I just saw this report on the news and it seemed like a relevant topic for me to comment on. According to report, we are not allowed to drink anything – not even take a sip of plain water from a bottled source to quench our thirst/even babies are not allowed to be fed milk from a milk bottle in an MRT. Apparently, offenders will be fined.
Somehow, I find that such laws are practically inhumane and it appears to be depriving us of our human rights. This can be argued in the logic that “If one is about to get knocked down by a car, what would be his instant reaction? Of course it would be to run and preserve their life. So…if one is extremely thirsty and needs a sip of water to quench that dying thirst of his, should he be deprived of that sip just because he is on an MRT that may well soothe him for the entire trip?” A new-born baby is unable to express himself verbally or tolerate his hunger/thirst, hence, should a parent of the baby be fined for feeding the baby milk on an MRT? Apparently, they will be fined but why are the terms so harsh and inflexible? Is it logical for one to deprive another of quenching their thirst simply because one is travelling on an MRT? One’s ability to sustain such feelings is limited and it wouldn’t be pleasant if one has to wait till he leaves the station before he can drink something.
I wouldn’t mind if sweet drinks were prohibited as there is a reason behind that – to keep the MRT clean of pests. BUT why is plain water not allowed either? I don’t see a reason behind prohibiting this. Many times I have travelled on an MRT and had the urge to take just a sip of water but I did not dare to. My friend was once confronted in an MRT just because he was about to drink water. Hence, I had to tolerate this uncomfortably thirsty sensation until I emerged from my station. I really feel that this law against drinking even plain water in an MRT should be abolished as it is not right to defy one of his means to quench his thirst at any location.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Offshore oil drilling -Gulf of Mexico (USA)
Off-shore oil drilling refers to the drilling of oil in deep waters. The reasons behind this situation in the US are that President Obama is making it a priority to wean America off foreign oil and instead obtain oil from its own resources – oil from under the sea bed, as well as achieve energy independence. However, offshore oil drilling does not only have benefits, the cons of this issue regarding the environment are extremely significant. But first, let me state some of the pros.
Pros:
It is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leashes and lower the prices of oil in terms of petrol. It is estimated that the Gulf of Mexico holds somewhere around 70 billion barrels (42 gallon of oil per barrel) of oil while 40 billion of which remains undiscovered in the deepwater. There’s also thought to be more than 85 billion barrels of undiscovered crude oil off the coast of the US. These are more than a decade’s worth of oil at USA’s current oil consumption pace. With all these oil, the USA can achieve its goal within years.
Cons:
Nevertheless nothing is perfect. In this case, the cons are actually much more than the advantages. Environmentalists believe that offshore oil drilling is not the best way to achieve energy independence as we are risking our environment by doing so. The deepwater drilling may unearth toxins from below the seabed and these may eventually end up in our seafood supply. Possible accidents may occur such as the explosion of oil drilling plat forms (e.g. BP oil spill), spillage of oil by “boats” transporting them and the bursting of oil pipes. All these lead to large amounts of oil being released into the ocean which threatens the ecosystem in an area – marine life and coastal communities will be impacted. Furthermore, it takes months to drill a deepwater well and it is rather costly (>$100 million). Even with million-dollar, hard-as-diamond bits, drilling four and five miles through mud, salt and several layers of rock is painstaking work. In fact, it relies incredibly on luck to actually find oil after all the extensive drilling.
Offshore oil drilling is definitely not a long term solution towards the running out of energy resources or to seek energy independence. One day, the oil supply we have will eventually run out and we have to turn to other alternatives. Most people are placing revenue and solving the current problem of a higher priority than the environment which they live in. The damage dealt to the ecosystem by offshore oil drilling is immense and is an immediate area of concern. If we were to forsake the environment for benefits, in terms of development and immediate salvaging of the shortage of energy resource, that is not permanent, eventually would we even have an earth to live on? I believe that turning to renewable resources for energy as a cheaper alternative to non-renewable resources, lower damage dealt to ecosystem/environment as we improve economically and technologically and as a more sustainable and desirable method to achieve energy independence. Hence, the benefits of offshore oil drilling are not worth the undesirable consequences.
Pros:
It is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leashes and lower the prices of oil in terms of petrol. It is estimated that the Gulf of Mexico holds somewhere around 70 billion barrels (42 gallon of oil per barrel) of oil while 40 billion of which remains undiscovered in the deepwater. There’s also thought to be more than 85 billion barrels of undiscovered crude oil off the coast of the US. These are more than a decade’s worth of oil at USA’s current oil consumption pace. With all these oil, the USA can achieve its goal within years.
Cons:
Nevertheless nothing is perfect. In this case, the cons are actually much more than the advantages. Environmentalists believe that offshore oil drilling is not the best way to achieve energy independence as we are risking our environment by doing so. The deepwater drilling may unearth toxins from below the seabed and these may eventually end up in our seafood supply. Possible accidents may occur such as the explosion of oil drilling plat forms (e.g. BP oil spill), spillage of oil by “boats” transporting them and the bursting of oil pipes. All these lead to large amounts of oil being released into the ocean which threatens the ecosystem in an area – marine life and coastal communities will be impacted. Furthermore, it takes months to drill a deepwater well and it is rather costly (>$100 million). Even with million-dollar, hard-as-diamond bits, drilling four and five miles through mud, salt and several layers of rock is painstaking work. In fact, it relies incredibly on luck to actually find oil after all the extensive drilling.
Offshore oil drilling is definitely not a long term solution towards the running out of energy resources or to seek energy independence. One day, the oil supply we have will eventually run out and we have to turn to other alternatives. Most people are placing revenue and solving the current problem of a higher priority than the environment which they live in. The damage dealt to the ecosystem by offshore oil drilling is immense and is an immediate area of concern. If we were to forsake the environment for benefits, in terms of development and immediate salvaging of the shortage of energy resource, that is not permanent, eventually would we even have an earth to live on? I believe that turning to renewable resources for energy as a cheaper alternative to non-renewable resources, lower damage dealt to ecosystem/environment as we improve economically and technologically and as a more sustainable and desirable method to achieve energy independence. Hence, the benefits of offshore oil drilling are not worth the undesirable consequences.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Recent Stomp Article - HCI teachers taking valuables of students to teach them a lesson
Indeed, the students are at fault for not locking their classroom. Then again, is it justifiable for teachers to take the belongings of students “to teach them a lesson” just because they did not lock the door? For this case there are two perspectives. One as an angered victim and another as a teacher merely wanting to let students learn their lesson and not to take things for granted.
From a victim’s perspective, this may be more of a traumatizing experience than learning a lesson (I was a victim once so I can understand how it felt like). Imagine your laptop (whether or not it’s your personal computer or shared) which costs possibly more than 1k suddenly vanishing from your class. The charger and mouse were left behind and only the laptop was taken away, what would be the first thought? Obviously it would be theft – someone must have came in, bagged all the laptops and left seeking for a place to sell them for cash.
Imagine the loss of all the compilation of notes (especially in future school classes), project information and costly programmes…the grief and hopelessness the victim is subjected to is immeasurable in a sense. All that time after losing my laptop, my mood was really bad, I felt like I could kill – the feeling was horrible. At one point, I even wanted to let the police handle this supposedly theft case but thinking rationally eventually changed my mind.
The victim's argument would probably be “If someone robs a bank to prove that the security of the bank is low and wants officials to improve security, is that considered a crime? If someone stabs another in the back and claims it is to teach the victim a lesson for not being wary of his back, is that not a crime? ” It is similar in this scenario, “If a teacher takes (it can be regarded as stealing as the items are taken without permission from the owner) the belongings of students to teach them a lesson for not locking the classroom, can that be classified as a crime?” Logically, the answer would be yes as teachers, no matter what, indeed have no right to remove items of students from classroom.
Nevertheless, we have to consider the perspective of the teachers who took the items. In order to teach students not to take things for granted, warn them of possible theft cases and teach them a lesson for giving thieves an opportunity by not locking their doors. In a way, their actions can be justified. It is all for the good of the students. In fact, having teachers who actually care about the welfare of the students is, beyond any doubt, better than teachers who don’t give a damn.
If the teachers did not “perform” a theft case scenario and chose to lecture the students about the importance of guarding against theft, would the students actually bother to listen or even take it seriously? It is only after experiencing such a case would one truly understand the harsh reality of the world that theft can happen anywhere, anytime as long as there is an object, a thief and the opportunity. The only way u can guard against theft is to not leave any opportunities.
Hence, I believe that what the teachers did was right. After it has occurred to me previously, I truly learnt my lesson. If the teachers had not done as such, I would probably still take things for granted. If my items do get stolen one day, who would I have to blame but myself for giving the opportunity.
================================================================================================
do pardon me for my pathetic vocabulary - i will try to improve
From a victim’s perspective, this may be more of a traumatizing experience than learning a lesson (I was a victim once so I can understand how it felt like). Imagine your laptop (whether or not it’s your personal computer or shared) which costs possibly more than 1k suddenly vanishing from your class. The charger and mouse were left behind and only the laptop was taken away, what would be the first thought? Obviously it would be theft – someone must have came in, bagged all the laptops and left seeking for a place to sell them for cash.
Imagine the loss of all the compilation of notes (especially in future school classes), project information and costly programmes…the grief and hopelessness the victim is subjected to is immeasurable in a sense. All that time after losing my laptop, my mood was really bad, I felt like I could kill – the feeling was horrible. At one point, I even wanted to let the police handle this supposedly theft case but thinking rationally eventually changed my mind.
The victim's argument would probably be “If someone robs a bank to prove that the security of the bank is low and wants officials to improve security, is that considered a crime? If someone stabs another in the back and claims it is to teach the victim a lesson for not being wary of his back, is that not a crime? ” It is similar in this scenario, “If a teacher takes (it can be regarded as stealing as the items are taken without permission from the owner) the belongings of students to teach them a lesson for not locking the classroom, can that be classified as a crime?” Logically, the answer would be yes as teachers, no matter what, indeed have no right to remove items of students from classroom.
Nevertheless, we have to consider the perspective of the teachers who took the items. In order to teach students not to take things for granted, warn them of possible theft cases and teach them a lesson for giving thieves an opportunity by not locking their doors. In a way, their actions can be justified. It is all for the good of the students. In fact, having teachers who actually care about the welfare of the students is, beyond any doubt, better than teachers who don’t give a damn.
If the teachers did not “perform” a theft case scenario and chose to lecture the students about the importance of guarding against theft, would the students actually bother to listen or even take it seriously? It is only after experiencing such a case would one truly understand the harsh reality of the world that theft can happen anywhere, anytime as long as there is an object, a thief and the opportunity. The only way u can guard against theft is to not leave any opportunities.
Hence, I believe that what the teachers did was right. After it has occurred to me previously, I truly learnt my lesson. If the teachers had not done as such, I would probably still take things for granted. If my items do get stolen one day, who would I have to blame but myself for giving the opportunity.
================================================================================================
do pardon me for my pathetic vocabulary - i will try to improve
Relevance of exams
This idea is referred to from Ting Kiat's blog but I assure you I am not referring to his points, ONLY THE IDEA =D. My definition of exams: A test to gauge one's understanding of a particular subject whereby marks or grades are awarded.
Then the questions come: What is the point of exams other than to gauge the standard of someone? What are the advantages of exams, if any? What are the disadvantages of exams then? Should exams be abolished or kept in the curriculum?
What is the point of exams other than to gauge the standard of someone? In fact, I find that this is the only point - to let teachers and students themselves know how they fair in a particular subject and try to improve (students). What else is there?
Advantages of exams
The advantages are merely to let students know where they stand and hopefully spur them to improve via competition with other classmates, allow teachers to assess their students to identify the weaker ones who would require more help and for the school to provide awards (or rather incentives) to encourage students to strive harder or maintain their standard. These are the advantages from my perspective, there may be more but that’s all I can think of now…
Disadvantages of exams
Competition between students for better results may be perceived as a good way to urge improvement but cultivating over-competitive students is not what the school should do isn’t it? In fact, I have just one example in class – deemed the class mugger. His name shall not be revealed but he’s the one who got 1.0 MSG for 2 terms straight (actually he’s a competitor of mine -.-) Over-competitive students are bad (see poor vocabulary of mine!) as they tend to aim for the best ALWAYS in almost any aspect. I think that’s why he’s called the class mugger…
Ok, back to disadvantages. Students who receive unsatisfactory results tend to lean towards “conceding” defeat to studies and totally ignore it for the rest of their lives. Students who obtain exemplary results tend to strive harder and improve or simply just to maintain their placing but such students are constantly under immense stress as they “force” themselves to do well (I have to admit but I am like that and I hate it).
Another disadvantage is that students only study for exams at the last possible moment and the method is to memorize everything that will be tested. Such knowledge will only stay in the mind temporarily and is easily forgotten, however, it is still able to help them obtain excellent marks for exams. Hence whether or not the students are knowledgeable in a particular subject, the one who memorizes most efficiently will normally top the class. Therefore, is this still a good gauge of student’s standards? I guess not.
Lastly, it is the pressure of parents who always want their students to be the best – if they have obtained commendable results before. I think this was what changed me – the urge to always be one of the best and the pressure and expectations that I shoulder from my parents.
Conclusion + Opinions
Hence, is there actually a point in having exams? I would say yes to only final year exams but NO to termly examinations. I don’t see a point in having exams every term as students will still get over it by cramming everything in their head each time there is a test as almost everyone wants to do well. Only having final year examinations will be greatly appreciated by most students as that would be a huge boulder off their shoulders. The method of studying which I have mentioned above will not work for final year examinations as there is way too much to study to cram into one’s head. Also, students would be less competitive as there are lesser exams for them to pit against one another. However, I doubt that this “idea” of mine will ever be implemented…Singaporeans are always so kia su to be the best and the MoE probably believes that having exams is the best -.-
================================================================================================
do pardon me for my pathetic vocabulary - i will try to improve
Then the questions come: What is the point of exams other than to gauge the standard of someone? What are the advantages of exams, if any? What are the disadvantages of exams then? Should exams be abolished or kept in the curriculum?
What is the point of exams other than to gauge the standard of someone? In fact, I find that this is the only point - to let teachers and students themselves know how they fair in a particular subject and try to improve (students). What else is there?
Advantages of exams
The advantages are merely to let students know where they stand and hopefully spur them to improve via competition with other classmates, allow teachers to assess their students to identify the weaker ones who would require more help and for the school to provide awards (or rather incentives) to encourage students to strive harder or maintain their standard. These are the advantages from my perspective, there may be more but that’s all I can think of now…
Disadvantages of exams
Competition between students for better results may be perceived as a good way to urge improvement but cultivating over-competitive students is not what the school should do isn’t it? In fact, I have just one example in class – deemed the class mugger. His name shall not be revealed but he’s the one who got 1.0 MSG for 2 terms straight (actually he’s a competitor of mine -.-) Over-competitive students are bad (see poor vocabulary of mine!) as they tend to aim for the best ALWAYS in almost any aspect. I think that’s why he’s called the class mugger…
Ok, back to disadvantages. Students who receive unsatisfactory results tend to lean towards “conceding” defeat to studies and totally ignore it for the rest of their lives. Students who obtain exemplary results tend to strive harder and improve or simply just to maintain their placing but such students are constantly under immense stress as they “force” themselves to do well (I have to admit but I am like that and I hate it).
Another disadvantage is that students only study for exams at the last possible moment and the method is to memorize everything that will be tested. Such knowledge will only stay in the mind temporarily and is easily forgotten, however, it is still able to help them obtain excellent marks for exams. Hence whether or not the students are knowledgeable in a particular subject, the one who memorizes most efficiently will normally top the class. Therefore, is this still a good gauge of student’s standards? I guess not.
Lastly, it is the pressure of parents who always want their students to be the best – if they have obtained commendable results before. I think this was what changed me – the urge to always be one of the best and the pressure and expectations that I shoulder from my parents.
Conclusion + Opinions
Hence, is there actually a point in having exams? I would say yes to only final year exams but NO to termly examinations. I don’t see a point in having exams every term as students will still get over it by cramming everything in their head each time there is a test as almost everyone wants to do well. Only having final year examinations will be greatly appreciated by most students as that would be a huge boulder off their shoulders. The method of studying which I have mentioned above will not work for final year examinations as there is way too much to study to cram into one’s head. Also, students would be less competitive as there are lesser exams for them to pit against one another. However, I doubt that this “idea” of mine will ever be implemented…Singaporeans are always so kia su to be the best and the MoE probably believes that having exams is the best -.-
================================================================================================
do pardon me for my pathetic vocabulary - i will try to improve
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Failing of projects day semi-finals
It was already expected as we made minimal progress during the holidays due to the organization having their own programmes and even when school reopened when our timeslots clashed with curriculum. Our presentation was also not as appealing as that of other groups with photo montage/pictures of them working with the organization and their progress. We truly paled in comparison to them and that was probably the deciding factor of our failure to get through. So what happens if I fail to get through…
If it were last year, I wouldn’t really care whether or not I pass the semis. Reason being that projects day was not a component of our grades then. But now, 50% marks of our IS (independent studies) grade is derived from projects day and failing the semis mean losing 35 marks straight. According to what I know, the criteria to gain entry into special programmes (CSE) are a minimum grade of A2 or A1 for IS. However, this instant loss of 35 marks would land me in a B3 grade for IS, hence depriving me of the opportunity to enter CSE. How is this fair? My grades are ok yet this bloody projects day may well ruin my chance…
In fact, I find that projects day should never had been made a part of our grades due to the fact that not everyone is able to squeeze out the time to dedicate it to working out a perfect, awe-inspiring and striking project, especially in Service Learning. Maybe time management and lack of co-operation was our main problem but still, our opportunities for special programmes should not be limited or determined by a project. But still surprisingly enough, more than ¾ of the class failed the semis. And I believe that there are very few groups who managed to make it through. I do wonder if this is the way the school uses to cut down on the number of students vying for the CSE programmes. If it is so, I got to admit that I have come to the wrong school. Last year was fine, this year it’s a horror.
================================================================================================
This is just a rant of mine to get the frustration out of my heart.
If it were last year, I wouldn’t really care whether or not I pass the semis. Reason being that projects day was not a component of our grades then. But now, 50% marks of our IS (independent studies) grade is derived from projects day and failing the semis mean losing 35 marks straight. According to what I know, the criteria to gain entry into special programmes (CSE) are a minimum grade of A2 or A1 for IS. However, this instant loss of 35 marks would land me in a B3 grade for IS, hence depriving me of the opportunity to enter CSE. How is this fair? My grades are ok yet this bloody projects day may well ruin my chance…
In fact, I find that projects day should never had been made a part of our grades due to the fact that not everyone is able to squeeze out the time to dedicate it to working out a perfect, awe-inspiring and striking project, especially in Service Learning. Maybe time management and lack of co-operation was our main problem but still, our opportunities for special programmes should not be limited or determined by a project. But still surprisingly enough, more than ¾ of the class failed the semis. And I believe that there are very few groups who managed to make it through. I do wonder if this is the way the school uses to cut down on the number of students vying for the CSE programmes. If it is so, I got to admit that I have come to the wrong school. Last year was fine, this year it’s a horror.
================================================================================================
This is just a rant of mine to get the frustration out of my heart.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Where do I get my blogging ideas.
I am totally not one with ideas circling in my head all the time but more of one who can only work if given an idea. Occasionally I get ideas from discussed topics in class and the news but these are not enough. Therefore, I tend to visit blogs of classmates in order to brainstorm of something to write. Although this may be interpreted as ripping off but I somehow cant get my own ideas. I am only able to write out my opinions on something but unable to think of a topic...My vocab is pathetic as well. Looking at all the "cheem" phrases/words that my classmates use makes me envious in the sense that "I want to do that too". But sometimes I wonder, must we really have good vocab? Isn't the main point just to get our message across? So what is the point of using bombastic words? Nevertheless, I am looking for ways to improve this situation as its indeed boring to see myself repeating the same words time and again. The only way for me to improve this poor vocab of mine is to read more books but I am rather lazy and sometimes more of "cant-be-bothered" to find books. Hence, is there any recommendations of good books to read?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
