the history society

4F: Alwin Low

2009-02-05T23:21:00.003+08:00

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

4F: Darryl Yeo

2009-02-05T21:46:00.003+08:00

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

4D: Sidney Teo

2009-02-01T21:12:00.003+08:00

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

4D Hee Bih Yau

2009-02-01T03:46:00.003+08:00

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

4F: Ryan Tay

2009-01-31T23:50:00.003+08:00

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

3D: Shuvod Rai

2009-01-31T22:59:00.003+08:00

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.

4F: Muhammad Wisnuh Aggriawan Bin Rohaizat

2009-01-30T23:51:00.003+08:00

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.

4F: Lee Kian Chong

2009-01-30T16:37:00.003+08:00

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

4F : Yun Sol

2009-01-30T00:26:00.003+08:00

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.

4D: Ziyad Bin Ahmad Bagharib

2009-01-30T00:18:00.005+08:00

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.

4F: Ryan Phua

2009-01-29T22:22:00.004+08:00

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.

4F: Goh Yu Tian

2009-01-29T19:12:00.003+08:00

The over-arching issue concerning these two sources are about whether the 20.5 billion dollar package the Singapore government has introduced will ultimately affect Singapore citizens, or will it benifit the PRs in Singapore.

Source A
THE $20.5 billion Resilience Package unveiled by the Government last week is more pro-worker than employees may realise for two reasons, said labour chief Lim Swee Say on Thursday.
Firstly, the Jobs Credit scheme to subsidise part of the wage bill of employers, makes Singaporeans more cost-competitive than foreign workers.
Secondly, this scheme avoids the need to reduce the employers' Central Provident Fund contribution. Mr Lim was responding to views from some quarters reported in the media, that the measures announced in this year's Budget favoured businesses more than workers.
'This is a gross misunderstanding of the Resilience Package,' he told 500 union leaders at the National Trades Union Congress' annual workplan.

This is an extract from the article 'Budget is pro-worker', taken from the Straits Times website.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_331857.html

Source B
In this economic downturn, I would like to see this cash grant benefit Singaporeans rather than permanent residents (PRs). A clearer distinction between companies that hire more Singaporeans and those that do not is needed.
In the figures released by the Ministry of Home Affairs, more than 50,000 foreigners became PRs in 2005 and 2006. But in the past 10 years, an average of just 8,500 a year became citizens.
In addition, many expatriate couples, with husband and wife equally qualified, have one spouse taking up Singapore citizenship to enjoy subsidies, while the other retains home country citizenship.
Many foreigners come here because they see Singapore as a land of opportunity which is clean, safe and good for families. But going by the number who become citizens, not many think of Singapore as their only home.

This is an extract from a letter to the Straits Times Forum by a Mr Edmund Lim.
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_331469.html

In Source A, the message is that, the 20.5 billion dollar package is planned to help Singapore citizens, rather than the PRs. Also, the purpose is to calmthe nerves of unhappy Singapore citizens. In Source B, however, the letter's message was to express to the Singaporean government about the package benifiting Singaporean PRs instead of citizens. The purpose of this letter is to question the true purpose of this package, and if there are any flaws in the package, the Singaporean government should immediately change it, so as not to cause more unrest among Singaporean citizens.

These two sources are similar in addressing the issue of package benifiting Singaporean citizens and PRs in the economic recession. However, they are different in such that Source A is trying to say that, ultimately, Singaporean citizens benifit the most from this package, while Source B is asking if the package really does benifit Singaporean citizens the most.

The reliability of Source A is very strong, since it was said by an important man. He is the chief of NTUC, which is a workers' union. As such, he should be defending the workers' rights, but since he has spoken for the government instead, it shows that there is truth in his words after all. The reliability of Source B, on the other hand, is also very strong. It comes from a member of the public and he should have much understanding of how he package works, since it will affect him. He has expressed his opinion in this case, and it shows that he probably is worried about his own interests. He maybe hinting to the government that there are some flaws in the package, and they should correct those flaws as soon as possible.

I feel that both sources are very reliable and true. I also think that Source B was not the only letter, since Source A has been produced. Source A tries to address all who have written in, and i think that there should have been many who expressed their opinions, since the chief of NTUC himself has to make a speech as such.

4F: Sahil

2009-01-28T22:31:00.003+08:00

Over-Arching Issue: The cause of the lack of cleanliness in public places in Singapore (like neighbourhood parks).

Source A: A complaint by Madam Yuki Chan, a park user, on the Straits Times Forum.

I live at Jalan Chempaka Puteh where the Government had thoughtfully built a cosy, little park for residents. When the foreign workers came, I subscribed to the Government's call to accept foreign workers in our neighbourhood. I was open to sharing this park, near Simpang Bedok, which is teeming with foreign workers of various nationalities. However, the condition of the park has deteriorated ever since foreign workers living in the area started patronising it. They dine in the park and throw rubbish everywhere instead of into the bins provided. The park's gazebo is now a no-go zone for the children because it is littered with broken bottles and glass shards. My neighbourhood park is now in shambles. It is no longer cosy or clean, and has turned into a convenient urinal for male foreign workers. Foreign workers need to be taught to live with us as much as we are reprimanded for rejecting them. Whose job is it to educate them?

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_328719.html

Source B: Suggestions on how to improve the standard of cleanliness in public parks by Soh Hwee Yeow, on the Straits Times Forum

I refer to last Wednesday's online letter by Madam Yuki Chan, 'No longer a cosy park for residents'. I agree with Madam Chan. I have lived in Jurong West Street 93 since 1989 (I moved to Street 81 in 2007). It used to be very quiet, clean and peaceful. I have noticed the increase in the amount of litter strewn everywhere - HDB void decks and letterbox areas, bus interchanges, streets in the Jurong area, shopping centres, hawker centres and so on. No one seems to care about the environment we live in (Singaporeans as well as foreigners). Our civic duties as human beings seem to have been thrown out of the window. We talk about a gracious Singapore, but we are a long way from it.

Suggestions:

- Adults should begin by taking ownership of litter and disposing it correctly in dedicated bins or areas. Be a role model to youth in particular, for they seem to have a someone-else-will-clean-it-up attitude.

- Companies involved in recruitment of foreign workers should pitch in to educate them before releasing them into the workforce.

- The authorities should step up enforcement. Go back to 'shame' tactics, if need be, with corrective work orders. Perhaps a booking blitz with much publicity over those caught littering might work.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_331049.html

The message of source A is that the public park near her home is unclean due to foreign workers patronising and littering the park and littering there (throw rubbish everywhere). The purpose of the source is to express unhappiness and complain about the park being unclean (park is now in shambles). This proves that the park is dirty due to the presence of the foreign workers there.

Source B's message is that many public places are dirty with increased amounts of litter strewn everywhere (litter strewn everywhere- bus interchanges, shopping centres, etc). The purpose of the source is to suggest ways in which we can improve the standard of cleanliness in public places (3 suggestions are given in source B).

The two sources are similar in their message. The sources agree that public places in Singapore, like neighbourhood parks, are unclean, (condition of the park has deteriorated) and (increase in the amount of litter strewn everywhere). Both sources have different purpose. Source A's purpose is to complain and express dissatisfaction about the unclean park while the purpose of source B is to suggest ways in which the cleanliness in public places can be improved.

I feel that the sources are reliable as they state facts as both sources describe what the author of each source saw when they were in a public place. In conclusion, I feel that each of us should contribute to keeping public places clean, and if we do so, the standard of cleanliness in public places will improve greatly.

4F: Marcus Guat

2009-01-24T22:06:00.004+08:00

Is caning really an effective way of teaching your children, making them learn from their mistakes?

Source A: a comment made by a user of the Straits Times forum, PitFighter

Have seen parents who use all kinds of modern methods to talk to their kids but somehow didn't work. On the other hand, there are those who use the cane and it works. In other words, there is no one perfect methodology. No one-size-fits-all kind of solution. More like different strokes for different people. The important thing is that parents who use the cane to instil discipline must be careful using it - not in anger, not to express their own frustrations, not to abuse their parental authority and so on.

Source B: a comment made by a user of the Straits Times forum, sharlynrj
No, it has been proven that a good spank is not the answer. We brought up our two daughters by sitting them down and talking to them. We never ever spanked them. We grounded them a few times from their activities and they learned quick. I am very proud what they are today. The trouble with some who think spanking is an answer, is that they have taken the easy way out to vent their anger at their kids. Sadly, it appears that they are too busy to spend time to talk to their kids.

The over-arching issue is whether parents should cane their children for their mistakes, and if caning really helps the children learn, reminding them not to commit the same foul deeds again.

The author made the comment in source A to portray and suggest the different methods that parents could use to discipline their children, such as caning and talking to them using modern methods. He wrote that parents have to try different methods on disciplining their child, as different children have different mentalities. He advised caning when talking to them doesn’t help, but he also stressed how parents shouldn’t overuse caning, giving different strokes for different people.

The comment in source B was made by a mother of two children. She clearly stated that using the cane against one’s children would do them no good. She felt that talking calmly while firmly to them was a more productive way of instilling discipline. She felt that just by talking to them, and grounding them if there’s a need to, would allow them to learn from their mistakes, just like her children did, and that she’s proud of what her children are today in society.

Sources A and B are different as they both preach of different ways to discipline one’s children. Source A approves of caning, and advises parents to cane their children when needed. While source B disapproves of caning totally, finding caning redundant and unnecessary. Evidence from source A “there are those who use the cane and it works” and source B “No, it has been proven that a good spank is not the answer”.

However, Sources A and B are also similar as they both disapprove caning in a sense that it’s becoming an abuse. Both sources stressed that parents shouldn’t cane their children just to vent their frustration and unhappiness on them, in other words, that parents shouldn’t misuse caning Evidence from source A “parents who use the cane to instil discipline must be careful using it - not in anger, not to express their own frustrations, not to abuse their parental authority” and from source B “they have taken the easy way out to vent their anger at their kids”.

To conclude, I feel that both sources are more different than similar, as both sources are promoting different ways of punishing children. Source A states the importance of caning, and how it helps, while stressing not to overdo it, and give different strokes to different people, while source B strongly objects caning and feels that caning does no good in educating one’s child. Hence I feel that both sources are more different than similar.

Source A:
Source B:

4F: Yang Jieren

2009-01-20T22:19:00.004+08:00

Sex education: Do Parents play a key role?

Source A: A report by a research doctor on the topic

Studies have shown clearly that when parents are actively involved in their children's lives, the risk of their children engaging in risky sexual behaviour is significantly reduced. Despite the pressures of time and work today, many parents can attest to the fact that making the time and effort to educate their children can be fulfilling indeed. My wife and I face the same struggle ourselves, and wish to share some tips from parenting resources we have found helpful. Recent media coverage of sex among teenagers has given parents the opportunity to review their role as the primary educators of their children, especially in the area of sex education.

Source B: A comment by a local angry parent
The truth is, humanity has been living through a long, with an open and well-connected world, the information spreads fast and far.
The media is the culprit. With so much to be seen, 24/7, who is to say it is wrong?
We as human beings have to decide. We cant prevent our children from seeing such stuff all the time; with the current technology, they will be able to learn such things much faster without our knowing.

Source A states that parents are to blame for the sexual education of their children. It points out that by spending time and effort to educate their children, parents can guide them and lead them away from sexual information that they shouldn't be learning at their age. It suggests that parents are the primary educator of their children in all areas.

Source B criticizes the media for providing sexual information for the young. It states that the in the current digital age, children will be more exposed to such information at and earlier age and that it would be hard to prevent them from doing so.

Both sources differ in their opinion on who is the primary sexual educator of the young. Source A believes that parents are to hold responsibility for informing their children good sexual knowledge and by teaching them the correct values the risk of children engaging in sexual behaviour is lower. Source B on the other hand is certain that the media is the primary reason to why children learn sexual information at an early age and that with technology being so advanced it is considerably easier for them to learn sexual information through the media.

Parents who are concern about how sexual education is being taught to their children make both sources. The sources are thus reliable as they express the views of parents who have different opinions on the primary reason how children learn knowledge on sexuality.

My conclusion is that both play a role; the blame and responsibilities should lie on both sides. The parents can teach the children all the right information but if the child sees it through the media he will still be educated.

4D: Li Long Bang

2009-01-20T20:11:00.005+08:00

Source A

More than half a million Chinese people were thrown out of work in the last three months of 2008 as the impact of the global financial crisis deepened, the government said on TuesdayThe urban jobless rate stood at 4.2 per cent at the end of last year, up from 4.0 per cent from the end of 2007, Mr Yin said.The rise reflected an economy slowed down by the financial crisis, said Mr Tang Min, deputy secretary of the China Development Research Foundation, a think-tank linked to the State Council, or Cabinet. Beijing has unveiled numerous measures to maintain and create jobs, including financial aid to companies and orders to state-run firms to ease on job cuts, after President Hu Jintao warned of a 'grim' jobs situation in 2009.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_328531.html

Source B

There will be more than 30,000 jobs created this year, enough to absorb the pool of fresh graduates and new job seekers, said Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang on Monday.The job forecast is, however, much bleaker than the last two boom years when annual job creation exceeded 200,000.Each year, there are usually 30,000 new job seekers looking for work.But the jobs gains this year could be wiped out by job losses, which could match the high of 30,000 in 1998 during the Asian financial crisis.In fact, retrenchments had risen significantly in the fourth quarter of last year.Based on early notifications by companies which cut jobs, about 4,800 workers were laid off between last October and December, and another 3,300 could face the same fate over the next few months, said Mr Gan.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story STIStory_328212.html?vgnmr=1

Source A is about China jobless problem.

Source B is about Singapore retrenchment problem.

Source A tells the impact of the global financial crisis on China's employment situation. However,goverment is trying to do something to solve the jobless problem.

Its propose is showing Chinese government is concerning its people all the time.

Source B tells the goverment officials assure the employment situation is quite good.However,the fact is that retrenchments are increasing this year,the employment situation is not so good.

Its propose is showing Singapore goverment is lying to the people, the employment situation is not very good in Singapore.

Two source are similiar in telling about the employment situation of their country,and the situation are not very good.

However,Source A is trying to prsaie their goverment about trying to solve the problem.Source B is trying to criticize their goverment about lying to the people.

Source A should be reliability because it is in Singapore's newspaper.The editor does not care about the political law of China,so his words should

be reliable.

Sourece B should be also reliable because it is writen by Singaporean and it is publish in the Straits Times.If it is not available,the goverment will not allow it to be published.

Conclusion:

In China,the jobless problem is very popular,and many people can not find their jobs. Government will do something to ease it.

In Singapore,the retrenchments are increasing.Goverment is lying to the public,however,i think the goverment has already found the way to solve it.They laid to the people is just that they

do not want disturb people's peaceful life or do not want to scale the people.

4F: Yaksh Birla

2009-01-20T16:33:00.004+08:00

The over-arching issue is concerning the temporary shut down of the Singapore Flyer for approximately 6 hours due to a power failure.

Source A : A comment made by a user of the Straits Times Forum, bumibumi

The worst thing is that the Singapore Flyer never plan and think ahead

It was reported all passengers after being eventually brought down when the wheel turned again, they were led to be fed and ferried home without the opportunity for the press to interview them

They had never thought of what they are going to do the next day when passengers turned up......

Angry customers wanted refund were refused. This is wrong. After such frightful experience and with no certain date of re-opening, customer should be given option to refund. Not everyone is enthused to return again. Singapore Flyer, are you listening ? Customers do not wish to be trapped to ride the Flyer again. Some are scared, some are no longer in Singapore when it re-opened....they should be refunded, period.

To many people, they won't even want to ride it even if it is free !
December 25, 2008 Thursday, 02:15 AM

Source B: A comment made by a user of the Straits Times Forum, Aceface1
Once again..dozens of negative posts and ill informed opinions. Just remember when you are offering your points of view that the Flyer and the shops there have all made a huge investment and their livelihoods may be at stake here.

Everyone is being so negative but this is a huge mechanical and technical installation and there are always some teething problems as with the A380 and many space programs. The Singapore public would be better focusing on the fact that no one was seriously injured and the important thing now is to get the wheel up and running again so that it can help with tourism and to the future prosperity of Singapore.

Don't be so quick to judge. The facts aren't known yet and calling for dismissals and the closing of the wheel is damaging and dangerous - we're talking about people's futures here - don't be so quick to jump on the blame bandwagon.The Flyer is a national icon and you should be proud of it.
December 25, 2008 Thursday, 11:57 PM

The comment made in Source A is describing the inability of the Singapore Flyer team to be efficient in a time of emergency or crisis. Source A was a comment made in a very negative light and the author's purpose was to strongly criticize the Singapore Flyer team and personnel for not being careful and taking to consideration about the needs and worries about the passengers who got stuck on the Singapore Flyer. 'bumibumi' depicts the Singapore Flyer personnel as being ignorant of the passengers pain without compensating for their loss. This is evident from the line in the source that states, "This is wrong. After such frightful experience and with no certain date of re-opening, customer should be given option to refund."

On the other hand, Source B was a comment made to defend the Singapore Flyer and to reason with the negative comments that had been executed about the structure. Despite the mishap, the author is trying to make clear that flaws and electrical failures are somewhat inevitable as the Singapore Flyer is a 'huge mechanical and technical installation and there are always some teething problems' The fact that the author, Aceface1 is trying to reason with the negative views concerning the Singapore Flyer and its team as he emphasizes that people should not be 'so quick to judge' or that they should be 'so quick to jump on the blame bandwagon. '

In conclusion, I feel that it is reasonable that Singaporeans are upset with what had happened but as Singaporeans we should not jump to conclusions quickly and point fingers at those whom we think is responsible even if they were not without any actual evidence. We should be proud of this national icon even if such an incident ever happened. If we were to start boycotting the Singapore Flyer, the businesses, the employees and employers located near the Singapore Flyer, the investors that invested millions into this project, will go in vain. I think that Singaporeans should always think before they act and not be selfish but think about those who really suffered.

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15733&page=3

4F: Yang jieren

2009-01-19T20:26:00.003+08:00

the thing sir

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

4F: Teo Shao Wei

2009-01-18T18:15:00.007+08:00

Will a terrorist not hesitate to harm his fellow countrymen?

Source A: A comment made by Peng Tie Lun on Straits Times forum.

ON THE one hand, alleged Singapore terrorist Mohammad Hassan Saynudin is accused of hideous plots against his fellow humans. On the other, he is as human as any of us, with an upbringing and range of interests no different from ours.

Even as he allegedly plotted to kill Singaporeans and foreigners under the flag of Jemaah Islamiah, he remained Singaporean with his love of football icons like V. Sundramoorthy, his bilingualism and his taste for teh tarik. He also showed his side as a family man when he referred to his family in a loving and regretful.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_327134.html

Source B: A comment made by a netizen Eagle2004.
Mohammad Hassan suggested killing the Christian teacher because he had not shown respect to Muslim students who wore headscarves. Mohammad Hassan & his 9 accomplices face the death sentence, under Indonesia’s anti-terrorism laws in a trial that is expected to last for months. In spite of his love of soccer, & his admiration of retired national footballer V. Sundramoorthy (a Hindu), I am sure Mohammad Hassan Saynudin would have no qualms killing him, if he ever perceives that Sundram does or says anything that shows disrespect to Islam.

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16233

The message of Source A is that Singapore terrorist Mohammad Hassan Saynudin still love his own country. This can be supported by the claims on his love for ‘football icons like V. Sundramoorthy, his bilingualism and his taste for the tarik’. His love for what is truly Singapore showed his other face; Singaporean.

The message of Source B is that Mohammad Saynudin will not hesitate to kill anyone that show disrespect to Islam. This can be supported by his suggestion of ‘killing the Christian teacher because he had not shown respect to Muslim students who wore headscarves.’ This tells us that he kill because he sense disrespect to his religion.

Sources A and B are different in their purpose. Source A wants Singaporeans to still consider terrorist Mohammad Hassan Saynudin as Singaporean despite his terrorist attempt on Indonesia as one face of him still yearns for Singapore and that he will not attempt an attack on his own country. While, Source B wants Singaporean not to acknowledge Mohammad Saynudin as Singaporean as the source claims that he will kill V. Sundramoorthy despite his admiration for him. This tells us that he will not hesitate to kill his fellow countrymen if they were to show disrespect to Islam.

Source A and B are not reliable as both are found on the Straits Times forum which is an avenue for people to post their opinions on certain issues. Being opinions, they tend to be bias and not entirely true according to facts. This make the sources very diluted, in their judgement, and thus credibility is greatly reduced, making the sources not reliable. Also, Source A referred his story to what reporters reported and Source B to what Source A wrote, making the facts go through a series of ‘filtration’ and the sources produced are polluted with personal opinions.

Ultimately, the facts still stands that Mohammad Hassan Saynudin is indeed Singaporean and being from such a civilised country, it is unfortunate and shocking to see our fellow countryman turning to a extremist, furthermore a terrorist. In my opinion, Singapore has to take responsibility that he is from our country and also learn from this incident that flaws still exist and quickly take the necessary actions to minimise any more extreme religious teachings. I believe that he will attack his own country if enough brainwashing is done to him, teaching him that Singapore too show no respect for Islam. If he is able to become a terrorist by religious teachings, he can too attack his own country by that very religion in which he believed in.

4D: Li Zheyuan

2009-01-15T23:52:00.003+08:00

The overarching issue is whether or not senior citizens should be kept at work, especially during a time like this in an economical crisis.

Source A: A comment from Lim Boon Bee online in the Straits Time Forum, a student

Old people should gracefully exit the job market and let young and deserving candidates get jobs. Already jobs are dwindling and if the old people still say 'I will still work even if I don't need to' it shows total insensitivity to poor families with young breadwinners. I request older people, if your sons and daughters can afford to take care of you or if you have good retirement savings, please do not try to look for a job. Sit back and enjoy the rest of your life. Let a young family survive out of your decision.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_324178.html

Source B: A comment from Dr Ang Eng Tat online in the Straits Times Forum, a senior citizen

I refer to yesterday's report, 'PM urges no let-up in keeping seniors at work'. In packaging the message, we should stress the personal benefits of working beyond one's official retirement age. Older Singaporeans should be persuaded to work because they want to, not because they must. I would like to work as long as possible simply because I want to work, not because I have to. I certainly do not want to burden my family or society. All things said, employers should listen to what the Government is advocating and keep senior citizens employed.'

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_324178.html

In Source A, the writer is expressing unhappiness towards the older people who are still working when they are capable of retirement. He wants to condemn these old people for taking up job positions that should be allowed to other younger people in the workforce, thus freeing up more available jobs in the country. He says things like "total insensitivity", "please do not try to look for a job" to express his discontent towards them. His purpose, by posting a comment on the Straits Time Forum where it is viewed publically allows for other Singaporeans who share the same thoughts as him to step out and support him. With this greater support in the community, then can the government take notice and possibly take action.

In Source B, the writer is trying to relate the feelings of the senior citizens working to the public by writing in to the Straits Time Forum online. He is trying to convey his personal feelings to the public, and emphasizing the need to keep senior citizens working. Source B states that these old people need to work in order not to burden their families and states the benefits of working past retirement age. Hence, the statement was made in an attempt to not only convey personal feelings, but to convince the public on this matter, thus supporting the government action and also allow the public to be able to relate to older, working people.

Both Sources are different in their tone of speech and the way the issue is addressed. Source A has a highly aggressive tone, using words like "total insensitivity", saying, "old people should gracefully exit the job market", hence condemning the older people on this particular issue very fiercely. Source B has a rather formal, calm, and more persuasive tone. B says "I certainly do not", "I would like to", hence trying to convince rather than condemn.

Both Sources are also similar in the fact that both individuals stress employment issues to be modified. Source A says "please do not try to look for a job", "let a young family survive out of your decision", hence trying to bring changes into the government for old people to be retired when possible, thus freeing more jobs in the market. B says "employers should listen to what the Government is advocating and keep senior citizens employed", thus trying to convince employers to follow the government avocation to allow older people in the working force to continue working.

Source B seems more reliable than Source A. Source A is a comment made by a student who is condemning old people for taking up job positions in which younger people should have. The tone in which this person is writing in make him seem like an immature student who does not know what he is talking about. He is after all only worried about his future and is not concerned about other issues. B is made by a highly educated senior citizen in the workforce, citing needs in order to give the senior citizens more time in the work force to accomplish personal needs. Source B seems more reliable as it conveys the general feelings of senior citizens in the workforce requiring to work more in order to retire comfortably without relying on any one.

Hence in conclusion, I feel that employers should adhere to what the government is saying and respect these senior citizens contributing to the society and let them work longer. They are after all more experienced and more professional than the younger, inexperienced staff. Therefore, age should not be a factor in consideration of retrenchment of staff, in my opinion.

4D: Kyle Yew

2009-01-15T21:21:00.003+08:00

The overarching issue is whether or not drivers travelling from Singapore to Malaysia or vice versa lack proper "behaviour" on the roads.

Source A: A comment from Tan Chor How in the Straits Time Forum Page, a frequent Singaporean driver to Malaysia

I REFER to Monday's letter, 'Drivers refuse to give way'. I drive both in Singapore and Malaysia and it is true that most Singapore drivers lack road etiquette. When they wish to make a turn or switch lanes, they do not put on their signal lights.
And when courteous drivers use their signal lights to filter across the lanes, not many want to give way; in fact, some even drive faster.
Once drivers are on the expressways and need to take the left exit, they have to fight to filter to the left, as not many want to give way. These drivers forget that later they, too, will have to exit the expressways.
In Malaysia, everyone gives way to the driver whenever he or she puts on the signal lights.
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_323162.html

Source B: A comment by Mr Tan Boon Heng, online in the Straits Time Forum
When I drive up to Ipoh, the most reckless drivers that I came across tend to have Johor(J) or KL(W) plates
As you are aware, I drive up to KL & Penang regularly. Even though there are speeding & reckless Malaysian cars on the North-South Highway, the 'sudden' proliferation of dangerous drivers in S'porean-registered cars is particularly noticeable from Malacca or Negri Sembilan onwards (in the direction of S'pore). I can only assume that these S'poren drivers are in a hurry to return home or see it as their final lap of speeding before they reach the gridlock of the Causeway or 2nd Link. The main difference which I notice between the speeding Malaysians & S'poreans, is that the former take calculated risks, while the latter appear to be dicing with death.
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15932&page=3

In source A, the writer is expressing his discontment at Singapore drivers on the way to Malaysia. He says "it is true that most Singapore drivers lack road etiquette" and that they simply cut lanes without signalling. By writing in to the Straits Time Forum page to publish his views, he is obviously trying to make other Singaporeans more aware of the situation on roads to Malaysia, so that they'll be more self conscious and not lack road etiqutte in the future.

Source B says both Malaysian and Singapore cars travelling towards the second link are speeding recklessly, posing a threat to the road safety of other drivers and vehicles. It states "there are speeding & reckless Malaysian cars", showing that the cars are travelling way over the speed limit. The writer's message by posting it online is to make this issue known to those following the above thread, in the hope that by highlighting the danger of the situation, other readers will support his view and not drive recklessly on the roads.

Both sources are different in stating whether it's the Malaysia cars or Singapore cars causing danger on the roads. A says "I drive both in Singapore and Malaysia and it is true that most Singapore drivers lack road etiquette", showing that the writer thinks Singapore cars have bad behaviour on the roads and can pose a threat to other drivers. B says "the most reckless drivers that I came across tend to have Johor(J) or KL(W) plates" proving that the writer feels that it is the Malaysia drivers driving dangerously and are the ones causing danger on the roads.

Both sources are similar in agreeing that drivers on the roads to Malaysia or back to Singapore are lacking in road etiquette. A says "not many want to give way", meaning that the drivers are lackin in road etiqutte. B also says "sudden proliferation of dangerous drivers", also proving that drivers are lacking in road etiqutte.

It can be said that source A is more reliable than source B.

Source A is said by a Singaporean, who should be supporting his own country people. However, he is condemning Singapore drivers, and that can prove that Source A is reliable. B is not as reliable, as the Singaporean writer is giving excuses for the Singaporean drivers who're speeding recklessly, by saying that they're in a hurry to get home. Thus, B is not reliable as it is protecting it's own intersets.

In conclusion, drivers on the roads do lack road etiqutte.

4F: Noel Sim

2009-01-15T18:04:00.002+08:00

Should school be starting later?

Source A: A comment made by a secondary student.

I went through most of my 12 years of education starting school at 7.30am and yes, there were times where I felt tired, but in general, it was good. My parents, my 2 siblings and I survived the 7.30am start. What makes the kids today so different? Are the kids getting too pampered or are the parents themselves getting too pampered? How then will Singapore advance to become a versatile state which can overcome future obstacles?

Source B: A comment made by a parent.

It will suit most of the working parents and the children will have more time in school. By the time when my children finishes school, I would have finished work and will be able to look after my children. In school, due to longer hours, the planning of time table can be more flexible, perhaps have a short break between each lesson to allow the children to rest their eyes before starting another lesson.

Why the need to change the system? It's not for the sake of breaking tradition or sake of modernization, there is a pressing need for children to have enough sleep to develop well mentally and also remain healthy. If you cannot stomach this, what are you going to do when the MOE accepts research that it is also good for children to play and they introduce maximum homework load allowed?

What are the message(s) & purpose(s)?

Source A is a comment by a secondary student who went through 12 years of education, despite waking up to be in school by 7.30am, he still could cope. He wants to question the parents today, whether they are pampering their child or they, the parents themselves too. Source A clearly does not supports the idea of school starting earlier as he feels that kids today should be put through the same routine as kids in the past, which would also instill some discipline and ruggedness for the children to overcome other obstacles in life.

Source B is a comment by a parent who supports the idea of starting school later. She wants to alert the ministry of education to the idea of maximum homework load as well as the later school hours. She explains the advantages of later school hours to persuade the ministry to consider implementing the scheme. She believes in allowing children to have sufficient rest and sleep to enhance their ability to remain healthy and learn well.

How are the two sources similar/different?

Both sources differ in their views, Source A is trying to explain the importance of inculcating discipline to the children from young, therefore not supporting the idea of starting school later. Source B, on the other hand wants the ministry to do something to the current school schedule to allow children to have enough sleep to learn better, as well as letting parents look after their children after school, saving costs on of childcare centres.

How do you evaluate the reliability/utility of the two sources?

Source A is said by a secondary student who has been through the current school system, therefore, Source A is reliable. Source B is said by a parent whose child is undergoing the education system, thus, she is clear with the way the school system works, therefore being able to comment. Source B is reliable.

What are your conclusions about the issue?

I conclude that school should be starting later as that would allow children to have better sleep, perhaps, the ministry can test out the scheme and review the outcome, whether it is beneficial to the students or not, judging by the student's performance in school. Ultimately, having a healthy lifestyle and diet would allow the children to develop well and learn better.

Sources: http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16031&page=5

4F: Ravin

2009-01-14T23:51:00.003+08:00

Overarching issue: Should bus drivers have the right of way over other motorists?

Source A: A comment made by tskwek at Wed Jan 07
Bus captains have a very onerous job. They have to drive safely, ensure proper collection of fares, looking out for the safety of passengers boarding a alighting, obey all necessary traffic rules, and on top of that, they have to meet deadlines for completing the route. They have very high level of responsibilities that do not commensurate with the respect and monetary rewards accorded to them by their employers or general public.
Any rules offered by the traffic authorities to alleviate their important and stressful roles, and
general courtesy of other road users extended to them, will go a long way to make travel in Singapore safer and more pleasurable.
In many cities in first world countries, giving way to the bus pulling out of the bus stop is mandated by law

Source B: A comment made by forumtizen
This is more than just giving way to bus existing from the bus bay. The implementation of restricted bus lane during peak traffic is robbing other motorists one third of the road area for the occasional buses plying the stretch of roads.
Please not forget other tax-paying road users have their equal rights to reach their destination in the shortest possible time.

Source A clearly states the main reasons why Bus drivers should have the right of way over other motorists.The writer seems to feel that bus drivers are doing a huge public favour for a very modest monetary reward.Therefore the writer feels that motorists should show their appreciation for them by giving way to buses in the bus bay. However the writer has failed to look at this issue from the other perspective.That is the motorists perspective.Its purpose is to raise awareness about the difficulties faced by the bus drivers and to encourage motorists to give way to them.It does not address the problems faced by the motorist when giving way to the buses.

Source B is probably a comment by a motorist.He/she seems to feel that by giving way to buses in the bus bay the motorists are losing out as they pay road tax.This is the issue that was not present in source a and therefore this writer decided to bring this up.This source also brings up another issue that source A neglected to mention.Namely the implementation of another rule which is the restricted bus lane during peak hours.The writer feels that since he has paid road tax he reserves the right of way over bus drivers.Its purpose is to give the motorists perspective on this issue and express his dissatisfaction over these new rulings.

These two sources are different points of view on the
same topic.However source A is appreciative of the
work done everyday by the bus drivers whereas source B
does not even mention the bus drivers.Source A has a
tone of positiveness.however source B has a tone of
negativeness.The author of source B uses words like
robbing,equal rights to raise the ire of fellow
motorists who might share similar views.

Both sources give accurate information but the
information is presented in a different ways.source A
gives its information with a formal tone and gives
facts which are easily verifiable.however source B
uses accurate information and stretches it a bit to
express his frustrations.it uses phrases like one
third of road and occasional buses which seem to imply
that they are being forced off their stretch of road
to make way for a small number of buses.source A seems
reliable but source B is questionable

Overall both sources or not free from bias.Source A is
leaning in favour of bus drivers and B is in favour of
motorists in general.The general public would be
inclined to agree with source A due to the formal way
of presentation and the strong words it uses in its
praise of bus drivers.However Many motorists would be
more inclined to agree with source B as it is a
reflection of the problems that they face while on the
road.furthermore the choice of words will influence
motorists to feel that they are being unfairly treated
due to this new rules by the LTA.In my opinion i feel
that motorists should give way to bus drivers as they
are ferrying a higher number of passengers.this is an
important point that was not stated by either source

4F: Yufan

2009-01-14T22:47:00.002+08:00

See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family

4F: Emmanuel toh

2009-01-14T21:59:00.003+08:00

Is the MAS right in asking investors to lodge complaints over the minibonds to the financial institutions when the financial institutions themselves are involved in the mis-selling?

Source A: MAS acting on complaints, Angelina Fernandez Director (Communications)Monetary Authority of Singapore

I REFER to last Wednesday's letter by Mr Leong Kok Ho, 'Why MAS should handle complaints'.

MAS has, in consultation with the independent parties, conducted on-site visits to assess the handling and review of complaints, including observing the internal review panels in action. We are working with the independent parties to ensure that each financial institution has a robust assessment framework to identify indicators of potential mis-selling and offer fair financial settlement where appropriate. The independent parties have provided feedback to MAS on how the financial institutions have applied the framework across a sample of actual cases. We are ensuring that the assessment framework is consistent across financial institutions.

Investors who are not satisfied with the outcome of the financial institution's review of their complaints may refer their complaints to the Financial Industry Dispute Resolution Centre (FIDReC) for resolution. FIDReC is an independent body set up to provide investors with an affordable and impartial avenue to pursue claims against their financial institution. The decision of the FIDReC adjudicator is final and binding on the financial institution, but not on the investor. If the investor is not happy with the decision made at FIDReC, he is free to reject the decision and pursue his claim through other avenues.

Source B: A comment by Stalingrad, in a forum post in reply to the above source.

I am somewhat amused by MAS's reaction or the lack thereof recently. MAS asked the victims to complain to the FIs. Isn't that similar to the police asking the victim in a robbery case to complain to the robber, and the one in a rape case to complain to the rapist? If someone is dealt with by one or two individuals of an FI unfairly and it is just an isolated case, then the approach adopted by MAS would be correct. The FI in this case is not part of the incident, and therefore will probably take actions to deal with the employees involved and take corrective actions such as compensating the victim.
But it seems to me the case involving the minibonds and similar products is not an isolated case and it does not involve just a few employees. Rather, it is probably a systemic problem and involves the banks systematically hiding truths from potential buyers and providing misleading information, and preying on the old, the retired and vulnerable, and the trusting type who does not read every fine print. In other words, the top brass of the FIs themselves are probably involved in the mis-selling. The fact that the reference entities are splashed across the top of the product information sheet in bold print, and even the bond ratings of the entities are shown prominently while hiding the key information like the role of Lehman and the CDS nature of the product in fine print, is prima facie evidence that the issuer and the FIs were out to mislead and to hide the truths about such products. In that case, what use is it for the victims to complain to the FIs? Instead of asking the victims to do that, MAS themselves should play a leading role to seek redress for the victims starting from the beginning.

Source A's purpose is to inform the investors affected by the minibonds mis-selling to redirect their complaints to the relevant avenues that being the relevant financial institutions. Source A also wants to inform the investors that MAS would only help in handling and reviewing complaints made to the financial institutions and if the investor is not satisfied with the outcome, MAS is not obliged to help the investor further pursue his complaints.

Source B's purpose is to criticize and pressure the MAS to do more in helping the investors involved to seek redress. Source B harshly criticizes the MAS way of asking investors to complain to the financial institutions over the mis-selling by comparing it to the rape victim complaining to the rapist analogy.

The 2 sources are different in stating the level of involvement of the MAS in helping investors seek redress. Source A states that the MAS is in consultation with independent parties who watch over the reviewing of complaints going on at the financial institutions and ensure that the financial institutions review of complaints is fair. Source B states that even the upper echelons of the financial institutions are involved in the minibonds mis-selling and the MAS is not doing enough just by asking the investors to complain to the financial institutions while knowing full well that the review of the complaints would be biased towards the financial institutions.

Source A is probably reliable as it is a government organization while Source B could be a comment by an unhappy investor. Furthermore, Source B does not state any evidence to support his claims that the top brass of the financial institutions are involved in the mis-selling.

Thus, I feel that the MAS is not doing enough for the investors and I find it laughable that the MAS is actually asking investors to get back their money from the financial institutions especially during the recession. It would be a double blow for the financial institutions as they have to suffer a loss in revenue during the recession and still have to compensate investors. The financial institutions would probably try to give reviews that favour themselves.

Source A: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_320293.html
Source B: http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=14126&page=14

4F : Tan Bing Yu

2009-01-14T19:34:00.003+08:00

Should the Muslim community be blamed for the recent terrorist attacks?

Source A: A comment made by cutthecrap on the issue of 'Terror has no religion, race or color'

As a person who holds no religion, it does disturb me to see such hates display by some Muslims in support of the terrorists' acts…
I did recall my anguish and shock when I witness the 911 incident where innocence lives are lost by terrorist acts… in the aftermath of the tragedy what disgust me most are the streets celebrations demonstrated by a large numbers in the Muslims worlds although with some condemnations by other Muslims leaders and Muslims in the regions.

I did recall how the many Indonesians celebrates on the streets when the Twin towers crumbles down in 911… publicly they endorse their hero Osama Bin Laden…
There were even sales of Osama Bin Laden T-shirts widely available!!!!

Source B: A extract of the article 'Terror has no religion, race or color' made by Mridula Ajay (Mrs)

he fact is that terror has no religion, race or color. The vast majority of us just want to go about our lives peacefully, grow old and take pleasure in watching our children grow up, and then, when it's time, die natural, dignified deaths.

We have intelligence and reasoning, and we exercise it in our daily lives, we live and let live.

Terrorism is like a disease - noxious, indiscriminate, with no discretion or logic. If we are to protect our way of life, we first have to recognize that we are all victims - Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Christians, anyone who has been at the receiving end of mindless violence. And the perpetrators come from every race and religion.

The over-arching issue debated here is whether the Muslim community should be blamed for the recent terrorist attacks. Terrorist had claimed that they are carrying out the will of Allah when killing Non-Muslims. On the surface, it seems that Muslims are to be blamed. However, quoting from a comment made under the article on 'Gaza- A thorny road to peace' http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16077 - ' In fact all Muslim children in the Middle East are taught to hate the Jewish people from childhood. They are 'monkeys and pigs' that are to be despised and to spit on. Its in their Quran (Surah 2:65, 5:60 and 7:166). However, the Hamas leaders went deeper in order to further their own wicked political agenda. The Palestinian children are to be made use of as future cannon fodder. Do not envisage there will be an end to this vicious cycle of hate that is being perpetuated by these so-called 'leaders'. ' ,it seems otherwise. The comment said that it is the Leaders of the groups of terrorist that twisted the words of the Quran, thus misleading the terrorists involved In doing the wrong things.
Source A points out that many Muslim countries had supposedly celebrated after the fall of the twin towers. Does it shows that the entire Muslim community is agreeing with the acts of terrorist? Source A too points out that the celebration was condemned by other Muslim leaders and Muslims In the region. Thus, it shows that there is still good souls in the Muslim communities, just undiscovered.
Source B points out that terror has no race, religion or color. The assumption of all terrorist being a Muslim is just a stereotype that bias against the Muslim communities.
In conclusion, I feel that the Muslim community should NOT be blamed for the recent terrorist attacks as there is no ' Evil ' belief or religion in the first place, only twisted words of the religious leaders which causes the believers of the twisted words to stir up trouble.

Source A: http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16168
Source B: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_325645.html

4D : Siddharth Reddy

2009-01-13T21:26:00.003+08:00

Do the people of Kashmir truly want independence?

Source A: An article from Yahoo abut Kashmir wanting independance

We will be a vibrant independent nation," the Hurriyat Conference chief told HT in a telephonic interview on Saturday. He and other Kashmiri leaders are reposing their trust in the "goodwill of their future neighbours, India and Pakistan, once we get our freedom".

"The Indian people have been misled into a belief that Pakistan is behind everything in Kashmir," he said, adding, "Even people like Omar Abdullah have come to realise the ground realities. They can no longer negate it.

" The idea of Kashmiri leadership is to put the idea of independence "before the people of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed in 1947", before it was partitioned, following tribal invasion of the state. "Kashmir is a landlocked place, we know it; but the will of the people cannot be denied and once we are independent, we will survive," Mirwaiz insisted, knowing that India would be offering no concessions, and Pakistan, having its own supporters in the Valley, would be one of the problems to contend with.

Source B: An online article written by an Indian netizen about Kashmir not being able to survive without India

It is a fact which even the people of Kashmir have started acknowledging – that they themselves don't know what they really want. If 5,00,000 people take to streets and shout anti-India and pro-Azaadi slogans, does it constitute a unanimous choice? I believe it's not the voice of the common man; it's the voice of some vested interests in Kashmir and people across the border; they are fuelling the agitation. Even during these protests, you will find some people carrying the Kashmiri flag and yet some carrying the Pakistani flag; some want independence and yet some want to be a part of Pakistan. It indicates how deeply the agitators are divided over the issue. It also indicates that the man on the street does not echo the voice of Kashmir and has been emotionally and religiously blackmailed into joining a particular faction of the Hurriyat Conference. It is not a matter of mind anymore – it is a matter of heart and in such situations, there is always violence and I can sense that Kashmir is on the verge of destruction and this time, it's come from within Kashmir. There are people within Kashmir who are working against the interests of the common man. They are emotionally blackmailing the people. They are misguiding them. They are destroying the peace and the crown of India to achieve their motive of Jihad! Islamic Jihad!

The purpose of source A is to convince people that Kashmir wants independence and no external force, namely Pakistan, is instigating this choice. This is evident from the source which states "The Indian people have been misled into a belief that Pakistan is behind everything in Kashmir.. the will of the people cannot be denied and once we are independent, we will survive." Thus, source A wants to convice people, mainly the Indians, that the people of Kashmir want independence.

The purpose of source B is to criticise the confusion of the people in Kashmir. This is evident from the source which states "Even during the protests, there are some people carrying the Kashmiri flag and yet some carrying the Pakistani flag; some want independence and yet some want to be a part of Pakistan."

Sources A and B are similar in addressing the fact that there is Pakistani influence in Kashmir. Source A states "and Pakistan, having its own supporters in the Valley, would be one of the problems to contend with." Source B states "I believe it's not the voice of the common man; it's the voice of some vested interest in Kashmir and people across the border. Even during the protests, there are some people carrying the Kashmiri flag and yet some carrying the Pakistani flag." Both sources clearly indicate Pakistani influence in Kashmir.

Sources A and B are different in tone. Source A has a confident tone. Source A states "We will be a vibrant independent nation.. but the will of the people cannot be denied and once we are independent, we will survive." Source B, on the other hand, has a critical and radical tone. Source B states "They are emotionally blackmailing the people. They are misguiding them. They are destroying the peace and the crown of India to achieve their motive of Jihad ! Ismalic Jihad !" Source A has a confident tone while Source B has a radical and critical tone.

I would evaluate the reliability of the two sources by their provenance. Source A is a Yahoo article while Source B is an online article by an Indian netizen. Source A is an article posted by Yahoo so it has no need to be biased. Source B, on the other hand, is by an Indian netizen. The Indian netizen might be biased because India wants to gain complete control of Kashmir. Thus, he might be biased against Kashmir being independent. Thus, I would think that Source A is reliable and not Source B.

I conclude that Kashmir might be able to be independent if given the chance. However, there will be many complications as this is a delicate situation. Kashmir is landlocked and is quite inaccessible. It is also near a mountainous region. Thus, it is hard for Kashmir to be independent also when there is so much military presence.

Source A: http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20080824/1053/tnl-kashmir-can-survive-independently.html
Source B: http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=140118

4F: Tay Bok Chong

2009-01-13T21:11:00.002+08:00

Is means-testing really effective?

Source A: Extracted from the Straits Times (Year 2007)

Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan told The Straits Times that many factors are at play.

'It is partly caused by ageing of population as the elderly stay longer in hospitals and tend to opt for C or B2 classes to save on cost,' he said.

But Mr Khaw said that the shift towards C class is not the trigger for means testing, which is a 'standalone policy option'.

The minister had said in April that means testing - to ensure that subsidies go to those who need it most - is necessary to prevent abuse of public health services by the well-off.

Once means testing is introduced, possibly by next year, demand for C-class beds will likely ease.

Source B: A view by Gerald Chen Ze Xin on the Young NTUC Forum (Year 2008)I agree with the Health Minister that public hospitals are designed for the acute care of patients, and that patients who are fit for discharge may be better served by step-down facilities such as community hospitals.

However, I disagree that means testing is the solution to ease the hospital bed crunch. As currently envisaged, it will apply to every subsidised patient staying longer than five days, regardless of whether they are fit for discharge or not.

As the minister himself brought up, an elderly patient may need weeks to recover. Is it fair to penalise a patient who takes longer to recover?

Furthermore, means testing applies only to a subset of patients, namely those who can afford to stay in private wards but chose subsidised wards.

It will not apply, for example, to the destitute old man who qualifies for C class and is fit for discharge, but whose family refuses to take him home. Means testing will not help free up beds occupied in such a way.

Lastly, inpatient means testing has yet to be implemented, and difficulties are already anticipated. We should concentrate on fulfilling its basic objective (namely, to ensure that subsidies go to those who need them), rather than tack on additional goals.

Source C: A view by NCMP Sylvia Lim, from the Workers' Party (Year 2008)

Means-testing for hospitalization was touted as the way to go to address 2 issues: one, the issue of fairness in distributing health subsidies, and two, to meet rising expectation for better services from all patients, rich or poor. I find the justification for means-testing not convincing and somewhat contradictory.

The question is if there is expected to be overcrowding in our subsidized wards, is this due solely to the presence of high-income patients? As our population ages, demand for hospitalization will legitimately rise. What about the high growth rate of our foreign population welcomed into Singapore to churn our economy? Have our social services, including healthcare, kept pace with these trends? The government has to address these fundamental issues before asking working class Singaporeans to co-pay more for such an essential service as hospital care.

The second reason given by the Minister is that in efforts to meet rising expectation for better services, MOH is improving the standard of physical facilities in subsidised wards to be as good as Class B1. Inevitably by doing so, it will attract more 'down graders'. The question then is, why would MOH want to introduce means-testing to address an issue that it is itself creating in the first place? Since clinical care in all wards is of a high standard, do we need to add non-essential 'creature comforts' for highly subsidised wards? Somebody has to pay for this, and more likely than not, the patient will end up paying for it.

In addition, there is a real danger that the government will start slow on means-testing and become much meaner along the way. If one thinks of how GST has been increased from 3% to 4%, to 5% then 7% over 5 years, one can be forgiven for being cynical. Minister was also quoted to say that "In the short term, the majority of Singaporeans will continue to receive the same level of subsidies as they do today and will not be affected". What does that mean - that in the medium to long term, the majority will be affected?

The key source of debate is the launch of means testing. The Ministry of Health is trying to keep up to the demands of the public as the population ages. Opposition parties throws in confusion using half-truths and cause the impression of PAP to be smeared. Source C has shown obvious attempt of throwing PAP out of the league. And Source B shows similar disagreement towards means testing being launched. Source B is the view of the public, which ought to be less bias, shows that the Then again, the policy launched on 1 January, 2009, has time to prove itself right, or wrong.

Source A: http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_124695.html
Source B: /youngntuc/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=168
Source C: http://www.wp.sg/wordpress/2008/03/moh-means-testing/

4F: David Ho

2009-01-13T21:01:00.003+08:00

Is the customer 'always right'?

Source A: A comment made by Rachel Ong (Ms).

I WOULD like to share my dining experience at Wild Ginger Cafe in Serangoon Gardens on Saturday. We were rather satisfied with our dinner until I requested for a refill of my tea. The waitress attempted to pour hot water into my cup from the opposite end of my table and spilt the water onto my lap.
She apologised non-stop and asked if I needed ice. I was in shock and immediately tried to cool my skin down with the wet tissue on my table.
When the manager came over with the bill, I told her what happened as she was unaware of the incident. She apologised and proceeded to ask me: "So how's the food?"
How could anyone be in the mood to talk about food after getting scalded by hot water?

Source B: A comment made by a netizen, Ryan0002.

I work part time in the F&B industry.

I understand it can be painful to be scalded, and that waitstaff should be properly trained. If someone pours anything, scalding or otherwise, on any person, apologies are in order. As a restaurant worker, I adhere to the old adage that the customer is always right.

As a person, I would instead highlight the definition of the word "accident". I certainly can't speak for Ms. Rachel Ong, but in my experience, people occasionally make them. As the average human being tends to blunder through life from one accident to another, the best we can do is to apologize sincerely and make reasonable amends where possible. Understanding that we are not much different from one another, we had also best tolerate and forgive the mistakes of others.

Nevertheless, I'm sure this opinion doesn't count for much. The customer is always right, and a spilt drink remains a form of unforgivable behaviour (right up there with arrogance, intolerance and pettiness) in waitstaff. It doesn't even bear thinking that someone might lose their job or that a restaurant might suffer a serious blow from a public complaint over such a (serious) issue.

After all, we're trying to be a gracious society, and clearly, the nature of our service industry is entirely to blame for our not having one.

The message: The message of Source A was to critisize the lack of service etiquette shown by the staff of this particular cafe, and the ignorance of the manager to the situation, so as to let this be an example to other service staff not to let it recur again.

The message of Source B was to disapprove of the attitude shown to the waitstaff of the restaurant by Ms Ong, as it was after all an unfortunate accident that no one wanted to happen.

Both sources are similar in stating the inexperiece of the staff, as Source A claims the staff were inexperienced enough to enquire about the quality of the food, rather than sympathising with Ms Ong. And Source B states that the "waitstaff should be properly trained" so that the accident would not occur.

However, both sources differ as to how serious the matter was. Source A insists that the matter was serious, as seen by the tone of Ms Ong that the situation had to be taken public. However, Source B disagrees, as he sarcastically claims that by blowing up such a trivial matter," someone might lose their job or that a restaurant might suffer a serious blow from a public complaint over such a (serious) issue."

I would evaluate the reliability of the source by looking first at their provenance. Source A is written by Ms Rachel Ong, the unfortunate woman whom the accident happened to.Source B was written by a netzian, who claims to have experiece in the F and B industry, and sypathises with the staff. Next, the sources can be cross refrenced with other comments, or other similar incidents to rule out any biasness that the sources might pose.

In conclusion, one should not jeoperdise other people's job just because of a simple mistake. Although the waiter could have been more careful, but the fragile nature of a human being meant that he was not perfect. In our progress on being a gracious society, this action might even cause the waiter to become more angry, and would not benefit our advance towards a beneficient environment. Instead, we should forgive and forget, knowing that this would come a long way through for everybody.

Source A: "http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_325256.html#
Source B: "http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=16143

4D: Quinn Lum Fu Loong

2009-01-13T20:13:00.002+08:00

Should teachers listen to feedbacks of their students to improve their teaching standards?

Source A: A comment made by a citizen, Woo Jia Qian (Miss).

There are many times when teachers may not be receptive to feedback. For example, most of my peers will occasionally tell the teacher they have a lot of homework that week, hoping he will postpone the deadline. But the teacher only says: 'It's all about time management.' Such a response may discourage students from giving feedback in future.

Second, teachers who are on study leave should not be allowed to teach. This is because demands on teachers are already high and they may not have time to teach and study. Also, for some, the purpose of teaching is to help pay the cost of study. In this case, they want to teach only for the money, and not because they have a passion to nurture the next generation.

Third, teachers should mark all homework and return it to students so they can improve.

Lastly, there should be no homework on weekends and holidays. Weekends and holidays should be used for non-academic activities like family time and co-curricular activities. So if homework is given, students will be very busy.

To conclude, in order to improve the teaching profession, feedback should be both ways - from teachers to students and school management, and from students to teachers.

Source B: A comment made by a netizen, lovegordonramsey.

This is the reason why students' feedback may not be effective. This is one student who talk nonsense.

The teacher is right about "it's all about time management". Wait till this one grows up and starts working, she will have more problems. Besides, I don't think that complaining about having too much homework is considered "feedback".

"Also, for some, the purpose of teaching is to help pay the cost of study. In this case, they want to teach only for the money, and not because they have a passion to nurture the next generation. "

Sorry to break your bubble little girl but adults work for money. Teachers also have a life and may have personal ambitions; they don't only exist for the next generation.

You are right, There should be no homework on weekends. Instead this time should be given to students to study for Monday tests and quizzes that should be given to see if they have absorbed anything from the previous week's lessons. Hahaha!

Message & purpose: In Source A, the lady thinks that the comments and feedbacks of students should be heard and responded by their teachers in terms of how they teach. She seems to favour students as she perceives that students presently are very busy and should be given time to rest instead having the teachers to provide them with a load homework. Only then, teaching could be improved. However, in Source B, the anonymous figure tries to tell the public that not all feedbacks should be taken into consideration, as some of the comments are nonsensical. Basically the main purpose of Source B would be to inform the public that they should not listen to Source A as the writer of source B disagrees with what the lady in Source A said.

Similarity & Differences: Both sources are different in stating the reason of why a teacher would teach. In Source A, it states that: "Also, for some, the purpose of teaching is to help pay the cost of study. In this case, they want to teach only for the money, and not because they have a passion to nurture the next generation." However, Source B thinks that there is nothing wrong in teachers teaching for sake of money only. It states that: "Teachers also have a life and may have personal ambitions; they don't only exist for the next generation."

Both the sources are similar in agreeing that there should not be homework on weekends. Both the sources stated that "There should be no homework on weekends". However, the reason of why homework should not be given on weekends varies. In source B, it states that "Instead this time should be given to students to study for Monday tests and quizzes that should be given to see if they have absorbed anything from the previous week's lessons." However, in source A, it states that "Weekends and holidays should be used for non-academic activities like family time and co-curricular activities"

It can be said that Source B is more reliable than Source A.

As Source A is written by a female student, the contents within the source spoke mostly about the wrong things a teacher could have done. There are very little comments about students providing feedback, therefore with such one sided view on the issue, it clearly shows that this source is not very reliable. On the other hand, the writer in Source B, provided a more open and broader view on the issue. He/she was able to point out the incorrect ideas made by Miss Woo in Source A." Sorry to break your bubble little girl but adults work for money. Teachers also have a life and may have personal ambitions; they don't only exist for the next generation.", this sentence shows that the comments made by Miss Woo is immature. Therefore, Source B is more reliable then Source A.

Conclusion: From the sources above, I think teachers should listen to comments made by students depending on their relevance. Not all comments made by students are wrong. However, teachers still need to meet the needs of their students in terms of educating them.

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_324835.html

4F: Aaron Tung Wei Jie

2009-01-13T14:03:00.005+08:00

Is the UMNO still reliable and is Barisan National still be able to lead the country?

Source A:

Sacked Umno member and former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim is doubtful if the ruling party is capable of reform as pledged following its dismal showing in the March 8 polls.Zaid, who was given the boot on Tuesday for having close ties with the opposition, lamented that some leaders in Umno could not accept his open-minded approaches and views.During a press conference in Petaling Jaya today, the former minister was asked if Umno is capable of reforms, to which he replied: "I doubt they (the leaders) can."
"But Umno will have a new leader in March… I may be wrong," he added in reference to the transition of power plan which will see Najib Abdul Razak succeeding Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as number one.On the same note, Zaid stressed that his sacking underscored the fact that Umno leaders were not open to the ideas of change which he advocated.
"The criticisms against me were because they cannot accept these ideas of change. (Otherwise) why are they so angry with me? What have I done? They can't accept these changes," he said.Among others, he said, certain party leaders could not accept his stand on wanting to make the Malays more independent.These party leaders, he added, considered such a view as a 'betrayal' of the Malay race.

Source B:

Unless I'm mistaken, Zaid has called for the abolishment of the ketuanan Malayu and the NEP. If I'm right in thinking he has called for the abolishment of the ketuanan Melayu and the NEP, then he's the only Malay politician that I've heard calling for their abolishment. So, he will certainly have the support of the non-Malays for an equal society that conforms to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Also under his leadership the Malays will become much more competitive and can ultimately compete successfully against the Chinese and the Indians on an equal basis that will allow Malaysia to achieve its fullest potential for the benefit of all races. The Malays have to a large extent proven that they can compete against the Chinese and the Indians in Singapore by working as hard as the Chinese and the Indians. And so without special rights of any kind, the Malays in Singapore are achieving incomes as high as the Chinese and the Indians. And even though all races are sharing equally in the same economic pie in Singapore, yet none is marginalized because the Singaporean economic pie just keep getting bigger to allow all Singaoreans of all races to have more.

The issue is mainly about Zaid Ibrahim, the former law minister of Malaysia. Because of his unexpected actions and unexpected actions of the parliarment, i raise issues and different view points from different people. Is the UMNO still reliable and is Barisan National still be able to lead the country? Source A is mainly expressing it's views on his own blog, and it should be more reliable. However, Source A can be uneffective as going against the UMNO organisation in Malaysia would meant fine and even a court session. Source B is more reliable as did comparisons with Malaysia's neighbour of Singapore and the source is from an official website. The two sources are similar as they are discussing of politics from the same issue that spark attention but they are different as Source A is personal while Source B is official from a official website. I conclude that the issue can still be a two way view of who is in the wrong until another situation arise which will support the current situation.

Source A: http://politics101malaysia.blogsome.com/2008/12/04/umno-beyond-hope/
Source B: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

4D: Caleb Loke

2009-01-11T21:06:00.002+08:00

Is jumping queue on the roads with or without reasons is accepted in a country which is working towards a more gracious society?

Source A: A comment made by Mr Koh Poh Tiong, Chairman of the Singapore Kindness Movement.

IN MONDAY'S letter, 'Drivers refuse to give way', Miss Veronica Ong lamented the deplorable behaviour of Singaporean drivers who had refused to give way to her when she tried to move to the correct lane at the Second Link. While I can understand the frustration and anguish of Miss Ong, who was in the wrong lane, I can also empathise with those Singaporean drivers who had likely taken the view that Miss Ong was trying to jump the queue and thus decided not to let her get her way.
Notwithstanding this, it would have been a pleasant relief for Miss Ong if the Singaporean drivers had given her the benefit of the doubt and graciously let her move into the correct lane.
Many of us have come across such similar incidents of queue-cutting, not giving way to others and other negative habits and practices in Singapore which are likely to be caused by our stress level, 'must-win' attitude and 'must punish you for making a mistake' mentality, all of which make it difficult to be kind, considerate, gracious and forgiving. Whatever the causes or reasons, we should neither accept nor condone such mentalities, attitudes and behaviours.

Source B: A comment made by Ms Chia Ee Von.
I WRITE in response to Miss Veronica Ong's letter on Monday, 'Drivers refuse to give way'. In her letter, Miss Ong said the queue of vehicles 'stretched far from the checkpoint and it was hard to tell which lanes were meant for the different types of vehicles'.
As a weekly user of the Second Link, I can attest that when the queue is long, it may be impossible to see the signage that indicates which lanes are allocated for the different vehicle types.
However, it should be quite apparent which queue and lane a car driver should be in as these queues will have only cars lining up. These are the middle and right lanes.
If these queues were so long such that the signage could not be seen, and if the designated heavy-vehicle lane did not have any vehicles queueing up, then this (left) lane would have been empty. If the left lane had heavy vehicles queueing up, then surely Miss Ong would have known, even without the help of signage, not to use that lane.
I applaud car drivers who queue diligently in the middle and right lanes despite an empty left lane meant for heavy vehicles. These drivers are the ones working towards a more gracious society.
It is unfair to expect these drivers who queue for hours to give way to errant motorists who use the empty left lane and expect to filter into the appropriate lanes at their convenience.
While I would like to sympathise with Miss Ong over her experience at the Second Link, using ignorance to plead innocence makes for a weak case.

The citizen in Source A was explaining the disgust of commuters not giving up their seats, and worse still, pretending not to have seen the person right in front of them who needs the seat more than he does. The citizen was criticizing the fact that commuters are of that selfish sort and puts interest of self over others.

The citizen in Source B was rebutting on the suggestion of having a cabin specially designated for senior citizens, as that would only cause a commotion between the public and the public transport providers. The citizen was expressing his unhappiness over how people's thoughtless suggestions cause more trouble than they would ever expect.

The sources are different in respect to the need for something to be done in response to the people who need the seats more not having a place to sit because of people not willing to give up their seats.

Source A is in favour of the designated cabin for them, as "albeit the seats are comfortable, moral rights is more confortable and not cumbersome."

However, Source B is agin the special designation, as, as the phrase goes, "if we try to please everyone, we might as well kiss our ass goodbye." By responding to the issue, it is only going to cause more trouble than is already present, and create more unwanted commotion among commuters.

Both sources are made by citizens who take the public transport and witness how each commuters react in response to a similar situation, thus both sources are reliable as they express both positive and negative views of Singaporeans towards the issue.

The fact that people do not want to give up their seats to those who need it more than them EXPLICITLY tells us that Singapore has yet to build a gracious society in which every citizen would reach the stage where they will give up their seats to those who need it more than them without giving it a second thought.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_296598.html

4D: Timotty Tay

2009-01-11T19:20:00.005+08:00

Over-arching issue:
A lady is unhappy that there are no lifts to her flat and inconveniences her aged mother. She contacted the town council, the MPs and HDB but after four years, nothing is done. Both sources here are arguing on whose fault it is that no lifts are built.

Source A: A comment made by JoJo2008.

As much as I empathize with Ms Rajam's plight, she needs to understand nobody is responsible for not installing lifts on every level. She cannot expect people to account for something just because she wants it done. Similarly, one cannot be responsible for a railing to be installed just because it would be easier for me to walk up and down the stairs. I'm sure Ms Rajam knows that government is aware of Singapore's greying population and is in the process of providing lifts on every floor on the basis that the design of flats allows it and based on majority votes. So she should be patient, and instead of spending looking for someone to be responsible, she should find alternatives to solve her own personal problems. Even if there are plans to install lifts in her block, she might not get her wish since it still cost money and her neighbours may not want to fork out a sum during hard times.

A friend of mine moved from a walkup apt to a HDB flat with lift landing some time back. Her reason being she does not want to wait till she's old to move out of the walkup apt. As much as we laughed at her because she's not even middleaged, but hey, she's planning ahead. We need to help ourselves first.

Source B: A comment made by pohleeheng.
HDB and the government should take accountablity because these HDB flats were built orginally without lifts stopping at every floor. They should have the foresight that Singapore population is aging and such issues are sure to happen in the future. This is 101 in planning.

It could be possible (not sure) that HDB did have the foresight and a conscious decision was made (due to cost consideration) not to build lifts at every floors. Nevertheless, we need to move on.

I think HDB should estimate or forecast how much will it cost to rectify the issue and work out a schedule to build lifts at every floors, PAP or non-PAR wards. This is a simple national issue and should be handled face-on and not be politicized as a "caroot" during election.

I sincerely hope the PAP lead government will give some priority to this item. The cost to rectify maybe significantly less than than of our famous investments into the global financial institutions.

For Source A, the netizen is trying to convince the lady she is complaining about nothing so that she can stop posting such unimportant issues. By saying things like "nobody is responsible for not installing lifts on every level" and "find alternatives to solve her own personal problems", she seems to imply to the lady that the situation that she is in is very minor and should not bother other people by posting unimportant issues on forums.

For Source B, the netizen is using this scenario to critisise the government for not building lifts at every level so as to warn the government to think carefully when building future HDB flats. By saying "the government should take accountability" and "This is 101 in planning", the netizen hopes that the government should take action and not make such an erroneous decision.

Both sources are similar in terms of how they are aware that the government is aware of the problem. Source A says that she knows that the government knows about the country's graying population and is trying to make improvements in HDB flats to ensure that they are elderly-friendly. Source B also agrees by saying "HDB did have the foresight and a conscious decision" that HDB flats were to have lifts at every level.

However, both sources are different in terms of how they view on the person who is at fault. Source A seemed to claim that it is the lady's fault by saying that she should help herself and not wait for things to happen. In contrary to that, Source B seems to violently project that it was the governments and HDB's oversight.

Source A seemed reliable at first as it has a very neutral tone on the situation. However, upon further examination, the netizen made the remark so as to tell the lady that she was wasting other people's time by posting insignificant comments. Thus, it is not as reliable as it seems.

Source B is not reliable in proving who was in the wrong as the comment made was prejudiced against the government's action.

In all, both sources are not very reliable unless it can be supported by a comment made by a relevant authority like HDB.

4D: Muhd Hafidzhin Sadali

2009-01-10T13:41:00.003+08:00

Over-arching issue: Singaporean parents nowadays need guidance in bringing up their child.

Source A: A comment made by parent, Syu Ying Kwok on the straits times forum.

LAST Friday, my daughter entered primary school for the first time. Like any eager parent, I oversaw her first few days in school, including orientation, and attended a curriculum talk by the school. During this talk, the school emphasised the role of parents and its importance in the child's development. While some parents listened attentively and even took notes, some actually dozed off. It then dawned on me that, after spending hundreds of dollars on books for my child, I did not buy a single book about parenthood for myself or invest any time or money to be a better parent as my child goes on to the next stage of learning. I felt slightly better when I could not find any book for parents on the booklist given, but I still felt something is wrong. Primary school is a big step for a child, so I searched the Ministry of Education (MOE) website for anything to help clueless parents like me. I hoped to sign up for an intensive parenting course or at least find a recommended reading list on parenting, but I found only information on the education system. Parenting is a learning journey for both parent and child. When parents are highly involved with the teacher, the school and the child, the result is a more successful student and learning journey. I hope MOE views education as a tri-party effort involving teachers, children and parents. A strong parent programme will ensure a stronger casting of character and upgrade the current academic system. While you may not need to win a prize for best parent, seeing your child grow up to be a successful and capable individual is the ultimate prize.

Source B: A comment made by 'Forumtizen' on the straits times forum.

I do have the same parental responsibility as the writer 13 year ago when my elder daughter entered primary school. But I soon realised that things did not work out the way I had expected.You do not need parenting book for primary education, but more of your responsibility and commitment to ensure she completes and hands up her homework and assignment. You will soon be asked to attend school's workshop on how parents can guide their children in homework, especially in maths problem solving.
So, take it easy and lets things play by its ear.

The message of source A is really clear in stating that parents do need to attend courses and read parenting books in order to guide them along in bringing their child up, ensuring the success of their child. This can be seen as she stated that " I did not buy a single book about parenthood for myself or invest any time or money to be a better parent as my child goes on to the next stage of learning". Her purpose by saying this is so convince other parents that they too need guidance in parenting and should constantly enrol themselves in parenting classes to improve themselves and bring up their child better, they way she feels for herself. She also presents her 'advice' as a great way to ensure success in a child's upbringing as she also stated that "A strong parent programme will ensure a stronger casting of character and upgrade the current academic system."

Thus, her purpose on this comment was to convince parents in Singapore that they do need parenting courses and books in order to help them improve as a parent and ensure the best for their child and his/her upbringing so that more parents would be convinced and take up parenting courses as stated. Also, she wants to 'advice' parents to constantly try to improve themselves as parents as their child constantly steps higher into education and that the parents should take that step too, not in education but in parenting.

The message of source B is to tell parents not to worry too much and that parenting courses aren't necessary, unlike the ones stated strongly in source A. The writer believes that commitment and love to the child is more important and more effective in ensuring a good upbringing of the child as she stated that "You do not need parenting book for primary education, but more of your responsibility and commitment to ensure she completes and hands up her homework and assignment." She also believes that parents should attend workshops on how to help their child academically and not attend courses on how to improve themselves as parents. This can be seen as she said that "attend school's workshop on how parents can guide their children in homework, especially in maths problem solving." This clearly shows that she's not against courses but on what the courses offer. She believes that parents should constantly improve themselves academically to help their child in their homework and not improve themselves as parents.

Her purpose is also to convince but at the same time reassure parents that they do not necessarily need books or attend parenting courses to ensure a good upbringing of the child but more of being a simply caring, responsible and committed parent so that parents will not worry unnecessarily if they hadn't attended such courses. She also believes that parents should attend workshops on how to help their child academically and not attend courses on how to improve themselves as parents.

The two sources are similar in agreeing that parents should always continue to improve themselves to meet their child's need. Both are also similar in tone as both took a convincing tone to assure parents that they need to constantly enrich themselves so as to help their child in growing up. However, both sources are different in terms to the courses that parent should take. This can be seen as source a strongly encourages parents to take up parenting courses to constantly improve their parenting skills, so as to ensure a much better child upbringing. However, Source B disagrees as it states that parents do not need parenting courses or books, but educational workshops on how to cope with their child's development in academics such as mathematics workshops so that they could assist their child in their academics. Also, both sources are different in tone. Source A takes a strong stand in what she believes in, that is, parents should attend parenting courses and read parenting books as she uses words like "intensive", "successful", "ultimate" and "prize". However, source B takes a more relaxed tone to reassure parents on the unnecessary need for parenting courses and books since it uses phases like "take it easy" and "play by its ear".

I would evaluate this two sources firstly by its content. Source A seems to be much more serious in tone in convincing Singaporean parents that they should enrol themselves in parenting courses. This can only mean 2 things. First, she really believes in her judgement and that she really needs these courses or she could be a director of a parenting course and she posted the comment on the forum to "publicise" parenting courses in hope to raise 'awareness' among parents, thus promote parenting courses and books. Hence, i would evaluate this by cross referencing with another source. However, everything nails down to what each parent feels and what they want for their child.

In conclusion, I believe that parents should constantly improve themselves in terms of academics as Singapore is persistently increasing its academic level and that parent would need to know the basics at least in academics to help their child in their homework. With this, it would eventually result in the parent him/herself being responsible and committed for his/her child without having to go for parenting courses just by helping them with their homework. What a child needs most is love and care from parents, thus, if these 2 simple things are able to be carried out by the parents, i'm sure their child would turn out fine in the end.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_323759.html

=D <---- =___="

3D: Fu Youhan

2009-01-07T14:37:00.005+08:00

The over-arching issue is the fact that TUITION IS NOT THE WAY TO SUCCESS

Source A: A comment made by a successful writer.

Perhaps it is time for other parents to reflect as well. Children these days have so much education-related stress that, for many, the joy of learning is clearly lacking. What has become of our nation, when tuition is an integral part of achieving so-called 'success' in life and at work? Clearly, the many tuition centres are not complaining and nor are the many current and retired school teachers who supplement their income by providing tuition classes and writing assessment materials.

Source B: A comment made by a netizen zzshawzz

As for whether the country can do more to satisfy its "lamenting" citizens, I think the Ministry should reevaluate its policy of "teach less, learn more" and see whether it is partially contributing to this whole debate at hand. From anecdotal evidence, it seems as if the surge in tuition is fueled by the realisation that more independent self-study is required, even at the earlier level. While "teach less, learn more" was introduced to rectify the problem of students lacking any initiative in learning, perhaps the Ministry should conduct a review and see whether, in trying to eradicate a problem, it somehow enlarged another problem instead.

What is the message(s) & purpose(s)?

Source A

Tuistion is making children lose their interest in studying, because A says "children these days have so much education-related stress that, for many, the joy of learning is clearly lacking" as a result of the tuitions. With no joy the children will consiquently regard studying a boring things or even some kind of misery and hence they will hardly have interest in studying.

Source A is written so as to persuade the parents to reduce the tuition of their children, it decribe having too many tuitions as the robbery of children joy in studying and states good results in school does not mean a good future, so that parents will realise that tuition is not always good and benefitial. Therefore, they may reduce the tuition of their children.

Source B

The government does not encourage students to have too much tuitions, as Source B says that "Ministry may have to revise the teach less learn more policy because of the great amount of independent study that it requires". Thus, the government really wants to have children to do self-study and is trying to have children avoid too much tuitions.

How are the two sources similar/different?

Source A and Source B are similar because they all agree that the present tuitive system need changing. Source A says "Children these days have so much education-related stress that, for many, the joy of learning is clearly lacking" showing that the tuition system need to develop students' interest in studying. Similarly, Source B says that "it requires" "independent study", showing that more time should be scheduled for students to do their self-study.

Source A and Source B are different in their attitudes. Source A says that "What has become of our nation, when tuition is an integral part of achieving so-called 'success' in life and at work?" , it believes that tuition should not be adoped by students. Whereas Source B says " It does seem justifiable", it believe tuition can be a method for students enrichment but needs some improvement in its system. Thus, they are different.

How do you evaluate the reliability/utility of the two sources?

Source A

Source A is reliable as it says that "Children these days have so much education-related stress that, for many, the joy of learning is clearly lacking", tuition may just change children into the studying machines, and take away their interests, thus they mayloathe studying and hence lose their good future.

Source A may be reliable, as it is written by a famous writer according to her own experience and knowledge. Also, indeed not all students are needing tuition, there are still students achieving good results wothout tuition in many schools. Therefore, Source A is reliable.

Source B

Source B is reliable as it says "independent study is required" and is more important than tuition. Therefore, tuition is not the key way to success but plays an assistant role instudents' study.

Source B is reliable as indeed the most important thing in learning is understanding, and it is usually done when students are revising their knowledge, whereas too much tuition leaves very little time for them to thing about what they have learnt, so only with tuition can never provide students a bright future. Therefore source B is reliable.

Conclusion:

This issue is no propaganda, but a truth, indeed tuition is not the only way two success.

3F: Sin Wai Hong

2009-01-02T17:57:00.002+08:00

The over-arching issue here is that whether the SIA is too slow in responding to their consumer's needs, or are they just too busy.

Source A: a letter of complaint from Singaporean, Lee Teong Khoon to the Straits Times Forum about Singapore Airlines' poor responsiveness

I HAVE repeatedly given feedback to Singapore Airlines that it is extremely challenging to call its 24-hour call centre for any service or inquiry.

During the day, not just during office hours, the line is engaged most of the time, which means one cannot even get through to wait in the queue. I have called around midnight and was lucky to get through, but had to wait 15 to 30 minutes to speak to someone. When I got through and gave feedback, I was told there are fewer operators at night. But if that is true, why can't I get through during the day, when they are at full force? This has been going on for the past two years since I became a KrisFlyer member. I am an active user of singaporeair.com and would not call if it was not necessary.
On Tuesday, I received an SMS that my flight to Penang, which was on wait list, was now available but I should call the call centre to confirm. Between 5pm and 7.30pm, I called numerous times, but it was engaged every time. At 12.20am, I was lucky to get through but had to wait one hour before anyone attended to me.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_310509.html

Source B: a reply from Singpore Airlines' area vice-president to Mr. Lee's complaint

We apologise for the difficulty Mr Lee experienced in getting through to our call centre recently.
The call centre received an overwhelming number of calls in that time from customers whose travel plans to and from Thailand were disrupted due to the closure of Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi International Airport. In addition, our call centre had to assist our office in Bangkok with overflow from callers who were stranded in Bangkok. Call volume was further increased following the events in Mumbai as customers inquired about their flights and others needed assistance in changing their bookings.
Our staff resources were therefore severely stretched, as they worked to accommodate alternative travel arrangements for customers whose plans were disrupted by these two events. Extra resources were deployed, but the magnitude of the demand at that time still exceeded the resources we could deploy at such short notice.
We seek Mr Lee's understanding in the matter, and once more, apologise for the inconvenience he experienced. We do assure him, and others, that we are working to try to better match resources with times of demand.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_312507.html

In Source A, the customer is displaying his disapproval of SIA's slow responsiveness on the Straits Times Forums, so that the SIA would make reforms to their call centre services. Writing to the Forums would cause other Singaporean viewers to think that the SIA is really slow in responding and this may cause SIA's world class reputation to be tarnished if the SIA were to sit by and do nothing, hence pressurising the SIA to make amendments.

In Source B, The Singapore Airlines defends themselves by saying that their slow responsiveness was because of the issues in Bangkok and Mumbai, where they claimed that their staff resources were severely stretched. This would appease the customer who wrote in, as well as making the forum viewers think that SIA is not at fault for the slow responsiveness, protecting their reputation of a world-class airline.

Both sources are similar in stating that the Singapore Airlines was ineffective in its service. Source A says that "I called numerous times, but it was engaged every time. At 12.20am, I was lucky to get through but had to wait one hour before anyone attended to me.", confirming that SIA was not able to attend to their customer quickly and was slow in helping their customer even after their customer was attended to. Source B says their "staff reources were overstretched", "magnitude of the demand at that time still exceeded the resources we could deploy.", admitting that they were ineffective in their service.

However, Both Sources are different in saying who was at fault for the slow service.

Source A says that "there are fewer operators at night" but " why can't I get through during the day,when they are at full force?" and "This has been going on for the past two years", blaming the SIA for its slow service, which had been going on for two years, so no crisis would be made as an excuse for the SIA. However, Source B says that "The call centre received an overwhelming number of calls ","due to the closure of Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi International Airport","following the events in Mumbai","Our staff resources were therefore severely stretched", blaming the crises in Bangkok and Mumbai as the cause of their slow service, as they had to receive numerous calls from their other customers.

Source A is said by a customer, who is just expressing his displeasure to SIA. he had no reason to lie, as he was a member of an SIA club, the Krisflyer, and was just probably just giving feedback to the SIA indirectly through the forums for the SIA to make reforms. However, Source B was said by an area vice-chairman, a person of high authority in the SIA. He probably said this because he had the responsibility of protecting the reputation of his company, by not admitting that the SIA was at fault. In addition, the customer had said that the slow service had continued for two years, while the SIA only made an excuse for itself for a month or two caused by issues from Bangkok and Mumbai. Therefore, it can be said that Source Ais more reliable than Source B

In conclusion, SIA is slow in responding to its consumers' needs, with it being too busy little to be blamed. As said by Source A, the slow service had continued for two years, but the SIA had no excuse for its slow services for these two years.

3F: Seow Jian Jun

2009-01-02T04:11:00.002+08:00

The over-arching issue of both sources is whether or not the Singapore government is efficient in responding to the citizens'' feedback and requests.

Source A: Juliana Anne Rajam (Miss)

I LIVE in an HDB flat in Ang Mo Kio.
Unfortunately, my flat is on the second level. It is is unfortunate because there are no lifts.
This makes life very difficult for my aged mother, who has a huge ulcer on her leg. It is a hellish experience for her to go to the polyclinic to have her leg dressed as she has to go up and down the stairs.
I have written to the town council, spoken to MPs and written to the Housing Board on numerous occasions. All turned out to be disappointing because all I received was the standard response that they will let me know when lifts are to be installed. That was about four years ago. To my chagrin, they never answered my question on when my area is scheduled for lift installation.
It is sad when the authorities give the standard response that they will let you know. It is sadder that no one will take responsibility for not installing lifts on every level.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_320595.html

Source B: JoJo2008

As much as I emphathisze with Ms Rajam's plight, she needs to understand nobody is responsible for not installing lifts on every level. She cannot expect people to account for something just because she wants it done. Similarly, one cannot be responsible for a railing to be installed just because it would be easier for me to walk up and down the stairs. I'm sure Ms Rajam knows that gahmen is aware of Singapore's greying population and is in the process of providing lifts on every floor on the basis that the design of flats allows it and based on majority votes. So she should be patient, and instead of spending looking for someone to be responsibile, she should find alternatives to solve her own personal problems. Even if there are plans to install lifts in her block, she might not get her wish since it still cost money and her neighbours may not want to fork out a sum during hard times.

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15851

The message source A is to show the lack of efficiency of the government in responding to her request thus portraying a negative image of the government system for other authorities to understand her unhappiness and respond to her needs.

The message of source B is to show that the Singapore government has already done it's best and it is Ms Rajam who is at fault for her own miseries. This message is intended to defend the Singapore government's image of a good governing system by letting all viewers know that it is not the government's fault.

Source A and B are similar as both sources revolve around the issue of not installing lifts on every level in a HDB flat. Source A states that "no one will take responsibility for not installing lifts on every level", targeting root of the issue of not installing lifts on everylevel in a HDB flat . Similarly, source B states that "nobody is responsible for not installing lifts on every level.", explaining that the root of the issue of installing lifts on everylevel in a HDB flat is not the government's fault.

Source A and B are also different in their purpose of posting the issue. Source A intends to raly support and gain authorities attention to get the Singapore government to install lift on every level for HDB flats by stating that "To my chagrin, they never answered my question on when my area is scheduled for lift installation" showing how she was treated and how she desperately she needed the lift. On the other hand, source B intends to defend the Singapore government and protect it's glorious image by stating that "She cannot expect people to account for something just because she wants it done." showing the audience it is not the governments fault thus defending them.

Both sources are not reliable as neither of the provenance were of authority in the Singapore government and neither of the source provided enough evidence of the Singapore government's action or intention.

Since both sources are equally reliable, only the respond from the Singapore government would be appropriate to evaluate who is at fault. Source A and B are both right about who they thought was in the wrong for not having lift installed at every level of a HDB block. Source A may be right that it is the inefficiency of the government as they did not give her the specific details of the intention to help her but source B is also right as the government may already be at work and there may be more needies who needs the attention more than her.

3D: Emersius Lau

2009-01-01T15:47:00.003+08:00

Do dogs bite only when they are provoked?

Source A: A comment by Jasmine Tan, a dog-owner
Dogs bite only when provoked or when they are victims of abuse. Aspiring dog owners should be made to go for training before they are allowed to purchase or adopt dogs.
Instead of blaming the dogs, we should look into their reasons for biting people. It is not fair to just say that dogs that bite need training.

No dogs are born to harm humans - it is the way they are trained that makes the difference. Take, for example, the case of rottweilers. They are actually a docile breed which can be very friendly and sociable. But some owners train them to attack. Is it the dogs' fault or the owners'?
I have seen my dog (a shih tzu) taunted by neighbours. Even a human would retaliate if treated the same way.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_317901.html

Source B: A comment by a victim of a dog attack
I was bitten by a tiny, unprovoked dog when I was seven years old. I was out strolling one day when the dog rushed out of a house and attacked me after the owner opened the gate. It bit me deeply on the right thigh before it ran back to its owner.

The dog ran back to its owner, wagging its tail, after it bit me. Is this a sign of being provoked, especially since I was almost 30m away when the gate was opened?

The owner also did not try to help me, and the case was never reported. I walked all the back to my kampung home, about 2km away, bleeding profusely.
I agree that dogs are unmatched in their devotion, loyalty and friendship to people.
But the fact remains that, despite years of domestication, dogs can still be dangerous, given their sharp teeth. And, as an animal, it possesses an instinct that can make it unpredictable.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_319394.html

The overarching issue is whether or not dogs should be blamed for attacking people. Do they attack only when they are provoked, or can they attack even without provocation of any sort?

In source A, the lady is trying to defend biting dogs. Her purpose is to convince the public that dogs are indeed warm and friendly, so that they would develop positive feelings toward dogs. In source B, the man blames dogs for biting others. He aims to bring across the point that dogs can be dangerous, so that people will be more cautious when dealing with such animals.

Both sources are different in stating whether or not dogs bite only when provoked. Source A states that dogs "bite only when provoked or when they are victims of abuse". Source B, however, maintains that dogs are dangerous and may bite for no rhyme or reason. It states that "the dog ran back to its owner, wagging its tail, after it bit me. Is this a sign of being provoked, especially since I was almost 30m away when the gate was opened?"

Both sources are similar in agreeing that dogs can be very friendly. In source A, the lady says that "no dogs are born to harm humans" and they can be very "friendly and sociable". Source B agrees that "dogs are unmatched in their devotion, loyalty and friendship to people". This shows that dogs can be friendly by nature.

It can be said that source B is more reliable than source A.

Source A is said by a dog owner, hence she most probably loves her dog a lot. She also over-generalized in stating that ALL DOGS are friendly by nature and bite only when provoked. She probably said this because she loved dogs and wanted to defend them, so that others would also love dogs.
Source B, on the other hand, is said by a person who does not own a dog. He was in fact, a victim of a dog attack. He clearly has no reason to lie and thus, is more reliable to offer a balanced perspective instead of a biased one. His personal account shows that though dogs can be friendly, they are still dangerous because of their sharp teeth and unpredictable instinct.

In conclusion, dogs do not necessarily bite only when they are provoked. As shown in source B, dogs may bite without provocation, or perhaps due to their own warped perspective and sense of danger. Thus, they should be blamed wholly whenever they bite without provocation.

3D: Kheng Lin Chun

2009-01-01T15:14:00.002+08:00

The over-arching issue is whether using tissue to reserve seats is an efficient way of allocating seats to patrons.

Source A: a comment made by See Eng Soon, on the Straits Times Discussion Board

Using tissue to reserve seats is an efficient, albeit informal, way to allocate seats to patrons, especially during the peak lunch hour period at crowded food centres in the Central Business District. The 'tissue culture' implicitly increases the turnaround of patrons at popular food centres, helping most workers whose aim is to eat and return to work on time.

For example, a group of colleagues who leave their packets of tissues at an empty table can all queue simultaneously at different stalls. Leaving one of them behind just to tell other patrons the table is occupied is a waste of time as he can queue for food himself only when one of his colleagues returns. Asking a colleague to buy his share from the same stall may not always work as they may like different dishes.

In addition, this 'tissue culture' benefits people who dine alone. Leaving a packet of tissue enables him to purchase his food and return to his 'reserved' table, saving him from walking around helplessly with a tray in his hands in search of an empty seat.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_301475.html

Source B: a comment made by the user "starfire001", on the Straits Times Discussion Board

It is amazing that there are people who defend the tissue pack "choping" practice brazenly.

They are symptomatic of the breakdown in values in Singaporeans, where black is no longer black and white is no longer white. They actually write as if it is the most natural and ingenious thing to do to engage in antisocial behaviour, while coating it with the veneer of efficiency and practicality (completely forgetting about consideration and "heart"). As though their time is somehow more precious than others', and it is alright to infringe on other people's right to free seating in the name of self-convenience.

But I suppose it is difficult to pin blame on this group of people when it is actually the fault of their upbringing, which makes them confuse black with white, and have no shame is declaring so.

There are others who say that this ridiculous practise is somehow unique Singaporean culture, and use the "do as Romans do" adage to justify it.

It is a pity that not only are such people shameless and ignorant, they are also happy to parade this to the world.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_301475.html

Source A tells us that using tissue to reserve seats is an efficient way of allocating seats to patrons and that it is not morally wrong and also helps to save time for people who are working and is also not ungraceful. The purpose of the comment is to promote the use of tissue paper to allocate seats so that people can save time.

Source B tells us that using tissue to reserve seats is morally wrong and by reserving seats using tissue, also presents that Singaporeans are rather selfish and "kiasu" which means the fear of losing out. The purpose of this comment is to criticise people who are in favour of using tissues to reserve seats by saying that they are "shameless and ignorant".

Both sources are different in the tone used to portray the over-arching issue.

Source A uses a much formal and light-hearted tone, trying to make people understand rather than forcing the opinion on people. This can be seen from "Using tissue to reserve seats is an efficient, albeit informal, way to allocate seats to patrons, especially during the peak lunch hour period at crowded food centres in the Central Business District." And "For example, a group of colleagues who leave their packets of tissues at an empty table can all queue simultaneously at different stalls." Using examples to portray the comment tells us that the source is trying to let people understand.

However, Source B uses an accusative. strong and critical tone as it criticises people who are in favour of using the overarching issue. This can be seen from "As though their time is somehow more precious than others', and it is alright to infringe on other people's right to free seating in the name of self-convenience." And " It is a pity that not only are such people shameless and ignorant, they are also happy to parade this to the world."

I would evaluate the sources firstly by the provenance of the comments, whether the comments are made by Singaporeans or not. Since the comment is placed on the Straits Time Forum, I believe that the comments were made by Singaporeans. However to make sure that the sources were reliable, I would cross-reference to the other sources in the forum.

In conclusion, I believe that using tissue to reserve seat is rather ungraceful and immoral. This is because by placing tissue on the seats, other people who are in need of seats are unable to identify whether the seat actually belongs to someone and also it portrays that Singaporeans are a bunch of self-centred people who can't be bothered to care about other people and choose to waste other people's time by using excuses. I also believe that the "tissue reserving" system should be changed to a "1^st come 1^st serve basis" whereby people have to sit on their seats to show people that they are using the seats to avoid confusion, instead of tissue which can easily be swept away by people.

3D: Muhammad Dzafir

2008-12-31T21:48:00.002+08:00

The over-arching issue is regarding the shutdown of the Singapore Flyer.

Source A: A comment made by a user of the ST Forum
The worst thing is that the Singapore Flyer never plan and think ahead

It was reported all passengers after being eventually brought down when the wheel turned again, they were led to be fed and ferried home without the opportunity for the press to interview them

They had never thought of what they are going to do the next day when passengers turned up......

Angry customers wanted refund were refused. This is wrong. After such frightful experience and with no certain date of re-opening, customer should be given option to refund. Not everyone is enthused to return again. Singapore Flyer, are you listening ? Customers do not wish to be trapped to ride the Flyer again. Some are scared, some are no longer in Singapore when it re-opened....they should be refunded, period.

To many people, they won't even want to ride it even if it is free !

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15733

Source B: A comment made be a ST Forum User

stompKING

Send a private message to stompKING

Find all posts by stompKING

Just remember when you are offering your points of view that the Flyer and the shops there have all made a huge investment and their livelihoods may be at stake here. Everyone is being so negative but this is a huge mechanical and technical installation and there are always some teething problems as with the A380 and many space programs. The Singapore public would be better focusing on the fact that no one was seriously injured and the important thing now is to get the wheel up and running again so that it can help with tourism and to the future prosperity of Singapore.
Don't be so quick to judge. The facts aren't known yet and calling for dismissals and the closing of the wheel is damaging and dangerous - we're talking about people's futures here - don't be so quick to jump on the blame bandwagon.
The Flyer is a national icon and you should be proud of it.

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15733&page=3

Source A is regarding the Singapore Flyer team not being able to actually see what would happen if shutdown due to the power failure happened. This caused many upset customers and reporters as customers were stuck for six hours before being able to be rescued and reporters were not able to interview the rescued customers since they were led away to be fed and ferried home by the authorities possibly in order to avoid a stir regarding the situation. Its main purpose to prive that most people will never take the Singapore Flyer fearing that they will be stuck too even if it was a free ride and that the team managing the Singapore Flyer were unreasonable when customers who were traumatised by the six hour drama were refused refund when they came back the next day.

Source B is regarding the negative views by most Singaporeans and commenting that Singaporeans should not be always negative. He pointed out that Singaporeans should look on the positive side of the event that no one was gravely injured and now the wheel is moving again. Its purpose was to show that everything is flawed and that we cannot be too quick to judge the situation especially when the facts are not known yet and the dismissal of staff and the closure of the wheel would be damaging and dangerous since it is the jobs of people and their future which are at stake. He is also reminding SIngaporeans that the Singapore Flyer was a national icon that we should be proud of.

Both source A and B is different in its tone. Source A is very aggressive and felt that no one would want to take the Singapore Flyer ever since the incident occurred and felt that the current team running the Singapore Flyer was not smart enough to know what would happen the day after the incident when many angry customers came back for refunds.Source B has a much less aggressive tone and pinted out that we sould be happy that no one was hurt and we shoul not start pointing fingers even though such an incident occured.However both Source A and B are similar that they both agree upon the fact that what happened was something major and should be avoided in the future.

In conclusion, I feel that it is reasonable that Singaporeans are upset with what had happened but as Singaporeans we should not jump to conclusions quickly and point fingers at those whom we think is responsible even if they were not without any actual evidence. We should be proud of this national icon even if such an incident ever happened. If we were to start boycotting the Singapore Flyer, the businesses, the employees and employers located near the Singapore Flyer, the investors that invested millions into this project, will go in vain. I think that Singaporeans should always think before they act and not be selfish but think about those who really sufferred.

3F: Ernest Lim Wei Jie

2008-12-31T00:02:00.003+08:00

The over-arching issue is whether enrichment camps serve any real purpose.

Source A : A comment made by a citizen on a online forum.
They add to the expenditure of many families and the practice is eco-unfriendly....I wonder what the reason is for holding such camps. Are the courses beyond the competence of trained teachers, so schools cannot conduct them but require outside specialists to undertake them? I also wonder if these 'specialists' are trained to teach or hold some specialist qualifications. These camps do not come free...They have to be paid for and children go home from each camp carrying unnecessary items.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_319733.html

Source B : A comment made by a citizen on a online forum.
Should we be thankful for education in Singapore, or complain about its costs? It looks like a 2-edged sword. I was deprived of further education in the 70s as my family could not afford it. So I understand some of the sentiments here. One thing I see lacking in some Singaporeans is a spirit of survival and will....If we need money to buy something, we have to think of ways to make the money, and not complain about its costs. If we cannot achieve that, then we can re-balance our accounts, meaning giving up some other things in order to get what we want.

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_319733.html

Source A questions the true purposes and reasons of why such enrichment camps are held. The citizen disparages the camps, citing examples such as high enrollment costs. Frankly, he is wondering if the need for such enrichment camps is necessary. The reason behind his doubt is that schools already possess 'trained teachers' to educate the students, and so is there really a need for outside help to manage this courses? Hence, the citizen probes the rationale and need for these enrichment camps. As a citizen, his sole purpose for citing these concerns on a online forum will be to raise public awareness on this issue, and perhaps encourage a response from the respective authorities. By posting on a online forum, his doubts and concerns will be seen and viewed by various members of the public and thus his message will be heard.

On the other hand, Source B wonders whether there should be a call for appreciation for these forms of supplementary education, or should we complain about its cost. The citizen relates to his past, when he had suffered from a lack of education due to its cost, and hence he is able to understand the general 'sentiments' here. However, the citizen blames Singaporeans for a lack of 'spirit of survival and will'. He feels that if there is really a true need for something, we should look and think of solutions to obtain it, instead of merely grumbling and complaining about the situation and cost. If that cannot be done, he feels that then, there is a need for sacrifice. Hence, he provides a solution or course of action for others in such a dilemma.

Both sources differ in their views. Source A does not support the existence of such enrichment camps. In Source A, it is stated the citizen wonders the 'specialists' who hold the camps are 'trained to teach or hold some sort of specialist qualifications'. By questioning and doubting the standard and qualification of the camp-holders, Source A expresses doubt and disapproval for these camps. Source A also complains about the camps which 'add to the expenditure of many families'. Hence, it is obvious that Source A is against such enrichment camps. However, Source B calls for more appreciation and less complaints. He feels that although he understands the public sentiment, he feels that if Singaporeans desire 'further education'. they should 'think of ways' to 'make the money' to obtain it, instead of just complaining about the relatively high costs. He thus calls for 'a spirit of survival and will', for more action to be undertaken in the course of achieving such 'further education'.

Source A is by a citizen. It is unknown whether she has had any personal experience in dealing with these enrichment camps. It is also unknown, whether her claims of unnecessary miscellaneous costs are true, leading to an air of uncertainty behind the statements made. Hence, Source A is unreliable. On the other hand, Source B is another comment by a citizen, and hence depicts the view of a Singaporean to this issue. Therefore, Source B is reliable.

In conclusion, I feel that while such supplementary enrichment camps do provide useful education to students, not all of them are entirely reliable and helpful. Based on personal experience, unnecessary costs are often paid for and the total sum to be paid for such camps are ridiculously high. Certainly, this issue has to be looked in to, as I am sure the trained staff in the various primary and secondary schools are more than capable of undertaking the role of teaching the educational material used in such camps. While several of these camps DO require specialized personnel, the majority of the rest do not. Hopefully, extra, unnecessary costs will be avoided in the near future, and only enrichment camps with vital substance will be imposed on the students. We are facing an economy crisis, after all.

3F: Liew Chian Yee Joseph

2008-12-25T01:35:00.002+08:00

The over-arching issue of the topic is how foreign workers are being treated in a modern society in Singapore whereby crude employers of major firms stoop to such lowly tactics of running away from their problems, leaving behind hundreds of workers stranded. And yet this topic attracted controversial opinions from people, regarding the cause of the trouble.

Source A: A comment by "eirenewee" on the Straits Times Discussion Board who criticised the employers for ill-treating their foreign workers.

I am glad to see that ST is reporting these cases, although it is sad to read of employers behaving in ways that really are unacceptable and callous. If it were their family members, would they simply leave them to starve and without any means to survive. It doesn't reflect well on Singapore as a whole, even if we all hope that these situations are one in a million. Truly civilized societies don't go about reveling in comfort only to dump their laborers in a lurch in the face of economic challenges ... that is not genuinely entrepreneurial behavior.

Of course both foreign workers and local workers are suffering at this time ... but all are human beings and must be treated with neighborly consideration. Please don't misunderstand - I do sympathize with enterprise owners (I was once myself) - I do ... these are tough times all round.

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15569

Source B: A comment by "kick1stepmove1step" on the Straits Times Discussion Board who blamed the worker for their own undoing.

Why are there so many foreign laborers around? Because of greed, greed and greed. Good buildings with many more years of utility are pulled down enbloc, a uniquely Singapore policy. Policy makers say this is to rejuvenate estates and also to allow more housing units to be built to maximise land and solve housing needs. Is it true? The rules allow buildings less that 10 years to be pulled down and there were cases of this being done. Is the real purpose is to recycle land to generate economic activity? The rich owns many units. The papers reported that one owns a whole block of a very up market condo, occupying only 2 units leaving the rest vacant. Another owns 11 units of Horizon Tower.
The politicians tell us to reduce, reuse and recycle and use less plastic bags. What hypocrisy!
So we end up with thousands of these wretched souls selling their land, their cows even their children to come to Spore to work as beasts of labor and go home with bodies and lives ruined by greed of their fellow mankind.

The comment made in Source A describes the hard work being put in by our foreign workers and yet they do not gain proper credit for their commitment and attitude in building a better Singapore. The person did point out that even though those people were merely workers,

they should not be treated differently from us humans just because of their inglorious background. Moreover, their impassionate employers had owed them three months of salary before deciding to run off in such a rocky period, leaving them to starve on their own.
The purpose of the person making such a statement in Source A is to protect the welfare of the foreign workers and yet bring shame to such employers whom he labeled as "unacceptable and callous". As "eirenewee" had claimed to be an enterprise owner, we would be sure that he had been entangled in such a nerve wrecking situation before and that his words would carry more importance than others. More importantly, he wants to seek redress for the victims and by bringing across the message, he hopes to gain further support from others who share a common stand with him. This will be vital in surmounting the pressure on the authorities, so that they might take action against such irresponsible bullies. By laying down a penalty, future employers will be kept on their toes and think twice before repeating such a cowardly act.

As for Source B, the person strongly criticized the foreign workers for being "greedy", claiming that the majority of them flocked to Singapore, just to try out their luck. In terms of major crisis, those workers will only suffer from the poor economic down turn and this will inevitably affect their livelihood. Although "kick1stepmove1step" did point out the fact that part of the blame should be accepted from our government for constantly rebuilding sculptures unnecessarily.

The main purpose of the person making such comments in Source B is to display his dissatisfaction and outraged at those foreign workers for fleeing their homeland to work in Singapore. Also, the person was against their idea of selling their assets. Hence, it can be said that he is unsupportive of them and believe that they got what they deserved. This can be further supported by words used by "kick1stepmove1step" who used words such as "wretched souls" to signify them. Overall, he thought that the cause of the problem does not belies with the enterprise owners.

The main distinctive difference between Sources A and B is that the former shares the same stand as the foreign workers but in contrast, the latter condemned them for being intruders in our society. "eirenewee" sympathized with he victims, stressing that despite such bad times, the welfare of the workers should still not be neglected. But on the other hand, "kick1stepmove1step" believes that it is their undoing. This clearly shows that both readers have different opinions regarding the issue.

To evaluate the reliability of both sources, the provenance of each sources play a major role in deciding its credibility. But in this case, the name or the users do not provide me with much information to decide on. Hence, by reading the sources thoroughly and cross-referencing them with one another, it will help one gain deeper understanding of the debate. For this particular topic, Source A can be said to be reliable as the person who commented on it, shared the similar occupation as the "bullies". Therefore he will be in a better position to analyze the situation before coming to his conclusion. Furthermore, whatever he had said was not only one-sided as he had an unbiased tone in it. But the person in Source B merely faulted the foreign workers for their current plight, without looking at the other side of the picture.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that such irresponsible employers should be entirely held responsible for their unworthy acts. Despite encountering setbacks in their business, they could have sat down and reached an agreement between both parties to avoid such unwanted allegations. The authorities should step in and address the problem not to only satisfy the unhappy workers but to serve this as a warning for other companies in future to preserve the image of our country.

3D: Muhd Hamzah

2008-12-21T16:29:00.002+08:00

Should rules be tightened concerning the foreign workers in Singapore in order to safeguard their rights and protect them from being abused and neglected?

Source A: A comment by a former enterprise owner
It is sad to read of employers behaving in ways that really are unacceptable and callous. If it were their family members, would they simply leave them to starve and without any means to survive. It doesn't reflect well on Singapore as a whole, even if we all hope that these situations are one in a million. Truly civilized societies don't go about reveling in comfort only to dump their labourers in a lurch in the face of economic challenges ... that is not genuinely entrepreneurial behaviour. I lived in HK for many years and came to see a different side of what it means to be enterprising.

Of course both foreign workers and local workers are suffering at this time but all are human beings and must be treated with neighbourly consideration. Please don't misunderstand - I do sympathize with enterprise owners (I was once myself). These are tough times all round. But leadership has its benefits but also it's burdens so enterprise owners need to take the good with the tough/bad times too. I hope our government will come down hard on anyone treating another human being as if he/she were disposable, so that the principle will be emphasized and such abuses will be seriously discouraged.

Source B: A comment by a Singaporean netizen
The writer said "because they do not have the same laws to protect them as we do, nor do they have access to legal or financial aid, should the need arise."
Please check, Singaporeans don't have any of the above also.
"It is time to reflect on how lucky we are here, despite the failing economy. Yes, some of us may lose our jobs and have to eat at Kopitiam instead of Billy Bombers.."
Please take note that many Singaporeans are depending on free meals provided by charities. They are not much better than these stranded foreign workers. The government is not doing much to help either of them.

Source A is a comment made by a former enterprise owner, on the plight of the foreign workers in Singapore. She said that their employers ought to be ashamed of themselves for not providing a decent life for these workers. She highlighted the fact that these workers were also human and should be treated with respect for all their hard work and labours, not being neglected and abused. Source B is a comment by a Singaporean netizen, on the same fate that local Singaporeans share with these foreign workers. He said that Singaporeans are not better off than these workers as they also had to toil to find food and also do not have access to legal and financial aids.

The 2 sources are different in their tones in portraying the role of Singaporeans in the over-arching issue.
Source A takes up an accusative and critical tone as it criticises Singaporeans, especially the workers' employers, for not having the welfare of these workers in mind. Source A cited that "It is sad to read of employers behaving in ways that really are unacceptable and callous" and that "It doesn't reflect well on Singapore as a whole" as "truly civilized societies don't go about reveling in comfort only to dump their labourers in a lurch in the face of economic challenges". Source A also uses terms such as "ingeniunely entrepuenical behaviour", "dump" and "abuses" to criticise the employers. However, Source B takes up a protective and defensive tone in stating that Singaporeans are not better off than these workers in aspects such as financial aids and protective laws. Source B cited that just like these workers, Singaporeans also do not have the same laws to protect them, nor do they have financial and legal aids. Singaporeans also are not better off than these workers as they also depend on free meals provided by these charities. Source B also stated that the government are not doing much to help either the Singaporeans or the workers, which indirectly suggested that Singaporeans are not to be blamed for the plight of the foreign workers.

Source A is by a former enterprise owner. Having been taking in foreign workers just like those employers, she should understand the situation well and even defend the employers in their role in this over-arching issue as she would have known how hard it is to prioiritise the welfare of these workers and give them a defend life in times where the economy was bad. However, she criticised them which suggests that she is not on the same side as these employers. This shows that Source A is reliable because it is by someone who would most probably understand the whole issue and not miss out any blind spots, having been in the same field before. Source B is by a local netizen. He had stated that Singaporeans did not have financial and legal aids, and that they also depend on free meals provided by charities, just like these foreign workers. However, he did not offer any evidence to back up his point. This shows that Source B is unreliable as we simply cannot trust a source without any evidence.

In conlusion, i feel that the employers are to be blamed for the plight of these foreign workers. The employers are the ones in control of these workers, and they should at least give them a decent life with sufficient food and a place to live in after all the hard work that these workers had done. These workers are not asking for much, so these employers should at least ensure that their rights are safeguarded and that they are not abused and neglected. Also, the government should also tighten rules concerning these workers so that they will be protected from being abused and would at least have someone to complain to if they are being neglected again.

3D: Aaron Chia

2008-12-21T16:11:00.002+08:00

The over-arching issue is if Singapore should or should not legalize euthanasia.

Source A: A comment made by a forum user

Palliative care - is a good alternative but not a complete one. It doesn't work in all cases. There are people such advanced stages of pain - they need morphine to bear up - so they are semiconscious, when they are conscious they are in unbearable pain and I agree with u that misuse of euthanasia is one major issue. That is why the brainstorming ways for that makes sense then to make euthanasia illegal.

On a side note - we do not hesitate to put to sleep our pets when they are in pain.
Pet owners love their pets as their own too. My pet dog died 23 years ago I still love/miss it though it lived with me for 4 years only. While it is humane to do so for pets why not for suffering fellowmen who can express their wishes to end life.

The instinct for survival is extremely high for any living thing. What is suicide but a cry for help - an inability to continue life under a set of circumstances. Who wants to die for the sake of dying - But when man feels so helps that he wants to give up his own life- as a society we must help him overcome his pressing problems.
And if we can do nothing to alleviate the pain/suffering, how can we deny him the right to die?

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15553&page=4

Source B: A comment made by a forum user

Euthanasia and the rationale behind it are actually multi-faceted. Consider this. Euthanasia is only even considered due to the reason that it eases suffering by inducing a form of painless death to an individual. However, I always believe in the logic of the human life cycle and accept that everyone must die sooner or later, and based on this, is it even remotely acceptable that an individual chooses such an option? There is a fine line between Euthanasia and suicide. Life is precious and if possible why does the individual not have the will to fight this pain? Why succumb to it using such means?

Using Euthanasia as a poor excuse to ease one's suffering. However, on the other hand, one might argue that every person has to be given a fair choice, and they obviously have the right to choose Euthanasia, but like what Mr Gigimole has mentioned, only as a last resort. On a personal level, Euthanasia is definitely an option, but it should not be in anyway a starting point for it to be sold commercially as a full-proof method. There are many legality and moral issues that comes tied in with the bargain. Euthanasia can be made use of, especially so when the individual himself is unconscious or is involuntary.

From a Singaporean context, we have to be wary of Euthanasia as it marks a shift from the conventional medical hub concept. We are moving from saving lives to ending lives in order to ease pain. Such a concept is fresh but dangerous, coming with a high moral price tag. It is cruel, even if the individual is voluntary. It might be personal, but I do not condone people "perpetuating" their own deaths and resorting to Euthanasia as a way to run away from troubles in life or because it is an easier option to take in the circumstances. Without doubt, people will shirk away from such an option, but there might be a way out.

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?p=217691

The message of Source A is that euthanasia should be legalized whereas the message of Source B is that euthanasia should not be legalized. However, both sources' purpose is to try and convince others that their stand is ultimately beneficial for the country so that they may obtain their support in the issue.

The two sources are similar in the fact that both sources express concern for Singapore regarding the issue. Source A states "I agree with u that misuse of euthanasia is one major issue. That is why the brain storming ways for that makes sense then to make euthanasia illegal." which implies that Source A does not blindly support his stand and does consider the effects and impacts of his stand. Source B states "From a Singaporean context, we have to be wary of Euthanasia as it marks a shift from the conventional medical hub concept." where the words "Singaporean" and "wary" clearly states that it has taken the nation's well-being into consideration.

Source A and B are different in terms of their stands. Source A believes that it is imperative and highly necessary that Singapore sort out a way to make euthanasia free of exploits before legalizing it whereas Source B believes that Singapore should never legalize euthanasia.

In order to evaluate the sources' reliability and utility, we would have to observe the tone and purpose of the sources and determine if the sources are objective or subjective. Source A has a paragraph relating about past personal experience with the topic and is relating the topic to the event. Due to the fact that Source A is bringing in personal experiences, it can be said to be unreliable and would be of little use as it becomes a subjective source. Source B on the other hand has subtle hints of the author being emotional towards the subject. The hints are the strong words used like 'succumb', 'condone' and 'cruel'. Using these clues, I can make out that Source B is only reliable and useful to a little extent but would be more so than Source A.

I personally believe that Singapore should not legalize euthanasia. Singapore, being a cosmopolitan country, would naturally have people with different and conflicting views of the issue due to the diverse race and religion. That is why the only solution to this problem is to remove the problem entirely and remain status quo. By dong so, Singapore would be able to save the unnecessary trouble caused by the issue.

3D : Melvin Lian

2008-12-17T13:23:00.002+08:00

The issue that is being discussed is whether the extension of the Smoking Ban would prove successful and effective for the Government.

Source A: A comment by the user "PitFighter" on the Straits Times Discussion Board.

Had tried calling the NEA a couple of times about smokers smoking in designated non-smoking seating areas in certain popular eating places. The NEA said they will send their people to look into it. But each time I went back, there are still non-smokers there puffing away like chimney stacks. No point passing those regulations when there is no or weak enforcement. It simply makes the Singapore Government no better than a paper tiger In the eyes of those recalcitrant smokers.

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15433

Source B: A comment by user "starfire001" on the Straits Times Dicussion Board.

"This is wonderful news! For too long, non-smokers have had endure walking in and out of buildings forced to hold their breaths.Hopefully, the public will see less of smokers huddling outside entrances, standing, sitting, squatting and stooping."

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15433

Extension of Smoking Ban. From January 1, smokers will have to stub out in all hotel lobbies and 5 metres away from all entrances and exits of buildings. The smoking ban will also cover almost all indoor places, with the inclusion of non air conditioned premises like lift lobbies, markets, multi-storey and basement carparks. Smoking will also be banned in outdoor areas like playgrounds and exercise areas.

The issue that is being discussed is whether the extension of the Smoking Ban would prove successful and effective for the Government. The main purpose of the whole issue is for the Government to send a strong "anti-smoking" message to Singaporeans so as to deter smokers from continuing to smoke.

Source B looks at the issue in an unusually positive light. Source B believes that with the extension of the Smoking Ban, smokers would definitely deter from smoking and that "the public will see less of smokers huddling outside entrances, standing, sitting, squatting and stooping." The sarcasm here is intended to send out a message that the extension on the Smoking Ban might or might not prove successful, depending on how one looks at the issue.

Source A on the other hand, looks at the issue in a very reasoned way. Source A shows that despite being informed about people smoking in "non-designated" areas, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has turned a blind eye to these issues. "There are still smokers puffing away like chimney stacks" in non-smoking areas which shows a weak enforcement on these laws concerning smoking. Thus, Source A implies that for the extension on the Smoking Ban to be successful, the NEA has to enforce a tighter control on these laws before people start to lose faith.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To evaluate the reliability of the sources, i would first look at the author or artist of ther source. Since in this case both sources are comments posted on a discussion board using nicknames, one cannot tell the true identity of the author. Thus i would evaluate the reliability of the sources by cross-refrencing them to my own knowledge and also other more reliable sources like speeches or articles on the smoking ban by a minister for example.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus i conclude that for the extension on the Smoking Ban to be successful, the NEA has to enforce a tighter control on these laws before people start to lose faith.

3F: Nur Hidayat

2008-12-16T18:43:00.002+08:00

Source A:Comment by Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch about the protest in Thailand
Now is the time for protest leaders and the government to make public commitments to peaceful protest and lawful police action. It is also time for accountability. Many people have died and been injured in recent months, and this cannot simply be forgotten.
Source:?http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/03/thailand-protest-groups-and-government-should-reject-political-violence

Source B: News report by The Nation, a Thai Newspaper on Thai portest-28 November 2008
Chamlong Srimuang, a co-leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, said Friday morning that a senior person called him to end the rallies against the government.Speaking to the crowd at a PAD rally site at the Don Mueang Airport, Chamlong said he replied that the people could not stop.He said although a lot of damages have been done to the country's economy, the PAD was not the source of the problem.He said the government was the source of the problem so the PAD would not stop until the government resigns and cancels its plan to amend the Constitution.?
http://www.bkkok.com/article-3918-thread-0-0.html

Source A and B are talking about the protests that are going on in Thailand right now. The protesters in Thailand are trying to show their unhapiness about the current goverment in Thailamd. Source A states "?time for protest leaders and the government to make public commitments ". It is trying to say that both the government are at fault and suppose to make an effort to stop the chaos. Source A too states "eople have died and been injured in recent months, and this cannot simply be forgotten". It is trying to say the protest won't lead anywhere except causing more and more deaths and injuries. The purpose of this source was to warn the Thai protesters and government of the consequences of the protest towards the people. Additionally, the comment was by the Director of Human Rights of Asia and he is concerned about the people who are in Thailand. However sources B states "he replied that the people could not stop". It means that the protestors would not stop unless their their demands are met.

Source B too states "government was the source of the problem so the PAD would not stop until the government resign". The source meant that the protestors are trying to blame the government for the damage that had been done.

Source A and B are different because Source A blames both the government and protestors for the chaos in Thailand while B blames only the government. Source A and B are also different about suggesting what the protestots should do. Source A states that the protestors should stop to prevent further damage while B claimes that continuing the protest would repairs all the damages that have been done

3D: Wang Hongyang

2008-12-16T00:40:00.002+08:00

English for maids, but not front-line staff?

Story:
I REFER to the letters on front-line staff who cannot understand or speak even basic English, and would like to give my feedback.

It is surprising that a maid must pass a basic English test before her work permit is approved, but foreign front-line staff need not. Maids usually have to communicate with their employer's family members and do some work outside, such as shopping, whereas front-line staff in shops must understand products and explain them to customers. Moreover, they must be able to do it quickly and to people of various races who share a common language, English.

Are we penalising the wrong people here? I can live with a maid, even if she does not speak English, as long we can communicate in another language. However, I do not expect the same from a supermarket cashier and I do not want to have to struggle to understand what he is trying to say.

I hope the authorities can explain this.

Regimon Sebastian

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15345

Source A:

I think to ask the PRC nationals to speak our brand of Mandarin is to go overboard. ( if there is any difference between their Mandarin and our grammatically correct Mandarin spoken by our Mandarin TV news broadcasters, other than accent)

To be fair, except for some PRC construction workers here who speak Putonghua with their own provincial accents, I have always understood my PRC nationals' Putonghua; and they, mine.

Anyway, although I believe that the PRC nationals in the service industry should at least speak simple English, learning a few simple conversational English phrases like 'Hi, can I help you?' or 'Welcome to XXX store', I think the issue on whether the PRCs should speak English first is a very sensitive one, even to local Chinese, and especially to local Chinese born in the fifties or forties.

GhostRider666

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15345&page=2

Source B:
In Singapore, as the language of instruction in the education system is English, most of us cannot communicate well in our MT though on papers we may have scored well in it. eg I wanted to get some mouth ulcer cream at a pharmacy the other day and the sales assistant requested me to repeat what I needed in Mandarin which was beyond me. What is the use of employing that sales assistant then?

If I. a Chinese, cannot communicate with him, isn't it worse for our fellow non Chinese citizens? This problem is also present in foodcourts where stalls are manned by foreign Chinese. It is unfair for customers to have no choice to use a language they are comfortable in or proficient in. Even our local illiterate or non-English educated hawkers try to communicate with their customers in smuttering English or monosyllabic English to get their messages through.

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=15345

Source A and Source B are similiar because both source A and source B show that it is necessary for foreign labour to learn English in order to communicate with others. In source A it says PRC nationals should "at least speak basic English". In source B it says most of us "cannot communicate well in our MT". Because "the language of instruction in the education system is English", it is commonly used in Singapore as the language for communication. Thus labour come to Singapore should learn English.

However, Source A and Source B are different since they asked for different standards of English that foreign labour can speak. In Source A the writer asked for only the "basic English" and in Source B the writer asked for a higher level. He asked foreigners to communicate with people from other ethnic groups, which is much more difficult for them.

Source A and Source B are also different in their purpose. The writer of Source A write this comment to call Singaporeans to tolerate foreigners' English standards and disagreed to enforce them to learn English very well. The writer of Source A is likely to be a Chinese and has seen many foreign labour bofore. He seems to have few problems in communicating with foreign labour who cannot speak English. The writer of Source B is likely to be a native Singaporean from other ethnic groups. He grew up in an English-speaking environment and could not speak Chinese well. He seemed to have trouble while communicating with foreigners. He wrote this comment and hoped them could learn English and speak English. He felt he was treated unfairly because of the language.

Source A is useful because it represents the view of most Chinese Singaporeans, especially those who came to Singapore from China. However, it is not useful since it is the opinion of a single ethnic group. It does not think much about people from other ethnic groups. Although Chinese is the majority in Singapore, the voice from other groups should also be heard. Compared to Source A, Source B is more useful since it cares the interest of every ethnic group. Thus Source B is more representative .