Today's library, tomorrow's 'googlary'?

In the past, not long ago, libraries were simply bursting with people either wanting to do research on a subject, or being interested in a particular storybook, or merely to browse at leisure as a recreation. However, with the digital age well and truly setting in, we cannot help but notice that our main source of information has become the internet, or more precisely, Google.com, which countless numbers of online users surf everyday to source for information from celebrities to sports news and from digitalised maps to recipes for ice-creams.

The author is quite right in saying that Google has indeed revolutionised and that it itself is now a verb that is widely used and accepted. How we can see for ourselves the success of Google include the fact that Google has been the website with the most traffic flow for quite some time now in the USA. Google does have the potential of taking over as the world’s library, being connected to millions and millions of sites which provide tons of information.

But Google has its problems. As with the internet, there is a veil of anonymity which the online user can hide himself or herself such that no responsibility will be taken should something go wrong. Therefore, as much as Google can link all these sites to us, it cannot ensure, nor can McAfee screening, that the information provided is correct and will help in our research. Therefore, researchers that use Google have to discern for themselves which of the sources are authentic and can be trusted, which therefore takes more time. Furthermore, there is the problem of contradicting sources that can happen, particularly when one site contradicts another, and we do not know which one to trust.

Therefore, just a Googlary alone may not be enough to fulfil the requirements that people all around the world need for research. For example, the internet will never be smart enough to provide the most adequate help in researching and finding sources, while when we go to proper libraries, there is always a helpful librarian to help us on our projects and stuff, and to guide us to the correct books that will help us in the research. Also, we can agree that those books in libraries can generally be trusted more than the sources online, as they go through editing and publishing.

I would recommend that while resources be made available online for those who want to access them, that the libraries should still be our main source of information when it comes to proper research that we want to be credible as future references. By doing this, we can prevent several important issues such as plagiarism and things like copyright and permission issues. Therefore, while online resources are definitely much easier to access, there are pros of using a library for research that a Googlary might not be able to give us.

While a Googlary sounds like a nice idea, it would be better for us to follow the traditional guide of using a library for our research.

Leader - A gift of a programme

The Gifted Education Programme, or GEP, has been the place to be for top students since its formation in 1984. While the GEP nurtures the top 1% of the cohort, it is by no means restricted to any child of any birth as long as he or she has the correct genes, being part of the meritocratic system of education in Singapore. Through rounds and rounds of selection tests, those who emerge at the end are given special education starting from Primary 4, and various statistics including President’s Scholars, Lee Kuan Yew Scholars, and that GEP students perform better in the O and A levels than other students, all show that the method of teaching in GEP is in fact effective and should be continued.

Having been a GEP-nurtured student, I personally find the GEP very effective and I fully support it to be carried on throughout the years as a means of nurturing the best of our country into future leaders and those who would manage how Singapore is run in the future. However, there have been many voiced-out concerns that the GEP is an elitist programme and that those in the programme are too pompous to discuss anything with those whom they perceive as “ungifted” and unable to enter the GEP.

As with any other programme which only selects the best, those who made it will definitely look down on those who did not make it, much like those who failed will surely be jealous of those who passed and try to pull them down to earth. This, in my opinion, is human nature, not elitism, and so, I feel that there is no problem of the GEP being only for that selected and chosen 1% while the rest of the student cohort remain behind and are only taught the bare essentials, both of which are not true. Also, teachers have encouraged diffusion and interaction between the GEP and non-GEP classes, for both batches of students to understand each other. This is also the reason why there has not been a school set up for only the GEP students where they can have no interaction with the rest of the students.

Statistics have also shown that GEP students are also more active in community service than non-GEP students, which further proves that while GEP students might be educated differently by a special set of materials, they are even more thankful than usual students because of the opportunities they have been given to pursue their interests and further develop their passion for studying to create more job opportunities.

Coming out of the GEP does not mean that everywhere we go, there is a GEP label stamped on our heads. GEP students should be mindful that there are students out there with much more potential than us, just that they might be put off from the selection tests by an unexpected nose-bleed or flu. This will help prevent the elitist feelings of those in the programme and will definitely help to facilitate to interaction between the batches.

Don't slay the goose that lays golden eggs

The Great Casino Debate has been a hot topic since the Prime Minister and the government first decided to build Integrated Resorts in Marina Bay and Sentosa. While there have been many social and economical gains and repercussions discussed and presented, one aspect we may have overlooked would be the degeneration of national psyche, as the author has rightly pointed out.

I agree with the author that despite the obvious gains in revenue the IRs might bring about, there are serious social and economical 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, and since low-income Singaporeans have strict restrictions on their gambling, it would therefore mean that middle- and high-income locals can gamble and lose all their money, thereby bringing economical destabilisation to Singapore. All sorts of crime ranging from robberies to blackmailing and even to murder can be linked to casinos, 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.

As the author correctly states, Singapore has come through from third-world to first-world in a single generation by only the hard work and integrity and transparency of the people and their government. Singapore’s economy is essentially driven by people who work 80-hour work weeks and those who put in hard labour so that the government’s policies may be carried out. The presence of a casino in Singapore will undoubtedly unsettle some these bedrocks of society, just like addiction to gambling will cause corrosion to take place in the fundamental supports of the society, which is extremely vulnerable should even one corner of the supports collapse under the sheer weight of the casino, in metaphorical terms.

Therefore, as in Aesop’s fable of The Goose That Lays Golden Eggs, building a casino can be seen as a stupid move as it is equivalent to cutting open the goose just like cutting open the hard work that has seen our economy stabilise and become one of the best in Asia. The building of casinos in IRs would undoubtedly degrade the national psyche, which will cause people to believe that luck, not hard work and integrity, is the way for success and to strike it rich. As expected, this will have serious repercussions on the balance of our society and economy with workers all becoming addicted to gambling and unwilling to do anything else such as doing some proper work in terms of nation-building.

Therefore, while building casinos can provide lucrative job opportunities and certainly increase our revenue from tourism and make Singapore more attractive to foreigners, all the social and economical problems might make all of these backfire to cause Singapore to go backwards in terms of progress due to the transition from labour to luck. Not to mention, the final effect would be the degradation of national psyche which will severely affect the willingness of foreigners to even come to Singapore any more. Therefore, like the author, I urge the government to think thrice before they act, so as to not turn back 44 years of progress.

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.