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.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
National Service - How can this be amended or improved further to alleviate the problem of dodging?
Recently, the problem of people dodging their National Service (NS) is getting more and more serious. These dodgers are able to come up with all kinds of methods and excuses to prevent themselves from having to serve NS. What I think is the main problem now is people do not understand the importance for us to serve the NS.
In conclusion, in order for the Singapore to guarantee her safety during war, a strong army is needed and dodging is a serious case that may cripple the army from within. We need to solve the root of the problem.
There is a need for schools and the government to inform its people about the importance of serving NS. Singapore is a small country, if unfortunately Singapore needs to be engaged in a war, we will need all the people that we can get. Singapore needs to get its people ready, and through the National Service, it achieves the objective of training. If we are able to include the importance of NS in our education, hopefully, teens will be able to understand the purpose and decrease the number of dodgers. The government also need to help to convey the correct picture of NS to the public. As most of the teens get to know more about NS through their seniors, this may not be accurate as some of these "seniors" can be biased and detest NS too. The government can depict NS as fun and adventurous to the public to increase the interest in it.
One reason why people dodge NS is because they feel that it is a waste of time when they can continue to have better educations. After going through NS, some will find that they couldn't find a decent job as they do not have the education level for certain jobs. They will instead need to spend a few more years in universities studying unlike some other friends that need not go through NS and is already enjoying a stable job. I think that the government can help to solve this problem. Singapore can award scholarships to some of its NS men to help them in their studies and life after NS, and the government can also provide certain jobs for NS men. This will help to ensure those that want to study after NS will be able to do so.
Giving harsher punishment to NS dodgers can be another method to prevent NS dodgers, though I discourage it. The government can cane and jail those that dodged NS to show that NS is not a joke and important. However, this may cause more to dislike NS as people feel forced to join NS. Those parents that helped their children escape NS need to be punished too for conveying the wrong idea to the children.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Integrated Resort/ Free will's a gamble
The issue on whether Singapore should open a the IR has been a very hot topic among Singaporeans recently. Regarding this issue, a lot of other aspects such as the traditional moral values are dragged into it. Singaporeans now have to make the choice, do they want economic benefits or traditional values?
Opening up the IR will cause Singapore to gain a lot of economic benefits. As we all know, there is an economic crisis happening in the world now, and a lot of companies were forced to fire some of their workers to save cost. The building of IR itself will provide a lot more jobs to those people that is retrenched. Like Hitler that built the autobahn to boost Germany's economy during the Great Depression, Singapore can do something similar by building the IR. After the building of the IR is done, they will need to employ even more people to work in it.
The IR generally acts as a new tourism hot spot for foreigners to visit Singapore. Besides the casino, there will also be other different facilities available in the IR which includes shopping malls for women, hotels for families, and them parks for children. Through this, it can also boost all other aspects of Singapore's economy such as the hotels, restaurant and shopping centre industry. With the flow in currency, Singapore can in turn upgrade it's facilities and improve Singaporeans' life. Singapore will be able to develop faster and improve the quality of life.
Yes, I do know that having a casino in Singapore will make a very heavy social impact. By opening up the IR, I'm sure that there will be more undesirable activities such as illegal money lending that will happen in Singapore. People are afraid that this will tarnish Singapore's brand name. But think of it this way, if someone really wants to gamble, it doesn't matter if Singapore builds the IR, he can always go to Genting Highland in Malaysia, to Macau or even Las Vegas. Having the IR built here have the advantage that the government can control their gambling. I'm sure that the government will come up with some sort of policies that can control the gambling habits of Singaporeans effectively.
After so many years under the leadership of the government, I'm sure that we can see what the government has done that can so effectively improve all of our lives. We have to put some trust into the government and believes that they can address the non-economic issues. Generally, I believe it all lies in what Singaporeans really think of themselves, will they be able to resist the casino? For me, gambling with computer programs, yes, but gambling in the real world? Never. I know how bad can gambling's effect be, and I know that I will avoid them and will never gamble in a casino when I grow up. This is also part of the reason why I rarely touch card games that involves the element of gamble, or basically, luck. Gamble or not, it all lies in your own choice. I believe that Singaporeans that are often viewed as having better education, will be able to make the right choices.
All in all, I feel that the government should think through the proposal of having an IR built and must be ready to solve the problems that it will bring if they decide to open it. I also urge Singaporeans to think twice before stepping into a casino.
Opening up the IR will cause Singapore to gain a lot of economic benefits. As we all know, there is an economic crisis happening in the world now, and a lot of companies were forced to fire some of their workers to save cost. The building of IR itself will provide a lot more jobs to those people that is retrenched. Like Hitler that built the autobahn to boost Germany's economy during the Great Depression, Singapore can do something similar by building the IR. After the building of the IR is done, they will need to employ even more people to work in it.
The IR generally acts as a new tourism hot spot for foreigners to visit Singapore. Besides the casino, there will also be other different facilities available in the IR which includes shopping malls for women, hotels for families, and them parks for children. Through this, it can also boost all other aspects of Singapore's economy such as the hotels, restaurant and shopping centre industry. With the flow in currency, Singapore can in turn upgrade it's facilities and improve Singaporeans' life. Singapore will be able to develop faster and improve the quality of life.
Yes, I do know that having a casino in Singapore will make a very heavy social impact. By opening up the IR, I'm sure that there will be more undesirable activities such as illegal money lending that will happen in Singapore. People are afraid that this will tarnish Singapore's brand name. But think of it this way, if someone really wants to gamble, it doesn't matter if Singapore builds the IR, he can always go to Genting Highland in Malaysia, to Macau or even Las Vegas. Having the IR built here have the advantage that the government can control their gambling. I'm sure that the government will come up with some sort of policies that can control the gambling habits of Singaporeans effectively.
After so many years under the leadership of the government, I'm sure that we can see what the government has done that can so effectively improve all of our lives. We have to put some trust into the government and believes that they can address the non-economic issues. Generally, I believe it all lies in what Singaporeans really think of themselves, will they be able to resist the casino? For me, gambling with computer programs, yes, but gambling in the real world? Never. I know how bad can gambling's effect be, and I know that I will avoid them and will never gamble in a casino when I grow up. This is also part of the reason why I rarely touch card games that involves the element of gamble, or basically, luck. Gamble or not, it all lies in your own choice. I believe that Singaporeans that are often viewed as having better education, will be able to make the right choices.
All in all, I feel that the government should think through the proposal of having an IR built and must be ready to solve the problems that it will bring if they decide to open it. I also urge Singaporeans to think twice before stepping into a casino.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
How advertising informs to our benefit
Well, I think that writer's viewpoint on advertisement is partly true. Yes, I do think that through advertisements, we are able to gain some very useful information. Advertisements serve the purpose of giving details and packaging a product such that the viewer will be attracted to the product and maybe, try it. Advertisements usually don't give us the details in full, if viewers are interested in the product, by curiosity, it will led them to do more research into it. Through this, the viewers get to know the product even better. This plays a veryimportant role in promoting a product.
It is true that we as viewers get information at no extra cost. When we watch TV, surf the internet or look at signs along the road, it doesn't cost us anything, well, except the electricity and energy where necessary. In fact, sometimes we'll be able to gain a lot of extra knowledge from advertisements. For example, through a advertisement for milk powder, you'll know that DHA helps the development of the brain and etc. However, if the advertisement is able to convince you to try the products, through paying for the product, you are indirectly paying for the advertisement.
Switch on your TV, sometimes, you'll be able to see competing advertisements that's promoting a product of a different brand. Through this competitive nature of advertisements, the manufacturer of the products will definitely try to better than the other. This often leads to them lower the price of their product and improving the quality of their product. Knowing this, the other competing brand will also do the same. In the end, this benefits the consumer as we can try the product at a lower price and a better quality.
However, viewers need to be more careful with health products or something for consuming. Advertisements will try not to cover the harmful side effects of consuming the health product, as this would obviously stop the viewer from trying the product. If a viewer doesn't know about the effect and in the end, got harmed by it, this will require responsibility from the manufacturer, and sometimes the advertiser too. One very obvious example will involves slimming pills. The advertisements that we see doesn't include everything that we should know, and to profit from it, the advertisers will not let us know.
Advertising is a very hard job because you'll always face the problem of integrity and honesty. Integrity, in my view point, is the most important thing in doing business. If you're unable to gain people's trust, no matter what kind of product you have, people will not try it. However, do remember that integrity is something that you should have, not have it because you know that your customers would want it.
If I were to be the creative director of a company, I would definitely try my best to provide truths and show the bad points, however, not highlighting them. The viewers will be able to know the harmful effects of my product if they pay attention to my advertisement, and I'll likely be able to gain their trust for providing two sides of the picture to them.Although we might not be able to profit much from other brands, but at least we have integrity and I'm sure that customers will know who to trust in the long run.
It is true that we as viewers get information at no extra cost. When we watch TV, surf the internet or look at signs along the road, it doesn't cost us anything, well, except the electricity and energy where necessary. In fact, sometimes we'll be able to gain a lot of extra knowledge from advertisements. For example, through a advertisement for milk powder, you'll know that DHA helps the development of the brain and etc. However, if the advertisement is able to convince you to try the products, through paying for the product, you are indirectly paying for the advertisement.
Switch on your TV, sometimes, you'll be able to see competing advertisements that's promoting a product of a different brand. Through this competitive nature of advertisements, the manufacturer of the products will definitely try to better than the other. This often leads to them lower the price of their product and improving the quality of their product. Knowing this, the other competing brand will also do the same. In the end, this benefits the consumer as we can try the product at a lower price and a better quality.
However, viewers need to be more careful with health products or something for consuming. Advertisements will try not to cover the harmful side effects of consuming the health product, as this would obviously stop the viewer from trying the product. If a viewer doesn't know about the effect and in the end, got harmed by it, this will require responsibility from the manufacturer, and sometimes the advertiser too. One very obvious example will involves slimming pills. The advertisements that we see doesn't include everything that we should know, and to profit from it, the advertisers will not let us know.
Advertising is a very hard job because you'll always face the problem of integrity and honesty. Integrity, in my view point, is the most important thing in doing business. If you're unable to gain people's trust, no matter what kind of product you have, people will not try it. However, do remember that integrity is something that you should have, not have it because you know that your customers would want it.
If I were to be the creative director of a company, I would definitely try my best to provide truths and show the bad points, however, not highlighting them. The viewers will be able to know the harmful effects of my product if they pay attention to my advertisement, and I'll likely be able to gain their trust for providing two sides of the picture to them.Although we might not be able to profit much from other brands, but at least we have integrity and I'm sure that customers will know who to trust in the long run.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Science: a Menace to Civilisation?
What role does science plays in today's society? Wait, before answering that question, how are you going to read this blog post without the scientific breakthroughs? We all know that science had played an important and crucial role in our lives, without it, we would not be what we are now. From the light bulb, television, computer to even books, almost everything that you see in our life have something to do with science. However, science also brings about destruction other than innovations that improves human's lives. This can be found in the invention of the atom bomb and biological weapons of mass destruction. Which leads me to the main topic for this post -- is modern science truly beneficial to humans, or does it actually work in the opposite?
Well, I think that the benefits that we gain from modern science outweigh its costs. It is with science that we get to live in this comfortable environment that we are in now. With the breakthrough in the field of medicine, scientists managed to make life-saving discoveries that include vaccination, antibiotics and many others, all with the help of science. It is also with developments that science brought in agricultural sanitation that we manage to decrease the child mortality rate. Without it, a lot of us won't even be living now.
We always say that "knowledge is power", in this technologically advanced age, this statement is especially true. It is with science that we are able to obtain this knowledge and hence the power that comes with it too. With science in hand, we can basically do anything that we want to and achieve things that are thought to be impossible. People once laughed at the idea of walking on the moon and flying, however, the invention of space shuttles and air-planes already made this possible, again with the help of science.
However, the main problem that science has is that it interfere with ethics quite a lot, especially in areas involving biology. For example, the stem cell research that proved to be a very effective type of medication is said to be violating human rights. Cloning too is also considered to be a highly debated topic involving science. With cloning technology, one can live forever and ever, however, is right for humans to gain immortality? For example, people that need an organ replacement can clone themselves and use the organs from the clone to treat themselves. However, the clone may be killed in the process. Here comes the question, it is justifiable to kill "yourself" to save yourself? Is the clone considered a human too? In fact, there are quite a lot of science that is under the moral grey zone and it causes a lot of ethical problems.
All in all, I do not deny that science will bring destruction to the society too, but in truth, the effect of lies in the hands of whomever that is using it. Science is neither man’s foe nor his friend and will always remain neutral, it all depends on man kind's usage on them. With science, there are hopes for the future, but we must not misuse it, if not the future will be ruined instead.
Well, I think that the benefits that we gain from modern science outweigh its costs. It is with science that we get to live in this comfortable environment that we are in now. With the breakthrough in the field of medicine, scientists managed to make life-saving discoveries that include vaccination, antibiotics and many others, all with the help of science. It is also with developments that science brought in agricultural sanitation that we manage to decrease the child mortality rate. Without it, a lot of us won't even be living now.
We always say that "knowledge is power", in this technologically advanced age, this statement is especially true. It is with science that we are able to obtain this knowledge and hence the power that comes with it too. With science in hand, we can basically do anything that we want to and achieve things that are thought to be impossible. People once laughed at the idea of walking on the moon and flying, however, the invention of space shuttles and air-planes already made this possible, again with the help of science.
However, the main problem that science has is that it interfere with ethics quite a lot, especially in areas involving biology. For example, the stem cell research that proved to be a very effective type of medication is said to be violating human rights. Cloning too is also considered to be a highly debated topic involving science. With cloning technology, one can live forever and ever, however, is right for humans to gain immortality? For example, people that need an organ replacement can clone themselves and use the organs from the clone to treat themselves. However, the clone may be killed in the process. Here comes the question, it is justifiable to kill "yourself" to save yourself? Is the clone considered a human too? In fact, there are quite a lot of science that is under the moral grey zone and it causes a lot of ethical problems.
All in all, I do not deny that science will bring destruction to the society too, but in truth, the effect of lies in the hands of whomever that is using it. Science is neither man’s foe nor his friend and will always remain neutral, it all depends on man kind's usage on them. With science, there are hopes for the future, but we must not misuse it, if not the future will be ruined instead.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Why we should/should not exercise any form of censorship in pornography.
With the more and more wide spread use of the internet, pornography, be it film or images, is widely found and easily accessed. However, pornography is not only found on the internet but also in magazines and other forms of media. Over exposure to pornography may lead to addiction, and addiction can be dangerous. Although people know that pornography is harmful to them, they still fall for the trap as the temptation is hard to resist.
Pornography in this era is more male oriented, and it generally degrades women and portrays them as someone that deep down, wanted to be raped. This is not true in the society and is an insult to women. Pornography is a very taboo to the majority due to the sexual materials it involves, talking about it in the public simply defies the traditional ways of doing things. In the past, people had little sex educations and hence some will resort to pornography to learn about such things. Though the world is more modern now, acts to stop pornography is not really obvious.
Future generations should not have any chance to be exposed to such these unhealthy materials that may corrupt their minds. However, from statistics obtained, we know that this is highly difficult as they have their own curiosity that causes them to venture into pornography themselves, considering how pornography can be easily obtained from the internet. Sometimes, children can also accidentally stumble into pornographic sites and hence be exposed to them if not stopped by someone else. Censorship can be exercised to stop the chance that these immature children can be corrupted and stop the consequences that may come together with it.
Sometimes, pornography can also create religious problems as there are some religions out there that are considered rather conservative. All these different religions have their own set of beliefs, and we all have to respect them and be mindful of not violating them. However, pornography violates these religious beliefs, and thus, I think censorship should be enforced.
However, not all pornography is totally harmful to the mind. Some may be rather healthy and can come from a beautiful art form that is worthy of appreciation. This this kind of cases, it is up to the viewer to decide on whether what they are looking at is just a piece of art or pornography. According to some, pornography also has a role as a form of expression, which is healthy sexual desire.
From what we know, anti-pornography proponents have been calling for censorship for a long time, but the censorship is still not there in a lot of countries. Why is this so? Is pornography really a form of freedom of expression? This can be argued that through exposure to pornography, humans can enjoy their own sexual fantasies brings about pleasure of human sexuality and so they can enjoy it to the fullest.
There are constant debates on this this topic, what I think would be ideal is for pornography to be censored. The only form of pornography left standing should be art, which is in my opinion, not pornography at all. This will create a much decent environment for us to live in. In conclusion, there are a lot of damages that pornography can do to human relationships and it can be harmful to the future generations. Hence, censorship should be put in place to restrict the use of these secual explicit materials.
Pornography in this era is more male oriented, and it generally degrades women and portrays them as someone that deep down, wanted to be raped. This is not true in the society and is an insult to women. Pornography is a very taboo to the majority due to the sexual materials it involves, talking about it in the public simply defies the traditional ways of doing things. In the past, people had little sex educations and hence some will resort to pornography to learn about such things. Though the world is more modern now, acts to stop pornography is not really obvious.
Future generations should not have any chance to be exposed to such these unhealthy materials that may corrupt their minds. However, from statistics obtained, we know that this is highly difficult as they have their own curiosity that causes them to venture into pornography themselves, considering how pornography can be easily obtained from the internet. Sometimes, children can also accidentally stumble into pornographic sites and hence be exposed to them if not stopped by someone else. Censorship can be exercised to stop the chance that these immature children can be corrupted and stop the consequences that may come together with it.
Sometimes, pornography can also create religious problems as there are some religions out there that are considered rather conservative. All these different religions have their own set of beliefs, and we all have to respect them and be mindful of not violating them. However, pornography violates these religious beliefs, and thus, I think censorship should be enforced.
However, not all pornography is totally harmful to the mind. Some may be rather healthy and can come from a beautiful art form that is worthy of appreciation. This this kind of cases, it is up to the viewer to decide on whether what they are looking at is just a piece of art or pornography. According to some, pornography also has a role as a form of expression, which is healthy sexual desire.
From what we know, anti-pornography proponents have been calling for censorship for a long time, but the censorship is still not there in a lot of countries. Why is this so? Is pornography really a form of freedom of expression? This can be argued that through exposure to pornography, humans can enjoy their own sexual fantasies brings about pleasure of human sexuality and so they can enjoy it to the fullest.
There are constant debates on this this topic, what I think would be ideal is for pornography to be censored. The only form of pornography left standing should be art, which is in my opinion, not pornography at all. This will create a much decent environment for us to live in. In conclusion, there are a lot of damages that pornography can do to human relationships and it can be harmful to the future generations. Hence, censorship should be put in place to restrict the use of these secual explicit materials.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore- Refer to TalkingCock.com/ Mr Brown
There have been many things that are brought up on the issue of freedom of speech. Nowadays, more and more of these kinds of commentaries can be seen on the internet, especially since technology had advanced together with time, for example, talkingcock.com and Mr Brown that had gained fame from being commentaries. However in Singapore, some topics of criticism could land you in trouble.
I think that what the government had been doing is right and these political commentaries should continue to be regulated. What I think is that these commentaries can indirectly change people's opinion on the government. Singapore is seen as a authoritarian country with limited liberty given to the people, but it is precisely this fact that made Singapore a politically stable country that it is now. There had not been any serious riots and strikes that could cripple Singapore growth since its independence. These strict regulations that the government post to the people have helped to maintain peace and harmony among Singapore citizens, between races and religions. Hence, this policy should also be applied to politics to prevent an unnecessary uprising.
There are many users browsing these on-line commentaries nowadays, especially the younger generations. It is important that these commentaries, sometimes biased towards one side, will not influence them. The public could make the decision and see for themselves if there's something wrong that the government did without the interference from the commentaries, hence they are not really necessary. For people that wish to express their discontent at the government, they do not need to do it that openly. Instead of criticising/complaining, one could suggest for improvements instead. Our job as citizens of a country is to help it progress, not to make it break down by our own comments.
There may be some companies or even political groups out there that pay these people to create such commentaries. In this kind of situations, it will be entirely up to the viewers to decide on whether what they read is correct and reliable as the impact that internet creates is really too big. If they decided that something wrong is in fact right, then this could hinder the country's progress. Regulations on political commentaries are useful in these times to stop the people from being influenced by the source. This is especially important during election periods, every comment on a certain political group, biased or not, is going to influence the public's opinion. This will be extremely unfair to others and if not stopped, may cause the country's future to be ruined.
However, we must also note that these political commentaries are not always harmful but actually healthy in various ways, though we must always keep in mind that we have the responsibilities to ensure that nothing abusive is done. Sometimes, these commentaries will also provide entertainment to the public viewing it and in a way help the society progress. We cannot deny that with these comments and criticism out there, Singapore manages to progress to its present state.
I think that what the government had been doing is right and these political commentaries should continue to be regulated. What I think is that these commentaries can indirectly change people's opinion on the government. Singapore is seen as a authoritarian country with limited liberty given to the people, but it is precisely this fact that made Singapore a politically stable country that it is now. There had not been any serious riots and strikes that could cripple Singapore growth since its independence. These strict regulations that the government post to the people have helped to maintain peace and harmony among Singapore citizens, between races and religions. Hence, this policy should also be applied to politics to prevent an unnecessary uprising.
There are many users browsing these on-line commentaries nowadays, especially the younger generations. It is important that these commentaries, sometimes biased towards one side, will not influence them. The public could make the decision and see for themselves if there's something wrong that the government did without the interference from the commentaries, hence they are not really necessary. For people that wish to express their discontent at the government, they do not need to do it that openly. Instead of criticising/complaining, one could suggest for improvements instead. Our job as citizens of a country is to help it progress, not to make it break down by our own comments.
There may be some companies or even political groups out there that pay these people to create such commentaries. In this kind of situations, it will be entirely up to the viewers to decide on whether what they read is correct and reliable as the impact that internet creates is really too big. If they decided that something wrong is in fact right, then this could hinder the country's progress. Regulations on political commentaries are useful in these times to stop the people from being influenced by the source. This is especially important during election periods, every comment on a certain political group, biased or not, is going to influence the public's opinion. This will be extremely unfair to others and if not stopped, may cause the country's future to be ruined.
However, we must also note that these political commentaries are not always harmful but actually healthy in various ways, though we must always keep in mind that we have the responsibilities to ensure that nothing abusive is done. Sometimes, these commentaries will also provide entertainment to the public viewing it and in a way help the society progress. We cannot deny that with these comments and criticism out there, Singapore manages to progress to its present state.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?
Before I start on the topic, consider this: will you rather donate money to a charity show that you didn't know who will be benefited or to a man beside the road performing to earn a living? For me, I will choose the man beside the road, at least I know that I'm helping him with his life, the risk involved in donating to a charity show is too large, you never know if someone else, not the needy, had taken all the money.
From there, I would say that do not agree that artiste should put up stunts to attract to donate money for the organisation. The President's Star Charity Show is a widely known and highly successful Singapore charity show that involves famous artiste performing all kinds of stunts, interesting or dangerous, to ask for donations from the public. Some artiste may be able to use this shows as stepping stones to start their career in the show business and they can gain experience and probably fame from the show, while helping the needy in the same time, this forms a win-win situation for both the artiste and the needy.
The show also gives the public a sense that they are having material gains but not letting the money "fly away" without having any impact. However, this will completely defeat the purpose of doing charity, the public is not doing anything to help the needy, but to "buy" the performances of the various artiste. Though some may argue that the needy is still helped in the end is the most important, we all know that this is does not nurture people with a compassion and love to the society. In the long run, the public may no longer find this charity show interesting and stop donating their money. If the public really want to contribute anything to the needy, they can make their own donations by themselves or contribute their service to the particular organisation, but not wait until the "charity season" come and start donating their money to the artiste performing, not the needy.
Some of these charity shows take videos of the people that need help or even invite them up to talk about their own life stories and sorrows to gain sympathy from the public. However, I do not agree with this kind of acts. Humans need self esteem, and the needy, no matter how ill and how much they suffered, are still humans. Doing this will only destroy the self esteem that they have and they may view themselves as some kind of trash to the society that needs other's sympathy. I believe that inviting those that had gotten help up to talk about how they are grateful to those that helped and to the society will be better. However, some of the public may just view these people as actors and do not believe what they said.
What I think that can be done instead of having charity shows is the government should nurture the people with a kind and compassion heart since young. Start with education. The members of the public will know what to do for the needy and do not require any motivation if they have the correct mindsets.
From there, I would say that do not agree that artiste should put up stunts to attract to donate money for the organisation. The President's Star Charity Show is a widely known and highly successful Singapore charity show that involves famous artiste performing all kinds of stunts, interesting or dangerous, to ask for donations from the public. Some artiste may be able to use this shows as stepping stones to start their career in the show business and they can gain experience and probably fame from the show, while helping the needy in the same time, this forms a win-win situation for both the artiste and the needy.
The show also gives the public a sense that they are having material gains but not letting the money "fly away" without having any impact. However, this will completely defeat the purpose of doing charity, the public is not doing anything to help the needy, but to "buy" the performances of the various artiste. Though some may argue that the needy is still helped in the end is the most important, we all know that this is does not nurture people with a compassion and love to the society. In the long run, the public may no longer find this charity show interesting and stop donating their money. If the public really want to contribute anything to the needy, they can make their own donations by themselves or contribute their service to the particular organisation, but not wait until the "charity season" come and start donating their money to the artiste performing, not the needy.
Some of these charity shows take videos of the people that need help or even invite them up to talk about their own life stories and sorrows to gain sympathy from the public. However, I do not agree with this kind of acts. Humans need self esteem, and the needy, no matter how ill and how much they suffered, are still humans. Doing this will only destroy the self esteem that they have and they may view themselves as some kind of trash to the society that needs other's sympathy. I believe that inviting those that had gotten help up to talk about how they are grateful to those that helped and to the society will be better. However, some of the public may just view these people as actors and do not believe what they said.
What I think that can be done instead of having charity shows is the government should nurture the people with a kind and compassion heart since young. Start with education. The members of the public will know what to do for the needy and do not require any motivation if they have the correct mindsets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)