ENGLISH MINDMAP (Sean Chan & Joel Wong 3H301/3H307)

National Service- Dodgers?

The National Service act, an act well-known to all Singaporeans for its notority and supossed "condemnation" as viewed by extreme pessimists, although seemingly loophole-free has surfaced its share of problems over the years, the main plague being dodgers of enlistment. Such a problem requires immediate attention, for what might seem as a harmless act can bring about severe repercussions.

Science - A Menace To Civilisation?

In today's society of technology and advance, many have identified the rising problem of Science being the downfall of society as we know it today. Such ideas and beliefs have further been embodied in books, works of art etc, spreading this radical notion to the neutral, innocent rest of the populace, indoctrinating in them this belief that the technological advances of today, and of the future, will decimate civilisation.

What is civilisation, then? Some argue it to be the orderly, predetermined fashion in which governments and societies adhere to. Others believe it to be the basic grounding that humans should fall back upon, the basic laws of nature that homo sapiens should abide by to survive, and not relying on technological advances to spearhead their lives. Definitely, it is the basic will to survive the way we are right now. However, what most do not realize is that change is inevitabe. Sure, talk is rife about adaptation to change, adaptation to new challenges. However, what is innocuously shunned is the impact of such change, the extent of it on a scale of 1 to 10. Such an issue is blatantly overlooked by citizens and netizens alike. When the wave of change, incessantly fueled by high demand for ever-rising standards of societal living via the means of technological advacnes, eventually hits the masses without ever tiring, complaints and disgruntled comments surface, widespread over all forms of the media, that this technological wave is set to crumble society in the future, where values lax and machinery takes complete, unchallenged control, further supported by subtle opinion of the people firmly assured by induced happiness caused by such technology. Convenience and assertment of enjoyment predominate ideals revolving round the ideas of technology of the future, with yearn for slack obviously evident in supporters of the creation of this technology.

What is essential along this timeline of developments in technology is to bear in mind the conscious realization that such rapid advances were requested, more indirectly than not, by the people themselves. This exemplifies the unjust accusations heaped upon the very idea of Science's advancement as time goes by. However, it further delineates the subconcsious frame of thought dominant in the common man's perception of issues presented unexpectedly in broad daylight. More often than not, links between the destructive power of Science and advances in technology are strongly established swiftly without thought spared for the promiscuous benefits underlying critical, essential succeses in various fields indirectly related to the masses themselves. Let us take medicine as a case in point, and view the issue across the entire spectrum. Science created the nuclear bomb, and formulated vaccines that cure the population of diseases that would otherwise be lethal. Inevitable it is for the masses to voice out insinuations over prickly, controversial issues in peaceful times. However, what exactly has assured these times of peace? With disease spreading like wildfire, such groundless accusations would have definitely been razed to the ground with ease, along with numerous human lives.

The notion of Science violating nature's basic laws have been rampant over the past few decades, clearly sparked by the rising use of animals in inhumane laboratory testing. Stout supporters of this notion have presented the seemingly glorious argument of animal testing being essential in the advancement and progress of Science, indirectly the progress of society, in this modern, advanced world where Science settles the present, dictates the future and recalls the past. It is inevitable that in peaceful times, the ignorant masses of overly-controlling, albeit directly or not, would itch to oppose current trends in an effortless bid to re-create and restructure society to another level.

Is there another 'level', however? Visions and fantasies of human life becoming even more relaxed with technological advances and machinery are fed incessantly by the propaganda machines of societies in an effort to create a falsified vision of the future, to indirectly spur on industries and the working man in fields related to the abovementioned issue via discreet exploitation of subconscious desires. Who knows what the future might hold? One thing is for sure, if current trends hold - Science and technology will be the masters of the future. But one thing must be made clear, that is although technology will define standards of futuristic living, it may not neccesarily delineate the purpose of living.

Is there another way to bring society to another level besides the widespread use of Science and its development, as asserted by the many rebellious individuals to Science? Many point to religious methods, such as the development of Jerusalem into a prosperous city with the divine intervention of God. Such possibilities form the basic roots of ideologies firmly rooted in today's society, such as Communism. Why communism? The tragic desire to unite the people under one common cause and to establish unchallenged dictatorship can be interpreted to be somewhat like the intention of cities developing based on religious beliefs - with one common ideal, they work towards the future along a predermined line, the former being one dictated by the Communist head, while the latter being the divine word of religion. Hence, it is obvious that such ideologies spark due to subconscious opposition to Science, rather than being due to the development of Science within civilization itself. My stand is clear - Science is, and should never be, asserted as a detriment to the development of civilisation.

A Gift Of A Programme

Ever since the incorporation of the Gifted Education Programme (GEP for short) into Singapore's pristine education system, many individuals - parents of non-GEP students and critical observers alike - have objected to the existence of such an elitist programme. Segregation and elitism as salient points have led the way for a wave of controversy to hit the Ministry of Education full-force. Amidst rapid, critical re-engineering done to the Education structure, the GEProgramme has retained its firm position within the education system, never falling in prestige nor dimishing in the eyes of the beholder.

Controversial ideas revolving round the shady idea of the GEP breeding elitism and segregation holds firm within social circles and community itself. By 'extracting' the cream of the crop out of the large population of students and placing them in a specially-designated group for these future 'elites', with the GEP's ultimate goal of nurturing leaders of tomorrow in specialized sectors, spearheading Singaporean technology and commerce on the global stage. This clearly reveals the government's dubious and selfish underlying intention behind the grand facade of promotion of the GEP for the 'enhanced development' of talented students' minds. Although undeniable the benefits students recieve, public opinion is generally tilted towards the government for credit, with unending propaganda machines subconsciously convincing masses that the GEP is the right thing, the GEP must exist for opportunity to reach the skies, the GEP is the premier programme for any students that want to make it out in that competitive, lethal world of politics, commerce and industry. Essentials, when grasped young, are cultivated into unique traits inculcated naturally into one's work performance, giving the GEP-experienced proffesional the extra edge over those deprived of such an opportunity to grab such vital, useful skills and knowledge.

The idea of being 'special' for those in the GEP runs rampant in today's competitive society. The basic building blocks of life for Singaporeans in today's modern times, with credit crunches and technological advances sending prices of new products soaring sky-high, is almost completely materialistic, through and through. Let's put it in another way. In today's modern society where technology dictates the future, materialistic assets forms most Singaporeans' worlds. Happiness evolves into an expression judged by yardsticks set in place by materialistic factors such as money. Simply extrinsic. Segregation is a likely by-product of such a programme, with elitism forming due to the mixure of ideology and perception. With a cluster of higher-ability students, who wouldn't think of this group being 'special'? This is directly percieved by the GEP students to be that they were 'special', a unique cut above the rest, with this priviledge taken for granted. What we should truly work towards is the clear, distinct identification of GEP being a programme that provides and nurtures such talent, not somewhere which proves that you are a talent. A fine margin, a world of difference.

Acting Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam feted them at the Gifted Education Conference on Thursday, speaking of the scheme's goal of creating individuals who have big hearts, and are keen to use their talents and energies for the betterment of society. Acting Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam spoke at the Gifted Education Conference, speaking of the scheme's goal of creating individuals who have big hearts, and are keen to use their talents and energies for the betterment of society. This clearly delineates the government's main ambition for this programme to churn out useful pawns to further Singaporean ideals. Singaporean ideals, as we put it, is beneficial to all of us - we are Singaporeans, no? However, many fail to look beyond this superficial skim of the surface. These ideals are fixed in perfect position by political ideologies and propaganda influence, changing our perception of matters and inclination to things on a large scale. Thus our ideals follow suit. What are our true ideals then? Are we supposed to swallow this dicatorship of our lives unknowingly? What is freedom? Do we actually know what it means, in this constructed world where we are conditioned to feel appeased in, with economic success firmly keeping this ideology in place?

Pornography - Censor?

Many a wise man have attempted at the intricate description, the delicate defining, of a term widely known to many but such knowledge denied upon query, but few have come close to being able to describe it as it really is. Pornography. The word that either strikes raw excitement or pure shame in people, or simply strikes a dull bell, which resonates throughout the body without any clear registering of its presence. What's with the big hoo-ha over such a topic scarcely talked upon within common social circles? The psychological and physical factors, coupled with varying perceptions of this issue and different lights cast upon it by different people, cause it to be such a controversial and undefinable term. Pornography's ultimate intention is to cater to men's sexual desires and fantasies, creating an illusory world for them to revel in. What the public finds fault with is not the main aim of it all, but the repercussions that it might cause. Many fail to realise the underlying factors underneath the word 'pornography'. Is it simply a term used for the display of sexual behaviour, be it on the net, on CD's etc? Or could it be, that it is the tool to unlocking a paradise for men which can prove to be effective stress-busters and boosters to mental health? Such a controversial term. Campaigners for outright disapproval of pornography to be marketed so freely in a world of modernization and technology where the internet takes hold of weak-minded beings, coercing them into partaking in activities and developing ideologies based on what is broadcasted on the net, fail to see this frail, albeit invisible link between pornography and well-being. General views have been placed unfairly on this term, that it is wholly evil and malicious. Whoever views such explicit material is therefore branded the status on the same level as a convict in a society where prejudice and discrimination holds true. Radical views are cast away as this strong, possesive mindset that Pornography is simply not good is exemplified through actions and speech, surmounting an unstoppable crusade against this deemed evil. Should pornography be censored, then? Yes or no. Of course, two divided factions will definitely compete for either claim. What is vital, or rather, essential, in the judgement of pornography is the repercussions that might occur NOT having it in society. Rape cases will definitely rocket sky-high, with men harboring perverse intentions, unable to release this sexual desire in this make-believe paradise that pornography perfectly creates, project this desire onto other human beings.

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore-

Many of us are familiar with the popular satirical comedian, Mr. Brown, aka Lim Kin Mun. A well-known figure with a solid fanbase from spreading radical ideas about political judgements and revealing sides of policies otherwise shrouded in mystery by the Government in fear of ridicule, his posts on his blogsite "mrbrown: L'infantile terrible of Singapore" are woven throughout with blatant pokes at Singapore's social and economic system.

Most of us Singaporeans recognise our humble island country as a country of democracy, a country that allows and promotes free speech, a country where the people decide who leads the country and who doesn't. However, are we really the 'masters' of this country? Is democracy really prevailent in Singapore? Most will answer a defininte 'yes'. Oh, look at the elections, look at the free speech campaigns. If that is so, why are political figures like Chee Soon Juan arrested on a daily basis for voicing their insinuations in public? The notion of the government being an authoritarian one has never appealed to the minds of the masses. This, once again, is the inculcation of the prevailent mindset that whatever the Singaporean government does for us is the correct thing, is the best way. Political and social unrest are dispelled by mental barriers erected from within by the Government through their numerous fiscal policies and social laws set.

Mr. Brown's column in the Today newspaper reached its expiration date when the Government ordered its removal from the newspaper due to overly-critical comments on the Government's progress scheme and for what the government presumed as deliberate mocking. Putting it simply - this was an obvious show of Govermental restriction on political commentary on the Internet. If there was nothing to hide, if Singapore IS really a democratic society, why place such unfair and unjustified restrictions on the people? Ideas stem from creativity, which is in turn affected on a large scale by issues revolving the social structure of the nation. Such strict regulations on political comentary should be abhored. It is a complete contradiction to what the Government proposes on a daily basis. Why should citizens of DEMOCRATIC Singapore abide by the unfair jurisdiction of the law, on the topic of politics? The most obvious reason would be that the Government's achievements in economy and stability have exalted the masses to an extent that inner desires are dominated by psychological awe. Rephrased, it simply means that such succeses have impacted the way Singaporeans think about the structure of society as a whole.

I feel that it is vital to accept the fact that Mr. Brown is widely read and watched. His ideas spread like wildfire due to their 'catch-on' nature. The Media Development Authority's control has been slowly extending, from restrictions on what is broadcasted on television and radio, to further regulations on what internet users can upload and say online. Mr. Brown's position is thus naturally threatened by this encroaching tiger; however, no decisive blow can be initiated due to strong support from the masses - if something was done which could be defined as controversial, it could tip the balance in brown's favour, lowering the prestige of the government. Thus, the people act as a human shield towards the poised siege weapons of the powerful govermnet.

Although the government may be right in a sense to restrict the outflow of media to safeguard stability and ensure prevention of corruption, media containing a suitable level of criticism towards political issues should be allowed. Blanket-approval has been given to annihilate all media which place the government in an obviously bad light. We, as the people who are crucial towards this issue, should take a stand and thoroughly think - political commentary, does it do harm, or can it be safe to broadcast?

President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

The President's Star Charity Show - something most Singaporeans are familiar with, with it incorporating numerous television celebrities and aired every year, for the sake of charity. Many Singaporeans punctually tune in to watch this heartstopping and exhiliarating programme, as they watch their favourite television stars attempt the unthinkable, far from what they are used to: actors and actresses safe within the film set, acting out their assigned roles, all within a danger-free environment. These seemingly death-defying stunts thus bring in the cash for the charities, with stay-at-home Singaporeans applauding the bravery and commitment of these celebrities and donating their hard-earned money for a better cause. However, this raises a controversial question - is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public's compassion for more generous donations?



We couch-potatoes view the programme as a never-failing source of entertainment, with artistes from the various industries making their long-awaited appearance to charm their fans with their amazing talents, such as music. We tend to forget the main purpose of organizing such an event - no, it isn't to satisfy consumer demand for thrill and action. It is for the purpose of raising funds for charity, to aid those that are in the midst of financial turmoil, and desperately need this help. Many a time when we dial in to donate money, it is due to the challenging act that the artiste just performed, which leaves us in awe and compells us to donate money so as to "support charity and the event". In reality, who are we actually supporting? The poor and the unfortunate, or the artiste? We as Singaporeans should really ponder upon this issue. Such a mindset is rampant in Singaporean society, where the notion of 'talent should be rewarded' is strongly put forward by the Singaporean Government, resulting in the subconscious inculcation of such a frame of mind in the masses through various implemented policies and organized events.

The adoption of the correct mindset is important and extremely vital towards the healthy and continuous growth of society. Such a way of thinking can spill over to many other aspects of society. The correction of this is important. Aiming towards having a heart should top the list of priorities, instead of judging something's value with extrinsic thoughts in mind.

Where there is an actual need for these artistes to perform stunts in order to milk the compassion of the audience, I personally feel that with the current situation, this need is not justified. There are many other ways of expoliting one's compassion, such as showing clips of those unfortunate residents in Singaporean society, and this alone will be able to bring in the cash from many Singaporeans. However, to maximize profit, exciting, thrilling shows can be performed in order to excite those that overlook the need for these unfortunate residents to recieve financial aid. With reference to the question - do artistes have to perform to milk GREATER donations? Absolutely. With the current mindset predominant in Singaporean society, without such acts that stimulate the subconsious desire to donate hard-earned money, donation ratings will definitely plummet. This exemplifies the need for Singapore to work towards having a heart. The best way to start its cultivation, is to do it right at home, right in Singapore.

Such an event can serve to benefit all three parties - namely the audience, the performers and the beneficiaries. To start of, let us talk about the performers. For them to carry out such dangerous and over-the-edge stunts helps to develop an intrinisic feeling of accomplishment and happiness, that they did their part for the social benefit of the beneficiaries, and that their act was pivotal to the well-being of these people in the near future. For the audience, a greater and deeper insight into the plight of such beneficiaries taps on Aristotle's Pathos of 'Rhetoric'. The greater the exposure, the higher the chances of compassion welling up to form a vast flow of donations. Extrinsic effects aside, such an approach generates ideas in the people- that there was a possible channel for them to utilize in order to help the unfortunate in their own way, besides the Star Charity show. For the beneficiaries...let us say that the benefits are obvious.