War Craft, Maple story, Runescape, up to the latest Star Craft 2… All of these games are not foreign to us. We see people discussing about the latest updates, change logs and game play every day. Computer game technology has already become a part of our life. However, computer games are usually portrayed in a negative light and are associated with adverse impacts like bad eyesight, addiction, and bad results. A typical scenario would be that of a parent chiding her child due to bad results, using ‘computer games are bad for you” as an excuse. To be fair, I must admit that computer games can and will result in negative impacts on the user. However, most of these cases are due to the user’s inability to control themselves and strike a balance between play and work. Balance is essential in everything we do. Everyone knows that too much of something is always bad for you; too much drugs can kill you, too much computer games can kill you, too much water can kill you, and even too much studying can kill you…
It is very easy to condemn computer games by listing out all its bad points, but what I will be doing in this post is to try and point out that computer games may not be as bad as it seems as long as a balance is established. Up to now, the issue of computer games is still often debated. There are many pros from playing these games, but many cons too. Many parents, especially those from the older generation rejects computer games and forbid their child to play them, saying that the violence and probable addiction and damage are risky. However, recent medical studies have shown that computer games can be helpful in our lives.
Besides improving their logical thinking ability and decision making, computer gaming also benefits the player’s hand and eye coordination and improves his reflexes. Further studies have shown that computer games might also be able to treat people with various learning and language disabilities. This reveals something about computer games; there can be a good side to it too, if used in moderation. However, some people still think that computer games are bad and unproductive as they fail to see the possible benefits of it. However, as technology continues advancing, our society will come to a point where computer technology can no longer be avoided. At that point of time, we will have to change our viewpoints and accept computer technology as part of our lives and do our best to strike a balance between them.
Many people feel that studying is good for you. Of course, everyone knows that studying is good for your intellectual growth, but to a certain extent, as always. Just like computer games, excessive studying might not actually prove as beneficial as some may think. The law of diminishing returns can be applied here – The tendency for continuing application of effort or skill towards a particular object or goal to decline in effectiveness after a certain level of result has been achieved. Certainly, studying is good, but has it occurred to you that studying for 3 hours may be better than studying for 8 hours? I am not implying that we should not study more, but I am merely suggesting the importance of moderation in our current society.
Computer gaming needs moderation, studying needs moderation, then why not make these two into a two-in-one pack which could prove more beneficial and effective than only one? People say “study smart, not hard”, but what does this actually mean? A person who studies smart would balance work and play to maximize his efficiency, but a person who merely works hard could be the guy who studies for 8 hours straight. Which is more effective? Hence, I feel that computer technology should be accepted as a part of our lives and not be constantly rejected by people as it could prove to be beneficial to us and that we should help ourselves by balancing playing and studying together to maximize effectiveness and efficiency.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Rise of technology
Imagine a world without computers, without mobile phones, transport, lighting… The list just goes on and on… Can we live without technology? I find Bill Joy’s article on “Why the Future doesn’t need us” quite intriguing and enlightening.
In this age, we are highly dependent on technology; we have grown up in this world of technology that we can’t break free from it now. Technology has integrated so well into our society that it has become one of us. It is not surprising to hear the news reporting of medical or scientific breakthroughs daily; the advancement of technology has become so rampant that people are stepping over the line between controlling and losing control. In fact, we have become so accustomed to living with routine scientific breakthroughs that we fail to realize the threat that new technologies such as robotics and nanotechnology poses to our society. Rapid advancement of technology could mean further exploration in areas like curing diseases and development of vaccines, however, these technologies, although useful and important, might pose a bigger and more substantial threat to our society. Older technologies like nuclear technology are indeed dangerous, but it is costly and requires large-scale activities. Compare this to nanotechnology, for example, which has the ability to self-replicate and quickly get out of control. It seems that films portraying massive destruction by these new technologies are not really on the wrong track.
The control of technology has always been a controversial topic. As always, there are two simple sides to this issue – Men created technology, hence they control it, or that technology is slowly gaining control over men. Many argue that men created technology; hence they are intellectually superior to them and would not be so foolish as to give up their power to the machines they created. Yes, nobody would be foolish enough to give up control, but the main concern here is that our over reliance and dependence on technology may result in humans having no other practical choice but to accept the machine’s decisions as the best. The problem here is that humans are creating things far beyond their own comprehension. We created atomic powers without having any idea what it was capable of and now we are living with the consequences. We say that we are in control, that we have brains as compared to machines, but are all these just pathetic attempts at self-reassurance?
In fact, there are many examples which are living testimony of our over reliance on technology resulting in our inevitable fall to it. One simple and familiar example would be computer. Who doesn’t use the computer?
Personally, I have become so attached to my computer that it has become a part of me. Turning on my computer is on the top of my to-do list immediately after I reach home. Surfing the net, searching for information, playing computer games, I believe that these are part of many peoples’ daily lives, including me. Addiction to computer games can be a perfect example of showing how technology is controlling us. In this case, the computer represents technology, and we represent the addicts. We, the addicts, have become so lost in the world of technology, the computer that our brain has programmed us to recognize it as our real world. We are willing to do anything to obtain technology as we cannot live without it.
What about robots? Recent scientific exploration has shown that the developments of robots with intellectual powers are possible. Besides becoming totally lazy and uncritical people, this would be another quantum leap in terms of our dependence on technology. The creation of robots, which has always been in the realm of science fiction, seems to be becoming more realistic and imminent.
The impacts of a world without technology? The list goes on and on… Aimless people, helpless people – we just can’t live without technology.
Now, since we have established that technology is salient in our life, what can we do to prevent technology from controlling us?
Referencing to Bill Joy’s article, one of the solutions was to place control over large systems of machines in the hands of a small group of elites. However, with access to powerful technology and control over the masses, these elites will become dictators; they are able to do anything as the technology is in their hands. In this case, humans will no longer be needed and we would have been reduced to the status of mere domestic animals.
In conclusion, the rise of technology and our over-reliance on technology is indeed worrying as it might lead to world-changing incidents and affect our whole human population. Maybe not now, but one day.
In this age, we are highly dependent on technology; we have grown up in this world of technology that we can’t break free from it now. Technology has integrated so well into our society that it has become one of us. It is not surprising to hear the news reporting of medical or scientific breakthroughs daily; the advancement of technology has become so rampant that people are stepping over the line between controlling and losing control. In fact, we have become so accustomed to living with routine scientific breakthroughs that we fail to realize the threat that new technologies such as robotics and nanotechnology poses to our society. Rapid advancement of technology could mean further exploration in areas like curing diseases and development of vaccines, however, these technologies, although useful and important, might pose a bigger and more substantial threat to our society. Older technologies like nuclear technology are indeed dangerous, but it is costly and requires large-scale activities. Compare this to nanotechnology, for example, which has the ability to self-replicate and quickly get out of control. It seems that films portraying massive destruction by these new technologies are not really on the wrong track.
The control of technology has always been a controversial topic. As always, there are two simple sides to this issue – Men created technology, hence they control it, or that technology is slowly gaining control over men. Many argue that men created technology; hence they are intellectually superior to them and would not be so foolish as to give up their power to the machines they created. Yes, nobody would be foolish enough to give up control, but the main concern here is that our over reliance and dependence on technology may result in humans having no other practical choice but to accept the machine’s decisions as the best. The problem here is that humans are creating things far beyond their own comprehension. We created atomic powers without having any idea what it was capable of and now we are living with the consequences. We say that we are in control, that we have brains as compared to machines, but are all these just pathetic attempts at self-reassurance?
In fact, there are many examples which are living testimony of our over reliance on technology resulting in our inevitable fall to it. One simple and familiar example would be computer. Who doesn’t use the computer?
Personally, I have become so attached to my computer that it has become a part of me. Turning on my computer is on the top of my to-do list immediately after I reach home. Surfing the net, searching for information, playing computer games, I believe that these are part of many peoples’ daily lives, including me. Addiction to computer games can be a perfect example of showing how technology is controlling us. In this case, the computer represents technology, and we represent the addicts. We, the addicts, have become so lost in the world of technology, the computer that our brain has programmed us to recognize it as our real world. We are willing to do anything to obtain technology as we cannot live without it.
What about robots? Recent scientific exploration has shown that the developments of robots with intellectual powers are possible. Besides becoming totally lazy and uncritical people, this would be another quantum leap in terms of our dependence on technology. The creation of robots, which has always been in the realm of science fiction, seems to be becoming more realistic and imminent.
The impacts of a world without technology? The list goes on and on… Aimless people, helpless people – we just can’t live without technology.
Now, since we have established that technology is salient in our life, what can we do to prevent technology from controlling us?
Referencing to Bill Joy’s article, one of the solutions was to place control over large systems of machines in the hands of a small group of elites. However, with access to powerful technology and control over the masses, these elites will become dictators; they are able to do anything as the technology is in their hands. In this case, humans will no longer be needed and we would have been reduced to the status of mere domestic animals.
In conclusion, the rise of technology and our over-reliance on technology is indeed worrying as it might lead to world-changing incidents and affect our whole human population. Maybe not now, but one day.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Task 2: Critical Analysis of Poem
We slept with our boots on by Steve Carlson
Now, I shall attempt to complete the template based on John Lye’s “Critical Analysis of Poetry”, focusing mainly on the point of view, the situation and meaning, and language and diction and last but not least, my personal response.
Firstly, I shall talk about the point of view of the persona in this poem. The persona is probably one of the soldiers fighting in the war at that time. We can see this from several parts of the poem, like “my heart is pumping adrenalin through all of my veins”; “I run as fast as I can through the lead rain” and I kept pulling the trigger”. This clearly shows that the persona had experienced the war and is writing the poem from a soldier’s point of view. Being a soldier who has first-hand experienced with war, his views on this matter should be more reliable than those who have not. The persona is trying to voice out his helplessness desperately as a solider so as to gain sympathy. The poet describes the horrors and terrors of war through the persona’s eyes to make things sound more realistic and credible, thus enabling him to convey his intended message to his audience.
Secondly, I shall talk about the situation and meaning of the poem. This is war poetry; hence the poem is about war times, in which poets express their views, both positive and negative, towards war. In this case, the poem depicts a team of soldiers arriving at the battlefield to fight their enemies, in which the persona, one of the soldiers in the war, expresses his feelings for war; his reluctance and his helplessness. These soldiers cannot back out, as they had to “leave this bird whether they liked it or not” and their only chance of survival was to “keep pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling”. It has become similar to the wild in which only the strongest survive. This helps to create a sense of helplessness and hopelessness, in which the soldiers were being “forced to their deaths” and there was not much hope for them. By writing this poem and describing war as horrifying and hopeless, the poet is probably trying to tell his audience that war is a bad and horrible thing that should be avoided at all costs. At the same time, there is also internal conflict within the persona as he tries to justify and forget his actions but fails to keep it out of his mind.
Thirdly, I shall attempt to identify the language and diction used in the poem and their intended effect. The poet makes good use of rhythm as the last word of every two lines will rhyme. Some of the examples are “sons, guns”, “blood, mud”, “drink, think”. The poet uses this to get his idea across to his audience in a sing-song and musical manner for the audience to better understand and enjoy the poem while hinting at serious issues like the cruelty of war. Furthermore, links can also be drawn between the two words. For example, “sons and guns” suggests that every son was carrying a gun marching into the battlefield to their deaths, while “blood and mud” might suggest that the war was so bloody that so much blood was on the ground that no one could differentiate which was blood and which was mud.
Lastly, I shall write down my personal response. The poet makes good use of puns and rhyme to catch the reader’s attention and places emphasize on the words. His vivid description and informal way of writing things let us better visualize the progress of the situation; first they left the helicopter, then the shooting started, and then the soldier’s reflections. This progress of the situation helps us to understand the situation at that time and enable us to put ourselves in their shoes. The poet also makes the poem more realistic and credible by adding in informal orders used in the army and viewing things from many perspective; what “they” were doing, what “we”, the soldiers were doing, and finally, what “I”, the persona was thinking. Furthermore, unlike the media which often portrays war in a very nice and courageous thing, this poem offers an alternative view which is contrary to what people think. Now, people will think twice before coming to a conclusion that war is good and respectable. This poem is very organized and is able to convey its message clearly to its audience effectively; hence I feel this is a good war poetry that deserves to be read by everyone.
Now, I shall attempt to complete the template based on John Lye’s “Critical Analysis of Poetry”, focusing mainly on the point of view, the situation and meaning, and language and diction and last but not least, my personal response.
Firstly, I shall talk about the point of view of the persona in this poem. The persona is probably one of the soldiers fighting in the war at that time. We can see this from several parts of the poem, like “my heart is pumping adrenalin through all of my veins”; “I run as fast as I can through the lead rain” and I kept pulling the trigger”. This clearly shows that the persona had experienced the war and is writing the poem from a soldier’s point of view. Being a soldier who has first-hand experienced with war, his views on this matter should be more reliable than those who have not. The persona is trying to voice out his helplessness desperately as a solider so as to gain sympathy. The poet describes the horrors and terrors of war through the persona’s eyes to make things sound more realistic and credible, thus enabling him to convey his intended message to his audience.
Secondly, I shall talk about the situation and meaning of the poem. This is war poetry; hence the poem is about war times, in which poets express their views, both positive and negative, towards war. In this case, the poem depicts a team of soldiers arriving at the battlefield to fight their enemies, in which the persona, one of the soldiers in the war, expresses his feelings for war; his reluctance and his helplessness. These soldiers cannot back out, as they had to “leave this bird whether they liked it or not” and their only chance of survival was to “keep pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling”. It has become similar to the wild in which only the strongest survive. This helps to create a sense of helplessness and hopelessness, in which the soldiers were being “forced to their deaths” and there was not much hope for them. By writing this poem and describing war as horrifying and hopeless, the poet is probably trying to tell his audience that war is a bad and horrible thing that should be avoided at all costs. At the same time, there is also internal conflict within the persona as he tries to justify and forget his actions but fails to keep it out of his mind.
Thirdly, I shall attempt to identify the language and diction used in the poem and their intended effect. The poet makes good use of rhythm as the last word of every two lines will rhyme. Some of the examples are “sons, guns”, “blood, mud”, “drink, think”. The poet uses this to get his idea across to his audience in a sing-song and musical manner for the audience to better understand and enjoy the poem while hinting at serious issues like the cruelty of war. Furthermore, links can also be drawn between the two words. For example, “sons and guns” suggests that every son was carrying a gun marching into the battlefield to their deaths, while “blood and mud” might suggest that the war was so bloody that so much blood was on the ground that no one could differentiate which was blood and which was mud.
Lastly, I shall write down my personal response. The poet makes good use of puns and rhyme to catch the reader’s attention and places emphasize on the words. His vivid description and informal way of writing things let us better visualize the progress of the situation; first they left the helicopter, then the shooting started, and then the soldier’s reflections. This progress of the situation helps us to understand the situation at that time and enable us to put ourselves in their shoes. The poet also makes the poem more realistic and credible by adding in informal orders used in the army and viewing things from many perspective; what “they” were doing, what “we”, the soldiers were doing, and finally, what “I”, the persona was thinking. Furthermore, unlike the media which often portrays war in a very nice and courageous thing, this poem offers an alternative view which is contrary to what people think. Now, people will think twice before coming to a conclusion that war is good and respectable. This poem is very organized and is able to convey its message clearly to its audience effectively; hence I feel this is a good war poetry that deserves to be read by everyone.
Task 1: Poem report
Ok, I haven't blogged for about a few months already...So, I shall start blogging!
Here goes:
We slept with our boots on by Steve Carlson
They unloaded the dead and maimed right before our eyes
They washed out the blood, we loaded our ruck’s and then took to the skies
Over the mountains, villages, and valleys we flew
Where we would land we had not a clue
Bullets are flying, the LZ is hot
We’re leaving this bird whether we like it or not
30 seconds they yelled, Lock N Load and grab your shit
Get ready to go and make it quick
My heart is pumping adrenalin through all of my veins
I run as fast as I can through the lead rain
The noise is tremendous, terror I can’t define
The only reason I survived that day was divine
I kept pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling some more
You do what you have to do, with that I will say no more
We fought from the valleys to the mountain peaks
From house to cave, to car to creek
Dirty and tired and hungry and scared
We slept with our boots on so we were always prepared
Those majestic mountains so steep, so high they kiss the skies
The Hindu Kush has changed so many lives
Up the mountains with heavy loads we trod
Who knew hell was so close to God
Beauty and terror are a strong mixed drink
So we drank it like drunkards and tried not to think
Good men and bad men, Mothers lost son’s
Everyone loses their innocence when they carry guns
Washed in the blood, and baptized by fire
I will never forget those who were called higher
They say blood is thicker than water, well lead is thicker than blood
Brothers aren’t born they’re earned. In the poppy fields, the tears, and the mud
And when I get to heaven to Saint Peter I will tell
Another Paratrooper reporting for duty sir, I spent my time in hell
I have found very little resources about Steve Carlsen (everything's about Steve Carlson) from the internet; hence I shall write this report and detail the conflict in the poem based on my understanding of it.
When I first read the poem “We slept with our boots on”, it struck me that there was a sense of insecurity and urgency. The title itself had given me the impression that the persona, or the soldiers were on their guard even when sleeping, preparing for another surprise attack or strike. Throughout the poem, one can identify the conflict in the persona, who was forced to do what he did not want to.
In the first part of the poem, the persona’s helplessness is emphasized as “where we would land we had no clue” and “we’re leaving this bird whether we like it or not”. The fact that the persona had no idea of where they would land suggests that there is simply no destination; no specific location, no specific target, and the mindset of the soldiers at that time is “Just fight where they bring you to”. These soldiers are clueless about the plans and strategies, but were merely used as pawns to fight and “defend the country”. In the second quote, the “bird” refers to the helicopter, and when the persona said that they had no choice but to leave the helicopter, he may be implying that there was no turning back for them; they could not back out or run away in the helicopter, but had to stay in the fighting field until the enemy had been eliminated, or the soldiers themselves have died. These two quotes help readers sympathize with the persona for his helplessness in the matter.
In the second part of the poem, where most of the fighting takes place, the persona shows his reluctance to fight, yet he had no choice; there was only one rule in the ruthless and cruel battle field – kill or be killed. In a sense, this logic usually applies to animals in the wild, and hence this could draw a link between them, implying that the soldiers were merely animals fighting in the wild. Although the persona was scared, as he experienced “terror he can’t define” did not want to fire, he understood that the only way to live was to kill, and thus he “kept pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling some more”, as that was “what you have to do”. The word “have” suggests that it was a necessity to pull the trigger; to stay alive.
In the last part of the poem, where most of the shooting were over, the persona’s conflicting afterthoughts towards his inevitable murder of many people were expressed in the poem. After killing so many people, the persona must have felt very guilty and dirty, but the easiest way to forget this was to get drunk, and they “drank it like drunkards and tried not to think”. However, though indulged in alcohol, the persona is unable to forget these incidents and starts to dwell on it again, thinking that “everyone loses their innocence when they carry guns”, as the battlefield becomes an arena for mass murder for your own survival; no mercy, no cowardice. The persona then goes on to say that “lead is thicker than blood”, which implies that having a gun and the ability to shoot it well is far better than having a brother or relative, as it is ultimately the gun that can save you from trouble. On the other hand, the “brother or relative” is not born but earned from the sweat, blood and time spent together suffering. In essence, this means that in times of trouble, one would favour the gun more than his brother as the gun can help you more and a brother is merely a normal figure which can be “earned”.
Hence, this sums up the persona’s conflicting feelings towards his predicament.
Here goes:
We slept with our boots on by Steve Carlson
They unloaded the dead and maimed right before our eyes
They washed out the blood, we loaded our ruck’s and then took to the skies
Over the mountains, villages, and valleys we flew
Where we would land we had not a clue
Bullets are flying, the LZ is hot
We’re leaving this bird whether we like it or not
30 seconds they yelled, Lock N Load and grab your shit
Get ready to go and make it quick
My heart is pumping adrenalin through all of my veins
I run as fast as I can through the lead rain
The noise is tremendous, terror I can’t define
The only reason I survived that day was divine
I kept pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling some more
You do what you have to do, with that I will say no more
We fought from the valleys to the mountain peaks
From house to cave, to car to creek
Dirty and tired and hungry and scared
We slept with our boots on so we were always prepared
Those majestic mountains so steep, so high they kiss the skies
The Hindu Kush has changed so many lives
Up the mountains with heavy loads we trod
Who knew hell was so close to God
Beauty and terror are a strong mixed drink
So we drank it like drunkards and tried not to think
Good men and bad men, Mothers lost son’s
Everyone loses their innocence when they carry guns
Washed in the blood, and baptized by fire
I will never forget those who were called higher
They say blood is thicker than water, well lead is thicker than blood
Brothers aren’t born they’re earned. In the poppy fields, the tears, and the mud
And when I get to heaven to Saint Peter I will tell
Another Paratrooper reporting for duty sir, I spent my time in hell
I have found very little resources about Steve Carlsen (everything's about Steve Carlson) from the internet; hence I shall write this report and detail the conflict in the poem based on my understanding of it.
When I first read the poem “We slept with our boots on”, it struck me that there was a sense of insecurity and urgency. The title itself had given me the impression that the persona, or the soldiers were on their guard even when sleeping, preparing for another surprise attack or strike. Throughout the poem, one can identify the conflict in the persona, who was forced to do what he did not want to.
In the first part of the poem, the persona’s helplessness is emphasized as “where we would land we had no clue” and “we’re leaving this bird whether we like it or not”. The fact that the persona had no idea of where they would land suggests that there is simply no destination; no specific location, no specific target, and the mindset of the soldiers at that time is “Just fight where they bring you to”. These soldiers are clueless about the plans and strategies, but were merely used as pawns to fight and “defend the country”. In the second quote, the “bird” refers to the helicopter, and when the persona said that they had no choice but to leave the helicopter, he may be implying that there was no turning back for them; they could not back out or run away in the helicopter, but had to stay in the fighting field until the enemy had been eliminated, or the soldiers themselves have died. These two quotes help readers sympathize with the persona for his helplessness in the matter.
In the second part of the poem, where most of the fighting takes place, the persona shows his reluctance to fight, yet he had no choice; there was only one rule in the ruthless and cruel battle field – kill or be killed. In a sense, this logic usually applies to animals in the wild, and hence this could draw a link between them, implying that the soldiers were merely animals fighting in the wild. Although the persona was scared, as he experienced “terror he can’t define” did not want to fire, he understood that the only way to live was to kill, and thus he “kept pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling some more”, as that was “what you have to do”. The word “have” suggests that it was a necessity to pull the trigger; to stay alive.
In the last part of the poem, where most of the shooting were over, the persona’s conflicting afterthoughts towards his inevitable murder of many people were expressed in the poem. After killing so many people, the persona must have felt very guilty and dirty, but the easiest way to forget this was to get drunk, and they “drank it like drunkards and tried not to think”. However, though indulged in alcohol, the persona is unable to forget these incidents and starts to dwell on it again, thinking that “everyone loses their innocence when they carry guns”, as the battlefield becomes an arena for mass murder for your own survival; no mercy, no cowardice. The persona then goes on to say that “lead is thicker than blood”, which implies that having a gun and the ability to shoot it well is far better than having a brother or relative, as it is ultimately the gun that can save you from trouble. On the other hand, the “brother or relative” is not born but earned from the sweat, blood and time spent together suffering. In essence, this means that in times of trouble, one would favour the gun more than his brother as the gun can help you more and a brother is merely a normal figure which can be “earned”.
Hence, this sums up the persona’s conflicting feelings towards his predicament.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Kiasu-ism -- Boon or Bane?
Have you noticed the Kiasu attitude in Singaporeans? Have you wondered why there is so much unhealthy competition in Singapore? Have you thought of reason why students have so many tuitions?
The answer is simple – Singaporean’s “cannot lose” attitude. Taking a step further, let us analyze the reason for this attitude.
From my point of view, I feel that Singaporeans Kiasu-ism is bred by the Government’s education system which promotes competitiveness amongst students. We are forced to compete with others without actually knowing. Those who do not work hard and fall behind in their studies find that they are unable to go far in society. Why? This is because society favors people with higher educational qualification than those who are slightly lacking behind. Even getting 3As and 1B can be very bad for students who want to qualify for scholarships. And as we progress, we unknowingly turn this competiveness into a habit, where everything we do, whenever we do is a challenge to outwit the others.
Secondly, I also feel that Kiasu-ism is actually caused by our selfishness; we cannot admit or bow down to the fact that we have “lost” out to the other party. It is because of this mentality that leads to our bad habit. While this habit of ours may be a good thing, being too competitive may lead to lack of trust among Singaporeans. If we continue with this, Singaporeans will not be able to have the bond that other countries have.
One example of this can be in a MRT or a bus. How many times have you seen someone actually waiting for passengers to alight before boarding the MRT? Of course, there are always some considerate people who would do that, but most people still do not wait for the passengers to alight. In fact, the number of passengers who appears to be oblivious to those in need of seats in a crowed MRT or bus by pretending to be sleeping, reading, or listening to their MP3’s are alarming. All I can say of this attitude that Singaporeans have is that we Singaporeans tend to have that mindset of “nobody is good in this world, it’s one of yourself”. Indeed, this inconsiderate attitude is present in many Singaporeans, making them only do things that only benefit themselves. Many parents send their children to many tuitions so that they would score well, allowing them to compare with their friends about their child’s score.
In fact, a popular Singaporean cartoon character, Mr. Kiasu, was created by Johnny Lau; the CEO of Vasunas, a Singaporean animation technology company who published Mr. Kiasu book entitled “Everything also I want” in 1990. Mr. Kiasu is depicted as a person who jumps queues, hogs road, haggles for every cent, and, if confronted with a buffet table, piles his plate “uneatably” high. This clearly brings out the true kiasu attitude in Singaporeans by illustrating events that we usually see in our daily lives. For example, seeing people jump queues and piling his plate high in a buffet is abnormally normal.
However, one must realize that in this world, working alone will never bring you far. One must have the support of others to make it far in society. If someone is only concerned about himself and does not care about others, nobody will like him and will not support him, and this person will find himself unable to succeed as he have no one to help him in times of trouble. However, a person who cares for his friends will go far in society as they will help each other in times of need, eventually leading to their success.
Some say that Singaporean’s Kiasu-ism is what makes Singapore unique and special, an aspect that we should be proud to showcase to other countries – the culture and tradition of our country. Indeed, being kiasu is a unique trait of Singapore, but I do not think that it is something to be proud of or something that we want to be remembered for. Why can’t we be as generous as people of other countries? Why is it that most people in other countries give their seats to those in need of them while many people in Singapore turns a deaf ear to this? I think that there surely must be a problem. Although unique, this may bring about a bad image of Singapore to tourists who find themselves victims of such inconsiderate actions.
What is the point of being the country that has the lowest-crime rate or the safest country with the highest literacy rate if the people in Singapore do not have the proper upbringing to do even the simplest tasks like being courteous and generous?
The answer is simple – Singaporean’s “cannot lose” attitude. Taking a step further, let us analyze the reason for this attitude.
From my point of view, I feel that Singaporeans Kiasu-ism is bred by the Government’s education system which promotes competitiveness amongst students. We are forced to compete with others without actually knowing. Those who do not work hard and fall behind in their studies find that they are unable to go far in society. Why? This is because society favors people with higher educational qualification than those who are slightly lacking behind. Even getting 3As and 1B can be very bad for students who want to qualify for scholarships. And as we progress, we unknowingly turn this competiveness into a habit, where everything we do, whenever we do is a challenge to outwit the others.
Secondly, I also feel that Kiasu-ism is actually caused by our selfishness; we cannot admit or bow down to the fact that we have “lost” out to the other party. It is because of this mentality that leads to our bad habit. While this habit of ours may be a good thing, being too competitive may lead to lack of trust among Singaporeans. If we continue with this, Singaporeans will not be able to have the bond that other countries have.
One example of this can be in a MRT or a bus. How many times have you seen someone actually waiting for passengers to alight before boarding the MRT? Of course, there are always some considerate people who would do that, but most people still do not wait for the passengers to alight. In fact, the number of passengers who appears to be oblivious to those in need of seats in a crowed MRT or bus by pretending to be sleeping, reading, or listening to their MP3’s are alarming. All I can say of this attitude that Singaporeans have is that we Singaporeans tend to have that mindset of “nobody is good in this world, it’s one of yourself”. Indeed, this inconsiderate attitude is present in many Singaporeans, making them only do things that only benefit themselves. Many parents send their children to many tuitions so that they would score well, allowing them to compare with their friends about their child’s score.
In fact, a popular Singaporean cartoon character, Mr. Kiasu, was created by Johnny Lau; the CEO of Vasunas, a Singaporean animation technology company who published Mr. Kiasu book entitled “Everything also I want” in 1990. Mr. Kiasu is depicted as a person who jumps queues, hogs road, haggles for every cent, and, if confronted with a buffet table, piles his plate “uneatably” high. This clearly brings out the true kiasu attitude in Singaporeans by illustrating events that we usually see in our daily lives. For example, seeing people jump queues and piling his plate high in a buffet is abnormally normal.
However, one must realize that in this world, working alone will never bring you far. One must have the support of others to make it far in society. If someone is only concerned about himself and does not care about others, nobody will like him and will not support him, and this person will find himself unable to succeed as he have no one to help him in times of trouble. However, a person who cares for his friends will go far in society as they will help each other in times of need, eventually leading to their success.
Some say that Singaporean’s Kiasu-ism is what makes Singapore unique and special, an aspect that we should be proud to showcase to other countries – the culture and tradition of our country. Indeed, being kiasu is a unique trait of Singapore, but I do not think that it is something to be proud of or something that we want to be remembered for. Why can’t we be as generous as people of other countries? Why is it that most people in other countries give their seats to those in need of them while many people in Singapore turns a deaf ear to this? I think that there surely must be a problem. Although unique, this may bring about a bad image of Singapore to tourists who find themselves victims of such inconsiderate actions.
What is the point of being the country that has the lowest-crime rate or the safest country with the highest literacy rate if the people in Singapore do not have the proper upbringing to do even the simplest tasks like being courteous and generous?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Deteriorating interest and proficiency in second language
Nowadays, Singapore is slowly but surely losing its deep root of its Chinese culture and tradition. Singapore is slowly transforming from a country rich in Chinese tradition into a country whose people has little or no understanding on their root.
“Although the working language here is English, the country should still ensure that students of Chinese origin know their ancestor’s language, so as to have a deeper understanding on their root and Asian values” This was continuously stressed by Lee Hsien Loong on February 14 at the opening ceremony of the 10th “Chinese Culture Festival”.
English is used everywhere; when we communicate, when we work, etc. Everywhere we go, we usually hear people conversing in English. Hence, people tend to feel that English is much more important than Chinese. This leads on to students, the future leaders of our nation, into thinking that too.
Students are slowly losing interest in Chinese, and some even refuses to learn it. According to statistics from Singapore's ministry of education, 9.3 percent first year pupils of primary schools of Chinese origin used English at home in 1980, but the figure soared to 45 percent last year. There are actually quite a few reasons as to why students do not want to learn the language. Some flee from Chinese class because it’s too difficult while some say learning Chinese is of no value since putting efforts on this hard subject will not produce any economical results. For them, the mastery of English is a necessity to climb the social ladders, while speaking Chinese has by and by been shadowed into a symbol of failure. Some parents even tell their children to become an "elite in English" instead of a "master in Chinese". In a way, this is true as jobs that require proficiency in Chinese are not many, and these jobs are usually taken up by PRCs who come to Singapore.
However, I feel that Singaporeans are too overly concerned about the economical gains of jobs. Here are some things a typical Singaporean will want; a fixed and steady income, a “good” job and a happy family. I highlight the word “good” as I feel that there can be many different perceptions on the word “good”. Singaporeans feel that having a “good” job means having a job with high amounts of steady income, e.g. doctors, lawyers. However, many other people in other countries define “good” job as a job which they enjoy doing. I guess this cannot be helped, considering the competitive nature of Singapore’s educational system. However, no matter the circumstances or how crucial the need is to study English over Chinese, I feel that Singaporeans should not forget our deep roots and Asian values but continue to preserve the history and culture of our immigrant’s ancestors. If not, we can drift along with the tide and follow the latest trend or fashion in the world, but we will still be labeled as a rootless group with no sense of self-identification.
Imagine what would happen when someone asks a Singaporean about Singapore’s history and culture and the person is unable to give the correct answer? Just what kind of image of Singapore will be seen by tourists?
Hence, I really feel that Chinese is an important language for us to learn and understand and we should put in good effort into both English and Chinese. Although some may still argue that they do not have an interest in Chinese language, at the very least, they should be able to understand the history and culture of our immigrant’s ancestors.
“Although the working language here is English, the country should still ensure that students of Chinese origin know their ancestor’s language, so as to have a deeper understanding on their root and Asian values” This was continuously stressed by Lee Hsien Loong on February 14 at the opening ceremony of the 10th “Chinese Culture Festival”.
English is used everywhere; when we communicate, when we work, etc. Everywhere we go, we usually hear people conversing in English. Hence, people tend to feel that English is much more important than Chinese. This leads on to students, the future leaders of our nation, into thinking that too.
Students are slowly losing interest in Chinese, and some even refuses to learn it. According to statistics from Singapore's ministry of education, 9.3 percent first year pupils of primary schools of Chinese origin used English at home in 1980, but the figure soared to 45 percent last year. There are actually quite a few reasons as to why students do not want to learn the language. Some flee from Chinese class because it’s too difficult while some say learning Chinese is of no value since putting efforts on this hard subject will not produce any economical results. For them, the mastery of English is a necessity to climb the social ladders, while speaking Chinese has by and by been shadowed into a symbol of failure. Some parents even tell their children to become an "elite in English" instead of a "master in Chinese". In a way, this is true as jobs that require proficiency in Chinese are not many, and these jobs are usually taken up by PRCs who come to Singapore.
However, I feel that Singaporeans are too overly concerned about the economical gains of jobs. Here are some things a typical Singaporean will want; a fixed and steady income, a “good” job and a happy family. I highlight the word “good” as I feel that there can be many different perceptions on the word “good”. Singaporeans feel that having a “good” job means having a job with high amounts of steady income, e.g. doctors, lawyers. However, many other people in other countries define “good” job as a job which they enjoy doing. I guess this cannot be helped, considering the competitive nature of Singapore’s educational system. However, no matter the circumstances or how crucial the need is to study English over Chinese, I feel that Singaporeans should not forget our deep roots and Asian values but continue to preserve the history and culture of our immigrant’s ancestors. If not, we can drift along with the tide and follow the latest trend or fashion in the world, but we will still be labeled as a rootless group with no sense of self-identification.
Imagine what would happen when someone asks a Singaporean about Singapore’s history and culture and the person is unable to give the correct answer? Just what kind of image of Singapore will be seen by tourists?
Hence, I really feel that Chinese is an important language for us to learn and understand and we should put in good effort into both English and Chinese. Although some may still argue that they do not have an interest in Chinese language, at the very least, they should be able to understand the history and culture of our immigrant’s ancestors.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Majority V.S Minority
Majority V.S Minority
“Majority wins” is common heard in our daily lives all around us. To put it simply, it means that the majority will always win because everyone has the same mindset and is doing the same thing. Hence, there is always a misconception that the crowd is always right.
Well, most people like to follow others and be in the “big” group, as they feel that they are safe and secure by doing the same thing as everyone else. In a sense, this is actually true. Conforming to the crowd definitely gives you security as if you are wrong, it means the crowd is wrong, and everyone has to take the blame together. However, if you are in the minority and are proven wrong, you will have to shoulder the responsibility yourself and even face embarrassment by other people aka the crowd.
Let me give an example to illustrate my point. If your whole class is discriminating against one single person, you are most slightly going to side the class in discrimination your classmate rather than helping him out. Here, the class is the majority while that single student is the minority. Many and in fact most people will not help that single person mainly because of fear of being discriminated and laughed at too. Imagine siding with the single person and end up being scorned at by your friends. Who would ever want to choose being laughed at when another solution, an easy and straight-forward solution; siding with the majority, is available to them?
This is human nature. Nobody wants to be ostracized, nobody wants to be left out, nobody wants to be alone in taking the blame and definitely nobody wants to face the scorns and laughter from their friends. Thus, they turn to the most feasible solution – Following the majority; with the mindset that everything is fine as everyone else is doing the same thing.
At this juncture, I must point out that the crowd is not always wrong, in fact, it is usually correct. However, following the crowd blindly can result in regrets or disastrous consequences. I feel that there is little need to highlight the importance of choosing the right crowd. Almost everybody can differentiate between the “right crowd” and the “bad crowd”. One obvious example of a bad crowd is a group of gangsters which people may join due to their thirst for power and their hunger for a sense of security.
I feel that the most important thing that needs to be highlighted is the importance of knowing when to step out of the crowd and say “Change is needed”. This is usually the most difficult task that most people find it hard to do. In fact, I must admit that I have failed miserably in this aspect too. When someone is comfortably blended into society, why would he still stand up to be different, taking the risk of being scorned at? Most people would just continue with their normal lives, blending nicely into society. However, a leader will step out and raise his opinions and views, no matter the consequences. When a true leader feels that something needs to be questioned, he will raise his concern even though nobody is doing it. Leaders are those who step out of the crowd when they feel that something is not right and strive to make that change possible.
Successful leaders are not those who follow others and change their beliefs because of the majority’s opinion. A true leader believes in himself, in what he does, and ultimately, dares to step out to lead his friends and fellow people. This is usually what differentiates a leader between a follower. A follower lets others impose their views on them and accepts things at face value. They do not think critically as to whether things are right at the moment. However, having followers are equally important as without followers, who will these leaders lead?
I am not saying that we should not follow the crowd, but I am trying to say that we should know how to make our own critical decisions before choosing to follow the crowd. Before we do something, we must always think carefully about the implications before proceeding. Our opinions and views should not be interfered by peer pressure or by the majority. If we know that the majority is wrong, we should have the courage to step out of the majority into the minority and make a change happen. This is real courage, and one of the qualities that a true leader should have.
Hence, we can see the difference between the majority and minority and reasons for people who always follow the crowd. Both the majority and minority can be correct at times, and it is up to us to decide which one is right and to make our own crucial decisions.
“Majority wins” is common heard in our daily lives all around us. To put it simply, it means that the majority will always win because everyone has the same mindset and is doing the same thing. Hence, there is always a misconception that the crowd is always right.
Well, most people like to follow others and be in the “big” group, as they feel that they are safe and secure by doing the same thing as everyone else. In a sense, this is actually true. Conforming to the crowd definitely gives you security as if you are wrong, it means the crowd is wrong, and everyone has to take the blame together. However, if you are in the minority and are proven wrong, you will have to shoulder the responsibility yourself and even face embarrassment by other people aka the crowd.
Let me give an example to illustrate my point. If your whole class is discriminating against one single person, you are most slightly going to side the class in discrimination your classmate rather than helping him out. Here, the class is the majority while that single student is the minority. Many and in fact most people will not help that single person mainly because of fear of being discriminated and laughed at too. Imagine siding with the single person and end up being scorned at by your friends. Who would ever want to choose being laughed at when another solution, an easy and straight-forward solution; siding with the majority, is available to them?
This is human nature. Nobody wants to be ostracized, nobody wants to be left out, nobody wants to be alone in taking the blame and definitely nobody wants to face the scorns and laughter from their friends. Thus, they turn to the most feasible solution – Following the majority; with the mindset that everything is fine as everyone else is doing the same thing.
At this juncture, I must point out that the crowd is not always wrong, in fact, it is usually correct. However, following the crowd blindly can result in regrets or disastrous consequences. I feel that there is little need to highlight the importance of choosing the right crowd. Almost everybody can differentiate between the “right crowd” and the “bad crowd”. One obvious example of a bad crowd is a group of gangsters which people may join due to their thirst for power and their hunger for a sense of security.
I feel that the most important thing that needs to be highlighted is the importance of knowing when to step out of the crowd and say “Change is needed”. This is usually the most difficult task that most people find it hard to do. In fact, I must admit that I have failed miserably in this aspect too. When someone is comfortably blended into society, why would he still stand up to be different, taking the risk of being scorned at? Most people would just continue with their normal lives, blending nicely into society. However, a leader will step out and raise his opinions and views, no matter the consequences. When a true leader feels that something needs to be questioned, he will raise his concern even though nobody is doing it. Leaders are those who step out of the crowd when they feel that something is not right and strive to make that change possible.
Successful leaders are not those who follow others and change their beliefs because of the majority’s opinion. A true leader believes in himself, in what he does, and ultimately, dares to step out to lead his friends and fellow people. This is usually what differentiates a leader between a follower. A follower lets others impose their views on them and accepts things at face value. They do not think critically as to whether things are right at the moment. However, having followers are equally important as without followers, who will these leaders lead?
I am not saying that we should not follow the crowd, but I am trying to say that we should know how to make our own critical decisions before choosing to follow the crowd. Before we do something, we must always think carefully about the implications before proceeding. Our opinions and views should not be interfered by peer pressure or by the majority. If we know that the majority is wrong, we should have the courage to step out of the majority into the minority and make a change happen. This is real courage, and one of the qualities that a true leader should have.
Hence, we can see the difference between the majority and minority and reasons for people who always follow the crowd. Both the majority and minority can be correct at times, and it is up to us to decide which one is right and to make our own crucial decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)