Response to "How terrorism finds root in the west"

Url: http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SXX75345-0-7236&artno=0000262329&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N



This article talks about how the extremist ideologies of terrorism could have originated from Europe. The French president now encourages neighboring nations to make a more conscious effort to integrate Muslims into their community, thus avoiding the potential of terrorism completely.

Terrorism has always been known to spring up in the Middle East nations, due to conflicts in issues such as religion and politics, but it is logical that the actions of Western communities may also drive the Muslims affected to desperate measures to achieve their ends. Many examples of such circumstances happening are given in the article. If terrorism is really nurtured in Western civilizations, it is important to rectify the mistakes as soon as possible.

The factors linking terrorism with Western communities are: the clashing of political and social ideologies and alienation of the Muslim population. Of this, alienation is perhaps the most critical factor of all. Leaving out, or shunning the Muslim population will develop tension between the majority and Muslim minority. To a larger degree, the rights of the Muslim population will be compromised as social stratification occurs. The Muslims might then turn to other options in order to exact revenge or get what they want. On a larger scale, it might as well lead to acts of terrorism. This is similar to racism in some ways.

I feel education might be the way out of this situation. It is well known that racism still exists in societies today mostly because of the lack of understanding between races. Similarly, with different religions, there exists much tension because both sides fail to fully understand each other. With a bit of patience and understanding through education, religious acceptance and tolerance, there would be no need for violent demonstrations of unhappiness.

In countries like the United States, Muslims are successfully integrated into the society. Our own country is considered multi-racial, and indeed, multi-religious. Our pledge dictates that every individual is equal regardless of race, language or religion. Some time ago, it was announced that Singaporean Muslims were not supportive of the terrorist ideology. Though it might have been because Singapore had already hosted Muslims for a long time, and most of the European Muslims are recent immigrants, I still feel that if some countries are able to exhibit sensitivity, others should be able to integrate Muslims into their communities, and put a stop to terrorism.

Response to "A dangerous, costly path"

Url: http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SXX75345-0-7236&artno=0000261411&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N

This article deals with concerns about nuclear power, as well as the positive and negative impacts of using it as a viable source of energy. The author, Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, highlights the pros and cons of nuclear energy, relates it to the greatest issue of our generation - global warming, and gives suggestions on possible alternatives.

Global warming is something that might not affect the individual directly, but its effects can be read in newspapers everyday. News of rising sea levels, melting ice caps, floods and droughts, are becoming increasingly common. Nuclear energy does not contribute to carbon emissions and is capable of producing enormous energy. While it seems to be the answer to global warming, it is too money consuming and unsafe for mankind to use it worldwide. We could use other 'clean' sources of energy like wind or solar power, which are cheaper and safe, but have lower energy outputs.

The article stresses on the importance of energy conservation, which is highly overlooked. Indeed, every single person can prevent that tiny bit of carbon from escaping to the atmosphere and contributing to the greenhouse effect. Simple measures such as turning off electrical appliances when not used and making the effort to recycle plastic bottles and metal cans help greatly to decrease carbon emissions. Also, it does not stop at the personal level. Some supermarkets set aside certain days when disposable plastic bags must be paid for, to encourage more people to use reusable bags. 'Green' cars have been designed, and are increasingly popular with the community. Recently, a few countries organized 'Live Earth', aiming to spread the message of energy conservation to the world. These are the ways in which we have attempted to resolve the issue of global warming.

I feel that the most viable way of stopping carbon emissions is to use clean energy from three sources: wind, solar, and hydroelectric. These three sources should be our main energy providers, with nuclear power providing a minor 6% of the energy as it is today. That way, the radioactive by-products generated would not go out of our control. This, I feel, is the best way of reducing carbon emissions, but it might not be cost-efficient or practical. As of now, only 7% of the world's energy supply comes from renewable sources; the transition from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy would take a lot of time and money.

Indeed, Frances Beinecke feels that a more gradual approach by allowing nuclear power to compete with other renewable sources does better, and also feels that energy efficiency is the most important resource of all. A gradual change makes sense, because change in this area is difficult to achieve when the world places economy first, rather than the environment. We have to make the transition slow and steady, and meanwhile, do our part by conserving what energy we can.

Response to "Employers, employees should begin dialogue on jobs for older workers"

Url: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/277181/1/.html

This article is about the government's decision to re-employ older workers due to Singapore's ageing workforce. According to Mr Lim Boon Heng, employers have not been taking the ageing workforce seriously, nor have they began tapping into this source of workers. However, an older workforce is inevitable, and this legislation is expected to kick in in another 5 years, after concerns have been voiced and addressed.

An ageing workforce is a serious issue, as it means older employees. That is not necessarily bad, however, as an older employee may be more experienced. The trade-off might be the efficiency at which a task is performed. In any case, I feel that hiring older people, or even allowing older workers to keep their jobs is generally a good thing.

Firstly, I feel that this plan is getting to grips with what appears to be a major problem for the future of Singapore. In geography class, an ageing population is described as a bad situation, when there are fewer young people to maintain the country's economy. However, our government has turned this problem around by mobilizing the older population for work.

Secondly, I believe that this plan will also provide something meaningful for the older generation to do: they can stretch their legs, and not be a burden to the family. They can enjoy their work, and even contribute to their family's monetary earnings. In a way, this is killing two birds with one stone; the older population do not laze around, but engage in activities which please and benefit everyone, especially themselves.

I feel that there are bound to be people who are concerned about legislation and how it will affect them. This group of people should be the existing employees who fall between the twenties to middle-aged. The obvious questions in their mind should be, "Will I get to keep my job after this legislation? Will there be tougher competition?" The government will not force employers to create additional jobs; it is entirely up to their discretion. Regardless, the government will ensure that those with existing positions keep them for a few years more.

With the older generation going out to work again, some people might have qualms about it. Some of us do not feel safe riding in a taxi driven by an old man; few people can imagine men or women above sixty working as accountants. However, I feel that it gives a more general view of society. We should not stereotype the older generation as white-haired people who sit in the park, playing Chinese chess all day. Regarding the taxi driver example, while it is true that older people have poorer eyesight, they are still more experienced than any middle-aged driver. A good way to solve this is to conduct regular eye screening for the older taxi drivers, to make sure that their eyesight is satisfactory.

As a minor in society, I might have the wrong intepretation of ideas, but it is obvious that legislation will benefit the country's economy.

Response to "Hit-and-run accident at Outram"

Url: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/187480.asp
Article can also be found in The Straits Times, Wednesday, 9 May 2007, under the title "Motorist pursues car, notes licence plate number", in the Home section.

This article is about how a businessman contributed to the capture of another hit-and-run motorist. Mr Hoo witnessed an fatal accident along Outram Road one evening and was shocked to see the driver speeding away from the accident area. He knew the licence plate number of the car and so informed the Traffic Police, which arrested the suspect under the suspicion of drink driving. The victim of the accident, a 29-year-old nightclub worker of Chinese nationality, died 10 minutes after the accident.

Road accidents are unpleasant events which result because of carelessness from a pedestrian or driver. Injuries and death often follow, but hit-and-run accidents are far worse because it underlines the irresponsibility of the motorists. Instead of pulling over to aid the victim, they floor the gas pedal and blow past without a second glance. I believe that this sort of response stems from the panic and shock from knocking down a person. First there would be the awful realization, then panic as the driver tries to rationalize his actions. He would reassure himself that the accident was not intentional, and that the victim was not in much danger, though sadly it is usually not the case for the latter. Then, he would speed off, hoping that no one saw the accident. Under those circumstances, running away might seem rational to the drivers.

Injuring or killing a fellow human being is a crime, even in a road accident. Our government is especially stringent in its law enforcement, and with good reason as there are already 91 hit-and-run cases in the first quarter of the year. The main reason for these accidents is the consumption of alcohol before driving. Alcohol impairs the body's senses if taken in large amounts, and a drunk person poses a serious danger to pedestrians if he drives. I feel that the government has done its part in controlling the 'drink-driving' situation, through notices and fines. However, many people continue to drive, even after all these deterrents. 914 people were apprehended for drink-driving in three months alone.

I feel that drink-driving is really irresponsible of a driver. Knowing that driving after drinking alcohol poses a real threat to the community, the driver disregards the rules and goes ahead with driving. Although there might be unseen difficulties for the driver, he still has a responsibility; if not for the public, then for his family. How would his family feel if he was put to prison for killing someone, and then driving away from the crime scene? I feel that the alcohol limit for a person to be driving should be lowered, and the fines should be more lenient. If drivers have an alcohol level just below the limit, and they get involved in accidents, it makes no difference.

In conclusion, I admit that as a child, it is quite difficult for me to understand the way adults' minds work. Perhaps the drunk drivers had a good intention to go against the law. In any case, to prevent accidents, both pedestrians and motorists should remain vigilant.

Response to "Singapore gearing up for 6.5m population"

Article retrieved on 10 February 2007

This article is about how the Singaporean government is preparing for a 40% jump in population by implementing plans for future housing, recreation and transport needs. There would be trade-offs, but National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan promises that Singapore would not find herself unable to support 6.5 million people.

Singapore, an island only 683 square kilometers large, has one of the largest population densities in the world. Making room for 6.5 million people while ensuring that the important factories and industries share a large portion of the land requires housing to be built vertically, thus optimizing land area. However, it is undeniable that we would have to live more densely, and doing so might put stress and pressure on the citizens. The government, I feel, has solved this problem by maintaining that Singapore would remain a lush green city. Sky gardens, much like those in the newer HDB estates, would be the trend; waterfront gardens in Marina Bay are being developed, and parks across Singapore would reach a maximum of 400km in area.

I feel that the government, in tackling this problem first, is aware and sensitive to the Singapore citizens' feelings. Most of us live in high-rise estates and the blocks are usually tightly packed together. To increase the population by almost half puts a strain on every one of us; we would have to live with even less space. Greenery, however, is scientifically proven to be able to help us calm down and de-stress. The presence of plants at the roof of an apartment, between flats and essentially in any available space helps us relieve the pressure. Addressing this problem also shows the government's priority to keep the society in good spirits.

Planting vegetation across the island gives Singapore a 'green' image, not just in the literal sense. Plants provide a good supply of oxygen in the day and can help absorb the harmful air pollutants generated by cars and factories. Bringing into account the recent spate of hazes, the need for vegetation is even more apparent.

Overall, I believe that these plans are well thought out and feasible. One of the drawbacks is the time taken for the plans to be implemented. Especially the plan concerning the doubling of the rail network to further connect parts of the island, it would take well over five years to complete, far longer than the Circle Line construction. As for the strong sections of the plans, I feel that the building of new regional business centres in Jurong and Paya Lebar are commendable as they would reduce the congestion in the CBD areas.

Of course, I base these judgments not on professional knowledge, but as a citizen of the society of Singapore. As I only provide the commoner's point of view, I believe that others with accumulated experience have different points of view compared to mine regarding the effectiveness of these plans. However, I am confident of the citizens' feelings towards this project: most would find them enriching yet effective.

Response to "New drug aims to fight obesity-related problems in Britain"

Url: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/europe/view/258017/1/.html

This article is about how scientists in Britain have discovered a new drug which can cope with obesity-related problems, using hormones which restrain the user from eating too much by mimicking the stomach feeling full. That way, obese people would not eat so much and would reduce weight.

This seems like a solution to the obesity problem in Britain, which incidentally records 30,000 deaths yearly due to obesity cases. However, using drugs would not solve such a problem. As I understand it, the problem is that some people in England feel that such a drug is the easiest solution to obesity. In a society where physical appearances and being fit matters, the need to slim down exerts a great pressure on those who are deemed as fat and therefore "unsightly". These people see this new "hormone drug" as the key to their troubles: pump in the appetite-controlling hormone, sit back, and slim down.

There might be unforeseen consequences, however, such as the possibility of the excessive usage of the drug. It could lead to "under-eating" and even death. Another case would be anorexic symptoms. Although this new drug has opened another road in the fight against obesity, I feel that education might be the best method to resolve the problem. Much like drug abuse, the users of such a drug should be educated and cautioned, and the distribution of the drug controlled. It is best to refrain from taking the drug, so obese people should be encouraged to shed weight the hard but safe way.

This situation shows the human nature of wanting to do things the quick and easy way, and how people subject to pressure from the society. This situation can be looked at from both sides. The obese people might be driven to take drugs and other hazardous ways to slim down quickly because of the way the society works. I too have found myself teasing my overweight friends on more than one occasion, and I do not really understand how it is to be the subject of cruel jokes and ridicules. Therefore, it is not really fair for me to judge the obese people in England as the way I do. In their prospective, it might be rational to pursue such a method to cut down on eating food.

In conclusion, I believe that the society is partially to be blamed for this problem. It is not so much of what the trend is in a society, but it is how ordinary people on the streets, including myself, view these obese people. This not only applies to England but to societies worldwide. If we could view them in a better light, and if both the society's people and the obese were to be educated, then the society itself would become a better place to live in. The people on the streets would not be prejudiced against the obese, and the obese would know of better ways to slim down and lead a healthy lifestyle.