Hello Ms Huang, this post is just a list of the posts that I have commented on. I really feel kiasu here, but never mind, I guess this will help sort out these stuff more easily ;)
1. Glenn Ang "My thoughts on War"
http://arts-language.blogspot.com/2011/05/my-thoughts-on-war.html#comments
2. Chong Kai En "Expository Essay: What do you think people of your age can do to improve life in your country?"
http://kaiensblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/expository-essay-what-do-you-think.html#comments
3. Daniel Tan "Mother's Day Exclusive"
http://swordofthedragonslayer.blogspot.com/2011/05/welcome-readers-to-this-exclusive.html#comments
4. Eliel "Junior Colleges In Singapore"
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2778771748267035122&postID=1812226140185956298&isPopup=true
5. Leonard Goh "Debate Topic 2"
http://leonard-languageartsblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/debate-topic-2.html#comments
6. Ivan Yeo "Singapore General Elections: Social Media"
http://ivanlablog.blogspot.com/2011/05/singapore-general-elections-social.html#comments
7. Lam Wen Hong "Japan Earthquake"
http://language-artist.blogspot.com/2011/04/japan-earthquake.html#comments
8. Alex Liew "Playing Children"
http://ineedawebsitelolwut.posterous.com/post-9-playing-children
9. Loo Nathanael "GE 2011"
http://loonathanaellablog.blogspot.com/2011/05/ge-2011.html#comments
10. Yeo Kee Xuan "Should the Parents Maintenance Act be abolished?"
http://spongebobsayshitoyou.blogspot.com/2011/05/should-parents-maintenance-act-be.html#comments
Cheers,
Roystan
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Perseverance: My story
This will be the last post of the term, and I will be sure to end it on a happier note! :D Today, I will be writing on perseverance, albeit with a twist. Read on! :)
Two weeks ago, on Wednesday, we had Infocomm Studies at the last period. As the lesson was held in the computer lab, some of my friends and I decided to head to the canteen at the JC to have lunch, as it was closer to the computer lab. At the canteen, I ordered rice with chicken in some sort of sauce. I tucked in promptly, as I was exceptionally hungry that day and could not wait for lunch. However, after I finished my lunch and put back the plate, tragedy struck. All of a sudden, my stomach had a sharp and excruciating pain, and it felt like it was stabbed by ten knives. The pain was sudden and unexpected; one moment I was talking normally to my friends, the next moment I was clutching my stomach. I must have looked like a fool to the people there; what with me constantly groaning in agony and with the expression on my face.
After a while, the pain seemed to subside a little. At the same time, I saw someone buy muah chee in the canteen. As I did not feel as pain, I reckoned that a little muah chee wouldn’t do much harm to my stomach. Furthermore, it was at $1 for a packet! Who could resist that offer? I went on to buy a packet of muah chee and starting eating it. However, as if my stomach was annoyed at my cocky attitude and wanted to punish me, the pain worsened again! It was like the beginning, and once again, I was victim to nature and could not continue eating my muah chee. At that time, I was of the opinion that if my stomach was feeling pain, muah chee could relieve my pain, because muah chee was made up of peanuts and some paste, and I figured that two negatives made a positive. Now that I think back on this, I am really amused at my foolish thinking LOL. My friends also urged me to find a toilet, but as I was unfamiliar with the place, I decided to head back to the high school section instead of trying to find a toilet in that unfamiliar environment with my agonising stomach.
The trip back was an arduous and painful one. It required perseverance and determination of the highest degree. Not once was I needed to muster so much courage; not once was I needed to have so much willpower; it was one of the longest trips ever. Ok, well, I may have been exaggerating a little here; but you get the picture. To put it plainly, it was not fun. Every few steps (or limps) I took required me to bend down for a while. At the same time, my face was twisted into emotions and expressions that cannot be described in words. All my friends were laughing at my comical expressions (shame on you guys!) and I bet other students who saw me must have been thinking I was some strange kid (haha, look at that nerdy bald bespectacled guy).
As I reached the clocktower, another obstacle proved to be in my way. There are were so many steps leading up to the clocktower, and it was indeed an uphill battle for me to be able to make it up. Fortunately, I still managed to make it up there, and I rushed (or limped ): ) as quickly as I could to the nearest toilet, ignoring the melodic music that was playing (which was part of the Wednesday Lunchtime Performance). As I finally reached my destination, I headed to the cubicle, and as I heard the ‘pop’ sounds echoing under me, a wave of relief swept through me. I know this sounds rather... gross, but I assure you, I’m merely writing a recount of my not-so-enjoyable experience. :)
Well, the title of my post is about perseverance, and indeed, I have learnt the importance of perseverance. Without sheer grit and perseverance, I would not have made it back to the toilet. No amount of lectures, worksheets, or sharing sessions will ever teach me of the importance of perseverance better than this one incident. However, I DO NOT want it to happen again. One is definitely enough!!
Cheers,
Roystan
The first step is NOT denial
Hello readers, today I shall blog on a human interest topic, denial. Hope you guys enjoy reading! :D
Let me paint a scenario here: You are in a lesson one day, with around 25 other classmates in the same room. Suddenly, you have a sudden urge to break wind. As hard as you tried, you could not hold it back and had to break wind. The sound was loud, and many people started staring in your direction. What do you do, then? Do you admit that you were the one who broke wind and apologise to your classmates, or would you try to pretend that it wasn't you to save your face. I believe, in the image-conscious society of today, most people would choose the latter.
However, is denial always the best way out? When we face embarrassment, do we just lie our way out and save our faces? When we face defeat, do we deny the fact that we have been knocked down and refuse to get back out? Is denial, the easiest way out, the best way out? Do we merely evade our problems? Any sensible person would face the problem head on. Instead of evading blames and salvaging our pride, why not we just admit to our mistakes and learn from there? Why do people always choose to take the easy way out of everything? I firmly believe that denial is never the best way to handle issues, and we must take our obstacles heads-on, instead of dodging them.
Let's look at this from another aspect. By going through denial, you are lying both to others and to yourself. What is the point of lying to yourself? Does it make you feel better? Does it reduce the suffering? Although denial may help you to evade any harm for a short period of time, in time to come, even more serious social and emotional problems can arise, and cause even greater repercussions.
In conclusion, I advise everyone never to take the easy way out by denying everything. Denial does not solve any problem; it only prolongs the harm. I hope you guys have learnt something from this post, and resolve to take problems HEADS-ON!
Cheers,
Roystan
Let me paint a scenario here: You are in a lesson one day, with around 25 other classmates in the same room. Suddenly, you have a sudden urge to break wind. As hard as you tried, you could not hold it back and had to break wind. The sound was loud, and many people started staring in your direction. What do you do, then? Do you admit that you were the one who broke wind and apologise to your classmates, or would you try to pretend that it wasn't you to save your face. I believe, in the image-conscious society of today, most people would choose the latter.
However, is denial always the best way out? When we face embarrassment, do we just lie our way out and save our faces? When we face defeat, do we deny the fact that we have been knocked down and refuse to get back out? Is denial, the easiest way out, the best way out? Do we merely evade our problems? Any sensible person would face the problem head on. Instead of evading blames and salvaging our pride, why not we just admit to our mistakes and learn from there? Why do people always choose to take the easy way out of everything? I firmly believe that denial is never the best way to handle issues, and we must take our obstacles heads-on, instead of dodging them.
Let's look at this from another aspect. By going through denial, you are lying both to others and to yourself. What is the point of lying to yourself? Does it make you feel better? Does it reduce the suffering? Although denial may help you to evade any harm for a short period of time, in time to come, even more serious social and emotional problems can arise, and cause even greater repercussions.
In conclusion, I advise everyone never to take the easy way out by denying everything. Denial does not solve any problem; it only prolongs the harm. I hope you guys have learnt something from this post, and resolve to take problems HEADS-ON!
Cheers,
Roystan
Learning to bounce back from defeat
Hi readers, today I would like to blog about a topic that probably strikes close to home, defeat. We will inevitably face defeat in our life, but what is important is how we bounce back from defeat, even stronger.
I got the idea to write about this, because only a few days back, I encountered a minor setback in my school life. I had just received my Integrated Humanities test paper back, and I had expected at least an A2 due to the long hours of studying that I put in. Alas, this was not to be, as I had made a fatal careless mistake which resulted in my results dropping to below my expectations. Needless to say, I was visibly disappointed when I saw my marks, and even more due to the amount of time I put in revising. However, I managed to pick myself up after a while, and convince myself that I would bounce back from this setback and achieve even higher next time.
I am sure many of you have faced setbacks in your life before. Be it attaining poor results not up to your expectations, or screwing up in a certain competition, defeat and setbacks are part and parcel of our lives. In order to properly bounce back from defeat, we must first understand that defeats do not necessarily mean that there is no more hope for us. One defeat does NOT determine our future; we must not be too affected by a single defeat or setback. Likewise, instead of crying over spilled milk, what is important is that we learn from our mistakes, so that we do not make the same mistakes in the future. There is a Chinese saying, "失败是成功之母", which means that failure or defeat is the 'mother' of success, and that to succeed, we have to fail first. This further emphasises my point, as the most important thing about defeat is not the consequences of the setback, but instead, how we manage defeat and bounce back ten times stronger afterwards. Alfred Pennyworth, Batman's butler, once said to Batman when Batman lost all hope, "Why do we fall sir? So that we can pick ourselves up."
Many successful individuals had encountered setbacks in their lives before as well. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard, but eventually became the owner of Microsoft. Henry Ford's early businesses failed and left him broke FIVE times before he founded the successful Ford Motor Company. Akio Morita's company, Sony, started off as a failure, with its first product, a rice cooker, managing to sell less than 100 units. However, he and his employees worked hard to make Sony the multi-billion dollar company it is today. We can learn from these famous people as well; when they failed, did they sob and give up? No! They learnt from their follies, picked themselves up, and persevered on, eventually managing to succeed in their lives. Likewise, we can learn from their positive attitudes, and treat every defeat as an OPPORTUNITY TO GROW!
I hope that this post has inspired you guys to pick yourself up from defeats and bounce back up even stronger. A strong mentality will guide us through the toughest of storms, and acceptance of defeat is a skill that will last us through our life.
Cheers,
Roystan
I got the idea to write about this, because only a few days back, I encountered a minor setback in my school life. I had just received my Integrated Humanities test paper back, and I had expected at least an A2 due to the long hours of studying that I put in. Alas, this was not to be, as I had made a fatal careless mistake which resulted in my results dropping to below my expectations. Needless to say, I was visibly disappointed when I saw my marks, and even more due to the amount of time I put in revising. However, I managed to pick myself up after a while, and convince myself that I would bounce back from this setback and achieve even higher next time.
I am sure many of you have faced setbacks in your life before. Be it attaining poor results not up to your expectations, or screwing up in a certain competition, defeat and setbacks are part and parcel of our lives. In order to properly bounce back from defeat, we must first understand that defeats do not necessarily mean that there is no more hope for us. One defeat does NOT determine our future; we must not be too affected by a single defeat or setback. Likewise, instead of crying over spilled milk, what is important is that we learn from our mistakes, so that we do not make the same mistakes in the future. There is a Chinese saying, "失败是成功之母", which means that failure or defeat is the 'mother' of success, and that to succeed, we have to fail first. This further emphasises my point, as the most important thing about defeat is not the consequences of the setback, but instead, how we manage defeat and bounce back ten times stronger afterwards. Alfred Pennyworth, Batman's butler, once said to Batman when Batman lost all hope, "Why do we fall sir? So that we can pick ourselves up."
Many successful individuals had encountered setbacks in their lives before as well. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard, but eventually became the owner of Microsoft. Henry Ford's early businesses failed and left him broke FIVE times before he founded the successful Ford Motor Company. Akio Morita's company, Sony, started off as a failure, with its first product, a rice cooker, managing to sell less than 100 units. However, he and his employees worked hard to make Sony the multi-billion dollar company it is today. We can learn from these famous people as well; when they failed, did they sob and give up? No! They learnt from their follies, picked themselves up, and persevered on, eventually managing to succeed in their lives. Likewise, we can learn from their positive attitudes, and treat every defeat as an OPPORTUNITY TO GROW!
I hope that this post has inspired you guys to pick yourself up from defeats and bounce back up even stronger. A strong mentality will guide us through the toughest of storms, and acceptance of defeat is a skill that will last us through our life.
Cheers,
Roystan
Competition: How much is enough?
Hi readers, today I would like to post on something that we commonly encounter in our lives: competition. I shall try to evaluate how competition from others can either help or ruin someone, and I hope you guys enjoy reading!
Firstly, what is competition? Competition is when you face rivalry from another person/group of people in something you do. We encounter competition everyday. Be it trying to attain the best results in our studies, or competing with others in sports, competition is part and parcel of our lives. Competition naturally breeds stress, and although most of us detest stress, experts have stepped up and commented that competition and stress play integral roles in our lives, helping shape us for the future. However, I would like to go one step further, and question: How much competition is enough?
I apologise if my question seems a little unspecific and cryptic. To put it in plain terms, I am trying to question if too much competition is detrimental to a person's growth and personality, despite the initial benefits. For example, John is a nice person who takes studies seriously but not to the point of obsession. He knows how to balance work, play and his social life, and has an easy-going personality. He excels in his studies as well, constantly in the top few in his class. However, one day, someone named Jack comes into his class. Jack turns out to be something of a supercomputer, extremely smart, and even surpassing John in terms of results. John is rather appalled at Jack, and thus competes with Jack in order to retain his title of top in class. To do this, John constantly studies everyday, neglecting his health and friends. He eventually manages to beat Jack in a test, but at the expense of losing most of his friends and suffering from illnesses. At the end, is the result really worth all the trouble he had gone through?
With the example I have provided above, I aim to explain how too much competition can harm someone, instead of benefitting and helping that person. If one faces much intense competition from someone else, the person would inevitably be determined to win the competitor. However, due to the equally high calibre of the competitor, to defeat the other person would be extremely hard as well. Therefore, the initial person would definitely try to defeat that person by hook or by crook. Therefore, the competition causes the person to actually neglect his life, and solely focus on winning. The person would also develop the mindset that winning is everything, and go to huge lengths for the sake of victory. To only focus on winning would mean that the person is extremely narrow and shallow, and this mindset is extremely unhealthy and would not help the person. There is definitely more to life than winning. Also, the person would develop the mindset that winning is everything, and his actions would revolve around the sole purpose of victory. Similarly, this is extremely unhealthy and detrimental to one's growth.
In conclusion, I hope I have successfully argued my point, by stating how too much competition can cause one to adopt poor and winning-oriented mindsets in life, which would ultimately harm the person in the future. However, this is not to say that competition is purely bad. If one knows how to properly manage competition and stress, and not get too worked up and obsessed with winning, then one would know how to reap the benefits of competition from others, like learning new things from the experiences.
Cheers,
Roystan
Firstly, what is competition? Competition is when you face rivalry from another person/group of people in something you do. We encounter competition everyday. Be it trying to attain the best results in our studies, or competing with others in sports, competition is part and parcel of our lives. Competition naturally breeds stress, and although most of us detest stress, experts have stepped up and commented that competition and stress play integral roles in our lives, helping shape us for the future. However, I would like to go one step further, and question: How much competition is enough?
I apologise if my question seems a little unspecific and cryptic. To put it in plain terms, I am trying to question if too much competition is detrimental to a person's growth and personality, despite the initial benefits. For example, John is a nice person who takes studies seriously but not to the point of obsession. He knows how to balance work, play and his social life, and has an easy-going personality. He excels in his studies as well, constantly in the top few in his class. However, one day, someone named Jack comes into his class. Jack turns out to be something of a supercomputer, extremely smart, and even surpassing John in terms of results. John is rather appalled at Jack, and thus competes with Jack in order to retain his title of top in class. To do this, John constantly studies everyday, neglecting his health and friends. He eventually manages to beat Jack in a test, but at the expense of losing most of his friends and suffering from illnesses. At the end, is the result really worth all the trouble he had gone through?
With the example I have provided above, I aim to explain how too much competition can harm someone, instead of benefitting and helping that person. If one faces much intense competition from someone else, the person would inevitably be determined to win the competitor. However, due to the equally high calibre of the competitor, to defeat the other person would be extremely hard as well. Therefore, the initial person would definitely try to defeat that person by hook or by crook. Therefore, the competition causes the person to actually neglect his life, and solely focus on winning. The person would also develop the mindset that winning is everything, and go to huge lengths for the sake of victory. To only focus on winning would mean that the person is extremely narrow and shallow, and this mindset is extremely unhealthy and would not help the person. There is definitely more to life than winning. Also, the person would develop the mindset that winning is everything, and his actions would revolve around the sole purpose of victory. Similarly, this is extremely unhealthy and detrimental to one's growth.
In conclusion, I hope I have successfully argued my point, by stating how too much competition can cause one to adopt poor and winning-oriented mindsets in life, which would ultimately harm the person in the future. However, this is not to say that competition is purely bad. If one knows how to properly manage competition and stress, and not get too worked up and obsessed with winning, then one would know how to reap the benefits of competition from others, like learning new things from the experiences.
Cheers,
Roystan
Mr Yam Ah Mee: Overnight star
Hi readers, today I am going to write about a topic that just happened. I am going to write about the overnight fame of Yam Ah Mee, and how the Internet can double up as a tool to ruin people's lives.
Firstly, let me provide a little background information about this incident. Yam Ah Mee was appointed to be the Returning Officer (RO) for the 2011 General Elections (GE), which meant that he was tasked to announce the official results of each constituency to the public. This also means that he had to keep a straight face and tone at all times. After he had announced the results for each party contesting in the constituency, he had to publicly declare the winning candidate(s) as the one(s) elected for that constituencies, using the same words over and over. As there were 27 Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and Single Member Constituencies (SMCs), he had to repeat the sentence "Pursuant to Section 49, Sub Section 7e, Paragraph A of the Parliamentary Elections Act, I declare (Winning candidate(s) ) of the (Party of the candidate(s) ) as the candidate(s) elected for the electoral division of (Name of constituency)" for 27 times. Due to this, and his straight and outright boring tone, he left a huge impact on many Singaporeans, and one even went to set up Facebook groups and fake Facebook accounts in his name, which has attracted much popularity over the past 2 days. Now, let me voice my opinion on the whole matter.
Personally, I pity Mr Yam Ah Mee. Even though many netizens claimed that they "honoured" him, the fact remains that he has received a great deal of unnecessary. Is it really necessary that he gets so much (negative) publicity and attention just because he did his job well? It was his duty to announce the results in a plain tone so that he would not display any bias, and he did that job well. What else was he supposed to do? Express elation when his favourite candidate is elected? Or scream in exhilaration when the party that he dislikes loses? It's the basic responsibility of the RO to be impartial and fair to all political parties, and I must commend him for this. However, instead of receiving any gratitude for doing his job well, he is now subjected to many jokes and teasing over the Internet. Just look at the largest Facebook page created for him, which has around 40,000 'likes' at the time of writing. If we put ourselves into the shoes of Mr Yam and his family, how would they like being the butt of many jokes? It is definitely unpleasant to be laughed at just because his job made him sound weird and comical to the public.
Which brings me to my next point; The Internet is indeed a scary place. Rumours can spread like wildfire, and it is with the Internet that this overnight fame can be possible. With the Internet, even more people can be made aware of Mr Yam, and it certainly shows how the Internet can easily ruin someone's life. Nothing is secret on the Internet, and if somebody posts something, it can easily be seen by many others all over the Internet. In this case, after someone set up a Facebook group 'celebrating' Mr Yam, so many other Facebook users went to 'like' it, and some techno-savvy people even went to make remakes of his speech, using different tunes like disco music. While some might dismiss this as mere fun on the netizens' part, if we look beyond this and actually examine how the Internet had been used as a tool to spread the messages, we realise that the Internet is indeed scary. Everything can be spread in the shortest period of time. We can easily know what is happening all over the world at a single click. This might be a good thing, but if some individuals abuse the Internet and use it to malign others, then the consequences could be fatal.
In conclusion, I am trying to convey two messages here. Firstly, this case shows how people are still resistant to change, as seen from the childish attitudes towards Mr Yam's monotonous voice, and how the Internet can be easily used to spread messages. I hope that this post has been a good read for you guys.
Cheers,
Roystan
Firstly, let me provide a little background information about this incident. Yam Ah Mee was appointed to be the Returning Officer (RO) for the 2011 General Elections (GE), which meant that he was tasked to announce the official results of each constituency to the public. This also means that he had to keep a straight face and tone at all times. After he had announced the results for each party contesting in the constituency, he had to publicly declare the winning candidate(s) as the one(s) elected for that constituencies, using the same words over and over. As there were 27 Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and Single Member Constituencies (SMCs), he had to repeat the sentence "Pursuant to Section 49, Sub Section 7e, Paragraph A of the Parliamentary Elections Act, I declare (Winning candidate(s) ) of the (Party of the candidate(s) ) as the candidate(s) elected for the electoral division of (Name of constituency)" for 27 times. Due to this, and his straight and outright boring tone, he left a huge impact on many Singaporeans, and one even went to set up Facebook groups and fake Facebook accounts in his name, which has attracted much popularity over the past 2 days. Now, let me voice my opinion on the whole matter.
Personally, I pity Mr Yam Ah Mee. Even though many netizens claimed that they "honoured" him, the fact remains that he has received a great deal of unnecessary. Is it really necessary that he gets so much (negative) publicity and attention just because he did his job well? It was his duty to announce the results in a plain tone so that he would not display any bias, and he did that job well. What else was he supposed to do? Express elation when his favourite candidate is elected? Or scream in exhilaration when the party that he dislikes loses? It's the basic responsibility of the RO to be impartial and fair to all political parties, and I must commend him for this. However, instead of receiving any gratitude for doing his job well, he is now subjected to many jokes and teasing over the Internet. Just look at the largest Facebook page created for him, which has around 40,000 'likes' at the time of writing. If we put ourselves into the shoes of Mr Yam and his family, how would they like being the butt of many jokes? It is definitely unpleasant to be laughed at just because his job made him sound weird and comical to the public.
Which brings me to my next point; The Internet is indeed a scary place. Rumours can spread like wildfire, and it is with the Internet that this overnight fame can be possible. With the Internet, even more people can be made aware of Mr Yam, and it certainly shows how the Internet can easily ruin someone's life. Nothing is secret on the Internet, and if somebody posts something, it can easily be seen by many others all over the Internet. In this case, after someone set up a Facebook group 'celebrating' Mr Yam, so many other Facebook users went to 'like' it, and some techno-savvy people even went to make remakes of his speech, using different tunes like disco music. While some might dismiss this as mere fun on the netizens' part, if we look beyond this and actually examine how the Internet had been used as a tool to spread the messages, we realise that the Internet is indeed scary. Everything can be spread in the shortest period of time. We can easily know what is happening all over the world at a single click. This might be a good thing, but if some individuals abuse the Internet and use it to malign others, then the consequences could be fatal.
In conclusion, I am trying to convey two messages here. Firstly, this case shows how people are still resistant to change, as seen from the childish attitudes towards Mr Yam's monotonous voice, and how the Internet can be easily used to spread messages. I hope that this post has been a good read for you guys.
Cheers,
Roystan
Friday, May 6, 2011
2011 General Elections: A major milestone in Singapore's history
Hi readers, today I would like to talk about the upcoming general elections. This year, 82 out of 87 seats in Parliament are being contested, up from 47 out of 84 seats in the previous 2006 General Elections, and a record high. Undoubtedly, this election is shaping up to be the most heated ever since the 1965 General Elections. Now, I would like to voice my opinions on my take on the PAP up till now, and my views on the election.
Firstly, a little background information about my GRC. My family is under East Coast GRC, and The Workers' Party is contesting in this GRC. I have not actually been to any rallies, so my opinion is based on the many news reports I read on the Internet, articles in the newspaper, and videos of various rally speeches.
Many complaints have been levied against the PAP recently, ranging from laments on the constantly rising cost of living to the lack of help given to the needy and elderly. These complaints have fueled much discussion, with many people questioning PAP's ability to continue leading Singapore.
I admit, in the past I was actually supporting the PAP. Whether it was because of the so-called propaganda known as education, I was pretty staunch in my support for the PAP, as in my opinion, they have actually built up Singapore from the slums of 1960 to the metropolis of 2010. However, my once firm support started to weaken, when I read this article, talking about how Dr Lily Neo openly questioned Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, in Parliament over the PAP's assistance schemes for the elderly. Even though I was merely reading text, I could sense her frustration, the frustration of wanting to do something but being unable to do so. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has been criticised for the overshot of the YOG budget, not by a little, but to a whooping S$387 million. Worse still, the allowance for the recipients of public assistance have increased from $260 a month in 2007 to $400 a month in 2010, a mere $140 more per month after 4 years. That also means, approximately the recipients have received a mere $3.50 more a day. $3.50 is not even enough for someone to buy a full meal (food & drinks) at a hawker center. This begs the question: Is Singapore's progress actually beneficial to the citizens? Although the government has boasted of the country's excellent GDP growth rate despite the 2008 recession, is this economic growth at the expense of the people? The citizens form the backbone of every society, and if the government is sacrificing the wellbeing of the citizens in order to continue progressing, what is the point of continuing ruling Singapore?
The above examples actually question whether the PAP has become more materialistic in their goals, and opt for materialistic gains like money instead of the welfare of the citizens. Not only this, the PAP has also been slammed for being increasingly complacent. For example, pertaining to the escape of Mas Selamat, instead of issuing any formal apology, the government instead tried to provide many excuses to cover up this incident, until PM Lee recently apologised to the public for the mistakes that PAP had made, including this.
Now, let me give my two cents on this elections, and the possible implications or benefits that it may bring. No one can deny that the opposition stands an extremely high chance in this election than ever before. But does the high number of opposition candidates mean a definite improvement in lifestyle for Singaporeans? Does a change in government bring along more benefits for the country? Now, let me try to express how I feel about the election.
Please note that I will not have any extremist views, neither will I openly voice my preference and support for any one political party.
Firstly, I do agree that the standard of PAP has been on the decline. I am personally appalled at how the price of everything, from GST to housing to COE, has been constantly on the rise. There is a sad but true joke: The price of everything has all increased. Only one thing has remained the same. Wages. The higher standard of living, coupled with some of the ministers' poor attitudes towards handling issues (Mah Bow Tan with housing prices, Wong Kan Seng with Mas Selamat, etc) has stirred up much unhappiness in the community. This could possibly be the result of much complacency on the PAP's part. Think about it; the PAP has dominated Singapore's political landscape for over 40 years; inevitably, PAP would have taken this for granted, and over the past few years, many policies of theirs have been met with much criticism. For example, the green light for the casino was greatly debated upon, and many analysts have voiced their worries on the possible future social repercussions, in spite of the short-term economic benefits (jobs, revenue, tourism, etc).
Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang had made a great analogy on the importance of opposition members in Parliament. To quote him, "Bear in mind that just putting on a safety belt and hope that the driver will drive you to your destination is not enough. A co-driver is essential, especially as (the) road gets tougher to navigate. The co-driver is there to slap the driver when he drives off course or when he falls asleep or drives dangerously." Indeed, Singapore needs checks and balances in order to prevent PAP from remaining complacent and implementing policies that might not be very beneficial. With more opposition members in Parliament, as compared to a mere 2 seats occupied by opposition parties previously, the opposition members would likely be able to question some of PAP's policies. Hopefully, when there are checks and balances, the policies that PAP have in mind would be properly thought out and vetted by different parties, so as to ensure that not only one party dictate how the country is run. Undoubtedly, different perspectives on how to run a country would help to provide insight for the government, so that they can pick out the best suggestions and implement them to help benefit the country best.
However, will having more opposition members in Parliament help improve Singapore? K Shanmugam questioned this analogy, saying, "Do you really want a co-driver who will be fighting with the driver to take over the wheel and slapping, kicking him? Is this the way forward?" This is an extremely valid point. I am sure that no one would want to see Members of Parliament constantly bickering about how to run Singapore. What is the point of having checks and balances if the two parties have different viewpoints and cannot get along together? What the Members of Parliament must understand is, they are no longer fighting with each other for seats in Parliament. Instead, they are working together, so as to help Singaporeans. Therefore, in order for this driver and co-driver analogy to work, there must definitely be a compromise between the members of different parties. If not, the whole point of having more opposition members in Parliament is rendered useless.
Another concern I have over opposition members in Parliament is their lack of experience in running a country. When people vote for the PAP, they know that at least PAP's policies would not be so disastrous, as most of the politicians have experience being in Parliament, and therefore have a first-hand experience in managing Singapore. On the other hand, none of the opposition members, barring Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang, Steve Chia (ex-NCMP) and Sylvia Lim (NCMP), have been in Parliament before, and thus, there is a worry that they are not competent and are thus not able to manage Singapore well if voted into Parliament. I share this worry as well, as I am personally not so sure if they will be able to step up and walk the talk, if they are voted into Parliament. With PM Lee, I have a certain level of confidence in him, that with him in charge, at least Singapore's policies would not go haywire and would not 'screw up' too badly. However, in 1963, PAP was part of the opposition, and although Lee Kuan Yew and the rest of the candidates had no prior experience to running a nation, they still managed to step up and deliver, making Singapore the first-world country that it is right now.
Recently, PM Lee made a public apology, where he apologised for the mistakes that PAP has done. This display of humility and remorse is indeed refreshing, and something different from how the different parties have been slamming one another for the past few days. I myself am quite impressed by PM Lee's courage to step up and publicly admit that the PAP has indeed made mistakes. Barack Obama himself had publicly admitted that he had made a mistake quite some time ago, and seeing how PM Lee himself is willing to admit his mistakes, perhaps the PAP is not as arrogant and complacent. However, seeing how he had made this apology only 4 days before Polling Day, one can't help but wonder if this is merely a last-minute attempt to arouse sympathy from the public and to win back votes. Nevertheless, as I have mentioned before, I am not on either side, and I cannot find myself to just doubt PM Lee's intentions just because he is under PAP.
This election has also been significantly different from previous elections, due to the prevalence of social media as a form of communication. For example, many politicians have their own Facebook pages, where they post pictures and posts of what they are doing. Currently, Nicole Seah has a whopping 75,000 people 'liking' her Facebook page, coming in second only to MM Lee, who has 81,000 'likes'. In my opinion, this is due to the increased number of Gen Y voters this election, and therefore the politicians have to use social media, so as to more easily reach out to these young voters. A few comments about social media suggest how the PAP has not done enough with social media to reach out to younger voters, and this could possibly reduce their support. PM Lee had participated in a webchat with around 5,000 people over the Internet, which, I suppose, is a good start to utilising social media.
Despite the strong opposition, there is still a possibility that all the opposition have done would be wasted, and PAP might still have a landslide victory. If this happens, I fear that the PAP may become even more arrogant, as even a high level of opposition proved to be useless in reducing their dominance. Potential opposition members might also be dissuaded to join opposition parties. In the worst-case scenario, the PAP might ignore all the criticism directed at them, and continue implementing their policies without thinking for the people. If the opposition loses by a large margin, we might never see such a strong opposition ever again, which might have severe repercussions for Singapore in the future.
Although I cannot possibly cover everything in the GE, I hope that I have brought up the key issues of this election, and helped to provide thought-provoking arguments. Tomorrow is Polling Day, and I am extremely excited for the results of this election, and I hope that this would be a new turning point in Singapore's history.
Cheers,
Roystan
Firstly, a little background information about my GRC. My family is under East Coast GRC, and The Workers' Party is contesting in this GRC. I have not actually been to any rallies, so my opinion is based on the many news reports I read on the Internet, articles in the newspaper, and videos of various rally speeches.
Many complaints have been levied against the PAP recently, ranging from laments on the constantly rising cost of living to the lack of help given to the needy and elderly. These complaints have fueled much discussion, with many people questioning PAP's ability to continue leading Singapore.
I admit, in the past I was actually supporting the PAP. Whether it was because of the so-called propaganda known as education, I was pretty staunch in my support for the PAP, as in my opinion, they have actually built up Singapore from the slums of 1960 to the metropolis of 2010. However, my once firm support started to weaken, when I read this article, talking about how Dr Lily Neo openly questioned Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, in Parliament over the PAP's assistance schemes for the elderly. Even though I was merely reading text, I could sense her frustration, the frustration of wanting to do something but being unable to do so. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has been criticised for the overshot of the YOG budget, not by a little, but to a whooping S$387 million. Worse still, the allowance for the recipients of public assistance have increased from $260 a month in 2007 to $400 a month in 2010, a mere $140 more per month after 4 years. That also means, approximately the recipients have received a mere $3.50 more a day. $3.50 is not even enough for someone to buy a full meal (food & drinks) at a hawker center. This begs the question: Is Singapore's progress actually beneficial to the citizens? Although the government has boasted of the country's excellent GDP growth rate despite the 2008 recession, is this economic growth at the expense of the people? The citizens form the backbone of every society, and if the government is sacrificing the wellbeing of the citizens in order to continue progressing, what is the point of continuing ruling Singapore?
The above examples actually question whether the PAP has become more materialistic in their goals, and opt for materialistic gains like money instead of the welfare of the citizens. Not only this, the PAP has also been slammed for being increasingly complacent. For example, pertaining to the escape of Mas Selamat, instead of issuing any formal apology, the government instead tried to provide many excuses to cover up this incident, until PM Lee recently apologised to the public for the mistakes that PAP had made, including this.
Now, let me give my two cents on this elections, and the possible implications or benefits that it may bring. No one can deny that the opposition stands an extremely high chance in this election than ever before. But does the high number of opposition candidates mean a definite improvement in lifestyle for Singaporeans? Does a change in government bring along more benefits for the country? Now, let me try to express how I feel about the election.
Please note that I will not have any extremist views, neither will I openly voice my preference and support for any one political party.
Firstly, I do agree that the standard of PAP has been on the decline. I am personally appalled at how the price of everything, from GST to housing to COE, has been constantly on the rise. There is a sad but true joke: The price of everything has all increased. Only one thing has remained the same. Wages. The higher standard of living, coupled with some of the ministers' poor attitudes towards handling issues (Mah Bow Tan with housing prices, Wong Kan Seng with Mas Selamat, etc) has stirred up much unhappiness in the community. This could possibly be the result of much complacency on the PAP's part. Think about it; the PAP has dominated Singapore's political landscape for over 40 years; inevitably, PAP would have taken this for granted, and over the past few years, many policies of theirs have been met with much criticism. For example, the green light for the casino was greatly debated upon, and many analysts have voiced their worries on the possible future social repercussions, in spite of the short-term economic benefits (jobs, revenue, tourism, etc).
Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang had made a great analogy on the importance of opposition members in Parliament. To quote him, "Bear in mind that just putting on a safety belt and hope that the driver will drive you to your destination is not enough. A co-driver is essential, especially as (the) road gets tougher to navigate. The co-driver is there to slap the driver when he drives off course or when he falls asleep or drives dangerously." Indeed, Singapore needs checks and balances in order to prevent PAP from remaining complacent and implementing policies that might not be very beneficial. With more opposition members in Parliament, as compared to a mere 2 seats occupied by opposition parties previously, the opposition members would likely be able to question some of PAP's policies. Hopefully, when there are checks and balances, the policies that PAP have in mind would be properly thought out and vetted by different parties, so as to ensure that not only one party dictate how the country is run. Undoubtedly, different perspectives on how to run a country would help to provide insight for the government, so that they can pick out the best suggestions and implement them to help benefit the country best.
However, will having more opposition members in Parliament help improve Singapore? K Shanmugam questioned this analogy, saying, "Do you really want a co-driver who will be fighting with the driver to take over the wheel and slapping, kicking him? Is this the way forward?" This is an extremely valid point. I am sure that no one would want to see Members of Parliament constantly bickering about how to run Singapore. What is the point of having checks and balances if the two parties have different viewpoints and cannot get along together? What the Members of Parliament must understand is, they are no longer fighting with each other for seats in Parliament. Instead, they are working together, so as to help Singaporeans. Therefore, in order for this driver and co-driver analogy to work, there must definitely be a compromise between the members of different parties. If not, the whole point of having more opposition members in Parliament is rendered useless.
Another concern I have over opposition members in Parliament is their lack of experience in running a country. When people vote for the PAP, they know that at least PAP's policies would not be so disastrous, as most of the politicians have experience being in Parliament, and therefore have a first-hand experience in managing Singapore. On the other hand, none of the opposition members, barring Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang, Steve Chia (ex-NCMP) and Sylvia Lim (NCMP), have been in Parliament before, and thus, there is a worry that they are not competent and are thus not able to manage Singapore well if voted into Parliament. I share this worry as well, as I am personally not so sure if they will be able to step up and walk the talk, if they are voted into Parliament. With PM Lee, I have a certain level of confidence in him, that with him in charge, at least Singapore's policies would not go haywire and would not 'screw up' too badly. However, in 1963, PAP was part of the opposition, and although Lee Kuan Yew and the rest of the candidates had no prior experience to running a nation, they still managed to step up and deliver, making Singapore the first-world country that it is right now.
Recently, PM Lee made a public apology, where he apologised for the mistakes that PAP has done. This display of humility and remorse is indeed refreshing, and something different from how the different parties have been slamming one another for the past few days. I myself am quite impressed by PM Lee's courage to step up and publicly admit that the PAP has indeed made mistakes. Barack Obama himself had publicly admitted that he had made a mistake quite some time ago, and seeing how PM Lee himself is willing to admit his mistakes, perhaps the PAP is not as arrogant and complacent. However, seeing how he had made this apology only 4 days before Polling Day, one can't help but wonder if this is merely a last-minute attempt to arouse sympathy from the public and to win back votes. Nevertheless, as I have mentioned before, I am not on either side, and I cannot find myself to just doubt PM Lee's intentions just because he is under PAP.
This election has also been significantly different from previous elections, due to the prevalence of social media as a form of communication. For example, many politicians have their own Facebook pages, where they post pictures and posts of what they are doing. Currently, Nicole Seah has a whopping 75,000 people 'liking' her Facebook page, coming in second only to MM Lee, who has 81,000 'likes'. In my opinion, this is due to the increased number of Gen Y voters this election, and therefore the politicians have to use social media, so as to more easily reach out to these young voters. A few comments about social media suggest how the PAP has not done enough with social media to reach out to younger voters, and this could possibly reduce their support. PM Lee had participated in a webchat with around 5,000 people over the Internet, which, I suppose, is a good start to utilising social media.
Despite the strong opposition, there is still a possibility that all the opposition have done would be wasted, and PAP might still have a landslide victory. If this happens, I fear that the PAP may become even more arrogant, as even a high level of opposition proved to be useless in reducing their dominance. Potential opposition members might also be dissuaded to join opposition parties. In the worst-case scenario, the PAP might ignore all the criticism directed at them, and continue implementing their policies without thinking for the people. If the opposition loses by a large margin, we might never see such a strong opposition ever again, which might have severe repercussions for Singapore in the future.
Although I cannot possibly cover everything in the GE, I hope that I have brought up the key issues of this election, and helped to provide thought-provoking arguments. Tomorrow is Polling Day, and I am extremely excited for the results of this election, and I hope that this would be a new turning point in Singapore's history.
Cheers,
Roystan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)