Today's library, tomorrow's googlary?

The power of internet has grown so rapidly over the years that, traditional thick books could very well be the next thing to have its "soft" twin. In a few years time, you could be carrying as many as 100 thousand-page books everywhere you go. Yet, you will not break a sweat for this is the strength and dominance of the computer in our lives. While it is true that e-books is more convenient in many ways, i do not think that the benefits would outweigh that of traditional reading methods. Yes, they are easy to distribute and have extremely low production costs. However, i do not foresee a takeover of googlary over our libraries. By doing so would mean losing the sentimental value and joy of reading, which is in fact the whole rationale of a book.

Traditional books are often kept as a collection, the pride of the owner. E books on the other hand, are stored in an expensive device, say a PDA or laptop. Some may argue that e books could also be part of one's collection. However, much to their dismay, analysts have revealed that e books will constantly be inaccessible, since future electronic devices will prove incompatible. Furthermore, paper has proved to be able to last one for his lifetime, whereas the rapid development of computer systems will eventually kick e books out of contend. Hence, to take pride in one's book collection would mean forgoing the use of technology and reverting to the traditional reading methods, which is actually not inferior to begin with.

You may not buy my argument, but i am sure you would relish the advice of your family doctor. Doctors and opticians have repeatedly warned customers of the dangers of over-exposure to electronic devices. For many years and many more years to come, the screen glare and eyestrain had been and will continue to remain as the major concern for potential users of the e book. The resolution and lucidity of computer screens can never touch that of paper. You certainly will not want to have your eyes or your body treated for indecent exposure to the UV from screen. If you think you are saving on convenience, think again.

It may be wise to be ahead of digital times. However you can be sure it will not be the case for e books.

HOTA

HOTA (Human Organ Transplant Act) refers to the law that covers the removal of any organ from the body of a dead person into the body a living person. In other words, when a patient passes away, his organs are immediately taken away to save the life of another. While I cannot agree more on how beneficial this system is to patients in need, I am against the act simply because it does not respect the opinion of the donor. The recent amendments to the Human Organ Transplant Act resulted in an uproar in Singapore, with the major change being that unless one opted out of this scheme, once declared “brain-dead”, his organs would be harvested to give others. Though the benefits of this act are undeniable, the way this act is packaged from top to bottom to me is unreasonable. The minister of health may be willing to donate all his organs, but can he speak for the rest?

First and foremost, the lack of basic information is what makes this act really unfair. You cannot expect just a few articles on the Straits Times to reach out to the masses. I for one am completely unaware of such an act till today. As a student, I understand how it feels to have my handphone confiscated and then to be accounted for that the school informed us the day before handphones are not allowed. If this act is not coming to light, then why should it be carried out? I do agree that HOTA is an excellent proposal, only however, if it is made known to everyone. Then again, how many people actually know of an opt-out form? I find it absolutely ridiculous to carry out this act without first informing the public.

Another flaw in HOTA is the certification of brain death. In the case of a brain death, his organs will be harvested to be given to others. While it is theoretically impossible for someone brain dead to revitalize, there are families who cling on to the bleak hope that a miracle will happen. It is painful to pull the plug on your loved ones, even crueller to watch helplessly at doctors extracting their organs. With HOTA in place, we can be absolutely sure the miracle will not happen; too bad if it was going to.

We do not live in a utilitarian state. We cannot evaluate the usefulness of an action just by the extra lives saved. By forcefully removing someone’s organs, it is a form of disrespect. Not to mention, if the deceased was against it. Instead of pushing people to opt out of this organ donation, why not encourage otherwise? A very feasible solution to a potential uproar over this issue in the future is to remove the act, then through the means of media, influence people to donate their organs when they pass away. Make them feel they are doing it for a good cause, then “opt-in” forms will start to flow in.

National Service

While the rest of the children are so eager to grow up, Singaporean boys aren't. By saying this you know the side i am on. While it is indeed unfair to say so, i am certain there is the other fifth of a million boys who share the same sentiments. I for one, dread National Service. I ain't unfit. So are many of those who go overseas to skip National Service. But it is two wasted years of your life, you could see it that way. Hence, it is not surprising that throughout the years National Service was implemented, a significant number of people dodged national service.

For the many of us who dread it, we know one day we have to face it. The problem is with those who are persistent with their belief that NS is harmful and are already deciding which country to migrate to. The irony of this is many of the dodgers are in fact highly educated people. While the government tries so desperately to retain these local talent, National Service appears to be the stumbling block. A few years ago the government realized that relying only on foreign talent is not the way to go. Yet, the continuous reinforcing of the need to go National Service seems to be encouraging our young talents to continue their studies elsewhere. This problem of dodging has pushed the government to mete out even stiffer punishments, unwary that this might possibly backfire.

If going to jail is not a deterrence strong enough, what suits then? For a scholar, going to jail would mean a completely ruined future. The increase in intensity of the punishments hence serves no purpose at all. In fact, it deters those who are considering of coming back after spending years studying abroad. Perhaps, the only reason for such an action is to justify for those who endured the brutal training. But, is this what we want? Driving away talents and give an account to those who stayed?

Yes, I agree unreservedly that the rationale for this whole system is such that we have an army strong enough to prevent a possible invasion. However, if this were to stay, the government can get set to bid goodbye to more of our young citizens. I do not see a possible attack in the years to come, but if there were to be one, we can be sure we will not be fighting alone. While it is ridiculous to remove National Service entirely, an approach to reduce the number of dodging cases is to cut down its duration. I believe a full year of National Service is sufficient to provide a decent army, while instilling loyalty to the homeland. Only then, together with a lighter punishment, will we see a more productive system breeding strong, smart young men.

How advertising informs to our benefit

To a certain extent, the author is right about advertising working to our benefit. While companies compete with each other, they continuously improve on their advertisements. They understand the significance and importance of a good advertisement. The audience meanwhile, reap necessary information from these advertisements. Hence, advertising is helpful in the sense that they provide useful facts about the product. 

However, i believe advertising is more of a delusion than merely providing information. Advertisements do convey essential information to us, but how about the deleterious ones then? Observance would have told you that advertisements do not state the adverse effects of the product at all. It does not take a genius to know that stating the product's adverse effects would result in lesser purchase. Ads d0 provide essential information, but at the same time it leaves out vital information which might affect us in the long run. Take for example the widely drunk Coke. Studies have shown it is in fact the food colouring that it appears black. It is originally a dark green solution, for the reason that its initial purpose was to act as medication. On top of this is the fact that coke is at pH 3-4, classifying it under the strong acid category. Imagine if the Coca-Cola company had included these facts. We can be certain that the number of coke consumers would decline sharply. Ads are also misleading in the sense that they twist information to convince the public to purchase the product. We often see products in which 4 out of 5 people recommend it. For all you know, the 5 people could be just anybody from the advertising company. While advertising provides information for the public, take note that their objective is to persuade you to buy their product. Hence, in order to do so, they twist facts such that it tilts towards their favour. It is a paradox that advertisers twist information when they are supposed to be providing true, credible facts. It is in fact not common to see that some advertisements do not provide accurate information, or deliberately leave out certain negative facts so as to make it look impressive. Whichever method they use, we can conclude that advertising does not show wholly true content. As such, advertising do not necessarily inform to our benefit.

If I were the creative director of a tobacco company, I will be inventing cigarettes containing less nicotine. I am sure that smokers do understand the dangers of high consumption of tobacco. A low-nicotine cigarette will be a good start for smokers who would like to quit smoking once and for all. While it is important for the company to earn as much profit as possible, I would rather not delude others to purchase products which might cost their life eventually. Afterall, a low-nicotine cigarette is something new too. It is more appropriate to design the cover for the low-nicotine cigarette since they will be grateful to me eventually, for they have kicked the smoking habit. 

Science: a Menace to Civilisation?

Science in this case refers to the progress in technology that brings us our society today. The high living standards we are enjoying, as well as the weapons of mass destruction are part of the benefits and harm that technology brings to us. There is basis for both sides of arguments, for people have different opinions on how our lives should be like. The idealist would hope for science to progress even further, while the rationalist who see the potential damage of what science can bring will hope for less technology in exchange for peace and happiness from contentment. Whatever the case, it all boils down to this question. Does the benefits from science overweigh the harm it brings to us?

Is science a menace to our civilisation? In many ways it is. Firstly and most obviously, science has given us, or we have made use of science, to create gifts of mass destructions. Well, the benefits of science might be significant, but the harm these weapons can inflict is just as devastating. So what if we have all the convenience and luxury. So what if we extend our lives by 10 years. We will still be gone in a split second once those gifts get out of hand. It only requires a few steps or rather, with the advance technology, just one click. Just one click is sufficient to wipe out the entire human population in a selected region. Just take a look at the recent bombings, take the Taj Mahal hotel for example. The terrorists did not use nuclear bombs, but the damage it caused was mortifying. 300 people were injured and over 50 killed. But this was not all. The trauma, the emotional torture the victims' families were put to undergo were more calamitous than anyone can imagine. Yes, with science, we progress quickly in technology and living standards. However, all these will be erased in just a split moment. To solve any probem, we must find out the root, or the main reason for such a problem. In this case, a person would 'foolishly' kill fellow human beings, for a very simple reason. Greed. Humans, just like any other living thing, is greedy. Its only a matter of how much. Then, it is made worse by science. The improvements of technology has made us more greedy in fact. The more priviledges we receive, the more unsatisfied we become. Two centuries back, we would be so content with a never-ending light source to carry us through the night, and even if we are deprived, life still goes on. Now, light and electricity have become one of our necessity. We cannot imagine a day without them. Almost everything will stop functioning. And with unsatisfaction comes greed. We have become more greedy over the years. From the exploitation of bombs in the first world war to the use of nuclear missiles, we are fighting each other for the sake of fulfilling our endless desires. It is only a matter of time before the threatened becomes the dead and the safe becomes the threatened. What has the world become?

On the other hand, science is not necessarily a menace to civilisation. Let's look at it in terms of the disadvantages if we do not use science in our society. Imagine fiddling with stones and making spears to haunt down animals. All of which would seem savagery in our terms today. Some may say we only perceive it due to our moral standards today, which would not be the case if we were living in that era. However, we cannot deny the fact that after witnessing the benefits of science, we will not want to return to the era of rock and stone. Given the privileges of what science brings to us, are we still willing to give it all up just for the sake of diminishing the dangerous nuclear missiles. We cannot imagine returning to that era, and risk losing our lives from unhygienic habits and uncooked, unclean food, not to mention the savagery acts of killing fellow humans for more territory. Furthermore, though the nuclear weapons are capable of causing great damage, eventually it is up to us whether to use it or not. We are the one who hold the key to peace or chaos. It is ourselves who unlock the path we want. The nuclear weapons are there, but it is up to us ourselves to use it on fellow humans. There is no point whining when you are the one who decided to use it. And when the others use theirs on you, you have no one else to blame. We build our own lives, and we decide how we are going to live it. If we can be content, there is no reason to be afraid of science. Rather, we will be more interested to research further on it, to make our lives even better.


Eventually, it all boils down to whether the benefits of science did counter-balance the negative effects science brings to this world. If the technology did indeed help improve our lives more than it harms, there is then ground for proceeding with science. However, we must admit that a large portion of us do not appreciate the old age of rock and stone, and the fact is that science and technology will continue to be more advanced, and there is not much we can do about it.

Explain the nature of pornography and give your reasons to why we should/should not exercise any form of censorship in this area.

Pornography, based on the random house dictionary, refers to obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit. Its primary purpose is for sexual arousal. It is portraying nudity or sexual acts through imagery or any other media. Pornography has both its supporters and critics, with equally strong arguments on each side. For those who see no harm in pornography, base their arguments mainly on the fact that pornography can be referred to as a form of art, similar to Erotica. Erotica is a form of art that deals with erotically stimulating or sexually arousing descriptions. Though it can be argued that the two are different, we cannot deny that there is similarity between the two, and pornography can be Erotica if viewed from different perspectives. On the other hand, those who are against pornography base their arguments mainly on the fact that it degrades the role of a woman to that of a sex object. A woman is no longer human then. A woman's role will be to cater to male desires. Hence, there is strong basis for the need to exercise any form of censorship of pornography for both sides.


Firstly, let me explain the reason as to why censorship of pornography should go. Pornography, to some extent, can be referred to as Erotica. Erotica, as explained earlier, is a form of art. Though it suggests and encourages sexual fantasies, it is widely accepted unlike pornography. The reason being that it encaptures formal elements of art, and drawing on other historical artworks. Hence, the point to be made is, if pornography is close or similar to erotic art, why can't pornography be accepted by the public? Though it can be argued that pornography differs in terms of the way it is portrayed, it still serves as a piece of art. The purpose of pornography is ultimately decided not by the creator, but the audiences. It is them who chooses to see it as an art or content which caters to men desires. They decide if it is art or the stereotypical harmful thing that most people view it as. Hence, since the purpose and effect is solely dependent on the mind of the beholder, there is no need for the censorship of pornography to stay, because the person ultimately responsible for themselves are themselves. Another reason for pornography to stay is that there is in fact a drop in crime rates. In 20th century Japan, there was increasing pornography use. Instead of encouraging sexual assaults, Japan have been experiencing a significant drop in rape and other sex crimes. This further proves the existence of pornography as healthy and not harmful.


However, there are also solid reasons for pornography to be censored. A very good argument is the fact that it humuliates women. It degrades women to sex objects, for fulfilling men desires. We must reach this point that women are not born to serve men. This is still so if the woman did it on her own will. No one is born an unequal, and more importantly no one deserves to be treated unequally. Moreover, there are also religious objections to pornography. Most religions either see sex as a sacred, highly-pleasurable activity or as something limited to its purpose of breeding. Hence, the unconstrained idea of pornography is strongly objected by many religions. In addition, though it is true that in japan the sexual crimes decreased, it is not necessarily the same for the rest of the world. In fact, pornography had made the situation worse, by conveying the message that all women really want to be raped. A study done on rapists found that the assailant had the wrong conception on sexual activities, and insisted that "the victims not only enjoyed rape but also extreme violence." Clearly, the sex predators got the misconception that victims will like what they do to them. This is especially so for those who watch pornography. Another study conducted examined the exposure to and the usage of pornography in the histories of 38 rapists and 26 child molesters. Rapists and child molesters were reported to be "significantly more likely" to use pornographic materials prior to and during their offenses. Moreover, pornography is very addictive. With more people having access to it, it is no surprise that the number of sex offenders will increase. Furthermore, with no restriction on internet pornography, pornographic materials are easily sent from home to home, causing greater harm to the society. In an article on New York Times, a Florida man was caught offering to trade nude pictures of his young daughter and other forms of child pornography in an Internet chat room. This person had exploited the use of the internet, for the entertainment and enjoyment of himself and other dirty men. He is not the only one. There are many others who abused the internet for similar reasons. This explains the plethora of pornography material online, many of which were not even uploaded by the 'actors' themselves. Therefore, with all these harmful effects going on currently with almost no restriction, there is concrete basis for pornography to be censored.


Though there are strong arguments on both sides, i am more supportive of censoring pornography. Though there is healthy sides to pornography, I feel that pornography has more harmful effects. We must understand that pornography is not something good to us to begin with, especially to individuals with absolutely no self control. However, it is ultimately up to the individual to decide if pornography is good for them. Similarly, after making their decision, they would have to bear the consequences. It is completely up to them to choose their path. They chose what they did and they have no one to blame but themselves should trouble arise.

President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

Charity shows are shows that showcases famous artistes' talents in order to get people to donate money to the unfortunate. Or in some cases, it is to gain sympathy from the audience. While some may agree that it helps the unfortunate get noticed or highlighted, there are also controversial thoughts on the need for such a performance by the artistes. While it is true that it does help get donations for the needy, there are some who argue that it is not necessary. The donors did not help on their own accord. Rather, they were impressed with the stunts by their favourite artistes. To skeptics, there is no need for such a show. Donors will find organisations to donate to if they have the compassion and sympathy for the needy.


As President S.R. Nathan said, "the aim (of President's Star Charity Show) was to create a caring and compassionate nation by fostering acts of kindness and generosity towards the less fortunate in our society." For those who strongly support it, it is a chance for the public to show their warmth and kindness which is clearly lacking in the everyday lives of Singaporeans. Singaporeans get to lend a helping hand and it is spiritually fulfilling too. Similarly, it is an opportunity for the needy to gain support and help which they desperately need. It is known that there is a huge number of people struck with illnesses or poverty and is unable to cope with current living standards. To them, this is their chance to be highlighted. This is their lifeline. Removing the show would mean depriving them of help in the form of money. Life would continue to be a suffering. Taking away the show would thus be immoral. Hence there is basis for creating such a charity show.


Though it is true that such a charity show is beneficial for both parties, there are people who feel that it is unnecessary. Even if people donate, it is only because they were fascinated by performance by the MediaCorp artistes. This is especially so for the fans who are moved by anything that their idol says or does. All that the artiste got to do to garner donations is to appeal to the fans. Thus, what people really donate for is not out of compassion for the needy, but to support their idol. If people wish to help the needy, there is certainly no need for artistes to milk compassion and sympathy for the needy. People will help in every way they can if they have the sincerity and humanity. Furthermore, we cannot deny that there will be instances when people misuse the donations. An example would be the NKF scandal. NKF had been carrying out their own charity shows for years. At least a few million dollars have been donated into NKF's charity fund. However, it was embezzled by the CEO T T Durai. The money, meant for the ailing and poverty-stricken, instead went to the CEO. He went on to enjoy luxurious living each year, from installing gold taps in bathrooms to going on first class in SIA, all at the expense of the needy. After he was exposed, people no longer trust NKF, with some even questioning the necessity of such a show. The donations from the people could have gone to better use if they had donated directly to the organisations for the needy. Though it is true that not all charity shows are not as controversial as the NKF case, we must admit that the liability of all organisations are questioned by the public. People now think twice before donating to charity shows. Hence is there still a need to carry out the President's Star Charity Show now that faith in them has been lost?


In conclusion, who really determines the need for the President's Star Charity Show is neither the president nor the producer. Rather, it is the public that decides if the show should stay or go. Yes, the show may carry on. However, without the support and donations from the public, the show is nothing but a mere performance from MediaCorp artistes. Hence, the public needs to decide if such a show is really necessary, or if they are willing to bypass the show and go to the extend of reaching out to external organisations to donate. They must know that they should not regret after donating, even if the funds are wrongly used. Afterall, they have done their small part in helping the needy carry an optimistic outlook of life. Whether or not the performance of the artistes is necessary, they have already shown their compassion for the unfortunate in the society.