How much more am I, Hwa Chongian of 2011, likely to touch other people's lives?

Title paraphrased from a rhetorical question from J. K. Rowling's speech to Harvard graduates of 2008.

How am I, a Hwa Chong student of 2011, touch other people's lives? The answer to that question is simple: I touch other people's lives by simply existing. No man is an island. The question, however, is how much more likely am I to touch other people's lives?

We can determine how much more through 2 factors. One being the education I have earned and received, and the other being my status as a Singaporean citizen.

Education that I receive can definitely impact the lives around me much more. If you were to choose between listening to a secondary school student and a graduate regarding advice on a decision that will impact your life, I'm sure you would choose the graduate. This thus allows the graduate to touch more lives around him. Education gives one a special status and special responsibilities that make people look up to you. Hwa Chong has built up a reputation that automatically gives any who have received an education in Hwa Chong a special status, one that allows people to more readily listen to you, one that will allow you to touch other people's lives more frequently.

Apart from the effect that inclines others to listen to you, education also enlightens one to the injustices around him, such that one will more readily help and advise others in need, thus touching more lives. In this year, I have learnt about racism in parts of the world such as India, South America and even Singapore. I have been enlightened about the injustices in authoritarian regimes that people face. I have been educated about how bias and prejudice almost always leads to the harm of one party. I have learned and been purged from my state of ignorance, and I am more sensitive to prejudices and bias around me. I, as a Hwa Chong student, am now more inclined to help others in situations of prejudice that I did not even notice before. I can touch more lives.

On to the second factor of how being a Singaporean citizen allows me to touch other people's lives. A man living in prosperity should realise his prosperity soon, and not hesitate to help others in need. Being brought up in a peaceful, safe environment free from the detrimental effects of war and weather, I have learnt to appreciate what I have now. I have also learnt that others in war-stricken countries do not share the same fortune as us, and they suffer from a host of problems every day. Human compassion drives me to help them, to touch their lives by donations and aid. In Singapore, where we are much better off than other countries, we are expected by the global community to help others, thus allowing for even more opportunity to touch other people's lives.

I, as a Hwa Chong student, are much more likely to touch others' lives due to the education and my status as a Singaporean. I am expected and inspired to help those who need it. I will not shun away from this moral duty. I can and will touch more lives, as a Hwa Chong student of 2011.

Should the U.S. have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan

In response hopes of ending World War 2, the United States invented and dropped its ultimate weapon on Japan - the atomic bomb. This resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and the Japanese surrender, freeing the people of South East Asia from the Japanese Occupation, and leading to the eventual defeat and dissolution of the Axis Powers.

Was the dropping of the atomic bomb thoroughly justifiable? The act was definitely not morally justifiable; it took approximately 200 000 lives and left radiation for generations to come. It hurt Japan in all aspects, whether economical, social or political. But a government is not supposed to consider things from a moral perspective; rather, it is supposed to do things for the good of people - a utilitarian perspective. People elect a democratic government to lead them towards a better society, a better life for everyone. Thus, it is the government's duty to lead the country to greater heights and protect their citizens from harm. Assuming a point-of-view from the US government, it was doing what was best for its people - ending the war as quickly as possible to ensure that no more lives were lost. It can be considered justifiable from the POV of the US government, as it was doing what is best for its citizens.

However, from a humanitarian POV, the US government did the wrong thing by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some suggested actions include dropping the atomic bombs on uninhabited islands near Japan to show how devastating the atomic bomb can be, or waiting for the Japanese economy to collapse (due to the costs of the war) and the Japanese to officially surrender. However, one has to keep in mind that the Japanese are fiercely loyal to their empire, and will not falter under war fatigue or be threatened by the presence of a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD). Also, the goal of the US government was to prevent any more of its troops from dying and end the war as quickly as possible, and dropping the atomic bombs on two cities in Japan was a sure way to get the Japanese to wave the white flag.

The US government did have a choice of intimidating the Japanese into surrender or waiting for the Japanese to surrender by themselves, however, they chose the method that claimed many more lives but ensured victory. Thus, it is justifiable for the US to drop the atomic bomb on Japan; however, it is not the most humane method. As I have said before, the gobvernment always considers things from a utilitarian perspective, thus I believe that the US shoudl have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan.

Personal Assessment

I've been doing lots of meta-cognition in the past few days, and I've been really interested in sociology (how to persuade people etcetera) and how people think. I hoped that by understanding what causes certain reactions in me, I can influence my decision-making to be less biased against others, and more neutral (less charged with emotions). Even though nothing went according to plan, but I ended up discovering some things about myself.

1) A free personality test that I took on-line tells me that I am of the personality type ENTP, in accordance to the "Jung Typology test". It tells me that I am an inventor. I got curious about the test and looked for other personality types, and found that I could easily categorise people into those categories. I am also shocked at how accurate the description of my personality type is in relation to me. How can something so deceptively simple apply to so many people yet still stay true? I am dumbfounded.

Website: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

2) I realised that my thinking is powered by mostly 'what ifs'. An advantage of this would be that I can quickly explore every possibility in any situation, but a disadvantage would be to choose the wrong scenarios in exams and think too far ahead in terms of answers, which will probably lead to the wrong answer. This is not very beneficial, but a trait nonetheless, thus I shall not attempt to entirely eradicate this feature of my thinking, but instead provide a mental note to not think too far ahead in exams.

3) I perform leadership roles better when under stress (a tight deadline). It is important to note the discovery that my "stress mode" (the manner in which I behave under stress) is similar to the INTJ personality type, without the planning. This means that I do everything systematically (instead of trying to find multiple ways to solve the problem, as usual) and have backup plans in case of anything. An example: There's 5 questions left in the exam and I have 10 minutes left. I rush through the questions, see which questions are easier and do them first. If a question is more difficult than expected, abandon that question for another.

I found out more about the Myers-Briggs test, and it is really interesting. Though the formulas for calculation (or the full test) have not been released onto the web (the full test requires finances), I noticed that the answers to questions relate to a single category in the simplified version of the test. I assume that the test must be a kind of quantitative assessment, seeing that all of the questions are Yes/No questions.

Dear Reader, you should really try the test. You might discover a thing or two about yourself that you never knew!

Normality in Singapore

Why is Singapore still resistant to the gay rights movement?

To start the post, I will define normal. Normality is defined by what society deems is normal and what is not. What we find irrational or hard to accept is not normal. Everything out of clearly defined lines in society is unacceptable and thus abnormal.

Then we must answer the question: Where does normal come from? It starts from the very beginning. Culture, defined by the wisest in every civilisation, stood unchallenged for many years, probably centuries. Over time, it evolved into tradition; if left alone long enough, into what is known as the normal. Defying the tradition is unthinkable as it can be seen as defying the wishes of the wiser ancestors and thousands of years of tradition, thus risking being seen as arrogant or stupid. No one dares to defy tradition (which is the normal).

However, if normal comes from culture, which comes from the ancestors, then (to put it bluntly) isn't normal created by a bunch of cavemen? How can we, as a civilisation, still follow the normal if we now know its provenance? I think that part of the reason why we are still applying the stereotypical roles (thus sexism and racism) in the modern world is because we as humans are resistant to change. Being resistant to change, we are not as likely to defy the normal.

Moreover, change in Asian societies is more difficult. Asian societies are renowned for the conservativeness of their people (especially their ladies) and Singapore is an Asian society. Singapore is made up of different ethnic groups, with the main one being the Chinese ethnic group, making it all the more difficult for norms to change in Singapore.

Singaporeans need to try and accept something out of the norm. I will be waiting for that day when a crippled child or homosexual walks down the street, and no one stares. I hope I won't be waiting forever, although it seems likely that I will.

P.S. I'm not gay.

Abolishment of death penalty?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty?page=1

While browsing through Amnesty International, a humanitarian organisation, I stumbled upon this part of the website. Ah, that's fine, a human rights organisation opposing unjustified killings. I read on, and was slightly disgruntled by the stand that the organisation takes: "Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner".

I do not agree with this stand to a degree. "Regardless of the nature of the crime". What if it was a psychotic mass-murderer, or the head of a world-wide criminal organisation, responsible for ruining thousands of lives? Think of all the pain that they have caused, all of the violations of other people's human rights, look the criminals in their eyes, and tell them that they deserve to live. Would you oppose the death penalty in those cases? I think not.

Having lived in Singapore from birth, I have experienced the results of strict law enforcement in a country. I have NEVER seen a crime in progress or been affected by any crime. Fact is, Singapore's crime rate remains low compared to other countries partly because of the strict laws enforced, and the punishments meted out. Other reasons include the almost non-corrupt judicial system and the small size of the country (making it extremely difficult for criminals to hide). Besides, why would you be given a death sentence if you deserve to be forgiven? Commit a crime of your own accord and you deserve no better than loan sharks or drug runners.

Then again, the death sentence can be abused to the criminal's advantage. Due to the corrupt justice systems in some countries, death sentences are brought upon the innocent, scapegoats for someone else's crimes. Because death is permanent, the case will not be looked into any more and the guilty will be acquitted. This is the sole reason why I may be (slightly) against the gallows.

If I were a minister of Singapore, I would support the death penalty. Not only does it keep Singapore safe, it is not as humiliating as public caning in schools or as cruel as being stoned to death. What about basic human rights, the denial to life? You may have human rights, but not a single person has the right ruin other people's lives and get away with it.

Can students be given the autonomy to develop their own curriculum?

I believe that students can be allowed to develop their own curricula, depending on the circumstances.

In Singapore, education is key. Everyone wants to be first in the rat race, and to be first, one needs the best education one can get. The main point in giving students the autonomy to develop their curriculum is to help them in their education.

Curricula in Singapore can be split into three categories. There is the arts-based / sports curriculum, the holistic curriculum and the technical curriculum. The different curricula cater to different types of students. As such, they must place a different priority on each subject, e.g. more time allocated to academics rather than other subjects in academically-focused schools. The students will know their own needs better than teachers or parents. designing their own curricula allows the students to take their needs into consideration, and that will not only help cater to the students' needs but also allow them to practice decision-making skills, which will prepare them for real-life circumstances such as choosing a subject to major in or choosing classes in junior college / polytechnic. The students will benefit from this.

However, it very much depends on the students' maturity level. Assuming that the students are mature enough, they should be able to create a curriculum that is beneficial to them. However, in the case of immature students (primary school students) they might not be able to understand why the autonomy was given and instead use it for non-beneficial purposes (fewer of the lessons that they hate etc.). This will result fewer benefits for the students, and thus will not be beneficial for them.

In conclusion, it would very much depend on the maturity level of the students deciding how the curriculum should be designed, and if done right, could provide great benefits to students.

Inflation tidebreaker

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1121020/1/.html

It is heartening to see people come together and help each other in times of inflation. 320 hawker stalls in Radin Mas constituency joined the anti-inflation drive, a movement which gets stallholders to maintain their prices during six months of the inflation, regardless of how much prices increase. The stallholders are joining an increasing crowd of hawkers from many different places in Singapore, who in recent months have decided to join the anti-inflation drive and maintain their prices.

The hawkers are really kind to take the initiative to maintain their prices and their serving portions. This anti-inflation drive will affect their business positively but it might bring in losses for some unlucky stallholders who do not get much business. I believe this helps the low-income group the most as it helps them to tide over the inflation. In this way, the lower-income group can focus more on working to make their lives better and not worry about the rising food prices. In fact, anyone who goes to the hawker centre can benefit from it.

It is really brave of those hawkers to try and improve the lives of others when they may not be faring so well. How much can you earn in one day working as a hawker? They take the risk of losing money just to ease the burden on someone else's shoulders, even though their burden may already be very heavy. After all, some of them have many mouths to feed at home, and assuming the inflation does not stop, the hawkers will suffer heavy losses.

Them taking the risk to help someone out proves that Singaporeans still have a heart and that not all Singaporeans are money-minded.