivity to such actions, it would do more bad than good if one country becomes involved in their internal affairs. Resistance to another country’s participation in its internal affairs put up by Myanmar might result in loss of lives. Hence if the receptivity of a country is low, it is not right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another and vice versa.
In another light, it would actually be appropriate for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another if the interfering country is willing to bear responsibility of the possible negative consequences. A failure example is the “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. As seen from the article, there was no concern about the responsibility to ensure Iraq is peaceful and stable before America withdraws. This does more harm to Iraq rather than stabilizing it. In my opinion, America should not have intervened Iraqi’s internal affairs in the first place. Iraqi might have been more stable compared to the aftermath of possible abandonment by America. Therefore, it would be right if one country decides to undertake full scale responsibility and give serious considerations to their every action.
The original motive or intent of a country’s intervention of another’s private affairs plays a big part in determining if the interference is right or wrong. The movie Fahrenheit 911 by Michael Moore screens a part whereby George Washington Bush claims to 'free the civilians' from the Iraqi government with the war in Iraq. Yet, they are killing civilians. If the true intention of America’s involvement in Iraq was to tap on its large resource of oil, then America’s involvement in the internal affairs of Iraq would be wrong.
In conclusion, there is no clear distinction of right or wrong regarding a country's involvement in another's internal affairs. With pure good intentions, responsibility and the adequate receptivity of the country, it would be alright to have foreign intervention.
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
I think it is only right to a certain extent. A country should only be involved in the internal affairs of another country if the situation is very serious and that it has the support of other rational countries. Before an intervention, countries should sit and discuss whether there is such a need and this, i believe, is the job of the United Nations, UN.
For the case of Myanmar, during the cyclone, it refused the aid that other countries offered and did not provide adequate aid to the victims, its people. It only opened up a bit when pressurize by other countries. Thus in this case, interventions has helped the people of Myanmar.
However, internal interventions may be seen as a threat by the country and cause it to retaliate. This could lead to serious consequences and even war, just the Iraq and US. The ones that ultimately suffered would be the innocent people of the country.
Therefore, I feel that intervention is only necessary if the situation is too serious and the world can clearly see and agree that the country is not giving its people proper basic needs and carrying out the responsibility of a government. The biggest consideration would be the well-being of the people.
For the case of Myanmar, during the cyclone, it refused the aid that other countries offered and did not provide adequate aid to the victims, its people. It only opened up a bit when pressurize by other countries. Thus in this case, interventions has helped the people of Myanmar.
However, internal interventions may be seen as a threat by the country and cause it to retaliate. This could lead to serious consequences and even war, just the Iraq and US. The ones that ultimately suffered would be the innocent people of the country.
Therefore, I feel that intervention is only necessary if the situation is too serious and the world can clearly see and agree that the country is not giving its people proper basic needs and carrying out the responsibility of a government. The biggest consideration would be the well-being of the people.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
'Education has failed to make people educated.' Do you agree that this is true of the people in your country? (SRJC 2002)
'Education has failed to make people educated.' Do you agree that this is true of the people in your country? (SRJC 2002)
I agree to a certain extent that education has failed to make people educated in Singapore. Education, i believe, should not just be confined to academics. If we take into account on education on etiquette, I would say that Singaporeans are 'uneducated' in a sense.
Our Singapore education system focus mainly on academics, just like many asian countries. Students are instilled with values that the best route to success is to work their way up to university smoothly and get a decent job. But, not everyone is academically inclined. Although our government tried ,time and again, to emphasise that there are many other alternative route, not many people choose to change their perspective of education. Education to them is mug, confined within the grades you achieve. I believe we should look beyond that.
Education is not the what grades you achieve after many years of study, i think. It is, rather, the journey that you've been through studying, the phase when you figure out what education is truly for. I feel that it is when you learn to see things in more ways and understand life.
Moreover, social education such as basic manners is just an important too. We've all heard about those jokes foreigners make about Singaporeans. This goes to show that our social upbringing has not met international standards.
therefore, education in Singapore has only made us believe in textbooks but ignored the other aspects of education.
I agree to a certain extent that education has failed to make people educated in Singapore. Education, i believe, should not just be confined to academics. If we take into account on education on etiquette, I would say that Singaporeans are 'uneducated' in a sense.
Our Singapore education system focus mainly on academics, just like many asian countries. Students are instilled with values that the best route to success is to work their way up to university smoothly and get a decent job. But, not everyone is academically inclined. Although our government tried ,time and again, to emphasise that there are many other alternative route, not many people choose to change their perspective of education. Education to them is mug, confined within the grades you achieve. I believe we should look beyond that.
Education is not the what grades you achieve after many years of study, i think. It is, rather, the journey that you've been through studying, the phase when you figure out what education is truly for. I feel that it is when you learn to see things in more ways and understand life.
Moreover, social education such as basic manners is just an important too. We've all heard about those jokes foreigners make about Singaporeans. This goes to show that our social upbringing has not met international standards.
therefore, education in Singapore has only made us believe in textbooks but ignored the other aspects of education.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
“The main function of education should be enable people to gain employment.” Do you agree? (CAM 1994)
There are many differerent roles in which the education play. I feel that all the different factors will contribute to allowing people to gain employment. Therefore i agree that the main function would be to let people gain employment. However during the process, it would help a person gain knowledge, improve his character , learn life skills, and thus moulding a better future for himself.
We always say that education should be holistic. It should emphasize the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts. Here the "whole" is being seen as gaining employment and the "interdpendence parts" would be would help a person gain knowledge, improve his character , learn life skills, and thus moulding a better future for himself.
Gaining knowlege is the basic of life and this is what education does. It help you learn skills and facts and know more about this world. We thus apply it in our daily lives. By having knowledge, you would be able to get through tests and exams, allowing yourself to gain access to certificates. With these certificates, they would act as a "passport" to gaining employment.
To improve a person character and to learn life skills would contribute to helping people to gain employment too. How you potray yourself to the world is defined by your character. If you hacve a bad attitude in life, you would not potray yourself well. Thus it would affect your impression on others and the other people would not want to work with you. Thus if education were to help a person improve his or her character, it would definitely be of some help in gaining employement. Learning life skills like how to communicate with others is important too. Learning to speak fluently is not enough. You would have to speak with purpose and understand how to react to circumstances. Even from your body language, an employer would know who to choose. Therefore we can see that teaching life skills as part of education helps gain employment too.
In conclusion, we can see that the main function of education can be to gain employment. The other aspects in education, would all contribute to this main function. Therefore i agree to this statement.
We always say that education should be holistic. It should emphasize the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts. Here the "whole" is being seen as gaining employment and the "interdpendence parts" would be would help a person gain knowledge, improve his character , learn life skills, and thus moulding a better future for himself.
Gaining knowlege is the basic of life and this is what education does. It help you learn skills and facts and know more about this world. We thus apply it in our daily lives. By having knowledge, you would be able to get through tests and exams, allowing yourself to gain access to certificates. With these certificates, they would act as a "passport" to gaining employment.
To improve a person character and to learn life skills would contribute to helping people to gain employment too. How you potray yourself to the world is defined by your character. If you hacve a bad attitude in life, you would not potray yourself well. Thus it would affect your impression on others and the other people would not want to work with you. Thus if education were to help a person improve his or her character, it would definitely be of some help in gaining employement. Learning life skills like how to communicate with others is important too. Learning to speak fluently is not enough. You would have to speak with purpose and understand how to react to circumstances. Even from your body language, an employer would know who to choose. Therefore we can see that teaching life skills as part of education helps gain employment too.
In conclusion, we can see that the main function of education can be to gain employment. The other aspects in education, would all contribute to this main function. Therefore i agree to this statement.
Education for society or education for the individual – which is more important?
For a long time, strong emphasis has been placed on education – whether it is parents taking time off from their busy working life to do hours of payless community service just to secure a place in a “branded” primary school for their child or the government holding countless debates just so as to make the education system a tad better. But what makes education so important that it is worth the sacrifices made for a good one? Education is vital because it benefits the society and more importantly, it helps to develop an individual.
Firstly, education is vital for the society. Many societal problems seek education as a solution. For example, racial harmony is maintained in Singapore by allowing young Singaporean to understand its importance as well as helping them to know about the different cultures. More recently, education is used as a preventive measure to certain problems, such as using the media to inform people about proper hygiene practice to curb the spread of the dengue fever. Hence, education is needed to heighten the people’s social awareness so as to create a better environment for the society.
Secondly, education is crucial for individual development. It plays a huge role in molding our character. For instance, education establishes the degree of discipline which in turns determines our attitude towards our tasks at hand. It also gives us the power of knowledge which helps us to make important decisions in our lives. Hence, our actions and choices are largely influenced by the education we have and thus, a good education is require for us to do the right things so as to be successful in life.
The sum of every individual makes up the society. So because our individual actions and choices are largely influenced by the education that we have received, education for the individual is more important because it provides the foundation for education for the society to be built on. If one is not well disciplined, he may not bother to do his part in practising proper hygiene standards to curb the spread of the dengue fever. Likewise, how do we expect racial harmony to be maintained when one has not even been taught basic respect to another fellow human being? Hence, it is important for the individual to be education before the education for the society to be applied.
Firstly, education is vital for the society. Many societal problems seek education as a solution. For example, racial harmony is maintained in Singapore by allowing young Singaporean to understand its importance as well as helping them to know about the different cultures. More recently, education is used as a preventive measure to certain problems, such as using the media to inform people about proper hygiene practice to curb the spread of the dengue fever. Hence, education is needed to heighten the people’s social awareness so as to create a better environment for the society.
Secondly, education is crucial for individual development. It plays a huge role in molding our character. For instance, education establishes the degree of discipline which in turns determines our attitude towards our tasks at hand. It also gives us the power of knowledge which helps us to make important decisions in our lives. Hence, our actions and choices are largely influenced by the education we have and thus, a good education is require for us to do the right things so as to be successful in life.
The sum of every individual makes up the society. So because our individual actions and choices are largely influenced by the education that we have received, education for the individual is more important because it provides the foundation for education for the society to be built on. If one is not well disciplined, he may not bother to do his part in practising proper hygiene standards to curb the spread of the dengue fever. Likewise, how do we expect racial harmony to be maintained when one has not even been taught basic respect to another fellow human being? Hence, it is important for the individual to be education before the education for the society to be applied.
Do you think that there is any need for change in the educational system in your country? (Cam 1990)
Yes, I think that there is a need to change the educational system in Singapore. Although one of the aims of the education system set by the Ministry of Education Singapore is to develop individuals as an all-rounded individual with high intellect so as to prepare them for the workforce, this is most often perceived to be the only reason why Singaporean students are studying- to get a good job in the future. This has resulted in an increasingly competitive academic society in Singapore.
In the past, it was merely enough to have an A level or even O level certificate to get a decent job to provide food on the table. However, today, nothing short of a university degree will do. Moreover, nowadays there are more and more university graduates who even have difficulty finding jobs. This proves that now, even higher levels of education are required to provide you with job opportunities. Students now face an endless amount of pressure from their parents as well as teachers in having to constantly perform above par or face being relegated to the rubbish heap of failures. This has proved fatal as it has caused an escalating number of students committing suicide as they were unable to handle the mounting pressure on them.
In addition, this meritocracy in the education system where only the best survive has resulted in self-centred and inconsiderate teenagers, contrary to the Ministry of Education’s aim to shape morally upright and responsible young adults. Students compete among themselves to be the best in everything- studies, CCAs as well as other activities. As such, to ensure that they themselves are the best, all students care about are themselves and themselves only.
However, having said that, competition does have its pros. Competition helps to bring out the potential on students. That is, if everyone regardless of their intellectual abilities are of equal standard and will receive the same treatment, there will be no incentive to work hard. This will result in a stagnant country where everyone lazes around and no progress is made. It is also thanks to meritocracy that Singapore has progressed into such a developed and advanced state in such a short period of time.
Therefore, I feel that there is a need to change the educational system in Singapore. However, this change should be done subtly so as not to diminish the incentive to work hard and hence progress to the country.
In the past, it was merely enough to have an A level or even O level certificate to get a decent job to provide food on the table. However, today, nothing short of a university degree will do. Moreover, nowadays there are more and more university graduates who even have difficulty finding jobs. This proves that now, even higher levels of education are required to provide you with job opportunities. Students now face an endless amount of pressure from their parents as well as teachers in having to constantly perform above par or face being relegated to the rubbish heap of failures. This has proved fatal as it has caused an escalating number of students committing suicide as they were unable to handle the mounting pressure on them.
In addition, this meritocracy in the education system where only the best survive has resulted in self-centred and inconsiderate teenagers, contrary to the Ministry of Education’s aim to shape morally upright and responsible young adults. Students compete among themselves to be the best in everything- studies, CCAs as well as other activities. As such, to ensure that they themselves are the best, all students care about are themselves and themselves only.
However, having said that, competition does have its pros. Competition helps to bring out the potential on students. That is, if everyone regardless of their intellectual abilities are of equal standard and will receive the same treatment, there will be no incentive to work hard. This will result in a stagnant country where everyone lazes around and no progress is made. It is also thanks to meritocracy that Singapore has progressed into such a developed and advanced state in such a short period of time.
Therefore, I feel that there is a need to change the educational system in Singapore. However, this change should be done subtly so as not to diminish the incentive to work hard and hence progress to the country.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Is Formal Education Over Valued?
Yes, formal education is over valued in the Asian countries but not in the Western.
According to http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/referencematerials/glossaryofliteracyterms/WhatIsFormalEducation.htm, formal education is the process of training and developing people in knowledge, skills, mind, and character in a structured and certified program.
As such, we can see that the content delivered through teaching is restricted and everyone experiences and learns the same thing. However, the stituation is slightly different now because governments like that of Singapore, are starting to realise the importance of indivdual education. In my opinion, different education systems support different eras. Formal education has produced dependable people for predictable times. Referring to a quote by Tharman Shanmugaratnam in the 26 April 2002 issue of TIMEasia, "now it needs to produce a new breed of leaders who have a certain ruggedness, an ability to repond quickly to situations", we can see that formal education now is not as over valued as compared in the past.
However, comparing Asia's education system to Western's, they are worlds apart. Switzerland is one good example of producing quality and skilled workers through their decentralised education system. They offer apprenticeship which lasts 2-4 years. Apprenticeships include all kinds of professions, from handicraft (mechanician, carpenter, baker, hairdresser etc.) to office worker (secretary, bookkeeper, IT specialist etc.). Apprentice will get trained at a company or organization, but also attend school for one or two days a week. Therefore students get to choose to take up their subjects of interests and receive lots of hands-on training. Such little empahsis on formal education sparks the interests and curiosity of the students and make learning a more cohesive one.
For all I know, Singapore has not yet gotten over its indulgence in formal education as can be seen in the latest alteration to the criteria for entering Junior colleges(JC). Co-curricular Activity (CCA) points are not considered for deduction of the O level raw score compared to the preceding years. Hence all JCs' intake of students will soley depend on their academic result. How justifiable is that!
I personally do not resent the score-materialistic assessment system of indivdual's knowledge. However I think that the weightage of marks can be distributed more evenly throughout the year instead of just focusing on the four main examinations which are CA1, SA1, CA2 and SA2 respectively. This is because the performance of an individual, I believe, can be affected by many other factors such as stress and sickness. Another alternative is to empahsize weightage on applicational projects such as research and apprenticeship.
The above paragraph serves as solutions to not "over value" formal education system. To resurrect the apprehensive minds of these suggestions, according to 26 April 2002 issue of TIMEasia, recent math and science test scores has shown that U.S students are gaining ground on their counterparts in Asia. Hence less emphasis on formal education might not necessarily be detrimental.
Therefore, over valuing formal education is true, but restricted only to Asian countries.
Yes, formal education is over valued in the Asian countries but not in the Western.
According to http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/referencematerials/glossaryofliteracyterms/WhatIsFormalEducation.htm, formal education is the process of training and developing people in knowledge, skills, mind, and character in a structured and certified program.
As such, we can see that the content delivered through teaching is restricted and everyone experiences and learns the same thing. However, the stituation is slightly different now because governments like that of Singapore, are starting to realise the importance of indivdual education. In my opinion, different education systems support different eras. Formal education has produced dependable people for predictable times. Referring to a quote by Tharman Shanmugaratnam in the 26 April 2002 issue of TIMEasia, "now it needs to produce a new breed of leaders who have a certain ruggedness, an ability to repond quickly to situations", we can see that formal education now is not as over valued as compared in the past.
However, comparing Asia's education system to Western's, they are worlds apart. Switzerland is one good example of producing quality and skilled workers through their decentralised education system. They offer apprenticeship which lasts 2-4 years. Apprenticeships include all kinds of professions, from handicraft (mechanician, carpenter, baker, hairdresser etc.) to office worker (secretary, bookkeeper, IT specialist etc.). Apprentice will get trained at a company or organization, but also attend school for one or two days a week. Therefore students get to choose to take up their subjects of interests and receive lots of hands-on training. Such little empahsis on formal education sparks the interests and curiosity of the students and make learning a more cohesive one.
For all I know, Singapore has not yet gotten over its indulgence in formal education as can be seen in the latest alteration to the criteria for entering Junior colleges(JC). Co-curricular Activity (CCA) points are not considered for deduction of the O level raw score compared to the preceding years. Hence all JCs' intake of students will soley depend on their academic result. How justifiable is that!
I personally do not resent the score-materialistic assessment system of indivdual's knowledge. However I think that the weightage of marks can be distributed more evenly throughout the year instead of just focusing on the four main examinations which are CA1, SA1, CA2 and SA2 respectively. This is because the performance of an individual, I believe, can be affected by many other factors such as stress and sickness. Another alternative is to empahsize weightage on applicational projects such as research and apprenticeship.
The above paragraph serves as solutions to not "over value" formal education system. To resurrect the apprehensive minds of these suggestions, according to 26 April 2002 issue of TIMEasia, recent math and science test scores has shown that U.S students are gaining ground on their counterparts in Asia. Hence less emphasis on formal education might not necessarily be detrimental.
Therefore, over valuing formal education is true, but restricted only to Asian countries.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The current hype over environment issues is unneccesary. Do you agree?
It has become part of our daily life that we hear about the rapid rate of carbon dioxide increment in our air and that the artic glaciers are melting faster than before. Countries are coming together to solve the problem of global warming and our governments are encouraging us to go green. However the question is: “Is our current hype over environmental issues unnecessary?” I do not think so. In my opinion it is necessary to start doing something but at the same time we should not be over exaggerate the situation.
To completely ignore the environment issues is wrong. It is a fact that the environment has been worsening due to the actions of man and that it is affecting our lives. It poses dangers to our future too. The author of article in The Straits Times, “Saving the World”, said that “If we do not have a good way to fix a problem, it might be better to focus on something else first. After all, when you do not know where the next meal is coming from, it is hard to worry about what global temperatures will be 100 years from now.” I feel that 100 years later, we still might not be able to see how bad environmental issues can turn out to be. So are we going to say the same thing again and focus on something else first? Shouldn’t we be taking actions and preventing things from getting worse instead of waiting till the future and regret in the end?
The problem comes in when the mass media tries to exaggerate the situation. From the article of “The truth about the environment”, the author has said that “environmental group need to be noticed by the mass media. They also need to keep the money rolling in. Understandably, perhaps, they sometimes exaggerate.” Indeed, the media plays a big role in educating and informing the masses about environmental issues. However, by exaggerating the situations just to increase profits is going against their professionalism. We should be telling the truth to the public and at the same time encourage the public to play a part in saving earth.
In response to Jinyi’s post, I do agree with her that it needs great cost to move everyone from earth to another planet light. We should not be standing around to wait for the scientists to come up with a solution. We need to conscientiously raise environmental issues in order to raise awareness of the dangers that we will soon be facing. Individuals have a choice to save the world or to be selfish beings and to wait for others to do something. So the challenge is how to spur the urgency in people without exaggerating facts.
To sum it up, I disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. We should still raise awareness in people.
To completely ignore the environment issues is wrong. It is a fact that the environment has been worsening due to the actions of man and that it is affecting our lives. It poses dangers to our future too. The author of article in The Straits Times, “Saving the World”, said that “If we do not have a good way to fix a problem, it might be better to focus on something else first. After all, when you do not know where the next meal is coming from, it is hard to worry about what global temperatures will be 100 years from now.” I feel that 100 years later, we still might not be able to see how bad environmental issues can turn out to be. So are we going to say the same thing again and focus on something else first? Shouldn’t we be taking actions and preventing things from getting worse instead of waiting till the future and regret in the end?
The problem comes in when the mass media tries to exaggerate the situation. From the article of “The truth about the environment”, the author has said that “environmental group need to be noticed by the mass media. They also need to keep the money rolling in. Understandably, perhaps, they sometimes exaggerate.” Indeed, the media plays a big role in educating and informing the masses about environmental issues. However, by exaggerating the situations just to increase profits is going against their professionalism. We should be telling the truth to the public and at the same time encourage the public to play a part in saving earth.
In response to Jinyi’s post, I do agree with her that it needs great cost to move everyone from earth to another planet light. We should not be standing around to wait for the scientists to come up with a solution. We need to conscientiously raise environmental issues in order to raise awareness of the dangers that we will soon be facing. Individuals have a choice to save the world or to be selfish beings and to wait for others to do something. So the challenge is how to spur the urgency in people without exaggerating facts.
To sum it up, I disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. We should still raise awareness in people.
Friday, May 9, 2008
The current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. Do you agree?
I disagree that enviromental issues are covered extensively. Like what Lichun has mentioned in her post, if there is no publicity about the concerns about global environmental issues, no one would be actually concerned about our earth. In other words, the inhabitants of earth would be kept in the dark without knowing the threats and dangers that their mother earth is facing.
Rapid industrialisation, has benefitted us greatly in our quality of life. However, this has induced an array of problems e.g. Global warming due to excessive contribution of greenhouse gases. These problems will manifest itself so rapidly that its full magnitude would be difficult to be dealt with. Quoting statistics from an article in The straits times by Janadas Devan, the concentration of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere has grown from about 270 parts per million(ppm) in the industrial age to about 370 ppm now. Most climate change models specify concentrations above 550 ppm as life threatening and with carbon emissions increasing by 3 percent annually, concentrations of carbon dioxide molecules would reach 1,100 ppm by 2100, which is double the 'dangerous' level.
Year 2100 or looking in the short term, 2050, is not far ahead. We must take immediate actions to save our earth now if not, human race would be wiped out soon due to adverse climatic changes that are already showing their symptoms e.g. prolonged drought in australia and the recent cyclone in Myanmar that claimed 100,000 lives to date. Adopting Bjorn Lomborg's view to focus on something else if we do not have a good solution to a problem, we can view the current global crisis in a different light- that is to find alternative places to live in if our earth becomes unsuitable for life forms to flourish. Sourcing another planet with living conditions akin to earth is a great solution to the long term consequence of environmental problems happening concurrently. However, to move everyone from earth to another planet light years away would incur great financial costs which the poor cannot afford. And the current technology has yet to invent a spaceship that can house the masses. Hence instead of waiting in vain for these naive solutions, I wish to place great emphasis for the need to conscientiously raise environmental issues in order to raise awareness of the extinction our dear planet is facing.
We should not be easily complacent and assume the same calm and peaceful situation to continue to prevail. According to Straits Times sep 15 2007's article SAVING THE WORLD by Bjorn Lomborg, He does not see any point in worrying for our future as everything was smooth sailing then- food was becoming more plentiful and affordable and the proportion of those going hungry is expected to drop below 4%. He expected this postive trend to continue. However present statistics have greatly refuted his claim. According to http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html, 854 million people across the world are hungry, up from 852 million between 2006 and 2007. Addtionally, the current big question of "should we sacrifice food to satiate the needs of industrialisation?" has sparked off an intense discussion if the switching of cultivating crops for food to biofuel should be stopped. The shift focus of producing crops for food to biofuel has created a new population of poverty. According to Times magazine Clean Energy Scam, those who used to be able to afford food now fall into the poverty category as production of food crops declines.
We cannot overgeneralise the trend for the future as the world is too fragile and susceptible to freak disasters mentioned above. Therefore i strongly disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary.
In conclusion, there is a great need for the extensive raising of environmental concerns to the public. Only one species can save our mother earth, and that is us.
I disagree that enviromental issues are covered extensively. Like what Lichun has mentioned in her post, if there is no publicity about the concerns about global environmental issues, no one would be actually concerned about our earth. In other words, the inhabitants of earth would be kept in the dark without knowing the threats and dangers that their mother earth is facing.
Rapid industrialisation, has benefitted us greatly in our quality of life. However, this has induced an array of problems e.g. Global warming due to excessive contribution of greenhouse gases. These problems will manifest itself so rapidly that its full magnitude would be difficult to be dealt with. Quoting statistics from an article in The straits times by Janadas Devan, the concentration of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere has grown from about 270 parts per million(ppm) in the industrial age to about 370 ppm now. Most climate change models specify concentrations above 550 ppm as life threatening and with carbon emissions increasing by 3 percent annually, concentrations of carbon dioxide molecules would reach 1,100 ppm by 2100, which is double the 'dangerous' level.
Year 2100 or looking in the short term, 2050, is not far ahead. We must take immediate actions to save our earth now if not, human race would be wiped out soon due to adverse climatic changes that are already showing their symptoms e.g. prolonged drought in australia and the recent cyclone in Myanmar that claimed 100,000 lives to date. Adopting Bjorn Lomborg's view to focus on something else if we do not have a good solution to a problem, we can view the current global crisis in a different light- that is to find alternative places to live in if our earth becomes unsuitable for life forms to flourish. Sourcing another planet with living conditions akin to earth is a great solution to the long term consequence of environmental problems happening concurrently. However, to move everyone from earth to another planet light years away would incur great financial costs which the poor cannot afford. And the current technology has yet to invent a spaceship that can house the masses. Hence instead of waiting in vain for these naive solutions, I wish to place great emphasis for the need to conscientiously raise environmental issues in order to raise awareness of the extinction our dear planet is facing.
We should not be easily complacent and assume the same calm and peaceful situation to continue to prevail. According to Straits Times sep 15 2007's article SAVING THE WORLD by Bjorn Lomborg, He does not see any point in worrying for our future as everything was smooth sailing then- food was becoming more plentiful and affordable and the proportion of those going hungry is expected to drop below 4%. He expected this postive trend to continue. However present statistics have greatly refuted his claim. According to http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html, 854 million people across the world are hungry, up from 852 million between 2006 and 2007. Addtionally, the current big question of "should we sacrifice food to satiate the needs of industrialisation?" has sparked off an intense discussion if the switching of cultivating crops for food to biofuel should be stopped. The shift focus of producing crops for food to biofuel has created a new population of poverty. According to Times magazine Clean Energy Scam, those who used to be able to afford food now fall into the poverty category as production of food crops declines.
We cannot overgeneralise the trend for the future as the world is too fragile and susceptible to freak disasters mentioned above. Therefore i strongly disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary.
In conclusion, there is a great need for the extensive raising of environmental concerns to the public. Only one species can save our mother earth, and that is us.
Environment
Application Question:
- The current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. Do you agree?
According to Bjorn Lomborg in "Saving the World", the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. Rather, he felt that we should stop worrying about the future and instead, quit panicking and start thinking calmly to ensure that we focus on the right issues. According to him, we can afford to do so because worldwide incomes have increased more than threefold and these positive trends are expected to continue.
On the contrary, I can only see that increasing worldwide incomes would mean that current hype of environmental is necessary. With incomes rising, people would also become more busy with their work and industries would become more intense with their production. Who would have the time and energy to bother about things like the environment? Hence, a hype would be required to draw attention to environmental issues and increase more awareness in them so that more effort would be put in to tackle them. Therefore, I do no t agree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary.
As Michael Pollan put it in "The Way We Live Now Why Bother?", "If enough other people bother, each one influencing yet another in a chain reaction of behavioral change, markets for all manner of green products and alternative technologies will proper and expand." The environmental issues that we are currently facing are in dire states an d the only way to solve it is to ensure that there is a massive global commitment. Firstly, industries would be required to explore new forms of environmentally -friendly technologies. Secondly, governments would have to introduce new legislations to help restrict carbon emissions, thereby slowing down further deterioration of environmental problems. Lastly, not to forget every individual who have to play their part in saving energy and opting for environmentally-friendlier products.
Therefore, it is important to raise consciousness in people to counter the environmental issues and the current hype seems to be very effective in doing so. For example, the build up in the attention for environmental issues has created a surge for energy efficiency – photovoltaic solar panels have made significant improvements while researchers are currently finding a way to store wind power. Thus, the current hype has created urgency within the people to do something about the environmental issues.
In conclusion, we cannot just "quit panicking and start thinking calmly" because this would not create a sense of urgency within people to boost efforts in tackling environmental issue. So, I do not agree that the current hype over environmental issues is not unnecessary, as it is essential to ensure ongoing environment-saving efforts.
With reference to:
AJC reading package on environment
"Why Green is the New Red, White and Blue" by Bryan Walsh, Time magazine
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Application Qns 4
The authors raised several reasons why they think people today need exercise. Do you agree with them? Justify your answer.
I agree very much with the author that people today need exercise. In fact I feel that there is an increasing need to do so. The way of lifestyle and diet that people are having nowadays are affecting our health greatly. We eat food that has high animal fat, processed sugar and salt, and we sit in the office all day long typing away. This has lead to increasing problems of obesity, constipation hypertension etc.
Yes, prevention is the best possible area for our attention. However, many may ask, so how do we prevent? Eating pills? Many of the people who do not have time for exercise due to work are eating health supplements or diet pills. The side effects of these pills are forgotten at times. It may not be seen in short term but in long term, the effects start to show. Thus I can say that exercising should be the way to prevent individuals from health problems. Like what we always say, prevention is better than cure. We do not wait till we have health problems then we try to use medicine to cure it. We should not be over reliant on the medicine we have.
Like what the author have said, humans have changed from highly active “hunter-gardener” to “homosedentarius”. The modern lifestyle we are leading has caused our body to be metabolically alienated, unable to cope with the sudden change in the environment. Thus we have to start exercising as we have been neglecting it. By exercising, we will be able to get our body in a better state for work and it allows us to start our day fresh and face the day on a happier note. After work, exercising will slow down the pace of your day and relax your tensed up muscles. Isn’t this better than drinking beer at pubs? At least you don’t get hangovers.
To sum it up, we need to start exercising. Also, we should try to change the diet we are having now. Having a healthier diet would help prevent you from getting diseases and thus exercising would complement it. Singapore has launched “The National Healthy Lifestyle Programme” in 1992. Be a part of it!
I agree very much with the author that people today need exercise. In fact I feel that there is an increasing need to do so. The way of lifestyle and diet that people are having nowadays are affecting our health greatly. We eat food that has high animal fat, processed sugar and salt, and we sit in the office all day long typing away. This has lead to increasing problems of obesity, constipation hypertension etc.
Yes, prevention is the best possible area for our attention. However, many may ask, so how do we prevent? Eating pills? Many of the people who do not have time for exercise due to work are eating health supplements or diet pills. The side effects of these pills are forgotten at times. It may not be seen in short term but in long term, the effects start to show. Thus I can say that exercising should be the way to prevent individuals from health problems. Like what we always say, prevention is better than cure. We do not wait till we have health problems then we try to use medicine to cure it. We should not be over reliant on the medicine we have.
Like what the author have said, humans have changed from highly active “hunter-gardener” to “homosedentarius”. The modern lifestyle we are leading has caused our body to be metabolically alienated, unable to cope with the sudden change in the environment. Thus we have to start exercising as we have been neglecting it. By exercising, we will be able to get our body in a better state for work and it allows us to start our day fresh and face the day on a happier note. After work, exercising will slow down the pace of your day and relax your tensed up muscles. Isn’t this better than drinking beer at pubs? At least you don’t get hangovers.
To sum it up, we need to start exercising. Also, we should try to change the diet we are having now. Having a healthier diet would help prevent you from getting diseases and thus exercising would complement it. Singapore has launched “The National Healthy Lifestyle Programme” in 1992. Be a part of it!
Essay question: “What is important is not winning, but taking part.” How realistic is this attitude in the world of sports today? (1997)
In my opinion, this attitude is not realistic at all. In today’s context, where sports have become so interlinked with money, winning has become integral for most people in sports. People are motivated by greed for not only the amount of money gained through winning competitions, but also the fame and recognition achieved.
There is always a grand prize for every competition, and this grand prize can go up to millions of dollars for heavily sponsored competitions such as the Soccer English Premier League. Moreover, winning competitions brings fame which leads you to advertising deals and much more money. In addition, for international sports such as the Olympic Games, winning brings glory to the sportsmen’s countries and is sometimes used as a means to compare the power or strength between countries.
Commercialisation of sports has brought about great emphasis on winning. Sportsmen now play for the money that it brings them and for the hope of becoming millionaires. For example, the famous soccer player David Beckham earned near 6 million dollars a year, not to mention an additional average of around 17 million dollars from advertising and sponsorship. With so much money on the line, who can blame the players for wanting to win competitions? What’s more, the sportsmen are not the only ones who want to win. Punters and gamblers who bet heavily on matches or players want to win too.
Moreover, most sports require long sessions of tough and vigorous trainings, and the main reason or rather the only reason of these trainings is to sharpen their skills to ultimately win the competition. Although sportsmanship is greatly emphasized in schools today, and the phrase “Failure is the mother of success” is commonly heard, who wouldn’t like success at the first shot? Kiasuism- the fear of losing out, in Singapore has proved winning to be of high importance.
Certainly there are things to gain through the process, however, all these situations have made it impossible to see winning as a significant aspect in the world of sports today. It is therefore unrealistic to think that participation is more important than competition.
There is always a grand prize for every competition, and this grand prize can go up to millions of dollars for heavily sponsored competitions such as the Soccer English Premier League. Moreover, winning competitions brings fame which leads you to advertising deals and much more money. In addition, for international sports such as the Olympic Games, winning brings glory to the sportsmen’s countries and is sometimes used as a means to compare the power or strength between countries.
Commercialisation of sports has brought about great emphasis on winning. Sportsmen now play for the money that it brings them and for the hope of becoming millionaires. For example, the famous soccer player David Beckham earned near 6 million dollars a year, not to mention an additional average of around 17 million dollars from advertising and sponsorship. With so much money on the line, who can blame the players for wanting to win competitions? What’s more, the sportsmen are not the only ones who want to win. Punters and gamblers who bet heavily on matches or players want to win too.
Moreover, most sports require long sessions of tough and vigorous trainings, and the main reason or rather the only reason of these trainings is to sharpen their skills to ultimately win the competition. Although sportsmanship is greatly emphasized in schools today, and the phrase “Failure is the mother of success” is commonly heard, who wouldn’t like success at the first shot? Kiasuism- the fear of losing out, in Singapore has proved winning to be of high importance.
Certainly there are things to gain through the process, however, all these situations have made it impossible to see winning as a significant aspect in the world of sports today. It is therefore unrealistic to think that participation is more important than competition.
Application Question 3 - Sports
Sports and business have separate 'codes, interests and priorities'. When they are forced to combine, there is a fear that sports will 'lose its identity. Using what you have learnt from the passage and your own experience, give your views as to why the union between sports and business is 'often an uneasy one'.
Sports and business were initially not meant to be together, however, once coined together. Sports has its own set of principal and so do business.
When sports and business joined, very often, sports will be the one that has to undergo changes. Athletes no longer play a sport because they are very passionate about it. Yes, there might be some degree of passion, but as the athletes evolved from sportsman to 'celebrities', they no longer play for their interests. Instead, they only think about win or lose. Why? Because winning will earn them more fame and money. Take for example, David Beckham. He no longer earns bulk of his income from playing football. He earns loads from endorsements instead. Fans no longer worship him for his skills in football. Many idolise him because he is David Beckham, that handsome guy.
When companies put up huge banners to advertise during a game, it's insulting and disrespectful to the game. Audience's attention will be diverged and it is not fair to the players who trained so hard. Also, athletes now become walking advertisments. They are protrayed as extravagant, using branded stuff, when in actual fact, they may not have even used the brand. Brands are also giving people fake impression that they can only acheive what their idols has done so is they use the brands, which is unfair to the audience and athletes.
In conclusion, business is only making use of sports as another door to earning extra money and sports thus loses it sportsmanship.
Sports and business were initially not meant to be together, however, once coined together. Sports has its own set of principal and so do business.
When sports and business joined, very often, sports will be the one that has to undergo changes. Athletes no longer play a sport because they are very passionate about it. Yes, there might be some degree of passion, but as the athletes evolved from sportsman to 'celebrities', they no longer play for their interests. Instead, they only think about win or lose. Why? Because winning will earn them more fame and money. Take for example, David Beckham. He no longer earns bulk of his income from playing football. He earns loads from endorsements instead. Fans no longer worship him for his skills in football. Many idolise him because he is David Beckham, that handsome guy.
When companies put up huge banners to advertise during a game, it's insulting and disrespectful to the game. Audience's attention will be diverged and it is not fair to the players who trained so hard. Also, athletes now become walking advertisments. They are protrayed as extravagant, using branded stuff, when in actual fact, they may not have even used the brand. Brands are also giving people fake impression that they can only acheive what their idols has done so is they use the brands, which is unfair to the audience and athletes.
In conclusion, business is only making use of sports as another door to earning extra money and sports thus loses it sportsmanship.
The Age of Sports
Application Question: The passage raised several reasons why sport has become globalized and dominant. Do you agree with the author's arguments? Justify your answer.
In the passage "The Age of Sport", the author has attributed the globalization and domination of sports to the new emphasis on individual skills, education, the relationship between mind and body, as well as the need for constant self-reinvention in this post-industrial era.
I do agree that all the above reasons have resulted in sports becoming globalised and dominant. However, I think the crux of the whole issue is the people's obsession in leading a healthy lifestyle. It is not just about the relation between mind and body but more of looking good, especially in this fashion conscious world today. Thanks to the huge splash of advertising worldwide which features lean models, everyone wants to have a tone and lean figure – too thin is considered anorexic while just a little more than lean is considered "fat". Hence, sports seem to be the answer for the ideal figure. Sports is known to be a fun form of exercise, which means is can help to control weight by burning excess body fat and help one achieve a tone build by strengthening muscles.
In addition, there is another way in which people's obsession in looking good has resulted in the domination of sports. This comes in the form of the desire to achieve the 'sporty' look. The idea of a sportsperson perpetuates the image of a person who is fit, active, disciplined and has some exceptional skills that normal people does not. So, more people are getting into sportswear in the hope of achieving this image of a sportsperson, thus making themselves seem more outgoing.
Of course, globalization and domination of sports is not just due to personal reasons. One reason not mentioned by the author is the increasing wealth among people. Many people are getter richer and so are able to afford committing themselves to sports. Sports can be quite expensive. From the cost of sportswear to equipment to probably a trainer, everything can sum up to be a pretty huge amount. In the past, little people are able to fork out so much money to pay for such sports but now, people are not only able to do so but can even afford to try out new sports, hence explaining the ability of sports to cross national frontiers.
In conclusion, I agree with the writer's arguments to some extent because the globalization and domination of sports is not just due to new emphasis on individual skills, education, the relationship between mind and body, as well as the need for constant self-reinvention but more or greater emphasis on looking good and increased wealth among the people.
Friday, May 2, 2008
APPLICATION QUESTION 1
Given the problems that plague the Olympics, do you think that the modern Olympics has lost its purpose?
In my opinion, the modern Olympics has lost its purpose in consequence of the surfacing of many problems. The initial and main aim of reviving the Olympics was to minimize inter-countries disputes by sending youths to participate and compete in sports, meanwhile, promoting sportsmanship.
The modern society now is more inclined towards economical benefits and less of self-fulfillment due to the harsh reality of no money, no talk. The entertainment aspect of sports, together with the spread of the ubiquitous mass media, has led to professionalism in sports. This has resulted in some conflicts, where the paycheck is seen more important than recreational aspects, or where the sports are changed simply to make them more popular and profitable, thereby losing sportsmanship.
Problems arising from the Olympics are due to an increasing acknowledgement of the event as a platform to gain celebrity status and execute political agendas in which they ultimately derive monetary gains. Consequentially, the mindset of “The most important thing… is not winning but taking part” is fading. Sportsmanship is highly valued in this mega event. According to the passage, Sportsmanship is an attitude that rives for fair play, courtesy towards teammates and opponents, ethical behavior and integrity, and grace in losing. In the passage we can see that many problems plaguing the Olympics oppose this very basic virtue. For example, Hitler practises nationalism and refused to award medals to Jesse Owen (a black). From here, we can see that Hitler does not see all as equal and fair in the field of sports.
Another incident was that Romanian gymnast Andreea Raducan , part of anti-doping movement at the Olympics was stripped of her gold medal winning performance in the All-round competition of the Sydney 2000 games. She was sabotaged by an Olympic doctor who added banned-stimulant into the medicine for her flu. From this scenario, we can easily conclude that due to self-centered desires, people (besides athletes) resort to doping in order to win themselves fame and recognition or eliminate rivals in this case. They have displayed unethical behavior which is equivalent to that of a pre-foul play.
In the conscientious effort to promote sportsmanship and create a platform for talented sports people to display their attributes, the modern Olympics has also induced a host of other problems that defeats the purpose of hosting one. Modern Olympics has indeed lost its purpose.
Given the problems that plague the Olympics, do you think that the modern Olympics has lost its purpose?
In my opinion, the modern Olympics has lost its purpose in consequence of the surfacing of many problems. The initial and main aim of reviving the Olympics was to minimize inter-countries disputes by sending youths to participate and compete in sports, meanwhile, promoting sportsmanship.
The modern society now is more inclined towards economical benefits and less of self-fulfillment due to the harsh reality of no money, no talk. The entertainment aspect of sports, together with the spread of the ubiquitous mass media, has led to professionalism in sports. This has resulted in some conflicts, where the paycheck is seen more important than recreational aspects, or where the sports are changed simply to make them more popular and profitable, thereby losing sportsmanship.
Problems arising from the Olympics are due to an increasing acknowledgement of the event as a platform to gain celebrity status and execute political agendas in which they ultimately derive monetary gains. Consequentially, the mindset of “The most important thing… is not winning but taking part” is fading. Sportsmanship is highly valued in this mega event. According to the passage, Sportsmanship is an attitude that rives for fair play, courtesy towards teammates and opponents, ethical behavior and integrity, and grace in losing. In the passage we can see that many problems plaguing the Olympics oppose this very basic virtue. For example, Hitler practises nationalism and refused to award medals to Jesse Owen (a black). From here, we can see that Hitler does not see all as equal and fair in the field of sports.
Another incident was that Romanian gymnast Andreea Raducan , part of anti-doping movement at the Olympics was stripped of her gold medal winning performance in the All-round competition of the Sydney 2000 games. She was sabotaged by an Olympic doctor who added banned-stimulant into the medicine for her flu. From this scenario, we can easily conclude that due to self-centered desires, people (besides athletes) resort to doping in order to win themselves fame and recognition or eliminate rivals in this case. They have displayed unethical behavior which is equivalent to that of a pre-foul play.
In the conscientious effort to promote sportsmanship and create a platform for talented sports people to display their attributes, the modern Olympics has also induced a host of other problems that defeats the purpose of hosting one. Modern Olympics has indeed lost its purpose.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Application Question
Suggest how the 5 goals of sentencing should work together in modern society.
Crime sentencing today compared to centuries ago is of two different worlds. As stated in the article, limits on the range of options available to sentencing authorities have been reviewed and are shifted as the comprehension of crime and goals of sentencing are changed. In the past, people had the mindset that sin begets crime and thus should be punished strictly. However, during the time of French and American Revolutions, Enlightening philosophies existed. This has, in some ways, impacted the operation of meting out punishments in the present society. Severity of punishment was not as important as to issue quick and certain penalties.
The most common crimes in the present society are drunk driving, sexual crimes, drug trafficking. In my following paragraphs, I will address each genre of crime by applying the possible goals of sentencing.
Drunk driving is prevalent in any country that legalise pubs and the sale of alcoholic drinks. The severity of punishment for drunk driving depends on whether any lives were lost or any damage was caused to the third party. Christopher Lee, a popular male artiste in Singapore was involved in drunk driving on 8 October 2006. He caused superficial injuries to a motorcyclist and his pillion rider and was arrested as a result of the accident. He was fined $3000 and jailed for 6 weeks and was disqualified from driving for 3 years. From the conviction given, we can see that retribution, deterrence and incapacitation are implemented. Here, deterrence serves two purposes-specific and general. Even though Lee was a celebrity, he still cannot escape the impartiality of the law. Lee’s imprisonment in jail deterred him as well as other celebrities who thought that celebrity status could answer everything. Disqualifying Lee from 3 years of driving prevents the innocent members of the society from being harmed by him. Hence using a couple of sentencing guidelines can help prevent similar cases in the modern society.
The Rehabilitation approach is more appropriate for drug addicts/traffickers. For example, sending drug addicts to Drug Rehabilitation Centre to cure them of their addiction by changing their behavior. However, consideration of number of offences the accused have committed is important. Sending him for rehabilitation alone is not enough as he is a staunch drug addict. Most likely, he would revert back to his old ways as at present, as many as 90% of former “rehabilitated” offenders in the US return to lives of crime. At this aspect, general deterrence must be adopted. Generally, general deterrence here would mean very harsh punishment in order to deter the addict and his other counterparts. Punishment in this form would usually be caning.
Restoration is usually complementary with fines as the crime scope for this approach is normally small. For example, committing of theft or flouting public rules will require that particular person to return stolen goods and community work service respectively.
Suggest how the 5 goals of sentencing should work together in modern society.
Crime sentencing today compared to centuries ago is of two different worlds. As stated in the article, limits on the range of options available to sentencing authorities have been reviewed and are shifted as the comprehension of crime and goals of sentencing are changed. In the past, people had the mindset that sin begets crime and thus should be punished strictly. However, during the time of French and American Revolutions, Enlightening philosophies existed. This has, in some ways, impacted the operation of meting out punishments in the present society. Severity of punishment was not as important as to issue quick and certain penalties.
The most common crimes in the present society are drunk driving, sexual crimes, drug trafficking. In my following paragraphs, I will address each genre of crime by applying the possible goals of sentencing.
Drunk driving is prevalent in any country that legalise pubs and the sale of alcoholic drinks. The severity of punishment for drunk driving depends on whether any lives were lost or any damage was caused to the third party. Christopher Lee, a popular male artiste in Singapore was involved in drunk driving on 8 October 2006. He caused superficial injuries to a motorcyclist and his pillion rider and was arrested as a result of the accident. He was fined $3000 and jailed for 6 weeks and was disqualified from driving for 3 years. From the conviction given, we can see that retribution, deterrence and incapacitation are implemented. Here, deterrence serves two purposes-specific and general. Even though Lee was a celebrity, he still cannot escape the impartiality of the law. Lee’s imprisonment in jail deterred him as well as other celebrities who thought that celebrity status could answer everything. Disqualifying Lee from 3 years of driving prevents the innocent members of the society from being harmed by him. Hence using a couple of sentencing guidelines can help prevent similar cases in the modern society.
The Rehabilitation approach is more appropriate for drug addicts/traffickers. For example, sending drug addicts to Drug Rehabilitation Centre to cure them of their addiction by changing their behavior. However, consideration of number of offences the accused have committed is important. Sending him for rehabilitation alone is not enough as he is a staunch drug addict. Most likely, he would revert back to his old ways as at present, as many as 90% of former “rehabilitated” offenders in the US return to lives of crime. At this aspect, general deterrence must be adopted. Generally, general deterrence here would mean very harsh punishment in order to deter the addict and his other counterparts. Punishment in this form would usually be caning.
Restoration is usually complementary with fines as the crime scope for this approach is normally small. For example, committing of theft or flouting public rules will require that particular person to return stolen goods and community work service respectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)