National Day Rally 2007 Commentary

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stressed in his entire speech that education is the way towards a better future for the younger generation and put forth several ideas and plans regarding education. In my opinion, some of them can be carefully considered as they are important for the future of the country but others are simply unrealistic.

Take for example the idea of raising the proportion of every cohort that receives subsidised education in the three state funded universities from the current 25% to 30% by 2015 as well as building a forth state-funded university. I think this is a fantastic idea and is no doubt an important decision that can shape the future of Singapore. By raising the proportion of students that are eligible for subsidy, more students can afford to pursue their university education in Singapore while building a forth university would mean that there would be more places in every courses, providing a wider variety for students to choose from. Such a move would see an increase in the number of university graduates in Singapore in the future. Even though more state funds would be transferred for such a cause, I believe that it is a worthwhile investment. More opportunities for Singaporeans to pursue a higher degree of education would equip them with the necessary skills before they enter the workforce and put them in a better position in terms of job prospects.

On the micro level, it would be great to see more people having better education and job opportunities. However, the situation would be even better on the macro level. Better employment rates would mean good social stability within the country because less people become unhappy regarding job opportunities. Whereas better education for more people would mean that the workforce is more highly skilled in general and this would attract investors to open firms here as well as aid the growth of our local Multi-national Companies, which would help develop the country further and allow the economy to scale greater heights.

Unfortunately, not every idea proposed should be seriously considered like this one. As quoted from PM Lee,"First, the Malay Special Programme to study Malay as a third language. It’s there already in all the schools, but it’s not very popular. So, we’re going to introduce incentives to encourage more students to do the Malay Special Programme. Singaporeans like incentives, so we’re going to have small incentives -- two bonus points for JC admission and a few more things".

If this Language Special Programme were to go ahead, imagine to number of students who would choose to study the language for the 2 bonus points instead of due to genuine interest for the language. Cynics would argue that not all students take up languages only for easier entry into junior colleges but the fact that the Malay Special Programme is not popular says it all. Singaporean students do not have the interest to study Malay and even if small incentives were given, students would simply study for the sake of studying, which defeats the purpose of grooming students who can communicate effectively in Malay.

Moreover, if 2 bonus points were to be given to students who take up languages, does this apply to all languages? It would be blatantly unfair if students currently studying a third language are not given the same incentive. I, for the record, am a student who take the Japanese Elective Programme, yet no additional bonus points were awarded and I can only curse and swear at my peers who enter better junior colleges because they were given an additional 2 points for taking up the Chinese Elective Programme. Is learning the Japanese, French and German language less of an advantage to Singapore compared to learning Chinese and Malay? There is no doubt the need to have people being able to communicate effectively in the mother tongue of the greatest populated race as well as in the National language. However, we should not forget the rationale of implementing third language courses in the first place, which is to groom students to become future delegation to these superpowers. In what way should students taking up these languages deserve less of a merit as compared to those who study Chinese and Malay? I am sure that implementation of the above idea would be met by huge outcries from students like me and hence I believe that it is not realistic to go ahead with such an idea.

The Singapore education scene has the makings of a great success with some of the ideas proposed by PM Lee. However, it has to be kept in view that only the pragmatic and important ones should be implemented, if not we could well see Singapore's education moving in the opposite direction.

Can poverty ever be eradicated?

Looking at the billions of people around the world living in abject poverty and having to be content with their squalid living conditions, one cannot help but wonder what is the cause of this enigma and whether there is any action that can be taken to eradicate it. In my opinion, there are things that we can do to lessen poverty but there is no way to eradicate it completely.

Kamala Sarup blamed poor geographical location of a country, political and social issues, as well as feudal cultural ideologies as the root causes for poverty in his article "Can a poor country become rich?", dated March 16,2007.

Poor geographical location means that the country is generally inaccessible, making it extremely difficult to transport goods and services within the country and across other countries. As such, people do not have the necessities they need while the country's economy takes a beating when trading cannot be completed between countries. Bad economy means that many people become unemployed and without work, these people cannot support their families. They are also deprived of the daily necessities, and hence have to suffer poor living conditions as they slump deeper into the mire of poverty. According to the U.N list of country's GDP, countries which are surrounded by high mountains and have few water ways always linger at the bottom, with the exception of Switzerland. A way to help these countries pull themselves out of poverty is to introduce technology to the people. Better technology helps build up an effective transport network even in rough terrains, allowing vehicles to manouevre their way through and improving transportation and trading. However, this will require a lot of funds which without the largesse of other countries, cannot be materialised and thus poverty cannot be eradicated.

Political and social issues also contribute to poverty in a country. In totalitarian societies such as China of the past and North Korea, people do not have any incentive to work hard to climb up the social ladder because there isn't one. Classless societies derived from political ideologies of communism and socialism make everyone equal regardless of what they do and only the government is given the authority to have a say in everything. As such, there is no improvement in the countries and people have to support themselves with the pittance they are given while having to struggle with the rising inflation in the price of goods due to development in other countries. In addition, different ideologies between these countries and the richer ones mean that the richer countries are reluctant to provide aid, leaving the poorer countries to struggle on their own. For example, America, a country based on democratic principles, was unwilling to provide aid to China, a communist country, in the mid-20th century. Only after much negotiation did America pledged to help China, albeit reluctantly. Even today, aid is only given to North Korea to thwart its nuclear ambition, which the hermit nation constantly uses it as a leverage during negotiations. Steps should be taken to improve bilateral ties between countries so as to improve the chances of aid provision to these poor countries. However I cannot see how poverty is going to be eradicated because leaders of such nations just do not seem to be keen on moving in this direction.

Culture is also a cause of poverty, so says Kamala Sarup. Certain cultures emphasise religious values more than pragmatic survival tips. Thus, schools focus more on religion than mainstream education. As such, people who go through such education are poorly skilled and are mostly unable to gain employment with their skills. More attention has been called for on this issue, and Kamala thinks that the way to solve poverty is to change the way schools teach. I am in favour of that. Not that I am casting the importance of religion aside. What I am saying is that schools should strike a balance between life skills and religious values. Only through this can these people find their place in society and gain employment to support their families and get out of poverty.Again, it is unlikely that focus in school curriculum will shift immediately. Hence poverty cannot be eradicated completed in the short run.

Jeffrey Sachs, on the other hand, blames gender discrimination, poor health and bad weather for poverty.

Many countries, particularly those in the Middle-east, forbid females from getting the education they need. As such, more than half of the population of some of these countries are illiterate and this is taking a toll on the economies of these countries. This is especially when potential investors face many problems in communication and written agreements. As such, the nations can only rely on themselves for survival and the lack of education among the people means that these countries are unlikely to prosper on their own. Thus, many human rights organisations have pushed for more education opportunities for women in these countries, but looking at the how these oppressive governments work, it is unlikely literacy rate will rise in the near future.

Another reason for poverty is the bad weather in some countries. Extreme weather conditions such as droughts and floods damage everything a country has, from farms to plantations, from houses to the cities' infrastructure. People are living in poverty because they do not even have enough food for subsistence, let alone things that they can trade to earn money. Some also do not have proper accomodation as their houses get destroyed from time to time. Steps can be taken to help these people. Jeffery Sachs is calling for countries to pledge a small percentage of their national income to help provide the poor with fertilisers and irrigation techniques so that they can plant new crops even in adverse weather. In my opinion, the money can also be used to built dams to prevent floods and to induce artificial rain to solve problems caused by droughts. However, many countries are not fulfilling their pledge to help and this proves to be a stumbling block for countries affected in their bid to get out of poverty.

Extreme weather also exposes people to diseases and epidemics easily occur in these poor countries. As a result, many people are too sick to work and therefore do not have the money to support themselves, let alone get out of poverty. Malaria for example, is widespread in these countries and to solve the problem, countries have pledged to send bed nets to keep the mosquitos away. Cholera and Typhoid are also common diseases among the people because of consumption of unclean water. These poor countries should consider using the Newater technology used in Singapore or use the Pur powder, a powder that can separate water from its sediments, to purify the water so as to allow more people to have access to clean water. As a result, less people will be down with such diseases, and countries can look forward to a heathier workforce. However as said earlier, such technology will be expensive and countries will have to rely on foreign aid.

Even if all the above problems were solved, it is still unlikely that poverty can be eradicated completely. This is because there are other reasons such as racial discrimination and corruption in governments that are not taken into account.

Racial discrimination can occur in any part of the world. In certain countries, some races are not given equal employment opportunities because they are deemed inferior by the rest. Even in today's America, some Afro-Americans are marginalised from the mainstream society and because they are unable to gain employment, they live in poverty. This is despite the fact that America is the world's richest country. This shows that poverty do not have to occur in poor countries and only when racial discrimination is eradicated will these people be emancipated from poverty.

Corrupt regimes are also another source of poverty. In countries such as China and Vietnam where corruption is rife, many people are suffering. Despite having vast natural resources that can be tapped on as well as enjoying booming trades, commoners in these countries do not see any improvement in their pathetic lives. This is because most, if not all, of the revenue earned from these economic activities are not returned to the people. Instead, they are kept by high ranking officials. As a result, there is a concentration of wealth at the top of the level while everyone else lives in poverty. Given the oppressive nature of these governments and their refusal to open up for monitoring by international watchdogs, it will be extremely difficult to curb corruption within these governments unless the leaders themselves take action.

As shown above, despite having so many solutions to solve poverty, there is no guarantee that they will work. In addition, there are also many problems that will most probably remain unsolved. Therefore, it is a foregone conclusion that poverty can never be eradicated completely.

Death Penalty

Many countries in the world still practise the death penalty and Singapore is one of them. Over the years there have been controversies over the use of death penalty with its supporters claiming that it deters crime while its detractors critising it for being immoral and ignoring human rights. I, for the record, is in support of the death penalty, having witnessed the low crime rates in Singapore as compared to many other countries which do not pracise the death penalty. In fact, Singapore has the lowest murder rate per capita in the world, according to wikipedia and I am convinced that the death penalty has the ability to deter crime.

In "The Morality of Capital Punishment" by Gary S. Becker, the death penalty is said to have a deterrent effect because humans have a natural horror for death and therefore will resist the notion pf committing crimes that warrants the death penalty. However, the author did admit that the death penalty has its weaknesses. For example, it will make murderers more determined to escape detection and thus take drastic actions to prevent being caught, such a killing a rape victim. I think that this should not be a point that opponents of the death penalty should capitalise on because as correctly pointed out by the author, advanced forensic technology and knowledge of DNA through various samples should be enough to nab the criminals. Just like in Singapore, where criminal cases are more often than not solved within 24 hours using such advanced technological equipments to capture criminals. In addition, the author also pointed out another limitation of the death penalty, that is it might possibly kill innocent people wrongly convicted of crimes that warrants the death penalty. There might be such a possibility in actual fact but I staunchly believe that the legal system of today protects the rights of criminal suspects and there are many avenues for appeal if the verdict do not go the convicts' way. Therefore, such a possibility of wrong judgements is extremely rare and thus should not be a reason to argue for the abolition of the death penalty.

In "Beyond The Death Penalty Debate" by Antonio Cassese, the author states that the death penalty is against human rights as no one has the moral authority to take the life of another person. I personally believe that people should be responsible for what they do and should accept the penalty if they flout the rules, be it death or not. Besides, the author also said that convicts might receive degrading treatments and other acts of inhumanity in prison. Wouldn't it be better for the convicts to be put to death rather than make them suffer more pain? The death penalty would be a more humane choice in this case as the pain of the convicts is shortened.

There is only one conclusion to this issue. The death penalty should not be abolished because it plays a big part in deterring crime rate and as argued above, all the limitations and criticisms of the death penalty have been duly addressed and it seems that they can be easily overcome. Hence, I am in favour of the death penalty.

Are career demands killing marriages in Singapore?

That's the question for the people living in the highly competitive society of Singapore where good jobs opportunities up for grabs are far and few. There have been many reports of Singaporeans succumbing to unreasonable career demands such as spending more than 12 hours a day at work and force themselves to undergo streneous programmes to upgrade their skills while struggling to juggle with their already heavy workload. As a result, these people get so stressed out from work that they have little or no energy left for their marriage and family, eventually leading to breakdowns in marriage and communication problems within the family.

For a small country like ours, divorce rates are already at alarming altitudes. According to a government report, divorce cases have tripled over the past two decades, from 2313 in 1983 to 6561 in 2003 and it is still growing at a alarming rate. In the past few years after the Asian ecomonic crisis struck, people were clinging on ferociously to their iron-turned-styrofoam rice bowls as if a gust of wind has threatened to blow them away. All attention was placed on jobs security such that everything else automatically became secondary. People started to shift their time spent with family to office matters in a desperate bid to save their jobs and the outcome was predictable.

Of course there are still cases where couples managed to pull through everything, but it has to be agreed that career demands have take a toll on marriages, in one way or another and to different degrees. I guess that the government understands the repurcussions of the increasing divorce rates to our already ageing-population as high divorce rates mean less families and less children. Therefore the government should take the first step to save marriages by doing something to the unreasonable career demands that compel people to put their jobs in front of their families.

To do this, it is important for the government to impose laws and regulations banning employers from making their employees work unreasonably long hours and make sure that there are duly compensated for the extra work they have done. In addition, it is also a feasible idea that companies organise more family day activities so as to improve family ties while not neglecting work. Lastly, it will also be good that employees be given the liberty to choose a flexible working schedule, so as to ensure that employees strike a balance between work and family so that neither one is chugged aside while the other gets all the attention.

We have to realise that human resource is the only resource that we have. If we cannot protect the communion between two human beings when we put the significance of occupation above that of family, then it will be an inevitable fact that Singapore will eventually lose out in terms of its global competiveness. This, the government has to think about it carefully and consider the above suggestions.

Embracing Otherhood

Over the years, Singapore has seen a huge influx of foreigners coming to Singapore for various reasons. No, I am not talking about your typical tourists who wear flowery clothes and visit Singapore's places of attractions. I am actually referring to foreigners who come here with the intention to stay for quite a while, be it due to work commitments, study or even the want to settle down here permanently. As Singapore plays host to this ever increasing group, it is no doubt that there will be more cultural diversity among the people such that Singapore can continue to live up to its multi-racial and multi-cultural tagline.

To an outsider, it is great for Singapore to have such racial and cultural diversity because it only adds to the unique attractiveness of this island. However on hindsight, the government is facing numerous challenges to assimilate these foreigners into the mainstream and at the same time, placate the locals who feel the presence of these foreigners is a threat to their statuses in society.

While there is no doubt that foreigners contribute to our econonomy, we still have to wary of the problems they cause. For example, as employment rules relax, more employers in Singapore turn towards foreign workers for labour because they command less wages compared to Singaporeans and thus directly reduce the production costs of the company. This results in many Singaporeans losing their jobs, who find it impossible to live on such low wages, unlike foreign workers who send most of their money home where the conversion rates make such pittance look so much. Hence, we see an increasing resentment of the locals towards these foreigners.

The story does not end here. Over the years, there have been numerous news reports of these foreign workers causing troubles here, such as being involved in brawls and partake in shady activities such as drug trafficking and conning people out of their money. The most prominent example, of course, are stories of Chinese women accompanying their children seeking education in Singapore who do odd jobs by day and throw themselves in the sleazy business by night. Such behaviours of these foreigners are destabilising the country and adding to the moral decay of society as crime rates soar. It is therefore up to the government to rack its brains to ensure that foreign workers are not given jobs oppurtunities at the expense of locals, so as to prevent anti-foreign sentiments to rise. At the same time, the government also has to take the rap for failing to cope with the troubles these foreigners cause and must take responsibility to clear up the mess, lest a outbreak of a full scale social unrest.

Apart from foreign labour, the government also faces similar problems in foreign students in its education system. For many years as far as I can recall since the introduction of scholoarship programme for foreign students in Singapore began, the scholars often, if not always, outperform local students in national examinations. This has led to an outcry from many local students and parents, who feel that Singaporeans are not given a level playing field, especially since many of these scholars are older in age yet are competing in a lower age group. Such a scenario only aggravates the competition among local students for a place in top schools and strain relationships between local and foreign students. Although I have to admit that these foreign students are extremely hardworking and diligent in their bid for academic success, I am afraid if this goes on, sooner or later most local students will just concede that they are not as good as these scholars instead of challenging for top honours. I am not saying that having competition is detrimental. I am just saying that in a bid to attract and groom foreign talents, the government should also make sure that Singapore students do not lose out in the process because ultimately the locals will be the ones who shape the future of the country.

In conclusion, as Singapore play host to more people from other countries, the government has to weigh its priorities correctly and not let the notion of foreign talent get over its head when making crucial decision which might put local Singaporeans on the losing end of the game.

World in the balance

Judging from the patterns of demographic change, it is imminent that we are going to face a major population crisis. There is no doubt that both the developed and the developing countries are behind this and that the population policies introduced to solve the problem seem to have hit a snag.

Just take a look at China, the world's fastest developing country where GDP continues to enjoy growth of double digit percentage points every year. Despite having the one-child policy around for decades, the population continues to grow at exponential rates, partly due to lack of reinforcement of the law as well as rampant corruption among officials. Continued population growth will bring about high unemployment rate in the country as the country would not be able to generate enough jobs for the entire country. Instead of serving its purpose of controlling the population, such policies brought about adverse effects to the society. Rooted to their Confucianism ethics, Chinese are bound to the obligation of having a male offspring so as to continue the family line and with the one-child policy in place, many of the less-educated peasants from rural villages would rather end a baby girl's life or desert her for a second chance of conceiving a boy. This leads to serious gender inbalance in the country, which will eventually lead to more social problems such as difficulty for a man to get a wife and shortage of female workers in related industries.

If the problems caused as as result of overpopulation are disturbing, the consequences of an ageing population would be disastrous. Ageing population is a common trend seen in many developed countries such as Japan, Italy, Germany and yes, Singapore. In Singapore, in spite of repeated calls for people to have more offsprings and incentives targetted at those who respond to these calls, there seem to be only a minor blip in an otherwise downward population trend. This might not be serious enough to press the emergency button for now but there are serious repurcussions for these countries in the future. With an ageing population, a country will face a shortage of labour, which will lead to it losing its economic competitve edge and eventually failure to sustain the economy. After which, future economic powerhouses such as India and China will take over, usurping the country's position of leader in the economical rat race. This may look like a case of winning or losing on the macro level, but when zoomed to the micro level, such a scenario would probably mean that the country will undergo recession, leading to high unemployment and a considerable drop in the standard of living.

As such, countries should take the initiative to make sure that population policies are effective in solving the two population issues. Only then, the standard of living of the people can be maintained and we would not have to see such unwanted possibilities materialise.

Warning! Rogue vendors on the prowl.

I read with disgust the news about the recent case in China where an unscrupulous street snack vendor mixed chemically softened cardboards into his pork buns so as to cut down on production cost and increase profit. The cardboards from discarded boxes were first softened using industrial chemicals before being mixed with low quality pork in the ratio of 6:4, and then stuffed into buns and steamed, before being sold to the customers. The audacious vendor even showed how the process is done and claimed that most people cannot tell the difference in taste.

It is horrifying to see that the food we eat might be posing a health hazard to us, especially when we are unsure about the process of making the food behind the scenes. The prospect of eating cardboard doused with chemicals will definitely not go well with the consumers. That brings me back to the topic on mind. Is the food we are eating nowadays killing us?

First, there have been allegations that genetically-modified food, which promised to alleviate hunger with higher yield and faster growing crops and claimed to taste better, is actually a danger to human health because genes that are not present naturally are introduced, leading to unknown health effects that might trigger allergies more easily.

Secondly, there have been reports claiming that seafood we eat are contaminated due to their consumption of toxic materials released into the waters by polluting factories, posing a health risk to people who indirectly ingest the toxic materials.

Now, we have increasing numbers of cases of food that has atrocious safety and hygiene standards. This makes me wonder whether we are doing enough to ensure the food we eat is safe.

I attribute the problem of unsafe food to 3 reasons: Insufficient knowledge of food biology, the extensive damage of the environment by humans and lastly, the lack of inspection on safety and hygiene of food sold.

Insufficient knowledge of food biology. Before we even get a full picture of how the ecosystem works, we rush to come up with genetic modifications and claim it to be a scientific breakthrough, where in the real case the genetically modified food may turn out to be detrimental for health. More research has to be done in this area so as to ensure that genetically modified food does not have any side effects on human health and that its benefits outweigh that of conventional food.

Extensive damage to the environment is a dire situation faced by many countries in the world, typically developing countries. Firms simply release their untreated sewage into nearby rivers and lakes, polluting the waters and contaminating marine life. As a result, many sources of food dependent on these waters, like fish and prawns which are contaminated with toxic materials are unwittingly consumed by people, leading to various ailments such as birth deformation and even death. More controls should be imposed 0n these firms over the pollution issue, so as not to pollute seafood habitat and thus make food consumed safer.

Lack of inspection on safety and hygiene of food sold. Government officials are to be blamed for this fiasco. Despite having many cases of food poisoning across the world, individual countries have done little to step in the solve the problem. As a result, rogue vendors mentioned above thrive in the market, plunging the society's health problems to the worst. The report on the street vendor might just be the tip of an iceberg. Therefore, health officials should treat every complain of food standards seriously, and make an effort to record down information of licensed food sellers and arrest those who continue to sell food illegally.

If the above three problems are solved, I do not see why unsafe food should be haunting us today.

Do People Have The Freedom To Practise Their Religion?

There have been many cases where people are unable to convert to a religion of their choice, or forcefully made to convert into a particular religion, the latest concerning the case of Revathi Masoosai, a Muslim-born woman who converted to Hinduism after marrying a Hindu man, but got her official application to change her religion from Islam to Hinduism rejected by the Islamic Authorities of Malaysia.

Malaysia's law states that Muslims cannot marry non-Muslims but there is no issue over the conversion of religion. However, contradicting Syriah Court laws rule that Muslims cannot convert to another religion and anyone who apply to renounce Islam can be found guilty of apostasy, which is punishable by jail and a fine.

This is outright absurd for a country which boasts freedom to practise religion as well as religious pluralism, and cases like Mrs Revathi's are making worse the already strained race and religious relations in Malaysia, as well as getting the attention of international human right groups.

This is not the first time such a case has happened. In May, the country's Federal court rejected the appeal from Ms Lina Joy, a Malay woman who wanted to convert to Christianity, to have her religion changed to Christianity, reason being that she has to follow the existing laws and practices of her religion, which forbids conversion.

I am extremely disappointed that such cases have been happening in a democratic country like Malaysia, and I am puzzled by the fact that nothing has been done by the government so far to rectify the problem. It also comes to me as a shock that Islamic Authorities of Malaysia has been using unethical practices such as breaking up Muslim-converts' families, detaining these converts and make them perform actions forbidden by their converted religions.

According to Mrs Revathi's account, she was not allowed to return to her husband and had her child forcefully placed in the care of her Muslim parents. She was also made to undergo rehabilitation, which in actual fact was more like a prison than a "rehabilitation school". There, she was forced to attend Islamic religious classes, pray as a Muslim, wear a headskarf and eat beef, forbidden by Hindus.

As a religious organisation, where is the morality? Treating converts with contempt and make them do things against their will are already gross violations of human rights. What's more, this is an organisation of authority and is backed by the Malaysian government. This issue not only tarnished the Malaysian government's image and reputation, but is also a big step backwards for the country's democracy. Unless something is done soon to clear up the grey areas between state and religious laws, as well as to keep the Islamic Authorities' actions in check, I fear that one day Muslims who wish to convert have to live in obscurity to avoid the authorities, or in a far-fetched but possible scenario, non-Muslims might even be forced to convert to the state religion, which would signify the end of democracy for Malaysia.

Commentary

I refer to the the article " What really affects the ability of students to learn?" posted on http://aneworld.wordpress.com/, dated May 5 2007.

In the article, the author stated his belief that although schools affect the ability of students to learn to a certain extent, self motivation and positive attitude has a greater effect on the students' learning ability.

As quoted from the article, the reason why most people differentiate "top" schools from others is because these school equip their students with more knowledge other than those taught in textbooks, making the students more knowledgeable and a cut above the rest. Coming from one of these schools, I have to admit that I had undergone gruelling extra lessons on things that were not within examination syllabus and although I had a deeper insight into certain specific topics, I was unable to arrange my time solely for the revision of topics relevant to my examinations and as such, I did not do as well as I would have expected for my major examinations. Just like what was said in the article, I was at a disadvantage because I had to carry the burden of remembering other information whereas students from other schools had the luxury of spending their entire time on preparations for the examinations

I learnt that being in a well-known school did not guarantee me fantastic results, albeit the hard way and thus I would like to clear the misconceptions that all students from the "top" schools always do exceptionally well. However, I agree with the author that with ample self-motivation and the right attitude, we can succeed in whatever we do. The statistics provided in the article showed that students on financial aid tend to do better in school because they have the motivation to work hard and have the positive mindset. I think that anyone can do well even if they are not in top schools if they have the above two elements. For me, I try not to think of the past and instead look ahead and brace myself for future challenges. I embrace the positive attitude that I can succeed instead of lingering in learned helplessness. In addition, I am motivated to work hard and do well because I want to prove to myself and my peers that I am capable of succeeding in major examinations despite faltering in my previous one. Since I am equipped with the two aspects required as said in the article, I am confident that I can do well in my examinations and work.

This article has gave me renewed hope of succeeding in life and I hope that my efforts will eventually pay off.

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression is the right of a person to speak or publish his own opinions without fear of punishment and interference from other organisation. In the first article, Singer believes that freedom of expression is the fundamental of democracy and thus should not be restricted. On the other hand, Szilagyi in the second article felt that even though people should not be deprived of the right to express their views and opinions freely, it is important that the people practise social responsibility and avoid sensitive issues that may potentially spark social unrest.

In my opinion, the latter should be adopted in Singapore, especially when we have cultural and religious pluralism in our multi-racial society. The reason why Singapore have come thus far, evolving from a small fishing village into a cosmopolitan city, is because all races and religions had been able to work together as one, working towards a common goal as one country instead of satisfying their own agendas. As quoted from Szilagyi,"What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society - to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens (within the limits marked by law) or to protect the collective interests of society?" I would choose the latter, as it is the collective interests of the society that ensures continual growth and prosperity of our country and not the freedom of expression of the people. In some countries where a greater emphasis is placed on freedom of expression of the people, there has been countless cases of insensitive articles published on a certain race or religion that sparked social unrest. This, i rather not experience in my life.

As much as i would like to have absolute freedom of expression, i understand that it cannot be accomplished together with the protection of collective interests of the society. I believe that the welfare of the country should come first and if we can maintain racial and relgious harmony among all our people at the expense of less freedom of expression, i would adopt it, rather than face with racial and religious tension and riots all the time and fearing for our own lives.

In Singapore, we are lucky to have races and religions which are more tolerant to sensitive issues but in order not to risk any chance of social unrest, the government has set strict laws which convict anyone intent of disrupting social harmony by making sensitive remarks. But more importantly, i think it is the social responsibility of all Singaporeans to refrain from abusing their freedom of expression to take a swipe at other races or religions so as to protect the collective interests of our society, lest a repeat of the 1964 racial riots.

Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?

All the time, we hear the phrase "get things done by hook or by crook" from our teachers and parents, but seldom do we feel the irony in it. For all the civics and moral education we receive, we are told to get the results regardless of what methods we use. That brings me back to today's topic, that is whether any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified.

There are concerns that many countries are so result-driven when it comes to maintaining law and order that they employ inhumane, cruel and degrading punishments. However, it is interesting to note that different countries have different perception of human rights and there is no single institution which can accurately define human rights and determine what is acceptable or not.

Take the examples shown on the video on crime and punishment. In Togo, suspects were made to dip their hands into boiling oil to determine the culprit. This may seem inhumane to the outside world but it is deemed perfectly acceptable to the locals. Furthermore, it is actually effective because the culprit eventually got caught. There are arguments that this punishment is unfair since the victims have to suffer too, and that is not backed with evidence of the crime. However, it was made clear that the permission of the victim was sought before the boiling oil comes in. Furthermore, it correctly identified the culpriti and the crime was uncovered. This might be more effective than the juridicary system in the west which is evidence-based and does not employ such "inhumane" methods. However, once again, it is all about the perception of cruelty.

Another example shown in the video is the shaming of criminals in Houston, America where convicts carry placards detailing their crimes and parade on streets. Some criticise that this punishment is degrading because it takes away human pride and subject them to ridicules and violence from the public. However, it is actually an effective method of deterring crime, perhaps even more effective than imprisonment. It was said in the video that crime rates fell and most of the convicts repented. As "degrading" as it might be, it is effective, and once again "degrading" is just a perception and is not a general view.

In conclusion, any form punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order and is generally accepted LOCALLY should be justified because at the end of the day, it is the law and order of the local area that is concerned, nothing to do with the outside world.

Uniform in schools: Case of common identity or loss of individual identity?

All schools providing education up to pre-university level, with the exception of polytechnics, require their students to don school uniforms so as to conform with the guidelines stipulated by the Ministry of Education (MOE). With so many arguments going on about whether uniforms should be made compulsory to be worn by students, let's take a look at both sides of the debate.

Advocates of the adoption of school uniform policies say that uniforms can promote school safety, improve discipline, enhance the learning environment and most importantly, instill a sense of common identity among students.. It promotes school safety because it allows staff to identify students among the crowd in the school, and thus intruders who do not belong to the school can be easily detected. It also instills discipline among students because students are carrying the image of the school when they are outside school in uniforms, and this prompts them to put up their best behaviour under the wary eyes of the public. Uniforms enhance learning environment because all students are equal when they don the same uniforms. For example, students are not able to wear branded clothes to school to flaunt their wealth, and thus poorer students will not feel inferior and will be able to concentrate better during lessons, instead of looking on at their peers' possession with envy. Lastly, uniforms promote a common school identity. This will make them feel more attached to the school and motivates them to do their best when they represent the school.

Despite all the positive qualities brought about by uniforms, there are also people who are against uniform policies. Their one and only major concern is that uniforms make them lose their individual identity. They are unable to be recognised and acknowledged by their names, but by their institutions their uniforms are representing. They also have no say when the uniforms do not suit them, such as the colour not complementing the skin colour or the cutting and shape not suiting the body shape and size. Hence, these people are unwilling to wear uniforms.

In my opinion, the advantages brought about by uniforms outweigh the disadvantages. However, i do agree that certain uniforms can be improved such that they look better on most students. Therefore, i am in support of uniform policies only if the uniforms can be modified or re-designed to look better.

Bring your own bags!

2nd May was "Bring Your Bag Day" which many supermarket chains, such as FairPrice, Sheng Siong, Carrefour, Cold Storage, Shop N Save, Giant Hypermart and Prime took part in. A survey conducted on 440 shoppers in 5 of the participating supermarket chains found that 44 per cent of shoppers brought their own bags, or bought reusable ones sold at the supermarkets while another 34 per cent paid 10 cents for each plastic bag they took, as a donation to the Singapore Environment Council for green projects. The remaining 22 per cent refused to pay for the bags.

That brings me back to my topic of bringing our own bags when go shopping. Singapore uses about 2.5 billion plastic bags a year - or about 625 bags per person each year. Most of these plastic bags are incinerated so they do not contribute to landfill. However, burning the bags releases cancer- causing dioxins and carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming. Therefore it was proposed that plastic bags be charged so as to reduce its consumption. In my opinion, this can only be at best a short term solution, the reason being that the plastic bags are priced too low to even make an impact on consumer's spending. What is more important I think, is to educate our people on the 3 "r"s - reduce, reuse and recycle.

Reducing the consumption of plastic bags will contribute less to global warming and air pollution as less of them will have to be incinerated. Imposing charges on plastic bags will only reduce consumption for a short period of time. To effectively reduce consumption over a long period of time, advertisements should be placed to educate the people. On top of that, supermarkets can give out less plastic bags, by placing more items in one bag.

Reuse. Currently, many households are already practising reuse of plastic bags. For example, waste materials and garbage are filled in these plastic bags and then disposed off cleanly. This constitutes a good hygiene practice and is the perfect example of reusing of plastic bags.

At the present state of technology, recycling of plastic bags are yet to to be made possible, but I am confident that in the near future they can be recycled just like other items such as drink cans and by then, we will be able to put these plastic bags into recycle bins for them to be recycled.

With the 3"R"s practised all the time in Singapore, we will be marching towards a cleaner Singapore rid of air pollution and less global warming.

You're 13? What's your bust size?

To find out whether men prowl Internet chatrooms and lure young girls into meeting them for sex, Straits Times reporter Cheryl Tan posed as a 13 year-old schoolgirl and received one indecent proposal after another. Even though she made it clear that she was merely 13, that did not deter the men from asking indecent questions such as "What's your vital statistics?" or making offers to meet up at hotels. Only 10 men dropped out of the conversations after knowing that the person they were talking to was a minor.

These men did not seem worried that, under the law, it is illegal to have sex with a girl under the age of 16. The punishment, according to Singapore law, for statutory rape is severe - the culprit will be jailed at least eight years and given a minimum 12 strokes of the cane. Despite this, the number of men reported to the police for having sex with underage girls has shot up over the last six years. Last year, the police received 217 reports of men who had sex with underage girls, almost double the 114 cases in 2001 and just last month, three men aged between 18 and 23 were in court for having sex with a minor. The girl was only 12.

This is a worrying trend, especially when number of cases seem to be doubling every few years. It is absolutely important to curb this problem before our societal and moral values get drowned in the tide of such promiscuous activities.

I suggest a three-pronged approach to solve this problem. Education, counselling and incapacitation.

Education. The government should enforce the civics and moral education curriculum in schools, making it a more substantial lesson instead of just a minor one when commpared to content-based subjects. Its importance should be highlighted and emphasised to the students. For example, issues such as morality as well as chastity should be properly discussed and teachers should provide the correct example for students to follow. As such, students will understand that it is not morally right to engage in any underage sexual activities, and that such actions will have serious repurcussions and dire consequences.

Counselling. This works for both the minors as well as the adults. Counselling help counsellors understand their rationale for engaging in such activities and when there is a wrong mindset, it can be rectified in time before they become chronic offenders. For example, many adults feel that there is nothing wrong with engaging in sexual activities with minors and vice versa. This mindset can be changed when counsellors explain to them the punishment for their actions as well as unwanted consequences such as pregnancy and STDs.

Lastly, incapacitation. This is for chronic offenders who simply cannot get a hold of their actions and thus will repeat their offence if not put on leash. It will thus be best for them to be stashed in some rehabilitation centres or prison to protect both them and the society. Currently, the law may be a little to lax on such offenders. It would be better for these offenders to be locked away for a longer period of time.

If these 3 structures are in place, I believe that number of cases of statutory rape will fall dramatically, and societal and moral values will not be lost among the people after all.

Could the massacre at Virginia Tech University actually be prevented?

On the 16th April 2007, Cho Seung Hui, a student of Virginia Tech University, went on a killing rampage in the school campus before turning the gun on himself, killing 32 people. While the rest of the world continues to recoil in shock and gape at the indelible images of this macabre incident displayed on television screens, I cannot help but wonder if this horrendous episode could have been prevented. After reading many related articles, I am under the impression that the shootings could have actually been stopped and I attribute this egregious failure to stop the carnage to three factors: The refusal the of the Americans to allow Cho to assimilate into their culture by leaving him out, the failure of the police and the school to detect Cho's condition and deal with it despite having received reports about his mental state, as well as America's slack gun control laws.

It was reported that Cho came to America together with his family when he was eight and throughout his schooling life there, he was often the victim of bullying by his American peers. He was also rejected by his schoolmates and all this made him withdraw into his own world. Far from being ensconced, he became abject and his aversion for the Americans grew each day. Gradually, the aversion transformed into acrimony, and soon he began formulating thoughts of reprisals against them, which eventually materialised. Thus it can be said that the America society contributed to the hatred in him that led to the bloodshed.

Cho had also been previously apprehended after being accused of stalking two ladies, yet not charges were pressed against him. His teachers and roommates reported on his violent tendencies and his aberrant behaviour, but once again, the police and the school did not know how to deal with it. It was such dithering by the police and the school that resulted in Cho not being confined in time. Had he been locked away in some mental institute or hospital and banned from going to school, this disaster would never had happened. Cho had displayed many signs of his conditions, most notably through the playscripts he wrote and the fantasies he formulated. The police and the school could have engaged him in counselling or sent him for treatments and therapies in hospitals and mental institutes, or even kept him away from the school and forbidded him from attending lessons. It would thus be impossible for Cho to commit the kilings, and lives would not be lost.

Lastly, slack gun laws in America allowed Cho to walk into the gun shop in his area to purchase the guns he used in the massacre. Since Cho had no criminal record, he was entitled to buy a gun every month. Such easy access to guns led to the shootings, because if stringent laws were imposed on the guns, Cho would not have the guns to commit the killing spree. America has the highest number of gun-related deaths but no one in the American government is willing to push for gun controls because it is unpopular among the people and might cost government officials their jobs if imposed. That is why after cases and cases of school killings, nothing has been done to rectify the problem.

If the above measures were taken earlier, this incident could have actually been prevented. Although there is no way we can bring back the lives that were lost in this massacre, we can learn from this incident and prevent similar cases from happening again. Thus, I urge for more action from the Americans, lest killing sprees in schools continue to be a a part of America's daily headlines.

Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

According to Ron Suskind in his article "The Unofficial Story of the Al-queda 14", even though torturing of criminals who committed nefarious crimes may seem to be justice done, it should not be used when dealing with these criminals because it is still considered as an act of depredation and its effectiveness is limited.

I agree with the author's viewpoint because in my opinion, torturing of criminals to extract information works against the principles of human rights so often raised up by democratic institutions. Furthermore, the efficacy of torture is rarely achieved.

It serves as a rude shock for the international community that the United States of America, calling itself the number one democratic nation in the entire world, is responsible for most of the cases where criminals and suspects get locked up and tortured while interrogators grill them for information. It is an irony because the USA is often seen pointing fingers at communist countries for depriving their people of human rights, yet they themselves are the ones breaching human rights laws when they apply torture. The worst thing is, the US government never fails to obfuscate its rationale for such measures, while their apparatchiks remain intransigent and continue to follow orders without thinking.

Also, interrogating criminals using torture is seldom effective because criminals under duress tend to give irrelevant information or distorted accounts just to be alleviated from the pain. One example cited in the article is that of Abu Zubaydah. In order to stop the pain inflicted on him during interrogations, he named countless names of possible suspects but every lead eventually came to a dead end. Thus, the ineffectiveness of torture is also why I feel that torture should not be applied when dealing with criminals.

However, some people may disagree with this argument. In a separate account by former chairman of the now disfunct National Crime Authority, Peter Faris, he argued that torture can be justified if the information extracted is for the "greater good of humanity".

In his example cited in the article, if a member of a militant Islamic group in Iraq is captured but refuses to shed light on their operations which might pontentially cause massive destruction or harm to other people, tortured may be applied to extract the necessary information needed to prevent or minimise any damage done.

Despite this, I still think that the use of torture is not justified because it is simply abhorrent.
I understand the importance of racing against time to save the day. However, the use of torture is not going to solve the problem. Other forms of interrogation can actually be used to better effect, such as those employed by FBI, which focuses on getting to know the criminal better such that information can gradually be disclosed over time as relationship between interrogators and the criminals get better. Therefore, the use of torture is not justfied when dealing with criminals and terrorists.

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

In the first article, former United States Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld asserted that the proliferation of blogs help the terrorist's cause as they can now spread incendiary articles around the world with impunity to invoke hatred and negative feelings among the people, leading to dire repurcussions all over the world such as riots and fightings resulted from these misguidings.

However in the second article, blogging has been lauded for being fierce advocates of freedom of speech, putting the pressure on countries notorious for clamping down on free speech to back down, thus given the name "Power to the people".

In my opinion, both arguments are valid and I will now explain why.

Let's start with the first argument. One palpable reason why blogs, dubbed the new media by many, pose a threat to stability to the global community is because they provide an avenue where pernicious messages can be send to all parts of the world with a click of the mouse. These messages may be used by terrorists to vilify the americans, thus manipulating the feelings of the muslims around the world to turn against the west. One example given in the article is about the false allegations of the desecration of a Koran by american soldiers some time back. The story was first published in a weekly magazine and subsequently on websites and emails. The effect? Deadly riots broke out in some islamic countries, with their hatred targeted against Americans. This is what blogs can do. False information can be spread without a distinctive source, promoting terrorism around the globe and help the cause of those who are intent to disrupt peace among all human communities. Therefore, the new media is no doubt a threat to stability.

The second article however, shows that blogs can actually be the source of power to the people and human rights. That is also true. My justification for this is that blogs impinge upon government of many countries, even the ones most intolerant to opprobium. Previously, it was extremely difficult for many living under tyrannical regimes to get information of the outside world or to express them. Any attempts to do so will be dealt with severely and therefore the plight of these people came under international scrutiny. However, condemnation by many nations did not stop the government of these countries to continue banning freedom of speech and access to information.

That was in the past. In today's world, people can rely on blogs to convey and to express what they have always wanted to say. No matter how hard the governments try to suppress blogging, their efforts will alway end up in vain. They can imprison bloggers, torture them or use whatever method that they think is effective, but they will never be able to overcome the huge tide of bloggers coming at them. The governments can gag one or two of the bloggers and drowning their voices by jailing them, but it is virtually impossible to supress the people's power in this aspect. Hence, the new media brought about power to the people, and that I hope, can continue to carry on in the future.

Week 3 Task 4

The writer criticised the media for revolving around the 3 'P's, popularity, prejudice and profit instead of acting in public interest by conveying the truth. However, I think I have to remind everyone that the fact the media is doing this is the corollary of placing them in a highly competitive market. I am not saying that it is of moral rectitude to not convey the truth. What I am trying to say is that they should not be the only ones on the receiving end of all the recriminations.

However, before I go on to write on why we cannot rely on the media to convey the truth and why it is not entirely their fault that they cannot do that, let's take a look at the definition of media. According to the Longman dictionary of contemporary english, media is defined as "all organisations, such as television, radio and the newspapers, that provide information for the public". Notice that the definition only refers to "information" and not "reliable information"? The main purpose of media is to give us information, but it is up to us to figure out whether this information disseminated to us is reliable. Therefore, the media does not need to possess the veracity when doing up their reports and we cannot blame them if they do not. Now we know why we always face a paucity of reliable information.

Back to the article and its issues about the 3 'P's. As stated in my first paragraph, media is a highly competitve business and media agencies have to come up with all kinds of methods to appeal to the people and to boost its popularity and reputation, such that they have a competitive edge against other agencies. Hence the first 'P', popularity. It does not pay to report on a true but insipid story, because people are looking out for the interesting articles which appeal to them. Yes, you might be reporting the truth, but very few people are going to tune into your programmes or subscribe to your services because what you have to offer is simply not attractive enough. On the other hand, you could just engage any charlatan for an interview and fabricate any canard but still have people from all kinds of business knocking at your door because your stories are interesting and appealing. For example, no one is going to pay much attention to an ongoing presidential election. However, once a scandal on one of the candidates breaks out, no matter how ludicrous it is, it will attract many people's attention.Such is the reality of business that compel many agencies to embellish their articles and therefore, we cannot blame the media for not conveying the truth and we should not rely on them for reliable information.

Next, the second 'P', prejudice. Articles and reports are churned out, not by machines, but by human beings. Humans, no matter how venerated, will have at least the slightest tinge of prejudice. To be precise, prejudice is ubiquitous. Hence, we cannot expect the media to follow the rules of egalitarianism. A slight inclination towards either party may result in the distortion of truth and hence not every piece of information is reliable. One perfect example is the caricatures in the Danish newspapers on Prophet Mohammad. The editor knew exactly that the cartoons were sensitive and invidious but allowed them to be printed because of his prejudice against Islamic extremism. Another kind of prejudice involves the selection of articles and stories. Some agencies typically favour some genres of articles simply because they bring about better consumer value. This may result in certain information that are more importatnt to be not dessiminated. Once again, we cannot blame the media for not conveying the truth, but we must have the judgement to decide whether to believe everything that is reported.

The last 'P' is no other than profit and in my opinion, this is the most important 'P'. Whenever we talk about free market in Economics, profit is the first thing that comes into mind. With interesting and appealing articles come more business and with more business comes more profit. That is the basis of how these agencies work. In order to have more profit, they must have more consumers and to achieve that, the articles or stories produced must be interesting. As described in the first 'P', the job of these media agencies is to come up with captivating articles to attract consumers and not to convey true information. Hence with all media agencies driven by profit, the truth in the articles they produce might be undermined and thus we cannot rely on them for the truth.

As substantiated above, the media can never be relied upon to convey the truth because they are bound to the 3 'P's. To them, it is not whether the consumers get the correct information that matters. What matters to them most is whether they can earn enough money to stay in the business. At the end of the day, we still have to rely on ourselves for the true and reliable information because the media will never be good enough for those who seek the truth.

Week 2 Task 4

It was kind of saddening that my idea of using Royston Tan for Project Work was rejected by the teachers because in their opinion I would never be able to prove the dramatic change he had brought to our understanding of gangsters and opera actors. I still cannot concur with them regarding this issue but sinceI do not want my Project Work to turn out into an egregious failure, so I guess I will comply with the school this once. But having said that does not mean that I cannot blog about Royston Tan for this task, which I am going to do so, because the focus of this task is on the word "influential" and not "dramatic change".

People question my persistence on doing a write up on Royston Tan when a search on any search engines using the phrase "influential person" will yield a whole gamut of names. However, this person I am talking here is someone who many people would like to emulate and the leverage of his films that brought about many changes to people's mindset is too great to be ignored.

The word "Influential", according to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, is defined as having the power to have an effect on people, thus changing the way they think and behave. I think using the word "influential" to describe Royston Tan is apt, and that will be substantiated as we go down this post. Now, let us look at the life and work of this person who has changed our understanding of people from various walks of life through his films.

Royston Tan, a Singaporean filmmaker, first came into prominence through his short film, Sons, in 2000 and has since made more than 20 films, including the controversial film, 15: the movie, in 2003. He wants to bring about a change in our understanding of several groups of people through his films, so that we will stop having wrong impressions and making them victims of our stereotyping.

For example, most of us always think that gangsters are a bunch of good-for-nothing creatures, who dedicate their lives to fights and extortions, while dwindling their time away smoking and taking drugs. Therefore, they are the outcasts of the society. However, the film 15: the movie, shown in all major cinemas, shows us how narrow our spectrums of knowledge about these gangsters are by dwelling into the lives of these gangsters and viewing the society from their perspectives. After watching the film, we find out that actually gangsters set out to live similar lives to us. It is just that a combination of failure to receive social recognition, bullying, peer pressure and poor family upbringing made them turn into who they are and made it impossible for them to turn back. One cannot help but sympathise with these protagonists and it is no doubt that Royston Tan is influential and plays an important role of bringing about a greater understanding of these gangsters in us, such that we do not see them in a negative light anymore. Despite the fact that the media authorites in Singapore threatened to ban this film locally, he stood firm to his principles. His influence can be seen by the number of articles dedicated to him on the newspapers and on his blog, thanking him for showing them the real lives of these gangsters in spite of pressure from the authorities, as well as acknowledging that they now have better understanding about these gangsters.

Another film on opera actors also improved our awareness of the presence of this dying trait, as well as bring about greater understanding and appreciation for chinese opera. The film, called Sin Sai Hong, commisioned by the National Museum of Singapore on its opening festival, was also shown to schools when Royston Tan did his Singapore filmmaker showcase series. It looks set to catch the attention of people of the current generation who think that chinese opera consists of boring people with tatooed faces monkeying around on stage to the repetitive tunes from the orchestra. The film does not only depict the lives of the opera actors (mostly in their 40s and 50s) on the frontstage and on the backstage, it also shows the audience that chinese opera can actually be interesting, with plenty of humour injected into the usual storyline of love, parting and sorrow. After watching the film, one cannot say that he is not impressed with Royston Tan for being able to change his understanding and appreciation for chinese opera. Many people whom I have come across also said that their impression and understanding of chinese opera and the troupes have changed dramatically, and are considering watching one if the opportunity arises. Such is the influence of Royston Tan, who almost single-handedly transform groups of students who have negative impression of chinese opera into students who now have better understanding as well as appreciation for it. In addition, being commisioned by the National Museum of Singapore shows that his influence is acknowledged, and that the museum is confident that through this influence, more can be done to change the understanding of this trait, as well as save it from extinction.

With the above examples, I hope I have substantiated sufficiently why Royston Tan is an eminent and influential person who produced a change in our understanding of people from different walks of life. His influence is undeniable and therefore my persistence for choosing him is well justified.

The Beginning

Well, since this is a mandantory process, I shall stop complaining and start getting down to work. I am Munkhay and this shall be the very avenue for me to express opinions, be it politically correct or not, for the next 1 or 2 years. I am not very fond of doing self-introduction so I guess I will just keep this post short.

"Why the ultimate fallacy?" one might ask. It is a common fallacy that general paper is too general to be studied, so no point putting in much effort. I would like to be inclined to this suggestion, but on the contrary, general paper, however general it might be, is still restricted to a common set of answers in which we have to give a coherent and balanced argument in order to score. It's not about how much general knowledge we have, although i must say that it still plays an integral part in general paper. It's about the skills we use to construct our argument such that it is sound and convincing. Mastering that, is the true reason for taking the general paper and I hope that it is attainable.

I do not know if i will come under direct attack for erroneous statements i might write along the way, but I do not believe in the use of euphemistic language, because that may make me look hypocritical. I will try my best to keep my thoughts in line and hopefully I will not get into trouble and get stuck in a political quagmire.