Link to article:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/208768.asp
--------------------------
Summary Of Article:
It's the gallows for Nonoi's stepfather Mohammed Ali Johari.
The High Court has sentenced the 31-year-old to death for killing two-year-old Nur Asyura Mohamed Fauzi, also known as Nonoi.
It was shown that the child was killed when Mohammed Ali dunked her in a pail of water three times last year. He also badly injured by him and her naked body was then dumped under the Aljunied Flyover.
The truth only came to light when Mohammed Ali confessed three days later to the police that he killed the child.
The defence had argued that Mohammed Ali was provoked by the little girl's non-stop wailing. But the judge dismissed the argument as evidence did not show that Mohammed Ali had lost self-control.
Mohd Ali’s family and lawyers say they will appeal against the verdict.
My Response:
Finally, a verdict has been given regarding this horrifying saga. And I believe that justice has been served in the best way possible; though Mohammed Ali Johari did not really get what he deserved.
What disturbs me most is not the murder itself but Mohd Ali’s maltreatment, or more accurately put, torture of 2-year old Nonoi. He kicked, punched and slapped her continuously before dunking her into a pail of water thrice. Post-mortem scans showed that her hymen had been broken and her vaginal wall ruptured. These injuries would obviously have caused her considerable bleeding and pain. Let me remind you that Nonoi was only 2 years of age.
What was being contented in court was whether Mohd Ali had committed this heinous act intentionally or accidentally. This would make a difference as the latter stance would save him from the death penalty and instead result in imprisonment. In my opinion though, death by the noose is a punishment that is favourable to Modh Ali, if you look at what he did to Nonoi.
An important principle of the “crime and punishment” concept is that for every crime, there is a punishment that matches it, with the criminal getting what he deserves. And if you look at it in this context, Mohd Ali has gotten off lightly. In her last few hours alive, Nonoi suffered greatly. To add insult to injury, her mutilated body was stripped of whatever dignity there was remaining as it was left to rot under a heap of rubbish. Now, compare that to the few seconds of pain Mohd Ali will undergo when he gets hanged, before he ends his drug-abusive, jobless and bankrupt life to live as a free man in eternal bliss. I feel that this is celestial treatment compared to what Nonoi was made to go through. How a person became so twisted in the mind as to treat a daughter-figure like that puzzles me. I’m not advocating for the torture of Mohd Ali as well; it will never happen due to our society being civilised and humane. So I suppose hanging him is the best punishment possible. All in all, I’m just lamenting the fact that no humane punishment could ever be enough to compensate for his wrong doings.
Anyway, I’m not too bitter about it; I realise that death by the noose is still better than life imprisonment, in which case people like you and I will be feeding him for life.
I feel very sorry for Nonoi’s family and of course, Nonoi. She didn’t have a good life, I suppose, if you look at her highly dysfunctional and chaotic family background. Her mother is only 22 and has already been married thrice, with her latest husband a drug addict and a few of her children from earlier marriages already delinquents. I hope her memory rests in peace and that no other two-year old will ever have to go through what Nonoi went through.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Boy, 11, shot dead in pub car park named (SUBMISSION)
Link to article:
http://www.24dash.com/communities/26492.htm
Other links:
1. Britain shocked over shooting of 11-year-old boy
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/23/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Gun-Death.php
2. Teenager arrested over Rhys death
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6962849.stm
---------------------------
Summary Of Article:
Britain at the moment is experiencing its most awful spate of youth murders, with 11 year old Rhys Jones being the latest victim. His is the 18th such murder case this year.
The youngster was playing football with two friends outside the Fir Tree pub in Croxteth, Liverpool when he was shot by a teenager who rode past on a BMX bike, with his face covered by a hood.
"It shouldn't be a case of wrong time, wrong place," Rhys' father, Stephen Jones told a news conference. "It shouldn't happen in this country."
A 16-year-old boy has been arrested in connection with the shooting. (See Link 3).
My Response:
When children start killing others, clearly something is seriously wrong. Miscreant youths who regard themselves to be above the law attack others of their age. Children die, with the children killing them- some as young as nine- imprisoned for many years once caught. It’s a lose-lose situation, if you ask me. Everyone’s lives are wasted.
Here we have an innocent child named Rhys Jones murdered, and a million tears shed. How many more children will be buried? How many more guns will be bought to the shores from Europe? When will Britain finally wake up and change?
I believe that British society fails many of its young people in quite significant ways: inadequate education and family break ups to name a few. But the issue I’m focusing on is the values, ingrained in general, not just British, society. I believe there are positive and negative values. I also believe that such youth crime proves that these days our values - terms that describe our way of life - are things like individualism and materialism, rather than flattering abstractions such as liberty and progress. And if we adopt a materialistic viewpoint, we will realise that people who feel unable to enter into the path of personal progression feel worthless: devoid of respect from society and lacking in self-respect.
What I’m trying to say is that young people’s attraction for gangs is built on a sense of not being respected and regarded as having any worth by mainstream society. People who have been members of gangs talk about how walking about carrying firearms or knives made them feel empowered to demand respect from others; and that the one thing you absolutely couldn’t do was ‘disrespect’ gang members.
Respect.
When I was younger, my parents constantly lectured me on respect and manners. I was expected to help others whenever possible, hold doors open for my elders, smile and say ‘hello”, “please” and “thank you”.
These days, I am quickly realising the importance of those simple gestures. They are basic signs of respect, and help us realise that showing respect to others costs nothing.
On an individual basis, such behaviour will admittedly not make any difference to the state of a country. On a larger scale, it’s a different story. If everybody followed such behaviour and did these simple things, then gradually it would have an impact. This impact will be mainly evident on the children, who will be influenced by such behaviour rather than gun culture. When better and more positive values are passed on and exemplified in any society, both through the word of mouth as well through action, the environment changes dramatically. It becomes safer and more vibrant. Throughout the process, genuine role models are produced, and emulating them will further change things for the better.
Good manners, consideration and compassion - they bring out the best in people. Therefore it is all down to us to value people as people, consistently set examples for others and consistently help others follow them.
http://www.24dash.com/communities/26492.htm
Other links:
1. Britain shocked over shooting of 11-year-old boy
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/23/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Gun-Death.php
2. Teenager arrested over Rhys death
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6962849.stm
---------------------------
Summary Of Article:
Britain at the moment is experiencing its most awful spate of youth murders, with 11 year old Rhys Jones being the latest victim. His is the 18th such murder case this year.
The youngster was playing football with two friends outside the Fir Tree pub in Croxteth, Liverpool when he was shot by a teenager who rode past on a BMX bike, with his face covered by a hood.
"It shouldn't be a case of wrong time, wrong place," Rhys' father, Stephen Jones told a news conference. "It shouldn't happen in this country."
A 16-year-old boy has been arrested in connection with the shooting. (See Link 3).
My Response:
When children start killing others, clearly something is seriously wrong. Miscreant youths who regard themselves to be above the law attack others of their age. Children die, with the children killing them- some as young as nine- imprisoned for many years once caught. It’s a lose-lose situation, if you ask me. Everyone’s lives are wasted.
Here we have an innocent child named Rhys Jones murdered, and a million tears shed. How many more children will be buried? How many more guns will be bought to the shores from Europe? When will Britain finally wake up and change?
I believe that British society fails many of its young people in quite significant ways: inadequate education and family break ups to name a few. But the issue I’m focusing on is the values, ingrained in general, not just British, society. I believe there are positive and negative values. I also believe that such youth crime proves that these days our values - terms that describe our way of life - are things like individualism and materialism, rather than flattering abstractions such as liberty and progress. And if we adopt a materialistic viewpoint, we will realise that people who feel unable to enter into the path of personal progression feel worthless: devoid of respect from society and lacking in self-respect.
What I’m trying to say is that young people’s attraction for gangs is built on a sense of not being respected and regarded as having any worth by mainstream society. People who have been members of gangs talk about how walking about carrying firearms or knives made them feel empowered to demand respect from others; and that the one thing you absolutely couldn’t do was ‘disrespect’ gang members.
Respect.
When I was younger, my parents constantly lectured me on respect and manners. I was expected to help others whenever possible, hold doors open for my elders, smile and say ‘hello”, “please” and “thank you”.
These days, I am quickly realising the importance of those simple gestures. They are basic signs of respect, and help us realise that showing respect to others costs nothing.
On an individual basis, such behaviour will admittedly not make any difference to the state of a country. On a larger scale, it’s a different story. If everybody followed such behaviour and did these simple things, then gradually it would have an impact. This impact will be mainly evident on the children, who will be influenced by such behaviour rather than gun culture. When better and more positive values are passed on and exemplified in any society, both through the word of mouth as well through action, the environment changes dramatically. It becomes safer and more vibrant. Throughout the process, genuine role models are produced, and emulating them will further change things for the better.
Good manners, consideration and compassion - they bring out the best in people. Therefore it is all down to us to value people as people, consistently set examples for others and consistently help others follow them.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Hit Drink Drivers Where It Hurts (SUBMISSION)
May 16, 2007
Link to article: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/188727.asp
Ansley Ng, TODAYonline
Also see:
2. TV actor Christopher Lee jailed for drink-driving, CHANNEL NEWS ASIA
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/275329/1/.html
3. Drink driver gets into double trouble, CHANNEL NEWS ASIA
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/276537/1/.html
--------------------------------------------------------
Summary of article:
The writer cites the growing number of drink- driving arrests and related deaths in the last two years and believes that the penalties for drink driving should be much harsher. He writes that since campaigns discouraging drink driving do not seem to have worked, drink drivers should, on top of being fined, be punished by being disqualified from driving for at least three years for first-time offenders, and five years for those who are involved in accidents. The writer also believes that since the fines may be peanuts for some offenders and that a few weeks in jail might also be ineffective, their driver’s licences should be taken should be taken away from them and that they should be made to use public transport. He believes that this will be like a “death sentence” to them.
My Response:
It is thus necessary to develop effective measures to deter drivers from drinking. Existing measures unfortunately do not seem to achieve this, and part of the reason for our patience with drink drivers. Furthermore, the recent antics of celebrities like Christopher Lee and Paris Hilton have not been exemplary.
I would also like to sympathize with the relatives and friends of those killed in the recent spate of accidents. I can imagine their despair at losing their loved one in a way that could have been avoided so easily if the offender was following the law. I can imagine their frustration with not only the offender but also with the lax penalties for drink driving. For some, such a death of their loved one is as good as manslaughter because, regardless of the cause of the death, similar damage has been done.
Thus, in my opinion the offender should face, together with a heavier fine, a very long jail term - a punishment that is similar for a criminal case such as an manslaughter. This will pacify the families of the victims and assure them that justice has been done. Such a punishment also guarantees what a disqualification cannot- that the offender will not be able to drive.
We can also look at this problem with an individual focus. If a person plans to drink at a certain place soon, why should he or she take the car? If he could stop thinking about his convenience for a moment and realize the potential damage he could cause to others and the trouble he could land himself into, he could actually avoid it.
If everyone thought this way, then the world would be a much safer place! However, that is being too optimistic. In reality, there will always be drivers like Mr Christopher Lee who believe that they are immune to all the alcohol that they consume. Well, at least he has admitted to his mistake and shown remorse by paying the victims $70 000 in compensation. However, there are also drink drivers such as the one who tried to bribe the police officers after being caught (see link 3). Both cases are different in the way that the two offenders responded to their mistake, however they are sadly similar in the sense that the damage has already been done and that both are typical drink drivers- normal people who live in another world once they are behind the steering wheel.
It is up to the courts and authorities to make the difference.
( 500 words )
Link to article: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/188727.asp
Ansley Ng, TODAYonline
Also see:
2. TV actor Christopher Lee jailed for drink-driving, CHANNEL NEWS ASIA
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/275329/1/.html
3. Drink driver gets into double trouble, CHANNEL NEWS ASIA
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/276537/1/.html
--------------------------------------------------------
Summary of article:
With the recent spate of car accidents due to drink driving, the writer slams the “bravado” mentality of drink drivers in thinking that they are in full control of their faculties despite having consumed a lot of alcohol. He states two examples - a friend of his, as well as actor Christopher Lee (see link 2) - to support his claim. He states that “we have been too patient” with drink drivers.
The writer cites the growing number of drink- driving arrests and related deaths in the last two years and believes that the penalties for drink driving should be much harsher. He writes that since campaigns discouraging drink driving do not seem to have worked, drink drivers should, on top of being fined, be punished by being disqualified from driving for at least three years for first-time offenders, and five years for those who are involved in accidents. The writer also believes that since the fines may be peanuts for some offenders and that a few weeks in jail might also be ineffective, their driver’s licences should be taken should be taken away from them and that they should be made to use public transport. He believes that this will be like a “death sentence” to them.
My Response:
I agree with the objective here, however I consider the confiscation of the offenders’ licenses to be far from a “death sentence”. What makes us sure that a egoistic drink driver, one who needs to use car to travel, will not drive without a licence? How efficient are the measures taken to prevent disqualified drivers from driving? Other than random road spot-checks, it seems impossible for the authorities to monitor the behaviour of drivers during their disqualification period.
It is thus necessary to develop effective measures to deter drivers from drinking. Existing measures unfortunately do not seem to achieve this, and part of the reason for our patience with drink drivers. Furthermore, the recent antics of celebrities like Christopher Lee and Paris Hilton have not been exemplary.
I would also like to sympathize with the relatives and friends of those killed in the recent spate of accidents. I can imagine their despair at losing their loved one in a way that could have been avoided so easily if the offender was following the law. I can imagine their frustration with not only the offender but also with the lax penalties for drink driving. For some, such a death of their loved one is as good as manslaughter because, regardless of the cause of the death, similar damage has been done.
Thus, in my opinion the offender should face, together with a heavier fine, a very long jail term - a punishment that is similar for a criminal case such as an manslaughter. This will pacify the families of the victims and assure them that justice has been done. Such a punishment also guarantees what a disqualification cannot- that the offender will not be able to drive.
We can also look at this problem with an individual focus. If a person plans to drink at a certain place soon, why should he or she take the car? If he could stop thinking about his convenience for a moment and realize the potential damage he could cause to others and the trouble he could land himself into, he could actually avoid it.
If everyone thought this way, then the world would be a much safer place! However, that is being too optimistic. In reality, there will always be drivers like Mr Christopher Lee who believe that they are immune to all the alcohol that they consume. Well, at least he has admitted to his mistake and shown remorse by paying the victims $70 000 in compensation. However, there are also drink drivers such as the one who tried to bribe the police officers after being caught (see link 3). Both cases are different in the way that the two offenders responded to their mistake, however they are sadly similar in the sense that the damage has already been done and that both are typical drink drivers- normal people who live in another world once they are behind the steering wheel.
It is up to the courts and authorities to make the difference.
( 500 words )
US University Shooting Kills 33 ( SUBMISSION )
April 17, 2007
Link to article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
BBC News
Also see:
Campus Killer's Family 'so sorry' BBC NEWS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6578319.stm
------------------------------------
Summary of article:
Summary of following sequence of events:
The victims of the shootings were recognized and mourned worldwide. The media spotlight also focused on Cho’s background and his family, who apologized for Cho’s actions (refer to second link). There was also great concern for Asians in general and Koreans in particular, with many fearing racist attacks against them. However, no such incidents was reported. In Korea, the general feeling was one of shame, shock and sorrow.
The massacre received worldwide media coverage and sparked intense debate about gun laws, Cho’s state of mind and the responsibility of college administrations, among many other issues.
My Response:
I feel a deep sense of sorrow and shock at the deaths of so many at Virginia Tech University. I deeply sympathize with the families of those killed. However, I have to admit that the bulk of my sympathy goes to the family of Cho who have had to endure so much intrusion into their lives by the media. After Cho was identified as the gunman, his family not only have had to deal with shock and grief, but also with cameramen and reporters banging on their front door, asking all sorts of questions about Cho’s background. They have been deprived of the one thing they currently need most - peace. I strongly believe the ethics of journalism must be reviewed; A free press and the people’s right to information does not mean that Cho’s family should be deprived of their individual rights. They have the right to be temporarily left alone. It is simply inhumane to keep pursuing them when they are mourning for their son and trying to come to grips with the enormous sorrow his senseless actions have caused. Cho’s family have done nothing wrong and thus do not deserve such treatment.
Also, imagine how they must feel upon seeing such a great amount of anger being directed towards their dead son from all parts of the world. This is very likely to have instilled a siege mentality in them - a state of helplessness in which, for them, it is “us against everyone else”. However, they have come out bravely and apologized for Cho’s actions, and mentioned that they themselves were living a “nightmare”. I truly admire the way Cho’s family have handled all this within days of his death and despite the hounding by the media. To mourn your son and still be able to share the sorrows of others is truly remarkable.
Let me explore the role of family with regard to such mentally-ill people. The stigma of mental illness prevents people from getting the help they need. Embarrassment and fear of being shunned by others may have prevented Cho from seeking help. The family thus has an important role in such cases. It is their involvement and support that can help prevent such mad-man massacres. Unfortunately, families also fear the stigma. Loss of face within their community and other such fears may cause them to avoid taking the necessary steps to deal with the mental illness, and in some cases even avoid recognising the fact that a problem exists. For complex illnesses of the mind, such as Cho’s, professional help is needed, and it is channels like the family that can ensure timely treatment of the condition.
I believe that stigmas are values ingrained in society. Individuals and groups (in this case, families) respond to these values based on very genuine feelings. And until these stigmas are dealt with, such mentally ill people may not get the help they need until the illness manifests itself in such a terrible way.
(497 words)
Link to article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
BBC News
Also see:
Campus Killer's Family 'so sorry' BBC NEWS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6578319.stm
------------------------------------
Summary of article:
One the morning of 16 April 2007, a Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, USA burst into chaos as a gunman went on a rampage, killing 32 people and wounding many more before killing himself. This was the deadliest university shooting ever. Many students survived by jumping out of the school windows or locking themselves up inside the university buildings.
Summary of following sequence of events:
The gunman was identified as Seung-Hui Cho, a 23- year old senior majoring in English at the university. Cho was someone who seemed to have problems of his own. In 2005, he was accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia court. His fellow classmates and professors were also reportedly concerned about his mental state.
The victims of the shootings were recognized and mourned worldwide. The media spotlight also focused on Cho’s background and his family, who apologized for Cho’s actions (refer to second link). There was also great concern for Asians in general and Koreans in particular, with many fearing racist attacks against them. However, no such incidents was reported. In Korea, the general feeling was one of shame, shock and sorrow.
The massacre received worldwide media coverage and sparked intense debate about gun laws, Cho’s state of mind and the responsibility of college administrations, among many other issues.
My Response:
I feel a deep sense of sorrow and shock at the deaths of so many at Virginia Tech University. I deeply sympathize with the families of those killed. However, I have to admit that the bulk of my sympathy goes to the family of Cho who have had to endure so much intrusion into their lives by the media. After Cho was identified as the gunman, his family not only have had to deal with shock and grief, but also with cameramen and reporters banging on their front door, asking all sorts of questions about Cho’s background. They have been deprived of the one thing they currently need most - peace. I strongly believe the ethics of journalism must be reviewed; A free press and the people’s right to information does not mean that Cho’s family should be deprived of their individual rights. They have the right to be temporarily left alone. It is simply inhumane to keep pursuing them when they are mourning for their son and trying to come to grips with the enormous sorrow his senseless actions have caused. Cho’s family have done nothing wrong and thus do not deserve such treatment.
Also, imagine how they must feel upon seeing such a great amount of anger being directed towards their dead son from all parts of the world. This is very likely to have instilled a siege mentality in them - a state of helplessness in which, for them, it is “us against everyone else”. However, they have come out bravely and apologized for Cho’s actions, and mentioned that they themselves were living a “nightmare”. I truly admire the way Cho’s family have handled all this within days of his death and despite the hounding by the media. To mourn your son and still be able to share the sorrows of others is truly remarkable.
Let me explore the role of family with regard to such mentally-ill people. The stigma of mental illness prevents people from getting the help they need. Embarrassment and fear of being shunned by others may have prevented Cho from seeking help. The family thus has an important role in such cases. It is their involvement and support that can help prevent such mad-man massacres. Unfortunately, families also fear the stigma. Loss of face within their community and other such fears may cause them to avoid taking the necessary steps to deal with the mental illness, and in some cases even avoid recognising the fact that a problem exists. For complex illnesses of the mind, such as Cho’s, professional help is needed, and it is channels like the family that can ensure timely treatment of the condition.
I believe that stigmas are values ingrained in society. Individuals and groups (in this case, families) respond to these values based on very genuine feelings. And until these stigmas are dealt with, such mentally ill people may not get the help they need until the illness manifests itself in such a terrible way.
(497 words)
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Slashing through the Web Of Terror (SUBMISSION)
Link: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/175137.asp
Source: Today Newspaper
Written By: Rosnah Ahmad
Date Published: 3rd March, 2007
----------------------
Article summary:
Thanks to the internet, there is now the threat of self-radicalised individuals who are not involved with any terrorist groups.
According to minister Mr Wong Kan Seng, Singapore is not safe from this threat and that in fact, a few Singaporeans who been attracted to terrorism-radical ideas through the internet had been investigated. One cased involved an individual who linked up people who were involved in terrorist recruitment and financing. However, through the Muis Asatizah Recognition scheme, the muslim community have gotten a clearer picture of whom to refer to and whom not to refer to in the case of ideology.Talks and dialougue sessions have also been held by organizations and certain individuals to raise awareness on this issue.
My View:
This is a potentially explosive topic and thus I will not move too deep into it. But I have to confess I felt my spine shiver as I read this article. You hear everyday about Singapore is such a safe place, when such things are actually going on. 6000 is not a small figure when it comes to the number of websites. You get a frightening idea of how much these radical ideals have spread into Singapore. You cannot really blame the internet here. It has, like most systems, its pros and cons. On the good side, it magically connects people and truly globalises our world. On the bad side, it connects bad people and globalises terror as well. We can't implement any feasible changes to the Internet. The blame of course should fall on those spreading such ideals, as once these ideals begin to characterize actions, we might just find ourselves in chaos.
I appreciate and admire the attempts of the Muis to curb this flow and interchange of radical and terrorist-related ideals. It does seem the most effective measure. Educate the people, and hope that they follow. I hope and believe that such ideals will never gain a foothold in any community, and they don't deserve to anyway. It is mentioned in this article that the youth have specially been educated on the issue. This is supremely important; the youth is the future, and they are at the age where they learn the most. Thus it is important that they learn what is right. I also admire individuals like Mr Hassan who, by writing books and blogs to raise awareness on the topic,are making significant contributions to making Singapore a safer place for me and you.
Source: Today Newspaper
Written By: Rosnah Ahmad
Date Published: 3rd March, 2007
----------------------
Article summary:
Thanks to the internet, there is now the threat of self-radicalised individuals who are not involved with any terrorist groups.
According to minister Mr Wong Kan Seng, Singapore is not safe from this threat and that in fact, a few Singaporeans who been attracted to terrorism-radical ideas through the internet had been investigated. One cased involved an individual who linked up people who were involved in terrorist recruitment and financing. However, through the Muis Asatizah Recognition scheme, the muslim community have gotten a clearer picture of whom to refer to and whom not to refer to in the case of ideology.Talks and dialougue sessions have also been held by organizations and certain individuals to raise awareness on this issue.
My View:
This is a potentially explosive topic and thus I will not move too deep into it. But I have to confess I felt my spine shiver as I read this article. You hear everyday about Singapore is such a safe place, when such things are actually going on. 6000 is not a small figure when it comes to the number of websites. You get a frightening idea of how much these radical ideals have spread into Singapore. You cannot really blame the internet here. It has, like most systems, its pros and cons. On the good side, it magically connects people and truly globalises our world. On the bad side, it connects bad people and globalises terror as well. We can't implement any feasible changes to the Internet. The blame of course should fall on those spreading such ideals, as once these ideals begin to characterize actions, we might just find ourselves in chaos.
I appreciate and admire the attempts of the Muis to curb this flow and interchange of radical and terrorist-related ideals. It does seem the most effective measure. Educate the people, and hope that they follow. I hope and believe that such ideals will never gain a foothold in any community, and they don't deserve to anyway. It is mentioned in this article that the youth have specially been educated on the issue. This is supremely important; the youth is the future, and they are at the age where they learn the most. Thus it is important that they learn what is right. I also admire individuals like Mr Hassan who, by writing books and blogs to raise awareness on the topic,are making significant contributions to making Singapore a safer place for me and you.
Dare To Step Outside The Familiar In Education (SUBMISSION )
Link: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/173754.asp
Source: Today Newspaper
Written By: Lee U-Wen
Date Published: February 24, 2007
-----------------------
Summary of Article:
According to A*Star chairman Philip Yeo, Singapore cannot afford to have its brightest students educated in only a few top schools. He stated the need for diversity, in both the talents of youngsters as well the system of education in Singapore. He encouraged parents to be daring enough to place their children in an unfamiliar system and to not conform to the socio-educational norms. He feels that the wider the education system, the better the development of talent and in the future, the better Singapore will be in terms of responding and competing globally. Mr Yeo has also agreed to talks and further discussions about his topic, as well to passing education-related advice to students.
My View:
Mr Philip Yeo is politically spot-on here. I agree with his implication that our education system will be one-dimensional if the brightest only interact with the brightest. If academically good students can go to non-top schools, they can interact and mingle with other students and this will increase exposure for both parties and make their viewpoints more wholesome. This will lead to Singapore being more competitive globally, yes. The idea sounds very nice. But in my opinion, it is not feasible.
Yes, the education system can easily be enhanced- new schemes / programmes are emerging almost daily - or moulded. But what is too rigid right now is the mindset of most parents. A typical Singaporean parent would dismiss Mr Yeo’s appeal to him/her to be bold and send his/her child to a non-top school as an “easy to say, but difficult to do lah “ case. So do I.
I study in what is considered to be a top school. When I got my PSLE results, I only considered going to top schools. To me, anything else appeared to be a step down. Now this article has made me think, would going to a non-top school made me a better person? Perhaps. Would it have been better for Singapore. Perhaps. Would it have been better for me. I don’t think so. When I apply for a job, this is something that counts. The interviewers ask you, “ Where did obtain your secondary school education?” Stating any low-ranked school and “ Raffles Institution “ will yield different results. You can tell them what Mr Yeo has said, but they won’t care. To them, the major concern is the running of their company. Similarly, the major concern of parents and students is not their country. How many people here care about how Singapore will compete globally in the future when enrolling their children? To say “a few” would be an overestimation.
A good parent will always think about his CHILD’s well-being and future, not that of Singapore, before anything else, whatever Mr Yeo and supporters of his argument might say. And it is only logical that going to a top school will result in a top future for a student.
Source: Today Newspaper
Written By: Lee U-Wen
Date Published: February 24, 2007
-----------------------
Summary of Article:
According to A*Star chairman Philip Yeo, Singapore cannot afford to have its brightest students educated in only a few top schools. He stated the need for diversity, in both the talents of youngsters as well the system of education in Singapore. He encouraged parents to be daring enough to place their children in an unfamiliar system and to not conform to the socio-educational norms. He feels that the wider the education system, the better the development of talent and in the future, the better Singapore will be in terms of responding and competing globally. Mr Yeo has also agreed to talks and further discussions about his topic, as well to passing education-related advice to students.
My View:
Mr Philip Yeo is politically spot-on here. I agree with his implication that our education system will be one-dimensional if the brightest only interact with the brightest. If academically good students can go to non-top schools, they can interact and mingle with other students and this will increase exposure for both parties and make their viewpoints more wholesome. This will lead to Singapore being more competitive globally, yes. The idea sounds very nice. But in my opinion, it is not feasible.
Yes, the education system can easily be enhanced- new schemes / programmes are emerging almost daily - or moulded. But what is too rigid right now is the mindset of most parents. A typical Singaporean parent would dismiss Mr Yeo’s appeal to him/her to be bold and send his/her child to a non-top school as an “easy to say, but difficult to do lah “ case. So do I.
I study in what is considered to be a top school. When I got my PSLE results, I only considered going to top schools. To me, anything else appeared to be a step down. Now this article has made me think, would going to a non-top school made me a better person? Perhaps. Would it have been better for Singapore. Perhaps. Would it have been better for me. I don’t think so. When I apply for a job, this is something that counts. The interviewers ask you, “ Where did obtain your secondary school education?” Stating any low-ranked school and “ Raffles Institution “ will yield different results. You can tell them what Mr Yeo has said, but they won’t care. To them, the major concern is the running of their company. Similarly, the major concern of parents and students is not their country. How many people here care about how Singapore will compete globally in the future when enrolling their children? To say “a few” would be an overestimation.
A good parent will always think about his CHILD’s well-being and future, not that of Singapore, before anything else, whatever Mr Yeo and supporters of his argument might say. And it is only logical that going to a top school will result in a top future for a student.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Sports: The Tension Mounts ( NON-Submission )
Check out this news article......
For those of you who do not know what's going on in football, Singapore and Thailand are currently in the final of the Asean Football Federation (AFF) Championship. The final is double legged, with one match being played in Thailand and another in Singapore. Just recently in the first leg, the two nations found themselves at a 1-1 stalemate before Malaysian referee C.Ravichandran awarded Singapore a penalty for Noh Alam Shah being brought down in the box. However, the Thais felt that Alam Shah had fallen down himself and thus staged a walkout led by their coach. The Thais later agreed to get on with the game and Mustafic Faharuddin converted from the spot to win the match for Singapore.
For those of you who do not know what's going on in football, Singapore and Thailand are currently in the final of the Asean Football Federation (AFF) Championship. The final is double legged, with one match being played in Thailand and another in Singapore. Just recently in the first leg, the two nations found themselves at a 1-1 stalemate before Malaysian referee C.Ravichandran awarded Singapore a penalty for Noh Alam Shah being brought down in the box. However, the Thais felt that Alam Shah had fallen down himself and thus staged a walkout led by their coach. The Thais later agreed to get on with the game and Mustafic Faharuddin converted from the spot to win the match for Singapore.
All the controversy and tension surely adds some spice to tonight's second leg.In fact, Singapore fans travelling to Thailand for the match have been warned to stay together in groups due to fears over violence.
( http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=116517 )
Anyway the Thai players and their coach have been labelled as sore losers by many, including me. Never before have I seen anything like this in soccer. Twelve people acting like babies. Just because you face an obstacle that knocks you and you don’t feel happy about it doesn’t mean you can go to a corner and huddle there angrily. Okay, they conceded a very harsh penalty. So? Get on with life….. Teams, especially those competing at the highest level, should be made of sterner stuff than this. According to the article, Thailand might receive punishment. Well, I guess they deserve it. I really hope to see a less controversial final this evening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thailand Could Face Punishment: http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=/2007/2/2/sports/16758492&sec=sports
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)