Monday, February 27, 2012
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut (1961)
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Greetings and salutations!
Dear denizens of 12S03V and 12S06L,
First and foremost, welcome to this blog.
Week 8 is upon us and with the Common Test 1 looming in the near future, I think you realise that the fun and games that you have been accustomed to in Year 5 are slowly coming to a standstill and you are back to the daily grind of lectures and tutorials – but that doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing : )
Although this blog was set up primarily to provide you a platform to continue your in-class discussions (or even start new ones), you are also free to air your views or concerns with regard to college-based events and activities.
Several guidelines when posting to this blog:
- Please try as far as possible to use grammatically-correct English. This means no computer jargon (msn or sms – type language or short forms though smiley faces are fine). After all, this is one way in which we can all try to improve our written English. I realise it may not come naturally at first, but give it time and I think you can all rise to the challenge.
- Please have ownership over what you blog about (i.e. you need to take accountability for your words by signing off with your class and name after each post). This ensures that nobody hides behind the curtain of anonymity and gets away with controversial or salacious entries. This is not to say we must avoid controversy at all costs – on the contrary! Debate or dissent is crucial to a lively discussion.
- There are 2 GP classes included as authors of this blog and I chose not to have a separate class blog for each of you as I think although we may be discussing the same issues in class, the points raised may be different. It is therefore important that we leverage on one another’s strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, all parties involved in any online discussion here need to do it in an academic fashion – do not put down your peers unnecessarily (no spamming, flaming, disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing) and when there is an issue you can’t seem to agree on or resolve, I certainly hope it wouldn’t translate to you being uncivil to each other in real life as well.
- When replying to a thread, please do it in the comments section so that the rest of us can follow the discussion proper. Only start a new post when you are trying to introduce a new idea or pose a new query. I personally feel that this cuts down on the confusion.
- Please do not ask me to change the blogskin (I love simplicity hence the bare, white, zen-like choice of theme. I also think words/thoughts/opinions should be the focus of this blog, so that’s what we should colour or decorate the blog with). Please also do not ask me to include a tagboard. Those who have come before you have tried and failed – but perhaps you could be more persuasive than them and are feeling lucky : )
Ok, I think I have rambled on long enough about the do’s and don’ts. I apologise in advance if you think they are too restrictive. The ball’s in your court now.
Here’s to intelligent, healthy, collegial discussions!
Best regards.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
No promises but GOALS!
Friday, May 20, 2011
Monday, May 18, 2009
Cree Indian Proverb
Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been
poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that
money cannot be eaten.-- Cree Indian Proverb
This proverb means that after we have destroyed what natural resources our land has, then we will realise that money isn't everything, and will not be able to provide us with nutrients for survival.
A hypothetical example would be if a country has exported all her natural resources like timber, oil, wool, water, everything, in return for money, then they ultimately have to buy all these goods back from other countries because money cannot be directly consumed; it is just a medium of transaction.
That is why most countries in the world today are so concerned with sustainable development, because there is no point in having a large growth in the present but forgoing future growth so satisfy present needs (of having money). An example would be Singapore which focuses on supply side increment to boost future growth, like NeWater and investment in capital goods (like machinery). For NeWater, we invest a lot of money into trying to develop a method of desalination or converting seawater into drinkable water.
Many countries are not focused enough on sustainable development and they will suffer in the future. An example is Brazil which is clearing their rainforests for their plantations to thrive. This will affect them adversely in the long run because they would not have much natural resources left for future use.
Ruisi, Yadi, Baorong, Serene 09S06J
Do not be fooled into believing that because a man is rich he is necessarily smart. There is ampe proof to the contrary
In today’s world, wealth does not reflect one’s intelligence, but it is about taking opportunity. Teachers are smart, but most of them are not rich. In the modern economy, opportunities are everywhere, and success only comes to those who make the most of them. Opportunity comes in many forms, as inheritance from the family, a business opportunity or just winning the lottery. Richest men in the world are people who do business, not scientists or inventors. A study of Jay Zagorsky, a research scientist at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, shows that there is no relationship between IQ and wealth. People with high IQ face as much financial problems as low IQ people do.
Besides, with the influence of the media, one does not have to be smart to get rich. The celebrities’ world today is full of people who do not have good education. In sports, players in the EPL or NBA are highly paid. What they do have no relation with intelligence. All it takes are fame, beauty and talents.
In conclusion, there are rich people who are smart, but not all of them. Having low IQ is being handicapped and high IQ means advantage, but it does not tell anything about one's wealth. With globalization, it takes more than just intelligence to achieve success.
-Arjun, Toan, Trung, Lionel (6J)
Sunday, May 17, 2009
“One must be poor to know the luxury of giving.”
Undeniably, being poor makes it easier for us to understand and empathize what it is like to be poor, and hence appreciating the luxury of giving. However, it must be noted that that is not a requirement. Rather, the understanding of the luxury of giving can be imparted through proper education systems and inculcation of good values such as sharing and giving. For example, the education system of Singapore emphasises on community involvement programmes, which includes helping the poorer people in Singapore through voluntary services and financial/provision aids. By going through such structured educational programmes, students will be able to learn and appreciate from young, the luxury of giving to the financially unprivileged. Therefore, it is not necessary that only people who have been poor can understand the luxury of giving.
Done by:
andrea, claire, joel, kersh, weiliang 09S06J
Don't be fooled into believing that because a man is rich he is necessarily smart. There is ample proof to the contrary. - Julius Rosenwald
With reference to the article "The End Of Poverty" written by Jeffrey Sachs, only 5 countries have met the goal of making sufficient contributions (7% of the country's GDP) to cut the world's extreme poverty in half by 2015 as based on the UN Millenium Project. It is already the year 2009, and the progress thus far towards the ultimate goal is rather dismal. This could be attributed to the apathy from developed countries, as even "Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers". Perhaps corrupt rulers could be blamed for the current situation in developing countries such as India where women in poor states are given the jobs of carrying away the contents of latrines and the men are simply non-existent. But the fact that these countries lack even decent leadership shows the extent of help that should be rendered to them. After all, corrupt leaders are merely focused on personal wealth and success. Helping developing countries "onto the ladder of development, [giving] them at least a foothold on the bottom rung, from which they can then proceed to climb on their own" doesn't necessarily mean removing such leaders. Barriers of trade could be removed and taxes on imports could be lowered. Such actions that impact the commoners directly (and that from international pressure) could give them the voice and confidence to overthrow corrupt officials.
A man who is rich may not be empathetic towards the poor as he has not experienced what the poor are suffering from - diseases, malnutrition, lack of education, etc. It does not make him dumb for being unable to have a first-hand experience of such living conditions, but it makes him ignorant of the less fortunate should he fail to try to understand what they are going through. Jeffrey Sachs also holds the belief that contributing towards eradicating poverty has a monkey see-monkey do effect, as "the broad public will accept such measures [to achieve the 8 goals of the UN Millenium Project], especially if they see that the rich within their own societies are asked to meet their fair share of the burden". Julius Rosenwald is proof that the contrary to the above quote, that the rich can be smart, exists as well as he founded Rosenwald & Weil Clothiers and used his wealth to establish the Rosenwald Fund for "the well-being of mankind". It was initially targeted at African American education, but later expanded to cover the finances of public schools, colleges and universities, museums, Jewish charities and black institutions, donating over 70 million dollars.
- Melissa, Bryan, Chenxuan, Yongsheng, Shiyang! :D (09S06J)
In the case of Paris Hilton, it is a classic case of rich girl gone bad. Her exploits around Beverly Hills made possible because of her prestigious and affluent background have been in the limelight, topping them all with her recent one day jail term. Evidently, money here could be seen as a catalyst for many or if not all the worries and badness of the world, as goes the cliched phrase of the "root of all evil". God apparently has chosen to bestow money on bad and contemptable characters, illustrating his perhaps distaste or even the little good that he thinks of it. Thus, exacerbating the effect of money as an agent of evil.
Bernard Madoff is other example of placing money in the wrong hands. Making his company one of the top ones on Wall Street, Madoff was believed to be an extremely wise businessman. However, he abused his marketing ability to create the largest ponzi-scam ever in history, whereby almost $65 billion went into his own pockets. Now the money is nowhere to be found. Several charity foundations were forced to close as a result, and victims who were left penniless could have used the money to invest in other business that could have ensured them comfortable lives. Through this example, we cannot not admit that the money is given wrongly to a less suitable person.
While Parker may feel that money was given inappropriately and undeservingly to certain individuals, there are exceptions whereby money was given to kind souls. Bill Gates is known to be one such person. As the founder of a software company Microsoft, he evolved into a philanthropist as well, establishing a non-profit organization named Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This goes to show the good that people can do with money, and that God sees money as a tool of opportunity instead. By giving money to the people like Bill Gates, who was born into an upper middle class family, wealth distribution around the world can be enhanced and there is hope in resolving poverty problems.
All in all, we believe that money is merely a tool that is utilised by almost each and every human globally. How this "tool" is being used and for what purposes determines its value and worth in society. We cannot say that without a doubt, God has given money to either deserving or undeserving individuals, and thus thinks of the value of money in a certain manner. God has given almost everyone money. What people do with this money is what matters most. We are all given a choice. It depends on what we do with it.
Done by: Serena, Michelle, Xiao Xiao & Chelsia (09S06J)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Blog Response on Globalization
Globalization is a process of global economical, political and cultural integration. Yet as one may logically deduce its motive to be one that is altruistic, – to create a more homogenized and thereby peaceful world – what is apparent in the modern paradigm is one that is far from its original intention. On its way to creating a more peaceful world, globalization has instead engendered more conflicts than ever, an irony in itself.
The concept of globalization is not just confined to the economic or political realm, but it has also pervaded the sphere of cultures. True enough, globalization has opened doors for the exchange of cultures and traditions between nations. But what this brings with it is also the repercussion of culture and identity dilution. All thanks to globalization, nations around the world have been increasingly homogenized and their traditional rituals and practices have also been gradually eroded, or else tainted by the influences of other cultures. While homogeneity amongst people may serve to promote equality or at least equity, it may also breed conflicts sparked off by people who are hungry for a sense of identity. To these people, the paramount need to break out of the homogeneity could give rise to conflicts in order to show their dissatisfaction for the wearing away of their local cultures.
What are your views? Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique cultures and traditions, or would we end up being mini-Americas?
If we pay close attention to the world’s most active markets, they are mostly economies that are globalized and in some way or another, westernized and Americanized. Being part of the global economy requires us to advance towards the next stage of development, and that implies in part that we have to adopt the ways and cultures of America. However, it must be understood that nations in the global economy may be mistaken to end up being ‘mini-Americas’ for the simple reason that America is the modern epitome of a nation in its most mature stage of development. Hence, in trying to align themselves closer to the Americans’ ways of life in hope that economic success comes their way too, nations aspiring to have a bigger share of the global market tend to mimic Americans in all their endeavours, and in the process, trade off their own cultures and traditions. Having said this, it is not impossible to retain the unique cultures and traditions a country has. Albeit the corroding effects of globalization on local cultures and traditions, something can be done by the locals in a bid to retain the cultures in the country, and this hinges on the extent of the willingness of people to carry out such course of actions and inadvertently, it also pivots on the level of acceptance on the part of the rest of the nation. Governments should take the lead in the preservation of unique local cultures and traditions. Already, many schemes have been piloted for this purpose. For instance, in Singapore, the National Heritage Board has been set up to help champion the development of heritage and cultures in the local context, and in recent years, annual national heritage week has been celebrated by an increasing numbe people. The abovementioned shows us that while we cannot entirely shun away from being influenced by America’s cultures if we want to be part of the global economy, we still have some deciding power over the preservation of local cultures and traditions.
Is Globalization Imperialism repackaged?
Because of the increased interconnectedness of the world due to globalization, with the transfer of manpower and knowledge, comes the exchange of cultures as well. However, the appeal of certain cultures, especially that of American popular culture, stands out more than that of others. Thus, globalization could be argued to be a new form of cultural imperialism, particular by the West.
This is because in many countries, such as in the third world, the effects of globalization can be best seen from the Westernization of the locals. For example in the case of Bangalore, the newfound financial and domestic independence that young women experience has been influenced by Wilsonian idealism on self-determination. Furthermore, consumerism in such countries has soared, and demand for American brands and modes of entertainment has soared. Thus, with American culture seeping into such countries at such rapid rates, it seems as if it is a new form of imperialism.
However, the extent of these influences is determined by the people in that country – how Westernized Asia has become depends on how much its people subscribe to these foreign ideas. Thus, it cannot be said that globalization is a new form of imperialism, as the adoption of new culture are not being forced onto people; rather, people in increasingly cosmopolitan cities have decided to embrace these cultures for themselves. Thus, even though there is a form of cultural supremacy, it is one that has been created by the choice of the people being captivated by it.
Globalisation - Response
Imperialism is defined as extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, usually dominating its economic, cultural and political workings. On the other hand, globalisation reflects the increasing interconnectedness, integration and interdependency of the world today brought about by improvements in technology and telecommunication services.
Globalisation can be said to be imperialism repackaged
- Similar economic motives and hence outcomes for both processes: Imperialism resulted from the need for developed countries due to increased demand of cheap raw materials as well as to gain more markets and increase their consumer base as a form of maintaining their booming economy. Globalisation, similarly, is a process where countries seek to maintain their economic competitiveness by outsourcing their factories to lower-cost locations by utilising cheaper factors of production (i.e. labour) in those countries.
- In both processes, the winners (i.e. countries that benefit the most at the expense of others) are usually the developed countries that are economic juggernauts and have a strong political clout over other developing countries that may benefit unequally (e.g. due to profit repatriation in manufacturing industries) due to globalisation/ imperialism.
- Dilution of cultures may occur as a result of both the influx of foreign ideas from the colonial masters due to imperialism as well as increasing consumer convergence due to globalisation (i.e. more countries are consuming goods from all around the world)
Globalisation is not imperialism repackaged
- Imperialism means that a country loses its identity/ nationality totally as it is under the rule of another nation. However, globalisation retains the identity of each country, just that there is increasing interdependency between various countries.
- An advantage of globalisation involves the transfer of technology and skills to the developing world as workers learn to manufacture goods, but this is not seen in imperialism.
2) Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?
More peaceful
- Part of globalization deals with the creation of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and trade blocs (e.g. European Union) that allow more economic cooperation between countries
- Creation of international aid agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) has alleviated poverty in some of the poorest countries e.g. the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative by the IMF and offered assistance during emergency crises e.g. Debt Crisis in 1982
More conflict-laden
- Protectionistic measures by developed countries results in increased income inequality between the “haves” and the “have-nots”: measures such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in Europe and huge subsidies given to cotton farmers in America have led to the developing countries being unable to match the low prices of those in developed countries and are thus unable to sell off their exports and earn income
- Despite the creation of agencies such as the IMF and WB, aid given usually comes with strings/ conditionalities attached such that developing countries are unable to repay their loans in the future and become worse off. Moreover, these bodies are designed such that the powerful Western nations are favoured (e.g. countries like US are allowed a veto, enabling to block decisions that go against their own economic interests.)
3) Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture/ traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americans?
Culture Retained
- Globalization will definitely impact countries, but their culture can be retained if there is government intervention. By continuing to celebrate different religious festivals such as Deepavali or Hari Raya, it will help to retain a country’s unique culture/traditions.
Culture not Retained
- Globalization will affect local culture due to language barriers. English is widely accepted as the universal language. As such, this will give rise to the erosion of certain languages such as dialects. As countries become more and more globalised, dialects will slowly be forgotten and eventually be gone for good.
Done by: Christian Chow, Eugene Ang, Samantha Tang, Justin Liu, Vionna Luah
09S07A