"Walkover terrain, 20 years and counting", "Opposition misses deadline"

MM Lee Kuan Yew has lead Singapore for umpteen years, and has literally "raised Singapore from the dead" after the separation with its hinterland Malaysia. Today, he gives the victory sign to supporters at the Singapore Chinese Girl's School after the opposition, Socialist Front narrowly missed the deadline for filing the nomination papers. This is the 20th year that there has been a walkover in Tanjong Pagar GRC. However although newspapers state that the walkover was caused solely by the Socialist Front submitting their nomination forms late, the truth may not be so simple.

Firstly, MM Lee, as stated in the previous paragraph, has led Singapore, such a tiny country with only people as its resources, and on bad relations with neighbouring countries, to such a successful nation today. How would anyone want to challenge such a great leader? The things that MM Lee has done for Singapore are not easily forgotten by the citizens. Any challenger just has to ask himself this question: Can you lead a nation with no resources, teeny land space and on bad relations with other countries into the fifth richest nation in the whole world? Then they will immediately back off and call of the challenge. There is almost no hope of winning. Why waste 16,000 dollars?

Secondly, the Socialist Front had signaled its intention to contest the GRC earlier, only to abort its plans on Monday, but nevertheless showed up at 11.30 at the nomination centre. This will show the residents that the Socialist Front is unreliable as it constantly changes its mind, particularly at the eleventh hour. How then can residents expect them to carry out promises if they are elected? A leader of the nation should stick doggedly to promises made, or he will appear as untrustworthy.

Thirdly, the Socialist Front withdrew so abruptly because they had insufficient funds. Let's think about the reasons why such a scenario could occur. Maybe poor financial management? Or lack of support? The Socialist Front only scraped together the money on Thursday. They appealed for help on Monday. They needed only 80,000 dollars. And it is impossible that they need all the 80,000 from supporters. Therefore they must have insufficient supporters or supporters who were unwilling to help. Who wants a government like that?

"Terrorists "planned to broadcast bombing""

Recently, I read an article in the Straits Times entitled "Terrorists "planned to broadcast bombing"". Firstly before I start writing, I want all readers to note that firstly, this is my personal opinion, and there is purely no intention of attacking or defaming any particular person, race or religion. Secondly, this is NOT a piece of writing, just my own opinion.

This article is about Islamists terrorists attempting to bomb an Indonesian church ahead of Easter
Celebrations and also film and broadcast the inferno. Fortunately, they failed in their attempt.

I feel extremely disgusted by this act. Firstly, I am a Christian myself, and I am deeply saddened by all the anti-Christian activities going on around the world. First, the Allah incident which led to the burning of numerous churches and now this. What do other religions have with Christians. However, I have noticed something going on everywhere like in schools and workplaces which possibly may be related to this incidents. For example, if somebody is very diligent in his work in the workplace, and all the workers are extremely jealous because he has received promotion time and time again. So let's say that the boss gives him a project to complete before a certain deadline. Naturally, the other workers, or at least some, would want to sabotage him so that he will not receive yet another promotion but yet be sacked for not finishing the project or doing it sloppily. This shows that when a certain somebody is good, others lower than that person will try out various means, sometimes under the belt, to try and bring that person down. Is this the same with Christianity?

Next, I have learnt from past teachings, that terrorists are mostly people who are perverted in their minds. They have mostly been brainwashed, and can no longer tell the difference between wrong and right. Therefore, they go down and down, to the level where atrocities seem normal, such as this act. Who in the right frame of mind would want to destroy a church and film the explosion. Something has definitely gone wrong in the brains of these terrorists. Thirdly, these terrorists are Islamic, meaning that they are Muslims. I have no idea what they have against Christians, but I think that they, brainwashed and perverted as they are, should still sit down and think it over seriously. Would they want others to do to them what they have done and are still attempting to do to Christians. I should think not. And another point, if they really have a 'God', would the God be pleased to see them acting in this way? I mean, yes, they are doing it for their 'God', but the way in which they are doing so is seriously wrong. I do not know what their Holy Book says, but I don't think any 'righteous God' would like followers to act in this perverted manner.

The Day I Confiscated my 12-year-old's handphone

Recently, I have read an article entitled "The Day I Confiscated my 12-year-old's handphone". Basically it is about a mother talking about how and why she confiscated her daughter's mobile phone. The author bought a mobile phone for her daughter when the latter was aged 12, mainly to communicate with her and to coordinate picking her daughter and her younger son up from school when the author was tied up in meetings. However, her daughter began to use the phone excessively, and the cost for the phone every month shot up sky-high and in the end, the author decided to confiscate her daughter's mobile phone.

My mother saw this article in the Today paper and highlighted it to me. She thought that I would also have the same problem. However, I think that this is not true at all. Firstly, I think that girls use mobile phones much more than boys simply because they have so many things to talk about and so much to talk on any topic under the sun. Now with the availability of mobile phone, they can talk for 24 hours a day. However, this does not apply to boys because we just do not talk so much. For your information, women talk on average 4000 words a day while men in contrast on average only 2000 words a day. See the difference?

However, this may not be the fault of the author's daughter, regarding the article. This is because she has just received a brand new mobile phone and along with it, free access to chatting all day long. She certainly used that power over-extensively until it has started to resemble an addiction. I also think that the girl does not know that there are charges while using the mobile phone, and therefore has racked up the phone bill perhaps while not even knowing it.

I think that the girl should exert more self-control when using the mobile phone. She can chat and message, but not too much, and also at appropriate times like when she has nothing else to do, not in the early hours of the morning or during school. The author should also educate her daughter on the fact that money is charged for messaging, calling or receiving calls from others and if she uses up so much money, it has a very great adverse effect on the whole family.

I actually have a solution for the author. I think that since the daughter is using a prepaid card, her parents can assist her in kicking the habit by giving her a fixed amount in her prepaid card, say 20 dollars for one month or whatever the author thinks is suitable. If the daughter uses up her money due to chatting unneccesarily, then she will just have to make do until the next month.

Blog Prompt 14.4.2011

The question for today is a question from a reading and reasoning exercise which we did based on the novel "To Kill a Mockingbird".

The question is "With reference to events happening currently and in the recent past, does crisis bring out the best in man? Explain your answer." The question goes something like this but I do not have the worksheet and therefore also not the answer.

Yes, crisis brings out the best in man. For example, take the recent Japan earthquake. It triggered both a massive tsunami and also severely damaged several nuclear plants is Fukushima Daichii, so much so that they began to dry up and would eventually explode, claim thousands of lives and affect many more around the world because of radioactive chemicals released. Even now, radioactive chemicals are leaking out into the sea and into the air from the reactors. The best brought out in man is demonstrated in the workers at the nuclear plant. They know very well how severe the situation is and how easily they can just die from radioactive contamination. However, they still are working hard at the nuclear reactors, plugging leaks and desperately trying to pump water into the reactors, most recently even turning to tap water. They are doing this to save the lives of so many people, and even willing to sacrifice their own lives, if that is the price to pay so that the problem can be solved. This shows that crisis brings out the best in man. Another good example is the residents of the affected areas themselves. Imagine how much damage a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, followed by a massive tsunami can do. How little have the citizens have left? However, many of them still return to their towns and respective areas to salvage what little is left and attempt to start life anew amidst all the death and destruction. Despite the fact that they have almost nothing, many citizens still willing donate their stuff to those who have less than they, for example those whose homes were completely decimated. This is a very good illustration of the fact that crisis sometimes does bring out the best in man.

In contrast, crisis sometimes also does the exact opposite, which is bringing out the worst in man. There are many good examples happening even now, in various part of the world. Several such cases are in countries in which civil war is going on, like Libya and Egypt. Since the civil war started, there have been no rules and regulations, now laws. Hence, many have looted shops in an attempt to get their hands on goods and things they want for free. This is very evil since they are taking what does not belong to them but are the property of others. Hence, this also shows that crisis also may bring out the worst in man.

Talent? Yes. Passion? No.

Recently, I have read an article entitled "Talent? Yes. Passion? No." The article is basically about the opinions of young people after PM Lee Hsien Loong lamented at a talk that there was not enough talent in Singapore to form two really ace teams to govern Singapore in the future. Young people are disagreeing with him all over the place. They feel that lots of young people have loads of talent, but only do not have the passion and instead, everything has to have incentives to make them move. Young people do not want to make personal sacrifices or even have passion.

In my opinion, young people should get more involved, especially in this matter which is the problem of who is going to govern Singapore next. And it is very likely to be them, the next generation. Youths need to get into the mindset that life is simply not a bed of roses. Not everything is just there for them to pick up. There are obstacles, difficulties which they have to overcome sometimes. Also at other times, some personal sacrifices are also required for the greater good. If youths do not have the passion to govern a country, then who else will? This is a simple problem, but the solution is complex. Young people have loads of talent, but no passion. If they had no talent, it can always be integrated into them. However if they do not have the passion, that is an entirely different subject. That is their way of thinking. Some way or another, they have to be persuaded and motivated to become leaders of the nation or the whole nation will just collapse. I feel that young people need to walk around in the shoes of other, such as the Prime Minister himself, and attempt to see things from their point of view. They cannot be too self-centred, but instead must make things good for as many people as possible.

Then comes the education in schools. I feel that this is also part of the school's responsibility. Besides teaching students the basic subjects and hence enriching their knowledge and harnessing their full potential in whatever talents they may have, it is also important that schools implement leadership qualities in the students. This is because if the schools train the students to their full potential in the hopes of becoming successful, then all the more leadership qualities should be implemented in them and they be given the mindset of a future leader. This is common sense, since once one is successful, his or her job is likely to be a job in which the individual is expected to lead, such as the boss of a company which has to lead his subordinates, or a teacher, who has to lead and set a good example for the students in the class, or even the Prime Minister, who has an even greater responsibility in leading a whole nation. In this way, if leadership qualities such as making personal sacrifices and looking at things from different viewpoints, students will be trained to become future leaders and with their talents, I believe that a future successor for PM Lee Hsien Loong will be found very quickly.

Blog Prompt 7.4.2011

The question for today was: Should students have the autonomy to create and have their own curriculum?

Regardless of whether they want it or not, all Singaporean children all have to go through at least secondary education. Schooling has become an important part of their lives. Therefore, education has to be engaging, enjoyable while also catering to the needs of the children. Hence, I think that yes, children should have the autonomy to create and have their own curriculum.

First of all, every child has his or her own interests which may be unique to others. One man's meat is another man's poison. So, children should have each of their own curriculum. In each of their curriculum would be their basic subjects, and then the subjects which they are good at and the subjects which have skills they really want to have, such as piano lessons. In this way, the curriculum of every children would be different as each curriculum would benefit the basic needs and then also the unique needs of each respective child. If the timetables and curriculum of all the children were the same, then as an example, if a certain child was good at piano, and yet there is no piano class on the timetable, then the skill of this child would be kept in the dark and not be allowed to blossom, which would not be good.

The habits of each child are also different. There are just so many examples to emphasize this point. For example, the attention spans of each child are different. One child might be able to concentrate for three hours straight while another child might be able to concentrate for just one and a half hours. Different things might also interest different children and hence either shorten or lengthen their attention spans. Using these examples, it is crucial that every child should have their own curriculum. This is because once every child has his or her own curriculum, the child can then decide exactly how the education should be, for example, how long lessons are, be it 3 hours or one and a half hours, and the emphasis on subjects the child likes the most. Only then can the child get the most out of his or her schooling.

Hence, these are the reasons why children should have the autonomy of creating and having their own curriculum.

Hard Mentality. Can peer pressure be mobilized to change behaviour for the better?

I recently read an article in the Times magazine entitled "Hard Mentality. Can peer pressure be mobilized to change behaviour for the better? Basically it is about peer pressure and the immense way it affects us. All people, but especially teenagers, like to fit in. This affects in such great ways that we are exhibiting this behaviour even in our daily lives.

I think that in the first place, we should not even be trying to follow people or supposedly 'fit in' with others. This kind of thinking is called 'sheep thinking' because it is exactly what sheep do. All you have to do to move a herd of sheep is to get a few moving and the rest will then follow. We should not be having this kind of thinking. If we do, then we will just be following one another and have no opinion of our own. Then where is our sense of originality, or creativity? All just gone. This is why we must not have sheep thinking but instead learn how to think independently. We must have our opinions, and go along with them if we think and know that they are correct, even when others do not like our ideas. If our ideas are right but others still disagree with us, it just means that they are morally perverted and are unable to distinguish between wrong and right, not that something is wrong with us.

On the other hand, we must not be easily swayed by others, just in a bid to be cool or hip or just to follow what others are doing. This is because if we are easily swayed, many people, some who are not exactly angels at heart, will come and manipulate us into doing many weird things, some which are not exactly angelic. Some examples are, according to the text, casual sex, drugs, smoking and the like.

So if you want to know why you should not always follow others but instead have your own thinking, there it is in a nutshell.