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.