Graded Article 6: Win, not lose, when you draw later ...

This article is about CPF, one issue deeply related to us Singaporeans (coupled with our aging population, the concerns for the elderly seem to be more frequent nowadays.)

Link: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/207442.asp
****

CPF… one topic tied closely to our hearts, and something that we will most probably need to lean back on when we are old and, most importantly, retired. Well, as an active Singaporean, we should focus more on local affairs, and the issue of Singapore’s aging population is one such issue. Many articles have been written across the month about Singapore’s policies on retirement, particularly pushing the actual age of retirement from 62 to 65. This is a sign of the increase in the number of elderly in Singapore, and how the government in now trying to push back the retirement age so that the elderly can be occupied.

Throughout the years, Singapore has been promoting the idea of keeping an active lifestyle even as an elderly. This is one major policy that Singapore has been keeping to for a rather long amount of time. The elderly have been encouraged to partake in courses and activities to upgrade and occupy themselves, and many of the government campaigns are centered around that too. This is enough to show how the government views this trend as a challenging one to settle, and how the government is trying so hard to take care of the elderly.

And yet, the problems are still not settled. The increasing number of the elderly is causing an economic imbalance. When the elderly retire, they do not receive and ‘salary’ except for some money from their children, or if they choose to do odd jobs like collecting metal cans. One worrying trend happening in Singapore is the disowning of the elderly by their children, which may cause a polarization when the younger generation gets richer and the older generation depletes their savings bit by bit. In order to counter this worrying trend, extending the age of retirement is one way to slowly increase the independence of the older folk. I daresay that the age of retirement will be pushed up even higher over the ages.

And yet, is there really a need to make the old work even more? Singapore is pushing for the old to retire later, but why should the old work even more? Many Singaporeans consider working well late into their 70s as one of their most primarily concerns. Many Singaporeans express willingness to work till the 70s, which is actually quite worrying for Singapore itself. Yes, Singapore has been established as one great economic hub in the world. And yet, something within the lives of the people seem to be diminishing. People are now becoming robots that work all day, and want to work all day for just a bit more money.

Monetary concerns rank high in our current society, and many work hard in order to enjoy a good life later. However, with the pushing of retirement age, when is it actually time for us Singaporeans to slow down and enjoy life as we should? Maybe we have forgotten how to get a life…

Maybe we should learn to slow down for a bit, instead of pushing the retirement age furiously.

(508 words)

Graded Article 5: Are ERP hikes the only way?

Well, it's time to update this blog again. This time, I shall be commenting on the issues brought up by this letter from James Teo.

Link: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/207675.asp

****
Well, the ERP is probably one of Singapore's most defining trait in the fields of transport. Singaporeans and PRs alike hated this Pricing system designed to reduce traffic congestion. However, many have observed that the ERP actually caused more problems over the years, instead of reducing the already serious congestion. Many self-conscious drivers wake up early in the morning to beat the ERP system, so the traffic jam is actually just pushed forward. In fact, the jam became worse after the ERP system kicked in, as many Singaporeans try to beat the system before the Pricing starts, thus the many cars on the road in the morning. The ERP also makes the roads redundant in the afternoon, as many drivers try to avoid passing through the gantry when the Pricing is on.

In this letter, Mr Teo addresses the problem of the new ERP charges, and hints indirectly to the government that ERP is not the solution to Singapore's traffic congestion. In fact, it is one of the roots of the problem. This article is straight to the point, but addresses many problems that the drivers face at this present age. And I do agree with the writer that the ERP is not a way to solve traffic problems, and that it is time to source for new solutions.

Firstly, ERP is indeed a bane to the traffic condition. Not many people would want to pay additional taxes for going through the ERP while it is working, so the ERP is practically useless in reducing the traffic. Many Singaporeans actually sees it as a restriction to where they can go, or which route they can take for the fastest way into town. In fact, ERP is avoided by the kiasu Singaporean, as no one would want to pay more for shaving five minutes off their bus/car trip.

The ERP also encourages speeding and cramming, as Singaporeans try to rush through the gantries before the ERP starts. This is especially dangerous for the traffic, as many cars would be traveling at a very high speed (or rather, try to). An increase in the amount of cars hitting the road at the time may mean more car accidents, especially if the drivers are willing to speed to beat the system.

So what? It may even be better for Singapore to remove the ERP entirely, as it is basically a hindrance in the traffic system. In fact, the early morning jams are caused by the huge amount of cars trying to get into the city before seven. Taxes are not going to work for Singaporeans who refuse to pay more for convenience. I do not think that many Singaporeans will be receptive to the idea of a harsher driving test, but Mr. Teo’s idea of ‘stacking’ the highways may work. After all, Singaporeans are trying to move higher up, right? An increase in the number of roads will also mean more flexibility for the drivers.

Graded article 4 - The implications of Drink Driving

Hi again! This time, I have come across an editorial on the implications of drink-driving. Hope you enjoy ths!

http://news.asiaone.com.sg/st/st_20070516_120431.html

Drink driving… a rather common concern in this small island where we reside in – Singapore. Evident from the statistics, the crime rate for drink driving has been constantly increasing, which is obviously not a good sign.

This article talks about the implications of drink driving and suggests a method to stop this problem – by giving permission to the bartenders to confiscate the car keys of those who are going to drink. This article gives a throughout analysis of the pros and cons of the suggested idea, and also discusses the topic of law and moral obligations. While the article may be about Drink driving, the author uses the contrast of moral obligations against the law to illustrate his point.

And, I do agree with the author’s point of view.

The contrast between the moral obligations of the drink buddies and the bartender to stop the drinker from drink driving and the law is very distinct, and the conflict of the two ideas may cause a dilemma for one to choose between the two. Singapore’s law system uses capital punishment to determine whether one is guilty or not, which means that the acts of a person determine his crime, not the intentions or motive of the person. This may make a person choose to avoid the law instead of fulfilling his moral obligation, since he will not want to suffer a lawsuit. While a person may be weighted down by his conscience, he may choose not to stop the person from drink driving as he will not want to be involved in a lawsuit. If the person failed to persuade the drinker from driving, he may be charged for failure to stop the drinker from drink driving. In this case, the unjust law has restricted one to commit to his moral obligation, and the plan will most probably fall through because of the restriction of the law.

While there are many flaws in the plan, I have to applaud the person who came up with the plan for his hard work. Even though the plan may be impossible to carry out due to many fatal flaws, the idea of making use of the people around the drinker to keep a tab on him is pretty effective if carried out correctly, and should be credited. The plan may need some work, but upon further refining, the plan may work, as it is possible to keep the drinker in check more effectively.

However, even if this plan is to be carried out, there is a major consideration and assumption that one has to make before this plan is workable. This assumption is pretty risky though, as it is very unlikely that the assumption will hold true. The assumption is that all bartenders that confiscate the keys have the integrity to return the key to the owners when they are sober enough. We must also assume that the drinkers are willing to sacrifice their keys to the bartenders. Thus, chances are this plan will be unworkable.

(503 words)

Graded Article 3: Croc of contention, who wins the battle?

Hi guys, it's time for me to post again!

This time, the atricle is about two famous retail companies with similiar brands: Crocodile and Lacoste. Read on to find out more about the feud between them!

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,128402-1177365540,00.html

*Starts reflection*

Two companies, similiar in wealth and heritage. Lacoste and Crocodile. Both companies have been around for pretty long, and both companies are rather different in their development. However the most distinct similarity between them is causing tension between the two companies. What is it, you might ask. It is their logo. Apparently, these two companies have a crocodile for their logo. And in truth, this similarity is the exact reason why Lacoste is filing a lawsuit against Crocodile. In fact, these two companies have been fighting for a very long time ever since Lacoste moved into the Asian market in 1960. Time and time again, these two companies have been filing lawsuits against each other, and has resolved their cases by signing contracts. However, this time, the companies fight once again for the same reason. Apparently, Crocodile's logo is rejected as it is too similiar to Lacoste's, but Crocodile is going for an appeal. Win or lose, this battle determines the fate of the two companies. This article may seem a bit unrelated to us because it is just a fight between two companies, but the issue that is dealt with in the article is actually linked to plagarism/ ripping off the intellectual property of others. In this case, the similarity between Lacoste's and Crocodile's logos have caused them to be engaged in a lawsuit that wastes money. This is actually a projection of what will happen to us if we choose to ignore the intellectual property of others.

Taking a close look at what is happening in the modern world, competition among companies are becoming more intense. With more companies to share the profit with, companies have to compete among themselves to get a bigger share. While competition may be intense, the competition between companies are rather friendly, and no underhand tricks are involved. Thus, I think that Crocodile can be considered to be honest.

Personally, I think that even though Lacoste entered the Chinese market with the crocodile logo, I still believe that Crocodile should be allowed to enter the market, since the two companies had agreed on their logo dispute long before this saga. There was no reason for Lacoste to file a complaint against Crocodile, as they had already agreed to the conditions of sharing a crocodile logo long before today. If the issue has already been settled so long ago, what is the point of digging up the old feuds, just to get rid of you opponent?

As I look at the article today, I can only hope that the dispute of this kind will not happen again. After all, there is no need for an argument if companies observe healthy competition, gentlemanly behavior and respect the intellectual property of others. While competition is intense and companies may want ot get rid of each other, I hope that instead of killing each other, the companies can work together to form a better economy for the world. An eye for an eye, makes the world go blind.

(501 words)

Graded Assignment 2 (Education): Here's $500 to study hard and play hard - Is it feasible?

This is another article which holds some rather revolutionary ideas - by offering money to students as a form of motivation. Here is the link:

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,123979,00.html

*Start Reflection*

This article offers a new idea of offering money to students as a form of motivation and financial support for those students who cannot pursue their dreams just because of financial difficulties. By offering scholarships to support students who have potential, are willing to work hard but are held back because of financial difficulties, this prevents the students' potentials from being buried under family problems and financial difficulties.

This concept is actually meritocracy, where the good gets advantages and subsidies because they perform well in a certain area. This concept is adopted heavily in Singapore, whether is a promotion by your boss or a pay rise because of good performance, or the scholarships given to the top of the batch. We can see clearly the adoption of good ideas and being rewarded fairly for good performance. In this case, the rewards given to players with potential and yet is held back by financial difficulties is a reflection of the adaption of meritocracy.

However, this concept may not work in the way that there will always be people who will think of ways to abuse the idea, and meritocracy is not perfect in spotting the elite. While limiting the scholarships to only the poor, the system will still have problems in spotting elites based on only one person's perspective, which is not enough to grade a person's overall performance and ability. There will be people trying to exploit the advantages of such a system and the true purpose of the scholarship, which is to subsidise the poor students so that they can pursue their dreams, is obscured by the monetary gain of the system. No matter how perfect the scheme seems, there will always be people who would trick you just to get the money. With only one point of view to judge the performance of many people, there will be people who will try to be from poor family conditions to earn that extra five hundred dollars as their pocket money. With many people eyeing for that amount of money, who can tell who is facing a crisis, and who is actually lying?

However, I can appreciate the fact that the teacher is just trying his best to support the students who are suffering from disadvantages. I believe that the intention of helping the students is good and should be further developed, but I cannot help but notice that this system does have quite a number of problems. I probably cannot appreciate the intention to help the poor students as I am not a teacher myself, but I know that the teacher is just trying to help.

Taking the point of view of a student, I must say that I cannot fully empathise with the poor conditions of the students who truly need help as I come from a supportive family, but I must say that I can see some flaws in the idea. All in all, the idea is good but the plan needs refining.

(496 words)

*end reflection*

Graded article 1 (Societal): Who will be S'pore's Leonardo Da Lin Chee?

While browsing through the net today, I came across an article which seems remotely interesting, but holds quite a lot of sense to me. Here is the link:

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/columnists/story/0,4136,112781,00.html

*Reflection starts*

I agree with the author's opinion that we should be more open-minded and come to accept whatwhat we excel in, rather than frantically trying to fabricate what the other countries excel in.

While the author just suggests at the opportunity for Singapore to turn our advertisments into something worthy and appreciate what we do, the author is actually trying to open the audience's minds to new art forms and allow them to accept these new ideas. The author is trying to shift the reader's mindsets on art from traditional paintings to new ideas like advertistments. And I do agree that the times have changed; we should come to appreciate what comes to us as new art, AND that we should have our appreciation of art.

Why are we trying so hard to establish ourselves to be masters of painting and sculpting like other countries, when we do have our advertisments to be proud of?

Why do we shut our minds on art to be of traditional protraits, when in this age, we have access to new technology, and new art like advertisments?

In my opinion, the art scene in Singapore is slowly changing. Like the author said, Singaporean mindset on the opinion of art has shifted from the traditional paintings like 'paintings of rambutan and songs of the Singapore River' Right now, while we are a country with almost no history or culture, it is time to appreciate what we normally do, to appreciate what we consider as beautiful...

Painting and sculping came from technology. Can't new technology like advertisments develop into art?

While I now appreciate new art forms like advertisments, we should not forget old art works like famous sculptures. Old paintings still protray the old heritage that our ancestors once appreciated, and thus should still be retained and preserved as a different art form. I mean, different art pieces and pieces from different eras have their own story to tell, and their own purpose for existence. They are beautiful in different ways.

Now, I am taking on the perspective of one of the proposition for this idea. However, my viewpoint is limited as I cannot appreciate why the opposition will not accept advertisments as a new art form. While I do appreciate the idea, I think that by accepting advertisments to be art, we are moving towards an age where anything can be art, as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. However, this will bring about the problem that there will be no defining features of art, and art may gradually lose its originality and definition. This idea can only work if we impose a defining line between art and everything else.

After reading this article, I feel that I am rather ignorant of the art scene in Singapore. While I do appreciate new art forms for their unique beauty, there is still much I have to think about and know, for me to truly put myself in other's shoes. (495 words)

*end reflection*

That's it for now. I will be sure to post in the near future... once I manage to acquire time.

Hi!

Hi guys! As all of you know, I am Wee Ping and this is my blog for the English Current Affairs portfolio. From time to time, I shall be posting new commentaries and articles that I have come across, and also give my 2 cents worth on these articles. Stay here and relax, and please do give comments about my take on the articles. Finally (and most importantly), do enjoy your stay here! See ya!