Reflection: Animal Farm

A speech I admire by a well-known political leader: "We Shall Fight!" Winston Churchill, Britain Prime Minister during World War 2.

Here's the extract I like:

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

This speech was made by Winston Churchill, Britain former Prime Minister, amidst the start of World War 1. Then, the United Kingdom had been beaten soundly by the Nazis. Morale was low and the talk of defeat was in the air. This speech was intended to stir up the Alliance's confidence and boast morale. Winston Churchill's exceptional charisma, coupled with his commendable linguistic skills and passion, managed to convince them to fight to the end and not surrender to the Germans.

After reading the speech, I was touched by the passion Winston Churchill had in defending the glory of his motherland and his strong spirit. I could feel the very power of his speech. In my opinion, this is one of the best speeches ever made in history.

Should Organ Trading be Legalized?

Should Organ Trading be Legalized?

I believe most,if not all, of us have heard the case of the former Singaporean retail magnate of CK Tang, Tang Wee Sung. He allegedly attempted to buy a kidney for $300,000 from an Indonesian immigrant. As a result, he was fined $17,000 and sentenced to one day’s jail. The would-be donor, Mr. Sulaiman Damanik, was jailed for three weeks. The middleman who arranged the transaction, Mr. Wang Chin Sing, received the heftiest sentence of fourteen months jail. To read up on a more detailed account of the incident, click here.

This shows how people, out of desperation, are forced to resort to the black market of organ trading to buy kidneys, lungs and other vital organs for themselves. In Tang's case, he has been on dialysis for over a year and suffers from various heart problems. Doctors have estimated that he would not live beyond 5 years.

Now, for the main topic: Should Organ Trading be Legalized ?

Personally, I am for organ trading, not just for Singapore, but for the entire world. Why? In the United States of America alone, there were are more than 50,000 on the waiting list for kidney transplants in 2000. Only a mere 15,000 of them received kidney transplants. This implies an average wait of almost four years before a person on the waiting list could receive a kidney transplant. In the same year, almost 3,000 died while waiting for a kidney transplant, and half that number died while waiting for a liver transplant. These numbers will only continue to increase as the population grows.

What does this show? It shows that clearly, altruism or altruistic donations are not enough. We need something else, something more dependable. Organ Trading.If altruism were sufficiently powerful, the supply of organs would be able to satisfy demand, and there would be no need to change the present system.However, this is not the case in any country. While the per capita(person) number of organs donated has grown over time, demand has grown even faster. Inevitably, the length of the queue for organ transplants has grown significantly over time in most countries, despite attempts to encourage greater giving of organs, such as campaigns.

The situation in Singapore is equally dire. Studies have shown that Singapore is fifth highest in the world in terms of incidence of kidney failure. According to a news report, at least 3,500 people in Singapore have kidney failure; 600 are on the transplant list. Moreover, the demand for organs transplantation continues to increase rapidly. Between 1998 and 2003, the number of people waiting for a kidney increased by almost 20% to 673 patients. Singapore has tried time and again to improve the allocation of available organs among the needy, such as giving greater priority to those who needs them the most. These steps have helped, but they have not stopped the queues from growing, nor prevented thousands from dying while waiting for transplants.

On the other hand, countries like Iran, who have legalized organ trading, have almost no queue for organ transplants! They have proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that organ trading is the sole solution to this plight that has the world in an iron-cast grip.

However, there are critics and a lot of people who are against it. They feel that it is immoral and unethical to sell what we were born with. I say: Get off your high horse! You don't know how heartbreaking and antagonizing it is to witness one's loved ones suffering a slow and painful death. In all likelihood, you have never been affected personally by the shortage of organs. If this issue becomes personal, I can guarantee you that those who were against it would adapt immediately and become an avid supporter of organ trading; such is the hypocritical nature of humans. They ignore a problem until it threatens to inflict personal harm. Let me ask you; is committing an immoral act worth saving one person's life? Or is it more important to preserve these natural gifts, at the expense of others' of lives? I sincerely believe that under no circumstances, saving someone's life should take a back seat to ethics or principles. The value of a life cannot be compared with that of moral values.

People are also against organ trading as they fear that it will lead to an economic allocation of resources where only those who can pay will receive an organ transplant, to the point where an organ is treated as a commodity.

This is not true. That is what happens in the black market. However, with proper and well-defined framework, the white market will be different.

One idea is to set up a kidney registry for registering and screening donors and recipients to find suitable matches and ensure that there is no coercion, duress or exploitation involved. Furthermore, it would make sure that organs are allocated on the medical condition of each donee, not on the financial value or assets of the donees. Also, the donar's organs will only be accepted if it is a suitable match for one of the donees. A charity or administrative body like the government could easily take care of this and related matters such as donor's and donees' consent, protection of identities of donors and donees, requirements, insurance and other pre and post-transplant issues. As this is handled by a legal administrative body, we would not have any problems that were in the black market.

Another set of critics admit that allowing organs to be bought and sold would be positive. However, they object as they feel that the lion's share of the organ supply would come from the poor. They think that with this implementation, the poor would be induced to sell their organs to the middle classes and the rich. Though there is no reason for complain should the organs of poor persons be sold with their permission after they died, and the proceeds went as bequests to their parents or children, voices might be raised if mainly poor people sold one of their kidneys for live kidney transplants.

Think about it. On the other hand, would poor donors be better off if this option were taken away from them? Maybe a limit on the number of organs that could be supplied by those with incomes below a certain level could be put in place, but would that improve their welfare?

Moreover, it is far from certain that a dominant fraction of the organs would come from the poor in a free market. Most of the organs used for live transplants are still donated by relatives or friends. Scenes wheret volunteers would almost entirely consist of low income families are inaccurate as many poor people would have organs that would not be acceptable in a market system because of organ damage due to drug usage,various diseases and over consumption of alcohol.

Some critics are worried that as a side-effect of legalizing organ trading the total number of organs available for transplants might decrease as it would sufficiently lower the number of organs donated altruistically as there would be plenty of other organs available on the free market.That scenario is extremely unlikely since only a minority of potentially usable organs are available for transplants currently. Compensating people financially for donating their organs would enormously widen the scope of the potential organ market.

If we do not legalize organ trading, we are indirectly helping the black market of illegal transplants to flourish, with poor clinical results for many patients and exploitation of the poor. In the black market, the quality of the surgeons and hospitals is generally very low, drastically reducing the quality of the organs sold and the compatibility with the recipient's organ. If we choose not to legalize organ trading , the desperate , like Mr. Tang Wee Sung, will have no other choice but to continue to turn to the black market. We have to realize that by criminalizing organ trading, we do not eliminate it but instead breed a black market with the middleman taking the largest portion of the amount which the grateful patient is willing to pay the donor.

In conclusion, organ trading is the most effective method in enabling those in need of organ transplants to receive one much more quickly than under the present Singapore system. I find the cons of allowing the sale of organs insignificant, when weighed against the thousands of lives that would be saved by the jump in supply of organs.

Please comment. I am open to criticism.

Sources:http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/01/should_the_purc.html,http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?id=3521&mode=&cid=23

The Lottery: Relevance to today

Though we might live in a high;y advanced society, we are still possess those ugly features of a typical human being. Below, I will state and give examples of the features that we practise currently what we can learn from 'The Lottery'.


We can learn that we should eliminate or eradicate meaningless traditional or religious practises that manipulate us into doing acts against our moral values. This is seen when the villagers blindly follow traditions; no questions asked. The villagers are willing to go through with the lottery for the sake of tradition, killing one another for it and even feeling that it is a so-called "civic duty". One such example that exists in our present society would be terrorists killing and bombing innocent people for the sake of their God.

Furthermore, we can also learn from the story that we should try to be sincere as a person and not hypocritical like the villagers. Mrs. Hutchinson protests wildly on the unfairness of the process of voting but is quite acceptant of it at first. She was in quite a good mood at the start of the lottery and even joked about leaving “m’dishes in the sink”. However, when her husband, Bill Hutchinson won the lottery, she suddenly turned frightened as she was terrified of drawing the black spot and cried that Mr. Summers” didn’t give him time enough to take any paper he wanted”, even going as far as to make " Don and Eva" take a chance so as to minimize personal risk. This is extremely hypocritical of her as she supported the lottery at first but resisted and argued against it when she was in personal danger.

I think that hypocrisy still exists in our modern society. For example, In America, those who are fortunate enough to remain employed don't really care about those people who lose their jobs because of the economic crisis,and may even hate them for causing higher taxes so as to pay for their Welfare claims. This is until they lose their own jobs. Then, they complain the government isn't doing enough to support the unemployed and demand higher Welfare payouts.


Additionally, Compliance that is illustrated in The Lottery is still depicted presently. The villagers comply with the annual lottery with no questions asked and do not question the result or the morality of the lottery, save for those who are personally affected. We also just comply with rules and regulations, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. For instance, the Japanese and German soldiers attacked and tried in vain to conquer other countries. Why didn't they stand up and fight against their government? They just complied with the rules the government implemented and invaded wherever and whenever the government ordered them to.

Founder of Singapore: Who deserves this title?

I feel that Sir William Farquhar deserves to be called the founder of Singapore.

Sir Stamford Raffles was the man who established and founded Singapore as a free port. He signed a treaty with Sultan Hussein and Temenggong Abdul-Rahman in which they would receive a fixed annual allowance in exchange for allowing the East India Company to use Singapore as a trading port. This directly resulted in a flourishing economy for Singapore as traders from all around the world gathered at Singapore to trade their goods as they would not be levied with heavy duty and goods taxes. Singapore’s name was widespread and its fame grew, attracting even more traders which simulated its economy, making it a prosperous and developed nation. Hence, Sir Stamford Raffles should be known as the founder of Singapore as he was the one who had the foresight that Singapore, having a prime spot at the heart of South-East Asia, right along the trading path of two major trading countries, India and China, would be an ideal spot for a trading station and found it.

However, Raffles went on in 1823 to become the Governor-General of Bencoolen and left Singapore entirely to Farquhar. He died young and did not get back to Singapore to chart its growth.

Sir William Farquhar is the man who built it up from scratch. He first came with Sir Stamford Raffles to Singapore and was made the First Resident of Singapore. At that time, Singapore was very unhygienic, with rats, cockroaches and centipedes running rampant. This caused a huge problem as traders did not dare to trade here as they were worried that there products might be contaminated with diseases spread by these vermin. Thus, Sir William Farquhar introduced a scheme whereby each pest killed could be exchanged for monetary compensation. This scheme was well received and within a few months, not a single pest was to be seen in Singapore. Hence, traders flocked to Singapore and helped it to develop into a prosperous trading port.

Another example would be when there were racial riots and secret societies robbing and killing people. Sir William Farquhar quickly countered this problem by forming the country’s first ever police force to maintain law and order in Singapore. The police managed to prevent most racial riots and deter secret societies from committing crimes, making Singapore a safe and secure place. This encouraged others to make Singapore their home and made Singapore a bustling city and port.

Furthermore, since Raffles proclaimed as a Singapore, there was no revenue to carry out Raffle’s ambitious plans. The senior officers in Calcutta did nothing to help as they were not inclined to invest in public works. Selflessly, Farquhar paid for numerous expenses out of his own pocket to help build houses and homes for Singaporeans and also other public places.

In conclusion, I feel that Sir William Farquhar deserves the title, “founder” of Singapore more as he was the one who guided it through its early and difficult years and developed it. Sir William Farquhar should be credited as the founder of Singapore as though Sir Stamford Raffles did identify Singapore as a suitable trading port and build it as one, all the administrative and financial work was left to Farquhar. He solved the various problems that Singapore faced. He was the one who was responsible for advancing Singapore socially, politically and economically. Without his invaluable effort, we would not be where we are today. Thus, I feel that he should be recognized as the founder of Singapore and not Raffles.

Nanyang Technological University Students Leaps to His Death

I believe that all, if not most of you have read about or heard the incident of the NTU student plunging to an untimely death after stabbing Associate Professor Chan Kap Luk. He had stabbed the professor and slit his wrists thereafter, before commiting suicide. It is widely speculated that the 21—year—old Indonesian student, David Hartanto Widjaja, resorted to such a desperate act as his scholarship application had been canceled last month. His family and fellow Indonesian schoolmates alike had been shocked as they are both extremely close to the deceased. This incident has left them nothing short of emotionally distraught. Such is the seriousness of the matter that NTU has to facilitate counselling for some of them.

Reflections

From David's point of view, he might have thought that he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. His only hope of studying in Singapore had diminished. Unable to face up to reality, he reacted by cowardly jumping to his death. This might also have been caused by him feeling that he had disgraced his family and had not been able to live up to their expectations of him.

Furthermore, I feel that this incident will put Nanyang Technological University in a bad light as they did not respond quickly enough after noticing that David was not his usual self and showed tell-tale signs of suicide and did something about it, like counseling him, as stated in the article.
Additionally, this incident will also cause much emotional distress and pain to David's parents as they will feel that they are responsible for his death for not taking enough care of him and not giving him much concern.

However, I can also infer from the article I read that Singapore schools are generally well-equipped with the resources needed to combat any form of problem. This can be inferred from the school's speedy response of counseling the students who are traumatized by the incident. It was extremely efficient and well prepared for such emergencies. As such, I think that this reflects well on the school. The Ministry of Education also deserves a word of praise as they are responsible for this.

I feel that the main issue here is that the stress from the high pressured education system of Singapore as far too much for students to handle. Singapore's education system is highly competitive as from young , Singaporeans are trained to be, so to speak,'kiasu', which means that they must succeed in everything they do. For them, failure is unacceptable. and not a possible alternative. David was influenced by this mindset, hence, when he failed to succeed by losing his scholarship, he could not face the music and plunged to his death.