(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.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
