Should Singapore's Sports System be Revamped?

Most of us have at least heard of the much publicized brawl between ACSI and St. Andrews during the aftermath of a rugby championship match, which left a 1 badly beaten up. This issue has caused quite a stir in Singapore and resulted in an inspection of Singapore sports safety system, which is what I will speak to you about today.

I have to say, this has been a rather highly contested topic since the unfortunate incident which occurred during after a close rugby match between St. Andrews and Anglo-Chinese (Independent). I feel that though the incident was regrettable, I still maintain that present safety standards of sports in Singapore are more than sufficient and that the accidents simply couldn't have been prevented. Furthermore, I believe that the “wining by hook or by crook” mentality is not to blame and that competition is healthy and necessary in sports.

Critics of the present safety standards of sports in Singapore claim they lead to needless injuries, stating the post-game tussle in which St. Andrews and Anglo-Chinese (Independent) students engaged as a prime example. However, did you know that out of the 54 games of the B Division Rugby Championship this year, merely 2 incidents involved injuries? That’s a safety record of over 96%! The same generally goes for other sports. Ask yourself, when was the last time you’ve seen a news article on ugly behavior besides the recent duo? Furthermore, according to an reporter covering rugby championships, since 2007, there hasn’t been a single instance of such incidents up till now? Without a shadow of a doubt, this proves current safety standards are more than sufficient as those 2 incidents were isolated. For parents or teachers to say that because of these 2 incidents, the safety regulations in Singapore are not enough is making a mountain out of a mole hill and wholly unwarranted. After all, there is no completely fool-proof regulation. If there were, wouldn’t the Singapore Government, no, the WHOLE WORLD have implemented it? We are humans after all and we are imperfect. However, I am proud to say that our almost spotless record speaks for itself. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that the Singapore Sports Council does not come up with its own rules and regulations any-o-how but adheres to strict, international guidelines subjected to high rigor. Introducing uncalled for reforms into our system would only serve to foul things and be counter-productive.

As if you needed more proof, Mr. Ang Chuen Teck, who has not 1, not 2, but 3 young children who compete in somewhat “violent” sports, squash and wrestling, said he was concerned about injuries at first, but his children have since learnt to minimize injuries: 'They learnt this with the help of their coaches. So education is very important.' As you can see, professional coaches who comply with the current safety standards in Singapore are able to educate the students on strategies on how to keep safe. Even a parent with 3 children in rough sports can rest his mind and is able to trust Singapore’s sports safety regulations. What more any other parent?

Also, concerned parents and teachers alike have alleged that Singapore’s Co-Curricular Activity system is inadequate and encourages competiveness, causing players and coaches alike to become fixated on medals and fail to develop sportsmanlike behavior and lose graciously, determined to win at any cost. This is misleading. Competition is necessary for advancement, for mankind to improve itself. It is the basis of all human progress. Through our resolve to outdo others, to strive for the best, we evolve and progress. Without competition in sports, there would be no need for anyone to try their best. Why would you? It wouldn’t matter a single bit if you did your best or your worst. Sports would be boring and spectators non-existent. There would be no World Cup, NBA, inter-school competitions etc. However, with competition, sports get a whole lot more exciting. Players long to get the gold medal and train long and hard to bring glory to their school. Through this perseverance to do your best and win, the players constantly raise the bar on sport standards and force themselves to surpass human limitations.

As for the concern raised that there is a lack of sports regulations to regulate unsportsmanlike behavior, as I have mentioned earlier, incidents of displays of unwanted behavior are few and far in between. Again, this re-iterates the point that current safety measures are ample. In addition, there are measures taken by the Singapore Sports Council to discourage “hitting below the belt” and over competiveness. They are known as referees and umpires. If an immoral soccer player tackles another violently or trips the opponent on purpose, the referee would tweet his whistle and flash a yellow card. Again and the dreaded red card pops out. This would serve as a distinct warning to players about trying to cheat or otherwise take advantage, dampening their unethical efforts. Furthermore, it is false that coaches and players only care about winning and think that the ends justify the means. My friend told me his tennis coach has a motto: Do your best, ignore the rest. He always give my friend's team the fullest support I can, whether they win or lose, as long as they have tried their best.

You may be wondering, if it isn’t the sports regulations that are responsible for the rare occurrences of such injuries, then what is? I’ll tell you: the schools themselves. Singapore Rugby Union president Mr. Low Teo Ping said: Many schools tend to fast-track their students by placing them in competitions without developing their cognitive skills or their muscles. This leads to injuries.” I wholly agree with Mr. Low. The issue is not that existing safety measures are not satisfactory; rather, it is the schools that are responsible for these recent incidents of injuries as they do not prepare their sportsmen adequately. They take the shortcut by not working on strong foundations such as muscle building and understanding of preventive measures with regard to sports injuries. Therefore, to merely review safety standards is worthless; the schools are the ones who ought to take action, or be taken action against. Schools also lack the education of sports athletes regarding how to control one’s emotions when a game is lost. The fight between St. Andrews and ACS (I) broke out as they weren’t able to control their feelings concerning the close match. Hence, they resorted to underhanded tactics like fists and punches. The importance of teaching students on how to manage their emotions is all too clear for all to see. Again, implementing new measures into the existing sports safety rules wouldn’t help in the least if the schools do not act themselves.

In conclusion, I hope that all of you understand that is not the fault of the lack of current safety standards that caused the much-publicized incidents. They are more than necessary. Neither is the “win-at-any-cost” mindset liable as competition is essential for advancement and should not be lessened. The schools are the ones who need to play their part in educating the students both physically and mentally.

DON'T GO YET!!! This is just my opinion? What's yours? Feel free to comment below......

Philosophy - If I could eliminate an emotion from this world ...

Back again with one of my philosophical blog posts. There are many emotions I would want to eradicate. Anger, frustration, sadness, jealousy, just to name a few. The list is endless. There are times when I feel frustrated when I don't know the answer to a question or cannot finish my homework and feel very frustrated. There are also times where I fail to achieve my ideal test mark and lament. However, I feel that the main emotion that deserves to be eliminated would be: GREED.

Greed is the excessive or rapacious desire and pursuit of money, wealth, power. It is generally considered a vice and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism.( Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride).

Why greed? Simple. Greed is responsible for many other emotions that appeal to people, like anger, betrayal and jealousy. For example, Harry and John are bosom friends. They decide to open an oil company. As Harry is rich and John is poor, the former finances the business while the latter provides the expertise. However, they fail to hit the mother load for many years. One day, John's intuition pays off and they strike oil. Though they both initially agreed to have a 50-50 cut of any profit, John is greedy for more wealth and argues that since he was responsible for their windfall, he should take a larger share of the profit. Harry maintains that without him, John would not even have the capital to start up the business at all. As a result, their friendship sours over a business squabble and they now hate each other.

In this case, John's greed causes him to lust for wealth and thus he demands a larger dividend of the profit. This makes Harry angry and frustrated. In the end, they are deadly enemies. Greed has caused two close friends to be jealous, angry and at loggerheads. It is an extremely lethal emotion that deserves no more than to be abolished.

Greed can cause someone to betray even his/her closest friend and even steal or kill from him/her. It arises mainly because of a false illusion that material wealth equals happiness. In John's case, he might have thought that since wealth is happiness, having more wealth would mean more joy. This is of course false, as material goods can only give a person a basic level of comfort but never true happiness. Happiness can only come from being satisfied with what you have and not be envious of what others have. As the sage Confucius once preached, “To be truly happy and contented, you must let go of what it means to be happy or content."

What is the purpose of SG's Community Involvement Programme?

"Hey, anybody got time? Want join tomorrow go old folks' home?"
The most likely reponse: "Umm... Got CIP hours not?"

What is the use of CIP? To some students, CIP is a bothersome quota of 15hours a year of voluntary work; a waste of good time which could be used for playing computer games or watching television. Others may regard it as something more important and ponder upon its underlying purposes. Let me share with you my own personal experience of a CIP. This was the 1st CIP activity I had in HCI so it had a rather large impact on me...

Unlike other secondary school students, our entire Sec 1 cohort spent 4-5 hours collecting old newspapers and clothes from residents in the Taman Jurong Area during the Friday before National Day, instead of merely sitting through a series of meaningless performances in the hall. Initially, I was quite annoyed at having to spend this important occasion doing CIP. The thought of slogging away while my ex-classmates were having fun and even released from school early was almost too much to bear. The only compensation I would have in return would be a few miserly CIP hours. As I still had to fulfill the minimum requirement of 10 (then, now 15) CIP hours annually, I resigned myself to my fate and boarded the charted bus for Taman Jurong with a reluctant sigh.

When we arrived at our destination, we split ourselves into groups of 5s, each taking one block. 2 of us were to do the even floors, the other 2 the odd ones and 1 was to remain to "guard" the newspapers and old clothes harvested. I was assigned to do the even floors and went about ringing doorbells and knocking the doors, asking for newspapers and clothes. As it was a Friday, most of the residents were working, hence, about half of the flats were empty. After gathering the donations, we assembled at the void deck and stacked them into neat piles for collection.

I recall that at least 25%-35% of the flats I visited housed Indian and Malay families. For your information, this is because of Singapore's HDB Ethnic Integration Policy. Today, eight out of ten Singaporeans live in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates. In a bid to get the major races mingling, the HDB’s Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) was introduced in 1989. It works in such a way that each race can only occupy a fixed percentage of flats in an area at any point of time. Once that quota has been reached, no more families of that race can move there.

There are some who feel that this EIP policy is a bane of our society. They feel that it is troublesome, as they would not be able to live near their family members if the quota is full when they marry and settle down. There are also those who are selling their flats and have many willing buyers but they are all of a race which has maxed its number. Hence, they supported abolishing this rule.

However, I feel that this policy is in fact a boon to our society. I understand that it may be irritating for some for the above-mentioned reasons. However, there is a reason why Singapore's government implemented this rule. In the past, when Singapore was a British colony, the different races were separated into different areas to prevent potential racial riots or conflicts. However, fights among the races still broke out. Hence, instead of dividing them, PAP introduced the EIP policy to foster a multi-racial environment and unite the different races. To date, this has turned out to be the right decision, as racial conflicts in Singapore are far and few in between.

Overall, I feel that racial harmony is not a given for Singapore. Thus, we must have the EIP. By maintaining a multi-racial environment in our housing estates, we maintain social stability, racial harmony and religious tolerance, hence keeping Singapore safe and secure for all races.

---

So, what is my opinion of CIP? A waste of time? Definitely NOT! Voluntary work then? Not quite... As you can see, I did learn quite a bit from my CIP activity of collecting newspapers. Its like Service Learning; not only do I serve the community, at the same time, I learn. Its better than blindly doing CIP or only learning in theory; essentially, the best of both worlds. I get to help the less fortunate and improve myself. So, next time anyone asks you whether you want to go for CIP, be sure to answer with a loud, hearty ...


source:http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/ARP/ARP101/yes.jpg

What is Beauty?

What is Beauty?

I question myself as I glance through the latest fashion magazines, grossly inserted with colorful, artifical advertisments ranging from Botox treatments to plastic surgery. They all have 1 thing in common; the promise of beauty. So, let as return to the topic at hand; What is Beauty?

Some people think that beauty is skin-deep. This means that they feel beauty is superficial and not important as to how they judge a person. Instead, they see a person for his/her true character. This point of view is thought to be very noble. However, is it reflected in our present society? Do we really take a person for his/her behavior and not looks?

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Simply put, it means that beauty is as one sees it. That means, even if you think that something, for example the Mona Lisa is absolutely perfect, another person may think it is rather plain and lacks depth. It really is a matter of opinion. In our modern society, there is a generally accepted perception of beauty by the public. There are even readily available methods to beautify a not-so-beautiful person, like spas, treatments, plastic surgery, etc. Products like diet patches, diet pills, and face masks are readily available and are thriving even in the current economic crisis. It does not help that the media helps to propagate this mindset by broadcasting shows like "Ms. Universe" or "Extreme Makeover", encouraging us to adopt this warped version of beauty as our own, shunning all other definitions of the word . Furthermore, teenagers idolize stars, blindly devoted to them. They believe that since their idols go for plastic surgeries and beauty treatment, this must be the "correct" type of beauty. Thus, they fall over themselves in achieving it, even forgoing their own morals and principals for the sake of becoming beautiful.

In conclusion, how does this reflect on us as a society? Are we a merely a bunch of apathetic fools, controlled by the media in an iron fist unconsciously in our eagerness to achieve the so-called beauty? Are we able to break free of the media’s perception of beauty or are we forced to go along with the flow, surrendering ourselves to the latest options the beauty industry has to offer? What do you think?

E-Learning 2 (25 - 26 May 2010) - We Slept With Our Boots On

Task 1
Based on your understanding of the selected poem, perform extensive web research and write a report detailing the conflict represented in the poem(s) of your choice. Bear in mind that this piece of background information will allow your blog audience to further understand the poem as well as your analysis of the poem in Task 2.

Be sure to include your references and credit your sources.

---

(I was unable to find much information on this poem as it is not very well-known. Hence, the following interpretation of mine may not be very accurate)

Some background information on the author of the poem:
Born and presently living in Dowagiac, Michigan, Steve Carlsen was recruited into the US Army in October 2000. He experienced Infantry Basic Training and Airborne School in Ft. Benning, Georgia. He was assigned to D Company 1st battalion 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment and 82nd Airborne Division in Ft. Bragg North Carolina. In November 2001, he was deployed to Kosovo as part of a peace keeping operations and went on to Afghanistan in December 2002 where he was further deployed for combat operations. In 2003, he was honorably discharged from the Army and currently attends Southwestern Michigan College where his professor, Dr Michael Collins challenged him to write about his experiences. This poem ("We Slept With Our Boots On") is a product of his experiences of war.

The poem speaks of Steve Carlsen, a war veteran, war experience in Afghanistan. The first 2 lines of the poem tells us that the soldier emptied the injured and dead soldiers out of the plane and put the author's paratrooper platoon in it. They were clueless as to where they would land for their combat operations. Then, they were ungraciously and unwillingly dropped right smack in the middle of the fierce battefield, the author nervous and scared. They sprinted for cover from the deafending bullets, terrified, shooting continously. They fought on all sorts of terrain, tired and frightened, making sure they were always prepared. It was as if they were in hell but they blocked this thought from their minds. The author feels that fighting in a war and shooting a gun changes a person forever; no longer is he innocent but battle-scarred, witnessing countless deaths and agony.

---

We Slept With Our Boots On

They unloaded the dead and maimed right before our eyes
They washed out the blood, we loaded our ruck’s and then took to the skies
Over the mountains, villages, and valleys we flew
Where we would land we had not a clue
Bullets are flying, the LZ is hot
We’re leaving this bird whether we like it or not
30 seconds they yelled, Lock N Load and grab your shit
Get ready to go and make it quick
My heart is pumping adrenalin through all of my veins
I run as fast as I can through the lead rain
The noise is tremendous, terror I can’t define
The only reason I survived that day was divine
I kept pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling some more
You do what you have to do, with that I will say no more
We fought from the valleys to the mountain peaks
From house to cave, to car to creek
Dirty and tired and hungry and scared
We slept with our boots on so we were always prepared
Those majestic mountains so steep, so high they kiss the skies
The Hindu Kush has changed so many lives
Up the mountains with heavy loads we trod
Who knew hell was so close to God
Beauty and terror are a strong mixed drink
So we drank it like drunkards and tried not to think
Good men and bad men, Mothers lost son’s
Everyone loses their innocence when they carry guns
Washed in the blood, and baptized by fire
I will never forget those who were called higher
They say blood is thicker than water, well lead is thicker than blood
Brothers aren’t born they’re earned. In the poppy fields, the tears, and the mud
And when I get to heaven to Saint Peter I will tell
Another Paratrooper reporting for duty sir, I spent my time in hell

---

Task 2: ANNEX A

Point of View (POV): POV: The title takes the POV of the author and his fellow paratrooper (“We”), as the poem is mainly about the author’s platoon.

The first 2 lines of the poem takes the 3rd person’s POV (“they”), as the author and his platoon watches the other soldiers discarding the dead and injured inside the plane and loading them aboard.

The next few lines take the POV of the author’s platoon as they were flown to the battlefield (“We”) and dropped into the battlefield by the other soldiers. Then, it changes to the author’s POV (“My”) as he describes his nervousness and terror, sprinting through the bullets amidst the deafening battlefield, then shooting repeatedly, claiming it was what had to be done.
The POV reverts to that of the author’s platoon (“We”) as they fought on every ground, unclean, exhausted and frightened, always on the lookout. Then, it returns to the author’s POV as he thought about how the Hindu Kush Mountains had transformed their lives. The POV yet again turns back to that of the author and his paratroopers as they trudged on, aware of the terror but trying to distract and distance themselves from it with the beauty of the mountains.

The POV is now that of the author’s. He ponders on how everyone seems to lose their innocence once they hold a gun and enter the battlefield. He also remembers those who were killed in combat and feels that his fellow paratroopers are like his own brothers after all they’ve been through together. He ends off on a somewhat bitter but humorous note.

Situation and Setting: The main setting here is the battlefield. The situation there seems to be dire, as can be seen from the “lead rain”, which alludes to the non-stop firing of bullets. The “noise is tremendous, terror I can’t define” tells us the battlefield was extremely loud and induced fear in the author. The setting of the battlefield does change, from “the valleys to the mountain peaks/From house to cave, to car to creek”. This shows that there was war everywhere and that the soldiers had to be cautious and ready to fight at any time, such as how they “slept with our boots on”. Lastly, the setting of the “majestic” Hindu Kush helped the soldiers to distract themselves from the terror of war.

Language/Diction: The use of the word “unloaded” and “loaded” in the first 2 lines of the poem tells me the author feels they (he and his platoon) were treated simply as replaceable, expendable goods. The rhyme of lines 5 and 6 (“hot” and “not”) emphasize how the platoon was to be dropped into the battlefield no matter how dangerous it was, “bullets are flying, the LZ is hot”. (LZ is Landing Zone). The lead rain stands for the repeated fire of bullets, and the rhyme of the following 2 lines emphasize how dangerous the battlefield, its noise tremendous, “terror I can’t define”, was as the only reason the author survived was divine intervention.

The repetition of “and” in “I kept pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling some more” highlights how the author kept shooting continuously, thus revealing his fear and the danger of the battlefield. The platoon “fought from the valleys to the mountain peaks/From house to cave, to car to creek”. The rhyme of “peaks” and “creek” emphasizes the fact that war was everywhere, inescapable, as does the alliteration of “car to creek”. This explains why the soldiers had to “sleep with our boots on” and the rhyme of “scared” and “prepared” underlines how the soldiers were wary of an enemy attack and hence had to constantly be on the lookout.

The line “Who knew hell was so close to God” again emphasizes the terror of the battlefield and even the majestic Hindu Kush could become a raging battlefield, aptly described by the word “hell”.

The following lines tells us that the soldiers were terrified of the war, but in order to distract themselves, they tried to take in the beauty of the Hindu Kush and forget about war, as emphasized by the alliteration “drank like drunkards”. The next 2 lines state that no matter who you are, everyone would lose their innocence upon fighting. The rhyme of the “son’s” and “guns” highlights this. The soldiers face death and injury as they grow up, as can be seen from them being “Washed in the blood, and baptized by fire”. The author feels his fellow paratroopers are like his own blood brothers as can be seen from how “lead is thicker than blood”, meaning it is how important. The paratroopers have gone through much together “in the poppy fields, the tears, and the mud”, which explains that they have gone through agony, pain and loss together. The poem ends of on a somewhat sarcastic but a little humorous note.

Personal Response: This poem’s structure is untidy and is not divided into stanzas. I feel that this represents Steve’s view of war: messed-up and continuous (participated in many combat operations).

Is Playing or Studying More Beneficial For Us?

This is a really difficult question. Of course, who doesn't wish that there isn't any school to go to or mounds of homework to complete everyday? I rather play Nintendo any day of the week than learn about Newton's Third Law in school. However, deep down inside all of us, we know that at the end of the day, school is truly for our own good. The teachers are there not to work us to death but to nurture us into critical-thinking, mature individuals, ready to face society, from the childish, dependent students we are.

Take for example, the November/December holidays after the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) 2 years back. I was finally free from the hell the teachers put us through. I thought initially that it would be the 2 most glorious months of my life, after all the extra homework, lessons and tuition I've been through. I was all set to plop in front of the computer with a bag of crisps and a soda to catch up on all the agonizing hours I spent studying and revising instead of gaming. It was barely a week before I started to miss and pine for the good old schooldays. Though I was extremely stressed and under a lot of pressure then, at least I had work to do and had a proper aim in mind at that point. It was then I realized that a person must have a purpose in life. Only then would he would be motivated to achieve it and not drift aimlessly. A life without an aim is considered to be a life without any proper direction to it. Without any direction, a life will go astray. It simply wastes itself. How can you be happy if you don't achieve anything? Won't your life be totally useless and unfulfilling?

However, there is a need to play too. Working or studying might land us a job in the workforce in the future but as the saying goes, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." There is a need to strike a proper balance between work and play. If you work too much, you will feel bored too and unhappy. You need a little enjoyment now and then to be inspired to continue studying/working. On the other hand, too much playing just leads to no achievements and boredom.

In conclusion, I feel that both having fun and working are essential to happiness. In other words, we have to work hard and play hard to be happy.

Do We control Technology or does It control Us?

We live in the age of technology. Barely an hour goes by without us having to make use of modern technology. In fact, I'm now making use of technology just to write this blog post.

We wake to the ringing of an alarm clock, use a toaster to toast our bread while listening to the news on the radio, or watching TV. In this time and age, we cannot live without technology. Technology has doubtless made our lives much easier. At the press of a few buttons or a few keystrokes, we can communicate or chat with anyone in the world instantly. Traveling across countries, which used to take months or even years by foot, now takes mere hours by plane, ship or train. Work is done much more efficiently, saving both time and money. We now have better food and nutrition, more comfortable living quarters and even healthier bodies, all thanks to technology.

However, I feel that this dependency we have on technology has caused us to be almost controlled by it. Goodness knows how we would be able to accomplish anything without it. Imagine a world without the World Wide Web, machines or inventions. It would be like the Stone Age once more, with mankind consuming raw and uncooked food with little or no light or warmth. Thus, technology is a double-edged sword as it makes our lives easier but, in a way, holds power over us.

For example, whenever I need to do some research for my projects and assignments, the first thing I would do is hit the search engines like Yahoo!, MSN and Google. Usually, I would get what I want within minutes. Without the Internet, I would be forced to visit the library and pore over thousands of yellowed books just to find that bit of information I require. Hence, this shows that I rely very much on technology and am very much controlled by it.

Furthermore, I know of one of my ex-classmate who spends half his time on the computer; the other half on his Xbox 360. He was so addicted that he played video games almost 6 hours a day on a weekday! As a result, he was so hooked up with the virtual world he lost contact with the real world and did not make many friends. He also failed to hand in assignments on time as he was too busy playing. In the end, he barely passed PSLE and went to a neighborhood Secondary School. In this case, technology has domineered over him and cost him many friendships and maybe even his future.

In conclusion, I feel that technology controls us. We are far too used to it that it has become a point where we absolutely cannot live without it. Hence, we must learn to reduce our dependacy on it and stand on own our two feet, so that we are not manipulated by it.

Should Organ Trading be Legalized ?

Recently, I have come across numerous article on Organ Trading both online and offline. I believe most, if not all of us have some vague recollection of 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 a mean waiting period of nearly 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.

A Leader I Admire

A great leader in history I admire would be Winston Churchill, the prime minister of Britain from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. His full name is Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill. He was noted for his undeniable contribution in World War 2.

In particular, I admire his unwavering strength and perseverance. As the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at that point of time, Churchill was in a difficult position;Germany had succeeded in their primary attempt in attacking Britain. The continental ally whom Britain had relied on to face the German army had surrendered, Italy had been conquered by the German side and Hitler was master of Europe from the Arctic Circle to the Bay of Biscay. To make things worse, the French Navy was about to fall into German hands, allowing them to easily mass the Belgian coast and bomb the United Kingdom. Not only did Churchill not despair, he supported going all out to defend his motherland and eventually defeated the Germans in the Battle of Britain.

Furthermore, Churchill dares to speak up and fight for what he thinks it right. For example, when King Edward VIII wanted to marry Mrs Wallis Simpson, the Ministry wanted him to abdicate the throne. Churchill publicly gave his support to the King and urged delay in abdicating , even though the Ministry was against it. I admire his courage to do so.

Additionally, I praise him ability to make great speeches which inspired the tired and wounded,. During World War 2, Churchill's rousing speeches were a great source of inspiration to the embattled British and Allied forces. One of his famous speeches was the very first one he made, known as the "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." speech. Another extract from a well-known one is "... 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." These speeches filled the Allied forces and British who had suffered terribly at the hands of the Germans with passion, encouraging them to forge ahead and continuing fighting the Germans to the very end, eventually managing to crush the Nazis.

However, like all others who are limited to the human race, Churchill had his faults. At the start of World War 2, he did not mange to defend Britain sufficiently, allowing parts of it to come under German control. This enabled the Germans to assemble near the coastline and bomb Britain, resulting it many deaths.

Winston Churchill is a very interesting and intriguing person. He had a very different mindset from many people, including his predecessor, Neville Chamberlain. Instead of suing for peace with the Germans, he chose to fight it out with them to preserve the glorious history of Britain and save his country from the humiliation of submitting to Germany. Hence, I admire him.

What is the Right Way to Live?

This question is really mind-provoking. Numerous philosophers have been stumped by this very question. After all, the right way to live could mean different things to different people. For example, a schoolboy might feel that the right way to live would be to always complete his homework, get good grades and eat his vegetables. A priest, on the other hand, would feel the right way to live would be to practice celibacy to remain true to God. Thus, it can be inferred that people have diverse views on the right way to live.

For me, I feel that we should live life to the fullest. Life is short. Time and tide wait for no man. Do you want to waste your life away doing something you hate or find boring? Of course not! You want to make a difference. You don't want to have a dull 9-to-5 job for 30 years and rot in a nursing home till you're 6 feet under. You want to make sure people remember you long after you're gone and never forget you. You want to make full use of the time God has given you to do what you love with those you love to be with. I say,"Carpe Diem!"(Seize the day!) Live each day as if it's your last. You got to be active, not passive. Most importantly, never look back. Instead of lamenting about your miseries or opportunities that you missed, you can choose to focus only on the future. Think of how glorious and bright it can be. It doesn't matter how impossible or unrealistic your dream is, whether it is to be an acrobat or a zoologist. It doesn't matter how old or young you are. It's never too late to start pursuing your dream. As long as you persevere, the day will come where you finally achieve your ambition. Chase your dream relentlessly but always stop to smell the roses. The journey is equally important as the end. Never give up. Even if you don't manage to attain your aim, you will feel no remorse. After all, you've tried you hardest; given it your best shot. Rethink your ambition. Consult your heart and soul. Is it what you really want to be or what your parents/friends/siblings want for you? Sort out what you really want out of life and give it another try. And when the time comes for you to join the Lord, you can bet that you won't have any regrets in life and can depart with a peaceful smile on your face.

That's the right way to live.

E-Learning Week (1 - 2 Mar 2010)

Task A: Discovering your Learning Profile
Post your learning profile on your blog and write in no less than 100 words the implications or what you feel about the Multiple Intelligence test.

According to the Birmingham Grid for Learning Multiple Intelligence test for Secondary school students, my interpersonal skills rank highest (23/30), followed closely behind by my naturalist nature (22/30), then my linguistic skills (19/30). My logical and Visual/Spatial skills are on par, followed by kinaesthetic, intrapersonal and finally, musical skills.


I feel that the Multiple Intelligence test is partially reliable as I am quite sociable and like mixing around with my friends, helping them when they require assistance. I am also a strong advocate of environmental conservation, usually buying "green" products even at an expense of a higher cost. Furthermore, I enjoy being close to nature and more often go to nature reserves, like the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve to observe and appreciate the beauty and serenity of Mother Nature . Additionally, my musical knowledge is comparable to that of a layman as I just do not have a natural aptitude for it. On the other hand, I disagree with the test results on my logical skills as I have quite a logical, mathematical mind and can usually solve math puzzles with ease.

Task B: Consider these questions: Is Maycomb a good place to live in? Is Maycomb corrupted? [focus on 2 main themes: Courage and Prejudice]

Pick 2 tasks according to your learning profile (eg: If my 2 highest scores are in spatial and lingustics, I will pick a spatial and linguistic task each).

As my interpersonal and naturalist skills rank among the top 2 in my learning profile, I shall pick one task from each category.

- Naturalist:

a. Do a research on the natural habitat of mockingbird. In your research, include the kind of flora and fauna you think exist in Maycomb and explain why the mockingbirds live in Maycomb.

Mockingbirds belong to the Mimidae family, which includes thrashers, mockingbirds and tremblers. As the name suggests (Mimidae is the Latin word for "mimic"), birds belonging to this family are renowned for their vocalization and mimicking skills. Mockingbirds are best known for mimicking the songs of other birds and the sounds of insects loudly and rapidly, hence their name.

Grey on top and white underneath, the mockingbird usually has a long black tail with white feathers and a long, sleek bill. Males and females look alike and are native to most of the continental United States, from southern Oregon through northern Utah to Newfoundland and Mexico, living mainly in open country with shrubby vegetation like thickets, hedges, fruiting bushes, farmland and brushes. It prefers living in grassy areas rather than on dry, hard ground. Mainly, they inhibit parks, cultivated land and suburban areas.

Hence, based on my research, I picture Maycomb as a quiet rural, maybe somewhat backward town; an area with wide open spaces with many types of natural vegetation like bushes and flowering shrubs. There are no loud noises, no cars, buses, taxis or trains; horses pull carriages on old, worn streets. In the woods, squirrels jump freely from tree to tree, small birds like robins and sparrows chirp in the morning sun and the occasional snake slithers in the tall grass, foraging for field mice scampering about.

I feel that the mockingbirds live in Maycomb mainly because of its calming and soothing nature. There is no commerce going on there, no large business carrying on, no cars honking, no hustle and buste. As a quote from TKAM describes Maycomb so aptly, “there was nowhere to go, nothing to buy and no money to buy it with, nothing to see outside the boundaries of Maycomb County”. Hence, I feel that the mockingbird was attracted to Maycomb’s peacefulness and stillness and of course, its natural vegetation.

- Intrapersonal

a. Who would you want to be friends with in the novel? Explain.

I would want to befriend Atticus Finch, father of Jean Louise "Scout" Finch and Jeremy Atticus "Jem" Finch. I admire him chiefly for his courage and his care for others, as well as his benevolence.

I would befriend Atticus for his bravery. No matter how many people oppose him for how high the odds stacked against him are, he dares to fight for what he truly believes in. For example, he dares to take on Tom Robinson’s case, even though he knew that prejudice of the blacks at that time would almost certainly result in Tom Robinson losing. Even so, Atticus rises to defend Tom Robinson, saying that "courage is not a man with a gun in his hand. It's knowing you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.". This shows how courageous Atticus Finch is in daring to do what he feels is right as he feels “the one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience”. Hence, I would like to become Atticus’s friend.

Furthermore, I would also befriend Atticus Finch for his care and concern for others. As a single parent, he is the sole breadwinner of his family and has to take care of two playful children. However, he always sets aside some time to read to Scott, his daughter and play with Jem, his son, as illustrated by how “he played with us(them), read to us(them)”, “reading every night” to them. He also taught them many facts of life, such as how “you never really understand a person until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” Thus, I would befriend Atticus Finch for his thoughtful nature.

Lastly, I would befriend Atticus Finch for his nobleness. When Mrs. Henry Lafayette Dubose calls him a “nigger-lover”, he does not retaliate at all but instead, “Atticus would sweep off his hat, wave gallantly to her and say, "Good evening, Mrs. Dubose! You look like a picture this evening." This illustrates how benevolent Atticus Finch is as he does not mind being insulted by a sick lady. As such, I would gladly befriend him for his gallantry.

What is Happiness?

What does it mean to experience true joy? Happiness can mean different things to different people. For example, wealth or power may mean the world to a person, whereas for someone else it may mean just being able to live a normal, healthy life.

Many people think that happy people are either wealthy or own branded stuff and that having them brings happiness. Thus, they squander their youth, desperately trying to achieve this perception of happiness. In truth, these qualities are not responsible for a person's happiness or unhappiness. Happiness is not derived from material goods or money. As once aptly put by Philosopher Spike Milligan, "Money can't buy you happiness".

Some people think that true happiness does not lie in material objects, rather, from one's imagination. They give examples like: A man has a Toyota car. His neighbor living on the right owns a Mercedes while the one on the left a rickshaw. When he looks right, he feels unsatisfied and but when he turns to his left he feels happy. As such happiness does not lie in one's possessions, but in imagination. Thus, people are always advised to compare themselves with those who have far fewer belongings, like the poor in Africa or Cambodia.

However, I beg to differ from this way of thinking. It is absurd that true happiness should lie in feeling superior to the poor. Not only is it unkind to derive happiness from the under-privileged, this definition of happiness implies that being "better" than others is happiness. I ask you, how can true happiness be attained from looking down on someone? It would be extremely condescending, showing that you do not genuinely pity them ,but rather, relieved at not being as poor as them. We must adopt the correct attitude when striving for happiness and not just think of ourselves. As Philosopher Judi Singleton once commented, "Happiness is when your mind is thinking through your heart".

Instead, I feel that happiness depends wholly on a person's attitude towards life. For example, if you are satisfied with just leading an average, healthy life with your family, you will be able to attain happiness easily, compared to those who hunger for status and riches. To me, happiness is to be able to be satisfied with whatever you. If you are content with life, you will have achieved what you want and hence, happy. On the other hand, if you forever hanker after worldly possessions, you will continue to want more, more and yet more, never being able to truly know what it is like to be happy. "To be truly happy and contented, you must let go of what it means to be happy or content"---Confucius.

Singapore's IR Casino: Boon or Bane?

Recently, there have been numerous news reports on the upcoming opening of the Integrated Resort's casino. Purported to open in 2 days time, the casino is supposed to be a money-maker and job creator. However, many people have spoken against it.

Let us first look at both sides of the situation. Singapore's 40-year old ban on casino was lifted in 2007 in view of the new casinos being built in Marina Bay. Initially, it raised a hue and cry from conservative Singaporeans, including the mainstream religions. Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong explained that Singapore could no longer afford to maintain his father's ban on casino gambling because its tourism industry was facing a serious slowdown, citing falling statistics of tourism revenue. Furthermore, other neighborhood countries like Malaysia and Thailand are likely to get in on the action too. He emphasized the need to change or risk being left behind. "We cannot stand still. The whole region is on the move. If we don't change, where will we be in 20 years?"

He also argued that the two casinos would be a boon to Singapore, doubling the number of tourists here to 17 million, increase tourism revenue three-fold and create nearly 100,000 direct and indirect jobs. Finally, he assured the public that the government would shelve the idea should it prove too dangerous.

On the other hand, Singaporeans are worried that casinos in Singapore would make them more susceptible to the temptations of gambling and eventually, addiction. However, the problem is that there are absolutely no statistics for Singapore as of yet to form a conclusive case. Furthermore, according to the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) more than 83 percent of Singaporeans are willing to have the casino built here.

Personally, I support the construction of the casino. Merrill Lynch, a US company, estimates that Singaporeans spend $760 million online annually. Hence, it does not matter whether we build the casino in Singapore or not. As my father summed up,"Gamblers will always find a way to gamble, be it online or in person". As for the social and moral implications, "if you don't want to play, just stay away". Though there undoubtedly will be repercussions, the pros definitely outweigh the cons. Hence, I support the construction of the casinos.

Singapore: True-Blue Democracy?

Though we Singaporeans may proudly declare ourselves as democratic citizens, do we truly mean what we say? Are we really a democracy, being allowed freedom of speech, rights and so forth?Are we allowed to contest against the government's ruling freely?

The People Action Party (PAP) has been in power ever since 1959 general election, when Lee Kuan Yew was elected as Singapore's first prime minister. They have been the Singapore government for over 50 years with no other political parties to contest, to challenge, to oppose them. They and they alone have made all important decisions ranging from health reforms for the elderly to how the Singapore budget should be spent. In recent years, the baton has been passed on to current prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, coincidentally, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's grandson. The control of Singapore has changed hands and has come a full circle. Knowing this, do we really believe in our hearts that Singapore is a fair, authoritative state or do we secretly think it to be authoritative and oppressive?

Of course, many have tried over the years to dispute PAP's right to power. However, they have all fallen, mainly due to the Internal Security Act (ISA), Part XII of the Singapore Constitution, the government still employs. This policy gives them the right to "enact legislation designed to stop or prevent subversion." For example, Chia Thye Poh, the longest-serving political prison in the whole of Singapore history, was detained under the ISA and was imprisoned for 23 years without trial for allegedly conducting pro-communist activities against the Government, subsequently being confined to house arrest for another nine years.

The government controls all forms of media. Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), which publishes Singapore's most widely read newspaper the Straits Times, Mediacorp, Singapore's local TV station and local radio stations. Hence, we read what the government wants us to read, watch what the government wants us to watch and hear what the government wants us to hear. All media is carefully screened by the Singapore government and passes through strict censorship.

But of course, there are two sides to every matter; Singapore's government has sacrificed democracy and freedom for its people for economic progression. It's hard to imagine that we were simply a third-world, puny island with no natural resources to draw on but ourselves. Now, we have clean water, good living conditions and are in the top 30 countries in the world in terms of Gross Domestic Product per capita (person). We have come a long, long way and for this, we have the PAP to thank for. Its efficient government has slogged and suffered, doing its utmost to make Singapore what it is today.

I conclude now that I have presented both sides of the matter. My conclusion is that Singapore may not be the true-blue democracy it perpetuates itself as but it is certainly governed by one hell of of an efficient party.

Tensions Flare between Google and China

Source: google.cn

Tensions at at an all-time high between the democratic internet republic of Google and the communist red china, causing Google to alter its policy on censorship of its China search engine, google.cn, search results. Let us take a closer look at why this is so.

Google has accused China of gross misuse and abuse of the Internet. One prime example, Google's spokesman's claims, is that there has been "a highly sophisticated and targeted attack" on Google and over 20 other major business companies worldwide. Sources pinpoint the hackers' motives as stealing the former's software code. "A primary goal of the attackers," as quoted from Google, was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. 

Even more shockingly, this is not surprising. Why should it be? After all, Chinese hackers launch cyber-attacks on businesses, and even government agencies routinely, almost on a daily basis. China has also demanded that Western governments aid them in snooping and prying on alleged human rights activists' email accounts and in their efforts to censor discriminating political online content. In this way, China is making human rights a nothing more than a farce, using the supposedly freedom of speech and opinions native to the Internet as cold, hard evidence to prosecute democrats.  Though Western countries have simply gone along with these policies in the past, Google has taken a bold step forward by it refusal to comply with Beijing's conditions, a refusal that marks the beginning of the fight for Internet freedom of speech.

Reflection:
I disapprove of China's heavy political censorship of the Internet. I believe that people should be allowed to know what they want to know, what they want to think, not what the government wants them to know and wants them to think. Hence, I support Google all the way for daring to be the first to oppose China. 

Furthermore, I find China's methods to restrict online political content and to keep tabs on human rights activists far too extreme and uncalled for. After all, haven't they heard of privacy? As human beings, we should be entitled to our individual privacy, something nothing should take away from us.  

Google Vs China - Clash of the Titans

 Source: Google

Nearly 2 weeks has past since the recent showdown between Google and China over Beijing's censorship rules.  The massive argument resulted from strict censoring of the Internet in china, censoring that returned thousands of blocked websites for certain "taboo" search terms in China, such as "dalai lama" or "Tiananmen Square". As such, China's censorship policy is directly contradictory to Google's motto of providing free and unrestricted information to anybody and everybody in the world. Hence, the discontentment of Google. 

Furthermore, China is infamous for pioneering the development of sophisticated cyberspying and cyberattacking/hacking apparatus. This is  justified by the steep rise in hacking originating from China of not only human-rights organizations, but more importantly and shockingly, foreign businesses and governments as well. As such, China is considered as dangerous as they own the latest hacking tools that most countries are not even aware of yet. Because of this, the moderate tension between the two civilizations, China and Google, has spiked into a full-fledged fight.

Due to the difference in view of the dissemination of information online and contradictory practises between the two titans , Google and China are at loggerheads with each other, with Google debating whether or not to pull out of the China market since China refuses to compromise. Who will win the Internet war? Google or China? Only time will tell… (watch out for my next post)

Reflections:

I feel that the main issue of the article is whether or not Google will decide to pull out of the China market due to the difference in opinions on how they should operate. Related secondary issues would be China's sneaky, behind-the-scenes tactics and how it is fast emerging as one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world. Also, I can infer that the writer of the article in Newsweek favors Google slightly over China as the former is depicted as the innocent party while China is portrayed in a bad light. However, I would take the point of view of the writer as I have sourced for and read many articles on the World Wide Web concerning this incident and found that most of them take the stand of the writer. I believe this is because they feel China should be more transparent about their methods to keep track of organizations and individuals alike and also more democratic and not ban certain website from being accessed, just because they are contradictory to China's view. 

Furthermore, I feel that modern China strikes a far cry from the once rural, isolated nation.  There was once, a few decades back, when China depended heavily on business from Western capitalist countries the USA. However, over the years, China's own internal market has expanded tremendously; its exports to non-Western countries significant and capital vault vast. No longer is it the agricultural, backward nation it once was. In fact, China's urban, public sector generates more revenue than the rural, private sector. It is on par with the US. However, because of the great leap forward for China, China is less willing to accommodate itself to Western ideas, companies and governments. In a sense, China feels it is one of the world's major powers and wants to be treated as such, becoming cocky and focusing more on internal dynamics, less focused outwards as it climbs the economic ladder. Once a upon a time, it would not have dared to oppose such a massive company like Google as it relied heavily on foreign business. Now, it faces straight up to Google and dares to push for their own ideals.