The Arts

Arts, unlike other things in life, help to enrich and instill in us humans, a sense of creativity and well-being. It is presented to us in various forms, ranging from theatrical plays, dance concerts, drama serials, and many more. However, being in a country where the Arts are given much priority, we Singaporeans do not cherish the values that we can take away from these presentations.

Creativity is one of the many key aspects of life that is largely lacking in us Singaporeans. It is a rare case to flip the newspaper one day and to spot a section in the papers that praises a Singaporean in a creative discovery or a “creative” creation. Why? Isn’t that a bit apparent to us? How will we make ourselves into such news when we fail to appreciate the Arts as much as we appreciate Usain Bolt Sprinting down the 100m lane on the Beijing Track? The only solution to this is the Arts. Arts in our modern day world, greatly helps to instill a sense of creativity. It helps us to enjoy life and at the same time, help to change our perspective on the way we view things. This is one of the few ways on why the Arts is a main factor that has to be valued in Singapore.
Next, as we move on to the next factor, please focus on this write up and shove your piles of paperwork and files away from your desk table. We Singaporeans have been rated to have the best working qualities amongst the other countries worldwide. We also have to note another fact that we ourselves know that we are too hardworking in most cases that we over stress our biological system into breakdown. What better solution is there to solve this problem, than to involve in the Arts? Musical shows and plays will help to take away that extra inch of stress off our body for the better. However, we Singaporeans, deem using the computer for hours and hours as stress relievers. We get so indulged in work and progress that once again we fail to capture the positive essence of the Arts. Therefore, to summarise the point, the Arts helps to relieve stress from our Singaporeans from our fast-paced lives.

Hence, I reinstate my stand that the Arts play a vital role in Singapore both as a stress reliever and also to inculcate important values such as the development of creativity amongst us Singaporeans.

Role Of Arts In Singapore

The arts encompasses many forms such as visual arts, performing arts, language atrs, culinary arts, physical arts etc. Arts in Singapore is still not as widespread as it should be. However, the government has realized the importance of the arts we cannot argue against the fact that art is being given more and more importance and emphasis in recent times in Singapore. Arts help to play many roles in Singapore.

In terms of education, Arts help in the holistic development of students. Instead of being just bookworms who do nothing but studies in school, arts, in the form of Co-curricular activities and school organized programs help to develop the non-academic side of students. Arts also help to develop creativity in students. In today’s society where innovation is vital to one’s success, learning to be creative is a must and arts help to develop this.

Arts also serve as an avenue for jobs in Singapore. Although this is not very widespread in Singapore, it is fast picking up speed. Many nowadays are not afraid to pursue careers in the field of arts as compared to the past where everyone placed importance on academics as they felt arts would not grant them high future prospects. Moreover, in Singapore schools, there is a wide selection of courses for students who wish to pursue arts.

Traditional arts also help constantly remind Singaporeans of their rich heritage. In our society today, we are increasingly becoming more and more westernized and we tend to forget our past and heritage in the process. Thus, traditional arts serve as a reminder of our rich heritage.

Arts also serve as a form of relaxation and entertainment for people in Singapore. In Singapore’s stressful lifestyle it is necessary to take your foot of the pedal at times to relax and art helps to do this in the form of performances or television programs.

Arts can help serve many purposes in Singapore. However, it still has a long way to go.

Role of arts in Singapore

The arts play a very small role in Singapore, which is the role of providing entertainment. These forms of arts come in the form of digital arts, which is mainly due to lack of time in an average Singaporean’s daily life.
In Singapore, there is too much emphasis on personal achievements, such as one’s influence, power and status, which also determines one’s success. Arts is thus viewed as unimportant, only a form of leisure. As mentioned in the article, arts is considered as a form of leisure only enjoyed by the rich, or if one has time to spare. The fast pace of life leaves little time to spare. Even if one has time to spare, it is often used for other forms of leisure, which one enjoys the most, such as sports.
However, the government has indeed put in much effort to raise the status of arts in Singapore. The Singapore Esplanade, officially opened in 2002, cost S$600 million to build. This huge budget clearly shows the effort that the government has put into trying to promote arts. The Esplanade was built to host arts events, with numerous facilities and artistic exhibitions to promote arts among Singaporeans. Numerous events have also been held to promote arts among the Singaporeans, such as the Singapore Arts Festival which spans over a period of one month annually. Artistes from over 20 countries are invited to this prestigious event. This demonstrates how the arts are rapidly gaining recognition in Singapore.
Also, the government has begun to incorporate arts into schools. Arts performances are largely advertised among the students, and subsidies offered to the students. In junior colleges, science students also have to undertake at least one arts subject to promote appreciation of the arts among the students.
In conclusion, even though the current generation of Singaporeans regard little for arts, the efforts of the government have led to the new generation having a greater appreciation of arts, and thus, arts is likely to have a much more important role to play in the future.

In Singapore, the role of the arts, generally, is to entertain. It is common for us to have events which promote the arts as it is- no further in depth probing is required. All the audience has to do is to watch and applaud. Such is the role of arts in Singapore. Singaporeans in general only appreciate the aesthetics of art- the intricate details on the costumes, the fluidity of the movements. Events such as the Singapore arts festival, concerts from world famous artistes such as the Beatles and art galleries further emphasize this fact.

However, in recent years, we have seen the government try to increase awareness of the arts in Singapore. This is being done in school, where the population is still young, thus more possible and practical to induce arts appreciation in them. Firstly, we have the Singapore youth festivals. Performing arts groups from schools all over Singapore take part actively in this national event biannually. Thus, this is seen as an effort by Singapore to try to inculcate in youths an artistic side since the performer's friends would be interested to watch the performances too. Also, ccas under the arts category are introduced as early as primary school, thus students have many years to decide if they would like to pursue arts.

Secondly, we have seen an increase in the content of arts in the school syllabus. There's the Nanyang academy of fine arts (NAFA), which is an arts school for youths who are interested in the arts. There, they cultivate their interests and talents for the arts, specializing in skills such as dance or visual arts, or even modern art- photography. Then of course we have the recent introduction of the arts elective or pure arts in the secondary schools and junior colleges. This is done to encourage those who have a passion for arts to develop their interests and bring the arts scene in Singapore to greater heights.

More recently, Singapore has tried to raise the importance of arts in Singapore, as seen in the above examples. Besides the education system and concerts, Singapore has also provided for venues for the arts, one being the esplanade by the bay. The purpose of the esplanade is to host arts events, much like the Sydney opera house in Australia. Thus, the role of the arts in Singapore has risen in recent years due to efforts by the government and arts groups in Singapore.

Does Singapore allow for talent to flourish?

I agree with Paulo that talent need to have some space, recognition and soul to flourish. The question is, does Singapore provide an environment rich with the above-mentioned, or is it a place where talent is gone unnoticed, where talent is seen only in the form of dollar signs, where we are too concerned with whether our ideas are agreeable with the ideas of others? I think we are. Let us begin at home, the root cause of who or what we are. At home, how many parents encourage their children to persue what they are good in? Not as a sport or just for fun, but as a legitimate career. Who among us can say that we are doing exactly what we want to do? We have all been forced to conform to the needs of society, to do well in math and excell in science. Our talents are rarely recognized, and even more rarely built upon, or improved. The talented young Singaporeans need to be embraced by society, not shunned for having a different opinion.

Due to our severe lack of confidence, our need to be sure before doing anything, we have essentially squashed many talents, not letting them be seen, or not letting them be known as a Singaporean talent. We need to be more open, more willing to make mistakes, for luck favours the brave. We need to give talent more space. We do not do this, and so what talent we have in the nation is going unnoticed.

We are also not paying attention to our talents, that is until they are hailed as the greatest something-in-the-world! We do not pay attention to the open mic shows, or the local bands performing at the park. We simply feel they are not good enough for us. We need to pay more attention to them, until we do, we will remain with a lack of talent. As Paulo put it, Singapore has a lack of resources, so we need to make the most of the one resource we have: people.

Talent

From what Supian and Hartung have said, I do agree with their views in saying that talent in Singapore is too narrowly defined and she only produces a small group of people with certain types of talent. This can be clearly seen from the fact that Singapore develops itself greatly only in one specific area- Its economic status. The Singapore government does so, as it feels that the development of the economic status of the country must be its main focus. However, in doing so, it is actually narrowing its scope of producing talented people in a variety of areas of speciality.

One example as to why I feel that Singapore tend to produce only certain types of talent, can be seen in the Beijing Olympics 2008 which is going on now at the moment. From the opening ceremony to the actual games, Singapore has sent in less than a 100 Singaporeans to participate in the games. Of which, how many of them are actual Singaporeans? Meaning, they were born and bred in Singapore rather than brought in to Singapore as a foreign talent. This number is probably less than 10. Is there a specific reason for this? It’s obvious that Singapore wishes to develop in the area of sports. However, till this day it has wasted its time in not showing enough concern in the area of sports that Singapore has to turn to bringing in foreign talent to improve its sports status. This is one of the prices Singapore has to pay for producing only certain types of talent.

Therefore, from my evaluation of the current situation in Singapore, it can be justified that Singapore does focus on producing certain types of talent only. Therefore, if Singapore does continue to move on in such a state, it will bound to suffer in the future where other countries are doing their best to be in the top of the list in every area of specialty.

Singaporeans Mindset Is The Reason For Talent Shortage.

I agree with Ravi Veloo that the key to solving the problem of talent shortage in Singapore lies in the changing of people’s mindset. Singaporeans have a very narrow mindset in my opinion. They are not open to what is around them and rarely see things in multiple or broader perspectives. This leads to problems such as talent shortage.

One issue would be the viewing of certain types of talents as superior to others. For instance people believe that being a doctor is superior to being an architect. Thus many parents send their children to learn medicine, leaving very few students in other fields such as architecture. This leads to a shortage in talent in such fields and with a lack of such talents a country will not be able to function well as it does not have enough of a talent range.

Another issue would be that, Singaporeans fail to realize or explore their full potential. Once they pick up a profession, they stick their mindset to just that profession. They only concentrate on it alone and judge themselves only by how well they do in that particular profession. This leads to a limited range of exposed talent among Singaporeans with much talent hidden deep inside many of them.

Moreover they believe that only a particular skill is needed for a certain profession. For instance a software engineer believes that only knowledge in software is necessary for that job. He does not realize that by having other skills he would be able to do his job better and will be more employable.

Singaporeans also see talent as something that a person is born with. Yes this is true in certain cases, but they fail to realize that talent can be nurtures with a bit of effort and an open mind. Thus, we have a limited array of talent in Singapore.

Loh explores several suggestions on how to deal with the outflow of talent from Singapore. Evaluate his suggestions.

Loh’s article explores several suggestions, including halting the use of the term “foreign talent”, changing the policies to focus more on family cohesion, preserve buildings and to listen more to the citizens.

I do agree that the repeated use of the term “foreign talent” does lead to the locals here feel inferior to their foreign counterparts. This term has instilled into employers the mindset that foreigners are, in every ways stronger than the locals. For example, in the local film “I Not Stupid” by Jack Neo, it showed one overseas “talent” who comes to the advertising company to take up a rather senior post. Through the show, it was revealed that this foreigner held a rather low position back in his homeland, and his works were shown to be unappealing to the local context, featuring black-themed packages for a Chinese New Year product. Hence, not all foreigners who work in Singapore are talents, and while the term “foreign talent” does make the foreigners sound better, it serves to degrade the local talents, who feel inferior as compared to them.

In the article, Dr. Leong advises the authorities to focus more on instilling pro-family concepts. I agree with this suggestion. The younger generations nowadays have little patriotism spirit, mostly due to the effects of globalization and the lack of the experiences that the older generation had during the hard times of the past. Focusing on family cohesion could possibly have a much better effect in retaining local talents. The older generations are less likely to opt to live overseas as they are used to the local living conditions. By instilling pro-family values, the younger generations would then choose to follow their elders and remain in Singapore.

Dr. Leong also advised the government to retain old buildings. Even though I agree with his rationale, I feel that it is not a feasible plan. To continue Singapore’s development, it is necessary for us to replace the older buildings with newer ones. Imagine 30 years later and you still see the same old buildings every day. What impression would that give to a tourist? Singapore would probably seem like a very old country, with little development. Buildings have to change along with time. That is why en-bloc policies are necessary, to renew the old buildings. To preserve old buildings to retain local talents is thus not a feasible solution for our country.

As mentioned in the article, what makes a citizen happy is not just economic stability, but also the feeling that one is heard, and not just another puppet in the country. By listening to the citizens’ ideas, the government can gain more ideas, and understand the needs of the people. The government may not necessary know what is best for the people. Even if they do implement policies beneficial for the greater masses, they must provide the rationale for those policies.

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation

From my views and opinions, I feel that the Singapore government slants towards using Extrinsic Motivation rather than Intrinsic Motivation towards its denizens.

This is clearly seen in the fact that it follows the Principle of Meritocracy that was created when the government first stabilized in its early stages of gaining Independence. It is no doubt that this Principle’s main aim is to voice out to the masses that Singaporeans are admitted into institutions and workplaces solely based on merit. However, there is also this small portion of this Principle that states that high-end scholarships like, A-Star Scholarships and Public Service Commission (PSC) Scholarships will be awarded to students who attain outstanding results in the Advanced-Level Examinations at the end of their Junior College Career. In my opinion, this is a form of extrinsic motivation that is being used by the Singapore Government. It produces brilliant student who work hard to gain the scholarships. Moreover, as these scholarships serve under a bond-system, these brilliant students will eventually end up working in Singapore, in which case, they are actually working to develop Singapore. Hence, this motivation that the government uses, acts as stone that kills two birds. It is able to produce students of high standards of knowledge and at the same time able to produce skilled laborers who will in turn be able to assist in developing the country further, in this 21st Century.

Another basic extrinsic motivation that is put out by the government that has not been clearly noted is the salary-system where laborers get paid for offering their services in the working world. Others may not think that this is an extrinsic motivation but in actually fact, it actually is. Will any of the laborers be willing to offer their services if they do not get paid for what they do? Obviously not. Therefore, the government specially put a price tag on their jobs. However, this price tag is for the government to pay their laborers instead of otherwise. Hence, in my views, this is another extrinsic motivation that the government has undertaken, not only in Singapore, but in each and every single country globally.

Therefore, from the evidence provided, I can safely say that the Singapore government does slant towards providing more of extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic motivation. This is evident from the various factors that I have brought up in this write-up.

Will Women Ever Enjoy The Same Rights As Men?

The term women’s rights refer to the freedoms that women are entitled to and that are recognized by the society. The issue of women’s rights has always been a controversial issue especially in the area of gender equality. Women have always been given lesser rights as compared to men and this sparked many uprisings especially after the eighteenth century. Although this issue has lasted for a very long time, I feel that it is not very accurate to say that women will never enjoy the same rights as men.

The situation of women has drastically improved over the last couple of centuries. In the past, women were not allowed to hold public office; to work; to fair wages or equal pay; to own property; to education; to serve in the military or be conscripted; to enter into legal contracts etc. However, today women live in a very different world. Almost every female receives basic education, are awarded many rights that women of the past could only dream of and hold many top positions in jobs. Examples would be the wife of Singapore’s Prime Minister, Ho Ching. She is the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the government-owned Temasek Holdings which is one of the most powerful firms in Southeast Asia and the Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Although even today women do not completely have all the rights that men enjoy, especially in the more rural countries, we definitely cannot deny the fact that the situation of women has improved very drastically. In my opinion, it has improved as much as it possibly can over such a short period of time. If the improvement of women’s rights continues its ascent at this rate it is very possible that women will soon achieve the bench mark of equal rights as men in the near future. Thus I feel that the notion that women will never achieve equal rights as men is not true.

Discrimination arising from stereotypes.

Discrimination arising from stereotypes definitely exists in Singapore. Many types of stereotype discrimination exist in Singapore- be it the “kiasu auntie” at the market or the “mugger nerd” in school, however, I think Singaporeans generally do not display their distaste for such stereotypes in a negative manner.

Because Singapore is a racially diverse country, I think that Singaporeans are used to the different types of stereotypes created by the general public. However, I am sure that many of us do discriminate some of these stereotypes. After all, who would like to be stuck in a lift with the 'kaypoh' neighbor next door? Discrimination in Singapore may arise from the fact that many of us live around these stereotypes, and are hence sick or irritated by the day in day out interactions with the stereotype.

Take for example the stereotype of the nosey neighbor in her mid 40s who has nothing better to do but gossip. If you were a young, overworked adult in her mid 20s, you would obviously like to start your morning with a quiet, peaceful trip down the elevator rather than having to entertain the neighbor with the latest gossips, or insights of the stock market which may grant her a windfall. However, this discrimination may be unfair as not all neighbors in their mid 40s are of the same gossip queen category. We just assume that all people who fall into that age category are the same. However, are we forgetting that many senior managers who are intuitive and smart, and, possibly normal and not gossip queens are also in their mid 40s? Thus I think that Singaporeans jump to stereotyping, hence discrimination too quickly.

However, discrimination in Singapore is not very openly showcased, though we may harbor such opinions internally. We do not see public slamming of old men as molesters or children as screamy monsters. There may be the common stereotyping of Chinese workers are rude and loudmouthed, but hardly anything is done to show our displeasure. Singaporeans are generally quite tolerable of these stereotypes, and discrimination isn't much of a source of riot in Singapore.

Therefore, although discrimination arising from stereotypes exists in Singapore, it isn't that big of a deal.

Extrinsic VS Intrinsic Motivation

All around the world people have become self centered, only bothering about their self interests and personal issues and not about their society. This situation is hardly any different in the context of Singapore.

The government has seen this and has widely used the method of extrinsic motivation to get things done in Singapore. For instance, in Singapore monetary or material rewards are widely used to motivate people to get certain things done. This can be seen in even areas such as child bearing. The government actually offers baby bonuses in order to “motivate” couples to have more children so that the replacement rate in Singapore’s ageing population will increase.

Extrinsic means is also used to deter people from doing certain things in Singapore. This can be seen in the area of crimes where the government imposes hefty fines and punishments to those who commit crimes in order to reduce crime rates in the country.

Although extrinsic motivation has allowed us to achieve many targets, there are negative impacts of using such means on Singaporeans. An extrinsically motivated person will work on a task even when they have little interest in it because of the anticipated satisfaction they will get from some reward. However it focuses people on the reward and not the action. The wide usage of extrinsic motivation would mean that Singaporeans would grow to become robot-like people who would not do anything unless they are given rewards. Stop giving the reward and they will stop the behavior. This may even aggravate to the point where they will demand for larger and larger amounts of incentives to do a certain thing.
Moreover Singaporeans will start losing their morals and we will start seeing less and less people being involved in areas such as social wok where material benefits are minimal.

However I agree with Ismail that intrinsic motivation can subtly in areas such as the collecting of motivation where people still do donate with a little persuasion. This hopefully should be seen more widely in Singapore.

Talent

I think that all 3 talents are not present in singapore, sadly. Even if they are, they are short lived, as seen in the case of president scholars and athletes. The hype (recognition) over their achievements fade faster than they deserve to, hence this may deter one to strive to gain glory for singapore, since recognition may be one of the many reasons why one would want to achieve something.

Newton, Edison and Einstein are all famous names in the science field. The first discovered gravity, the other, light, and the last, the infamous equation, E=MC^2. Then comes the singaporean who created glowing fishes. What was HIS name again? I truely believe less than 1 percent of the population knows about him. Why is this so? Is it because singapore doesn't celebrate his achievements, or is it just because singapore doesn't think it's much of an achievement? I believe it's a combination of both. Firstly, the newspaper column featuring his invention barely made it a front page news. Secondly, it was mentioned probably less than 5 times as it wasn't as big an invention as light was. Thus, this may be one of the deterrences for singaporeans to ever achieve anything great, as their efforts go largely unnoticed.

Then comes the issue of space. Students here are usually under alot of stress and pressure, especially from their parents, to do well. It is common for students to be studying even on weekends- a rare sight in other countries. This would give one the impression that if he or she were to do well in school, it would be even worse if they over achieved and entered the global arena. Also, many scholarships tie the students to the goverment and do not consider the aspirations of these students. For example, many scholars have a contract where they are tied down to the sponsor company, and this prevents them from pursuing their aspirations. Thus, space is not an incentive for achievements.

Lastly, soul is hardly present. Singapore lacks the countryside aura to allow for relaxation time, or for one to nurture their peace of mind. Sure, we have spas and country clubs, but who attends these spas? The affluent and famous, of course. Heaven forbid you should meet your boss at the spa. It would definitely turn a time of peace and quiet into one that would kill your weekend.
As such, all 3 requirements are lacking in singapore, accounting for the lack of obvious talents.

Extrinsic motivation in Singapore

In Singapore, I think extrinsic motivation is largely employed to control its citizens. As stated in JiaHao’s post, Singapore is often referred to by its citizens as a “fine” country, fine here being a sum of money required to be paid as a penalty for an offense. It is evident in daily life, these fines. We have fines for littering, vandalism, illegal parking and even eating on public transport systems. Judging by the clean streets of Singapore, and the odorless transport system, it is evident that these fines do work, and they work well. Besides using money to ensure the law is abided by, Singapore has also used money to motivate its athletes to do well in the international arena. The Multi-Million Dollar Awards Programme provides a cash payout to athletes who win gold medals at the Olympic, Asian, Commonwealth and South East Asian Games. However, there may be implications involved.

Although the fines work, youths do not really reap its benefits. For example public “adult grounds” such as coffeehouses and shopping centers are free of vandalism and litter, but visit any school or youth spot in Singapore and the place would be littered and spotted with paint and graffiti. Even school tables are not spared as students draw on them during lessons with markers. Extrinsic motivation thus does not apply to youths. This asks one to think about the effectiveness of the fine system in Singapore. I think that students litter and vandalize freely in their schools as there are no fine systems in school, and the chances of getting caught are rare. Thus, extrinsic fine systems in Singapore are ineffective, as it only induces fear in a person, instead of actually motivating a person to steer away from undesired behavior.

Extrinsic motivation in the athletic arena may be a good thing, as It would definitely encourage low-wage athletes to strive harder. Lee Jia Wei, a table tennis player, has even managed to play to a 4th place finish at the Athens Olympics in 2004, a commendable effort, obviously. Thus, extrinsic motivation in the sporting arena, where no moral values are involved, reap more benefits.

Does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Singapore? Appln. Qn 2

Stereotypes, in our modern day context are just a group of people with unique abilities of some sort. These stereotypes can be related to anything under the sun. Race, religion, colour, language, attitude are a few of the many stereotypes that have been brought up in recent times. When relating this to our country, Singapore, it is apparent that such discriminations arising from stereotypes are not a common sight. However, one cannot immediately jump into a conclusion in stating that there is clearly no discrimination arising from stereotypes in Singapore. Truly speaking, as long as there are differences amongst certain groups of people in a society, there is bound to be such discriminations.

If one is to say that Singapore is a great country where every citizen lives united with one another, bearing in mind social cohesiveness and the list of laws governed by an uncorrupted government, the only person that may believe this assumption is a Singaporean himself. A foreigner on the other hand, will not spare a thought in actually believing this. It’s merely a fairytale story to him. It is thereby obvious that it is impossible to create that dream country where everything goes well and there is no more room for improvement. Hence, I agree that discrimination arising from stereotypes do exist in Singapore.

Race/Religion is one of the main factors that led me to such a conclusion. In our multi-racial society, there is still this small group of people who feel that Indians and Malays are a class of their own and in which case, the Chinese have the upper hand in making every decision in this country. These groups of people have been termed as “racists”. They create this stereotype in our innocent minds that Indians and Malays are not true Singaporeans merely because of their skin colour. Basically, they are not “white”. Well, such stereotypes are created for the sake of expressing certain opinions and differences that we Singaporeans have within our society. However, these are the opinions that are best kept a secret rather than flaunting it out to the masses and just sparking off more problems. A clear example to this is the recent case where a Racist blogger who happens to be Chinese, expressed his sensitive views towards the Malay population on his blog. The racist blogger was then brought to court for making such racist remarks. This shows that there is still discrimination arising from stereotypes occurring in Singapore.

Another fundamental factor to prove that this issue still stands in Singapore is the stereotyping of students from top notch schools and institutions of being geniuses and child protégées since young. Students, who are streamed into schools of lower status as compared to these institutions, immediately feel a sense of hatred and anger towards the “geniuses” of the lot, arising from mere inferiority complex. The stereotyping of these individuals as “geniuses” makes the remaining group of students seem unwanted and useless. Thereafter, there comes a point where these students drop out of schools and take the wrong paths in life to turn into criminals rather than leaders of the future. These students feel that there is no use spending so much time in their academic work, as ultimately the “geniuses” will be the ones who attain scholarships, recognition from higher authorities like the Ministry, and a well-to-do life. Moreover, clashes may even occur between these two groups of students over reasons that are pointless. In the end, due to stereotyping, not just one party suffers but the whole lot suffers too.

Hence, from the above examples I have clearly shown that discrimination arising from stereotypes will always happen unless stereotypes are not formed in the first place. This subject is evident in Singapore itself, when touching on issues such as race and the area of academics. Therefore, I reinforce the fact again, that stereotypes will exist as long as there are differences in the views of groups of people. Moreover, as long as these stereotypes exist, discrimination will be apparent.

Does discrimination rising from stereotypes exist in Singapore? - App. Qn 2

I do agree that discrimination rising from stereotypes exist in Singapore as well. Discrimination, in my opinion results from our ability to judge people, be it according to their capabilities, race, gender religion or any other notable differences. Discrimination according to capabilities is regarded as meritocracy, and considered as a legal form of discrimination. However, to accurately gauge a person’s ability in work or studies is not an easy task- there is no clear reflection of how capable a person may be. Hence, we often consider people with a certain type of undesirable traits or behavior as being incapable, resulting in stereotyping of such people.
As mentioned in the second article, those students seated in the back rows are regarded to have attitude problems, and thought to be incapable in schoolwork. This is common in Singapore as well. However, these students would be regarded as talkative, and to get their attention in class, teachers would be more likely to call on them. In contrast, those seated in the front are often regarded as smart, and wise, hardworking students. Thus teachers are less likely to pay much attention to them. In my own experience, however, this might not be the case. I have seen hardworking students seated in the back rows before, and they are attentive and participates actively in class, and also seen those in the front rows, sleeping away without any disturbances. Thus, discrimination arising from stereotypes do exist in Singapore as well.
In Singapore, where there is the situation of an aging population, age is very closely linked to work efficiency. When two people of the same qualifications, but different age, where the older one has more working experience, goes for a job interview, the younger one is more likely to get recruited. Why? This is because people often think that the older workers are not as productive as the younger ones, and will demand higher pay, hence they are discriminated. However, this may not be the case. Older workers are more efficient at the tasks they have been at for years, and may not necessarily demand higher pay than their younger counterparts. Furthermore, the younger workers are more likely to switch jobs once their passion dies down, while the older workers would be more dedicated to their jobs.
The above examples shows how discrimination rising from stereotypes exist in Singapore, even without us consciously knowing.
-Jia Hao

There is no case for "affirmative action" in SIngapore today

Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious society. We have come to respect and tolerate each other. We are now seeing each other as fellow Singaporeans instead of members of different races living together in the same space. After 43 years on our own, we ask ourselves have we done enough to prevent racial discrimination?

We have made improvements in our education system to ensure that cases like university of California regents v Bakke do not take place in Singapore. Local universities make it a point to not outrightly reject candidates on racial grounds. We have made sure that we all take the pledge together, to ensure a sense of equality, we are encouraged to live in flats with different races, we all wear uniforms to school, so uniform that the head-scarf is banned from use in school. All if us have a common English-Medium curriculum. We are all allowed our own prayer. In these ways, we have almost perfected the system. We essentially give every child an equal shot at studies.

This is valid all through the university stage, but it ends when the student becomes an adult and enters the work-force. When one enters the work-force, they are forced to become part of the intricate web of politics that makes up the working environment. In this case, it is impossible to prevent any discrimination from occurring. However, it is all a part of life. Even in advertisements for jobs, there are lines like "non-chinese applicants need not apply," which is a politically correct way of saying the job is only for chinese. The job may have a special requirement, so that is fine. We cannot intend to stop discrimination completely, it is a part of life. At the same time, we cannot make it turn the other way, and make the majority suffer just because they are the majority. As such, there is no case for "affirmative action" in Singapore.

Intrinsic motivation in Singapore

As the song goes, "in Singapore, our hearts are big and wide you'll find." Singaporeans do have a heart, and are quite understanding when it comes to matters of the heart. As Asians, we are regarded as being a bunch of hard-working and unforgiving individuals that come together only for self-preservation. We have shattered that stereotype by donating for just about everything. Anytime a person steps up to us with a donation can in their hand and asks us for donations, they do not ask for donations by saying we can get tax rebates. They tell us the name of the foundation and what the foundation is using the money for. This generally tugs the correct heart strings, forcing us to pull out our wallets and at the very least, drop a few coins in the can.

In a similar situation, one of my friends was walking with a drink when approached by a student collecting donations for a foundation. When he said he didn't want to donate, she said that if he had the money to purchase a drink, he should donate. And sure enough, he did donate. This shows how there is subtle intrinsic motivation in Singapore. The use of extrinsic motivation in Singapore has to a large extent been unsuccessful. The government's attempt to reverse the trend of a decreasing population by offering a baby bonus has not been successful. The reason? The Singaporean society retains some of its morals. Singaporeans are not simpletons, we think things over. When we are offered an incentive, a monetary one at that, we think if we are doing the act for the benefit of society or for their own. By having a child simply for the baby bonus, one is doing it for a selfish aim, and as such, they have not been successful.

As Jia Hao has said, the use of extrinsic motivation is present in terms of petty crimes. But, they are seldom enforced, and are not harsh on the criminal. They simply serve to label the person as a criminal or to show the person that what they have done is not correct. It is through this that the person is forced to ponder over what he has done, and think over his life. When seen in this way, the fines imposed can be viewed as intrinsic motivation to not do something that would not benefit them or the society.

Do the past and present offer any guidance to the future?

"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift, that's why its called the present." We have always seen the past as history, and as something to learn from. Only by looking into the past can we see the future, as they say. When we look back into the past, we see many things that we have done wrong that can be corrected if we tried. To ensure that our future is not marred by poor decisions made by people not fully aware of the situation, we need to look at the past for guidance.

One thing that has changed from the past is our interpretation of what a secular state is. In the past, a secular state was seen as a group of "non-believers" looking to make the world a place that has no belief. Now, we have adopted a more rational approach: a nation that respects all religions equally, and does not discriminate based on religion. The adoption of secularism at the state level seems to now be a very pragmatic move that many have made. Why? Thanks to the countless lives lost due to misunderstandings between people of different religions. From the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War to the Maria Hertogh riots. People have seen religion as a way to divide themselves. They would fight for a lost cause if it was for their religion. To avoid such bloodshed, all people should be given the basic right of practicing their religion. The people of the world have seen this as being a good idea to the extent that they have made religious practice a human right.

We have made changes for the better that we are enjoying now, but how can we further improve our ways, and make the future an even brighter one? One way is to make the whole world see secular state as meaning the same thing. Religion should not be given a major role to play in politics. We could find ourselves in a sticky situation if we depend on religion as a campaigning method. What if the candidate elected by a majority of Christians, whose votes he campaigned for in Chuches, was found to be gay? What would the voters do? What would the country do? There would be chaos, with people wanting to overthrow the whole government! To avoid such situations and keep an open mind toward the governing of the state, we should disallow the use of religion as a campaigning chip.

Human rights are Universal

Human rights are universal, and should be under no condition violated. Human rights, as the term suggests governs the way one human should behave towards another. Ever since man has been a civilised creature, he has drawn lines for how far one can be mistreated. Only under tyrants or misguided thoughts have we been known to violate each other. In today's world, we see each other as equals, or we should at least. We treat each other with a level of respect. Even the employer treats the employee with a level of respect. In a similar way, the people of Singapore are given the right to practice their own beliefs as long as they are acceptable to the fact that everyone is not of the same lineage, or religion. This is a good example of how secular states like Singapore see human rights as universal.

The interpretation of human rights as a way to properly treat another human is the only way that we can make human rights universal. Through extreme views taken on human rights, we will not be able to have a more fuller, and functional country. It is necessary that we look at this from a rational point of view. In order for the nation to prosper, we need to prevent some things that some champions of human rights see as a right. One example is freedom of speech. Although it is vital that we express ourselves, our views need not always be socially beneficial. In order to prevent such unnecessary "hooliganism" and promote a "rebel" behaviour, we can censor a small minority of the views put out by people. This will help the whole country to move along as a whole, and prevent us from becoming a backward country due to unnecessary excess of freedom of speech given to those that may abuse it.

Countries should never get involved in the internal affairs of another

Countries should not ever, not under any circumstances, get involved in the internal affairs of another. It is very important that they do this, since it could be the only way to push the whole world in the correct direction. Instead of taking orders from men who have blown-up ideas that their methods are superior to the methods that other countries take in the governing of their nation, we should let the others see which is the best way. By doing so, the country that is seen as not having a proper way of doing things can have a chance to change its ways, and the country that sees its method as superior can truly see if its method is superior.

Countries that poke their noses in the business of others have, generally, made the situation worse. Let us look at the invasion of Iraq by USA. USA wanted to "liberate the people of Iraq" from the rule of Saddam. That seems like a similar reason given by our Japanese peers when they massacred the Asian continent. That aside, are the Iraqis free from the rule of a "tyrant" and now free to roam the country? There are bomb blasts everywhere, with almost none that affect the locals making the news. Is the Iraqi economy blossoming now that the people of Iraq have been freed from the shackles of a tyrant? Who are the ones burning the oil fields? The "tyrant", or the "liberators"?

It is unfortunate but true that some countries need to be ruled the way they are. The morals of the people in the country determine the type of government they need. We cannot judge a group of people by looking on from the outside, we need to let them see that the system we use is better. Only through this will they change willingly, with more effort, and only then will there be results that are for the better of the world.

Hui Min suggests that the governments of other countries should be allowed to stand up against the judiciary system which does not give the people governed by it to speak up. This analogy is invalid! It is similar to asking your neighbour to help you discuss your ED problems with your wife! There are some things that simply need to be sorted out by themselves, and such affairs need to be left alone.

Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think

In Singapore, extrinsic motivation is used largely. This is shown by the common joke that Singapore is a “fine” city, the “fine” not only saying that Singapore is a great country to visit, but also to show that almost all crimes results in monetary punishments.
Although extrinsic motivation is predominant in Singapore as compared to intrinsic motivation, I feel that there has been more positive impacts on the Singapore society than negative ones.
The negative impacts on Singaporeans is that people avoid committing petty crimes such as littering and vandalising only when there are members of the law present, or when there are surveillance cameras around as in the case of speeding of vehicles on roads. People do not regard littering as an act morally wrong, but regard it as something common, that everyone does, such that even when the Singapore government began using intrinsic motivations such as using posters and banners to urge people not to litter, there has been little effects. Vandalism too, has taken roots as habits among the younger generations of Singapore. In schools, the tables are often vandalised, not by accidental scratch marks, but by pencil and ink markings of mathematical formulas and various nonsensical messages. This shows the lack of awareness of moral wrongness in Singapore due to over use of extrinsic motivations.
Despite the negative impacts as listed above, Singapore has managed to ensure a certain degree of success in ensuring the cleanliness of its environment and the safety of the roads. For example, up until now, Singapore still enjoys the reputation of being a “green city”, and still a wonderful place to visit and regarded as one of the cleanest cities in the world. The streets of Singapore are also relatively safe and traffic accident rates are kept low as a result of the punishments of speeding such as summons and demerit points system which could eventually results in the suspension of driving licenses.
In Singapore, the people are also still regarded as kind and generous as shown during the many charity shows in the past few years. Each show generated millions of dollars, and such compassion extends even to foreign countries. In the Szechuan earthquake crisis, Singapore donated more than 8.5 million US dollars in private donations only. This shows that Singaporeans are still largely motivated by selfless desires despite the predominance of extrinsic motivations in Singapore.
Hence, the positive impacts of the predominance of extrinsic motivations surpass the negative impacts of the extrinsic motivations in Singapore.

What role do you think religion has to play in the public sphere of Singapore? Justify your stand.

Religion, in my opinion forms a major portion of our lifestyle in the society of Singapore. This is mainly due to the fact that Singapore is a multi-racial society. This also adds on to the fact that there will apparently be many more religions in place. Therefore, in this era, I feel that religion has a key role to play in our public sphere in Singapore.

When touching on religion, this issue can be branched out into many aspects of which religious policies and religious ethics are the main concern in the public sphere of Singapore.

Religion is not always about following a specific set of “rules” that lay out a list of expectations that those under the religion must follow. Religion in today’s society is also a form of bridging the gap between the various races and in turn, each Singaporean in the society. To assist in doing so, the government has stepped in to incorporate some valuable information into the education system of the youths so that the initiation can reach out to the young who will then spread it when they become adults. In schools, especially at primary level, “Racial harmony Day” is shown much recognition when each school student is asked to come to school dressed in attire that is of another race. This act itself will help the students to understand more about each other’s religion and culture and this will develop into a special value that is ingrained in them.

Throughout the day the children are allowed to learn more about each other’s religious practices through games and many other activities. This is a clear example as to why I state that religion acts as a form of a bridge in between races and the public.

Hence, it can be seen that religion puts its place in public sphere of Singapore by bridging the gap between races and each Singaporean. As long as the understanding of each other’s religion, race and culture is taken into consideration in our lifestyle, our society will be able to survive any difficulty that comes along our way.

Is personal morality the concern of the State? (1996)

Personal morality is often not considered as a concern of the state, as different individuals have different moral values, which are largely based on their own religion and upbringing. Hence it is impossible to consider personal morality as a concern of the State. However, in certain cases whereby a large group of people have a common personal morality, it should be a concern of the state as the state has the responsibility to address the needs of the people.
In the case of Singapore, where the population consists of different racial and religious groups, certain religious regulations are upheld by the law. For example, the issue of homosexuality is still a common debate in Singapore, and it is prohibited by the law. Sexual activity between males is prohibited. Homosexuality can be considered as a personal morality issue, as it does not really have a distinct harm effect. However, homosexuality is prohibited in several religions in Singapore, hence, due to majority disapproval; it is considered a crime in Singapore.
However, in most cases, personal morality should not be a concern of the state. In terms of religions, several of the regulations are not included in the state laws of Singapore. For example, while Muslims are not allowed to eat or touch pork, there is no rule to prohibit the selling of pork-related food in food centres. In the same way, what is condemned by the churches in Singapore may not be condemned by the state. While some races and religions prohibit marriages between people of different religion or even race, such regulations are not included in the state laws in Singapore. Rather, the state laws follow the opinions of the majority citizens, and personal moralities are not really concerns of the state.
Another reason why personal moralities are not really a concern of the state is because personal moralities may not necessary have a distinct harm effect and hence is insufficient to make others agree that those personal moralities are justified. This is supported by moral philosopher John Rawls’ quote, “Those who want to advance public discussion must make use of public reason, and put up public justifications for what they believe in. In other words, religion may influence your view on an issue. But when arguing your case in the political arena, you need to present arguments understandable and acceptable to those of different faiths.” As seen from this quote, personal moralities should only be a concern to the state when it is sufficiently justified, and of enough reasons to convince others.
In conclusion, personal moralities should not always be a concern of the state, unless it has sufficient reasoning to convince others why it should and should not be included in the state regulations.
I agree with Aarommal Jack that religions can help to provide or generate new policies for Singapore, as most religions have similar basic values and are often the basis of the law in one country or another. Hence, in a way, religions provide insights into the success of different countries and the multi-religious society of Singapore allow the Singapore government to adopt pragmatic policies that contribute to the success of the other nations to help in the development and improvement of the Singapore society.
-Jia Hao

WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THAT RELIGION HAS TO PLAY IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE IN SINGAPORE?

Religion can play a mojor role in many ways in Singapore's public sphere. Religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality.

Although religion involves many issues that encompass the supernatural such as the presence of a god which are all scientifically yet to be proven, we cannot plainly say that religion would have no role to play in a modern and highly practical country such as Singapore. Religion as I see is something that encompasses a ‘set of guidelines’ as to which how a man should act and something that teaches a person to have good morals. The supernatural aspect of religion I feel is not the core of a religion. For instance, when a person is required to pray a certain number of times a day to god who is supernatural, the motive of this I feel is not the paying of respects to god but to inculcate discipline in man. It takes discipline to plan your time and ensure that you pray a certain number of times a day when you are tempted to do so many other things. Thus it is in this aspect religion can help Singaporeans become morally sound people who are able to differentiate the right from the wrong.

Moreover, religions often encompass many views and ideas as to how a country or person should function. These ideas can at times apply to Singapore’s context today and help the country come up with new policies for the good of the people. This is clearly supported by philosopher John Rawls who feels that any idea, including those coming from religion should never be brushed aside as long as the arguments and points are just and will have a good impact on people. Thus, religion can be used as a source to generate or influence new policies for the good of people.

Thus we can see can that religion can play quite a significant role in Singapore.

Criminals are born, not made. Comment.

People on this Earth are given birth to lay foot on these grounds as normal human beings. No one is recognised as a doctor or a lawyer, the second he or she is born. Similarly, it is outright wrong to notify that criminals are born. In my opinion, I feel that there are a few factors that contribute to criminals being made or developing. I will highlight these various factors along the way in my write up.

Parents form one of the main reasons as to why criminals are being made. To put it in greater detail, the actions of parents cause their children to turn to crime and other such heinous activities. Actions in this case, can be either in the form of what the parents put forth on their children, such as treating them like dirt, disrespecting their basic dignity or merely abusing them badly. On the other hand, their actions can also be those that reflect upon themselves whereby they also involve in criminal activities.

There is a saying that “The youth of today, are the leaders of tomorrow”. However, in this context, the abused youth of today, turn out to be the criminal minded terrors of tomorrow. Children whom are brought up in a family where they are being constantly abused develop a mentality that no one cares about them and in return, they too should care for no one. When this mentality develops in them in a young age, their future will solely be based on this mentality itself. They begin to be anti-socialists. They begin to shun people and think that hitting or causing harm to a random stranger is completely fine. This then arises to the point where they are stamped to be criminals of the society. A research has been done by Caledon Institute, stating that over 50% of violent offenders witnessed abuse in their homes during their youth and that physically abused youths are 5 times more likely to become violent adults. This statement clearly shows that the criminals are being made and not born into the society.

Living areas and where people live, also determines the fact as to why criminals are made and not born. Compare the differences between a person living in a friendly neighbourhood and a person who has grown up in a “Brothel”. It is apparent that the person who grew up in the friendly neighbourhood will turn out to be a normal person with a right mind of life. However, when looking at the person who grew up in the “Brothel”, there is this slight contemplation that he may be affected mentally through his life. When eyeing the harsh situations that take place around his living area since young, he grows up with the mentality that, the way of a prostitute is the normal way of life. He has yet to see light in the outer world and so, knows nothing about it. Therefore, when he finally gets a chance out into the civilization, he acts differently towards people especially his female counterparts. He may forcefully carry out sexual assaults on these people and feel that it is okay, but at the end of the day, it is the law that dictates him to be a sexual offender or basically, a criminal.

The final reason as to why I feel that criminals are being made and not born is because of the fact that these people undertake activities that are socially undesirable and from there, they unknowingly develop a certain sense of satisfaction in committing crimes. In this case, when stating “socially undesirable activities”, I relate to things like drug and alcohol abuse. In a recent case study by “Sheffield Pathways Out of Crime Study (SPOOCS), at the University of Sheffield”, it is stated that they have found a link between drug abuse and criminal activities by these abusers. When these abusers inhale drugs and consume alcohol, they develop a care-free mindset where anything they do, they consider it to be good and lawfully correct. Hence, when these abusers suddenly turn to crime, they may not have committed it intentionally but under the law, they did practice criminal activities and so they will be convicted.

Hence, from the examples and factors that I have stated, I can truthfully justify that criminals of today are not born but are sculpted by certain factors and forces. These criminals are still normal human beings under their criminal facade. Thus, it is incorrect to state that they were born criminals as all of us step foot on this planet as one from of living species-humans.

Criminals Are Born Not Made. Comment

I disagree that criminals are born and not made. Criminals are made due to circumstances and environment that life hurls at a person. Things such as child abuse and unemployment influence a person to become a criminal.

When a person grows up in a disturbed family environment that constantly has incidences of violence in the form of child abuse to the person himself or spousal abuse to one of the person’s parents, his mind becomes clouded and influenced by such incidences. He grows up with feelings of hatred and trauma that he bottles up within him throughout his childhood. When this feeling becomes too overwhelming, it oozes out of him in the form violent behaviour and eventually crimes. This shows criminals are made and not born.

When a person grows up in an environment that crime rates are high and law enforcement is lax, it urges a person to succumb to the temptations of committing a crime. Such a living environment influences a person to commit crimes as he feels that it is easy to get away with committing crimes. Thus he becomes less afraid to commit crimes.

Media and entertainment also influence a person to become a criminal. For instance, when a person grows up continually watching movies or playing video games that portray violent behaviour and crimes, he tends to view crimes and violence as more or less a normal thing. Thus he too finds it normal to commit crimes and becomes involved in crimes, becoming a criminal. This can be seen in America with high school shooting becoming more and more common. An example would be where two students of Columbine High School, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students, 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others before committing suicide. Some reasons speculated for this incidence included the high levels of violent video games and movies in America.

I also agree with Jia Hao that the possession of weapons causes a person to become a criminal. When a person has possession fatal weapons such as rifles, he becomes tempted to use them to commit crimes as he gets the feeling that he possesses something of great power that can protect him from the law.

All these clearly show that it is the external factors that come into play to make a criminal and that a criminal is not born a criminal. Thus we should stop blaming the genes of the criminal for the manifestation that has been caused by the living environment. Hence more focus should be placed on changing the living environment of people to prevent future criminals rather than concentrating on just punishing the criminals.

Criminals are born, not made. Comment

I do not agree that criminals are born and not made. No one is born a criminal. Criminals turn to crime either out of desperation or mental disorders, such as addictions and even for the sake of enjoyment and excitement.
In my opinion, even though there have been studies which revealed links between genetics and criminology, suggesting that genetic flaws do lead to crime, I feel that it is not correct to just state that criminals are born and not made. Indeed, there may be cases whereby criminals are born, but most of them are due to their influence by their parents. If they had not known their parents were criminals and lived with other foster parents, then they would most probably turn out as normal law-abiding citizens.
Using data from National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, it has been found that childhood maltreatment can lead to a person having twice the likelihood of turning to crime. Hence could be seen that there is also a link between a person’s childhood and crime. Being abused as a child often leads to trauma by the child, eventually leading to feelings of hate and then causing violent behaviour and then crime. Hence it can be seen the criminals are sometimes made, not born.
Having power can also contribute to crime. When one has the power to kill, there exists the temptation to kill whoever one feels is annoying. On the other hand, when one has no weapons, he or she probably would not even think of killing. According to a recent NBER Working paper by Mark Duggan, higher gun ownership leads to increase in gun-homicide rate. Hence, power sometimes does produce more criminals.
The fear of getting punished is a powerful deterrence to prevent crime. When one feels that he or she would not be caught, one is more likely to commit crimes. Take the bloggers who uploaded racist remarks for example. They had probably felt they were protected by the anonymity of the internet, and they probably would not have dared to say such racist remarks in public. Hence, crime can also be attributed by such external factors.
As seen, criminals can also be made, and not born. It is simply unfair for people to be labelled as criminals when they are born.

-Jia Hao

Criminals are born, not made. Comment.

Everyone is born with different genes in different environments. The environment moulds a person's character regardless of their genes. Therefore, I agree to a small extent that criminals are born, not made.

Some people may think that people born with aggressive instincts are more prone to becoming criminals in the future. The public stereotypes gangsters who pick fights as aggressive people. They have this perception that since aggressiveness is innate, these aggressive people resort to violence to solve problems. A study in Denmark from 1924 to 1946 found that chronically criminal biological parents were three times as likely to produce a chronically criminal son as were biological parents with no such convictions. Yes, some criminals may be born with mental illnesses, but how many mental patients actually commit crimes? Even if they do so, many of them are influenced by external factors. Tsutomu Miyazaki, aka “the Little Girl Murderer” murdered many girls in the late 1980s and was found to be suffering from schizophrenia. However, most mental patients receive counseling and may be cured. Thus, this reiterates my point that the environment largely affects a person’s “criminal probability”.

Also, the mass media may be responsible for a person’s transition into a criminal. Many movies glorify crime and there is desensitization to the real world situation. Movies such as Ocean’s Eleven glamorize bank robbery and this will have a negative impact on a person’s values. One will believe that it is very possible to rob a bank and get away with it, when in reality, it is probably near impossible. Thus the public may pick up negative attitudes and behavior that may spur them on to committing crimes. Even “innocent” cartoons such as Power Rangers and Happy Tree Friends promote violence by perceiving fights as cool and portraying gory scenes as amusing scenarios. In 1993, England, two boys aged 11 were charged with the murder of James Bulger, a 2 year old toddler. After much investigation, their actions were found to be influenced by the Moor Murders, a similar crime committed years earlier. Prior to investigations, the boys were found to be normal, with no history of “bad genes”. Hiroyuki Tsuchida, 22, used a baseball bat to beat his mother to death in June 2003 in Japan. He was stopped before he could do the same thing to the rest in his family. When questioned, he claimed the anime series, Neon Genesis Evangelion, had given him the idea that humans should be eliminated, so he’d decided to start with his own family. Thus, this shows that a criminal, no matter what age and regardless of genetic makeup, is capable of committing a crime due to influences from other factors. In this case, the media proved to be extremely influential in this area.

Technology may also influence a person to commit crimes. With advancements in technology, people are more able to commit quick and fast cyber crimes. Compared to the past, people now will find it easier to siphon money off someone as it is easier and more efficient to transfer funds online, since technological security is imperfect and prone to failure. Piracy, another form of crime, is often practiced as the government lacks the manpower to conduct regular checks on people who pirate goods online. Thus, many websites pirating movies and software often go undetected. This lack of authority makes people bolder, and thus cyber crime popularity rises. In America, guns can be bought easily online and it is often difficult to trace the identities of these buyers. They might be tempted to kill because weapons are easily available. Temptation lures a person into crime regardless of genetic makeup. Thus technological advancements may give rise to borderless crime.

Family background moulds a person’s character and may cause him to become a criminal. Dysfunctional families and families which use violence excessively at home will expose their children to negative values and these children may then grow up to be criminals because they think it is right. Also, children who have little attention from parents may commit crimes to seek attention from their parents- “poor little rich kid” stereotype. Take for example the recent case of incestuous rape in Austria. In April 2008, Josef Fritzl was convicted of murder and rape. Later studies show that he had grown up without a father and his mother raised him singlehandedly with harsh beatings. John Wayne Gacy, an American serial killer who killed 33 people, also had an abusive family. His father was an alcoholic who often beat him up and called him a sissy. From these, it is evident that a criminal/s family background can have negative impacts on him or her; especially if negative experiences are had during childhood.

Therefore, I conclude that criminals are not born. Rather, they are shaped by the environment around them. Whether a person turns into a criminal or not is largely based on what he goes through in life.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

In my view, I feel that a country should not be involved in the internal affairs of another country as it is a form of invasion of privacy. However, countries can get involved in certain exceptions where, their assistance brings about positive impacts to the country. Therefore, through this write up I would state why I feel that in certain cases countries should intervene in the internal affairs of another and why they should not.

From the article, a clear example as to why countries should not intervene into other countries is the US-Iraq Situation that is taking in place. As stated in the article, when US troops invaded Iraq to annihilate the opposing terrorist forces, it also caused the death of 654,965 innocent Iraqis since 2006. This shows the problems that arise when countries intervene into the internal affairs of other countries. Moreover, when this happens, the government that intervenes may not fully understand the situation that the country is put in and may end up causing more problems rather than offering a helping hand to the country.

However, there are certain times where countries can intervene into the internal affairs of others. This happens when the victim country is undergoing severe problems such as rioting or political mishaps. A simple example occurred in the 1970’s regarding the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The Tamil tigers were a terrorist organization that was set up by frustrated Tamils over the government and state officials of Sri Lanka. They caused several problems that ranged from rioting to even killings. The killings were mainly off politicians and the Sinhalese citizens. Hence, to diffuse this rage between the two parties, the Indian government stepped in to solve certain problems by providing food and clothing to poor Sinhalese and Tamil peasants who were victims to the large scale sufferings. Therefore, it can be seen that in this case, the government stepped in to help Sri Lanka in its internal affairs and brought about a positive impact rather than to cause more problems. This is an apparent example as to how and when countries should intervene into the internal affairs of other countries.

In reference to Jia Hao’s write up, I agree with his stand and his arguments that support his stand as they are somewhat parallel to my viewpoints. Therefore, I would like to reiterate my stand by stating that, countries should only intervene into other countries’ internal affairs when there is a need to or when they are sure that their assistance would be of great help to the country. In other such cases, the country should not participate in government intervention into other cou

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

I do not agree that it is right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another, however, there are always certain exceptions in which the expertise and power of foreign nations is needed to help a country in its development.

In the case of the Iraq intervention by the American forces, the excess death toll which accounted for 2.5% of Iraq’s population is sufficient evidence to show that America’s intervention was not a successful one in helping the Iraqis regain peace and freedom. What started out as a liberation movement ended up with the American forces oppressing the Iraqis, creating confusion and chaos throughout the whole country. In this case, it is shown that the powerful nations would sometimes lose sight of their original intentions and cause more harms than benefits. Another example is the case of Rwanda, in which colonization by the European colonists led the classification of the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s, who were in fact a similar race and only a form of differentiation between those in the lower and higher social classes. The minority Tutsi’s were put in power by the colonists, and when the colonists left, the majority Hutu’s rose up against the Tutsi’s, and eventually began the Rwandan genocide, in which almost 800,000 Tutsi’s and moderate Hutu’s were killed in only a hundred days. This example shows how when the foreign intervening powers leave, they leave behind a power vacuum as well, and due to the country’s ethnic cultures and discrimination during the intervention, lead to severe problems in the country’s governance such as uprising by discontented citizens.

However, there are cases in which countries should be involved in the internal affairs of another. For example, in Sudan, the government actually supports slavery and other inhumane acts towards their own citizens. In these cases, foreign powers such as the developed European nations should step in and help to prevent such human rights abuse where the citizens are helpless to defend themselves against.

In conclusion, I feel that a country should not interfere in the internal affairs of another, unless absolutely necessary as in the case of Sudan, where human rights is non-existent. They should also be responsible for helping such countries back to peace and stability before they retreat from such countries to prevent the countries’ from falling back into anarchy.

I agree with Hui Min that if a country decides to interfere with another’s internal affairs, they should finish up what they started and ensure that the country has its own stable government capable of dealing with the internal affairs before leaving as doing otherwise would probably lead to the country falling into even greater chaos as in the case of Rwanda.

I do not agree with Aarommal’s idea that foreign governments should not step into another country’s internal affairs as their own government would know what is best for the people. Even though different races have their own form of culture and rules, the government may not necessary act in the people’s best interests, especially in the case of corrupted governments such as that of the Sudanese government, which not only did nothing to prevent the abuse of human rights, but also allowed and encouraged such acts to continue within its borders.

-JiaHao

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

In some cases, I feel that a country has no right to be involved in the internal affairs of another one. A country’s government should be left to deal with its internal affairs as it knows its people the best. Moreover, military intervention is the most unjustified form of internal affair involvement. When external countries interfere, they often cause more trouble then the help they extend. For instance, although USA had intentions of helping the Iraqi civilians, its troops did more damage then help with about 655000 being killed. Instead a larger and neutral body such as the United Nations Organizations should be the mainly be the one that will have the rights to interfere as it is an unbiased organization.

However in other situations, I feel that that a country can have the right to be involved in the internal another depending on the type and severity of the situation. If a country is affected by problems such as disease epidemics, other countries can get involved in helping to contain the epidemic as it will spread rapidly to other countries. An example was the SARS epidemic that started in China and spread to many other countries including Singapore. A country can also get involved in another’s internal affair when the affected country itself is unable to deal with its problems. For instance, when large scale natural disasters occur in countries, neighbouring countries can get involved by helping out in the rebuilding and recovering of the country. An example would be the tsunami in 2004 that badly hit Indonesia. Indonesia was aided by other countries, such as Singapore and Malaysia, in its recovery from the natural disaster.

Therefore, I feel that the right of a country to be involved in another’s internal affairs is dependant on the situation of the affected the country.

Countries should have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries only if they are capable and willing to resolve the aftermath of invasion. According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Despite insufficient evidence to support this claim, and protests from other UN countries such as France, US went ahead with the invasion. This resulted in the deaths of many innocents, although many terrorist groups were subdued as well. Although the US claims to be defending democracy, opinion poll after opinion poll shows a majority of Iraqis want them to leave. So was it right for them to invade Iraq? Studies have shout that the US have left Iraqis discontented with their current state, and have done nothing got resolve that matter. Conspiracy theorists have suspected the US of invading Iraq to control the oil supply, in an attempt to dominate the world by dominating the world resources. In this case, it is hard to determine if it was right for them to invade Iraq. For it to be “right”, the US still faces the arduous task of piecing back the Iraqi’s lives and restoring peace and stability to their country.
It is right to interfere in the affairs of another country if human rights are concerned. In Saudi Arabia, a man and woman were both gang raped recently. Instead of being show compassion, they now face more harsh treatment than the men who brutalized them. Their crime was to be sitting in a car together and be unmarried. This is a dreadful miscarriage of justice under any religious or civil regime and is one of many such cases where human rights are ignored and non- existent.
Thus, other countries should have the right to interfere and speak up for the people who have no voice in the judicial system of their own country. Ordinary Saudi people are said to be shocked at the judicial system but have no way of expressing their true views for fear of retaliation.
It may seem wrong to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries but sometimes it has to be done to ensure that justice and human rights are available to everyone regardless of gender, religion or nationality.
However, that being said, the government of each country should take care and run its own internal affairs in harmony with international law. Having another country solve one’s problem is not an effective method in the long run. The past couple of decades have given us a lot of evidences of the ill effects of this. To encourage the human rights in a proper manner, the cooperative international approach is all what needed very much.

Education has failed to make people educated. Do you agree that this is true for the people in your country.

Education as we all see it has been placed forth for us to supply us with the various types of information that one requires, not only in his education lifestyle but also for this future. In doing so, it not only educates a person academically, but also in a social manner where it helps to build a better person for the future ahead. Therefore, by looking at this point on whether education has failed to make people educated, I will be focusing mainly on whether it has educated one socially rather than academically. Hence, this statement is apparent for the people of my country and I can agree on the point that education has failed in his proper duties.

Crimes, vices and other socially undesirable activities are some examples to show how education has failed in his duties clearly. Through the process of gaining knowledge via education, each person naturally begins to become more confident of himself, determined, socially and morally upright and becomes a better person than he already is. However, due to the presence of such heinous activities, it has shown that education has failed to educate some of these people involved in such activities.

Through the days, various incidents have taken place which showcases certain adolescents who take up certain bad habits such as drugs, smoking or even to join a gang. Many people immediately pinpoint their parents to be the cause of their negative outcomes. However, has any one actually put a thought to whether the child’s education also played a part in his behavior? No. Hence, when dwelling deeper into this issue, it can be seen that education has failed in educating these people, not to choose the wrong paths in their lives. Subjects like “Civics and Moral education” have been implemented in the new curriculum in schools for a reason. Why then do we still see students are not morally upright? Education, in this case, has yet again failed to educate these youngsters.

Therefore, I reiterate my point that education has indeed failed in educating people and these specific groups of people can be seen around in my country. Education is a commodity that everyone can and must use to their fullest potential, It’s an opportunity for people to have a fresh start in their lives, or it can also help to change their lives for the better.

Is Formal Education over valued?

Formal education is necessary, but the over-emphasis on it by society today has resulted in my believing that formal education is indeed over valued. This problem is observed most clearly in Asian counties. There is so much emphasis placed on formal education that the students who undergo it are seen as a second priority. The students are seen as "dustbins" where knowledge can be dumped, as put in the second article. There is a severe lack of emphasis and society under values the importance of social skills. Formal education only gives students a set of things to know, not how to use them or when to use which one. Some of the unfortunate ones cannot even absorb this knowledge! The importance, and value that society has placed on this type of knowledge, on formal education is clearly beyond the socially optimal level. This is showing by the rising number of drop-outs and suicides caused by the rigid formal education system that society forces the students to undergo.

As said in the articles, although Asian students show a deeper understanding of Arithmetic and Science, they do not retain the knowledge they have gained on these topics after they leave the examination hall. The students do not have the "spark" in their eyes, "the eye of the tiger!" They are now simply going through the system because they have to, not because they enjoy it. The students who actually like a subject, or the rare student who has an affinity and liking for two subjects, are forced to make themselves more like others in the system, forcing them to focus on subjects they are not interested in. This is, as highlighted in the second article, one of the fatal flaws of the formal, mass education system. The system that we so love, has cut down the number of young, creative minds and created a nation of "worker bees," those who do "the rest of the jobs." By restricting a child, and causing him or her to become like the rest, we are destroying the potential of the child and those he is trying to become like. Since they all want to become educated to the same level, they are all the same, and have no value essentially. By not recognizing the loss it has brought to us, and still thinking it is the best way to get a good job, we have effectively over valued a flawed system, the formal education system.

“The main function of education should be to enable people to gain employment” Do you agree?

I do not agree that the main function of education should be to enable people to gain employment. Education teaches the students the general knowledge and skills such as social skills to enable them to survive in society when they graduate from their respective institutions. The students are also expected to learn moral values such as respect for the elders, which includes teachers and parents. To enable the people to gain employment should not be seen as the main function of education.
“The most important function of education at any level is to develop the personality of the individual and the significance of his life to himself and to others. This is the basic architecture of a life; the rest is ornamentation and decoration of the structure."- Grayson Kirk
As seen from this quote, the main function of education is to develop one’s personality and his significance. It is not simply to aid one in finding employment. However, education degrees has been used by several companies and employers as a basic guideline to gauge a person’s competence, hence the common misconception that education serves to help people gain employment. As such, I cannot deny that there are indeed quite a lot of students who pursue education just to increase their chances of finding employment.
Another function of education may be seen as political, by the government to instil certain forms of thinking or knowledge into the younger generation of the population. An example is the case of education in Nazi Germany, where education was used by the Nazi’s to ensure control over the people’s minds. For example, students were instilled the concepts of blood purity, and discrimination against non-Aryans. In this case, the main function of education was surely not to enable people to gain employment, but rather for political uses by the government in population control.

EDUCATION DOES NOT DEVELOP INDUVIDUALITY BUT CONFORMITY

Education today develops conformity rather than individuality in most cases.

Most of our formal education period is spent on what to learn and in what standard format to learn. There is often a specific syllabus that encompasses what we have to learn during a specified period of time and standard steps to how what is to be covered is learned and this includes even teaching methods. Examples include subjects such as mathematics which where students have to learn a certain number of topics, have to learn standard problem solving methods and teachers have specific teaching methods in most cases.

Our formal education system also includes standards that require us to pass common examinations in order to proceed to a higher level in education. Many schools even have certain compulsory subjects which students are forced to take up regardless of their interest in the subject.
All these clearly exemplify the conformity that education emphasizes. By setting such standard procedures and methods in education, a student is hindered from developing his own thinking, creativity and individuality. Every student that is subject to such an education system is molded to think in a particular manner with hardly any room for varying perspectives. Thus most of these students grow up more to be followers of existing systems and do not try to revolutionalize and think of more creative and better methods.

However, in certain cases, education develops individuality. The educational system nowadays is increasingly incorporating features such as leadership development of students through various methods such as co-curricular activities and leadership camps and workshop. All these help to teach students how to think as leaders and develop their individual leadership potentials. For instance, in co-curricular activities such as uniform groups, leaders are appointed and these leaders learn how to deal with different issues such as conflicts among members and learning to make full use of what you have.

Thus, to a large extent education does develop conformity.

Do you think there is a need for change in the educational system in your country?

The education system in Singapore is one that very much follows that of British system. In fact, our “A” and “O” level examinations are still from Cambridge. In Singapore, students learn a main language- English-and their mother tongues as the second language. A variety of subjects such as math, science and arts are also introduced to the students in their early years. The syllabus we follow is similar to that of England’s, reason being we want to keep our standards similar to that of England’s and the rest of the world.

I think the reason for the system to be of this nature is practical and logical. Firstly, Singapore is a multi racial country. It would be impossible for every one of us to learn all the languages of the four main groups. Also, adopting only one language as the official language would be unfair and may cause racial riots. Secondly Singapore, being a small country, does not have the power or capability to assert that people who want to communicate with it must learn its language. This is unlike Japan or China, where foreigners have to learn their language. Thus, to ensure effective communication between Singapore and the rest of the world, English was chosen, and the British educational system was adopted to ensure that our standards were up to mark with that of the world’s, since England is a very influential country.

However, a few changes to the system would be beneficial.

First of all, the original British education system was set up to create workers. Although Singapore has made changes to it over the years, by and large, the aim of the system still holds. Education in Singapore still remains very much a system of preparing people for the workforce. Even though this is a practical aim, it is flawed in many ways. Students nowadays view education only as a mean of getting certificates of proficiency and then securing a job in the industry. Education, it seems, is only about being able to live a good life at the end of the day. What happens is that although this is not the aim of the government, students often think it is, and School has turned into a place not for learning, but for competition. Students try to outdo each other and hopefully turn out to be the crème de la crème so that they may secure the best of jobs and live a smooth sailing life. Palto, who lived more than two thousand years ago, wrote that education was a lifelong endeavour. The perspective that students have here is that education stop after graduation.

Education in Singapore encourages conformity, generally. It does not allow enough individual expression, as much of the British system is based on teamwork. Perhaps that explains why Britain has produced fewer scientists and better soldiers. The American system, however, caters more to individual learning and has created more scientists and contributed more to the world than any other system. Bill Gates and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, both individuals in the education system, show how American education stimulates individuality, although it has the disadvantage of weakening the group.

A good education system would be a blend of the best systems in the world. Drastic changes are not required, since the brand of Singapore education is one envied by many. We produce results, as seen in the case of Raffles being an “Ivy League Machine”. Refinements are needed to strengthen the needs of individuals, and little emphasis should be placed on education being a quest for jobs.