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.

It is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts-do you agree?

I disagree that it is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts. However, it is also incorrect to say that it is extremely easy to achieve it. When there is an "income divide" between the people of the world, how can they all possibly focus on something like the environment, which does not fulfill their basic necessities directly? When there are people dying of starvation in some countries, and when there are people in other countries facing obesity problems, how is is possible that the leaders from both nations can reach a consensus on anything, let alone the environment. In such cases where countries are unable to look at an issue from one point of view, as in the case of the environment, there must be some "middle-man" to allow both countries to look at the issue and understand how they can both benefit from it. In this case, we have the UN. With the UN, assuming it plays its role the way we think it is(the good guy way), then no nation will have a problem seeing how the saving of the environment benefits them, making the arriving at a consensus on environmental conservation efforts easy.

To reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts would be to get a perfect collaborative effort from all the nations of the world, including those not in the UN, that would ultimately lead to the saving of the environment. One example of how the countries of the world have tried and failed to achieve this, is the Kyoto Protocol. In this case, many developing countries and some of the largest carbon emitters of the world, USA, were not included. Without these countries, as he article on the Kyoto Protocol points out, the Kyoto Protocol could not even matter, let alone make a difference. Instead, had these countries all come together and tried to look at the most feasible way to change the downward trend that the environment is taking, the world could have turned out a very different place, despite the short time period. This is not impossible to achieve, and given that we have achieved the Kyoto Protocol, we could achieve this with a little more planning and a bit of understanding on the part of the countries of the world.

Also, if we achieved a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts, then everyone will be reducing their carbon footprint, and what Jia  Hao said in his post is no longer valid. This is because he has taken a very pessimistic view that no matter what he does as an individual, he is not decreasing the carbon emissions of the world in general. This is not true! If everyone did their part, then we would be on our way to achieving the goal of less than 1.2. tonnes of carbon per person per year!

The Current Hype Over Environmental Issues Is Unnecessary. Do You Agree?

I feel that the current hype over environmental issues is necessary. Environmental problems have become a major issue in our world today with global warming and pollution becoming more and more widespread, threatening the very existence of our dear planet. These problems are mainly attributed to the actions of careless, selfish and ignorant people who do not think about or know about the consequences of their actions. Thus little is being done to curb this problem.

This is why the hype over environmental issues must come into play. Currently, we see that only few people whom are aware of the causes of and consequences of environmental problems are taking actions to save our planet. Even out of those whom are aware, many have the ‘why bother?’ toward environmental issues making the attempts of those people insignificant as only if the planet works as a whole can we create a significant enough impact. The current hype will help to create greater awareness among people in terms of environmental issues and the need to solve them. Thus more and more people would start acting more environmental consciously and spread the movement to other people they know.

Moreover, the current hype will also prompt relevant authorities to take action. An example would be the montreal protocol in Canada and the Kyoto protocol in Japan. These were the result of the awareness and the hype over environmental issues in the past and have had many positive effects such as the significant reduction of CO2 ­­­ and ozone depleting substances such as CFCs in many countries, Without the montreal protocol, the release of CFCs would have increased by ten fold leading to much higher incidence rates of skin cancers and eye cataracts. Thus with the hype, authorities would be prompted into such actions and this is vital as the authority has much power and is one of the few entities that can ensure implementation of environmental solutions in society.

In response to Huimin’s post, I agree that much has to be done to educate youths about environmental issues and encourage them to be pro-environment. I feel that it would be easier to inculcate this into youths as compared to adults who would generally be more rigid–minded and difficult to change. Moreover when we inculcate pro-environmentalism in people at a young age it is likely that they would continue to be pro-environment in the future and being the future leaders would be more involved in the process of saving our environment.

The current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary-Do you agree?

When speaking about the environment and issues concerning it, one has to look at it in deeper details rather than just a general overview. Apparently, it is also known, that in recent times, the environmental issues have stirred up much controversies and in so doing, has formed a global debate amongst countries as to whether the ongoing hype over environmental issues is imperative or not. In my opinion, I feel that the current hype is necessary. In real life scenario, its degree of importance is way more than just necessary itself. It is more like a must.

Many issues have been related to the environment, such as the current effects of global warming and the levels of carbon emissions in various countries. These issues are the main cause of the recent hype. They have sparked off questions from various opposing parties but still, no one has yet to come up with a sensible conclusion. In this era of the 21st Century, we must understand that it is no longer “I” but more like “Us”. It is true that every one person can make a difference in decreasing the harsh effects of Global Warming. However, what is the use if you are the only one, out a population of 6.6 billion people, who is practicing energy conservative methods, shifting your lifestyle to more of a “green” one and most importantly, caring for the environment. In the end, it is the contribution from every person in the world that will help to save this planet for future generations to come.

Moreover, referring to the article on “Saving the World”, it was stated in the passage, that certain statistics by the environmentalists are actually wrong or mostly unreliable. This is shown by the numerical data of the number of polar bears. All long, environmentalists have been telling us that due to global warming the existence of polar bears is at stake. However, actual statistics actually shows that the population number of the polar bears actually increased. This has brought up another issue, that gets us thinking as to whether the facts we hear are true or not.
Referring to Hui Min’s blog post on the same topic, I would like to comment on one of her views. This is regarding the fact that she said, in today’s world, we are breeding a generation of ignorant youths. This statement may not be completely true. In Addition, I feel that the youths of today are actually more aware of the environment than the youths of the past. It is this group of people that are involved in the formation of most “Green environmentalist” groups. An example is the formation of a few groups under the ECO (Environmental Challenge Organization) in Singapore. This shows that youths of today are actually more involved in caring for the environment, and take the extra step in doing so.

Therefore, I conclude my post, by reiterating the point that, it is necessary for the current hype over environmental issues today, as it will further broaden the perspective of the issue, which will then make space for more opinions that may end up saving the environment for the better in the long run.

The current hype over environmental issues is unecessary- do you agree?

I disagree that the current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. With rising temperatures and increased health problems such as skin cancer, the need for concern over such issues pertaining to the environment is much greater than ever.

Although there is much to be clarified about the current information out there regarding the effects of environmental changes- as much information is being distorted to scare people and thus gain support for pro- environmental issues- we cannot ignore the fact that something bad is happening to earth, though it may be happening at a slower rate. Take for example the topics covered in the article ‘The truth about the environment’. Much of the information regarding the detrimental effects on the environment is questioned. Although scientists claim that the earth is running out of food, the truth is that more people are getting fed, and also less people starve. However, we cannot disregard the need for environmental conservation solely based on these minor facts. We are facing an even bigger problem; one that will continue is a downward spiral if we do not do anything about it. The earth needs saving and we have to realise it before it is too late.

Yes, although the earth may be deteriorating at a slower rate than perceived, we cannot just dismiss the idea of going green to save the earth. Think about it. If we do not start cutting down on our carbon emissions now, the earth would have even more carbon in the atmosphere 50 years from now than if we had decided to cut down our emissions initially. Although it may not affect us, future generations would be affected and they would have to bear the brunt of our selfish actions. Let’s say we continue to be indifferent and continue releasing as much carbon into the air as we want to. 1000 years from now, the world may be too hot for any living thing, except maybe the cactuses in the desert. To ensure the survival of mankind, we must do something now, and even more should be done to promote pro-environmental actions. Thus, the Montreal protocol is necessary and relevant. It has saved mankind of 20 million cases of skin cancer and many other devastating effects.

In present society, where we are breeding a generation of ignorant youths, the need to create awareness on environmental issues is bigger than ever. We have to educate them on the state of the earth and make a big deal out of it so as to ensure that something will be done. Thus, the hype is more than necessary- It is essential.

It is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts. Do you agree?

I do agree it is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts. In countries of poverty, environmental conservation is an idea that only the rich think about. Think about it. If you have problems feeding yourself to three meals a day, would you have the time or the energy to think about saving the environment? Similarly, poorer or developing countries have their priorities set on improving their quality of life, and as seen from the graph of London's air pollution in the article, “The truth about the environment”, developing countries first have to undergo a stage whereby pollution will reach its highest peak. The most convenient way for countries to develop happen to go against the idea of environmental conservation.
In the case of the article, “The way we live now. Why bother?” The author states down the idea that even if he chose to go totally green, changing his lifestyle right from the roots, there are still others who produces enough carbon to replace what the author’s green lifestyle saves. Hence, no matter what one does, the effect on the whole global world is in fact very insignificant. What we enjoy now may not be enjoyed in other countries. While we have enjoyed years of internet access, people in other countries may have just started enjoying their first internet experience. Similarly, while we have taken buses and cars to work every day for the past decades, people in other countries may have just started having buses as a form of transport. Who are we to tell them that the buses they ride in contribute to global warming and that they should revert back to the most primitive forms of transport? As seen from these, the rate at which society advances determine how ready the people are to accept environmental conservation ideas. Developed countries thus have to take the initiative so that developing or undeveloped countries may follow in its footsteps in the future.
Everyone enjoys the benefits of a greener earth. But who is the one doing the work? Assuming a country decides to go green, totally. Laws are set to switch all petroleum-based cars to hybrids, and all houses are to be fitted with black solar panels to generate their own energy. The neighbouring countries too enjoy the benefits without having to spend a single dollar. Given the high costs of environmental conservation efforts such as the Kyoto protocol, countries would be reluctant to do their part in environmental conservation. Different countries will also have different abilities in their environmental conservation efforts. Countries will then strive to enjoy the greatest benefits while spending the minimal effort, leading to conflicts among the different countries which feel unfairly treated. Thus it would be impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts.

Globalization and domination of Sports

As the author put it, this is the age of Sport. Everyone is involved in it. People of all age groups, all genders, all races and religions are interested in sport. Any form of sport, competitive or not, is seen as a sport. As such, everyone wants to be involved in it. It is true that, in the years before modern culture, sport was a "niche," and as the author put it, a big niche, but a niche nonetheless. This is true, and for a long time, people also did not see sport as a part of their lives, but simply an action, something they went through for the sake of it. 

People are also more interested in being healthy, and health involves some form of work. This has also lead to the domination of sport. Sports are now seen as a way of making oneself healthier. People are therefore more encouraged to work out, and the easiest way to work up a sweat is obviously football, or any other form of sport for that matter. Since health is being seen, increasingly, as a necessity, the method of obtaining it in a fun and easy way is seen as being valuable and is hence more dominant. Sport is also regarded as an art form by many, and rightfully so. Sport allows us to explore all our emotions, utilize our body for a "higher goal."

Sport also gives people a sense of belonging. Since people both participate in and watch sports, they are more involved in it. As they say, "You'll never walk alone." Thus, as the author put it, you are more involved in this cultural event that is much unlike any other, since you are inclined to watch it and take part in it. The thrill of the sporting event, and the idolized players, all draw members of the public to watch the sport. All people of the world are banding together, and watching and playing sport. Hence, sport transcends cultures, religions, and language. It has become so dominant, that you could even toss a ball between two boys who are fighting and watch them turn into friends, to play a match. 

These are all indications that sport has become globalized and dominant.

People Today Need To Exercise

Yes, I agree with the author’s reasons as to why people want to exercise. We humans have always led active lifestyles; at least until the past century or so. Over the past century, there have been many technological breakthroughs and advancements that have impacted the world in proportions that are unimaginable. An example would be the invention of machines such as the computer. The computer, though has enabled the world to run more efficiently, has cased people to become more lazy. With the world at their fingertips, people now use the computer to do everything possible.

Therefore, people find less need to move about due to such technology and are living very much sedentary lifestyles. This sudden change in lifestyle is too drastic for the human body to adapt to. This results in problems in the form of diseases such as coronary heart disease and obesity. Moreover, people believe that there are instant cures and solutions for these diseases but fail to realize that their lifestyle is the root to all their problems and that prevention through an active lifestyle is the best root to a healthy life. Thus, to reduce such problems, people need to exercise to keep themselves fit.

There are also other reasons I feel for the need for people to exercise. People of today live in a very competitive and a stressful environment. They spend a great amount of time stuck in their offices with their eyes glued to their papers and computers and continue their ordeal at home. Thus, many people get stressed up and tensed. Exercise can be a very good stress reliever. By doing exercise, not only do they get to stretch their tensed up muscles but the exercise also helps to release endorphins which are natural stress relievers. This can help them better deal with the stress they experience. In fact, it was found that patients with major depression randomized to an exercise group had declines in depression equal to those of a group that received antidepressants. Moreover, the exercisers were less likely than the medication group to relapse six months after treatment, and patients who maintained exercise during follow-up were 50 percent less likely to become depressed than those who did not exercise.

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

Torture as we all know is a very strong term used in the modern-day context. It can mean basic physical torture of even psychological torture. However, by addressing the question, the issue of whether the use of torture is justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists is a controversial issue.

When looking into the detailed picture, the usage of torture on criminals may sound more exaggerated then when it is said to be used on terrorists. The basic so-called “qualification” to be a criminal is probably a snatch theft or robbery. In such cases, is there a need to use torture to suck out the truth from these “criminals”? In my opinion, I would obviously disagree to the point. No one in the world has the right to harm others for their own good. In this case, using torture against these criminals is just a way to attain a specific truth out of these people for the authorities’ own good. Hence this is rightfully wrong and should not be practiced.

However, some may pull out their own side of their stories by stating the various incidents that have occurred that crushed the lives of many innocent people, by certain selfish terrorist groups. Hence, in doing so, the usage of torture on this group of people is ethically right. This opinion, in my view is merely one that is felt through uprising emotions in the affected people. In the fit of anger and hatred, they hope that the perpetrators will get punished rightfully for their mistakes and if these people are not cooperative with the officials, then the usage of torture must be implemented promptly. A clear example was the September 9/11 attacks that occurred in the US. This incident apparently trampled many innocent lives and stirred up much feeling in their loved ones that they would do anything to ensure that terrorists involved were tortured till they admitted the truth of what actually happened.

Similarly, torture is just a means of getting the truth out of convicted personnel. However, what makes it so certain that it is the ONLY way that can be used to bring the truth to light. Has anyone asked the question of whether the convict will still remain stubborn and not let out the truth even after undergoing serious torture? In this case, what was the use of torture then? Merely to take revenge on the convict? To prove a point that the authorities have the most power? If not then what exactly is it?

Therefore, in my opinion, I feel strongly and slant towards the fact that I deem the usage of torture on criminals and terrorists to be unjustifiable. I came to this conclusion after several thoughts and feel that no one has the right to harm others. In this case, if the authorities still use torture on the terrorists and convicts, then what makes them any better from the terrorists who also caused harm to others?

-V.Nandeeshwar ( Post for the previous week)

My views on the statement of,’ The Union between sports and business is “often an uneasy one”. ‘

As stated in the article of “The business of sport”, sports and business have separate codes, interests and priorities. This is apparent in today’s sporting industry. Fundamentally this just states the fact the sports and business do not share much common similarities between them. Meaning, once they are united, expecting a positive outcome may be rare.
Sports/the involvement in sports seems to be an uprising trend amongst many globally in this era of the 21st century. Many “secretive” sports like tennis, squash and bowling are starting to shine in the sporting industry due to the exceptional participation by youths today. However, as we all know, sporting is “so-called, nothing” without sponsors. Sponsors are the key to the development in a specific sport.

Sponsorships mean more advertising. More advertising of the sport than leads to a skyrocketing interest in that sport. However, in today’s scenario, this statement can be a controversial issue to begin with.

Apparent examples show that sponsors have helped to increase the attractiveness of a certain sport. This is shown by the Motor Racing Industry, which has seen a massive hike in its magnetism to the sport and has also been classified to be a commercial break rather than a sport in past years. When looking at this statement, the portion on “…been classified to be a commercial break rather than a sport…” speaks wonders. This itself is a perceptible reason as to why the actual “Code” of the word sport is diminishing and why business when linked to sports, views massive profits. Therefore, one main reason as to why the union of business and sport is an uneasy one is because of the fact that the culture of sport is being brought down by the upcoming business sponsors, such as “Nike” for example.

Another key factor as to why the union of business and sport is an uneasy one, Is the stereotyping of sports stars. Five years ago, when Roger Federer (World Ranked 1 in Tennis) was mentioned to a teen or a young adult, their response would basically be, “yeah, he plays great on the court”. On the other hand, when you ask an adolescent who is Roger Federer, they give you a reply stating that, “oh yeah! Isn’t he the one appearing for the Gillette Shaving Advertisement?” This is what business has brought to the sporting world. An image that blinds the viewers from the truth but at the same time, portraying to them a false image of a certain personnel. Similarly, when asked who Maria Sharapova is, it would be obvious to obtain an answer going,” Isn’t she the model for the latest digital cameras?” This is what has come about to the world of today, and it is brought about mainly due to the union between business and sports. Therefore, in this case, business /sponsors do not just help to make one famous, but makes him/her famous in the wrong way. The identities of famous sportsmen are likely to be lost through this in years to come.

It is definitely wrong to say that sports should never merge with the business industry in terms of sponsors. If that is the case, none of us would be interested to take up a new sport every now and then. Without sponsors, the attractive segment of sports will be lost. However, if the power of business overshadows the sporting industry, then the likely outcome to that will be the clear dwindling of sports and the sporting culture.

-V.Nandeeshwar.