Sunday, August 31, 2008

The article to be reviewed is from The Straits Times.
It can be found here:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_274600.html

The article is about the residents of Serangoon Gardens signed a petition against the converting of an old school building into living quarters for foreign workers. Quite a few issues about how Singaporeans see foreign workers were raised here in this article.

"The one-page petition said the move would 'create security and social problems and spoil the ambience of the estate'." The main problem that the residents brought up was that of the security of the area. The residents had concerns about how the foreign workers may affect the social security of the area. The usual stereotypes of foreign workers were brought out in the residents' arguments against the conversion of the school. Foreign workers are typically seen by Singaporeans as uneducated and low paid workers that are highly likely to commit crimes such as theft and robbery. The residents were worried that the workers may end up causing more troubles and crimes in the area if they moved in. Also, another worry is about relationships between maids and the workers. Many people worry that the maids may let these strangers into their homes while they are not around and have relationships or conspire with the workers. Homes may be robbed or maids may end up getting pregnant.

Looking at the bigger picture, Singaporeans in general have similar feelings to the residents in Serangoon Gardens. This would seem that Singaporeans are either ungrateful or selfish. Foreign workers provide a large percentage of Singapore's workforce in construction and other jobs that do not require a high education but mainly manpower. Singaporeans do not see themselves fit to do these kind of menial work, and thus foreign workers are needed. However, while we are reaping the rewards of their work, we still keep these negative stereotypes of them and do not even want to live near them, as can be seen by the above mentioned article. Even though it is true that some foreign workers have been in the spotlight for committing crimes, that is only a small minority of the vast number of foreign workers we have in Singapore. Many of these workers have worked hard and paid a lot to come to Singapore to work so that their families back in their homelands can have money to live a better life, and they would not want to damage this chance by committing crimes and ending up in jail. Singaporeans should at least accord them the respect they deserve and get rid of these stereotypes. We should not only say we are grateful but also show it in our actions. Rather than benefiting from their hard work and then not wanting to provide to their needs. That would be like buying a hamster to play with and then not feeding it.

Singapore is a rapidly developing nation and it needs these workers to develop even further. Singaporeans should then be grateful and at least provide them with basic needs in return for their contributions to our society and economy.
francys at 8:56 PM

Thursday, July 10, 2008

A democracy is a form of government where people choose who to represent them, which indirectly leads to the choosing which policies they want implemented in their society.

Democracy would create stability in a society if the majority is of one mind and share a similar set of values and principles. If the majority feels this way, the government will also feel the same way, as they would have to in order to be voted into power. Also, since democracy is power to the people, the government would be more motivated to work for the welfare of the people instead of only concentrating on economic and political growth. The social aspect would be more taken care off and thus the people would be less likely to revolt and cause trouble for the government.

However, there are cases where democracy does not necessarily work, or create stability for that matter. In fact, it can sometimes cause more trouble. This is especially the case when there is no clear majority in the society. When the people are of different minds and have conflicting values that they uphold. In such a case, the government would probably have won by a very close margin, and if they do not strike a careful balance in their policies, they would soon be seeing violence everywhere. When there is no clear majority, there will be a big number of people who either oppose or are for a certain view. With democracy, on can be almost certain that the government voted in would take either side and thus cause much commotion as the opposition revolts.

Also, for a democracy to create stability, not all the power can go to the people. The public is there to choose their leaders, in the end, the leaders still have to lead. The government has to take a firm hand in leading a country. Even if certain ideas go against the public’s thinking, to make a society firm, the government must know how to balance between “safe” and “free”. Total freedom cannot be given as that would result in chaos of unheard proportions. Yet the government cannot be totally controlling the lives of every individual. Democracy solves that problem. It allows the people’s voice to be heard so that the government knows what to change. Not only that, because the people provide the power, the government is more likely to listen to the needs of the average man and try to improve his welfare.

Thus I can conclude that while democracy can create stability in a society, it can only do so in certain societies, within certain circumstances. In other cases, other forms of government may be preferred as compared to democracy.

francys at 5:14 AM

Thursday, March 6, 2008

This is the link to the article " 10-year-old Japanese girl behind online death threat":
http://www.straitstimes.com/Asia/Asia/Story/STIStory_213724.html

Synopsis:
The article is about how a death threat was posted on an internet message board by a ten year old girl. She threatened to "kill an elementary school girl on Feb 29 at 1pm". When the police tracked her down, she was sent for counseling where it was found out that the message was a prank. She is "believed to be the youngest person investigated by the police in a spate of similar Internet threat cases in Japan." Her parents were aware of her high internet usage but were baffled by this incident.


I think that this is just one of the side effects of the sudden leap in advancement of technology. As technology becomes more readily available, it becomes an essential part of life and children are learning to use this technology at increasingly younger ages. I still remember only using a computer at the age of 10, and even then, only to go to one website to play a game. But now, take this girl for example, she "is Web-savvy as she has been surfing the Internet at home for the past two years". Which means she started at 8 and she learned not only how to use the computer, but also how to surf the internet. Parents and schools in Singapore have moved "teaching about the dangers of the internet" up in the list of things to teach us. On the list there are other teenage issues like pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancies, smoking, obesity, etc. In fact, the internet is so potent that there are so many sub-issues in it. These include, pornography, proper use of blogs, research, etc.

I feel that Singapore is doing the right thing in emphasizing the proper use of internet resources. For example, the laws against racist comments on blogs. Also, schools are doing a good job by teaching teens how to use the internet for more fruitful purposes like research instead of using them for flaming others or discriminating. The only problem is that these have to be taught at a younger age. Personally, I think that by 12 years of age, most children with a computer at home would have already been exposed to a few of the dangers of the internet. This may also be the cause of more underage sex and teenage pregnancies. When not provided with enough information, teens turn to the internet for answers. And as is so commonly repeated in Research Education in RI, not everything on the internet is true. With misleading information, it is very easy for someone to make big mistakes.

This article shows how young teens and children do not fully understand or grasp the openness of the internet. It is a public domain, accessible by everyone, open to criticism from anyone. In the end, education is still the only way to curb such mistakes.
francys at 6:28 AM

Monday, February 25, 2008

...
francys at 6:46 AM