Saturday, August 1, 2009
Today's library, tomorrow's 'googlary'?
Imagine an entire library of books. Now digitized, and available online, with a convenient search function to boot. Introducing the googlary. Tell me how that is not amazing.
Is there any information that you need to look for badly? All it takes is a single click. It is that incredibly easy to find a particular book on the googlary. Aside that, it allows us to access the library from anywhere with Internet connection, as long as you have a laptop. This literally means that we are carrying the entire library around. Digitizing of books gives us more convenience due to the portability, and we do not have to spend so much time just to travel to the library to find some information.
Of course, digitizing of books also allow us to cut down on the usage of papers, thereby reducing the amount of trees cut down for the manufacturing of papers. Thus, in a sense, the googlary is eco-friendly. In addition, digitizing of books allow the information inside to be preserved for as long as one wants it to be. Compare this with conventional books made of paper which are bound to be food for worms as time goes by.
It may seem like the googlary is the future, and it has absolutely no drawbacks. But recovering from the initial excitement and thinking about it, I find that it may not be so. For one, if the servers hosting the digital libraries crashes due to technical problems, it can be a pain in the arse to try to repair the problem and then restore the library.
And it may just be me, but I find that reading books from the computer just feels uncomfortable and weird. It just does not feel right. Not to mention that reading for long hours on a computer can be torturing for the eyes. Perhaps we are too used to reading a paper book as compared to e-books, but holding a paper book in the hands seems to feel more normal to me.
Gifted Education Programme
GEP gives some people the impression it breeds elitism, but it is just baseless accusations. People need to understand what exactly GEP is about. As MOE states, GEP is an academic programme designed for the top 1% of pupils, identified in two rounds of tests at the end of Primary 3. It aims to help these students realise their talents in various academic areas and stretch their potential in these areas.
With this in mind, I feel that GEP is necessary and important. Without it, the talents of some students may be wasted. GEP needs to exist to help realise their potential and groom them to be the future leaders in their respective areas. It is also a prime example of a meritocracy educational system. If the students show that they have potential in their respective academic areas, they can then be introduced to a more in-depth curriculum that is able to bring out the best in them.
Let's return to the stereotypy of elitism that GEP students face. This is due to people thinking that GEP students are of a "higher class" than normal students, and have special privileges and treatments as compared to them. In addition, being in GEP also makes them eligible for some special programmes. This has bred jealousy in some people, resulting in this mindset.
Even I have this kind of mindset when I was in Primary School. Speaking from personal experience, I was actually eligible to join the GEP when I was Primary 3, having passed all the selection tests with flying colours. However, it was this particular mindset that, put in a bad way, screwed me up, and made me decide to decline the offer. This mindset remained in me until I managed to interact with some of the GEP students. I realised that they are not as what others put it. Granted, they tend to argue and debate about issues more often, and this made it a tad harder for mainstream students to interact with them. But that aside, they are actually similar to normal students like us. This sort of made me regret my previous decision, but I am lucky to make it to Hwa Chong today. But I digress.
My point is that the notion of GEP breeding elitism is not true. The programme is there simply to help students who have more academic talent to reach greater heights. Without this programme, their talent will just be wasted. Why not stretch it and put it to good use?
The Great Casino Debate
I'm all for building a casino in Singapore. Doing so is a double-edged sword and granted, it may bring about potential social problems, but the pros outweigh the cons in my opinion, and thus building a casino can be seen as a necessary evil.
There are many economic benefits of building a casino. For one, it can boost tourism and in the process generate lots of revenue for Singapore, and is probably the most effective method to accomplish this. It is also able to generate much more job opportunities for Singaporeans, reducing unemployment and improving our economy at the same time. Especially in the current period we are living in, this is becoming more relevant.
I am aware that social problems may arise. More Singaporeans may be addicted to gambling, crime rates may rise, and many other consequences. However, the government has been stepping up on measures to prevent, or rather, slow down the rate of this happening. For example, Singaporeans need to produce their identity cards to be allowed to enter the casino, thereby giving family members of gambling addicts the option to stop them from gambling. In addition, they need to pay a non-refundable entrance fee of $100 to enter.
Some argue that it is not necessary to build a casino. However, in order to stay competitive in terms of tourism and economy, there is indeed a need to have a casino to help us move at the same pace with other countries. Granted, it may not be as grand as prominent casinos in Las Vegas, but at least it gives us a slight edge against other countries.
So, keep in mind people, don't criticize any unconventional ideas that the government brings up. It may work better than you think.
Swine Flu Outbreak
Swine flu, as everyone should know by now, originated from Mexico. Funny that the Mexican government protested when someone suggested naming the disease Mexican Flu, but I digress.
In the dawn of the outbreak of the flu, Mexican authorities closed down public facilities and cancelled all public gathering places in certain states, gave out masks, and did its best to contain the virus. But apparently, swine flu was spreading too fast. They cannot do squat about it. These measures were implemented far too late for them to be effective.
Other countries knew about it and attempted to stop the virus from spreading into their country, hence stepping up measures and implementing health screenings at airport checkpoints. Many countries such as China has suspended flights to Mexico, and Hong Kong tried to contain the outbreak via quarantine orders and contact-tracing. There are also several countries that banned imports of pork or pork-related food products. However, some of these measures have caused dissatisfaction in Mexico who feels that their citizens are being discriminated against.
Eventually, the swine flu virus still managed to spread into these countries. However, this does not mean that the measures implemented are not effective. We have to understand that the measures cannot shield their countries from the virus forever. A loophole will eventually appear, and that is all it takes to create havoc. In addition, we have to keep in mind that countries such as the United States have too large an area for the authorities to implement measures and track down potential victims. What we should access is the amount of time that the countries managed to keep the virus away from them, and how they attempt to contain the outbreak. In light of this, I would say that the measures of some countries are rather effective, especially in the case of Hong Kong. From what I have read in the news, I can see that the Hong Kong authorities have been trying their very best in implementing measures such as contact-tracing and quarantine orders which proved to be very effective.
To conclude, I feel that the countries have implemented effective measures. However, the constraints that they face have hindered their effectiveness a tad.
Human Organ Transplant Act
A simple and direct question: Will you donate your functioning organs to a person in need of them when you die?
For me, I would. It will not hurt me in any way (obviously), and at least you are able to save a life and complete a final good deed, thereby increasing your chances of rising to Heaven.
Back on topic, the Human Organ Transplant Act allows organs to be transplanted from a person who has passed on to another who is in need of them. The problem? Everyone is queuing for the same organ. Therefore, some of the more desperate people resort to buying organs from the black market. Thus, some support the notion of foregoing consent in harvesting organs, and I personally support this.
Organs are practically of no use to a dead body, so why not do a final good deed and donate them to the needy instead of remaining selfish to the last breath? Not to mention that foregoing consent in harvesting organs can greatly increase the efficiency of the process, and more lives will be saved due to this. Some express ethical concerns, but I say that ethical concerns can be discarded when a person's life is concerned. There is not much point to talk about ethical concerns when you know that there are people who are approaching with every passing minute.
There are some people who are unwilling to do so due to their religions and beliefs. For example, they may believe that they need their organs to be intact so as to progress to their afterlife, while others feel that it is plain awkward and repulsive to have their own organs in someone's body. I do not disagree with them, since their beliefs have been ingrained in them, but I strongly feel that saving lives is more important than all the above factors.
Ultimately, I feel that the ends justify the means. If more lives can be saved, and their sufferings reduced greatly, I see no reason for organ trading to be a bad thing.
National Service
Some young men cringe upon knowing they have to attend it. Some are enthusiastic about it instead.
Yes, it is National Service.
Everyone has separate views on this issue. From the viewpoint of the opposing party, some people think that attending National Service is simply a waste of time, and interrupts their studies and future plans. They find that National Service has caused them to miss out of some once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. Some people think that National Service is excruciating and is plain physical torture to them. On the other hand, those who are enthusiastic about National Service feel that National Service is inevitable and also the responsibility of all Singaporeans.
Nonetheless, there has been cases that there are people who are evading National Service. With regards to this problem, I do have some suggestions.
For one, the National Service can be amended such that everyone has a choice as to what role to take on other than the uniformed groups. Defending the country does not need to be only through the army. All young men should be given options as to what role to take on, such as policeman, firefighter or medic. This ensures that less young men will be reluctant to join National Service, and instead encourages more of them to serve the country willingly.
However, there will still be dodgers present even if the above suggestion is put in place. Thus, harsher punishments can then be put in place to complement the above proposal. Since they still refuse to join National Service despite being offered a larger variety of options, it is justifiable to increase the severity of punishments.
Summarizing my proposal: "Take it, or leave it and suffer the consequences"
Science and Technology
Science and technology is pretty much a double-edged sword. In the hands of the good, it will bring about positive advancements and great benefits to mankind. But it is in the hands of the evil, one can say that the world is pretty much screwed. I know it sounds fantasy-like, but it does have tinges of truth in it.
It is undeniable that science and technology has brought about great leaps in mankind, allowing us to raise our living standards and go about doing things in a more effective way.
For one, the use of medicine has saved billions of lives, reduced the sufferings of some, and helped prevent the demise of many others by stopping fatal diseases such as tuberculosis and pandemics such as the plague. It also increases the life expectancy of everyone over the times, allowing us to continue living our lives to the fullest. Antibiotics and vaccinations are the ones that allow us to continue living normally in the current world. Communications is another example that I think should be brought up. Without the invention of telephones and the World Wide Web, we would probably be still sending letters and throwing out messenger pigeons. Without them to pave the way for more inventions and discoveries, we will still be stuck in the same old conditions in the medieval times.
However, with the advancements of the mankind comes the invention of weapons. The prime example is the nuclear weapon, which can annihilate entire cities in a single blow and cause massive destruction. Think of North Korea. With that mad-hat Kim and his barrage of nuclear arms at his disposal, there is no telling what he will do, and the amount of destruction it might cause. Humanity is threatened in this case.
Some say that science is now trying to play God, and this accusation is absurd. I would prefer to think that they both work in sync, and science is simply something that tries to explain the existence of God and the laws of the Nature. I believe that both should exist together. Yes, science and technology is the one that has helped mankind progress to where we are today. However, there will be times when people feel a spiritual void in themselves, and only religion can fill that emptiness.
With great powers comes great responsibility. Science can bring about tremendous benefits if one can use it responsibly. But if it is lost to the hands of the bad, putting it in the most negative way possible, mankind is going to get annihilated.
Pornography
Mention pornography to a person and he or she will probably cringe in disgust.
Pornography refers to sexually explicit materials, be it photographs, films or anything, aiming to produce sexual arousal of the viewers. I agree that pornography is simply wrong, but is there a need, or rather, is it practical to exercise censorship on it? I would say no.
Some may argue that pornography is harmful to the public, especially innocent children, and it is there just to satisfy their particular sexual needs. Viewers get addicted to it and hunger more, and among them, some even proceed to become sex offenders.
While I agree with these points, let us analyse the practicality of exercising censorship on pornography. Firstly, trying to exercise censorship of pornography on the Internet is absurd. There is not enough manpower or technology to monitor and restrict the web usage of the citizens, and it is nigh on impossible to prevent the Internet users access to all pornography sites in the World Wide Web. Even if they manage to do so, there will always be loopholes that will be discovered one day.
Even though censorship of pornographic magazines is possible, one has to take into consideration that those who are sexually desperate will eventually find a way to get hold of them, be it through buying via E-Bay or the black market.
The only thing we can do is to introduce sex education to children, and schools and parents should take a part in doing so. Inculcating the mindset that pornography is morally wrong may prove to be more effective and impactful to the children. However, if they refuse to heed the advices given and choose to go down the wrong path of watching pornography, they cannot blame anyone but themselves.
Ultimately, I do not think that exercising censorship on pornography will solve any problems. In order to protect the next generations from the vices of pornography, parents, and not the law, should take up the responsibility of educating them.
