Today's library, tomorrow's 'googlary'?

No doubt is the internet more convenient; however, I feel that for different types of text, they should be presented in different ways.

At the click of a button, we can find the information we are looking for on the web without tediously going through stacks of books to find the one we need, moreover it sometimes may not provide us with the information we want. On the website we found through googling, we just need to press “Ctrl + F” to look for the keyword without flipping pages frantically searching for the section where the theory is described. Especially when time is such a precious asset in today’s fast paced society, we need to maximize it as much as possible in order to prepare for the uncertain future. Since informative books mostly only provide part of the information required by the researcher, it should be digitalized for ease of readers.

For storybooks however, which are often long and detailed, it would be very tiring to stare at a screen reading 400 pages of text. Not only will the light from the screen tire your eyes, sitting at the same position for such a long time, not being able to change or you wouldn’t be able to read off the screen is very uncomfortable. And slowly, your posture will worsen as it is horribly tiresome to sit up straight for so long; after reading your third book, you would have become a hunchback. You can read books anywhere and find the most comfortable way to read it whether it is while lying down or walking, and if that relaxing position is giving you cramps, you could always change yet still be able to read your book.

A book is also very easy to carry around you, on the bus or on the train, or even while waiting to see the doctor, a book is the perfect companion. It doesn’t require you to wait five minutes for the computer to start up then open the file, and read it while holding that heavy laptop. This convenience is incomparable, though it might waste some trees but using a computer to read also requires much electricity which also would require burning of fossil fuels increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The heat from the computer would also contribute to global warming, but a book still can be donated to less fortunate societies or even be recycled.

All in all, what text needs to be digitalized and what are pointless to make into a cyber text has to be determined or else some efforts would be wasted on doing so for some types of books.

A gift of a programme

Being in the Gifted Education Programme (GEP), I have realised the difference in the curriculum between the GEP and that of the mainstream. Many of the lessons are indeed a little harder and in secondary school the difference becomes much wider. However, knowing my friends, they wouldn't go up to a neighbourhood school guy and go "HAH! I'm in Hwa Chong leh!" In fact, on the contrary, I feel that many of us think that talking to a neighbourhood school student is difficult, being afraid that they would have the impression that we are being proud and cocky in any way. The problem of elitism is never a one-sided problem, not just that elites become elitist, also non-elites becomes anti-elites, and in addition this creates much stereotype resulting in miscommunication.

I do agree that it is a good programme but is intellectual elites what the students themselves want to be? Not only is the stress very high, the time left is extremely little. Sometimes in the shopping centre, I see groups of students hanging out together while I’m just going home alone. I do not think that I want to waste my youth not doing the things I will get even less time to do when I grow up. We only have such limited time to enjoy our youth. Moreover, our goal in the future also may not be to climb the career ladder, we could just be contented to be an employee in a well-to-do company. We must not always think about the future and look at the present and take time to enjoy it. If never now, then when? After retirement, there would be barely any youth in us left to do those kind of highly straining activities.

Do we have to sacrifice individual wants for the better of the community? It is difficult to find a balance, it would be best if what the individual wants is for the better of the community. Yet, this isn’t the realistic situation.

Advertisements

There are many ways to sell one’s product, whether it’s through possible benefits, factual advantages, disvaluing competition, it all requires information output. Yet how much is told or even is true is unknown to us.

The ultimate aim of any advertisement is to persuade the consumer to buy the product, and to achieve this the information which is to be given has to be carefully chosen. Some are left out and yet that is acceptable, no one would talk ill of one's own product and it is also not considered lying so in this case honesty and integrity are not comprimised. For those information which is false, not only is it a crime, it also will lead to the loss of credibility of that company, so such lies are seldom used.

Thus if i was the creative director of an advertising agency and had to design an advertisement for a tobacco company, i would not comprimise honesty and integrity at all and simply through a creative means display the good points of our brand of tabacco.

(Sorry for the lack of content but there was not much to discuss about the passage)

National Service - How can this be amended or improved further to alleviate the problem of dodging?

National Service is a waste of time and effort to many Singaporean males, taking 2 years of their youth away to do something that is to them not fruitful. They could have gone to college or even start working to ensure a brighter and stable future, rather than needing to learn how to strip a rifle or endure physical training which would not be useful in their ideal future. Still, there are those who have stronger feelings against NS because they do not even like Singapore, they do not want to live here. Perhaps it's due to the kind of lifestyle or politics in Singapore, nevertheless, they do not see why they must serve the country if they do not even treat this country as their home.

The government's approach to make people think that being loyal to the country and giving back to society is a very noble quality is not effective because humans do not all feel that good values make them greater, but all humans are only concerned with how they are benefited. So a better way to reduce the problem of the dodging of NS is to show how it is essential for the survival of the community and in turn relate it to how it positively affects the individual.

Another method of the government which is not very effective is how it tries to instil patriotic feelings through songs that are not based with evidences at all. For example, the song "Home" the national day song in 1998, in the lyrics ther is "this is home, surely, where i know i must be". For those people who are not the least bit patriotic towards Singapore, this surely doesn't provide them with a stronger reason to not think so. To reduce the amount of people who do not like Singapore, it has to be shown to them that Singapore is a wonderful place to live in better than others, unique in good ways, then they would be more willing to stay.

National Service, compulsory for all Singaporean males, will increasingly be evaded if we leave the situation as it is, since Singaporeans will not remain this guilible forever to be easily brainwashed by such cheap tricks.

Science: a Menace to Civilisation?

People in developed countries live in states where science and technological developments are inevitable. For what reason is this so? Well these advances are suppose to improve human standards of living and make them happier. Saving time, improving comfort such luxury only about when we research deeper into how things work.

Some believe that ethics should be above everything and science is threatening this causing morals to change, but in fact ethics are defined by humans so there will always be ethics just different in different situations. So we cannot denounce that change in ethics is bad. We could use the society in Brave New World by George Orwell as an example. Who is to say that that society is a distopia? I say it is an utopia, this science has caused all the people to be happy in the present and in the future and that's perfect already. Just because they are conditioned to feel or think one way doesn't matter does it, they don't mind and other's don't mind. In fact, we in our current society are also being conditioned, who is to say that loyalty to one's country is a good value, it might lead to one's downfall for all we know, but we are "conditioned" to feel that way. For those people who realise this allow themselves to be conditioned this way is because this "value" would benefit them when other people are instilled with it too - they have to be an example.

To think blame science because it may cause harm due to the weapons they produce is also unreasonable. Not only is it that humans always want to be superior over another it is also because such technology already exists, just not discovered yet but human nature will cause such "horrible power" to be uncovered. If we could all settle our differences without losing one's cool, there would be no need for such technology. And just for this reason, arguing that science causes destruction is a pointless discussion, we should find ways to change man's mindset.

Don't blame science, blame mankind. Science is limitless, should we unleash it's full potential despite the possibility of destroying ourselves?

Should we exercise any form of censorship in the area of pornography?

Pornography, in today’s context, is one of the most lethal works of art known to man, powerful and bold, and like a drug, it is never enough, causing harm to one’s life. I do not believe that pornography is a degradation of a particular sex because obviously, pornography is not used as a stereotype for the entire population of a gender. Its purpose is for sexual enjoyment and can be found from VCDs sold in the darkest corners of the alley to the ever so open internet, but whether it becomes part of one’s life, is a test of control. Or is it natural for human beings to have a desire for the other sex? Still, we abstain from it since it is widely regarded as immoral due to its obscenity. So for what reasons do we have to or not exercise censorship in the area of pornography?

Watching pornography starts by trapping your heart, your mind, your soul. Being unable to resist picturing that slender or masculine figure regardless of form of pornography, focusing will become a challenge. Returning to the privacy of one’s home will become top priority (as long as there’s internet connection), all prior commitments are irrelevant. One’s mindset will also change; the processes that the brain makes will be different, affected by the tempting actions shown in pornography. Next, after an excessive amount of hormone secretion, the viewer may find that pornography is no longer addictive, even the most extravagant ones become dull. This doesn’t mean it stops here, to gain a more exciting insight the viewer will want to try these immoral actions himself. Entering the point of no return, where there is no chance to undo the actions he has done, destroying his future.

However, another reason why the viewer’s destiny becomes set in stone is due to society’s definition of what is acceptable and what is not, what should be allowed and what should not. Without this common mindset that if one does not dress decently (in this case do not dress), one has no dignity – which has no basis since we were born naked and all animals do not wear clothes – the implications of pornography wouldn’t be like as stated since everyone can accept it so explicit behavior will not become nothing special and won’t affect one’s life.

Even though I do not feel the need for preventing the access of pornography because I feel it is natural for humans to crave for beauty in the opposite sex just like all the other animals do, but the complicated society that we humans have created think that this above average sexual desires are wrong. Therefore, I strongly suggest the censorship of pornography, it does not have much or any positive effects at all but its negative impacts can be great in the society we live in today.

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

The President’s Star Charity Show broadcasts every year, with many famous artistes performing life-threatening or impossibly difficult stunts for charity. These acts of bravery and compassion are supposedly trying to cause the audience to sympathize the less fortunate (touching their hearts) to empty their pockets. Seem unnecessary? However, through the many statistics such as the fact that most calls for donations are made during these charity shows.

Many reasons contribute to the success of these shows, like the idols used in these performances. Due to their popularity, they are the most effective people to use for extracting money out of the common folk. Their experience gives them the ability to speak so emotionally and brilliantly about each of the acts that they perform. Being able to give the most dramatic and spectacular show to the audience, they are selected. The audience, who no doubt prefers it done this way over any others, will consider the show great and worth their donation. But if the money is not gained by the truthfulness of the heart, whether the people or the actors, can it really be considered charity?

Moreover, the tight-fisted people of Singapore also contributes to the need for these shows. In order to loosen the grip, we need to convince them that this investment is worth their money. Especially due to the distrust in charitable organizations Singaporeans have due to the recent NKF saga. Even when the money is suppose to go to the people with kidney problems, people in the company are getting salaries larger than most people in Singapore, TT Durai’s was more than $20,000, and they are suppose to be working for the better of poor? Also, without these charity shows, Singaporeans will not see the reason to donate and will not; they have to be convinced that these lesser humans are indeed very pitiful, as depicted by the actions of the stuntmen and various videos, and deserve to be helped.

Despite the negative basis for the success of these shows, they are worth the good that it will bring. The underlying intention may have been good, but still to them, it’s the end result that matters not the journey.