Blog of Personal Response to Current Affairs

Article title: Let’s (not) talk about condoms

Category: Societal issues

Entry No. 5

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2005/imp-231.htm

Let’s (not) talk about condoms. I would have to say this title definitely caught my eye, as promoting the education of condoms to teens, had been after all, part of my group’s Social Advocacy project. Our project proposal landed us with an MOE officer, who gave us much invaluable knowledge. Knowledge, I hope, that would help me overcome most of my inadequate understandings of this topic.

This article is about the increasing numbers of teenage pregnancies and abortions, and whether the sex education programmes should incorporate teaching of the use of contraception. Before my talk with the MOE officer, my view had largely been that contraception should be taught to teens. However, after discussion with her, I feel that I am now able to empathize with both the pro-abstinence and pro-protection camps.

The pro-abstinence group’s concerns are understandable. After all, if I imagined myself as a father, I would at all costs want to prevent my child from having sex until marriage. Singapore is also a conservative society, and many religious groups such as Catholics, oppose the use of the condom.

'Say you tell a teenager, 'You should try to abstain, but if you can't control yourself, use a condom'. That's like saying 'Don't cheat, don't steal, but if you can't help yourself, don't get caught'.' said a senior executive at the Family Life Society.

Although I identify myself with his concerns, I believe that it is possible to teach a teenager about contraception at the same time make it clear your hopes of him abstaining. The information would be after all, something he would need at some point in his life, not necessarily before marriage.

Recently, Singapore has considered reviewing our oral sex laws, a step many see as a sign that Singapore is finally moving away from conservatism. Besides that, we are also possibly legislating gay sex. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, a few months ago questioned the ban on gay sex, saying the government should not act as moral police. However, many people condemned such reviews, deeming such sexual acts as immoral.

Part of my group’s Social Advocacy proposal was to come up with posters encouraging contraception. There is a flaw in such a suggestion, as the MOE officer pointed out. This issue of contraception being brought up is a clear sign that Singapore is becoming less conservative and willing to accept new views. However, if Singapore pushes for the education of contraception, we need to bear in mind that there is still a significant number of conservative people in Singapore. We need to be sensitive to their beliefs and tact when we educate about contraception. It is the same, as when Singapore is now considering decriminalizing oral sex. Or as we push to legalized gay marriages. Sensitive issues as such should be changed slowly, to prevent public unrest. We have to accept the fact that we are, changing as a society, but at the same time, be aware that conservatism still exist among us.

500 words

Blog of Personal Response to Current Affairs

Article title: Singapore Retailers Go Green, 11 stores join campaign to use fewer plastic bags

http://app.nea.gov.sg/cms/htdocs/article.asp?pid=2068

Entry no. 4

Category: Societal Issues

Singapore is now introducing the Less Plastic Bag campaign. The campaign will include incentives to encourage shoppers to use less plastic bags, which includes charging customers for their plastic bags. This campaign will be likely to decrease the amount of plastic bags usage, as previous such campaigns in other countries have been huge successes. Through this campaign, the retailers save their bags, we contribute to environmental conservation, and Singapore benefits as its litter is reduced. Indeed, it seems like a win-win situation.

However, I feel that this campaign fails to address the main issue behind the problem. Granted that the campaign may be able to reduce the wastage, but the root of the problem has not been tackled. We are only focusing on plastic bags as if it's the be all and end all to all our problems. This results in people missing out the key concepts of the campaign, recycling and conservation.

Let us try to put ourselves in the shoes of a housewife who goes down to the supermarket to buy groceries. How many of them would truly understand the concepts behind this campaign? From what I have assumed from the news, to many of them this campaign may just mean having to pay more for the bag when shopping, or having to lug extra bags to the supermarket. As such, many of them view this campaign as troublesome.

I shall try to bring this issue to another context. Recently, Singapore also launched the Quit Smoking campaign. Part of the campaign was to broadcast gruesome images of a disfigured ex-smoker. Although it was hoped that the shock factor would cause smokers to quit, most of the smokers did not respond to it. Instead, they felt that they were being forced to quit, with their tables in the hawker centre being isolated etc.

Other campaigns, the One Million Smiles campaign, the Road Courtesy Campaign (Remember the corny “Pass it on, pass it on” song?), also did little to change the lifestyle
of Singaporeans. I suggest that this is because people have become focused on the most minute detail to campaign and change the consumer lifestyle in Singapore.

Therefore, I suggest that Singapore takes a step back and takes on a more holistic approach in their campaigns. What these incentives in the campaigns do is just enforcing laws upon people. Because of this, people may just feel resentful or irritated, and miss the whole concept of the campaign. They will just feel like they have been forced into a corner, and forced to do whatever the campaign tries to bring out.

As a conclusion, I believe that in order to tackle the root of problems, we first have to try to answer this key question “Why do people do that?” Only once we understand the factors behind the problems can we actually tackle them. If not, once the campaign fades away, people will start returning to their old ways and not change.

Its time we move beyond the plastic bags.

500 words

Blog of Personal Response to Current Affairs

Article title: Toursim Industry can earn more than S dollar 100m from F1 race: analysts

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/cgi-bin/search/search_7days.pl?status=&search=F1&id=275657

Entry no. 4
Category: Political/Societal Issues

Singapore is gearing up to host the F1 race, with many expecting lots of fast action off the track when F1 finally comes to town next year. According to Mr. Clement Lee and Mr. Dennis Foo, F1 would be a good opportunity that will put Singapore in the international spotlight as a global city. Also, it is believed the tourism industry will be making more than S$100 million from the race, and it would also benefit retailers, construction and logistics contractors, and the transport sector.
With the building of the F1 race track by next year, many more jobs would be provided. This would result in the unemployment rates in Singapore dropping. The constructing of the IR resort, scheduled to complete by 2009, would also provide jobs for many. I believe the constructing of the F1 racetrack and the IR resort are part of the Singapore government’s development plans to provide avenue and jobs to Singaporeans. This is a timely solution, due to the increase in the competition for jobs. With the immigration of vast numbers of foreign talents, and of labourers to Singapore, the unemployment rate is on a steady climb. The construction of the IR resort and the F1 racetrack would tackle the unemployment problem.
More importantly, I believe Singapore is constructing these places to add vibrancy to Singapore as a global city and business centre, which is abuzz with high quality entertainment and events. Besides constructing the F1 racetrack and the IR resort, Singapore constructed the Singapore Eye and many other attractions to boost Singapore’s reputation as a vibrant global city. I feel that this is an attempt by the Singapore government to shrug off Singapore image as a boring “nanny state”, and introduce the impression that Singapore is a vibrant city. However, I am not suitable to judge this as I am after all, only a student. There are many reasons for the construction of these attractions, many of which I do not know of.
Although the building of the F1 racetrack may seem like a good idea, we still need to be sensitive to those around us. Many Malaysians feel that Singapore is trying to compete with Malaysia in the economy. They might view us as trying to pose a threat to the Malaysian Grand Prix. Therefore, although we are celebrating the news of hosting the F1 next year, we should not in any way appear competitive with them, in order to maintain good relationships.
As a conclusion, the construction of the F1 racetrack is indeed a cause to rejoice, with the introduction of more jobs for our economy. At the same time however, we need to be sensitive to our neighbours, Malaysia, to avoid conflict. This is especially important as Rafflesians. Many of us will be future leaders of Singapore. We need to understand how others feel about our actions, and realise that our actions may cause them to question our motives. Only through this, can we maintain good ties with other countries.

The Ashley Treatment (note to teacher: pls do not mark this)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm
A Seattle family who opted to have radical surgery and estrogen treatments performed on their daughter in order to purposely stunt her growth has recently sparked off debates on ethics. Their daughter, Ashley X. was born with a condition called static encephalopathy. This brain disease causes Ashley to be unable to move her body to sit up, roll, or hold her head up, let alone walk.
The Ashley Treatment, as the controversial procedure has been dubbed, started in 2004 when the then 6-year-old began to show signs of precocious puberty. The family then opted for a complete hysterectomy (excision of the uterus), removal of the breast buds, an appendectomy(excision of the appendix), and aggressive estrogen treatment to advance the onset of puberty in an odd reaction that will likely keep Ashley at her present size of 4'5" and about 65 lbs.Her parents argued that Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children. Removing her uterus will avoid the menstrual cycle and all the bleeding/discomfort/pain/cramps that are so commonly associated with it. They also reasoned that Ashley's small size will purportedly allow her to be lifted by a single person instead of involving a complex system of ropes and pulleys and should also cut down in the likelihood of common illnesses for a person in her condition such as skin sores, bladder infections, and pneumonia.

Most people, from many of the forums I have read about this ethical debate, oppose the surgery. My stand on the Ashley Treatment, however, is that it is ethical. Ashley is already 9 years old and yet cannot move, cannot talk, cannot walk and has very little chance of ever being cured. Her diet would have to be severely restricted to stop her from gaining weight and the associated health issues as she grows due to the lack of exercise, and periods would add yet another difficulty to the parents’ lives, should the surgery not be performed. As such, I feel that the hysterectomy and appendectomy are justified. Also, the possibility of her getting married and having children are extremely low. I personally find it heartwarming that the parents have taken this step to enable them to be responsible for their little girl’s care for the rest of her life without involving strangers or having to put her into care. Although there are protests over Ashley’s rights to life, I would like to say that, Ashley’s parents too, have a right to a proper life as well. If the surgery was not implemented, Ashley would need ever increasing care as she grows up physically. This would be both physically and mentally exhausting for the parents and become nigh on impossible to do for the whole of her life. With the surgery, she can still grow mentally if possible whilst staying small helping the parents to care for her and have some degree of a normal life, she will possibly receive better care and attention because of it.


498 words

The National Kidney Foundation Singapore scandal
Article: Former Singapore charity head on trial for corruption
(Politics/societal issues)

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/174528.asp

Finally, Mr Durai is facing up to the music and paying for the crimes that he has committed. A wolf in sheep’s clothing, he deceived many Singaporeans and splurged their hard-earned money. 2/3 of the population of Singapore who had donated their bread and butter to the NKF, and all 2/3 of them had their money cheated. The NKF scandal caused a great amount of outrage from the public, which scarcely surprises me. As a young boy I often donated my pocket money to their charity, under the false impression that all of it would go to the needy. It would therefore come as no surprise to me, that the public, some of whom earn little but still donate, feel injustice at the revelation of the scandal. Being able to understand how many of us Singaporeans felt as a donor myself, I definitely feel sorry for those families who were deceived by the charity. As a Singaporean, it unnerves me that a charming and respectable-looking man like Mr Durai would actually go to such lengths to deceive the public.

After doing my research and readings of the current NKF saga, I have come to the conclusion that we Singaporeans need to be more discerning when it comes to donating money to charities. There are many charities out there that are not what they appear to be. Singaporeans have found this out, to our disappointment, only in recent times. The NKF, the most successful fund-raiser amongst charities in Singapore, got into a lot of trouble and various heads are now being sued for misusing the charity’s funds. Singaporeans, being such a generous lot, donated millions to the NKF, only to find out in the last year or so that the NKF gave its CEO an annual SGD600,000 paycheck, first class airline tickets and other excesses.

As a student, I understand that I may not have a full background understanding of the actually scenario of the NKF scandal. However, sometimes I wonder, if Mr. Durai had not tried to sue Singapore Press Holdings, and thus exposed himself, how much longer would Singapore have been kept in the dark? Would there have been Singaporeans who eventually did their research on the charity they were donating to and exposed them? As such, I would like to appeal to everyone to do something about it. The first thing everyone should do before they decide to donate to a charity, at the very least, would be to do some research before they do so. Ask questions. Find out where our money is going. How much are staff salaries? How much, especially, is the president or CEO, or MD paid? How much money actually goes to the cause? Should we wait till some random charity, say the NKF, gets exposed due to a blunder on their part, or should we do our research before giving, and if they are corrupt, expose them?

I say we take the second option.

492 words

Current Affair---ASEAN FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP 2007 Finals
Article: Advantage Singapore
(Political/societal issues)

This article is about the first leg of the the finals of the ASEAN football championship, Singapore vs Thailand. By beating them 2-1 in the first leg, the chances of us winning the ASEAN football championships would be higher, since we would only need to draw with them in the second leg to win. It was important to win the trophy as this would bring a huge amount of glory to our country, and also bring Singapore football to a new level. As a fan of the Singapore Lions, it would of course, also mean a lot to me if we won.

Personally, i was very disgusted with the way the Thai players reacted to the referee's decision for a penalty. As a sportsman, I understand the Thai players felt aggrieved about the controversial penalty decision made against them for Niweat Sriwong’s alleged tug on Noh Alam Shah when both players rose to challenge for a header in the box. I believe that it is not within my ability to judge the situation, but personally I did not see any substantial form of tugging in the box. There will always be times when the referee, in whichever sport, makes foolish or harsh decisions. The vehement protests from the Thais that followed were understandably inevitable. But for the entire Thai team to walk off the pitch, encouraged, no doubt, by their coach and their skipper, and refusing to continue with play as a sign of protest was thoroughly disgraceful.

I believe that this incident will also cause Anti-Singapore sentiment to simmer in Thailand. The relationship between Singapore and Thailand was already strained since Singapore's investment company Temasek Holdings bought a controlling stake in telecommunications giant Shin Corp from the family of then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra last year. Bilateral ties were further strained over a visit to Singapore by Thaksin last month. Such an incident would surely cause many Thais to feel bitter towards the Singaporeans.

What i can reflect about the ASEAN Finals is the issue of sportsmanship. As sportsmen, it should be understood that the decision of the referee is final. The walk-out by Thailand in the first leg was a clear indication of the lack of sportsmanship. Such misbehaviour would definitely tarnish the image of ASEAN football to the world. As South-east Asia is trying embrace professionalism in football, it is incidents like this that will cause what we have tried to build up for so long to collasp. Any form of misbehaviour by our players, not just the Thais', will impact the world's view of ASEAN football. Because of the walk-out by the Thais, ASEAN football has become the laughing stock of the world, with many now coming to believe that our football is unprofessional. I feel that strong action should be taken against the Thai players, to send out a resounding message that such behaviour will not be tolerated in ASEAN football.