national day rally

prime minister lee hsien loong first mentioned that singapore aims to equip each child with a top-rate education. on the surface, this is possible as singapore is known for her high standard of education in the world. furthermore, in newsweek's finding, national university of singapore is ranked sixteenth in the world as being a global institution, both academically and in terms of diversity.

singapore does have the infrastructure and ability to give such a top rate education. we have good institutions and such. hence, it is a feasible suggestion. furthermore, with the creation of a forth university in the future, that doesnt seem so hard to achieve. however, the only concern is that, will the citizens be positive about such a target?

of course, we all understand the value of a top education. however, the very quality of such a nature of education demands that we fork out a lot of cash. well, for the higher-end families with BM 7 series might not find this much of a concern. but we do have families struggling to make ends meet, though they have bright and outstanding children. also, we have the average families who might face further financial burden when their children get into top end institutions.

perhaps the government should look into this concern, and see whether financial burden will be a big barrier to achieving and realising those dreams. as far as i'm concerned, i feel that singapore should perhaps emulate something similar to what malaysia has recently implemented, that is, free education for everyone. though singapore might not want to go full-force on such an approach that might cause a backlash on other developments, they could perhaps create more opportunities for bond-free loans and scholarships. a good and top quality education will help individuals propel the economy and provide more to society.

he also mentioned in the later part of his speech that singapore is a city of possibilities. this is perhaps meant in the sense that we can undertake what we want to and it will be a fruitful venture, provided effort and determination are exercised all the time. however, looking deeper, is singapore really a city of possibilities? or only certain possibilities are being given a chance to develop and realise its true potential?

i'd say the latter. only some possibilities are being looked at and tapped on. the government is forever placing an emphasis on science and technology and this means that everyone goes into this sector. simply because it's a venture that is supported by the authorities, hence possibilities here are limitless. i've heard of endless tales of new discoveries and explorations in the science sector.

what about the arts? what about the social sector? those minor breakthroughs that have been bluntly ignored simply because they aren't congruent to what the government deems fit. we have to change this mindset. it's not fair and neither is it feasible for our future. if we're to concentrate on science alone, that doesnt make singapore vibrant as a whole collective.

possibilities in every sector is important if we want to achieve more and develop singapore to reach new dimensions once unattainable. hence, there are certain limitations and considerations to what the prime minister mentioned in the national day rally.

political and socio-economic impacts of current demographic changes

the current demographic changes of low birthrates and high life expectancy are one of the many changes that lead to certain socio-economic and political impacts. they may be positive and negative in nature.

positively, a socio-economic impact is that, with higher life expectancies denotes a higher standard of living. this is probably due to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has improved and this has enabled diseases to be combated better so as to ensure that people live longer.

however, consequently, with the higher life expectancies and a low birthrate, there might not be enough productive individuals to propel the economy. this might inadvertently lead to a downfall of some major economies in the future, like japan. japan doesnt have enough immigrants settling in to keep it's population at a healthy growth rate. neither does it have a high rate of births.

furthermore, the older populace that will become dominant in the future society might lack the traits needed to ensure that the economy is forever diversified. the older generation might not have the traits of being creative and setting forth new products to develop their economy. also, they, generally being individuals who lack the desire of taking possible risks, would not travel on unchartered boundaries to bring in more wealth to the economic sector.

politically, there might not be stability. with the life expectancy growing, there will be more older people in the governing sector. the old, as far as anyone's concern, are not willing to take risks, and neither are they creative nor innovative. this might lead to a dysfunctional country that is not as efficient as it is now.

hence, we see that there are quite a lot at stake if the demographic changes are not changed to ourfavour. though there might be certain positive impacts, the negative ones far outweigh that of the positive. we must put effort so as to ensure that the future is not heavily affected.

jeremy su's article - live earth's success

i refer to jeremy su's article.

live earth, the 24 hour series of live concerts across the seven continents held on 7th of july 2007, organised to raise awareness of global warming and climate change.Is the live earth really successful?

i agree with his stand that the concert was not successful to a large extent. jeremy mentioned about how the global population needed to have a willingness to change their lifestyles and not an awaresness towards global warming. i can safely vouch that the world's educated and literate populace are clearly aware of global warming and it's threats. yet, none are being proactive about taking the neccesary steps in preventing it from getting worse.

individuals are comfortable with their lives. increased affluence has led them to believe that it's fine to travel and indulge in life's pleasures without care and concern for the environment and the earth. they are innately aware of the implications of ignoring such factors, yet they do so. simply because they lack the initiative and willingness to change, thinking that they're not the stewards responsible for the earth.

furthermore, the concert was about jetting stars all around the globe to mandate that something had to be done about global warming. however, the very action of jetting stars around, leading to thousands of fans following suit has certainly led to an increased in greenhouse gases' emissions. travel is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gases, and the very fact that live earth indirectly or directly promoted this travel, shows the event's failure.

i think another approach has to be taken. perhaps live earth has it's intended meaning, but they overlooked the underlying matters that might have contradicted their aims. hence, we must look back and perhaps modify the approach of live earth to help generate willingness among people to improve their level of willingness to make a change in their lives so as to better address the issue of global warming.

can poverty ever be eradicated?

poverty is the boon to every nation. it's widespread and permeates every corner of the globe, be it in a small degree, or whether it's become a epidemic in a particular nation. we may pump in efforts to eradicate it, but that cannot be achieved. it can only be mitigated.

kamala sarup stated that although leaders can drive their drive their people to work more and be more productive. this is perhaps by exploiting natural resources to propel the economy. we're assuming that initially, there are resources to exploit. the influx of money generated can thus help aid poverty. however, he also mentions the feasibility of such an approach. he states that the nation's leaders can only push the people by only so much.

in light of the issue of poverty, it seems that kamala sarup has painted a very grim picture of the situation in poverty-stricken countries. i agree that there can only be so much individuals can do, and slightly more when pushed. however, this cannot be viewed in such an inferior tone as workers can slowly better themselves and contributing more to their nations. it is a time consuming task, and it might not be fruitful in it's immediate stages, but it can definitely help in the long run if efforts are in place.

however, is there enough manpower to spearhead these efforts? especially in poverty stricken areas where manpower alone is crippled due to lack of financial reserves to sustain it. it is where, i feel and believe, the point where richer and more able nations provide their aid and support in hopes of creating a more stable and economically blossoming world. if the better nations are not in favour of providing aid, then this world bears the saying, 'as the rich grows richer, the poor grows poorer.'.

this is where sachs claims come into context. his claims of having the richer nations giving 0.7 percent of their national income to the poorer countries is somewhat congruent to what i feel should be done. that is, richer countries can provide help to aid the poorer nations. this money can be used to better the infrastructure in the countries so that they can begin realising their potential in the primary and secondary industries.

the help provided can also be through expertise. other countries that are better off can send professionals to educate the workforce so that they can contribute to the country and help to lessen poverty in their country.

only when all this is given, can the poor be given a new lease of life to ensure that they are capable, relevant and able to contribute to their society. this, though it can certainly aid the lessening of poverty, still has a big question mark over the issue as to whether poverty can really be eradicated, as how sachs claims.

embracing otherhood - challenges posed to singapore by a more diverse society

singapore has certainly grown in terms of her diversity. we have many foreign migrants who are either coming to singapore to settle in and attain a citizenship, or to contribute further to singapore's rapidly growing economy. having said that, the singapore has yet to overcome the challenges that is posed to singapore by a more diverse society.

it's true that while statistics prove that we are becoming more rich in society; that is, a society that has grown more complex, with the influx of many other nationalities from all across the globe, the general mindset of a singaporean towards such complexities is not positive. even if a migrant becomes a singaporean citizen, that doesnt mean that he or she is accepted as one on the social level.

perhaps this is due to the stigma that most singaporeans have about foreigners, be they be citizens or not. singaporean individuals are afraid of being replaced by such foreigners. singaporean students are wary of foreign students, such as scholars and those on an education visa. singaporean workers are resentful of foreign immigrants who are working in singapore, feeling that they're up to nothing but to remove job opportunities for singaporean equals or even a better educated worker. this is to due the fact that, singaporeans need to be paid with higher wages.

the abovementioned factor really questions the ability of our society to be accepting and to embrace the complex and secular nature of our state. we cannot be stuck in the past, thinking that foreigners are a boon to society, especially since their expertise and help has drove our industries. singapore collaborates with other nations for projects and such, and it's unfair if we reap benefits from those nations, while disrespecting their very citizens who happen to be in our midst.

another factor that is important to be discussed in this issue, asides from mindset (earlier mentioned), is the importance that singaporeans learn the importance of integration and unity. as seen in paris and sydney, the lack of the two elements of integration and unity can lead to spats between the different groups of people. this will not only create social tension and unease, but will affect the country collectively. productivity and efficiency will also be affected.

in ages past, when everyone in a society was simply homogenous, human nature mandates that people will bond together by virtue of race or background. however, in today's age, or more accurately placed, in singapore's society, it's not about virtue of race or background. it goes much more deeper than just that.

singaporeans need to understand, recognise and assimilate differences in our society. we have to understand that diversity doesnt' merely include chinese, malays, indians and europeans, but, everyone else. there's no longer an accurate classification of people as there're so many in singapore's societies, all contributing actively to the nation.

hence, these are the two most crucial challenges posed by an increased in diversity in singapore's society.

gay marriage flap

with the world being more affluent and literate, individuals can choose their own path in life. it was not like in previous, somewhat medieval times, where people chose what was normal, what was right. now it's about personal choice, choices that ensure one's personal sense of fulfilment.

now, it'a about not straight relationships, but those of a different kind.

gay relationships.

this article states that in france, the very first gay marriage was witnessed between two men.

pardon me if my blog entry layout has led you to believe that i'm discussing gay rights and such. no, i'm discussing something sensitive that the article touched on, though it was somewhat little.

it's the fact that, although we now live in a more diversified and free world, where others respect our personal choices and opinions, where we no longer are crucified for not obeying the norm, there is still a great risk that religious and social issues can flare up. this marriage occurred in france, a country which is believed to be home to one of the world's well-known secular state.

that being said, are we really in a world that emphasises on personal rights and choice? or are we just dellusioned to believe so?

clearly more has to be done to change this mindset. it's not about merely better economic and social status. it's about worldwide awareness and acceptance of a particular issue.

killing of animals - right or wrong?

there has been a lot of debate as to whether there should be culling to animals to maintain the ecosystem.

my view is, it should be left to mother nature. mother nature has always exercised extreme balance on its ecosystem and hence, we should not interfere.

however, in light of the recent situation, we see poachers killing animals for sport and pleasure, that animals become extinct. it is pretty clear, that the scales of nature has tipped. and this change is not in our favour, and neither is it in the favour of the animals of the wild.

human interference is now needed to maintain the very delicate balance that has been established by mother nature.much has to be done and the matter has to be looked into. if not, it may result in our very own undoing.

though last time we existed in harmony with the creatures of the planet, with globalization and many other factors, we demand additional land. land required to propel our industries, our food resources, our housing needs, education infrastructure and so on. it is this desire that led us to believe that it's right to poach creatures, to attain our goals, no matter how we attain them.

we kill animals, be it for sport, or for land. we destroy their homes and habitats. we pollute the waters that they depend on. we wipe out an animal species which was once their source of food. in this view, we see that killing of animals is not right, and hence, not justified.

however, one could argue that the killing of animals is important to the nation's well-being. respecting animals and the ecosystem is good, however, we do have our livelihoods. with modern technology and a growing world population, it's just merely a lack of luck that we humans and the creatures of the planet cannot fully live in co-existence.

we simply have to kill animals and remove their habitats. only then can the world's demands be addressed.

however, the big question is, how viable is this approach?

global warming and it's impact on the world around us

global warming and it's impact on the earth and us.

we tend to ignore global warming. we claim that global warming is just a simple case or rather, a phenomenon whereby there is a heating up of the earth and hence, a rise in global temperature. we fail to understand the scope of its potential. it's highly capable of causing health pandemics that can in turn cripple our economic and social security and stability.

the article i chose showed how global warming is so deadly and steps have to be taken to ensure that global warming is either curbed or further prevented. global warming is able to create forest fires and the debris and dust can be easily spread by wind. this debris and dust can lead to severe respiratory problems among people if they're continuously exposed towards it.

furthermore, global warming that causes an increase in the global temperature melt the polar ice caps and this actually constitutes to a higher sea level. the unfortunate thing is that, in the low lying countries, they experience floods. not only that, the increased floods is an invitation to spread waterborne diseases. this could mean a potential disaster in the poverty stricken countries as they are not able to cope with such pandemics.

the article highlights another complication that global warming can lead to. haze, due to forest fires and such will become more frequent and at a more drastic level. drastic here means that as time passes, the haze that occurs will intensify in severity as temperature soars and more fires break out.

global warming also affects our social security as the increased temperature actually means that food crops could also be affected. if nothing is done to address our climate that is currently in crisis now, it's easy to conclude that we might just die because of our own doing. that is, irresponsibility to the environment. the increasing temperatures, failing crops are just a consequence to the global warming pandemic.

these problems indirectly threaten our national and social security. with the increased heatwaves and diseases that have become more rampant, the workforce may become less productive. this puts a direct dampening on the economy and hence we'll be severely or adversely affected. global warming thus has to be looked into tactfully and critically as something can be done before it's too late.

singer vs szilagyi

singapore is known all across the globe for her multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism. despite the fact that there are lots of different religious and cultural practices, peace and serenity prevails in our country.

due to a very simple reason. singapore places great emphasis on being socially responsible about expression of thought and feelings. singapore experienced how being irresponsible can lead to racial tension, as seen in the 1964 racial riots.

however, the two articles do raise two important question.

'should freedom of speech be practiced without enforcing limits and boundaries?'

'or should there be mainly a greater focus on social responsibility?'

in my opinion, i feel that freedom of speech should be practiced without enforcing any limits and boundaries. on top of that, there should be a greater focus on social responsibility. these two elements complement each other and hence would enable a more open, though safer environment.

freedom of speech enables viewpoints to be expressed freely, and this is important as democracy means that everyone is fairly and equally treated. this element of democracy can thus be achieved only if every individual in a democratic country has his voice heard and is respected for his opinions.

at this juncture, i'd expect people to come up and say that such freedom of speech cannot be implemented in singapore as the nature of our society goes counter to freedom of speech. many claim that insensitive remarks, libel and flaming will pepper blogs, forums and media. this will lead to racial, religious and cultural tension that will have history repeating itself where singapore experiences greater and bloodier riots.

that's where the focus of social responsibility comes in. with the emphasis of being socially responsible in blogging or in posting an article in the media or forum, freedom of speech and social responsibility can act hand in hand. when this happens, we can be assurred that freedom of speech is not utilised to create discord and problems that might threaten our national sovereignty.

hence, i say that it's not a matter of adopting a single author's approach of free speech. i believe that both is integral in ensuring that free speech can be practiced without a backlash to the country's safety.

freedom of speech is an integral part in a democratic country. hence, we cannot stamp our foot down and control it. that mocks the value of democracy. focus on social responsibility is the key in ensuring that we all benefit from the newfound freedom of having everyone's views and opinions expressed freely, yet conducively.

commentary of a friend's blog entry

nicole khong zijia 11/07
http://nicole-ism.blogspot.com

'youtube has no ethics or principles and is created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. do you agree?'

i agree with the view to a large extent. youtube is now a fast growing website that is gaining immense popularity. it's a website that basically enables users to upload any media-based material, like songs or videos. there are no restrictions and one can post simply anything. in this materialistic world, we all pursue success. similarly to youtube, they enforce minimal restrictions such that users enjoy their services so much that youtube reaps tremendous profits. this shows that, youtube does intend to benefit users so greatly simply for the benefit of monetary influx.

youtube's open nature is good in the sense that we can get a varied amount of media and entertainment. however, many fail to notice that this very open policy actually infringes the rules of media and entertainment. users tend to simply upload movies and such without bothering to note the privacy statement or copyright laws. this makes youtube almost an avenue for illegal content online. does this show that youtube practices morals and ethics? no. they simply do not empower their media search engine with proper upright media rules and regulations.

furthermore, in this world of high advancement in technology and such, we are constantly looking for avenues that enable us to get the juiciest bites of media on the run. people turn to avenues like youtube where media is easily tapped on. the market for media is so great that websites such as youtube is highly pressurized into supplying what is demanded by the masses. we can thus see that youtube sometimes does not have a basis of foundation that it builts its website on. but it's based on market and demand.

crime and punishment

(B)

i agree to a large extent that any form of punishment that is effective meted out in maintaining law and order is justified.

law and order in any country is integral to the country's development. enforcing law and order is crucial so that the country's economic development, social and political stability is maintained.

effective punishment that is meted out to deal with offenders of the law is always justified for the very reason previously mentioned. offenders should not be viewed in a light manner. punishment has to be dished out appropriately.

firstly, effective punishment instills in the wrongdoer the element of fear. this enables him to have a mental imprint or reminder not to commit such an offence in the future. this is important, especially if the crime committed is serious in nature. effective punishment ensures that such act is dealt with.

secondly, effective punishment acts a deterrent so that others do not follow suit. they do not dare commit such similar offences for fear of facing an equivalent punishment. people will only be deterred in the presence of effective punishment in the justice system.

of course, effective punishment raises eyebrows about whether the level of severity of punishments is really fair in light of the crime committed. many feel that sometimes authorities implement overly strict measures of punishment for the sole benefit of inflicting pain equivalent to the level of crime committed. others feel that it's an discrete manner of torture.

my personal opinion is that, authorities are responsible for being fair and just in handing down sentences. it is a premature judgement to assume that authorities are mere sadists who only seek to mete out punishments for the sake of witnessing torture.

effective punishment at first glance may seem like an overly strict approach. however, considering how a country's law and order may be in utter chaos without an efficient justice system, effective punishment is simply a measure of governance and law and order. it is part and parcel of any strong and democratic government.

we have to learn to accept the presence of effective punishment in our midst. they're not only beneficial to the law and order of a country, but also ensures that the country thrives in all other aspects. for example, an economy cannot thrive if a country is in anarchy.

hence i strongly feel that effective punishment in maintaining law and order is justified in all circumstances.

energy demand

with the increasing demand for energy by a rapidly advancing world, questions have been raised about our supply of energy. it is clear that now, we cannot depend on fossil fuels like oil and coal. we know that it's going to run out. scientists now are confident that we can go nuclear.

well, yes, nuclear energy is powerful, of that there is no doubt. i've witnessed the accounts of the chernobyl incident. the devastation that a slight miscalculation can bring is truly a painful thought to bear.

i feel that, it is understandable that with the increased pressure to meet energy demands, we turn to nuclear, which is only instinctive since it's the most powerful. but are we so confident of our abilities and breakthroughs in science and technology that we can exploit the power of nuclear activity.

as an individual, i'm scared. really scared. there has been so much debate going on and so many parties are in favour for this new form of energy source. what will happen. i really do not want to see a repeat of the chernobyl incident occurring. since the demand of energy is so great, whatever incident that occurs is going to be catastrophic!

furthermore, there is the unavoidable question of what is to be done with the radioactive waste, or rather, nuclear waste. one form of nuclear waste is plutonium which can be directly used to be made into nuclear bombs. ha! it's a recipe for more terrorism and attacks.

authorities must weigh the consequences to everything and make the right judgement for the sake of humanity.

however, my view is simple. if we are really super confident of our skills and knowledge at science and technology, why not use that technology to tap onto other resources of fuel? like renewable sources like wind and air. can't technology develop something to make such sources viable for energy consumption and demand.

this is such a worthwhile pursuit rather than to delve again into nuclear sources of energy. it's a risk. a risk that we can avoid.

singapore's education system

the singapore education system has been debated so aggressively these days. especially with the rise of single pointers o level graduates opting to pursue the polytechnic education, in contrast to the norm of heading to the junior colleges.

i've read so many articles with regards to this issue, hence it seems prudent to discuss this in light of this general paper blog.

at first glance, it seems wonderful that finally, the polytechnics are beginning to get a fresh batch of talented students, who try their hand at another route to education, instead of just blindly opting for the junior colleges.

this shows that the education system is diversifying. no longer is there the stagnant cliche that goes something like;

'junior colleges are for the singaporean elites and polytechnics for the academically less capable.'

of course, there are more crass statements equivalent to the statement above, but let's not go there.

with this new development or rather trend of students vying for new and unchartered grounds, like heading for polytechnics, arts schools and the like, what are the consequences for those students who have depended on places in such institutions because other courses were more competitive?

in other, more frank, words. students who didnt do well.

they either make it to a poor course of their choice or fail to make the cut for admissions into a polytechnic and go into institutes of technical education (which is also gaining in recognition and competitiveness). worse come to worst, they've nowhere to go.

it is clear that our system has gone up a notch in it's competitiveness. students now have better, stronger rivals aiming for the same spot in any institutions.

junior colleges, undoubtedly, with the whole integrated programmes for top five schools like hwachong, temasek, and victoria. also for those junior colleges with special academic and science programmes like anglo-chinese and anderson.

polytechnic courses with new chic and interesting yet challenging courses, like biomedical, biotechnology, design, gaming and more.

private institutions like lasalle-sia college of the arts, raffles arts school and other fashion, arts and design academies.

this may be a positive outcome in singapore's pursuit for a globalised economy, where students specialise in every arena of arts and sciences. but let us ponder, if this intense competition increases as time goes by, would we slander those who simply cannot cope with the tides of competition?

though we may have an amazing pool of local and foreign talent, we fail to notice that there are some who simply do not have the grades, but have the talent. with our immense emphasis on grades to get into insitutions to mould our talents, does that mean that this unfortunate group is left aside? shunned from society and made a burden? when they can be equally or much more competent in contributing to economy?

in a debate i had with my friends sometime back, we talked about this trend objectively. being objective was important, since we all hail from junior colleges.

we agreed that it is a great development. that we've finally started to tap onto our local talent, without realising it. we now have more local talent in arts schools, and in new courses in the polytechnics.

however, we questioned the future. the ultimatum is the aim of going to a university. it's important, with this new edge of aggression to be the best, a diploma at the polytechnic level doesnt signal the end of education. we, as students and individuals leading the nation in the future have to achieve greater competency and relevancy by attaining a degree or better.

with such huge populace of capable students in jcs, polys and specialised schools, what pressure is this going to exert on our local universities?

we felt that being jc students, it's like a safety net, as long as you do well for your a levels, it's a direct admission into the universities. but poly students and all have to thrash it out and prove their mettle, before gaining admission.

it's not easy, with only five percent of them proving their distinction above others and gaining acceptance into the universities.

yes, many claim that anything is possible, with the right attitude, priorities and determination. but can that be the antidote to the problem for all time? surely a positive attitude, under tremendous stress, pressure and failure would crumble into self inferiority and negativity?

there's more risks to benefits, as far as my eye can see. well, then again, it's just a matter of personal opinion.

but the bottom line is that, i feel more should be done to address this issue. if we are to contribute, the competition should be healthy and everyone should be given a chance and right to actively give to the well-being and sovereignty of our country and its economy.

it seems now that it's up to the determination, the right attitude and priority of our leaders to look into this matter.

global warming

this pandemic has been talked about so often. it takes up a substantiable amount of our newspapers, with depressing titles depicting nasty increases in global temperatures leading to devastating consequences.

not surprisingly, there's a lot of debates, in the news, media and online about who is really to blame about this issue.

the debates now are split into the three different opinionated groups.

but before i delve into the three proper, let's just take a look at global warming a little more closely. global warming is a process of the earth heating up, hence the term 'global warming'. it is mainly due to the rising emissions of gases that deteriorate and deplete the ozone layer, hence leading to more sun rays entering the earth's atmosphere and are not able to exit into space, leading to the heating and warming effect.

the gases are mainly, methane, carbon monoxide, chlorine and many other gases that i'll learn under organic chemistry next year. laughs.

the first group of self-acclaimed environmentalists claim that the blame should go to industries which produce such great amount of emissions of greenhouse gases. they claim that with the advanced technologies now present, there should be some device used, similar to catalytic converters in cars, to convert those dangerous gases into some compounds which are environmentally friendly.

the second group of mother earth advocates feel that the blame goes to the creator of industrial revolution who revolutionised how we implement technologies into the world around us. they believe that it's with this creation which led to the existence of global warming.

the final group has a more interesting view, both industrial revolution and industries are to blame.

i agree with the final group's point of view. first of all, i don't think that everything has to do with just industries or the creator of industrial revolution independently. that's pretty far-fetched and is not a supported claim.

we have to understand that industrial revolution, it was the use of steam engines to power machinery. the last time i checked, steam, the gaseous form of water was never a villain to the ozone layer.

consequently, i think what opinion was that, with the growing world population and demands for production from every aspect increasing, there was a need to tap on other sources of energy. hence, technology was improved and now, we see the usage of oil, coal and other natural resources. we now even see nuclear energy as the future propellant for energy demands.

it is clear that there is a possibility that the industrial revolution is, or rather was, the main trigger that set off ambitious aims at attaining greater energy production, without taking into consideration the possible effects of what their actions might do to the environment and the earth.

another cause of global warming: inconscientious industries that seek profit but fail to note the long-term effects of their actions.

industries now have become multi-faceted. with the growing affluence of countries, and the booming economy, some have moulded service industries, as opposed to primary and secondary industries.

hence, with the booming economy and an increasing demand for goods and services, industries have to reach out and attain these wants. this, i feel, is good for the growth and development of our countries. but sometimes, i think that we failed to implement measures that ensure that the industries not only contribute positively for now, but for the long-term.

this means that, they should be contributing to the economy actively, yet being stewards to the environment. i have seen reports of how much emissions of gases industries can generate and wonder why technology so advanced cannot do anything to address this issue.

surely there must be some viable inventions that scientists can come up to perhaps destroy chlorine atoms in the atmosphere, to prevent them from destroying ozone layer?

or a wonderful catalytic converter that can convert the major dangerous compounds into something more eco-friendly, or even beneficial to the environment?

i think that while we have successfully tapped on advanced technology to suit our daily life, and make me more comfortable, through use of air conditioners when days get hot, to mobile phones for communication and computers for data proccessing, i'm sure that we can use such technology for our long-term benefit.

furthermore, if we fail to address this issue, our so-called successes in technological advancements might lead to our very downfall if the global warming situation doesnt improve.

we have to do something. everyone, from every walks of life have to come together to generate ideas to create a possible solution to this problem.

it is already too late to continue being ignorant to this issue.

criminal torture

before i even delve into the issue discussed this week on criminal torture, i must admit that the very vague articles sure demoralises me to a great extent.

okay, criminal torture. an issue that is being debated in the political and social world. the question 'is criminal torture ever justified?' still looms over our heads, seeking an answer and a long explanation.

on one side of the argument, it definitely is not. such torture is never right and hence can never be justified in any situation. in my opinion, it is clear why.

torture is, i believe, a lowly and an act of pure cowardice that is amounted from desperation and a lack of direction to approach a certain matter. an authority may be initially abhor such practices of criminal torture, but in the event that they have a lack of lead and investigations are insubstantiable, one cannot deny that torture seems like the most viable and enticing option. a short-cut.

but it is only prudent that we look at the practicality of such approaches. not only does criminal torture seek to degrade an individual, it shows how authorities do not exercise professionalism in addressing the issue in a more objective and upright manner.

though at times, the criminal might have committed such a heinous crime, why must authorities also stoop to an equally low level of morals showed by the criminal and torture him, assuming that that does justice? it might instead augment the tense situation, as more crimes might occur, with people showing their disapproval of such a scheme of justice.

it is clear that torture is not wise and there are better alternatives. like better investigation, more diplomatic approaches and such.

consequently, at times, in our anger and frustrations as a nation, we wonder whether, maybe, just maybe, is such criminal torture ever justified.

take a look at the september eleventh attack on the world trade centre. the event that not only shattered the global economy but also irrevocably shattered the national pride of a country, in this case, the united states of america.

i mean, if i was an american and i had such authoritative powers and managed to capture the criminal responsible for such malice, i'd love to ensure that every bit of his skin met with a red-hot poker. that would truly lead me to believe, that justice was met.

similarly, in real-life, our emotions sometimes, more often than not, clog our logic, and our ability to reason carefully. we think that it's right, that the severity of the situation is directly proportional to the amount of torture that one might receive in punishment, with hopes that he'd atone for his mistakes. but is that really?

or are we practising a system whereby it breeds people not to be gracious and faithful, but just a creed of people who seek to inflict pain for justice?

we have to really look at this carefully and tease out the facts. as to whether the system is for the greater good, or does it only undermine our values and respect for other human beings, who are made equally to every single one of us. it is just their wrongdoings that somewhat sets us apart from them.

as a student, i'm used to telling my friends in consolation that 'we all make mistakes'. i'm sure that many others also do so. if that's the case, then why is it that we find it so hard when what we're dealing with involves the pride of not an individual alone, but the whole nation's population.

i think that leaves us with a lot to ponder and think about.

till the next entry.

new media

new media; power to the people or a threat to stability?

new media has now sprung up as the world faces a huge advancement in technology. we now have e-mail, blogs, blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras, the Internet, mobile phones, talk radio and 24-hour news.

naturally, these inventions have radically reshaped the way that we access our daily news. everything is now more fast paced and information is readily available anywhere on the globe.

that being said, it's clear that sometimes, this 'evolution' of new media has brought forth a worrying thought. as to whether it acts as a positive source of power to the people or does it desecrate political stability.

taking the example that we face right now, involving the military dispute of Iraq and United States. although previously, under Saddam Hussein, one might have his tongue cut out if found with possession of a satellite disc or having accessed the internet, now, everyone has access to the internet and also own a satellite disc.

human curiousity would also urge them to watch news to keep up with the instability that their country is facing. unfortunately, Al-Qaeda and other extremists groups have successfully infiltrated this forum, swaying the Muslims opinions and views of the West. hence, they fall prey to such influence and feel that the US are vile.

this shows how powerful media communications can be. extremists groups have understood that a well-crafted story could be as damaging as a military attack to political stability.

another lucid example would be the false allegations of the desecration of the Quran last year. (as a muslim, i understand the spelling to be as such and not Koran)

although it wasnt' true, the powerful data communication through print media, the Internet, e-mails and the like spread the news like wildfire. it had sparked nasty anti-american riots in afghanistan and pakistan, days before america sought the evidence and responding that the claims were untrue.

consequently, there are benefits that can be tapped on with the growing conglomeration of new media. the global phenomenon of blogs, which have not only risen in numbers, but also in prominence. technorati, an online blog search engine, tracks approximately seventy-five thousand new blogs each day.

mainstream press is now placed in a position whereby they respond to the news generated by bloggers. as a blogger myself, i have a personal blog (and not this anderson junior college general paper blog) and i see the great speed of communication of information.

at times, certain issues become so rampant in the blogging arena, that the print media react to the content raised in prominent blogs. for example, Wendy Cheng of xiangxue.blogspot.com had some harsh statements about the rape case involving a filipino girl and US marine lance danial smith. lime magazine quoted her in march this year.

if technological development and new media is that unheard of, why would lime magazine quote wendy cheng and not vice versa. it shows how mainstream media has got to diversify to keep up with changing times.

following prominent bloggers like Wendy Cheng, political consultant, news services and candidates are also tapping upon the influential power and the immediacy of blogs for outreach and opinion forming.

perhaps we should ponder on the issue as to why blogs are being utilised for such ambitious goals. i personally credit it to the fact that blogs enable free speech to be exercised.

unfortunately, there are many countries that have exercised censorship on blogs. blogs with outspoken and inflammatory content are either shut down or censored by authorities. this repression is being practised in even more countries. what started in 2003 saw only China, Vietnam and the Maldives imprisoning cyber-dissidents. now more countries practice that, claiming that it's a direct challenge to the sovereignty and stability in one country.

the act of repression in many countries is being questioned greatly. for example, i'm somewhat pulled by what an Iranian, now living in Canada had to say.

"censoring (specifically) blogs, the governments are depriving themselves of amazing sources of information about what their population thinking of them and what they're up to."

that is so true! if blogs are allowed to maintain it's flow of free opinions and expressions, irregardless of what the content is inflammatory and seeks to challenge the government, the bottom line is that, the government can take it as a form of constructive feedback to improve themselves. denying the situation of the country might really trigger off a devastating political strife that may prove tough to calm.

hence in all honesty, i feel that it's important for authorities to understand that innate potential of blogging and new media. they can either be in denial as to the potential of it and face dire consequences, or they can tap upon it for the benefit of the country.

i've also realised that i've gone beyond the three hundred word limit for this entry. well, we all were given voluminous amounts of information to tap on in the first place didnt we?

3; blogging activity - media's reliability

can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?

well, personally, i'd say no. however, this is an issue being discussed by ajc gp students, so it's prudent to take a balanced view on the situation.

firstly, i feel we should take a look at the laws that the government has impressed in different countries. in singapore for example, media censorship is introduced. this is wise, since, given the fact that singaporean society is pretty conservative, disturbing news might lead to utter chaos, panic and disorder in the country.

furthermore, one of the principles that singapore's governance is based on is the practice of pragmatism and practicality. the government controls the press to ensure the media broadcasts news which is reliable, yet ensuring that people are not strung into panic and also are wide aware of what is happening.

then again, i think that this entry should not be heavily confined to the boundaries of singapore.

i once remembered watching oprah winfrey show sometime back, and she was discussing the issue on bird flu, because she felt that the news coverage was lacking and not being blunt about the truth. during the course of her show, she invited guests from the health and sciences department from all across america and brought disturbing light to the severity of the issue and even labelled the bird flu crisis as a 'pandemic'.

though i'm in singapore, i felt the reveberating shockwave of the brutality of that news. but perhaps because oprah was professional and guided the discussion easily, the situation was tense but did not invite anything that seeked to create havoc and disorder. i think the media scene has to use this as a guide to addressing important issues, should they be wary of the consequences, lest we risk the chance of being blinded by the truth.

i am not sure why, but i've never been compelled to even consider that singapore's media might be covering up important issues in place of 'sensationalistc and superficial tripe'. perhaps it's become routine to absorb what i hear. or perhaps it's because, even if the news is highly depressing and somewhat disturbing, we are given the vitals slowly and over time. time heals all. this is one clear example.

consequently, we do hear of stories where media does abuse censorship for profits, or for fears of losing rankings and readers.

this article on 'great lies of american press' does reveal shocking news of what some corporate-controlled media agencies do.

it's quite a shame that sometimes, educational or enlightening stories are being pushed aside to make room for superficial or sensationalistic news. by definition, it is important that media seek to highlight the important issues. entertainment news should be bared to a minimum.

though the article's view whereby it states that some agencies express fears of losing readers, the bottom line is that the truth gets out and not something superficial and based on lies and rumours. in the long run, should the false claims be surfaced, the agency not only have to bear scrutiny of people, but also of the other media agencies and it's reputation will be tarnished permanently.

not so nice, is it?

some media news agencies also seek to block out important issues for fear of criticisms and uproar from the readers alike.

some media seek to only give news so as to be popular and earn profit whilst compromising the truth. this should be changed and also the approach to news should be given a reform. ultimately, on the whole, the news can be relied upon to a great extent.

2; an influential soul

blogging issue for this week encompasses a person, who is influential in any field of human endeavour. given the wide scope of this topic, perhaps it would be prudent to look a little closely at what the question demands.

influential? http://reference.dictionary.com states that influential is referred to one that is conidered of considerable importance of significance. that being said, i feel that no one fits the bill better than one of time's greatest samaritans, mother teresa.

mother teresa. an amazing woman who delved selflessly into the realm of humanitarism voluntarism and reached out to people who needed aid and assistance. i feel that without her efforts in raising awareness and influencing the world population at large for her noble efforts, we are unlikely to venture out into such work now.

neither would we go beyond the regular call of duty to assist someone who requires help, or to be caring and considerate in our daily lives. she gained internation prominence also as someone who advoated the needs of the poor and the hungry.

people may know of her existence, but we barely take recognition or even are aware of her efforts. so i hope and believe that this post aids in acknowledged this ordinary, yet extraordinary woman.

she assisted th hungry in ethiopia, radiation victims in chernobyl and also earthquake victims in armenia. this is quoted from wikipedia. why would someone attempt such wide scale humanitarian work, if not for the fact that she believed in the beauty and grace of being helpful beings in life.

however, another thing that she did that truly touched my heart was that she rescud thirty seven children trapped in a front line hospital by brokering a temporary ceasefire between the israeli army and palestinian guerillas. i feel that it does not only show her sincerity in helping but also shows the tremendous amount of courage that she displayed by risking herself in saving those children.

her efforts in starting missionaries like the missionary of charity and home for the dying demonstrates inevitable perseverance in her pursuit that all people be helped, irregardless of what painful ailments and conditions that they may face.

i feel that for all th recognition that she has been given has not been moot as it has brought a new level of humanitarian work. i am sure that humanitarian organisations formed, like the red cross humanitarian network and other similar foundations started because of mother teresa succeeding in instilling in people the attitude of being graceful and caring.

we all have a lot to learn.. not just from mother teresa. but from all the influential people that have somehow shaped our thinking, our beliefs and our behaviour towards the various human endeavours.

thus, i end my post, or rather my assignment, as to who i feel is influential in the humanitarian field.

take care.

2; current issue - instability in thailand

bangkok, while tourism grows in the heart of it's shopping paradise in central bangkok, it is sad that many have turned a blind eye to the issue of political unstability in the south of thailand. people may follow the news, hence being aware of the situation, yet still remain ignorant to the severity of the situation.

many feel that it is due to the racial and religious tension between the thai muslims and the buddhists, but many articles prove otherwise. channelnewsasia's report on the 23 of march showed that the muslims share close cultural links with others, irregardless whether is across national boundaries (that is with neighbours in malaysia) or just with other races in the country.

the feeling of alienation, discontent with the ineffectiveness of a military-imposed government and also socio-econimic problems have led to tension.

initially the locals welcomed the idea of the military imposed government, which i feel is because they are going to feel protected and have corrupt policies implemented by thaksin shinawatra eliminated for the benefit of all. however, they feel disappointed that there is a lack of efficiency in corruption probes (quoted channel newsasia, march 24).

i feel that this has made them feel alienated, and alone, since they cannot trust the government, which led to tension between the different groups. it may be that because the southern area mainly comprises of two racial groups, it's much easier to have suspicions about the other racial or religious group.

this problem is still not being solved. recently, the thailand military chief, general sonthi boonyaratglin stated that the government has to implement a state of emergency on thailand. i believe this is one of the feasible options since the tension has gone beyond the control limit. hence, enforcing such a state of emergency will enable the military to enforce more stringent laws so that peace and security ensues.

hence, i feel that there should be more stringent implementations like the state of emergency as this is one effective, though harsh method, to ensure that the country reaches a level of peace and stability.

1; self introduction

For someone who is so used to the relative familiarity of my personal blog, blogging for General Paper does come with some reservations. Why? I feel that it's because I'm very used to being ignorant to capital letters, proper 'signposts' and all that. It is a new challenge and a new approach in tackling a subject that I already have the jitters about.

A classmate told me that our first entry has to be on self introduction, so here goes. A typical sixteen going on seventeen year old teenager, by the name of Azri Miskal.

I don't really like General Paper, because it seems so challenging, like a much higher level English Comprehension. Hence, given the fact that my skills at comprehension were pretty weak, I'm scared of failure and disappointing results with regards to assignments and tests involving this subject.

But I promise to try my best.