Actually, I feel that we would need both the library and the internet to gain knowledge. The library is known for the accuracy in its books, but the internet has the convenience. While surfing the internet, we will not be able to know whether a source is reliable and whether the information that it provide will not be true. However, the information sources provided by the library will definitely be reliable, although they are very troublesome to be found.
One of the advantage of using the internet is that all kinds of sources can be easily found, unlike in the past where knowledge will take a long time to be passed around. The internet will also include more than one viewpoint of the issue that you are researching on. Using the internet also provide convenience to the user, as we don't need to step out of our homes in search of information.
In my opinion, in order to get reliable sources easier, we can make use of both the two different methods together. We can firstly search for information from the internet and look for books that might be useful in our research, and if required, make a trip to the library to confirm on the credibility of the source, look for the book that we found on the internet and do more research in the library with the books provided by the library itself. This way, we will be able to find accurate sources faster.
However, although with the new search engines like "Google" which helps us to look for relevant information easier, the internet is still not as organised as the library. In some library that installed the automatic search engine which can help us locate books easily, it will ease the process of searching. Moreover, we can also enjoy the advantage of having librarians around. As they are properly trained, they will be able to assist us in our search, and sometimes, find other relevant information for us.
In regards to using internet, copyright issue may not be observed carefully by many. Due to the convenience, copy and pasting happens very frequently, often without crediting the source, worse still, claiming the work as their own. This will bring harmful effects to the individual. When found out, he'll need to face the law and also, he doesn't really gain the knowledge from the source as he did not do it himself.
In conclusion, I find it very important for people to balance out their source of knowledge from both the internet and the library. One also have to observe certain rules and regulations regarding the copyright issue and be sure not violate them.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
A gift of a programme
I think that the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) is successful in nurturing the top students in Singapore. GEP is an academic programme that is designed for the top 1% of pupils in Singapore. As the students are trained from young, it is very effective as if they realise their strength earlier, they can improve in it better. We have the responsibity to nurture our future generations and the GEP can fulfill this mission.
The programme provides certain extra resources for the students under it to develop wisdom, moral values and not forgetting creativity in out youths to ensure that they will be prepared to take ont he role of leaders int the future. For countries like Singapore that only has manpower as a resource, developing gifted people is very important for the future. The GEP not only benefits the students under it, but it also benefits the society as a whole.
However, it is necessary for students that are going through the programme to make some small sacrifices. Stress is one of them. In some cases, GEP students are unable to perform better than those that are in the mainstream and hence feels very stressful. However, this kind of situations are rather common due to the different in standards for the GEP and the mainstream.
The GEP has often been criticised for being elitist. GEP students are often being portrayed as arrogant and snobbish. Though this may hold true for some of the individuals, but we should not be committing hasty generalisation. There are certainly some of them that will be better in attitude. In a school, equality and unity is very important to ensure that the nation will also be the same in the future. I think that this problem can be solved if we allow more interaction between the mainstream and GEP students.
All in all, I believe the GEP still holds benefits to Singapore, and we should continue to nurture students under the programme. However, we must also not forget about the non-GEP students as some of them still holds untold potential.
The programme provides certain extra resources for the students under it to develop wisdom, moral values and not forgetting creativity in out youths to ensure that they will be prepared to take ont he role of leaders int the future. For countries like Singapore that only has manpower as a resource, developing gifted people is very important for the future. The GEP not only benefits the students under it, but it also benefits the society as a whole.
However, it is necessary for students that are going through the programme to make some small sacrifices. Stress is one of them. In some cases, GEP students are unable to perform better than those that are in the mainstream and hence feels very stressful. However, this kind of situations are rather common due to the different in standards for the GEP and the mainstream.
The GEP has often been criticised for being elitist. GEP students are often being portrayed as arrogant and snobbish. Though this may hold true for some of the individuals, but we should not be committing hasty generalisation. There are certainly some of them that will be better in attitude. In a school, equality and unity is very important to ensure that the nation will also be the same in the future. I think that this problem can be solved if we allow more interaction between the mainstream and GEP students.
All in all, I believe the GEP still holds benefits to Singapore, and we should continue to nurture students under the programme. However, we must also not forget about the non-GEP students as some of them still holds untold potential.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Don't slay the goose that lays golden eggs
Singapore government had already decided for the building of the IR, which in turn caused even more debates before it is built. There are a lot of different articles published on the issue of IR, and each with a different viewpoint.
Some believe that the government is making a very risky decision, and it may in fact cause the opposite effect from what we desire. As we all know, gambling have a very negative impact that will cause harmful consequences. However, there will always be an opposite side of the picture. The government have the responsibility to ensure that the people be benefited, so what are the benefits that the people will gain?
Building of the IR will bring a lot of business opportunity to Singaporeans. With the increase in number tourist coming to visit the IR, we will have more opportunities to boost our economy. With the tourist, hotels, restaurant, shopping mall and other aspects of economy will be benefited, and they will be likely to earn a profit. It will also create jobs for the people that need it in this time of a global financial crisis.
However, traditional moral values oppose people gambling. Gambling is often seen as something that will definitely bring harmful effects to the people. Youths will probably be curious of how a real casino be like and step into it, in the end finding themselves unable to leave. Having more gamble addicts will only waste Singapore's resources. There will be a risk of having an increase in crime rate. Singapore, being a country that's long known to be safe and secure, will be viewed differently after that.
Generally, I think that people oppose to the building of IR as they are afraid that Singapore will be plunged into a series of problems after that and many do not understand why the government that's always oppose gambling will have a sudden change of mind. However, one must remember that IR does not only include the casino, there will also be shopping malls, restaurants, hotels and theme parks in it.
In conclusion, I think that the government has its reason for building the IR, but we need to be informed of the reason. We must also be prepared for all the problems that having an IR will probably bring and unsures that Singapore remains a safe environment.
Some believe that the government is making a very risky decision, and it may in fact cause the opposite effect from what we desire. As we all know, gambling have a very negative impact that will cause harmful consequences. However, there will always be an opposite side of the picture. The government have the responsibility to ensure that the people be benefited, so what are the benefits that the people will gain?
Building of the IR will bring a lot of business opportunity to Singaporeans. With the increase in number tourist coming to visit the IR, we will have more opportunities to boost our economy. With the tourist, hotels, restaurant, shopping mall and other aspects of economy will be benefited, and they will be likely to earn a profit. It will also create jobs for the people that need it in this time of a global financial crisis.
However, traditional moral values oppose people gambling. Gambling is often seen as something that will definitely bring harmful effects to the people. Youths will probably be curious of how a real casino be like and step into it, in the end finding themselves unable to leave. Having more gamble addicts will only waste Singapore's resources. There will be a risk of having an increase in crime rate. Singapore, being a country that's long known to be safe and secure, will be viewed differently after that.
Generally, I think that people oppose to the building of IR as they are afraid that Singapore will be plunged into a series of problems after that and many do not understand why the government that's always oppose gambling will have a sudden change of mind. However, one must remember that IR does not only include the casino, there will also be shopping malls, restaurants, hotels and theme parks in it.
In conclusion, I think that the government has its reason for building the IR, but we need to be informed of the reason. We must also be prepared for all the problems that having an IR will probably bring and unsures that Singapore remains a safe environment.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Get a JC Diploma
I feel that the JC diploma system is useful in distinguishing the best among the better students in the GCE A-levels exams, but it should not be a replacement of the A-levels. Although the JC diploma is very effective in gauging a student's holistic development that includes non-academics units such as sports and leadership, it could not possibly replace the A-levels.
Nowadays, students that scored high amount of As for their A-levels find it increasingly difficult to find a position in top universities as there are a lot of competition going around. The A-levels only tests the students on how well they memorize their concepts and knowledge learned and though filters out the "good" and "bad" students from the whole student population, some students that did not work hard will still pass through. This is when the JC diploma can be used, to act as a second layer of filter and to select the cream of the crop. However, the A-levels exam serves as the foundation of the JC diploma, without it, the diploma system will also fail.
Universities would want students that excels in their studies and in the same time can manage other commitments that may enhance their learning. The JC diploma is able to select this kind of students that can manage their time well, as it also includes other aspects such as competitions and project work. However, the JC diploma would not work if it was to replace the A-levels. For example, some students may only participate in their co-curriculum activities and other project work not because that they want to or have the passion or interest for that particular activity, but for the diploma itself. Once they have the key to the universities that they desire, they would just stop what they are doing and hence lose the real qualities of the diploma holder. This will cause another "hole" in the system where some "bad" students can just pass through.
The JC diploma's main purpose is to enhance a student's learning experience. If it was to be made compulsory, then its objective would not be met. Learning would lean towards non-academics and what is the point of having the diploma when the students dont even have the knowledge required for the universities?
In conclusion, I do not think that the A-levels exam should be dropped, but the JC diploma can be used as an optional assessment to gauge the student's abilities. Instead of being a compulsory exam, it should be something optional for the top students if they want to be recognized for their effort and exceptional abilities and boost their portfolios.
Nowadays, students that scored high amount of As for their A-levels find it increasingly difficult to find a position in top universities as there are a lot of competition going around. The A-levels only tests the students on how well they memorize their concepts and knowledge learned and though filters out the "good" and "bad" students from the whole student population, some students that did not work hard will still pass through. This is when the JC diploma can be used, to act as a second layer of filter and to select the cream of the crop. However, the A-levels exam serves as the foundation of the JC diploma, without it, the diploma system will also fail.
Universities would want students that excels in their studies and in the same time can manage other commitments that may enhance their learning. The JC diploma is able to select this kind of students that can manage their time well, as it also includes other aspects such as competitions and project work. However, the JC diploma would not work if it was to replace the A-levels. For example, some students may only participate in their co-curriculum activities and other project work not because that they want to or have the passion or interest for that particular activity, but for the diploma itself. Once they have the key to the universities that they desire, they would just stop what they are doing and hence lose the real qualities of the diploma holder. This will cause another "hole" in the system where some "bad" students can just pass through.
The JC diploma's main purpose is to enhance a student's learning experience. If it was to be made compulsory, then its objective would not be met. Learning would lean towards non-academics and what is the point of having the diploma when the students dont even have the knowledge required for the universities?
In conclusion, I do not think that the A-levels exam should be dropped, but the JC diploma can be used as an optional assessment to gauge the student's abilities. Instead of being a compulsory exam, it should be something optional for the top students if they want to be recognized for their effort and exceptional abilities and boost their portfolios.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Influenza A (H1N1)
The recent outbreak of the formerly known as H1N1 virus (formerly known as Swine Flu), has brought chaos to the world and every country is doing what it can to contain the virus and prevent spreading.
In Asia, we have faced two major viruses over these few years, the bird flu and SARS, and various countries are taking steps to prevent H1N1 from entering. Singapore had set up thermal scanners to scan anyone with a high temperature. . Those that have flu-like symtoms and had traveled to infected countries within seven days will be tested. Samples will be taken and tested in the laboratory for H1N1. People returning from H1N1 infected countries need to take LOA and be home quarantined for a week.
However, in many cases, people still get infected with the virus. This shows an ineffectiveness of the measures taken. Although they may already bbe taking the best measures, it is clearly not enough. We are not really as prepared for the flu as we thought and we need to take more precautions to prevent other viruses from spreading into Singapore in the future. However, I understand that Singapore, having a small and open economy, will be very hard to prevent the virus from spreading to the people. We had learned from previous experiences to react fast, but due to a lack of knowledge of the flu, we are unable to stop it effectively.For people that need to travel abroad due to various reasons, there is a huge inconvenience caused.
There is definitely not a foolproof method to completely stop the outbreak of a pandemic, as the virus may already be spreading before the symptoms are shown. The measures taken before are inadequate. The spreading of the virus will be much more slower if more measures are taken. However, there is nothing that we can do now besides having more preparations, in case the virus starts to mutate.
In Asia, we have faced two major viruses over these few years, the bird flu and SARS, and various countries are taking steps to prevent H1N1 from entering. Singapore had set up thermal scanners to scan anyone with a high temperature. . Those that have flu-like symtoms and had traveled to infected countries within seven days will be tested. Samples will be taken and tested in the laboratory for H1N1. People returning from H1N1 infected countries need to take LOA and be home quarantined for a week.
However, in many cases, people still get infected with the virus. This shows an ineffectiveness of the measures taken. Although they may already bbe taking the best measures, it is clearly not enough. We are not really as prepared for the flu as we thought and we need to take more precautions to prevent other viruses from spreading into Singapore in the future. However, I understand that Singapore, having a small and open economy, will be very hard to prevent the virus from spreading to the people. We had learned from previous experiences to react fast, but due to a lack of knowledge of the flu, we are unable to stop it effectively.For people that need to travel abroad due to various reasons, there is a huge inconvenience caused.
There is definitely not a foolproof method to completely stop the outbreak of a pandemic, as the virus may already be spreading before the symptoms are shown. The measures taken before are inadequate. The spreading of the virus will be much more slower if more measures are taken. However, there is nothing that we can do now besides having more preparations, in case the virus starts to mutate.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Advanced Medical Directive Act
The Advanced Medical Directive Act (AMD) is a document that you sign with the doctor, asking them not to use life-sustaining equipment in the event that you're terminally ill or in a coma.
I believe that the AMD can be fine-tuned to prevent abuse. The hospital should make sure that the patient had a serious discussion with the family members and need to have the family member coming into consent for the patient to sign the AMD. Knowing the reason for signing AMD is important to prevent abuse. This ensures that the family members' feelings are taken into account. Similarly, if the family thinks that the patient could not recover and decides to end his suffering, they should be given the right to sign the AMD too provided all of the members agree.
This act enable people to decide on how their body will be treated when it is impossible recover again. It's generally known as a kind of act that ends the patient's sufferings, if any, that need to be taken to sustain their lives.
The AMD is different from euthanasia to some extent. Euthanasia is where the patient actively takes action to end his own life, often painlessly, while AMD serve the purpose of not sustaining the patient's life, having it end when it is time to. Euthanasia is a direct approach to end life, while AMD do it passively by stopping the aids to prolong people's live but not ending one's live in a faster way.
The AMD is different from euthanasia to some extent. Euthanasia is where the patient actively takes action to end his own life, often painlessly, while AMD serve the purpose of not sustaining the patient's life, having it end when it is time to. Euthanasia is a direct approach to end life, while AMD do it passively by stopping the aids to prolong people's live but not ending one's live in a faster way.
However, like euthanasia, the AMD also faces ethical issues. The family of the person may not agree with the choice, and insist on letting him live, in hope of a chance to heal him. Some feels that it is very unfair for the family members to suffer hardship while the patient passes to the other world, and taken this as a selfish act. However, is it considered selfish too for the family to hold the patient in our world for the famiy's own benefits, while making the patient suffer even more?
Modern technology in hospitals can only prolong the life, but it does not solve the problem. It cannot stop one from dying. Being terminally ill, the patient have to die one day as long as the illness is not cured. Some argues that we should cherish every second of our life, but in the case of being terminally ill until you are considering AMD, you often don't really get to do so. It will only add to your suffering to see your family members tearing due to your own sufferings.
Modern technology in hospitals can only prolong the life, but it does not solve the problem. It cannot stop one from dying. Being terminally ill, the patient have to die one day as long as the illness is not cured. Some argues that we should cherish every second of our life, but in the case of being terminally ill until you are considering AMD, you often don't really get to do so. It will only add to your suffering to see your family members tearing due to your own sufferings.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Human Organ Transplant Act
HOTA refers to the act where human organs are removed from the dead body to transplant to a living human that needs the organ. It involves Singaporeans and PR that is aged between 20 and 60 and is generally viewed as a policy that is able to save human lives. Yes, it is true that HOTA managed to save a lot of people's life, however, there are also other issues concerning HOTA.
HOTA will come in after a body is certified as being dead. Scientifically, it will be a waste of opportunities and "resources" if we left the organs in the dead body when it can be used to save more lives, however, ethical concerns are generally the more important issue against HOTA. I do not think it is viable for us to harvest other's organs without consent. It is very unethical for us to just "cut off" one's organs and let it be "used" in another person's body without permission, this is equal to stealing. Some says that harvesting organs doesn't affect the dead person, and can save a life, but what about the person's family?
What's happening now is one must opt out from HOTA for him/herself, and one's family cannot opt out on one's behalf if one did not do that before he/she is dead. This means that if one experiences sudden death, he/she will not be able to say "no" to HOTA. According to the policy, if you opt out of HOTA, you will receive lower priority on the organ transplant waiting list if you ever need a transplant. I think that it's not right to discredit those that opted out and give priority to those working classes if they ever need a transplant. This is a rather unfair treatment.
I think that this Act can be amended. The family of the dead should be given the ability to opt one out from HOTA if he dies a sudden death. This is necessary and we need to respect the family's decision as some of them did this for religious reasons. Some will think that this disturbs the spirit of the dead, and hence refuse to doit. Hence, I think that we must obtain the permissions of all the deceased next of kin before HOTA can be implemented.
HOTA will come in after a body is certified as being dead. Scientifically, it will be a waste of opportunities and "resources" if we left the organs in the dead body when it can be used to save more lives, however, ethical concerns are generally the more important issue against HOTA. I do not think it is viable for us to harvest other's organs without consent. It is very unethical for us to just "cut off" one's organs and let it be "used" in another person's body without permission, this is equal to stealing. Some says that harvesting organs doesn't affect the dead person, and can save a life, but what about the person's family?
What's happening now is one must opt out from HOTA for him/herself, and one's family cannot opt out on one's behalf if one did not do that before he/she is dead. This means that if one experiences sudden death, he/she will not be able to say "no" to HOTA. According to the policy, if you opt out of HOTA, you will receive lower priority on the organ transplant waiting list if you ever need a transplant. I think that it's not right to discredit those that opted out and give priority to those working classes if they ever need a transplant. This is a rather unfair treatment.
I think that this Act can be amended. The family of the dead should be given the ability to opt one out from HOTA if he dies a sudden death. This is necessary and we need to respect the family's decision as some of them did this for religious reasons. Some will think that this disturbs the spirit of the dead, and hence refuse to doit. Hence, I think that we must obtain the permissions of all the deceased next of kin before HOTA can be implemented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)