On the 29th of April, Cassandra Chew wrote an article titled "Something to sniff at" which was published in The Straits Times. She writes about the rising trend of glue-sniffing cases amongst young people in Singapore. In her article, she uses Liane Wong, a secondary 2 national fencer, as an example and a role-model that teenagers ought to follow. As a national fencer, Liane Wong does not abuse drugs or any other substances as this will greatly affect her goals in fencing. The writer then concludes that Liane Wong is an example that all of today's youths should follow, as she has shown courage and determination in pursuing in her dreams in fencing, rather than waste it on the delusional "hope" that glue sniffing supposedly brings.
However, this article has made it sound as if the only reason why glue-sniffing is becoming more and more emminent is because the teenagers are giving up and letting go of their hopes and dreams. To my believe, this is untrue.
The youths must have gotten the idea of "taking a break from life by glue sniffing" from somewhere. And since youths are easily influenced by the friends, what the article should be aiming for instead is the issue of too much influence and peer pressure from the youths friends towards the youth himself. The article should be targeting on making the teenagers feel that there is someone else they can relate to other than their peers.
Furthermore, I think that the case of the national fencer is not relevant to the prevention of glue-sniffing cases. If the newspaper wants to stop youths from glue-sniffing, providing them with the success story of a national fencer who does not glue sniff is not a good way. The only thing the youths can get from this is that, one can be a national fencer if he does not sniff glue. But the youth already is sniffs glue, so there is no use in telling him what a great fencer he could have been in his life. They should have put instead success stories of people who managed to overcome this addiction of glue-sniffing and make something meaningful out of their lives.
As a teenager, I think it it best for me to have the friends around me to not smoke, and then only will i stop smoking. These friends would serve as inspiration and motivation to carry on fighting the tobacco addiction. The same applies to glue-sniffing. If more people stop sniffing glue, then they would influence their friends, who would then influence other friends. In essence, the question to ask is what is needed for the "first batch" of this cycle to spark these entire process. A mass campaigning programme against glue sniffing could be carried out. And the way to get youths actually participating in these campaign is by holding concerts or exhibitions or show stunts at these mass gatherings.
We often think of the so called "perfect" and model solution for problems regarding teenagers. What we fail to realise is that it is not what we think of somethng that matters more, it is how the teenagers would accept it and think of it. Spare a thought for these people. They are the future of our country.
Article: http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=04&year=2008&date=29&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2008_8673649
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Democracy Creates Stability in a Society
Development is important to every society or country. However, development cannot happen without stability. A country which is always in constant warfare cannot develop.
However, democracy is not necessary for the development of countries or societies, even though most of the countries with the highest level of human development are democracies. Singapore and South Korea, both of which practices democracy, are amongst the world’s richest countries, but other democratic countries like India and China are both medium-developed countries. Japan, which along with India has one of Asia’s most stable democracies, is far more developed than India and even Authoritarian China is ahead of India in terms of development. Hence, it is logical that since democracy is not necessary for development, democracy is also not needed for creating stability in the society.
However, democracy enables people to choose those who govern them and also, their way of life. The people would satisfied about their way of lives and not create any trouble. In an undemocratic country such as Malaysia, where its dominant Umno party thrives on a strong Malay agenda, racial riots happen and disrupt the peace in Malaysia. From 1950 to 1990, riots and demonstrations in many countries have caused greater destabilization in dictatorships. Moreover, authoritarian states experienced more wars than democratic states, which are partly due to their high economic costs. An example would be the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, which were once regarded as models of development. These authoritarian states crumble because their rulers failed to manage the political and economic liberalization of the country. Hence, democracy, although it is not necessary for stability, it does ensure stability for the country.
The ideology behind democracy is freedom of the individual living in the country or liberalism. With freedom of choice, individuals in the society live equally and fairly, thus no violence or protests will occur. However, too much freedom could lead to conflict. Complete freedom of speech could lead to racist comments made by people about other races. Conflicts amongst races would then occur, and the stability of the society would be affected. Another factor that may come into consideration is that the leaders selected through the democratic process, who may just be charismatic but only adept at making false promises. This means that they take advantage of their term to do nothing but selfishly loot the society's wealth for themselves. This can also bring instability to a country.
To conclude, I have to say that democracy does not always create stability in a society. In the example of a democratic country such of that of Sri Lanka, there is still violence breaking out from the terrorist group Tamil Tigers and racial riots which happens everyday. Furthermore, democracy can logically be seen as having the majority rule the society. Should majority of the society be of less moral people, democracy would allow less morality in the society. Just because the majority want something to be enforced, it does not mean that it should be enforced any more than if the minority wanted it.
However, democracy is not necessary for the development of countries or societies, even though most of the countries with the highest level of human development are democracies. Singapore and South Korea, both of which practices democracy, are amongst the world’s richest countries, but other democratic countries like India and China are both medium-developed countries. Japan, which along with India has one of Asia’s most stable democracies, is far more developed than India and even Authoritarian China is ahead of India in terms of development. Hence, it is logical that since democracy is not necessary for development, democracy is also not needed for creating stability in the society.
However, democracy enables people to choose those who govern them and also, their way of life. The people would satisfied about their way of lives and not create any trouble. In an undemocratic country such as Malaysia, where its dominant Umno party thrives on a strong Malay agenda, racial riots happen and disrupt the peace in Malaysia. From 1950 to 1990, riots and demonstrations in many countries have caused greater destabilization in dictatorships. Moreover, authoritarian states experienced more wars than democratic states, which are partly due to their high economic costs. An example would be the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, which were once regarded as models of development. These authoritarian states crumble because their rulers failed to manage the political and economic liberalization of the country. Hence, democracy, although it is not necessary for stability, it does ensure stability for the country.
The ideology behind democracy is freedom of the individual living in the country or liberalism. With freedom of choice, individuals in the society live equally and fairly, thus no violence or protests will occur. However, too much freedom could lead to conflict. Complete freedom of speech could lead to racist comments made by people about other races. Conflicts amongst races would then occur, and the stability of the society would be affected. Another factor that may come into consideration is that the leaders selected through the democratic process, who may just be charismatic but only adept at making false promises. This means that they take advantage of their term to do nothing but selfishly loot the society's wealth for themselves. This can also bring instability to a country.
To conclude, I have to say that democracy does not always create stability in a society. In the example of a democratic country such of that of Sri Lanka, there is still violence breaking out from the terrorist group Tamil Tigers and racial riots which happens everyday. Furthermore, democracy can logically be seen as having the majority rule the society. Should majority of the society be of less moral people, democracy would allow less morality in the society. Just because the majority want something to be enforced, it does not mean that it should be enforced any more than if the minority wanted it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Democracy Creates Stability In A Society. So how? Agree or disagree? Say it now or never
Democracy is a form of Government in which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives. A society is a group of organised group of individuals associated together and living as members of a community. Stability in a society refers to the firmness of the society, whether it can keep up with demands of the advancing world both in terms of economic or military power or whether it can maintain peace and order within it for the citizens it holds.
In this form of Government, the race, language or religion of the citizen does not matter as everyone would be counted equally and no one has more say than the other. Democracy is the preferred model of Government in many developed countries, but it is always good?
Democracy could possibly lead to emergence of groups seeking to have the government favour them, at the necessary expense of another. This would create tension in the society and there would be fights breaking out in the society eventually.
So, back to the main question:
Does democracy create stability in a society?
I dunno.
So let's discuss.
In this form of Government, the race, language or religion of the citizen does not matter as everyone would be counted equally and no one has more say than the other. Democracy is the preferred model of Government in many developed countries, but it is always good?
Democracy could possibly lead to emergence of groups seeking to have the government favour them, at the necessary expense of another. This would create tension in the society and there would be fights breaking out in the society eventually.
So, back to the main question:
Does democracy create stability in a society?
I dunno.
So let's discuss.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
My English Blog Project (Staying Slim Without The Cigarette Diet)
Riddle:
Q: Smoking makes you lose weight. How?
Ans: You lose one lung at a time.
This is a joke intended purely for humour but that did not stop teenagers from believing in the truth of it; so much so that they smoke just to lose weight. First, let us step back and examine this issue in a logical way.
Smoking makes you lose weight if:
1) You may want to substitute all your daily meals with cigarette ash,
2) you may intend to spend so much money on cigarettes that you no longer have money for food,
3) or maybe you may wish to follow the sick, wicked humour of the above riddle (strongly disapproved).
The bad consequences of smoking are endless, and the desired outcome of weight loss is a meager price to pay. So, how can teenagers think that smoking really helps them lose weight despite having all these bad consequences?
Dr Chris Steele, a British general practitioner, says that the action of smoking itself does not lead to weight loss, rather only cigarette smokers who quit smoking can enjoy that blissful temporary feeling of weight loss. Futhermore, he adds that the process of quitting smoking can make people “gain quite a lot of weight”. There lies the scientific truth of whether smoking really helps one to lose weight or not.
Really, the main issue here is not about whether smoking helps in losing weight or not. The more pressing issue would be why the teenagers believe in the myth and accept it as the truth in the first place.
Yes, the unreliability of the myth may not be so clear at first glance, but why risk your good health based on a myth which has no supporting evidence to substanstiate its truth? From the article, Charmaine, a 24-year-old Singaporean smoker, says that she does not “really worry about the health risks associated with smoking....they seem so distant”, but adds that she “can see the link with (her) weight directly”. What makes her “see” only the desired weight loss and not see the bad side effects and the when she makes that first puff?
Indeed, teenagers have to realise that inner beauty is much more important than outer beauty. One can easily change the appearance of his body, but the health and character of a person is what really distinguishes us individuals. They must know that what people think about themselves do not matter as much as what they think of themselves. Then can we appreciate ourselves better and not resort to violent and rash measures just to look good in other people’s eyes.
Remember, think of the consequences before we do anything.
Here’s another riddle:
Q: How can you get up to the Umpire State Building in just a minute without using the lift?
Ans: Climb on King Kong’s back and follow him up.
And for those who have not yet learnt their lesson, do not climb on King Kong’s back. Think of the consequences first.
500 Words
Here's the link for the article:
http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=11&year=2006&date=22&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2006_5168746
Q: Smoking makes you lose weight. How?
Ans: You lose one lung at a time.
This is a joke intended purely for humour but that did not stop teenagers from believing in the truth of it; so much so that they smoke just to lose weight. First, let us step back and examine this issue in a logical way.
Smoking makes you lose weight if:
1) You may want to substitute all your daily meals with cigarette ash,
2) you may intend to spend so much money on cigarettes that you no longer have money for food,
3) or maybe you may wish to follow the sick, wicked humour of the above riddle (strongly disapproved).
The bad consequences of smoking are endless, and the desired outcome of weight loss is a meager price to pay. So, how can teenagers think that smoking really helps them lose weight despite having all these bad consequences?
Dr Chris Steele, a British general practitioner, says that the action of smoking itself does not lead to weight loss, rather only cigarette smokers who quit smoking can enjoy that blissful temporary feeling of weight loss. Futhermore, he adds that the process of quitting smoking can make people “gain quite a lot of weight”. There lies the scientific truth of whether smoking really helps one to lose weight or not.
Really, the main issue here is not about whether smoking helps in losing weight or not. The more pressing issue would be why the teenagers believe in the myth and accept it as the truth in the first place.
Yes, the unreliability of the myth may not be so clear at first glance, but why risk your good health based on a myth which has no supporting evidence to substanstiate its truth? From the article, Charmaine, a 24-year-old Singaporean smoker, says that she does not “really worry about the health risks associated with smoking....they seem so distant”, but adds that she “can see the link with (her) weight directly”. What makes her “see” only the desired weight loss and not see the bad side effects and the when she makes that first puff?
Indeed, teenagers have to realise that inner beauty is much more important than outer beauty. One can easily change the appearance of his body, but the health and character of a person is what really distinguishes us individuals. They must know that what people think about themselves do not matter as much as what they think of themselves. Then can we appreciate ourselves better and not resort to violent and rash measures just to look good in other people’s eyes.
Remember, think of the consequences before we do anything.
Here’s another riddle:
Q: How can you get up to the Umpire State Building in just a minute without using the lift?
Ans: Climb on King Kong’s back and follow him up.
And for those who have not yet learnt their lesson, do not climb on King Kong’s back. Think of the consequences first.
500 Words
Here's the link for the article:
http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=11&year=2006&date=22&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2006_5168746
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)