H1N1 Influenza A

Since the outbreak of swine flu, now known as the Influenza A H1N1 virus, the virus has quickly spread from originating in Mexico to North America, Europe and Asia. Countries all around the world are stepping up health measures as a response to the WHO raising the pandemic alert to level 6, but we have seen more and more cases of the virus spread faster and wider to many other countries, so are these measures really effective and adequately in place?

Given the rate of globalisation and how our world is shrinking in terms of connectivity and communications, it is not hard to see why the virus is starting to become a little bit uncontrollable. For example, in 2008 alone, Changi Airport handled a total of 37.7 million passengers, and given this massive passenger flow, one can highly doubt that the measures put in place, such as temperature screenings and ensuring minimal contact between the public and the suspected cases, are really effective although they might be adequate as the standard procedures that we have gone through many times since the SARS and Avian Flu days.

Furthermore, in the advanced age we live in today, it is inevitable in this fast paced society that before the MOH gets to a suspected case, that that particular person might have had close contact with at least two other people. This is why I feel that it is already a marvellous achievement to have contained the cases to just around 300 since Singapore’s airport is one of the busiest in the world and we are after all highly connected to other infected countries. Therefore, while the measures taken into place might be adequate for a pandemic such as this, given that the world is closely linked together and the pace of society, it simply cannot be effective as a measure of controlling the virus.

Furthermore, China has very quickly started developing a vaccine for the virus and this shows how quickly the world and not just China can act and respond in the face of a possible global disaster. Countries have gone from resisting Mexicans and Americans to in fact accepting and containing the disease to keep it from being widespread in their own countries. While the spread of the virus is in fact irresistible, we can ensure that it does not grow at an alarming rate such as how virus cells multiply. With that, I would think that the measures taken are adequate as well as somewhat effective.

Integrated Resorts

Whether or not to open a casino in Singapore has been a hot topic for the past few years, and since then, we have seen even the highest level of the government step out and announce their decision. However, given that Singapore’s only resource is manpower, and with the social and personal impacts of opening a casino, I feel that although it brings in extra revenue that is good for the overall economy of the country, the social repercussions are too great and they offset the economical benefits. Therefore, since the decision is to go ahead with a casino, we must find solutions to lessen the impact on Singaporean’s lives.

Firstly, despite the obvious economical gains, there are serious social repercussions that come about with the building of a casino. Most obviously, having a casino and allowing locals to gamble means that more people will gamble and lose their money. All we all know, since money, or rather the lack of money, is the root of all evil, this brings about problems such as loan sharks lending money illegally, which can be linked to all sorts of crime ranging from robberies to blackmailing and even to murder, which will, without doubt, affect the socio-economical balance of the society in a magnitude that will definitely surpass the economical gains of having a casino.

Although measures such as restrictions and counseling have been taken into place, I highly doubt that these measures are extreme enough to stop hardcore gambling addicts from gambling and losing their money and lives. After all, the government does need to use the casino as a means of making money, so if they crack down too tough on locals, who will be there to supply revenue? Therefore, with this reasoning, there is reason to believe that gambling addicts will be unable to stop their habits no matter the entry fee or any other slight limitations, be it by gambling via a proxy or even going into the casino under a different identity.

Furthermore, as we can see from Las Vegas as an example, even the tightest security systems cannot stop crimes targeting the casinos. The debts that many people will come to owe the casinos are good motives for people to attempt to blow the casinos up or to blackmail them. This will cause further chaos to the downtown area as well as the social stability of Singapore as a whole, and when the society reaches such a state, we all know that it is irreparable. As a cause of that happening, Singapore will degrade from an example of a state excellent in security and living standards to becoming a state which to learn not to make mistakes from, which further decreases revenue from tourism and investment.

Therefore, I would propose that harsher limitations and penalties be imposed on those who are positively identified as gambling addicts and those who are in great risks of being one. By imposing regulations such as entry age, raising the entry fee, and black-spotting those who have a criminal record or a record of creating trouble in casinos, then we can ensure that those who gamble merely do so as a means of relaxation, not as an addiction that can never be stopped.

National Service Dodging

Recently, there has been a new trend going on: the cat and mouse game between Singapore’s Defence force and the young and energetic citizens that are due to serve National Service. In this game that is somewhat similar to modern dodgeball, the result is almost always that the citizen leaves the country and is not allowed to ever set foot on Singapore soil again, or else that he lands his butt in jail.

Perhaps the main reason of all the dodging of National Service, NS, is because of the difference in viewpoints between the Ministry of Defence and the 18 year olds. While the officers and sergeants in the army feel that it is the duty of every Singaporean to serve his homeland by learning jungle warfare and wilderness survival, and ultimately protect the citizens of Singapore when a war happens, if it ever will. This viewpoint is contrasted one hundred and eighty degrees by what the dodgers of NS think. In their opinion, NS is another useless skill much like Home Econs that is and is going to be useless and obsolete in the peaceful world we have ahead of us. In the past, whenever superpowers were not happy with a particular country, they would call war, but now, to solve international issues, they form conventions and summits that will effectively and peacefully solve all the political differences that different nations have, and furthermore, it is not like Singapore would ever openly oppose those superpowers, but maybe only Malaysia over water supply problems.

Therefore, with this difference in mindset, it is no wonder why so many of the young Singaporeans decide to dodge NS by all means. I myself think that pursuing other things in life such as overseas education and finding a job is tons more important than learning how to assemble a rifle and getting a medal for being the fastest to do so. After all, what are the main skills learnt in NS? Camaraderie, Physical Fitness, Psychological Strength, Responsibility. Carefully thinking, which one of these cannot be learnt somewhere else? This is the reason why many people think that NS is something that is not required for life, and while the main attracting point of NS in the past is duty to serve the nation, we all know how much that applies to the new self-centred and politically apathetic generation.

Due to all the problems, solutions must be created to tackle the problem of dodging of NS. I personally do not think that the hard way of increasing penalties on those who dodge NS is a feasible way, as it involves human rights and it is the right of every individual to decide for himself. So, a possible and effective solution would be to split NS into different aspects, where not only painting faces and shooting targets counts as National Service, but also practicing medicine, creating enterprises, doing volunteer work and so on. In all these activities, most of the skills learnt in NS can be learnt, and the time we put to learn obsolete skills such as shooting targets can be put to better use such as learning how to serve our own people. Therefore, the problem of dodging NS can then be alleviated.

Advanced Medical Directive Act

From first sight, we can see that the AMD act and euthanasia are pretty much the same thing, so why is AMD allowed but not euthanasia? Upon further inspection, however, we can see the obvious differences between AMD and euthanasia, be it in definition, action, or ethics.

Let us first look at the definition of both AMD and euthanasia. AMD is a legal document that a patient signs before he is terminally ill and unable to do so. This document is to inform the doctor or hospital that should you become terminally ill or fall into a coma, that you do not want treatment that will only prolong your lifespan but will not cure the illness. As compared to that, euthanasia has a broader definition and there are many types of euthanasia that is present. Euthanasia basically is a way of ending a life peacefully and without pain, much like AMD where no further treatment to prolong life is wanted. Likewise, both AMD and voluntary euthanasia are very obviously voluntary.

However, there is a different form of euthanasia that is involuntary and it has been the focus of debate and controversy recently. Involuntary euthanasia is where an individual makes the decision of allowing life support to be taken away from a terminally ill patient and to allow him or her to die naturally. This is highly controversial as these individuals who claim to be proxies of the patient and have the right to decide for them might not actually have consent from the patient, and not have the authority to decide for them. In contrast, AMD would be a document that is signed before hand, much like the HOTA, so multiple proxies will not appear and claim authority.

Despite their obvious similarities, AMD is considered moral while euthanasia is considered unethical and not allowed in most countries. We can see that AMD is considered moral because the patient makes his own decision on whether he wants extra-ordinary treatment should he become terminally ill. However, since AMD and suicide are similar to euthanasia, why is euthanasia not allowed? Perhaps it is because that people consider it fine to decide that they do not want life support, but immoral that they participate actively in their own suicide.

Therefore, there needs to be certain measures put in place to ensure that the AMD is not abused and is free of loopholes. Current Singaporean laws state that it is an offense for someone other than the individual to force him or her to sign an AMD against his or her will. This is an important measure and will prevent the AMD from being abused such as having multiple proxies in involuntary euthanasia. Also, we need to ensure that AMD stays morally and politically correct, and the act must be well protected in order for people not to be able to find loopholes such as making decisions on behalf of the patient using a proxy.

Human Organ Transplant Act

With the Human Organ Transplant Act, or HOTA, Singapore now has a working system for saving lives by transplanting organs from the deceased into the patients. However, this system is not and will never be infallible, as there are many loopholes and these have led to many heated arguments in the past decade.

With HOTA, how far is it viable to forego consent in harvesting organs? I say that while being used to save another’s life is a noble cause, simply taking an organ from someone who has passed away without any kind of permission is in fact very immoral and wrong. Therefore, consent must be given before the deceased’s organs are removed and transplanted.

However, this has led to the government adapting an opt-out system, which is effective, but considered by many people as unethical, mainly due to the fact that most of the perfectly healthy people are simply not aware of the HOTA and therefore will not think of opting-out of the system. This has led to many conflicts between those that have a need to carry out the HOTA, and the family of the deceased. Another reason why so many conflicts such as the SGH incident occurs is because of the fact that a next-of-kin is not allowed to make decisions themselves on behalf of their dying relatives. However, the point here is that people in a coma cannot talk, and even if they could, they would be asking for their loved ones instead of saying “I want to opt out.” There are many cases like this where individuals cannot opt-out themselves and their family are also helpless to opt-out on behalf of the individual, and all they can do is watch their loved one’s organs get cut out and transplanted.

Another point of the HOTA that I would consider immoral is that those who opt-out of the system, being unwilling to donate their own organs should something happen to them, are given lower priorities on the waiting list should they ever need a transplant. What this basically means is that just because one wishes to keep his organs after death, he has to watch helplessly as people leapfrog him in the queue for an organ transplant. Does this really coincide with the ideals of democracy, where all of the citizens have equal liberty and rights?

The situation desperately needs improvement and to tackle the first issue of people being unaware of the opt-out system, we need to enforce education to the mass public so that they know about this system before they are critically ill. This can be done through campaigns in HDB zones that are mostly inhabited by the elderly, as well as through other forms of advertisement such as pamphlets and posters. Another way to tackle both the first and the second problem is to have an opt-in system instead of an opt-out system. While we do know that the main worry of the government is that not enough people opt-in and therefore lives will be wasted because there were no available organs. However, I believe that if the government makes the incentives of opting-in attractive, there will be enough volunteers, and the problem of ethics can then be solved.