When we talk about heroes, the first thing that comes to mind is usually some muscular "superman", or cool-looking people wielding heavy weapons and posing in some intimidating manner. However, in today's society, there are indeed heroes among us, but they are much different from our imagination. These heroes may be just an average citizen, just like you and I, but they have may great contributions to the society, whether it is a few or a lot.
In fact, even people like doctors and firemen are heroes in our world, as they have indeed contributed much to the welfare of the people. They have selflessly spent most of the time serving the community, by ensuring the safety and well-being of the people. This is indeed a heroic duty for the society in order to help us all.
However, there is a group of heroes who have caught worldwide attention, and has been on the front of the media for many days, one hundred and eighty to be exact. They are the factory workers from the nuclear plant of Fukushima. They have braved the radiation threat from the plant, and have put in their best effort in trying to repair the damaged reactors. In fact, they have so willingly risk their lives in order to solve this nuclear crisis.
By sacrificing themselves for the good of the society, isn't this heroism? They have to go through an undescribable ordeal just to ensure the world will not be affected by the nuclear threat. They put their lives on the line just to make sure others will not suffer from radiation poisoning, even though they know there is a chance they will die. They show no fear, they have great courage, they stand up for the people and help us to live in a better place free of the radiation threat. Yes, they are modern day heroes. The entire world is also praising them, calling them heroes of the society and thanking them for what they are willing to do for other.
One does not need to be strong or have super powers in order to be a super hero. As long as he has great courage and is willing to contribute to the good of the society, he will definitely be a hero. He will have to help others and do things for their sake, and not merely do it for fame or for themselves. They need to be sincere and passionate about help the society and letting the average people benefit and live better lives. These are the true heros.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Filial piety
Recently, the government had to implement the "Parents Maintenance Scheme", in order to ensure that the elderly are not neglected by their children. This helps to support the welfare of the elderly and allows the children to take care of their parents. This act wanted to let the elderly live through the rest of their lives happily and without any difficulties. It not only lets the elderly receive financial aid through their children, but also benefits them socially as they spend more time with their children. This was what it intended to do.
However, it is actually not very useful in most cases. Actually, if the individual cannot take care of his parents out of his own moral duty, through his sense of responsibility, how much difference would it make? There would be no sincerity in taking care of their parents, and they are doing it just because of the sake of the law. However, if the parents are only being provided the basic necessities, and not given any love or affection, there is no point in doing so. In fact, it is no different from rearing an animal if one does not love his parents.
So why is this happening? Youths today are getting more ambitious and want to pursue their own dreams. As they have a better quality of life and are being well taken of their parents throughout their lives, they tend to take it for granted. Some of them become so spoilt that they become extremely selfish and refuse to think for their parent, forgetting the sacrifices they have made when we were young. Thus, when we grow older, we will take our parents for granted and do not cherish them.
Look all around you. In the dog-eat-dog world today, everyone is striving to be a better person and become more competent than the rest. They would naturally want to concentrate on their work and tend to neglect their parents, ignoring the need for love that they deserved.
However, shouldn't we break out of this vicious cycle now? We should really stop and think about what our parents have done when we were young. They had taken care of us and devoted much of their time to us when we were young, so we should do the same. We should learn to cherish our precious moments with our parents and show them more love and affection. Spend more time together, pursue some hobbies, go out for some family time, do anything and everything that will make your parents happy, at least through their golden years. Merely putting food on the table for them is not good enough.
Would you like your children to do the same to you in future? Remember what your parents have done for you. We owe them a lot and it is our duty to repay them.
However, it is actually not very useful in most cases. Actually, if the individual cannot take care of his parents out of his own moral duty, through his sense of responsibility, how much difference would it make? There would be no sincerity in taking care of their parents, and they are doing it just because of the sake of the law. However, if the parents are only being provided the basic necessities, and not given any love or affection, there is no point in doing so. In fact, it is no different from rearing an animal if one does not love his parents.
So why is this happening? Youths today are getting more ambitious and want to pursue their own dreams. As they have a better quality of life and are being well taken of their parents throughout their lives, they tend to take it for granted. Some of them become so spoilt that they become extremely selfish and refuse to think for their parent, forgetting the sacrifices they have made when we were young. Thus, when we grow older, we will take our parents for granted and do not cherish them.
Look all around you. In the dog-eat-dog world today, everyone is striving to be a better person and become more competent than the rest. They would naturally want to concentrate on their work and tend to neglect their parents, ignoring the need for love that they deserved.
However, shouldn't we break out of this vicious cycle now? We should really stop and think about what our parents have done when we were young. They had taken care of us and devoted much of their time to us when we were young, so we should do the same. We should learn to cherish our precious moments with our parents and show them more love and affection. Spend more time together, pursue some hobbies, go out for some family time, do anything and everything that will make your parents happy, at least through their golden years. Merely putting food on the table for them is not good enough.
Would you like your children to do the same to you in future? Remember what your parents have done for you. We owe them a lot and it is our duty to repay them.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Technology - Curse or gift?
With the growing development of technology, it has unlocked many significant changes in our life, and created things that people once thought were impossible. Fifty years ago, who knew that there would be such an extraordinary invention called the computer in the near future? As people continue to gain more knowledge and experience, we are beginning to take more steps in the field of science. As a result, we are able to improve the quality of our life, making it more convenient to get past our daily activities.
One such fascinating invention that changed our lives forever is the Internet. With one click of the mouse, we can conveniently find almost everything in the world that we are looking for. Whether it is just to chat with friends or to search for some information, we can easily use the Internet to do it.
However, with all those advancement in technology, there is bound to be the bad sides of it. For example, after the discovery of electricity and its practical uses, people have began to use it in their daily lives, and have become a very useful tool. This also lead to the short comings which followed suit. Today, the world is troubled by the dangers of global warming, which is partly also due the large usage of electricity, resulting in the release of harmful gases which damaged the environment. In fact, research today shows that the great consumption of electricity is one of the factors which contributed to global warming.
From this one example alone, we can show that the advancement in technology has also caused much damage and harm to the society, which is far more significant and worrying than the mere convenience that technology gave us.
Another example would be the invention of firearms, of those deadly war machines that only exist for the sole purpose of destruction. In fact, the invention and development of weapons and war machines have no benefits to the human race besides causing hurt to our fellow humans. Over the years, millions have been killed in pointless wars, ruining the lives of countless people and causing them to live in misery.
So, we need to stop and think for awhile. Although the world of technology gave us many benefits, is it worth all those other bad points that also came as a result? If it causes us much suffering and harm to the society, is it worth continuing on? Does it still fulfil its true purpose of making our lives better?
One such fascinating invention that changed our lives forever is the Internet. With one click of the mouse, we can conveniently find almost everything in the world that we are looking for. Whether it is just to chat with friends or to search for some information, we can easily use the Internet to do it.
However, with all those advancement in technology, there is bound to be the bad sides of it. For example, after the discovery of electricity and its practical uses, people have began to use it in their daily lives, and have become a very useful tool. This also lead to the short comings which followed suit. Today, the world is troubled by the dangers of global warming, which is partly also due the large usage of electricity, resulting in the release of harmful gases which damaged the environment. In fact, research today shows that the great consumption of electricity is one of the factors which contributed to global warming.
From this one example alone, we can show that the advancement in technology has also caused much damage and harm to the society, which is far more significant and worrying than the mere convenience that technology gave us.
Another example would be the invention of firearms, of those deadly war machines that only exist for the sole purpose of destruction. In fact, the invention and development of weapons and war machines have no benefits to the human race besides causing hurt to our fellow humans. Over the years, millions have been killed in pointless wars, ruining the lives of countless people and causing them to live in misery.
So, we need to stop and think for awhile. Although the world of technology gave us many benefits, is it worth all those other bad points that also came as a result? If it causes us much suffering and harm to the society, is it worth continuing on? Does it still fulfil its true purpose of making our lives better?
Is critisim a right way to teach?
Previously, our class had the most unpleasant experience of being forced to go through a one-hour lecture by a certain teacher from a certain school. It so happened that the particular teacher came to out class in a foul mood, and began to find faults with everyone, venting her fury anger at anyone unlucky enough. Fortunately, I had done everything to be asked without fail and thus escaped from the wrath of that teacher.
After nagging almost half the class for simple things ranging from not doing their homework well, to insignificant things like muttering as they speak to others. We all heaved a sigh of relief when that teacher finally finished "terrorising" us and briefly went out of the classroom. However, the damage had been done. The cherry mood that the class once had at the start of the day ceased to exist, replaced by feelings of anger and hatred. Some fellow classmates also could not take all those criticism in one swift blow and almost broke down.
As I tried to put away this dreadful memory, I cannot help but think - No matter what the situation is, should we use criticism as a means to tell other what to do (or in this case what not to do) ?
In fact, criticism should not be used as a way to "teach" others what to do. As I mentioned earlier, it only tells others what not to do, serving as a mere form of deterrence. It does not give other people the message on what they should do; we should tell them what they are supposed to do and at least set an example for them. Otherwise, that lecture would only leave a very small impression on other people and they will not heed it.
Additionally, people have their own sense of pride, their dignity. We should learn to respect others and tell them nicely what they should do - as if we were giving them a friendly advice. Look at the difference: If a teacher comes over to the student and starts ranting him for not paying attention in class, will it be more effective then when a teacher speaks gently to the student "Please listen. It is very important in your studies you know, so I appreciate it if you can pay more attention". In the second case, it is more effective.
When you tell other people nicely, you are giving them face, and giving them the impression you are doing it for their own good. If you repeatedly criticise them for what they are doing, it makes them lose their self-esteems and makes them lose face. It not only aggravates them and cause them much hurt and hatred for that particular person, but it is very ineffective in carrying out the message as well.
If someone came over to you and start giving you a lecture on the things you have done wrong and what you should do about them, they are not giving you respect. Which person in the world listens to someone else who does not respect them? As the saying goes "do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you". If you do not respect others, they would not respect you likewise and become a lose-lose situation.
It is foolish to do something so useless - that does not achieve its aim at the end of the day, but also gives you one new enemy! So, do not fall for the trap and avoid using criticism at all cost.
After nagging almost half the class for simple things ranging from not doing their homework well, to insignificant things like muttering as they speak to others. We all heaved a sigh of relief when that teacher finally finished "terrorising" us and briefly went out of the classroom. However, the damage had been done. The cherry mood that the class once had at the start of the day ceased to exist, replaced by feelings of anger and hatred. Some fellow classmates also could not take all those criticism in one swift blow and almost broke down.
As I tried to put away this dreadful memory, I cannot help but think - No matter what the situation is, should we use criticism as a means to tell other what to do (or in this case what not to do) ?
In fact, criticism should not be used as a way to "teach" others what to do. As I mentioned earlier, it only tells others what not to do, serving as a mere form of deterrence. It does not give other people the message on what they should do; we should tell them what they are supposed to do and at least set an example for them. Otherwise, that lecture would only leave a very small impression on other people and they will not heed it.
Additionally, people have their own sense of pride, their dignity. We should learn to respect others and tell them nicely what they should do - as if we were giving them a friendly advice. Look at the difference: If a teacher comes over to the student and starts ranting him for not paying attention in class, will it be more effective then when a teacher speaks gently to the student "Please listen. It is very important in your studies you know, so I appreciate it if you can pay more attention". In the second case, it is more effective.
When you tell other people nicely, you are giving them face, and giving them the impression you are doing it for their own good. If you repeatedly criticise them for what they are doing, it makes them lose their self-esteems and makes them lose face. It not only aggravates them and cause them much hurt and hatred for that particular person, but it is very ineffective in carrying out the message as well.
If someone came over to you and start giving you a lecture on the things you have done wrong and what you should do about them, they are not giving you respect. Which person in the world listens to someone else who does not respect them? As the saying goes "do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you". If you do not respect others, they would not respect you likewise and become a lose-lose situation.
It is foolish to do something so useless - that does not achieve its aim at the end of the day, but also gives you one new enemy! So, do not fall for the trap and avoid using criticism at all cost.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Propaganda Posters
This poster is not very convincing and does not effectively encourage people to join a car-sharing club. The poster has the words "When you ride alone, you ride with Hitler", and there is a picture of a man in a car with Hitler by his side in the background. The poster wanted to encourage more people to join a car-sharing club through arousing their hate for Hitler.It wanted to convey the message that riding alone in a car is similar to Hitler sitting in the car with the driver. As many people disliked Hitler and does not want to have anything to do with him, they would naturally want to avoid driving alone. However, the poster would not be very successful.
Driving alone has no connection to having Hitler sitting by your side. The two scenarios are totally unrelated so people may not take the message of the poster strongly, since it has committed the fallacy of post Hoc by trying to link the two unrelated issues together. Thus, the poster is not a very convincing or successful one.
The poster has a criticising tone towards president Barrack Obama and wanted to show that he is arrogant. The aim of this was to get people to stop supporting Obama and vote for the opposition parties.The poster shows Obama holding his head high, and seem to look down on the people. The word "Snob" is in front of Obama and is used to imply that Obama is arrogant and proud. There is also the words "it's an elitist thing, you wouldn't understand" at the bottom of the poster. This appears to be said in Obama's voice, suggesting that Obama is being proud by calling himself an elitist, and does not respect other people.
The poster uses both visual image and words in order to convince viewers that they should stop supporting Barrack Obama as president, as he is very arrogant.
This poster encourages soldiers to stick to their food rations, and avoid taking more than their fair share. It wanted more soldiers to become satisfied with their food rations and not take more than enough, in order to ensure enough food for everyone else.There are the words "Do with less so they'll have enough" on the top of the poster with an emphasis on the word "they'll". This wanted to convey the message that soldiers to stick to their regular food rations to avoid a shortage of food for their fellow soldiers. There is an emphasis on the word "they'll" in order to remind the soldiers of their fellow friends who are also fighting with them, so that they will become more considerate and avoid taking more food at the expense of others.
Additionally, the background shows a soldier holding a cup containing his rations. The soldier is smiling and appears to be satisfied with his food rations. It wanted to tell soldiers that they should be happy with their food rations and not ask for more, as it is enough. Thus, the poster wanted to encourage more people to stick to their food rations and not take more than that.
This poster wanted to encourage more Americans to continue the fight against the Japanese during World War 2, in revenge for the other Americans that the Japanese killed.The poster actually show a newspaper article about the Japanese torturing and killing as many as five thousand and two hundred Americans in the war. Additionally, the background of the picture shows an American being brutally beaten by a Japanese soldier. There are also other Americans being forced to march by other Japanese soldiers. This shows some of the ill-treatment by the Japanese towards American soldiers. The aim of this was to stir up anger among the feelings of fellow Americans, and wanted them to fight the war in revenge for their fellow countrymen.
Additionally, there are the words "What are you going to do about it?", with an emphasis on the word "you". The aim is for the people to have a reaction to the poster, for them to do something about the war - to join in the fight against the Japanese. It wanted them to take some action after looking at the outrageous facts of how fellow Americans were treated. The words "Stay on the job until every mudering Jap is wiped out" also further prompted them to support the fight against the Japanese in the war. Therefore, it managed to convey the message for Americans to join in the fight against the Japnese in World War II.
This picture has a very convincing tone to encourage more Singaporeans to enrol in the army. It conveys the message that one would become more decisive, strategic, and will also gain leadership skills if that person joins the Singapore army.
The poster actually shows a scene of the Singapore armed forces in action. There is evidently a leader in front of the rest of the soldiers and he is giving them certain hand signals. The leader looks very impressive with the other soldiers following his order without question. There are also the words strategy, leadership and decisiveness in the poster, suggesting that one would gain these qualities if they join the army.
Additionall, there are the words "Some things you just can't learn in a classroom", suggesting that there are much more things to learn in the army. It encourages one to venture out of their "classrooms" and experience life in the army first hand. It convinces people that in order to gain certain qualities, one must join the army and learn from there.
With the combination of the impressive picture and the influential texts, the poster is very effective in convincing people to join the Singapore army.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Logical fallcies
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/new-wp-candidate-breaks-down-at-unveiling.html
"Worker's Party new candidate Watson Chong broke down during a press conference on Sunday, saying he was afraid joining the opposition would "bring his family down".
In this case, Watson Chong committed the fallacy of appeal to sentiments. Instead of talking about his qualifications and informing the public what he can do for the people, he tries to invoke their sympathy by breaking down. He went on to talk about how his family was afraid that joining the opposition would be a great threat to him, and how they risk for his safety. He expressed his anxiety for the welfare for his family, and talks about the frustrations he is having.
He is trying to gain support from sympathy by the public, and did not explain why he should be fit to be in the government. He is appealing to people's sentiments and has committed a great fallacy.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/04/11/lim-boon-heng-cried-on-tv-when-asked-question-on-pap-groupthink/
Minister Lim Boon Heng CRIED on TV when questioned
Similar to the previous case, Mr Lim Boon Heng also committed the fallacy of appealing to sentiments. Instead of answering the questions that were thrown to him by reporters during the media conference, he just broke down and cried. Firstly, he evaded the questions by crying and not answering them at the end of the day. He also tried to evoke the sympathy of the public when he expressed his emotions.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/sembawang-grc-unveils-500-million-renewal-plan-172638043.html
Sembawang GRC unveils S$500 mil renewal plan
In this article, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan also responded to comments by the the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) that he was "mixing religion with politics". He addressed the issue and stated that it was not true. His arguments were valid and made a point. However, when he mentioned "But I'm just stating I am a Buddhist. What's wrong with that? Are they shy to talk about their own religion?", he committed the fallacy of dicto simpiciter. He assumed that people were generally not shy to talk about their religion, and that it is acceptable for one to speak of his religion openly.
Religion is a very sensitive issue as different people have different traditions and beliefs. In some cases, individuals do not even want to mention their religion in public, not because they are shy, but because they are cautious. For example: If a person has Muslim friends, and he himself is a Christian, it would not be logical for him to announce in front of them "I am a Christian". This may cause an uproar among them and lead to serious consequences. As I mentioned, religion is a very sensitive issue, and people may easily get offended by it. So this should be taken into thought before assuming everyone is okay with mentioning their religion in public.
"Worker's Party new candidate Watson Chong broke down during a press conference on Sunday, saying he was afraid joining the opposition would "bring his family down".
In this case, Watson Chong committed the fallacy of appeal to sentiments. Instead of talking about his qualifications and informing the public what he can do for the people, he tries to invoke their sympathy by breaking down. He went on to talk about how his family was afraid that joining the opposition would be a great threat to him, and how they risk for his safety. He expressed his anxiety for the welfare for his family, and talks about the frustrations he is having.
He is trying to gain support from sympathy by the public, and did not explain why he should be fit to be in the government. He is appealing to people's sentiments and has committed a great fallacy.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/04/11/lim-boon-heng-cried-on-tv-when-asked-question-on-pap-groupthink/
Minister Lim Boon Heng CRIED on TV when questioned
Similar to the previous case, Mr Lim Boon Heng also committed the fallacy of appealing to sentiments. Instead of answering the questions that were thrown to him by reporters during the media conference, he just broke down and cried. Firstly, he evaded the questions by crying and not answering them at the end of the day. He also tried to evoke the sympathy of the public when he expressed his emotions.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/sembawang-grc-unveils-500-million-renewal-plan-172638043.html
Sembawang GRC unveils S$500 mil renewal plan
In this article, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan also responded to comments by the the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) that he was "mixing religion with politics". He addressed the issue and stated that it was not true. His arguments were valid and made a point. However, when he mentioned "But I'm just stating I am a Buddhist. What's wrong with that? Are they shy to talk about their own religion?", he committed the fallacy of dicto simpiciter. He assumed that people were generally not shy to talk about their religion, and that it is acceptable for one to speak of his religion openly.
Religion is a very sensitive issue as different people have different traditions and beliefs. In some cases, individuals do not even want to mention their religion in public, not because they are shy, but because they are cautious. For example: If a person has Muslim friends, and he himself is a Christian, it would not be logical for him to announce in front of them "I am a Christian". This may cause an uproar among them and lead to serious consequences. As I mentioned, religion is a very sensitive issue, and people may easily get offended by it. So this should be taken into thought before assuming everyone is okay with mentioning their religion in public.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Let kids rule the school
Can students be given the autonomy to develop their curriculum?
The idea of students planning their own education, having the freedom to learn whatever they want, does not seem very viable in the modern society. If they were to plan their own education, they might not learn skills and knowledge necessary for them to survive in the world. This is a misconception that when kids plan their own education, it means that they would not learn anything beneficial and will only play games throughout their school lives. However, does having the freedom to learn something they wish - having fun - means that they will not benefit at all?
In fact, contrary to some beliefs, it may actually help the students to develop their potential and improve their skills. If kids had the freedom to learn what they want, they will have the motivation to learn even more than normal. They will be very interesed in the topics they chose and will not complain if they are asked to learn much more, as they will actually like it. This will enable them to pursue their favourite topics and improve their skills in these areas. This will not only motivate them to learn, and will also help them develop their overall skills and knowledge.
However, if they are being taught something that is not to their liking, no matter how beneficial the subject is, they will not absorb it. They may also feel very bored at the topic and lose their interest in going to school altogether. If this was to happen, they will not learn anything much in school. Thus, this will not benefit them at all. There is a huge difference between having fun and not learning anything.
If the children are allowed to learn their favourite topics through fun ways, this will encourage them to learn further. This will help them learn some skills that may be useful in the long run. So why don't we change the impression that schools are very stressful and not a very fun place to go to?
The idea of students planning their own education, having the freedom to learn whatever they want, does not seem very viable in the modern society. If they were to plan their own education, they might not learn skills and knowledge necessary for them to survive in the world. This is a misconception that when kids plan their own education, it means that they would not learn anything beneficial and will only play games throughout their school lives. However, does having the freedom to learn something they wish - having fun - means that they will not benefit at all?
In fact, contrary to some beliefs, it may actually help the students to develop their potential and improve their skills. If kids had the freedom to learn what they want, they will have the motivation to learn even more than normal. They will be very interesed in the topics they chose and will not complain if they are asked to learn much more, as they will actually like it. This will enable them to pursue their favourite topics and improve their skills in these areas. This will not only motivate them to learn, and will also help them develop their overall skills and knowledge.
However, if they are being taught something that is not to their liking, no matter how beneficial the subject is, they will not absorb it. They may also feel very bored at the topic and lose their interest in going to school altogether. If this was to happen, they will not learn anything much in school. Thus, this will not benefit them at all. There is a huge difference between having fun and not learning anything.
If the children are allowed to learn their favourite topics through fun ways, this will encourage them to learn further. This will help them learn some skills that may be useful in the long run. So why don't we change the impression that schools are very stressful and not a very fun place to go to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)