JC Diploma

Recently, Hwa Chong Institution (HCI) and Raffles Junior College (RJC) have been issueing non-academic "JC diplomas". What is a JC Diploma, you may ask. Simply put, it is a "degree" for outstanding students in non-academic areas to distinguish the best from the better. 

I believe that such a JC Diploma system is rather feasible as it could likely be the differentiating factor between students. With more and more students scoring over 8As in their 'A' levels, universities all over the world find it hard to choose students to admit. This may likely be the answer for universities as this JC diploma separates the best from the best. 

Furthermore, the university level of studies no longer aims for solely academic excellence, but also co-curricular talents. JC diplomas are able to identify these groups of more gifted students as it looks out for both academic excellence but also excellence beyond the text books. 

However, though a viable bonus to students' portfolio, I believe that this JC diploma cannot completely replace the ‘A’ levels. If ‘A’ levels were to be removed and JC diplomas become the only education certificate JC students can obtain. As such, JC diplomas would have to be moderated to a certain level so that majority of the students will be able to obtain a college degree. However if more and more students gain a JC diploma, the dilemma of choosing students surfaces once again, thus bringing us back to square one.

On the other hand, if the requirements for obtaining a JC diploma were to be cranked up a notch, many of the JC students would only have a ‘O’ level certificate, effectively wasting two years of life in junior college.

Hence, I believe that the initialising of a JC diploma is not a bad idea. However, I personally feel that it would not be able to replace the ‘A’ levels, but instead act as a higher level of achievement and as I earlier mentioned, a differentiating factor between students, separating the cream of the crops from the others. Also, I believe that only a selected number of students can be awarded these JC diplomas thus increasing the uniqueness of such diplomas.

The Googlary

Google (n): An online search engine important to users worldwide.
 (v): The act of researching online using the online search engine, Google. 

A trip to the online oxford dictionary enlightened m e on the very meaning of “Google”. What appals me is that the verb “Google” isn’t even classified as a slang. However, I cannot deny that I myself am responsible for excessive usage of the Google search engine. But, I do enjoy being at the library. Hence, in this blog post, I would like to share my view points on the article “Today’s library, tomorrow’s ‘googlary’.” 

Though, it is true that libraries are irreplaceable, both the word and its function. However, it definitely is much more convenient. With a few clicks and we have access to almost any knowledge we desire. However, “Googlers” still have to learn to be wise and selective towards the vast information provided by the internet. 

But, this cannot be blamed entirely on the users of Google; “credit” should also be given to Google themselves. They are by far the only search engine that provides an extensive search for websites, videos, blogs, news etc. You name it, they have it. Google even has a satellite imagery program that allows users to view any location in the world. It is no wonder that it is the most popular search engine all over the world, with the exception of China who banned Google. 

There is, however, one competitor of Google’s that too has gained much recognition. It too, has become a verb widely used by people. That competitor is none other than the online encyclopaedia: Wikipedia. Even teachers are using “Wiki” as a verb: “Got a question, just wiki it!” Furthermore, if you were to try Googling a certain topic, more often than not, the first hit would be from Wikipedia. Some claim that this is a conspiracy. 

Bringing the topic back to libraries, what exactly would happen to these libraries? I personally feel that they would not change. As stated in the article, libraries will always have a difference between the internets, have you ever tried browsing through the vast internet of websites, a mere word search of “I” would garner you more than a million hits. Furthermore, this already involves the narrowing of the spectrum, browsing through the internet would be insane. 

Hence, I believe that there is certainly nothing wrong with having both libraries and Googlaries. What exactly is stopping us from having both?

GEP Programme

It is with great irony as I read the article “A gift of a programme”, seeing how the author praises and emphasises on the importance on the GEP system. However, only 5 years after this article was published, the GEP system was taken down, so much for the GEP being the very foundation of Singapore education. The past is the past I guess. 

I personally do not agree with the author on the GEP system. He claims that these “special GEP students” are able to mix with the non-GEP students during their Co-curricular activities, otherwise known as the CCA. However, with so many school specialised and labelled as a GEP school, the dominating student population would consist GEP students only. Having GEP students mix with other GEP students during their CCAs would just defeat the purpose of letting GEP students mingle during their CCAs. 

On the other hand, the author also stated that there is little or no separation between GEP and non-GEP students, that there is certainly no such thing as differentiation between the two parties. However, he contradicted himself at the start of the article saying how superior these GEP students were, taking up a large percentage of scholarships, awards and other honorary titles. It would seem rather obvious that the author himself was a former GEP student, from my point of view at least. 

The author also included a paragraph on so called “non-snobbish” GEP students, quoting how these students were able to give back to the society and take part in all sorts of volunteer work. I personally feel that this statement is far off the point, is getting into GEP the only way to gain an epiphany on the importance of gratitude towards the country? Only GEP students are dense enough to love the nation? Non-GEP students, too, partake in such volunteer work! Moral education isn’t a GEP-only syllabus after all. 

In fact, I believe that the removal of the GEP system to be a good call. Giving students a sense of differentiation at the young age of 10 would seem highly inappropriate. Children of that age not only like to compare but anything that they have and others don’t have, becomes a privilege to boast about. Parents force their children to go for special GEP test tuition since Primary 1 just to get their children into this programme. Is it really necessary to subject young children to such stress at such a young age? Definitely not!

Being a non-GEP student, I have been called jealous and bitter multiple times by these students, but I accept that. However, some of these GEP students already have an in-built attitude that others are inferior, totally oblivious that the gap between the two parties is not much different. I do not bear a grudge against GEP students; I just believe that it is with such articles that GEP students gain their snobbishness. 

The Casino Debate

An Integrated Resort, otherwise known as the IR, is finally coming to Singapore. However, most people have mixed feelings towards the IR. Being underage and unable to neither gain entry to the casino or even gamble, I will be posting merely as a bystander. 

Based off the current situation, I believe that the biggest disagreement that the public had, has already been removed. The issue was that the upcoming IRs would not allow entry to the Singaporeans. This seemed like a very unreasonable decision. Naturally, Singaporeans all over the country created a great hoo-ha over this. The decision later made to allow Singaporeans, was in fact a wise one. 

One thing that I noticed was that there were quite a lot of articles on how the structure of the IR was planned to fit the “feng shui”. Having some interest in such topics, I noticed how the building was centred on bringing in wealth, similar to the design of the Suntec City “Fountain of Wealth”. However, the very design sparked off some controversy. Gamblers believed that this meant trouble for them as they would lose money in the IR, “bringing wealth” to the IR literally. 

Most of the opposition believes that the opening of the IR would increase the number of gamble-holics in Singapore, greatly damaging the image of Singapore and also bring about many social problems. The number of underground loaning groups like “loan sharks” would increase exponentially. This not only affects the person addicted to gambling, but also everyone around him. The opening of an IR was even labelled to be a waste of resources, though the revenue gained would be astounding, but the problems that come with this package would be devastating. 

However, I personally believe that there is more than enough measure put in place. One prominent example would be the family decision act, whereby family members are allowed to “ban” their relative from entering the IR even before it sets up to remove potential gamble-holics. The government has also started a series of advertisements on how to prevent being addicted to gambling and even set up help-lines for gamble addicts. 

Having so many measures already in place, I believe that the IR issue has been given much thought and that the benefits would outweigh all the potential problems. 

H1N1 Influenza A

With the recent breakout of the H1N1 influenza, people all over the world have been flung into chaos. In this blog post, I will be sharing my opinion on how various countries have reacted to the H1N1 influenza. This influenza was originally named the “swine flu”, having been suspected to infect pigs alone. However, it was later found out that it could be transmitted through the air. 

The first country that was hit with the influenza was Mexico. Though it had seemed that the cases in Mexico were going out of hand, but Mexico was in fact the first country to get the influenza under control. However, critiques still continue to arrow Mexico, blaming them for the outbreak. Some countries have even gone to the extent of disallowing Mexicans from entering their countries. I personally feel that such measures are very unreasonable. Though the outbreak of the influenza may have been due to the lack of vigilance on the Mexicans’ side, ostracising them would simply be immoral.

 On the other hand, America, the supposedly “more developed country”, has been greatly hit by the influenza. What saddens me is how irresponsible the Americans seemed, with the greatest number of cases and death toll. With such advanced medical facilities, it would be expected that the influenza at least be contained. Furthermore, the American government did close to nothing to prevent the influenza from spreading to other countries. Statistics have shown that almost all the first cases in Asia came from America. 

Another ironic case study would be China, given its massive population; doctors all over the world have speculated that China would have the greatest number of cases. Despite such speculations, China seemed to have gotten the influenza under control, startling many professionals. However, many believe that it is due to its huge population that it is hard to keep track of confirmed influenza cases. Hence, people have accused China of reporting false figures, but I believe that they deserve a certain amount of credit as well. 

Bringing the question back to Singapore, I believe that Singapore has fared rather poorly, though the preventive measures taken by the Singaporean government is commendable, being one of the latest countries to be hit by the influenza. However, once the influenza hit us, it spread like wild fire, having over 100 cases each day, and yet Singaporeans are still behaving as though nothing is happening, treating the influenza as a joke. The government isn’t at any fault; in fact they have been doing almost everything that they can. The problem lies solely in the Singapore public, they should change their attitude towards the influenza and start treating it as a real threat before it is too late. 

Advance Medical Directive Act

The advance medical directive act refers to the act of ending one's life, given that he or she is in critical state. To put it simply, patients are allowed to bring forward their death day to cease their suffering. 

Many people compare this to the act of euthanasia, more commonly know as the “legal suicide”. The only difference between the two is just that the former requires a valid reason for the application to be approved, while the latter simply needs an application. Though there's only one difference between the two, but why is it that Singapore chose the former? 

First of all, euthanasia seems to be an easily abused act, people are able to end their lives on their own accord, without consulting any relatives or specialists, it has the same social impact as committing suicide. However, socially responsible people would obviously consult their relatives and friends before going for euthanasia. The advance medical directive act, on the other hand, needs a long and elaborate process of approval. 

However, despite the advance medical directive act having so many measure in place, it is bound to be abused. One issue would be the qualifications of this act. It seems like any one of the parties mentioned in the act possesses veto powers against ending a single soul. Furthermore, there is a part for “medical specialists” to decide if the patient is really in pain. No doubt, there would be differences in each and every doctor's perception, if Doctor A doesn't grant the approval, the patient can go to Doctor B to seek approval, so on and so forth, until they grant approval. 

Also, there is the issue of insurance. If the person under this act has death insurance, does it mean that their relatives are still paid for it, after all, it is a loss of kin. Would their insurance then be terminated? The patient may even have to go through this pressure if their family is in immediate need of money. 

It is hard to see someone die before your eyes, but it is harder to see someone suffer before your eyes, knowing that they'd have to go through the same pain over and over again each day. Wouldn't it be better to just let them go? The advance medical directive act has its pros and cons but either way, we should never abuse it. 

Organ Transplant Act

Having not been in a critical medical state, I would not be able to understand the desperation that patients experience as their life depends on that one organ. Similarly, I wouldn’t understand how some people are so desperate for that sum of money. 

The first issue that I would like to address today would be the foregoing of consent in harvesting organs. I personally believe that this isn’t a viable option at all. In fact, in my opinion, not only should we gain consent from the donor, we should also acquire the consent of the donor’s parents. After all, we were blessed with our body thanks to our parents. Imagine giving someone a gift with all your sincerity and that person simply sells it away without giving a thought about your feeling. 

Another issue that I would like to address is the addition of incentives to the donors. In the present, it is already known that some people go to blood donation drives to donate their blood, not to help people, but to get a free meal provided to all donors. If incentives were to be put in place to organ donors, we would expect people to donate their organs just to get their hands on that sum of money. This would then become an act of “selling one’s body” literally. 

First of all, I suggest that an agreement form to be handed out to the receiver, donor and donor’s relative. The operation can only take place after all three parties have signed the agreement form. I also suggest that the incentives to be converted into a more indirect form, take for example, hospital memberships, redeemable hospital bills, reimbursement of his medical fees. Hence there would be a bonus present, just that it isn’t immediately accessible. Also, the removal of incentives altogether should also be considered. Some may argue that this would act as a push factor to donors and would thus cause them to refuse donating altogether. 

 However, if the removal of incentives would deter people from donating their organs, then that would just reflect how greedy and desperate people are. Donating of organs should be in hope that you can save someone instead of thinking about yourself. Donating to save a life should be a selfless act; those who should think otherwise ought to reflect on their thoughts.