I very strongly feel that calculators should NOT be allowed in the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE).

As quoted from the press release, “The calculator is a tool to help pupils with their computations. There will be no change in the question types, the number of questions for each type, or the level of difficulty of the questions.” This means that the questions would be simple enough to be done without a calculator as the many generations have done before them. It is this simplicity that allows for training to be fast and accurate when it comes to mathematics, a skill that is critical as one move up the education pathway in Singapore. If a primary school kid is to move to secondary school without a strong foundation in this skill, it would be really difficult for him to survive, as speed and accuracy is essential in all the subjects, not just mathematics up in further education.

Also, introduction of calculators may also mean over-reliance on these machines. No more memorizing of time-tables, no more familiarization of the common numbers that aids in increasing the reaction speed of people when it comes to daily arithmetic. This over-reliance would instill a mentality in the children that the answer is as such because the calculator said so, mathematics exists because of the calculator, which is not true! The calculator only exists because mathematics exists. With this new mentality, the essence of mathematics would be lost by this over-reliance on calculators, mathematics would be taken for granted.

Lastly, the introduction of calculators may bring a negative attitude in the students. Whenever a student is unable to calculate a sum, he consults the calculator; it is a simple task to do. This constant consultation may bring about the idea that everything in life would work out, which is not true about life. Life brings about challenges and obstacles that do not just work out this simply. This constant reminder of convenience may cause the students to feel despair easily later on in life, when they face much bigger problems. This is due to the fact that they have not gone through many hardships in their course of learning as they were taught to find the “easy way out” but consulting machines. 0 comments

Alcohol and tobacco are generally considered socially undesirable products in the society today. However, I feel that alcohol and tobacco companies should not be deprived of their existing rights to advertise their products. I do acknowledge that alcohol and tobacco are harmful to the body, however, this is an issue on whether alcohol and tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise, not on the detriments of such products.

For a new policy to be introduced, and in this case, the banning of advertisements of alcohol and tobacco products, three criteria must be fulfilled before it can be implemented. Firstly, there must be a significant need for the policy. Secondly, the current status quo should be proven detrimental and lastly that it must be highly practical for the policy to be implemented.

Coming to my first point of argument, on why it is unnecessary to not allow alcohol and tobacco advertisements.

Society at large is already aware of the negative effects of alcohol and tobacco. This general knowledge provides people with the ability to protect themselves from the detriments of alcohol and tobacco consumption by making an appropriate choice with regards to these products. For those people who have been living in an ivory tower, the government does play a part in educating and informing the general public of these detriments through anti-smoking campaigns and advertisements that feature parts of the body that has deteriorated due to excessive smoking.

Once education has been carried out, it is no longer the responsibility of the government to be further protective of its people and prevent them from consuming or using alcohol or tobacco if they want to. Indeed, the government has fulfilled all the responsibility it holds to the people, and has no further part to play in the people’s choices, which is not THEIR responsibility. Therefore, with the people being informed consumers, there is no need for us to not allow alcohol and tobacco advertisements.

Furthermore, advertising is not going to alter the mindset of consumers about the benefits and drawbacks of alcohol and tobacco itself.

According to a study published in the Fall 1995 Journal of Marketing, most 6 years-olds were able to associate “Joe Camel”, which is a carton version of the dromedary that has appeared on packages of Camel cigarettes, to cigarettes. However, 85% of these kids had a negative attitude towards cigarettes. Even children at age 6 are able to recognize that cigarettes are harmful, and thus, expressed a negative attitude towards it, much less teens and adults who have been educated and informed. This shows that an advertisement, even when often viewed, have very little effect on the desire of these people to consume tobacco products, once they are educated to the effected of tobacco.

Adding on, not only are these advertisements a negligible factor in deciding the choice of people to use tobacco or alcohol products, they can also be used to push forward positive messages. Observe the advertisements for beer during festive seasons that often end with a message to avoid drink driving.

Also, since smoking and drinking has no real health benefits, there are limits to how much one can exaggerate when advertising. Thus, the advertisements will not be misleading to the people. To quote an example, Tiger beer cannot call beer beneficial to our health; what they do instead is to merely say that there are special occasions in which drinking is a good idea. Hence the popular phrase, “It’s Tiger Time”.

Hence, I strongly feel that it is unnecessary to ban alcohol and tobacco companies from advertising their products. 0 comments

I agree with the legalizing of abortion in Mexico. Mexico City previously allowed abortion only in the cases of rape, if the woman’s life was at risk or if there were signs of severe defects in the foetus. Even though that was the case, many victims of rape were actually denied access to legal abortion. Mexico is the world’s second largest Roman Catholic country. Following their religious beliefs, they do not feel that abortion is the right thing to do.

There was an estimated 200, 000 illegal abortions in Mexico each year. Of these women, at least 1500 of them die during the botched operations performed in unhygienic backstreet clinics. Which is the worse scenario? To lose both the mother and the child through illegal abortion, or to only lose a child through legal abortion? Indeed the best way would be to have both stay healthy and alive. But will they be happy? There must be reasons for one to choose to abort one’s child. If the reasons are not addressed adequately, chances are the lives of the mother and the child would not be very good. For example, family violence may be present in a family, without solving the problem, it would not just be the mother suffering but the child as well. Also, rape victims, after being traumatized by the experience, would probably not want to keep the child. Keeping the child would very much remind them of the experience which would then follow them through the rest of their lives.

Admittedly, even through legal abortions, there are risks and negative after-effects of abortion. However, these would be the same risks faced, if not of a greater risk for mothers who may opt for illegal abortion. Also, these effects are the responsibility of the mother, not of the country, hence the country should not have a limitations to whether abortion should be banned, just like people are informed of the negative effects of smoking but smoking is not totally banned, this would mean that the responsibility lies on the consumers.

Also, the safety of the mother has already been put into consideration. The longer a pregnancy lasts, the more dangerous would abortion be. Hence the lawmakers in Mexico have decided only to permit abortions of pregnancies in the first 12 weeks. Hence, there would be a greater reduction of risks when it comes to this legal abortion. 0 comments

With astronomers discovering a planet that is potentially habitable, I personally do not feel a need to spend so much money on finding out more about the existence of extraterrestrial life.

What exactly is the point of finding out whether extraterrestrial life exists? Even if it exists, having lived harmoniously with humans inhabiting the Earth for millions of years would mean that they would not have much impact on us. Their existence would not change much about the daily lives of people here down on Earth. The only possible impact may be paranoia in the people, since extraterrestrial may mean threats from outer space, as many current movies on screen would like to show us. Why disrupt humans’ lives with such discovery?

Also, the millions of bucks spent on space discoveries can actually be put into better use. Starvation in developing countries is a serious problem. Instead of spending the money on space discovery, it should be used to relieve the starvation in the developing countries. Why are developed countries wasting resources to find out things that would not affect much of the world when the truth is, there are people out there in need of just a fraction of that amount of money to stay alive. In addition, starvation is actually getting worse in the developing countries because of the developed countries. Global warming is causing much damage to the world, impacting the developing countries the most with droughts and other natural disasters. Who is the main cause of global warming? Is it not these same people focusing so much on space discovery?

While people may argue the impossible possibility of moving people up into space because the other planets are habitable, my opinion is that it is not feasible at all. Yes, the Earth is so depleted, it is dying soon, but it is not possible to move the whole of Earth up into space. The world has a current population of 6 billion people, which is heavily reliant on technologies and conveniences, things that will take a lot of time to develop in space. Also, this planet, Gliese 581, is 20 lightyears away from Earth. That is effectively 200 trillion kilometers, try moving the population up, impossible isn’t it?

With that, there is no substantial need to find out so much about space. Whether extraterrestrial exist or not, whether planets are habitable or not does not affect us humans, as it has never affected us these many years. Why not channel energy into the major problems now? Like energy shortage, global warming, starvation, there are problems we can help ease. So why not solve these problems instead of finding out more and possibly creating more problems? 0 comments