PM's Speech

There are two major plans mentioned in mentioned in the PM’s speech. Firstly, it is the emphasis on the quality of schools in Singapore. This implies that besides top schools in Singapore, the neighbourhood schools will also be given assistance so as to provide quality education for all. More will be done to prepare and groom the students in neighbourhood schools. Secondly, the PM highlighted the introduction of a 4^th varsity and promised an increase in university admission from 23 percent to 30 percent by 2015. These plans seem like a good prospect for Singapore future, they will definitely aid Singapore in becoming the regional centre of academic excellence, pushing quality of education in Singapore a step further.

Improving the quality of education in neighbourhood schools sets everyone on level playing ground. Students from neighbourhood school receiving education of quality similar to that of a top school will spur them to achieve more in life. Besides, they will also find it easier to climb the ladders to success. However, the inferiority felt by a student coming from a neighbourhood school might still pose a problem. Despite the fact that the school provide quality education, a neighbourhood school student remains a neighbourhood school student. They see themselves as secondary when compared to someone from a top school. They never thought or never dared to think of outshining those students whose schools speak for themselves.

On the contrary, this plan will prove importance to Singapore’s workforce in the future. By emphasizing on the quality of schools also means that the government is recognizing the students in neighbourhood schools. The government has not forgotten about them. This will help to foster a strong sense of belonging to the country. As such, when these students graduated, they will be willing to serve the country. Instead of going overseas, they will stay rooted to Singapore and contribute to the workforce as a form of reciprocation. When this happens, Singapore will have its pool of talents and more investors will be willing to invest in Singapore as investment goes to places where talents congregate.

In conclusion, I feel that both the plans will be beneficial to Singapore. They are workable in Singapore’s context and they are crucial in sustaining the country’s competitiveness and achievements.

5 out of 100 points enough to enter varsity in Taiwan"

After reading what Fiona had posted in the lastest entry, i share the same sentiment as her.


As Fiona mentioned, students in Singapore are facing stiff competition for a place in university but the opposite is true for Taiwan. Admission criteria in Taiwan are relaxed to allow more students to be admitted into the university because there are ample vacancies. However, it reflects very badly of the quality of the undergraduates when even one who managed 5/100 is able to make it into the university. I believe many of the JC students would be atonished to see this report. In Singapore, they are combating ever-rising stress level, sacrificing their so called 'life' and quality time with family and friends to make sure they ace their major exams so that they can get into university. On the contrary, their Taiwan equivalents only have to score a miserable 5 points and they will be successfully admitted into a university. You may claim that Singapore's universities provide quality education which is internationally-recognized, hence the stiff competition. However, it is absurd for a university to take in students who are way below the minimum criteria just for the sake of filling up the empty places. It is only fair that all the universities in the world strive to provide quality education for their people and standardize the minimum admission criteria such that all degree-holders are of a certain qualification.

Fiona also pointed out that in Singapore, attaining a degree is the fundamental before you can step into the society. True to words, in a competitive society like Singapore, a degree is a must-have. Anything less than that, you are disadvantaged. Nowadays, even graduates find it difficult to apply for jobs, let alone those who are inferior. Unless you have any special talents or you perform exceeding well in a certain field, it is almost impossible for you to survive without a proper education background. In today's context, Singapore had revolutionalized into a knowledge-based economy. Knowledge is the word that keeps the economy going. Any inability to absorb and acquire the knowledge available to you, you will be left behind. Anyone who had gone through or is going through the Singapore education system will know that it is indeed a stress one. It is both mentally and physically taxing. Students are to meet deadline after deadline. As the word deadline suggests, if you are unable to do so, you are as good as dead. As the country's emphasis on education increases, there is a need for people to work even harder to attain more than a degree in this case.

In conclusion, Taiwan's university should not resort to excessive relaxation of the admission criteria to increase intake, this will only devalue the quality of it's students.

Can poverty ever be eradicated?

I feel that poverty can never be eradicated.

In passage 1, Kathmandu claims that "a country with an unfavorable geography, or culture, or economy or polity is severely handicapped to make sufficient technological advances that increase the wealth and living standards of its people". I agree with the point as these are the various factors contributing to the wealth of a nation. A mountainous country is disadvantaged as the accessibility of the place is affected naturally. Before the country can make any economic progress, it has to first throw in money to 'remove' the mountains or construct tunnels. On the other hand, a farmer will always remain a farmer if he receives limited or no education. In this case, culture of a country plays an important role. If the country does not place emphasis on educating its people, the nation will remain stagnant. Economy and polity affect the people directly. A poor economy provides people with little opportunites, competition within the country will eventually become stiff. Such high level of umemployment will affect the nation adversely. The people do not enjoy high level of standard of living. We can see these factors hindering the progress of many countries. For example, in India, the culture, economic and polity have caused the country to suffer, unable to remove its title as a third world country.

In Passage B, Sachs feels that what the world had done for the poor is insufficient. I think along the same line as Sachs as there is more that we can help to alleviate the poverty in the world. The most direct help will be assistance from the rich nations. However, only 5 countries in the world have lived up to their words of contributing 0.7 percent of their national income to aid the poorer nations. As Sachs has raised up in the passage, it only that US $6 to help the poors in Africa to fix a mosquito net on the bed but not many come to realize that this little sum can actually reduce the number suffering from Malaria significantly. However, I feel that it is impossible to eradicate poverty, let alone in 20 years time. Poverty is here to stay as there will always be a gap between the rich and the poor. Moreover, by considering the help we can garner from around the world, it is an impossible feat to eradicate poverty. Poverty had been deeply enrooted to the society throughout centuries, to uproot it now would have been too late.

Since a country can hardly overcome its natural 'disabilities' and the world is not doing enough to help the poor, poverty can never be eradicated.

Are you for or against death penalty

I am for death penalty as the functions it serves and the effect it causes outweigh the negative impacts raised up by abolitionists.

Death penalty is imposed on criminals who had committed severe offences such as murder. These offences are so serious that once a criminal commits any of the offence, they are unpardonable. The most reasonable punishment for these criminals will be death penalty as they should not have any intention to engage in the crime they committed in the first place.

As pointed out by the article by Gary S. Becker, death penalty when used in severe offences deters other criminals. Even though the second article by Antonio Cassese brought up an ethical argument based on the commandment “thou shalt not kill” which also enjoins the state from killing, I feel that when taking away one’s life can do more good than retaining it, killing should be the way out. Furthermore, Becker also mentioned that most people fear death, only when the terror of life outweighs the terror of death will a man put an end to his life. By executing criminals, the country has set the tone that they are intolerant to these criminal. As such, fellow citizens should not have any intention in committing such crimes unless they are tired of living.

Cassese stated that in a modern democracy, punishment must be not only retributive, but should also try to rehabilitate the criminal in order to enable him to live in society with other human beings. However, Becker who held an opposing view had a concrete evidence to debunk this politically correct statement. If the criminal did not receive punishment that of the same severity of his crime, he will not learn his lesson, when released from prison, the possibility of them, in this case, killing again is highly possible. Again, when these criminals are not dealt with seriously, wrong message will be sent across to the public and the criminals might assume that the government is tolerant of such offences.

One example in Singapore context will be drug trafficking. In Singapore, drug trafficker regardless of the amount of drugs he is carrying will be sentence to death upon arrest. This sets the tone for Singapore towards the offence and deters criminals. A few years back, a drug trafficker who happened to be a foreigner bypass Singapore airport on his journey to another country. However, upon detection, he was arrested and sentenced to death. Despite appeal from the country the man came from, the government remained firm with its stand and insisted that it is only fair to carry out necessary punishment as the drug trafficker had violated the laws in Singapore. This incident served as a warning for drug traffickers from local as well as abroad and drug trafficking in Singapore remains under control with these measures in place.

Hence, with all the plus points that come with death penalty, I support it. A note for those who are against: The criminals have a choice before they commit, when they finally made their choice, it is only right for them to bear full responsibility of their actions.

Why Singapore isn't First World yet?

I referred to the article "Why Singapore isn't First World yet" as reported in The Straits Times on 21st July 2007. After reading the article, i understand why Singapore has yet to be classified under the First World despite the fact that Singapore has almost all that it takes to be one. However, the area that Singapore lacked is the crucial determinant.

Many people question why Singapore is not First World yet. Although we have cutting-edge technology, enjoy prosper and uphold numerous first world titles, we are lacking in one area - the people. Singapore has got its hardware first class but not its software. In this case, the software refers to fellow Singaporeans.

Singaporeans are still unable to ensure proper decorum expected from citizens of a First World country. In the article, the author pointed out the areas which Singaporeans are penalized when compared to some countries which are already in the First World list.

Singaporeans identify themselves through the innate characteristic called 'kiasu'. However, this unique identity is the main obstacle obstructing them on the path towards a First World citizen.

In Tokyo, they queue up for the public transportations and even lifts. There is no trace of 'kiasu' spirit in them even though many spend more than an hour each day commuting to and from their workplace.

It is a common scene to see commuters talking loudly on their mobile phones and plugging in their earphones, listening to their mp3s at top volume. Singaporeans seem to be rather inconsiderate when they are using the public facilities. When it comes to Japaneses, it is a different picture all together. In spite of Japan being a forerunner in cellphone technology, commuters seldom use their phones on the train, and are even required to switch them off when in the section of a train designated for people with pace-maker.

In some occasions, Singaporeans hog up both sides of an escalator even though they knew that the right side should be made accessible for those who are in a rush. When asked to give way, they are usually slow and unwilling.

I had a personal experience a few days back. The notice on the screen clearly mentioned that the commuters are not to board the next train yet many ignored the notice. When the MRT arrived, they swarmed to the door and blocked the pathway for passengers to exit from the train. It was only when the lights in the train extinguish then people realize that they should not board the train.

Lastly, the attitude of service providers also determine if the country is First World. In Japan, the shopkeepers and staff offer polite, helpful and professional service. Sad to say, the opposite is true for Singapore. If you were to walk into a shop without buying any goods, the shopkeeper will not bother not serve you. It is only when you are going to buy their products then they will start to give you their best service. This should not be the case if Singapore wants to be first class, we must improve on our service attitude.

A quote from the article, "A First World country deserves its status when it not only has a First World infrastructure and economy, but also when its people possess and exhibit a First World mindset - among other things, public-spiritedness and the attitude of excelling in whatever they do". I totally agree with what the author suggests.

What do you think are some of the challenges facing Singapore as the country plays host to more people from different backgrounds and cultures?

Singapore has been playing host to people from differnt backgrounds and cultures for the past decades and this is going to be the case in a long run. Singapore will remain as an immigrant society in the future. Foreigners now take up 25 per cent of the nation's population and this number is expected to grow as the birth rate in Singapore refuse to increase. Opening the nation to immigrants who will eventually reside, apply for PR or even citizenship is the practical solution to Singapore's problem.

However, the influx of foreigners into the country has drawn much attention from the existing citizens, especially those who were borned locally. Ever since Singapore started to "import" foreign talents into the country, they have been perceived as a threat to the people. It is obvious that, in many citizens' opinion, to include another race into the multi-racial society is a bitter pill for them to swallow.

In the people's eyes, the foreigners are here to 'rob' them of their opportunity in the workforce. They threaten the future of the employees, making them fear that they are unable to secure their job. As a result, Singaporeans are unwelcoming and aloof towards the foreigners , they tend to ostracize them and cannot help to care less about them.

Such treatments from the locals make it hard for the foreigners to adapt to a brand new environment. They are unable to seek assistance from their neighbours and they have put up with glares and discrimination in the workplace. If this continues, it would be very unfortunate for the country as Singapore will remain as an immigrant society. More problems will arise in time to come.

Sinaporeans fail to see that the government's hospitality towards foreigners is an effort to ameliorate the situation of falling population. Singapore stands to benefit when foreigners migrate to Singapore as they set the standards for profession in the workforce and helps to impart relevant skills to their partners at work. A win-win situation for both the country and immigrants.

Those who are narrow-minded will resent the government and misjudge its policy as being anti-citizens. Feeling indignant and also unvalued by the country, they will not co-operate when the situation calls for it, disrupting the proper functioning of the workforce. The morale of the workforce will be affected and the government's initial aim to raise the quality of the workforce would turn out to be otherwise.

Globaliztion facilitates the flow of talents across the world, some highly-educated Singaporeans who can afford to migrate to other countries will do so to seize better opportunity in the world. In this case, the government's efforts to increase the country's population will all go to waste as the increment of population through immigration cannot compensate for the reduction due to migration.

If no action is carried out to resolve these problems, Singapore's economy will be crippled as we are very dependent on our people, whether local or foreign. Social unrest is bound to occur if the discrimination persists and racial harmony within the nation will be put at stake. It is important that we, Singaporeans, show acceptance to foreigners and assist them to help ourselves.

In your view, what are the likely political and socio-economic impacts of the demographic changes we see in the world today?

As human population continues to expand, the impacts it has on the world seem to proliferate at the same rate. With falling number of food and water supplies, it looks like the Earth is not coping well with the demographic changes. In this case, the “earthlings” are nowhere better.

In the case of politics and economy, the changes have caused dire consequences. An expert claimed that as a country’s population age plummets, economic and political powers follow suit. Japan and numerous countries in Europe are experiencing such trend and they are trying to ameliorate the situation through various means. For Japan’s case, in order not to lose its standing as the leading country in electronics, people in Japan (even the elderly) have to constantly upgrade their skills so that they remain competitive and relevant to the industries. Fierce competition occurs among students as they seek their ways to make it to the top University in order to survive in the country.

China, one of the world most populous countries, has been taking initiatives to help reduce and keep the population of the country in control. Recent report stated that China had successfully abated its population by more than one million. This contribution by China lessens the world’s load significantly as resources can now be channeled to other uses. Remaining resources can now sustain the world’s population for a longer period and the “earthlings” now have a longer time to discover alternatives for the future generations.

As demographic in the world shifts towards aging population, it adds stress on both the old and young people. Take for example Singapore’s population is forming an inverted pyramid, this implies that Singapore is about to face problems from aging population. We can already see that society is adding on to the people’s burden. The elderly have to work for a longer period as there is not enough people to sustain the workforce. On the contrary, the young people have a heavier burden as they do not have many siblings to split their responsibility to take care of their parents. They are taxed more heavily as the country has to invest in facilities for the comfort of the senior citizens.