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.