4F: Alwin Low

The overarching issue here concerning both sources is the justification used by companies to do a pay cut but no job cut... But is this the efficient way to ensure that there are no job cuts or this is just another mean to lay off jobs? Source A: By Labour Chief Lim Swee Say It is rare elsewhere, he said, referring to the US car industry and Hong Kong: 'We did not point fingers like the case of the US...We did not go on strike like the Hong Kong airport workers.' Armed with this weapon, Mr Lim urged the tripartite partners to commit themselves to making Singapore the most pro-business economy in the world, the most pro-worker nation, the most united tripartism model and a place with the most caring labour movement. He explained to union leaders that they can be pro-business by agreeing to a wage cut should the company's situation warrant it and management take the lead with a deeper cut. 'We must be prepared to mobilise the ground as long as the management is prepared to take the lead,' he said. The approach would lead multinational companies to favour Singapore, he indicated. Following the new Budget measures, Japanese companies are re-submitting their proposals to their headquarters who are looking at downsizing operations in Japan, China or Singapore, he said. Source B: Comment by yoon1962har1963 Cut pays but do not cut jobs sounds convincing to only some employees but not the majority of employees. Many employers could take advantage of this 'Cut pays but do not cut jobs scheme' by cutting employees' pays first to great extents. Therefore many employees are naturally forced to resign if they are not able to survive in the long run. This is because they are being taken advantage of with unrealistically extremely low pays. As such, many employers are perhaps able to indirectly sack their employees without the needs to compensate them with any retrenchments benefits eventually.

In Source A, the comment is made by our labour chief about the solution to save jobs by doing pay cuts. This is done as it allows the company to have the ability to pay more people and therefore not having to resort to retrenchment. To reach out to more people, labour chief Lim Swee Say highly encourages companies to take the lead into a deeper wage cut. Hence, the purpose of Source A is to reach out to companies which have not done the deeper wage cut and to tell them an alternate idea to save company funds.

In Source B, the comment is made by a concerned working citizen being affected by the actions or might have seen other close friends or relatives being affected. It states that some companies have cut pay until people are forced to leave their jobs in order to secure a bowl of rice for their next meal. This would allow companies to sack members without having to pay a compensation sum and allow the company to hire new graduates for cheap pay. Thus, the purpose is to raise to the government the non-ethical ways of companies that want to retrench their personnel in a cheap way which saves money for the company.

Source B is more reliable than Source A as it is a comment made by someone whose job is dependent on this alarming pay cut. Therefore, he might have seen other people resign as they have such ridiculously low pay. Source A is made by a minister who has minimum pay cuts and not entirely affected due to the large sum salary he receives. Therefore, he might not implement the correct decisions to protect the employees from being tricked into getting retrenched indirectly.

Source A: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_332102.html
Source B: http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16531&page=2

Read more...

4F: Darryl Yeo

The over arching issue here concerning both sources is the justification of the removal of organs from death-row inmates.But does the state have the right to remove organs from a prisoner executed with the death penalty? Source A: An extract from a 1997 report by a working group from Columbia University Since the execution and death will occur anyway, why 'waste' the kidneys and heart? Since the state has the legal right to execute the prisoner, surely it may remove organs for so socially constructive a purpose. Moreover, donations can provide recompense for past misdeeds. The criminal has the opportunity to redeem himself through this act. Source B: An extract of a comment by Francois Bretault on The Straits Times Forum Securing organs from executed prisoners entails a process that is subject to abuse. Individuals on death row face the inevitability of execution. In that frame of mind, it is easier to compel them to donate an organ. This is abuse - even more so if people are ready to pay for organs. Trying to solve the shortage by taking organs from those put to death is shocking. As a human who knows he will die one day, I prefer to pledge my organs for donation and encourage others to do so.

In source A, a working group from Colimbia university is trying to justify the removal of organs from prisoners sentenced with the death penalty. Based on my contextual knowledge, i know that this report was written in the light of the acute shortage of organs.Source A states that the state has the legal right to execute prisioners and should be allowed ro remove organs for so socially constructive a purpose. Hence, i think that Source A is trying to justify death-row organ transplants to their audience, gain the support of people and influence the policy making by the government.

Source B is a comment by Franchois Brenault on the straits times forum. In source B, Franchois Brenault feels that securing organs from executed prisoners entails a process that is subjected to abuse. Franchois Brenault shows his despise of the idea, by saying that the prisnors arent asked to donate their organs but rather are being compelled to donate their organs. Source B also states that solving the shortage of organs by taking them from those put to death is a horrible idea. I feel that the purpose of source B is to convince the public that the idea of death-row organ transplant unjustifiable and shouldn't be a possible outcome.

Source A and B are similar in the sense that they both debate on the justification of death-row organ transplant. However, Source A justify's the idea while source B is against the idea. Source A is saying that the state has the right to remove organs from the executed prisoner while Source B considers that an abuse. Source A feels that death-row organ transplants would be a good solution to the acute shortage of organs, while source B strongly disagrees with that.

Source A is written by a working group in columbia university in 1997. This means that they probably would be quite knowledgable in the subject as they chose to write a report about it. Although the shortage of organs has not changed since 1997, the group's argument is just one point of view of one group. However seeing that there can only be two points of view in this topic, agree or disagree, i feel that source A is reliable enough to state its one point of view, however, a different point of view from the same source would have made the source more reliable. Source B strongly disagrees with the idea. It also only states one point of view. However, from my contextual knowledge, i know that Franchois Bretault holds a Bachelor's degree in social sciences. This proves that he understands more about the behaviours of people and would have a more reliable say in this topic. Source A did consider the criminal's point of view that they are given a chance to redeem themselves through this last act of kindness. This could mean that maybe, given a chance to redeem themselves, criminals my not feel as forced as Source B thinks. Source B on the other hand, only touches briefly on what a regular person would feel but not how a criminal may feel. Hence, i feel that source A might be slightly more reliable than source B because of the fact that it considered the criminal's point of view, the main victim of this issue.

Both sources were clear about their points but did not consider each other's point of view. However since Source A did mention the criminal's point of view as well, i feel that source A is slightly more reliable than source B. Therefore, i conclude that both sources are fairly reliable and can both be taken into serious consideration. I also feel that both sources have relevent and good points that would bode well in this issue.

Source A: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_327136.html
Source B: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_327136.html

Read more...

4D: Sidney Teo

Should Public Organisations mis-spell words for publicity purposes? Source A: A O-level student, Samuel Tan, posts his view on the Straits Times Forum. I REFER to the recent controversy over NTUC Childcare's change of name to 'My First Skool'. As a 2008 O-level student, I find it difficult to comprehend Mrs Pauline Koe's line of argument ('Delightful that NTUC sticks its neck out', Wednesday). Admittedly, a child would probably spell the word 'school' as 'skool', on his first attempt, according to the way it is pronounced. However, Mrs Koe says this mis-spelling provides an opportunity for teachers to correct the child's spelling of the word, and teach him the pronunciation of 'sch'. But surely the word 'school' would provide the same opportunity? (As in teachers can explain to the child why 'school' is correct but 'skool' is not?) An officially incorrect spelling of the word 'skool' can have only one influence on a child, as far as I can conceive - that he would subconsciously register his first and incorrect spelling of 'school' as 'skool' to be right. This is far from an adult-centred view, but it is the only possible view. No creativity is stimulated or encouraged. Spelled correctly, the child can then begin to learn the unique 'sch' pronunciation, with no diminished courage to express his creativity. Source B: A Singaporean posts his reply to Samuel Tan on the Straits Times Forum. You really want us to believe the NTUC - or any other childcare entity - would stupidly misbrand itself to 'act cool', 'trying to be funny' and underestimate the 'backlash from the public'? What expertise/experience have you, or don't, in branding, marketing and advertising? If you asked those in the industry, they'd probably tell you 'My First Skool' - cute but unoriginal/unremarkable in English-savvier societies - is a daring break from the staidness associated with government-derived organisations and their conservative naming/branding. In your 'learned' opinion, 'ToysRUs' (mirror-image R), Dunkin Donuts (not 'Doughnuts') and other 'misspelled' brand names are fatuous mistakes too? Isn't a toy-seller worse 'miseducating' kids globally with that contrived dyslexic, truncated and misspaced brand name? Never heard of artistic/promotional licence? Try proving that one-off names like ToysRUs has miseducated/confused kids - IRREPARABLY FOR GENERATIONS - the company's supposed to serve and guide better! Any 'learned' takers among the glib/smug?

These two sources are not merely discussing about the topic of NTUC Childcare changing its name. They are debating about the fundamental effect a name of an organisation, group or any publicly recognised association can have on the general public. Let me give you a brief run through of both sources.

Source A used a very reserved and informative tone. This can be supported by evidence in the source : 'difficult to comprehend', 'as far as i can concieve', 'no creativity is stimulated'. It calmly states the devastating effects the mis-spelling of 'school' to 'skool' would have onto the general population of children in the primary education level who are learning to spell and pronounce words. Source A thinks that NTUC should not encourage mis-spelling because of the children might insist that there is nothing wrong with their spelling, because that's how the NTUC centre in their neighbourhood spells "skool", and that was the "skool" they have been attending since young.

Source B used a very aggresive and sarcastic tone. This can be supported by evidence in the source : 'really want us to believe', 'stupidly misbrand', 'what expertise/experience have you, or don't', 'in your "learned" behavior'. It accuses the author of source A of having a one track mind. It suggests that there is no evidence of Source A being able to prove the name of an association will miseducate a student 'irreparably for generations' and that basically a change of a name to a mis-spelled one on purpose will not harm anyone irreparably.

The purpose of source A could be to pressurise the government into changing the name 'My First Skool' back to the original one so that children will not be confused by the wrong spellings. As it is posted online on the Straits Times forum, it has an audience which is the general Singaporean population. If it manages to garner enough support, they could lodge a complain/petition to the government which might cause the name to change hence achieving its goal.

The purpose of source B could be to undermine the facts source A presents and to oppose the ideaology of going against the change of name so that source A would not be able to garner as much support from their readers as they should. This is done so that seeds of disapproval and distrust can be sown into the hearts of readers who have read the article, so that they will not support the ideals of source A as strongly.

I think that Source A reliable. Source A is done by an O-level student who has no reason to lie to the public. The only conceivable reason though unlikely could be that he simply does not like the idea of children being tricked by the mis-spelling of words.

However, Source B might not be as reliable. Source B is done by another Singaporean. However, his identity can be questioned as online identities and offline identities can be totally different. He could be a working personell of NTUC defending his workplace, therefore having a biased outlook. Or otherwise, he could be anybody who supports NTUC.

In conclusion, i do not think that it would be much of an issue if the name of a childcare centre will irrevokably marr the intelligence of a primary school student. Undoubtly it might cause confusion, yes, but not irreparable as Source B states. I think that it would not cause so much damage as children have an open mind that is acceptive towards changes. They are have such a fixed mind as adults have. Therefore, if they are very confused over the spelling of certain words, over patient teaching, they will be able to learn the proper spelling and hence cancel out whatever harm ( however little of it ) the name of a childcare centre will cause.

Source A and B: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_332311.html

Read more...

4D Hee Bih Yau

The overarching issue is the chaotic and poor traffic system in Tuas checkpoint which aggravates many travellers from Singapore. Will there be measures taken to resolve this issue? Source A: A comment posted online in The St Forum by John Cheong, complaining about the traffic system at Tuas Checkpoint I WRITE out of sheer exasperation at the poor systems and processes at Tuas Checkpoint. This Chinese New Year, I spent two hours in a car queue leaving Singapore on Saturday morning, then three hours in a return queue on Tuesday night. At one point on Tuesday, traffic was completely stationary on the bridge for 45 minutes. I shudder to think of the discomfort to thousands of people there and the financial and environmental cost of thousands of litres of fuel burnt. There are areas in need of major overhaul, especially in contrast to immigration and security at Changi Airport, which are efficient and courteous. Source B: A response by Jack Russell, a regular visitor of ST Forum, from Singapore Even though I am a true S'pore born & bred citizen, my Dad hails from Penang, & I bring my family up north either during the Dec school holidays or CNY via car. It is not feasible to travel around Penang, with a family of 6, via public transport. Besides the irregularity of bus services & the difficulty in getting 2 cabs, every time we need to travel anywhere, the sweltering heat up north tends to make both kids & adults cranky. To avoid the jams at the Causeway & 2nd Link, I normally depart from home at 5 am & time my return trip to clear customs & immigration at JB by 2-3 pm on a weekday, or the 3rd day of CNY, if I travel during the Lunar festive period. Just my 2 cents' worth on making an extra effort, to beat the inevitable jam, during school holidays & CNY.

In Source A, the writer is trying to express his displeasure over the traffic system at Tuas checkpoint. He claims that he "spent two hours in a car queue leaving Singapore" and "three hours in a return queue". He adds on with a comparison between the system adopted by Changi Airport and Tuas Checkpoint to highlight the low standards of traffic management at the checkpoint. In addition, he describes the effects damaging as "thousands of litres of fuel burnt" causing a "discomfort to its people". Apparently, he is voicing his complaint to the public through internet forum so that this issue will first arouse the attentions of local travellers with similar experiences. Then, as more begin to agree with his comment, it will serve as a pressure to the government to make a change in the system to ease the flow of traffic.

Source B says that travelling to-and-fro Malaysia can be fast and enjoyable. In the source, the writer claims that he "departs from home at 5am" and "clear customs and immigrations by 2-3pm on a weekday" thus, "beating inevitable jams" and arrive quickly. The purpose of his response is to provide a resolution for the issue raised by the writer of Source A and partially criticising his complaints so that to alert the public that amidst the failure of the inevitable traffic jams, there is indeed ways to save themselves from the troubles. In doing so, the writer has contemplated and protected the dignity of Singapore government and lessens their burden by discussing ways to tackle problem. Traffic jams at Tuas checkpoint is inevitable and there is hardly a way to completely ease the congestion.

Source A and Source B is similar as they address the role of festive season in causing traffic congestions. In Source A, the writer states that "this Chinese new year" he spent "two hours in a car queue leaving Singapore" and "three hours in a return queue on Tuesday night". In Source B, the author will prefer to "clear customs & immigration at JB by 2-3 pm on 3rd day of CNY" to "avoid the jams at the Causeway & 2nd Link".

Source A and Source B is different in the way money has played a part in the congestion. In Source A, the writer argues that money has been wasted as "thousands of litres of fuel burnt" during the course of congestion. However, in Source B, the write would rather resort to " 2 cents' worth of effort" to avoid a congestion at the checkpoint. These two sources have displayed a different perspectives of how money has played a part at the jam.

Source B is more reliable than Source A.

Source B is said by a Singaporean and the source has presented no hints of biasness and it is written in sheer humility. The tone set by the writer is calm and consoling, in the process of sharing an idea of how to overcome congestion during a festive season. Furthermore, he should understand his own country better then the writer in Source A whose nationality is unknown.

In conclusion, it is hard to come up with a measure to completely ease the congestion at Tuas checkpoint. However, people can try to plan their trip well and travel at appropriate time to avoid jams at the bridge.

Source A: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_332415.html
Source B: http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16560

Read more...

4F: Ryan Tay

The over-arching issue is if trailers of adult films should be screened during prime hours. Source A: An extract from "Don't show trailers of adult films during prime time"by Ms Monica Lim. ON THE first night of Chinese New Year, MediaCorp screened a movie, The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Due to its adult content, the show was screened at 10pm. But I was disgusted by the trailer for the movie which was shown repeatedly during prime time from 7pm, when many children were watching television. The trailer had blatant sexual innuendos and scenes. It was obviously not suitable for children. Yet this, for some reason, escaped MediaCorp. I cannot help but wonder if MediaCorp is so desensitised it is oblivious to the inappropriateness of such content during prime time. Or has the priority of promoting a movie overtaken that of social consciousness? I am no prude. But I wonder at the double standards of scheduling an adult show at 10pm while allowing the trailers to be shown at 7pm. It is bad enough that prime-time movies often have extreme violence as a matter of course, and even children's programmes these days use sex as an easy sell. I was perturbed to learn that the popular cartoon Winx Club, whose viewership is predominantly young girls aged five to 10, features kissing scenes and has female characters lust after boys and enter into boy-girl relationships as casually as they change their clothes. I do not believe in completely shielding children from the realitiess of life. But in this complicated world where kids grow up too quickly, it does not help to have the media continuously reinforce the message that sex and violence are normal, casual activities. I used to think that mothers who ban their children from watching TV are tyrants - now I think perhaps they are the sensible ones. Source B: This is a comment made by Milady76. For crying out loud, parents, I think you don't realise that your kids already know more about sex than you do. Their display of knowledge at home would be more discerned to suit parents' tolerance levels - kids are really smart about that. But in school and outside of home, they talk and ask questions about sex like no one's business. So parents have to learn to accept that kids these days are no longer innocent and really don't need excessive (s)mothering. Get out of the denial stage.

The purpose of Source A is to criticize Mediacorp which screened a trailer of an adult film, The 40-Year-Old Virgin. The author brings her thoughts to a national level by posting an article on the Straits Time forum in Singapore. The author states that the trailers are inappropriate and that Mediacorp its oblivious to it. The trailer had sexual content, clearly "poisoning" the minds of the children watching the television during prime hours. Therefore the author is clearly criticizing of Mediacorp's ignorance of the content in the trailers and what harm its causing.

The purpose of Source B is to educate parents that actually children nowadays posses the knowledge of such sexual content, but are more discrete and conservative in the presence of parents. The author uses words like " For crying out loud, parents " and " Get out of the denial stage " . The author added that children are able to accept such sexual content and that they usually discuss over sex.
Therefore, the author is trying to educate, create an awareness to parents that children are not as ignorant and innocent as they seem to be.

Source A is unreliable because it makes superficial points of an one-sided angel. This means that the author has not thought or asked about his or her children and perceive that they are innocent and ignorant to such sexual content in the trailers. The author has made biased comments about Mediacorp's ignorance of the content in the trailers. Therefore, Source A is unreliable.

Source B is reliable as it comments on both sides, parents and children. In addition this source has enhanced reliability has it comes from a teenager who commented on how much teenagers actually know about sex. The author has considered both sides and making it fair and just. Therefore Source B is reliable.

My conclusion is that Mediacorp should look through what they screened on national television, especially during prime hours. Be it trailers of an adult film, these trailers should be made for general audience and do not show scenes of sexual innuendos. This tarnishes the once Innocent minds of children.

Source A: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_331875.html
Source B: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_331875.html

Read more...

3D: Shuvod Rai

The overarching issue is whether the private tuition is beneficial to Singaporean students.

Source A

(Private tuition: Why Singapore education can't do without it.) An online article written by Ee Teck Ee

Having said this, I know many students take private tuition as an excuse for not paying attention in class or not doing their homework. Many also delude themselves by hoping tutors will provide short cuts to spare them the anguish of mental exertion. Many express surprise when tutors show them the answers they are seeking, lurking in their own textbooks and notes. They do not want to read themselves and prefer to pay someone to read to them. For them, tuition is as beneficial as fake medicine.

As the Chinese saying goes: 'Some need charcoal in snowy weather. Others want flowers to beautify their brocades.' The latter are parents of good students who provide their children tuition only to achieve better grades or keep up with the Joneses. We can pity their pressurized children. Satiation can often be counter-productive.

Ee Teck Ee http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_328166.html

Source B

(Students need private tuition because they develop and respond differently.) Written in response to Ee Teck Ee comment by Julian Sng

Of course, even if there are a seemingly large number of students who treat tuition as a way to do homework or be spoon-fed information, one has to admit that things get done this way. The student may not be particularly serious about tuition, but because schoolwork is involved, revision is done. So Mr Ee is right to say that 'tuition is as beneficial as fake medicine' or, to use a more appropriate term, it has a placebo effect.

Even though students may treat tuition as guided homework, parents are put somewhat at ease that their children get the work done.

The next point I disagree with is that parents 'provide their children tuition only to achieve better grades or keep up with the Joneses'. That is another hasty generalization. Mr Ee should bear in mind the students from different backgrounds and with different responsiveness (a point he made earlier) who require tuition just to catch up. That is another hasty generalization. Mr Ee should bear in mind the students from different backgrounds and with different responsiveness (a point he made earlier) who require tuition just to catch up.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_329476.html

In source A the writer says many students take private tuition as an excuse for not paying attention in class or not doing their homework and that for them, tuition is as beneficial as fake medicine. He also goes on to say that parents enroll their children only to keep up with the Joneses. By publishing his views on the Straits Times forum and criticizing the students who take private tuition as a pretext to slack and parents who enroll their children for private tuition just for the sake of it, he is trying to persuade them not to enroll for tuition unnecessary so that Singaporean students can learn to be more independent. Source B says that students require private tuition because different students respond and develop differently and that it is beneficial for them. It states "Of course, even if there are a seemingly large number of students who treat tuition as a way to do homework or be spoon-fed information, one has to admit that things get done this way. That is another hasty generalization. Mr Ee should bear in mind the students from different backgrounds and with different responsiveness (a point he made earlier) who require tuition just to catch up." The purpose of the writer is to encourage and students to go for private tuition and parents to enroll their children for tuition lessons.

Both sources are similar in that both agree that students are lazy and expect everything to be done for them. Source A says that "Many also delude themselves by hoping tutors will provide short cuts to spare them the anguish of mental exertion. They do not want to read themselves and prefer to pay someone to read to them." Source B also states that there are a seemingly large number of students who treat tuition as a way to do homework or be spoon-fed information. This clearly shows that students are lazy.

The two sources are different as both disagree in the effectiveness of private tuition. Source A states that tuition is as beneficial as fake medicine and that satiation can often be counter-productive. This proves that private tuition is not effective in helping the students. However source B says that although students are not particularly serious about tuition, but because schoolwork is involved, revision is done. This shows that private tuition is effective as it helps students to get their revision done.

My conclusion is that private tuition is beneficial to students.

Read more...

4F: Muhammad Wisnuh Aggriawan Bin Rohaizat

Issue: Should foreign workers be treated as outsiders?

Source A: A comment by a Singaporean, Zhou Zhiqiang, in the Straits Times Forum regarding foreign workers occupying the parks during weekends.

I am not sure if Jurong West Park has achieved its aim to provide more greenery to residents.

Every weekend evening, the park is a place of relaxation for foreign workers who live in dormitories nearby. They gather in small groups and spread themselves every few metres apart on the green. Not many residents use the park facilities. I do not know if the workers' presence deters residents from using the park or residents do not appreciate the park's facilities.

Most of us are ready to accept the presence of foreign workers within our neighbourhood. But I feel there should be more sensitivity towards residents' rights instead of just asking them to be more accommodating. There is a limit as to how much we can accommodate their presence.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_331874.html

Source B: A comment by a Singaporean in the Straits Times Forum regarding the mindsets of Singaporeans towards foreign workers.

Such interesting conversation from such narrow minded Singaporeans who must remember they too have come from a working class background, relatives pulling rickshaws and coolies labouring along the Singapore River. Ok times have changed. But expat workers have been bought in because Singaporeans do not wish to do the building work themselves.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_331874.html

The main question in this issue is how we as Singaporeans should treat foreign workers? The message in Source A is that the foreign workers are over using our facilities and their presence might deter residents from using these public facilities such as a park. It also states that there is a limit to how much we as Singaporeans can accommodate to the presence of foreign workers in our neighbourhood. The writer used word such as 'sensitivity,' 'deters' and 'spread themselves' to show that he is not very happy to see too many foreign workers in the public. The purpose of Zhou Zhiqiang commenting on the Straits Times Forum is to publicise his views and displeasure towards the presence of too many foreign workers in the public so that the readers will also feel the same way and pressurize the government to take action and help cut down the number of foreign workers in the public.

Source B however, states that a few Singaporeans are narrow minded and has forgotten that they also came from a working class background. It also states that these expat workers are 'bought in' because Singaporeans do not wish to do the works done by the expat workers. The writer in source B used words such as 'interesting,' 'working class background' and 'narrow minded' to be sarcastic towards the writer in source A. The purpose of Source B is to remind the readers reading Source A that we are the same as the workers because we too came from working class backgrounds so that we do not treat the foreign workers as different from us.

Source B is reliable because it is a comment by a Singaporean who knows the Singaporean background well and why the foreign workers are bought in to Singapore. Hence, he is able to understand the feelings of both the feelings of Singaporeans and foreign workers and make an unbiased judgement.

My conclusion is that every Singaporean must be able to accept the foreign workers as a local worker and not an outsider because no one in Singapore is really from Singapore. Hence, we have no right to judge who is an outsider and who is a Singaporean.

Read more...

4F: Lee Kian Chong

The over-arching issue is whether the CPF is acceptable for Singaporeans.

Source A: A comment made by vrnoidiots on the ST forum on CPF in 2009

We are all actually idiots.CPF is a tool that make all us more of an idiot.Work,work,work for almost all our life and when it's time for us to really enjoy our fruit of hard work,they'll say no you can't take your fruit and eat it,the gahman will tell you how you can eat that fruit of yours.Take a bite of it and the rest the gahmen will keep it for you then at the appropriate time let you have another small bite.But the real thing is-that fruit is our hard earned
fruit and its contain our blood,sweat and tears.They are actually keeping your fruit and from that fruit gain more fruits out of it but only reward you with a meagre interest.
Forsee things will get worst in the coming future,with more announcement of controls in the CPF.The world is having financial difficulties and am sure CPF monies are being invested with various financial institutes to gain more from it.With these bad times not sure about what is going to happen to our CPF money?Keeping our fingers crossed.The younger generation will certainly not be able to enjoy their CPF money in future.
(http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16047)

Source B:A comment by a Singaporean Citizen living in the UK 2009

I am living in the UK, no perfect scheme anywhere like you said BUT the Govt keeps on improving on existing private schemes, and not dictate to people their way is the "best & only way".

In the UK, there are now stricter regulations for private pension providers to give realistic forecast and advice. Those who are not can be sued till they drop. The Govt is NOT ALLOWED to meddle in peoples' private matters too much. The Govt is there to regulate and facilitate in citizens' interest, not to dictate.

In the private pension scheme that I am in, the provider lets me decide how many percent I want my investment to be in each category of industry, eg properties, new technology, blue chips etc. Of course they advised me the risks of each and help me balance them out, to prevent losing all the money. I can go for safer bet (CPF type of investment?) or I can go for higher gains with more risk but I cannot put all my eggs in one basket. My employer contributes the amount matching what I CHOOSE to contribute or afford.

(http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16047&page=5)

The purpose of source A is to dispel away Singaporeans from supporting the CPF. It states that Singaporeans "are all idiots" using the CPF , saying that Singaporeans "work , work ,work" till the end of their life and then be unable to withdraw money from CPF in large amounts.This means that the author dislikes the CPF and in order to prove his point even calls himself an idiot for using the
CPF with the word "us". Therefore , the author feels that the CPF is not to the good of Singapore citizens and cannot be accepted.

The purpose of Source B is educate people that there is no perfect scheme, there will always be downsides to every scheme but there will continuously be improvement by stating that"no perfect scheme" is present anywhere and that "the Government keeps on improving on existing private schemes".This means that the author does not want people to complain about CPF but instead deal with it the best they can as there is no perfect scheme anywhere and no matter how hard people complain , that fact cannot be changed. Therefore , the author finds that the CPF is good its in own ways and should be accepted by the public if the government continuously improves the system.

Source A is unreliable because it was written by a Singaporean who has been using the CPF only.This means that the author has not experienced other schemes and is making biased comments about how bad the CPF is.Thus showing that the Singaporean is making a biased comment.Therefore , source A is unreliable.

Source B is reliable because it was written by a Singaporean citizen who moved to the UK. The author has experienced the schemes provided by countries beyond Singapore and Singapore itself. As a result he would make an unbiased comment.Therefore , Source B is reliable.

My conclusion is that everyone should learn to accept whatever is given to them. If everything could be altered to fit everyone's need ,which is impossible , people will start to feel that they are superior and that everything should fit their needs.
As a result , everyone must learn to improve whatever they have and not complain and do nothing it.

---

Chat online and in real-time with friends and family! Windows Live Messenger

Read more...

4F : Yun Sol

The over-arching issue here is if the revamp of primary education is going to be able to help both the students and their parents.

Source A
Changes recommended by a panel tasked to review the system include doing away with semestral assessments for Primary 1 and 2 pupils. It is a key sign of the shift away from a system that has emphasised exams despite complaints from parents and students that this has led to undue stress.
Language teaching will see more emphasis placed on a pupil's ability to speak well, honed, for instance through speech and drama, songs or recitations.

Mathematics will be more activity- based, with investigative tasks to give more accurate feedback to pupils, teachers and parents so that they truly understand the concepts.

Teachers will be given the flexibility to pace the science curriculum and use more engaging learning approaches.

Another new focus of the curriculum is all-round character building.

A Programme for Active Learning will expose all Primary 1 and 2 pupils to sports and outdoor education, and the performing and visual arts.

Pupils in the upper levels will be encouraged to have a co-curricular activity or take part in non-academic electives. 'We believe that by giving children the opportunity to be exposed to learn new skills, it will shape their character. They will become more confident and resilient, and better learners at the end of the education system,' said Ms Fu
With the new emphasis on all aspects of learning, it made sense to replace the two big exams a year for Primary 1 and 2 pupils with mini-tests after each topic is taught.

This way, children can ease into school and learn to enjoy it, she said.

To provide a more holistic picture of how a child is faring, teachers will be asked to give parents feedback on progress, strengths and weaknesses, rather than just test scores.

This is an extract from the article " Big revamp of primary education on cards" by Jane Ng taken from http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_331296.html

Source B

While it is commendable that the change is made within a generation's time, changes to the mindsets of parents ought to be taken into consideration as well and this feat can easily span more than a generation. It is vital that the MOE focus on adjusting the mindsets of the parents simultaneously. Otherwise, the revamp will just be meaningless. Unfortunately, this aspect has yet to be properly treated. Allow me to expand this list of possible setbacks to illustrate.

Say for instance, in doing away semestral exams for P1 and P2, will their replacements like mini-tests be equally if not more taxing? How to convince the parents that the child can really afford to play then (and not preparing for mini-tests constantly)? What about streaming in P4 (pretty hard to do so if holistic development of a child is the new focus)? Is it still on (perhaps under a different name after a tweak) or will it be abolished? Suppose the streaming is still on and worst of all, with the same agenda and intent, does the MOE seriously believe that the parents will re-assess academic importance based on these new changes? With P1 and P2 exams removed, the stress on the child can be magnified if the curriculum is cramped even further (assuming that the level to be achieved at P6 does not change). What about the secondary school admission criteria? Will it be formalized to include non-academic subjects/areas or is it still functioning like case-by-case basis (thus offering no guarantee)? Under such circumstances, the parents will just revert to the old system. The only difference now is that they will put more load on the child instead (i.e. adding non-academic areas).


This is an extract from a comment made by rocky_pang taken from http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16483&page=4

Source A is trying to prove to the readers of the article that the revamp of the primary education will definitedly be helpful and that parents and students can both wait to benefit from the revamp. It says that the revamp includes changes such as the Primary 1 and 2 students will no longer need to take big exams but will be replaced with mini-tests instead which will reduce the pressure and workload on the students at the same time they can ease into the school better and enjoy learning in school. It also states that the upper sec will be encouraged to take co-ciruclar programme and non-academic electives as this can help the students to be exposed to learn new skills, it will shape their character. They will become more confident and resilient, and better learners at the end of the education system. The source is written in such as to provide as evidence of assurance to the parents that the revamp will be successful and both parents and students should not be duly worried about the revamp instead look forward to it.

Source B doubts that the revamp is going to prove useful and helpful to the parents of the students. It states that while the revamp is commendable it has not considered the mindsets of the parents simultaneously. It shows a list of examples of the possible setbacks of the revamp it might have on the parents one of which concerns the removal of big exams for the primary 1 and 2 students. The source states that instead of it reducing the pressure on the parents it might just increase it as the curriculum is cramped even further and that the students will spend more time preparing for their mini-tests which will be more taxing. It also states that if the secondary school admission criteri is formalized to include non-academic subjects/areas functioninglike case-by-case basis thus offering no guarantee which such circumstances ,the parents will revert to the old education system.

Source A and B are different on its assurance to benefit the parents. Source A assures that parents can stand to benefit from the revamps as some of the changes can reduce the pressure on the parents from removal of big exams and replaced with mini-tests. However Source Bsays otherwise. It says that the mini-tests is going to put more pressure on the parents as they will put aside more studying time and less playing time for the students to prepare occasionally for their mini-tests which will be more taxing and might just increase the pressure on the parents

Source A and B are also different on its purpose behind why they were written. source A is written by one of the Straits times journalist and is most probably pressured to agree with the governement's way of handling its country and thus wrote such an article to influence the Singaporean parents to thinking that the revamp is going to be successful. While Source B was a constructive feedback from one of the parents who had exprience with such a matter and gave his honest opinions about the revamp.

I conclude that Source A is not reliable. Firstly its written soley based on interviews from principals and by a journalist who has no exprienece in this matter whatsoever. Its content also does not match with source B which is written by a exprienced parent who gave his honest opinions about the revamp and they contradicted Source A's content.

Read more...

4D: Ziyad Bin Ahmad Bagharib

Issue: Singapore has a long way to go in sports.

Source A: A comment by a Singaporean, Peter Loon, in the Straits Times Forum regarding Singapore's response towards the recent Volvo Ocean Race.
THE recent Volvo Ocean Race, which had a leg in Singapore, has left our shores. By all accounts, the response from Singaporeans was lukewarm at best.

The location of the race village, among other things, has been blamed, which may indeed be a cause. But there is a more fundamental reason: It is the psyche of Singaporeans when it comes to sports.

Whenever there is a new sport, and few Singaporeans are involved, or it is not well followed on TV, attendance is dismal. This bodes poorly for future repeat visits by the Volvo organisers and, even more important, for the Youth Olympic Games.

We fought hard to win the bid, and it is meant to showcase Singapore not only as an efficient nation of organisers, but also as a nation committed to the heart of sport: athletic participation.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_329644.html

Source B: A comment by a Singaporean regarding Singapore's interest in sports in general, published in the Straits Times Forum.

To spectate sailing, you need to really go out to the sea; this may not be practical/possible for many who may even fall in love with it.

I don't agree that becos sailing is a niche sport, it has less spectator base. Golf is also very niche too (I never think it is a sport anyway; it is a game, like bowling). But golf is more 'visible' and has a much wider clientele base in S'pore. So, no surprise that there are more people at those tournaments.

Thinking that becos we are a small country, and so we have a small talent base is incorrect. It is self-defeating and lacks confidence. We have the talent, but our success is limited by our culture - putting the paper chase before sport career. That is what we should, and can, address with long term policies.

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?s=fa6a74bae7bb7aa25c2193786770d29e&t=16383&page=2

The issue in question here is Singapore's reputation as a part of the sporting world currently, and also what can be done to improve it in time to come.

The message of Peter Loon in Source A is that Singapore is not up to standard as a prominent member of the sporting world. His purpose in having this opinion published in the Straits Times Forum is to make Singaporeans aware that Singapore's image as a sporting country is tarnished when events such as the Volvo Ocean Race are held here but the response is weak, so that they will be more mindful of that fact and will hence change to reverse that negative effect. He does this by emphasising on how bad it looked when the Volvo Ocean Race came to Singapore, by using words like like "dismal" and "bodes poorly." He used that event as an example of Singapore's unenthusiasm in sports. By publishing this in the Straits Times, he hoped that Singaporeans would respond by being more active in future sports events to show the world that Singapore indeed is not redundant in the sporting world.

The message of the Singaporean in Source B is that Singapore is, in fact, up to standard as a prominent member of the sporting world, but does not show it enough. His purpose in having this opinion published in the Straits Times Forum is to defend Singapore against those who believe that Singapore does not have enthusiasm in sports, so that other Singaporeans who may not have been enthusiastic initially can be inspired to be. He does so by stating that a sailing competition is not a concrete example to prove Singapore's lack of enthusiasm in sports as it is a difficult sport to follow, as spectators "need to really go out to the sea." He states that Singapore's enthusiasm in sports is proved through other sports, even niche sports such as golf, which are easier to follow. He also states that Singapore "has the talent" but does not utilise it entirely as people would rather go for academic excellence than athletic excellence, and he then suggests implementing long-term policies which can change that.

Source A and Source B are similar in carrying across the idea that Singapore has room for improvement in terms of its mindset towards sports. Source A clearly states so by saying that Singapore gives "lukewarm" response towards sports due to the "psyche of Singaporeans when it comes to sports." It then carries on to state that Singapore needs to change that to live up to its name as "a nation committed to the heart of sport." Source B states that the Singaporean culture is to put "the paper chase before the sport career." That is, to strive for academic excellence rather than to pursure a career in sports. He then states that this culture is something that "should, and can," be addressed. Hence, the 2 sources are similar in the idea that Singapore needs to tweak its mindset to be more inclinced towards participating in sports.

However, Sources A and B are different in their attitude towards Singapore's current mindset towards sports. Source A implies that Singapore is currently really not a worthy member of the sporting world. He does so by using the Volvo Ocean Race held in Singapore as an example. He states that Singapore's reponse was "lukewarm at best," and that "attendance is dismal" at competitions of new sports or sports which Singapore is not very involved in. These both imply that Singapore currently could not be bothered about sports. Source B, however, implies that Singapore may not give great response to certain sports, but does give such response to more popular sports. It states that there are "more people at those tournaments," in which 'those' refers to more popular sports. It also implies that Singapore actually does have sporting talent despite many people's opinion that it doesn't. It states that that opinion is "self-defeating and lacks confidence," when in actual fact, "we have the talent."

As for the reliability of Sources A and B, each source clearly has its own stand. Source A is not wrong in stating that the Volvo Ocean Race's response was disappointing. Source B does agree to this when it states that spectating sailing "may not be practical/possible" as the spectators "need to really go out to the sea." However, Source A is rash in judging Singapore's entire attitude towards sports in general by using that one competition alone, as there are so many other competitions which get good response here in Singapore. For example, Source B stated that golf tournaments in Singapore get good response. Source B, on the other hand, admits that Singapore can afford to be more inclined towards sports, but at the same time does not go to the extent of saying that Singapore is a disappointment when it comes to sports.

In conclusion, I feel that Singapore has room for improvement in sports, just like any other country. However, as for now, Singapore is a prominent member of the sporting world and should not be degraded with remarks that Singapore has a long way to go in sports.

Read more...

4F: Ryan Phua

Over-arching issue: Can parents spare the rod and not spoil the child with right parenting skills as well as being spoilt or pampered?

Source A: A comment by a Singaporean male parent, on 18 January 2009 Sunday 10:08am

While I fully agree that we, as parents, must seek alternatives besides using the rod. At times, to not spoil one's child, 'right parenting skills' have to include caning when all else fails.

In my humble opinion, pampering of our children can be taken too far. I attended a parents' briefing for my son's forthcoming school camp recently, & could not believe some of the questions asked, issues raised & demands made by some of the adults.

I was under the impression that other parents, like my wife & me, would be pleased to see our child rough it out for 3 days & 2 nights learning to be independent. Instead, parents made all manner of unreasonable demands on the school & the organisers of the camp at Lim Chu Kang. Certain parents demanded that the toilets be kept dry & clean at all times, instructors & parent volunteers patrol round the clock in & around the dormitories, mattresses free of dirt/dust must be provided for the children, all double decker beds be replaced by single deck ones for safety purposes even though there are railguards on the upper deck, mosquitoes & stray dogs not be permitted to enter the camp compound, all gates (including the main entrance) must be padlocked 24 hrs a day, meals be piping hot, water sports & obstacle courses be banned etc. One parent also claimed that he heard from 'reliable sources' that the camp site is haunted, & demanded that the instructors 'do something about it'!

Strangely, the 2 parents who demanded that instructors & parent volunteers patrol the camp's fenced in premises round the clock, declined to carry out the task, when the presenter suggested that they can come forward to assist at the forthcoming camp. Some parents also insisted that their children be allowed to carry their mobile phones along with them to camp, even though an emergency hotline number was given by the instructor. He reasoned that this camp is meant to teach the students to be independent, so having a mobile with them at all times to communicate with their parents would be counter productive. The instructor also mentioned that parents kept calling the hotline incessantly during previous camps, just to ask if their children were okay, & many insisted that the instructors look for their kids among the 400 or so campers, to come to the office for frivolous reasons.

I believe that most of our children these days are too spoilt & pampered.

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16258

Source B: A comment made by a Singaporean mother on Jan 19 2009 12.24PM

My parents brought us up with a cane in their hands. We were disciplined by the rod and also if we came back late (after curfew), we were grounded. It worked on all their children and today we do the same to our kids, caning would be the last resort. When we went out camping at Ubin (girls and boys mixed), our parents didn't care if we would be bitten my mosquitoes, or some strange insects or had leaches on us etc... in fact we came back with a bruised knee, and a good tan! And mind you, we are all girls!

Today, my husband and I let out children run "free" like we used to be. By letting go, we allow them to be responsible and independent!

Today's kids are brought up lazy and without manners (spoilt)! I pity the parents of such kids because when they grow as adults, they will face the inevitable -- irresponsible and dependent!

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16258&page=2

From source A, it can be observed that the person who made the comments definitely believes that parents are definitely over pampering their children and are depriving them the chances of independence. This can be shown from source A that at a camp briefing, he could not believe some of the questions asked, issues raised & demands made by some of the adults and parents, apparently too concerned of their children's well being. Hence I feel that he strongly believes that parents are spoiling the child and pampering them too much.

However, source A does state that parents should use different methods besides using the rods. From the source, it states that to not to spoil the child, right parenting skills have to be implemented, which includes caning when all other ways fail. The purpose of this comment

From source B, the person believes that children are indeed spoilt. This can be shown from the source as it states that kids today are all ill mannered and lazy. Hence this shows that they are spoilt. Also, the source states that parents do not need to spare the rod and by doing so this makes them independent and makes them rely more on themselves and be responsible. However, the writer also agrees that caning should be used, but only as a last resort. Moreover, parents are now paranoid and are pampering their children, resulting in their children to be spoilt. This can be shown from the source that children are dependent.

Both sources agree that parents are now spoiling their children and are sparing the rod. From source A, it states that most of our kids are now spoilt and pampered. While in source B, it states that today's kids are brought up lazy and dependent.

However, while both sources also agree that while right parenting skills are required in the children growing process, both sources agree that caning is also used in the right parenting skills. In source A, it states that parents must seek alternatives besides using the rod. At times, to not spoil one's child, 'right parenting skills' have to include caning when all else fails. In source B, it states that caning worked on all their children and today we do the same to our kids, caning would be the last resort.

Also, both sources are reliable as both writers are parents and understand how the whole process is all about. With that, I feel that both sources are reliable and that what they havce written is true and reliable.

In conclusion, both sources agree that children nowadays are pampered and parents are sparing the child and using the right parenting skills.

Read more...