Term 3 Independent Post 4

                                       NDP 2011 Penny Low

                Penny Low is the MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. She “rose to fame” when during the NDP National Anthem. Every Singaporean was singing the National Anthem, while she, she on the other hand, was Facebooking. An MP Facebooking during such an important event? This catches everyone by surprise, or at least it caught me by surprise.  She apologises publicly and posted her apology on Facebook. She explains:

“I was so caught up in the wonderful NDP 2011 and felt so proud of being a Singaporean, that i wanted to capture that moment of pride, at the very tail end of the anthem, to share on FB with my residents. If in my enthusiasm i offended anyone, please accept my apologies. NDP is a time to unite not divide. Majulah Singapura!”

            How we find a person depends greatly on what qualities we choose to look at. Most netizens find that Penny Low is disrespectful. However, she was the only one amongst the Cabinet members who actually wanted to share this moment with her residents. However, she still should have waited till the end of the anthem. She is in the wrong, but when we look things from different angles, we have different opinions.

            As for her apology, I don’t find it sincere. She posted this message online, and probably did not take time to type it. All the “I”s except for the one at the front of the first two sentences are not capitalized. I feel that the sentence “NDP is a time to unite not divide. Majulah Singapura!” is actually an indirect way of saying, “Don’t make a fuss. We shouldn’t do such a thing during NDP.” However, some people interpret it as Penny Low lecturing Singaporeans on being united. They feel that she was lecturing other Singaporeans even though she is in the wrong.

Term 3 Independent Post 3

                       A fair deal in Court

                A fair deal in court, can it be achieved? No. Why? We have to look into how the court operates.

                Usually, there is a jury, unlike special case, which decides if the prosecuted is guilty or not. This jury is made up of a group of people “randomly chosen”. Everyone is prejudiced; it’s just a matter of whether he or she shows it to the world. This prejudice can make a lot of difference in a court case. An example would be the court case in “To Kill a Mocking Bird”. This book is about discrimination. Tom Robinson is a black and was accused of raping a white woman. The town, in which the story resides in, Maycomb, is prejudiced against blacks. The people feel that all blacks are criminals. The jury, even without looking at the evidence, has a preconceived notion that Tom was a rapist and he is guilty. Later on, despite all evidence pointing otherwise, the jury still found that Tom was guilty. The judge, who decides the sentence, has no say in whether he is guilty or not, although he knew that Tom did not rape the woman. In the above example, the jury is prejudiced against Tom, and the outcome of the court case was inaccurate.

                In order for something to be “fair”, perspective is very important. Take the Osama assassination for example. Should he be given a fair court trial? Or should he have been assassinated immediately like what has been done? If you choose to assassinate him there and then, the world would be a safer place to be in. This would be a fair thing to do if you look from the perspective of the rest of the world. However, if you look at things from Al Qaeda’s perspective, it is unfair as Osama did not stand a chance, not even given the opportunity to go to court to stand for a trial. For something to be fair, it’s all about what perspective you look at the issue from. When something is fair from one point of view, it is unfair from the other. Things can almost never be fair in a court, as there is at least 2 very contrasting points of view. You can never have the best of both worlds. Nothing is perfect, just like a court case.

Term 3 Independent Post 2

                        Increasing the Price of Transportation
            SMRT and SBS wanted to increase the price of their fares a few weeks ago. This has caused uproar amongst the members of the public. The cost of living in Singapore is already very high, and transportation fees for adults are not cheap either. This isn’t fair to the public. However, there are advantages for them to increase the price of transportation fares.

            In order to increase the transportation fares, SMRT and SBS have to apply to the government. As a private organisation, the goal for SMRT and SBS is to reap as much profits as possible. One way is to increase the transportation fares. However, the government would only approve of the increase if they the public is satisfied. To satisfy the public, SMRT and SBS have to improve their services in to win the public’s favour and “silence the majority”. In such a scenario, it is a win-win situation. Both parties benefit.

            Train services and bus services are forms of public transport. They should be cheap and make travelling within the country easier. However, train and bus services are run by private companies. One can never have the best of both worlds. If the fares for train and bus services are very cheap, there is no reason for SMRT and SBS to work so hard to improve their services as their profits still remain low. As a result, the conditions of the train and frequency would not be has good, and passengers would suffer. However, if the fares for train and bus services are high, the private organisations would strive to keep their passengers happy lest they demand for a decrease in price. In the end, service is good and everyone is happy.

            We cannot blame SMRT and SBS for wanting to increase the price of transportation fares as they are private organisations. Private organisations want to earn as much profits as possible. That is where the government comes into play. The government acts as the voice of the public, disapproving of the increase in price if the public is unhappy. If the government doesn’t disapprove of the increase when the public is unhappy, the government would lose the support of its people in the next election. There are other areas SMRT and SBS can earn revenue from like advertisements. They can increase the price of advertisements as doing so does not affect the general public but only companies. This would keep everyone happy.

Term 3 Independent Post 1

Ministerial pay

                There has been a huge uproar about the minister’s pay recently in Singapore. The ministers of the little red dot receive a pay far more than that of the US president Barak Obama. The president in Singapore takes home US$2.7 million per month while Obama only earns US$400,000! Obama is the president of the most important country, and yet his salary is lower than that of a comparatively insignificant red dot, a red dot which most people in countries like UK do not know of.

                Where does this US$2.7 million come from? It comes from the tax payers in Singapore. Money flows out of our pockets and into the minister’s wallet. We can accept this, if the minister is doing a very good job. However, George Yeo, who lost his seat in Parliament, earns $2,000,000 every year due to pensions while seating in his home doing nothing. On the other hand, Barak Obama is working very hard to earn US$4,800,000 while George Yeo earns around US$1,000,000, a quarter of what Obama earns, for doing nothing. This money is not taxable! Also, if he knows he only has one more month to live, he can ask for and get 14 years of pension ($28,000,000) up front in a single lump of money! Why should we be paying a former minister who is currently doing nothing $2,000,000 every year when he can go out and find a job to make a living? In addition, if a minister is eligible for pension (served at least 8 years), he would receive his pension and his salary concurrently.

                The Singapore Government testified saying that this was a means to prevent corruption. By paying the high salary, the ministers earn so much that they do not think of corruption and keep the government corruption-free. With this high salary, it is very difficult to determine why the Singapore ministers are leading the nation. Is it truly because of their urge to serve the nation, or is it because of their urge to pocket the money which comes with the job?

                So, is there really a difference when serving the nation for money or from the heart? When serving the nation from the heart, decisions made by the ministers do not benefit oneself only but the country as a whole. For example, a minister is faced with a decision, and there are two options: One would benefit the whole country but not himself. The other option allows him to add a few thousand to his monthly salary at the expense of the rest of the country. A minister serving from his heart would choose the first option while a minister serving for money would choose the second. This is the main disadvantage when you have ministers serving for money. It is very clear which is the preferred type of minister. However, can Singapore afford to reduce the salaries of its ministers in an effort to sieve out all ministers who serve for money and not from their heart? The answer is no. Singapore is a small country, with a small pool of talents compared to the other countries. Among these talents, only a few are willing to serve the nation, and among the people who are willing to serve the nation, maybe only half is willing to serve the nation from their hearts. Given the low salary, those talented people who want to serve for the money would find other jobs which can give them a decent income. Without the high pay, only these few people who are willing to serve the nation from their hearts would join the government, leaving a lot of seats empty. Either the people who are willing to serve all take up multiple roles in government, adding to the stress each of them face, or just leave them empty. The high salaries the ministers receive help attract more people to the government, and pulling in the people who serve for money to fill up the empty positions. With the high salaries, the ministers would not bother to use underhand techniques and risk losing their jobs. Also, when it comes to decision making, they would not want to make a decision which would benefit them as they may risk losing the next elections too. In other words, there is an invisible force forcing them not to make selfish decisions but only those which benefit the nation generally.

                As a whole, without the high salary, there probably would not be enough talented people filling up the vacant seats, but with the high salary, it is unfair to Singaporeans in general as they pretty much pay to have a government which should not be the case.

Arranged Marriage

                An arranged marriage is marrying someone who one does not get to court with and find out more about. It is almost like marrying an acquaintance. The decision to marry is usually done by the couple’s parents. In the past, they look at how reputable the family is and at their wealth. Nowadays, most people do not practice arranged marriage anymore as the importance of individual rights increase. I too disagree with an arranged marriage. However, there are some countries where people actually agree with arranged marriage!

                There are some advantages to an arranged marriage. It gives youths more time to enjoy their time being youths, without having to worry about a relationship and the responsibility which comes along with it. Arranged marriages also allow people who are physically handicapped or socially inept to get married. This is an advantageous situation for them. According to a website, I read that Indians, who practice arranged marriage, base their relationship on commitment and not on feelings. “An Indian woman described it as "Here, we get married without having feelings for the person. We base our marriage on commitment, not on feelings. As our marriage progresses, the feelings develop. In America, you base your decision to marry on feelings, but what happens when the feelings wane? You have nothing left to keep the marriage together if you get married according to feelings and then the feelings go away."” This woman has a point. There is a chance that their feelings wane. If the couple base their marriage on feelings, there is a chance that this may result in a divorce, as there are no feelings for each other anymore.

                Most Westerners cannot fathom the idea of marrying someone they do not love. Instead, they believe that a marriage should be based on feelings. They believe that marrying without having feelings for each other would not bring happiness. Having the chance to court one’s girlfriend or boyfriend gives him or her chance to better understand the other party’s likes and dislikes, his interests and what he hates. From there, one can decide if the other is a suitable mate.

                I feel that it is very important to have understanding in marriage. With understanding, you would be able to know what the other party likes and dislikes and from there deduce if he or she is a suitable pair. With this understanding, the couple would be able to communicate better and minimize the chances of quarrels and misunderstanding. The second most important thing in a marriage would be commitment. If the other party is not committed and decides to part halfway, it would bring one lots of sorrow. Thus, commitment is the next thing I would look out for in a relationship. Finally, I would look for virtues. This would be the final thing I would look for in another person before marriage.

Should America have dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan

                The atomic bomb is a famous bomb. The mushroom-like shaped smoke is both magnificent and terrifying. Radiation from the atomic bomb caused many Japanese to suffer, even the younger generations. Scientists predict that this would affect the generations to come. Many died in the hands of the bomb, and buildings collapsed due to a single explosion, one which changes the lives of many. This was the very bomb which was amongst the factors which caused the Japanese to surrender. This was one of the reasons which caused World War II to come to an end. It is also the very reason why some Japanese are born disfigured. Should the US have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan? No.

                As mentioned earlier, the bomb has quite a punch, along with radiation as a “complimentary gift”. The bomb instantaneously melted some Japanese. The people who survived are disfigured and are affected by exposure to high amounts of radiation. Their lives can never be the same again. Furthermore, their children stand a chance to be born disfigured. Almost all innocent lives were ended within that area, including babies and children who are new to the world. As for the survivors, when they have children, there is a high chance that their children would be disfigured, and a possibility that when they too have children of their own, their children too would be affected by the radiation through various means. This is a bomb which has a large “target audience”, affecting not only the people alive, but the people of the future too. This is one among the reasons why US should not have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan.

                New to the world, the atomic bomb was never tested out before. No one knew the extent of its power, not even the American Scientists. America issued an ultimatum, warning Japan that if it does not surrender, the atomic bomb would be dropped on them. Even American Scientists did not know of its power, let alone the Japanese. It is like telling someone who has no idea what urine is to share answers during a test, and warning him that if he doesn’t, you would splash urine on him. You tell him that it is smelly and disgusting but the most disgusting and smelly thing he has seen in his life is sewage water. He may think that there is nothing in the world that is dirtier that sewage water and is thus willing to take the risk. Of course, you splash urine on him and he may fall ill due to diseases in the urine, possibly ending up taking antibiotics. Japan did not know the extent of the atomic bomb’s power, and probably thinks that it was not so powerful and therefore takes the risk. The Americans should test out the atomic bomb first on a smaller scale before dropping it as it is a nuclear weapon. However, we cannot blame them as it is a war and everything is chaotic.

                The dropping of the atomic bomb was unnecessary. Japan was fighting a war on too many fronts, and the amount of troops it has is very limited. It would just be a matter of time before Japan surrenders due to the lack of troops or completely run out of troops and is vulnerable to external attack. In addition to that, when a country fights a war on too many fronts, it tends to perform poorly. In other words, Japan would ultimately surrender. It is just a matter of when.

June Hols Post 2

                The Tanjong Pagar Railway Station will be relocated to Woodlands Train Checkpoint. The train services would cease on 1 July. There is a huge surge in passenger load as Singaporeans rush to take the train for the last time.

                I took the train recently and felt that it was a one-of-a-kind experience. When I entered the Railway Station, I was greeted with old paintings and grey walls. The Railway Station is not very well maintained and cleaned. At the platform, the chairs and fans were mostly spoilt. The train was old and rusty.

                Before I entered the train, my passport was stamped by the Immigration Officers at the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station. The stamp said that I had arrived in Malaysia. The train ride is a trilling one. The grass and weeds at the sides of the tracks were considerably tall, some reaching up to a meter. The trees, unlike those you see along the roads of Singapore, were bent towards the train track. The train ride was a long one, and finally the train arrived at the Woodlands Checkpoint. There, the Singapore authorities officially states that I am leaving Singapore. Then, I boarded the train and left for Johor Bahru.

                Now, what happens if someone commits a crime on the train while it is still in Singapore? Would he or she be prosecuted under Singapore or Malaysian law? Physically, the culprit is in Singapore, but according to the passport he has already arrived in Malaysia. I feel that the culprit, in this case, should be prosecuted under Singapore law. Although Malaysia authorities acknowledged his arrival in Malaysia, the Singapore Government did not acknowledge his departure. Since the Singapore Government did not acknowledge his departure, and there is no stamp or record of him leaving Singapore yet, he should be prosecuted under Singapore law. After all, he is still within Singapore. However, if the crime were committed after the Singapore Government acknowledged that he has left Singapore, he should be prosecuted under Malaysian law.