Response 2

The writer sounds a clarion call, imploring readers to “Stop making Excuses”. I find that reading this article has been an enjoyable and beneficial experience for me. For example, I’ve come to know more about Autism, understand its ramifications, and empathize with the parents and children. However, since my sparse knowledge of Autism is derived from the article itself, it seems inappropriate to discuss the issue of Autism here.

I would like to assert that the contents of this article can be appropriated and superimposed upon a wider context; that of Life.

We grow and progress the most through challenges. The main premise is that in order to surmount a challenge, we have to better ourselves. This is because for it to be challenging, any challenge will have to best our original selves. This revelation helps me to better understand why I should willingly ‘step out of my comfort zone’. It is an opportunity for me to grow and advance, not stagnate on the spot.

The oft-repeated ‘your-attitude-changes-your-life’ spiel presents itself here. I appreciate this timely reminder about how only we can choose whether to see the glass as half-empty or half-full. The power of choice, especially in a no-choice situation can work wonders. For example, when we have no choice but to do the Maths Project, we can either choose to be positive about it and try to complete it as soon as possible; or choose to sit in the corner, complain and sulk and end up doing last-minute slipshod work. Our attitude determines how we think in turn, it affects our actions.

“Autism is so complex that only professionals can help my child”. This is definitely not true, living a life is not rocket science, but it is not ABC too. We’ll need professional help time to time, to improve our lives, such as professional counseling, motivational speakers. Everyone is a professional, but the professional most qualified to help you live your life, is yourself! In life, we encounter loads of people, but the truth is, the one we encounter the most is ourselves. This quote puts it nicely: “Professionals should be there to support you on your journey(Life), not replace you.”

“If it works for so-and-so’s son, how come it is not working for mine”. This sad truth also manifests itself in life. As the saying goes, “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”. Having an antecedent doesn’t necessarily mean that future cases will turn out exactly the same way. Hence, we should always keep this in mind and not blindly followed the ‘tried-and-tested’ formulas for they had tested only the past, not the unknown future.

I realize that my writing is not at all smooth and coherent. I’ve tried my best to tackle some of the more salient points of the article. It was quite an uphill task for me, mainly because of my relative ignorance of Life, given my short 15 years of existence. However, I’m glad that I’ve tried and learnt from this experience.

Article-Response 1

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295132,00.html

Since feeling is first: Sharing Thoughts

On the issue of Hostages.

I empathise and pity the South Korean Government, for no matter which route they chose to take, it is still a lose-lose situation for them. It was a fight between domestic lobbying and international pressure. In the end, the Government did what was natural, and perhaps, what was right, they acted in their interest. Caving in to domestic concerns, they negotiated with the terrorists for the release of the hostages. Speculation is rife now, with talk of secret backroom deals where sums amounting to millions were paid out to the terrorists in exchange. This seems highly probable, given that the other 2 ‘exchanges’ seemed nothing but a formality, given that the 2 measures were nothing unexpected. The implication of this issue is worth heeding. Has a deleterious precedent been set?

I think that the currency of human lives will surely enjoy a roaring trade, given the great supply and demand.

Personally, what the South Korean Government did was not morally reprehensible, given that most humans are not very self-sacrificial. I hold the bleak belief that for humans, self is first, especially so in this proclaimed ‘meritocratic’ world, where competition is fierce and cutthroat.

However, I feel that the South Korean Government is the real victim in this case. It had already tried its best to avert the situation. It had already posted travel advisories, warning its citizens not to go to the unstable Middle East. Yet when the citizens are in trouble because of individual folly, the poor Government has to step in. This is highly analogous to that of a parent to his child. A truism of the world perhaps?

Getting to the crux of the issue, where should the buck stop? For me, I think that the overzealous ‘aid workers’ should bear the most responsibility. After all, it is their own actions that landed them in their predicament. The issue of them really being aid workers or missionaries is of particular significance. Being aid workers or being missionaries would have affected the legitimacy of the terrorists’ actions. Granted, any kidnapping is of course unlawful and wrong. However, the kidnapping of perceived enemies spreading falsehoods about Islam compared to kidnapping people on a humanitarian mission; Which is more justified and right?

The South Koreans should not have gone on such a perilous trip to Afghanistan. If they persisted on going, then they must take responsibility for their own actions. It is not their fault that people kidnapped them, but it is their fault for allowing themselves to be so easily kidnapped.

Hence, I feel that the hostages are most at blame. Their photo taken near a travel advisory, whether in ignorance or jest, does not convey the sense that these were a bunch of idealistic, innocent youngsters on a humanitarian quest.

I realize that this is based on the assumption that the future is going to be even more bleak after this fiasco. However, I cannot imagine any brighter future, when the polluted air continues to cloud our skies. (500)

Assement Article Response 2

Pub Date: 13/04/2007 Pub: ST Page: 27
Column: FRIDAY MATTERS
Day: Friday

Edition: FIRST
Headline: Basis of govt-people ties shifting – from moral to
transactional?
By: CHUA MUI HOONG

Page Heading: INSIGHT
Subject: POLITICAL/GENERAL NEWS^GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS^CIVIL SERVICE
CORPORATE/INDUSTRIAL NEWS^LABOUR/PERSONNEL ISSUES^WAGES
Source:
SPH

FRIDAY MATTERS
BY CHUA MUI HOONG
SENIOR WRITER
HEARD the one about Senator Hillary Clinton giving up her presidential bid in
America?

She's coming to Singapore – because the pay is better.

This joke, and similar ones about White House officials angling for jobs at the

Istana, circulated this week, as Parliament debated a move to raise salaries of
civil servants and ministers.
Jokes provide an avenue for the body politic to let off steam. Unpack their
hidden meaning, and a wealth of latent sentiments emerge.

As the three-day parliamentary debate on pay showed, there is a growing sense
in the Singapore body politic that public service is a misnomer: With pay
packets explicitly pegged to that of top private sector executives, ministers

are performing less a public "service", or even a public "duty", than just
another job.
Having watched debate on the issue since 1994, I was struck by the way so many
MPs in this debate argued that it was unreasonable to expect ministers to make

big financial sacrifices to take up public office.
This was the majority viewpoint in the People's Action Party (PAP), forcefully
articulated by its ministers and MPs.
Only a minority of MPs (mostly opposition and Nominated MPs) warned about the

erosion of the sense of public service if pay was pegged to head honchos'
salaries – a point of view the PAP leadership disagreed with.
Certainly there is no simplistic, linear relationship between pay forgone and

level of moral authority. A lowly paid incompetent or dishonest official has no
claim to moral standing.
But as I have noted in a previous commentary, to claim the compensation pegged
to the most successful in the market, and yet expect the moral adulation of

citizens for performing a highly paid job, is to want to have one's cake and to
eat it too.
Even Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong thinks that forgoing his own salary
increases for five years and donating the money to charity raises his moral

standing to explain the pay hikes to the people.
Changing social compact
THE debate over ministers' pay this year shows Singapore at the cusp of change:
transiting from a more traditional, hierarchical society which views its

leaders as moral superiors making a sacrifice for the nation, to a more
transactional relationship where political leaders are expected to be held to
account for their performance in return for market-based pay.

To use terms from political philosophy, the social compact is changing.
Those who subscribe to the first feel outraged, even betrayed, at the thought
of ministers who may think a $1 million pay packet isn't enough and want $2

million.
Many Singaporeans, especially among the pre-Independence generation accustomed
to viewing political leaders as their betters, belong to this group.
For this group, the pay issue will always fester: a reminder that society, and

its norms, and notions of service and duty, have changed.
I may be over-generalising, but I think the post-Independence generation, to
which I belong, view the relationship between government and governed less in

moral terms, and more from a "rational-legal" point of view (to use sociologist
Max Weber's characterisation) where governing authority is based on law and
resides in the will of the people expressed in elections.

The foundation of the relationship between government and people is shifting:
from a moral one between a superior parent figure and a child, to a more
transactional, contractual relationship.
Moral philosopher John Rawls' influential A Theory Of Justice describes three

stages of moral development. The first is the "morality of authority", when
children who lack independent reasoning or means, are subject to the
legitimate, loving authority of parents.
The parent has the duty to provide care, make good decisions on the child's

behalf and behave in a way worthy of the child's love and admiration. From the
child, "the prized virtues are obedience, humility and fidelity to authority".
When a child grows up, he learns the "morality of association", forming

attachments to peers and groups, and agreeing to live by their rules. At this
stage, he is expected to honour obligations and duties, and expects others to
behave likewise.
If I may be allowed a conceit in applying this to Singapore, the electorate

today is like a maturing child, outgrowing the confines of the first morality
based on authority, to accepting one based on association.
In this second phase, reciprocity is a key value. Voters pay taxes which fund

the government. In return, they expect paid officials to perform, and to be
sanctioned if they do not.
When we understand Singapore society in this transition, then we are not
surprised at the lexicon used in this week's debate on pay issues, when MPs

spoke of publishing key performance indicators and making public how ministers
have performed.
In Rawls' rubric, there is a third phase, the "morality of principles", when
people strive to do what is right and good for their own sake, not because

authority or peers encourage them to. This group includes normal people with
consciences who strive to do the right thing, and a separate category of
superior moral beings.
The morality for the latter group – "the saint and the hero" – includes virtues

of "benevolence, a heightened sensitivity to the feelings and wants of others,
and a proper humility and unconcern with self".
The Old Guard typified this. But as PAP ministers and MPs noted expressly in
this week's debate, it is unrealistic to expect ministers to be such "saints"

nowadays.
Nor does my generation have such expectations.
Different expectations
WE UNDERSTAND that those who enter political office, have done their sums. They
weigh the loss of privacy and the opportunity cost of their time, against the

psychic satisfaction of doing good and the attraction of power and prestige.
The $2 million salary helps remove pay out of the equation, so it is neither an
obstacle nor inducement to be in public office.
Having made his calculations, he takes the plunge and gets a top market-based

wage. Having paid top dollar, citizens demand top-notch performance. It's a
quid pro quo arrangement. Talk of sacrifice on $2-million-a-year salaries rings
hollow to many.
If he does not perform, no amount of talk about sacrifice will endear him to

taxpayers. If he does perform, he earns the respect due to any top-performing
executive in his job.
But the kind of reverence and moral authority the Old Guard got from our
parents' generation? That's only for "saints" who demonstrate a superior kind

of selfless morality in public service.
The social compact is changing, and a younger generation has different
expectations of those in public office.
muihoong@sph.com.sg

Category: Political/Societal Issue

Summary

Chua Mui Hoong postulates an interesting thesis, that the relationship between the government and Singapore society has progressed(?) from a moral one to a transactional one. She makes several points, including how many lawmakers have stated that “it was unreasonable to expect ministers to make big financial sacrifices to take up public office”. It is further corroborated by another article I perused, written by George Yeo, Foreign Affairs Minister. It was his belief that though “paying right”(ie. Equal to those top-earners in the market) will “obviously not” stop corruption, “not paying right will certainly encourage it”. This seems to be the main motivator for paying top dollar; for top-notch performances. From the furore whipped up through the debates over ministerial salary, she observes that “Singapore (is) at the cusp of change”, from one which views its leaders(government) as moral superiors, to a more “transactional” one, where they are superior in performance only, for superior pay. This transition has also added a new meaning to the word “public service”. She feels that it has become a misnomer.

She then uses John Rawl’s theory of moral development as a child, as an analogy to Singapore society now. She likens the electorate to be maturing, from “morality of authority” to “morality of association”, meaning, a quid pro quo relationship, where reciprocity is key.

Her next point is that of a different generational mindset; the “post-independence generation” as opposed to “pre-independence generation” mindset. She posits that the younger generation holds a more “rational-legal” view, whereas the older one still view their leaders as people who have made sacrifices, for public good.

She ends off with an aptly reworded thesis statement , that “ a younger generation has different expectations of those in public office”

Reflection

I feel that the issue raised is particularly pertinent in today’s society. Has society really changed? Have we become more money-grubbing and trying to stretch that dollar? Has pragmatism and this type of “equality” prevailed over morality? If what the author posits is true, then it is not just the relationship which is transactional. Only a “transaction-alist” society will have a transactional relationship.

This diminishing value of morality vis-à-vis pragmatism heralds a bleak prospect indeed…

For example, the Italian Prime Minister’s request for a Singapore embassy has been denied, until trade volume between Singapore and Italy balloons 8-fold to $40 billion.

Indeed even on the governmental side, reciprocity is highly valued.

In RI too, students get a superb environment for development, in turn, they have to win prizes for the school, capture glory for the school and participate in ORA. To get good marks, I need good effort. Reciprocity seems to be all ok, that is, on the surface. However, it really brings out the uglier aspect of us, we don’t call charity hotlines for nothing, there is always the lure of a prize/car.

The writer’s opinion is that Singapore is already shifting, at the “cusp”. However, I think that Singapore has long shifted over, for at least a decade already. After Singapore’s independence, after it got on track to prosperity and peace, people have already been shifting. The tumultuous years, replaced with lulling peace and the hard-headed pragmatism dogmatically enforced by the government have already largely influenced society. You chew gum, fine, just get fined.

However, things are loosening up, the highly flexible Community Courts have been set up, there is a discourse on whether homosexuals should be allowed, F1 races have been given the green light, casinos are slated for construction; Singapore has indeed become more liberal.

The writer’s point on “morality of principles”, where doing the right thing is the only thing to do, is thought-provoking. Is it really “unrealistic” in today’s world? The Old Guard who “typified” this is already fading, Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San has all passed away. Has there been a modern “Mother Theresa” figure?

However, in today’s world, there is no more apartheid, no more world wars(yet), philanthropist foundations and trusts have sprouted up, a recent case would be that of the Temasek Trust and Foundation, not forgetting Bill Gates own foundation, the World Bank., IMF, even J.K Rowling! She has donated an amount larger than $495,000 to a $3 million reward fund for a missing British Girl. There is certainly no expectation for reciprocity here.

I really can’t decide. Has the world got better or worse since the Old Guard? I need to study and comprehend more before coming to my own conclusion. Myself, I have donated to charity a few times, but always for something that benefits myself too, am I too materialistic? Or worse, selfish? I don’t think I’ll ever know, till the day I reflect, inwardly.

(487) word count.

************************************************************************************

Term 2 Assesment Piece 1. Reqeust: Please leave comments, praises welcome. Critiques even more..

Category: Societal/Universal Issues

Summary of Article:

Through this article where Tabitha Wang recounts her experiences with various conmen, and her subsequent realization that she might as well give the money to someone who’s “honest about being dishonest” then an outright conmen. She fleshes out several of her thoughts through this illuminating article. Firstly the poignant point about how in this day and age, it is becoming difficult to trust fellow Homo Sapiens. Secondly, she articulates that, though we are wiser to their ways, conmen always manages to come up with something new. Finally, she reaches the afore-mentioned saddening self-realization.

Reflection:

The issue of dishonesty and decadence of human nature is universal and cannot be classified as current or antiquated, because it is inherent in all of us. This problem is rooted deep within humans. This is why this issue will haunt us, as long as humans are flawed, this shadow will always remain.

Tabitha wrote this in the context of a whole rocked by scandals, Enron, NKF, and more. Her rumination; “I’d like to think life in the big city has not killed my faith in human nature. But it’s getting harder when you have to be on your guard all the time”* illuminates her difficulty in keeping the faith, in the innate goodness of humans. In this materialistic world, humans have indeed become more corrupt.

Me? Guilty as charged. In RI, I’ve lost count of how many times have my friends asked me to send my homework to them, answers to that Mathematics TA, “tips” on the next test and guiltily, vice versa too. As she laments, “even as we become wiser to their scamming ways, the hustlers are already devising new cons”. “When there’s a will, there’s a way”, no matter how many versions of a particular test there is, students will always find a way.

A case in point would be the recent article on how Ipods have been banned in examinations halls due to students uploading of notes and test answers onto it. "They come up with new and creative ways to cheat pretty fast." ** "I think you should still be able to use iPods. People who are going to cheat are still going to cheat, with or without them (cheating devices).”** This showcases the unfortunate interpretation of the motivational phrase “When there’s a will, there’s a way”

However, the experience of being a victim could have coloured my view. The “scammers” could have no malicious intent, as there have been cases of desperados turning to crime to save their families. To fully understand this issue, I would have to become a scammer, sadly, I’m.

The main assumption is that all scammers are dishonest and villainous. Is this the case? In my opinion, dishonesty and a tad of manipulation and scheming are essential for survival, in this world today. “White lies”, “lying for the greater good”, does the end justify the means? Lying has become a commodity, the only one we can place unerring trust is, ourselves. Thus springs the Chinese idiom, “Have not the intention of hurting others, wariness and guardedness of others is a must-have”.

Tabitha’s last point about trusting an honest dishonest man might be better than an honest dishonest man really presents a bleak view of the state of humans now. She tries to make us see her utter disappointment in this situation, unto which she has resort to this sort of “resolution”, to this issue of dishonesty.

By Ockham’s Razor, the best solution would be to just disregard the rest of humanity and not place any trust in anybody, thus preventing us from being scammed. Obviously this solution is not practical at all. However, what alternative do we have? Tabitha’s one? Or personal discretion?

However, maybe my lens have been too coloured. I feel nothing but gloom and doom, perhaps it would be better for me to understand and appreciate the positive facets of human nature and have a more mature understanding of the 3-dimensional complexity of the issue, will I then be able to comment in a more balanced way.

I learn best through experience, with a personal connection, it is easier to reflect rather than fabricate. However, there is the pitfall of being too judgemental.

(502) words. Quote: “cunningly sidesteps mark penalty”.

*Quotations from Article not included in word count.

** Quotations obtained from sources not included in word count.

Sources

http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/04/27/ipod.cheating.ap/index.html

Clarifications; Urgent. Please Comment ASAP.

Venerated Ms. Kuang,
Here, i posit questions, regarding the assesment procedure and some requests, if i may.

Firstly, does 2 articles mean 40 marks in total? 1 response=20m? Is it like that? How is the maths done? Law of Averages? or Best of them all?

Additionally, is it veridical to assume that there will be no marks allocated for organisation, usage of words, stylistics, and the like? ie. Substance lords over form/appearance?

Secondly, may i so audaciously ask of you to comment on my "pieces". Flattered i am with praises.
However, i would still prefer Quote Ms. Yong's Blog, "AFIs", Areas for Improvements.

It would be even better if this could be more specific, than just spewing words like "grammar", "tone".

Thanks a lot for reading and assessing the pieces, and thank you, even more, for taking the extra time to help myself improve.

Urgent! Please Leave Comments!

I'm in a quandary here. Due to worded ambiguitiy, im at a crossroad now. The purported objective of this blog assignment is "grow as critical reader & thinker". The task is "writing a response" to articles in designated catergories .

The devil lies in the word, "response". My original assumption, substantiated by notations, was that i was to critique the writer's style and way and assess his thinking.

However, after perusing other superior blogs, i found that they preponderately concentrated on the issue of the article, not how the article was written. This contradictory conflict has left me in the quandary we term "indecision".

Critique the style/form. Or the substance/issue?

Discomboulated.......

Please help by commenting.

Amendable Homework!

Homework, or assesments, or positive practice to enhance mastery of subjects, or any euphemisn that means homework/schoolwork. Homework, does not behave like light,which performs rectilinear propagation, which thus contributes to the reversibilty of light. However, while homework does practice a fasimile of rectilinear propagation, this is however, a one-way road. No principle of Reversibility is practised. Once handed in/up, you cannot, possibly revoke, or get back your homework, to refine, revamp, redo, it. Once handed up. Its a done deal.

that. is tradition.

Now, with the evolution of technology, changing of homework has been made possible.
One such exemplar would be our recent blog projects. Since its now on the internet, our homework is no longer in the teacher's hands, now, we are also in control of our homework.
is this detrimental? is this good? Opposites.........

If we "handed in" on monday. Technically, this means that we have already handed in our homework, and am no longer in any power to alter our homework. Howver, with this blog concept, alteration of homework has been made possible. Now, it rests on our moral integrity, should we or should we not edit a piece of homework, which, technically has been handed in?

this is one problem of the sprawling internet technology, what should we do?

** i have been humbled. No more Pinnacle.....