Straits Times, 21 August 2007
NATIONAL DAY RALLY 07
REACTIONS
BONUS POINTS FOR MALAY
3rd language incentives offered for JC entry to stem high dropout rate before O levels
EACH year, about 300 students sign up for Malay as a third language at
Secondary 1, but only one in five ends up taking the subject for the O-level examinations.
To get more non-Malays to learn Malay and stay the course, the Education Ministry is offering two bonus points for junior college entry to those who pass Malay at the O levels.
Students can now also use their Malay grade in lieu of a humanities subject for their L1R5 (first language plus five relevant subjects) aggregate score for JC entry.
These incentives will also apply to the 200 non-Chinese students who study Chinese as a third language each year.
The same goes for those taking Bahasa Indonesia, to be offered as a third language from next year.
A Regional Studies Programme, whereby students study Malay or Bahasa Indonesia and learn more about South-east Asia, will also be rolled out next year.
Giving details of these initiatives at a press conference yesterday, Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew said the measures will help groom a group of non-Malays who can “effectively engage the region”.
The incentives will kick in with the current Sec 3 cohort.
Since 1986, non-Malay students have been able to study Malay as a third
language under the Malay Special Programme (MSP), which is offered in 14 schools and four centres.
The Chinese Special Programme (CSP),started three years ago, is offered in 11 schools and two centres.
To give CSP and MSP students continued exposure after secondary school, an elective similar to the Japanese or French A-level elective in JCs will also be introduced.
In his National Day Rally speech on Sunday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted that “too few” young non-Malays were fluent in Malay or Bahasa Indonesia.
Malay has not been as popular a third language as Japanese, German and French. These three languages draw 1,200 Sec 1 students, or an average of 400 each, a year.
More students also go on to take these languages at the Olevels – about 400 in total, or one in three.
Teachers and students interviewed yesterday felt that the latest measures will encourage more non-Malays to learn Malay.
Ms Latifah Mohamedzen, teacher in charge of the MSP at Bukit Batok Secondary, believes the bonus points will encourage more to sign up.
It may also stem the attrition rate, she added. Many students start to drop out as the lessons begin to clash with their co-curricular activities (CCAs). Some focus on their CCAs as they can get JC entry points for them.
Methodist Girls’ School student Ng Tze Shien, 13, chose Malay over other third languages as it was “more practical”. She thinks the incentives will draw more students.
“Some people may not be good in humanities, but are good in languages. Malay is quite easy to learn as a language,” she said.
After reading this article, I felt quite glad that I’m still taking Japanese as my third language. This is because of the fact that from RI, there are currently only 14 students from my batch left still studying Japanese.
It has been quite disheartening for me to see a lot of my friends who dropped third languages as they move on to the second or third year of their Secondary school education. I decided to take Japanese because I was aware of the advantages. Not only are we able to study in other countries, we are also giving ourselves more opportunities to extend into the rest of the world. For example, since I study Japanese, I will be able to work in Japan in the future.
The article talks about the government’s approach to ensure that there are many non-Malays who take Malay as third language and stay in the course. This is due to the fact that four out of five drop it before ‘O’ levels. I think the government has made the correct move to let Malay grades be used as part of the aggregate score for JC entry.
This alone has made taking Malay attractive. Not only are there free Malay lessons, it is also helpful in JC entry, which should be exceptionally appealing to students like Rafflesians who care a lot about 1 or 2 marks. From another viewpoint, the government succeeds because not only would there be more students taking Malay, those students will also continue to stay in the course for the whole 4 years and try their best to do well, which is what the government aims to do.
The government hopes to groom a group of non-Malays who can effectively engage the South-east Asia region. I agree with what the government is hoping to achieve. 20 to 30 years down the road, it will be our turn to take on the leadership of Singapore. To ensure that Singapore can communicate well with countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, Malay (and also Bahasa Indonesia which will be introduced) is crucial. Our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong can speak Malay very well too.
However, from a Japanese student’s viewpoint, if more students take Malay, what will happen to Japanese, French and German? Wouldn’t there be less students taking them? The spread of students among the 4 languages will inevitably become unbalanced. As such, I feel that while trying to get more students for Malay course, the government has overlooked the possible effects. I must say that it could be because I am biased towards the foreign languages as a Japanese student, but the impact is possible.
But I know that it is difficult to balance both sides of the situation. Either they get an inadequate number of students who take Malay or they attract students to take Malay and sacrifice the foreign languages. I can quite understand the government’s decision as Malay as compared to the other third languages is more important to Singapore.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Sunday, August 5, 2007
I'm not ready to don the green cape
Straits Times, 14 July 2007
THINKING ALOUD
BY PAUL JACOB
Deputy Political Editor
A WORD to the uninitiated.
When mulling over how you can play your own small part in curbing global warming, it may be best to keep your plans to yourself.
And go about your business quietly.
The danger otherwise is that when you next meet people, they expect to see you in green tights and a cape, with a huge recyclable Save the Earth logo on your environmentally friendly T-shirt.
The mistaken assumption that comes when such statements of intent are offered is that the transformation is going to be immediate, overnight, instant. Out with plastics, dump the car, cut meat intake, stub out the cigarettes – and so on.
But life is not like that. The reality is that you have to struggle against instinct and habits, and contend with the accumulation of paper, junk, power-hungry equipment and gadgets from over the years.
And no way are you ready to give up a car that is distinctly more comfortable and convenient to use than an environmentally friendly bicycle.
I speak from brief experience, having written just a while ago about how much more conscious I had become of things green, especially after being startled by just how large a carbon footprint I was leaving behind.
But it was the weight of expectation foisted by others that I was unprepared for: the expectation of a 180-degree change towards leading a healthier, more completely green, and more environmentally conscious lifestyle.
In time perhaps, but not just yet.
Old habits die hard. So the green tights and cape associated with an
environmental crusader will have to wait.
Just how tough is it to effect change?
Take the case of the mother of all environmental events as a case in point.
Last Saturday’s Live Earth show was a 24-hour, seven-continent extravaganza to raise awareness about global warming.
It featured more than 100 performers and luminaries in concerts across the globe and was broadcast, podcast, vodcast and aired to an audience estimated to number two billion.
The event’s impact on changing mindsets and spreading the word is debatable. Were people drawn to the cause being promoted or were they attracted to what was effectively a rock concert, an occasion for groups like the Police to showcase their reunion?
More critically for an event that was intended to spark change in the way people view the environment, what kind of footprint did it leave in its wake? Mr John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, was quoted in the Observer newspaper as saying that the event’s total carbon footprint – including the travel and energy consumption of the artists and spectators involved – amounted to at least 31,500 tonnes.
That was more than 3,000 times the annual average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain, the paper added.
The Singapore average: 8.38 tonnes.
Some other data that makes you wonder if those involved were part of the solution or contributed to the problem: Performers flew over 350,000km to take part in the events.
That was the equivalent of nearly nine times around the planet, the Daily Mail fumed.
And the aftermath of the concert at the new Wembley stadium was a sight to behold – thousands upon thousands of plastic cups and bottles strewn on the ground.
It would seem that there, too, old habits die hard.
Organisers of the Live Earth concerts countered such concerns about the event’s negative environmental impact by pointing out, among other things, that food and drink stalls used containers that were biodegradable; shows were powered by electricity from renewable sources; low energy bulbs were used; and that trash was sorted out for recycling.
A massive event, such as Live Earth was, no doubt helps focus the minds of those who attended or who tuned in to watch the whole or part of the show.
Yet I wonder if the effects and its impact linger long.
What did you, for instance, take away from it, if anything?
How much have similar well-meaning events like the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh and 1985’s Live Aid benefit concert for Ethiopia changed the course of lives for people in those countries, and where are they today?
The key to effectiveness must be in what continues to be sustained on the ground after the performers, feeling good about lending their names to a cause, pack their instruments and jet back to their mansions.
Which brings me back to my starting point.
Make up your own mind about what you can and want to do in your own small way – and not because Al Gore, Madonna and others made a song and dance about it last week.
That’s the most sustainable way of getting our hands, collectively, around the problem.
As a Geography student, I know and can understand the importance of protecting our environment and slowing down the rate of global warming. Global warming is actually caused by the emission of too much greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide which trap infrared rays as rays from the sun reflect against the earth’s surface.
In the article, the author talks about the old irresponsible habits of everyone of us, which can never be improved. The fact is that no one would ever give up any habits just for the sake of the environment; you wouldn’t give up a car for a bicycle. However, it’s not only a habit; it is a way of life too. You can’t possibly not use paper, can you? Therefore, I think the same way as the author; it is hard to effect changes.
In my opinion, I feel that people are actually doing something, but what they do does not help much. Take the example in the article, Live Earth concert. The concert is supposed to raise awareness of people about global warming, but it has failed in doing so. According to the article, the total carbon footprint of the whole event was 3000 times the annual average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain. My immediate response was “Oh my god?” Yes, it’s very scary. While trying to raise awareness about global warming, the unusually high carbon footprint has caused even more carbon dioxide to be emitted, adding on to the worrying rate of global warming.
Furthermore, from other related articles I’ve read, a lot of rubbish has been disposed of during the event. Yes, the concert made use of electricity from renewable sources and food and drink stalls used containers that were biodegradable. However, from a photo that I’ve seen, a lot of disposable cutleries have been used and then throw away, of course. I am not quite sure why the contradiction, but since I have limited knowledge of the facts, I shan’t talk about it. But the photo which I’ve seen could not be wrong; the earth’s resources are not conserved.
Lastly, the article mentions that whether people have understood the message that the concert was trying to convey. My hypothesis is that a large percentage of audience of the event is more interested in the concert rather than the purpose behind it. There may be a small percentage that got the message and may try to do something to conserve the Earth. As such, the impact is insignificant.
However, I must say that as a teenager though a Geography student, I am not quite aware of what have been done to raise awareness other than the Live Earth concert. Therefore, I’m not in the position to say whether events of this kind are useful. Furthermore, my concerns for the environment may have made me skeptic about the significance of such events. However, one thing for sure is that, the Live Earth concert has not done as much as it aimed to.
THINKING ALOUD
BY PAUL JACOB
Deputy Political Editor
A WORD to the uninitiated.
When mulling over how you can play your own small part in curbing global warming, it may be best to keep your plans to yourself.
And go about your business quietly.
The danger otherwise is that when you next meet people, they expect to see you in green tights and a cape, with a huge recyclable Save the Earth logo on your environmentally friendly T-shirt.
The mistaken assumption that comes when such statements of intent are offered is that the transformation is going to be immediate, overnight, instant. Out with plastics, dump the car, cut meat intake, stub out the cigarettes – and so on.
But life is not like that. The reality is that you have to struggle against instinct and habits, and contend with the accumulation of paper, junk, power-hungry equipment and gadgets from over the years.
And no way are you ready to give up a car that is distinctly more comfortable and convenient to use than an environmentally friendly bicycle.
I speak from brief experience, having written just a while ago about how much more conscious I had become of things green, especially after being startled by just how large a carbon footprint I was leaving behind.
But it was the weight of expectation foisted by others that I was unprepared for: the expectation of a 180-degree change towards leading a healthier, more completely green, and more environmentally conscious lifestyle.
In time perhaps, but not just yet.
Old habits die hard. So the green tights and cape associated with an
environmental crusader will have to wait.
Just how tough is it to effect change?
Take the case of the mother of all environmental events as a case in point.
Last Saturday’s Live Earth show was a 24-hour, seven-continent extravaganza to raise awareness about global warming.
It featured more than 100 performers and luminaries in concerts across the globe and was broadcast, podcast, vodcast and aired to an audience estimated to number two billion.
The event’s impact on changing mindsets and spreading the word is debatable. Were people drawn to the cause being promoted or were they attracted to what was effectively a rock concert, an occasion for groups like the Police to showcase their reunion?
More critically for an event that was intended to spark change in the way people view the environment, what kind of footprint did it leave in its wake? Mr John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, was quoted in the Observer newspaper as saying that the event’s total carbon footprint – including the travel and energy consumption of the artists and spectators involved – amounted to at least 31,500 tonnes.
That was more than 3,000 times the annual average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain, the paper added.
The Singapore average: 8.38 tonnes.
Some other data that makes you wonder if those involved were part of the solution or contributed to the problem: Performers flew over 350,000km to take part in the events.
That was the equivalent of nearly nine times around the planet, the Daily Mail fumed.
And the aftermath of the concert at the new Wembley stadium was a sight to behold – thousands upon thousands of plastic cups and bottles strewn on the ground.
It would seem that there, too, old habits die hard.
Organisers of the Live Earth concerts countered such concerns about the event’s negative environmental impact by pointing out, among other things, that food and drink stalls used containers that were biodegradable; shows were powered by electricity from renewable sources; low energy bulbs were used; and that trash was sorted out for recycling.
A massive event, such as Live Earth was, no doubt helps focus the minds of those who attended or who tuned in to watch the whole or part of the show.
Yet I wonder if the effects and its impact linger long.
What did you, for instance, take away from it, if anything?
How much have similar well-meaning events like the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh and 1985’s Live Aid benefit concert for Ethiopia changed the course of lives for people in those countries, and where are they today?
The key to effectiveness must be in what continues to be sustained on the ground after the performers, feeling good about lending their names to a cause, pack their instruments and jet back to their mansions.
Which brings me back to my starting point.
Make up your own mind about what you can and want to do in your own small way – and not because Al Gore, Madonna and others made a song and dance about it last week.
That’s the most sustainable way of getting our hands, collectively, around the problem.
As a Geography student, I know and can understand the importance of protecting our environment and slowing down the rate of global warming. Global warming is actually caused by the emission of too much greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide which trap infrared rays as rays from the sun reflect against the earth’s surface.
In the article, the author talks about the old irresponsible habits of everyone of us, which can never be improved. The fact is that no one would ever give up any habits just for the sake of the environment; you wouldn’t give up a car for a bicycle. However, it’s not only a habit; it is a way of life too. You can’t possibly not use paper, can you? Therefore, I think the same way as the author; it is hard to effect changes.
In my opinion, I feel that people are actually doing something, but what they do does not help much. Take the example in the article, Live Earth concert. The concert is supposed to raise awareness of people about global warming, but it has failed in doing so. According to the article, the total carbon footprint of the whole event was 3000 times the annual average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain. My immediate response was “Oh my god?” Yes, it’s very scary. While trying to raise awareness about global warming, the unusually high carbon footprint has caused even more carbon dioxide to be emitted, adding on to the worrying rate of global warming.
Furthermore, from other related articles I’ve read, a lot of rubbish has been disposed of during the event. Yes, the concert made use of electricity from renewable sources and food and drink stalls used containers that were biodegradable. However, from a photo that I’ve seen, a lot of disposable cutleries have been used and then throw away, of course. I am not quite sure why the contradiction, but since I have limited knowledge of the facts, I shan’t talk about it. But the photo which I’ve seen could not be wrong; the earth’s resources are not conserved.
Lastly, the article mentions that whether people have understood the message that the concert was trying to convey. My hypothesis is that a large percentage of audience of the event is more interested in the concert rather than the purpose behind it. There may be a small percentage that got the message and may try to do something to conserve the Earth. As such, the impact is insignificant.
However, I must say that as a teenager though a Geography student, I am not quite aware of what have been done to raise awareness other than the Live Earth concert. Therefore, I’m not in the position to say whether events of this kind are useful. Furthermore, my concerns for the environment may have made me skeptic about the significance of such events. However, one thing for sure is that, the Live Earth concert has not done as much as it aimed to.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Students ignore canal dangers
Straits Times, 27 April 2007
STOMP TIP-OFF
Nine students seen playing in canal near Bedok Reservoir, despite drowning risk
THREE days after news of a teenager drowning in a canal hit the headlines, nine students were captured on film messing about in another waterway near the Bedok Reservoir.
Several pictures were sent to Stomp, The Straits Times’ online portal, showing the children – both boys and girls – milling about nonchalantly and playing with water on Wednesday.
The Stomp contributor was concerned that the children were putting themselves in danger, but several responses from forum users revealed a devil-may-care attitude.
Stomper “bittenshrubs” said: “People dare to go in... they will dare to bear the consequences. Being in there isn’t a big problem, why make a fuss about it?”
But the Public Utilities Board (PUB), which will mark its Safety Day today, warned that “it is dangerous to enter any canals and drains” – which is why it maintains railings along them.
For one thing, strong currents can arise suddenly during a thunderstorm – as happened last Sunday when Debra Koh, 14, and three friends climbed into a canal at Bukit Batok West.
They wanted to retrieve a bag which had fallen in after they had tossed it around, but a sudden surge of water swept them away.
Three of them survived, but Debra’s dead body was found the next afternoon about 5km downstream.
The teens had entered a section of the canal where the current runs strongest during a thunderstorm.
This is due to the steepness of the drop in that stretch – a 6m slope over just 250m – which may not be obvious to the naked eye.
Debra’s death was this year’s second canal fatality. In February, 76-year-old retiree Kuek Ser Beng died after he fell into a 1m-wide and 2m-deep drain in Toh Tuck while trying to leap over it.
Such incidents are rare here – there has been just one other known fatal canal mishap since 2005.
The drain Mr Kuek tried to leap over, and the canal Debra and her friends ventured into, were both flanked by railings.
Safety will be the top priority in a major makeover of Singapore’s canals, rivers and reservoirs that will take place over the next five years, said Mr Yap Kheng Guan, director for the PUB’s 3P Network.
The project, called the Active, Beautiful and Clean Waters Programme, aims to allow people to appreciate the water and enjoy water activities.
“The water in the play areas will be off the main stream and will be shallow so children can play safely,” said Mr Yap.
He added that for activities at reservoirs and selected waterways, there will be safety measures such as mandatory donning of life vests.
The PUB manages a number of water supply plants, reservoirs and distribution networks.
In a media release to mark its Safety Day, it said its workplace safety records have improved, with 2.22 accidents per million man-hours last year, compared to 2.87 the year before.
The industry average is three accidents per million man-hours.
Click here to link to the photo posted at STOMP.
Life is indeed vulnerable. One moment, the teenage girl was still well and alive. The next moment, she got swept away by the sudden current in the canals and never came back. I felt really sad for the girl…
However, why are those teenagers ignoring the threat of a possible death? Once bitten, twice shy; although they were not bitten before, someone around their age was ‘bitten’ and never had a second chance.
This really tells me a lot about the current generation of ‘kids’. One, these kids do not know how to differentiate what’s right and what’s not. Two, they do not care a hoot about advices from their parents or from the media. I really have to shake my head and heave a sigh; they are the future leaders of the country. If they do not know what’s right and do not care about what others say, how are they going to make the right decisions for the country in future?
You may think I’m too far-stretched, but everything starts from young. If you were very bad when you are young, most likely you would stay the same when you are older. As you can see from Stomp, quite a number of users also think that these kids do not think of the consequences and are stubborn and defiant. As such, I bet you should agree with all these viewpoints and would think that those kids are very immature. I think I am able to understand how their parents felt or would feel upon seeing the photo posted on Stomp. They could be either angry or disappointed at their stupidity for such acts.
However, we are not those kids. Those kids are able to think on their own. As what Stomper ‘bittershrubs’ said, since the kids dared to enter the canal, they dare to face the consequences. From my point of view, I would like to say that, everyone has his own mindset; something that one believes is dangerous, someone else might think it is perfectly all right. For example, a parent may think it is very dangerous to be too near a lion, but a zookeeper may say it is okay to do so as the lion is tamed. Who should you believe? Therefore, the point I’m making is that it is up to one’s discretion when deciding whether to do or not; outsiders may not be in the position to comment too much, especially me a 15-year-old.
As a conclusion, I hope that everyone especially teenagers is able to empathise with the parents of the teenage girl who died by the ‘killer’ canal. The mother was devastated by the sudden death of her daughter and even urged the deceased’s classmate to pull herself up and study hard. I was touched for the mother did not blame her but even encourage her; therefore, how would she feel if she knew that the teenagers in the photo are not alarmed by the call of the ‘killer’ canal?
STOMP TIP-OFF
Nine students seen playing in canal near Bedok Reservoir, despite drowning risk
THREE days after news of a teenager drowning in a canal hit the headlines, nine students were captured on film messing about in another waterway near the Bedok Reservoir.
Several pictures were sent to Stomp, The Straits Times’ online portal, showing the children – both boys and girls – milling about nonchalantly and playing with water on Wednesday.
The Stomp contributor was concerned that the children were putting themselves in danger, but several responses from forum users revealed a devil-may-care attitude.
Stomper “bittenshrubs” said: “People dare to go in... they will dare to bear the consequences. Being in there isn’t a big problem, why make a fuss about it?”
But the Public Utilities Board (PUB), which will mark its Safety Day today, warned that “it is dangerous to enter any canals and drains” – which is why it maintains railings along them.
For one thing, strong currents can arise suddenly during a thunderstorm – as happened last Sunday when Debra Koh, 14, and three friends climbed into a canal at Bukit Batok West.
They wanted to retrieve a bag which had fallen in after they had tossed it around, but a sudden surge of water swept them away.
Three of them survived, but Debra’s dead body was found the next afternoon about 5km downstream.
The teens had entered a section of the canal where the current runs strongest during a thunderstorm.
This is due to the steepness of the drop in that stretch – a 6m slope over just 250m – which may not be obvious to the naked eye.
Debra’s death was this year’s second canal fatality. In February, 76-year-old retiree Kuek Ser Beng died after he fell into a 1m-wide and 2m-deep drain in Toh Tuck while trying to leap over it.
Such incidents are rare here – there has been just one other known fatal canal mishap since 2005.
The drain Mr Kuek tried to leap over, and the canal Debra and her friends ventured into, were both flanked by railings.
Safety will be the top priority in a major makeover of Singapore’s canals, rivers and reservoirs that will take place over the next five years, said Mr Yap Kheng Guan, director for the PUB’s 3P Network.
The project, called the Active, Beautiful and Clean Waters Programme, aims to allow people to appreciate the water and enjoy water activities.
“The water in the play areas will be off the main stream and will be shallow so children can play safely,” said Mr Yap.
He added that for activities at reservoirs and selected waterways, there will be safety measures such as mandatory donning of life vests.
The PUB manages a number of water supply plants, reservoirs and distribution networks.
In a media release to mark its Safety Day, it said its workplace safety records have improved, with 2.22 accidents per million man-hours last year, compared to 2.87 the year before.
The industry average is three accidents per million man-hours.
Click here to link to the photo posted at STOMP.
Life is indeed vulnerable. One moment, the teenage girl was still well and alive. The next moment, she got swept away by the sudden current in the canals and never came back. I felt really sad for the girl…
However, why are those teenagers ignoring the threat of a possible death? Once bitten, twice shy; although they were not bitten before, someone around their age was ‘bitten’ and never had a second chance.
This really tells me a lot about the current generation of ‘kids’. One, these kids do not know how to differentiate what’s right and what’s not. Two, they do not care a hoot about advices from their parents or from the media. I really have to shake my head and heave a sigh; they are the future leaders of the country. If they do not know what’s right and do not care about what others say, how are they going to make the right decisions for the country in future?
You may think I’m too far-stretched, but everything starts from young. If you were very bad when you are young, most likely you would stay the same when you are older. As you can see from Stomp, quite a number of users also think that these kids do not think of the consequences and are stubborn and defiant. As such, I bet you should agree with all these viewpoints and would think that those kids are very immature. I think I am able to understand how their parents felt or would feel upon seeing the photo posted on Stomp. They could be either angry or disappointed at their stupidity for such acts.
However, we are not those kids. Those kids are able to think on their own. As what Stomper ‘bittershrubs’ said, since the kids dared to enter the canal, they dare to face the consequences. From my point of view, I would like to say that, everyone has his own mindset; something that one believes is dangerous, someone else might think it is perfectly all right. For example, a parent may think it is very dangerous to be too near a lion, but a zookeeper may say it is okay to do so as the lion is tamed. Who should you believe? Therefore, the point I’m making is that it is up to one’s discretion when deciding whether to do or not; outsiders may not be in the position to comment too much, especially me a 15-year-old.
As a conclusion, I hope that everyone especially teenagers is able to empathise with the parents of the teenage girl who died by the ‘killer’ canal. The mother was devastated by the sudden death of her daughter and even urged the deceased’s classmate to pull herself up and study hard. I was touched for the mother did not blame her but even encourage her; therefore, how would she feel if she knew that the teenagers in the photo are not alarmed by the call of the ‘killer’ canal?
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Dengue war: Residents need to act
Straits Times, 30 April 2007
MOST people know what to do to stop mosquitoes from breeding, said the National Environment Agency (NEA), but many are still not acting to do so.
Among the lapses by flat-dwellers: not removing water from flower pot plates or changing water in flower vases every other day, it said.
People were more diligent when it came to its two other tips – turning pails over and covering bamboo pole holders.
A survey of 1,200 people last year revealed that while nine in 10 people knew what to do, only half of them used all anti-breeding measures.
The NEA is on a blitz to keep dengue – and the Aedes mosquito which spreads the disease – in check.
More cases of breeding in homes, a larger mosquito population, and warmer temperatures could inevitably result in more dengue cases if nothing is done soon, warned the NEA.
Grassroots organisation volunteers and environmental officers have been intensively checking public and common areas in housing board estates, as part of a campaign which started on April 9.
It is the first phase of the dengue mosquito-breeding prevention campaign.
The results, two weeks later, seem to suggest fewer cases of mosquitoes breeding in public areas outside homes such as common corridors and void decks.
Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Water Resources Amy Khor was among those who yesterday conducted antimosquito breeding checks at HDB flats in Bukit Batok, which is in the South West District where she is mayor.
Inside homes, however, the news is not as good.
Last month, 258 homes were found breeding the Aedes mosquito, compared with 140 in February.
Dr Khor said there is a high level of awareness but what is needed is to encourage more people to take action.
“It could be that when you don’t see dengue cases, you don’t hear about it, you become complacent and you forget,” she said.
Prevent mozzie breeding
TO STOP mosquitoes from breeding:
Change water in vases on alternate days.
Remove water from flowerpot plates on alternate days.
Turn all pails and water storage containers over.
Cover bamboo pole holders when they are not in use.
Clear blockages and put anti-mosquito insecticide in roof gutters monthly.
If staying away from home for some time, cover toilet bowls and floor traps.
For details, visit www.dengue.gov.sg or call 1800-333-777.
After reading this article, I have only one word to describe Singaporeans, ‘lazy’. In the article, it tells us that nine out of ten Singaporeans actually know how to stop mosquitoes from breeding but only half of them use all anti-breeding measures.
However, there are actually quite a number of residents who carry out anti-breeding measures, but to a certain extent. They are only diligent to turn pails over and covering bamboo poles; they are just too ‘lazy’ to remove water from flowerpot plates and changing water in flower vases every other day.
I used the word ‘lazy’ unsparingly as the fact is that they are already carrying out some measures, but why don’t they do it in a complete set? Removing water and changing water do not require much time at all; so just by doing that extra bit they can make quite a big difference!
What is this big difference? Due to the shortage of space in Singapore, we have flats that reach up to 30 storeys. If due to the laziness of one unit, it may cause breeding of mosquitoes that might affect the whole flat and the neighbouring ones too. As such, we can really see how much difference there is by doing that extra bit, and so it is really the responsibility of every member in the society.
As the saying goes, “prevention is better than cure”, I agree what Dr Khor said – what is needed is to encourage more people to take action. From the National Environment Agency (NEA)’s point of view, I know they have to keep the threat of dengue fever in check, and the best method to control is to prevent dengue fever from spreading or else they have to face the possibility of death cases for it is not as easy to cure.
This idea can be adapted into other situations like preventing lung cancer by not smoking for curing is much worse than combating the addiction to smoking. As such, I am sure if I were Dr Khor, I would have felt a sense of helplessness to find out that 258 homes were found breeding Aedes mosquitoes in March, as the NEA has been trying to prevent mosquito breeding and even taking the initiative to check homes for cases.
However, I am uncertain what the case is like in other housing estates beside Bukit Batok as the article tells us only that mosquito breeding has been detected in Bukit Batok. I just hope that the situation would be much better in other housing estates. Therefore, I guess the only thing I could do is to carry out the anti-mosquito measures with my family, which is the bare minimum that all Singaporeans should do. As such, we must do our part to stop dengue from spreading as we are not only causing trouble for the NEA, we are also threatening the lives of other people.
MOST people know what to do to stop mosquitoes from breeding, said the National Environment Agency (NEA), but many are still not acting to do so.
Among the lapses by flat-dwellers: not removing water from flower pot plates or changing water in flower vases every other day, it said.
People were more diligent when it came to its two other tips – turning pails over and covering bamboo pole holders.
A survey of 1,200 people last year revealed that while nine in 10 people knew what to do, only half of them used all anti-breeding measures.
The NEA is on a blitz to keep dengue – and the Aedes mosquito which spreads the disease – in check.
More cases of breeding in homes, a larger mosquito population, and warmer temperatures could inevitably result in more dengue cases if nothing is done soon, warned the NEA.
Grassroots organisation volunteers and environmental officers have been intensively checking public and common areas in housing board estates, as part of a campaign which started on April 9.
It is the first phase of the dengue mosquito-breeding prevention campaign.
The results, two weeks later, seem to suggest fewer cases of mosquitoes breeding in public areas outside homes such as common corridors and void decks.
Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Water Resources Amy Khor was among those who yesterday conducted antimosquito breeding checks at HDB flats in Bukit Batok, which is in the South West District where she is mayor.
Inside homes, however, the news is not as good.
Last month, 258 homes were found breeding the Aedes mosquito, compared with 140 in February.
Dr Khor said there is a high level of awareness but what is needed is to encourage more people to take action.
“It could be that when you don’t see dengue cases, you don’t hear about it, you become complacent and you forget,” she said.
Prevent mozzie breeding
TO STOP mosquitoes from breeding:
Change water in vases on alternate days.
Remove water from flowerpot plates on alternate days.
Turn all pails and water storage containers over.
Cover bamboo pole holders when they are not in use.
Clear blockages and put anti-mosquito insecticide in roof gutters monthly.
If staying away from home for some time, cover toilet bowls and floor traps.
For details, visit www.dengue.gov.sg or call 1800-333-777.
After reading this article, I have only one word to describe Singaporeans, ‘lazy’. In the article, it tells us that nine out of ten Singaporeans actually know how to stop mosquitoes from breeding but only half of them use all anti-breeding measures.
However, there are actually quite a number of residents who carry out anti-breeding measures, but to a certain extent. They are only diligent to turn pails over and covering bamboo poles; they are just too ‘lazy’ to remove water from flowerpot plates and changing water in flower vases every other day.
I used the word ‘lazy’ unsparingly as the fact is that they are already carrying out some measures, but why don’t they do it in a complete set? Removing water and changing water do not require much time at all; so just by doing that extra bit they can make quite a big difference!
What is this big difference? Due to the shortage of space in Singapore, we have flats that reach up to 30 storeys. If due to the laziness of one unit, it may cause breeding of mosquitoes that might affect the whole flat and the neighbouring ones too. As such, we can really see how much difference there is by doing that extra bit, and so it is really the responsibility of every member in the society.
As the saying goes, “prevention is better than cure”, I agree what Dr Khor said – what is needed is to encourage more people to take action. From the National Environment Agency (NEA)’s point of view, I know they have to keep the threat of dengue fever in check, and the best method to control is to prevent dengue fever from spreading or else they have to face the possibility of death cases for it is not as easy to cure.
This idea can be adapted into other situations like preventing lung cancer by not smoking for curing is much worse than combating the addiction to smoking. As such, I am sure if I were Dr Khor, I would have felt a sense of helplessness to find out that 258 homes were found breeding Aedes mosquitoes in March, as the NEA has been trying to prevent mosquito breeding and even taking the initiative to check homes for cases.
However, I am uncertain what the case is like in other housing estates beside Bukit Batok as the article tells us only that mosquito breeding has been detected in Bukit Batok. I just hope that the situation would be much better in other housing estates. Therefore, I guess the only thing I could do is to carry out the anti-mosquito measures with my family, which is the bare minimum that all Singaporeans should do. As such, we must do our part to stop dengue from spreading as we are not only causing trouble for the NEA, we are also threatening the lives of other people.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
MPs call for free preschool education for lower income groups
It is indeed true that Singapore has one of the highest myopia rates in the world. This situation is very serious as one in four Singaporean has myopia. You can see almost everyone with spectacles nowadays when you walk in Orchard Road. An example can be seen in my class as more than three-quarters of my classmates are myopic. Is Singapore turning into a “myopic society”? Will there be one day when no Singaporean can become a pilot?
Therefore, what exactly is the problem with the eyes of Singaporean kids? Why are schools implementing a new green board to reduce the light reflection that a typical white board has, when “there are no scientific studies linking myopia to the glare from white boards” in school?
Yes, it is no doubt true that green is “the best contrast for the human eye” and it is proven that staring at green objects after hours of working in front of the computer will help to relax the eyes, preventing the risk of worsening the myopic condition of the eyes.
As a myopic patient, I understand that the light that reflects on the glossy white boards are glaring to the eyes and it is sometimes hard for me to see the words on the boards. However, I know that the cause of my myopia is not really due to those white boards. Like every other myopic people, we know that we are guilty of reading when there is insufficient amount of light, using the computer for long hours without resting, watching TV at a very close distance.
Therefore, is there a need to develop “green boards”? As mentioned in the article, there are already Visioncare programmes going on in schools. I guess that these programmes should have been able to remove the bad habits of myopic students and educate them on protecting their sense of sight.
Moreover, I know how troublesome it is to be wearing a pair of spectacles, as it is just too inconvenient, so I believe that myopic students will feel that way too and they will not continue to spoil their eyes.
However, my prediction may not be true. Young students may not have heeded the advices given and may have continued to worsen the myopic condition of their eyes. In this case, it is very worrying as the saying goes, “it is better to prevent than to cure”; when non-myopic students make friends with myopia, it is almost impossible to reverse the situation. As for students who are already myopic, their eyesight would worsen to a stage of almost-blindness.
Therefore, green boards may be a hard engineering method for soft engineering method (education) has failed. So it may be possible that less squinting of eyes due to light reflection may prevent one from becoming myopic or one’s myopia from worsening.
I just have to hope that whatever methods schools adopt to slow down the myopia rates among students, they would be successful.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Government to give out $4b GST offset package
Ever since the announcement of the 2 percent Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate hike, there has been a lot of unpleasantness.
With reference to a few articles I have read during November last year, I understand that the aim of the hike is to help the low-income groups and grow the economy. However, after reading through this article, I do not think it will be successful.
First of all, it was mentioned before that government spending has to go up as infrastructure investments and medical facilities will cost a lot of money, so as a result, the GST hike is inevitable. However, why is the government going to provide a $4 billion GST offset package in order to cushion the low-income groups from the impending hike when it can be used to finance those investments and facilities? And in fact, the majority of the low-income groups will get offsets equivalent to what they would have spent in GST over five years. But what would happen after the five years? Therefore, I have to ask: how much will the 7% GST help?
Following that, I have read that all government fees will only be raised one year after the increase of GST. So when the fees are raised, will the government provide some more offset packages to help the low-income groups? If it is a yes, the GST hike will seem to have been a bad decision after all; it just creates a vicious cycle that will go on and on. But if it is a no, will the economy grow since the poor will become poorer, and the rich might become richer?
What I think that the government should do is to help the breadwinners of the low-income groups get a better job with a higher salary. This would, in fact, solve the underlying problem as in the long run, the government needs not to provide any financial assistance package for them. If the government continues to give more and more money, as stated above, it will just be a vicious cycle and it will not do both parties any good.
However, I must also say that I do not know what burdens does the government have. They may be in need of a huge sum of money to make Singapore more competitive, so in fact, I think that the GST hike may help the government in the long run, as what I have stated above are just some short-term from the point of view of the low-income groups. If the low-income groups are just a very small minority, the government would be able to “earn profit” from the other taxpayers and consumers, after giving out offset packages. Accumulating the amount received every year; the government would have an amount that can be used for investments and facilities, hence growing the economy.
Lastly, I just hope that the GST hike will not add burden to us, but help the government achieve their aims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)