ARTICLE LINK: http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=09&year=2008&date=02&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2008_9857340
TITLE OF ARTICLE: Those who don’t pay fare
AUTHOR: Maria Almenoar
PUBLISHER: The Straits Times
DATE: 2nd September 2008 (Tuesday)
In the context of road users, “cheating” does indeed come in many forms. With reference to the article, cheating cases which take place on public transport seem to quantitatively prevail over other forms of cheating on the road. Commuters who neglect to pay the appropriate fare when taking transport constitute more than 95% of all road cheats caught everyday. But why would such unscrupulous thoughts involving the breach of personal integrity even cross these peoples’ minds in the first place?
Obviously, the attitudes and motives of these road users are questionable, be it people who fail to pay the correct fare, or people who simply “forget” to display parking coupons. Could one of the likely reasons behind these problems be the result of the “kiasu” attitude exerting its influence on the actions of some citizens? In view of the fact that that the media estimates that only a minute portion of all people who cheat on the roads are caught everyday, the effect of a fine seems to have lost its power to deter. “After all, who cares about not paying fares or not displaying a parking coupon, as long as you don’t get caught?”
A few months ago, our RE group was preparing to return to school after meeting our external mentor. However, one of us realised that he had left his EZ Link card in school. We persuaded him to borrow coins from us to pay the bus fare, but to no avail, with him insisting that “the chance of being caught not paying the fare is close to zero”. As the bus arrived, he tried to blend in with the crowd, hoping that his stunt would pull off.
Fat hope.
At the next stop, the vigilant bus driver stopped the bus, stomped to the back, and chided our group member on the spot. Confronted by the bus captain, he desperately borrowed money from the rest of us and paid the fare. Fortunately for him, this was before the penalties for fare evasion had been stepped up, or his lack of integrity would have cost him.
Nevertheless, not all bus drivers are vigilant enough to catch fare evaders. Even after the implementation of heavier fines, an exponential number of fare evaders are caught on the roads everyday. Bearing in mind that the term “road cheating” includes but is not limited to fare evasion, imagine the whopping number of such unintegrous acts that take place each day!
Approaching the problem from a different angle, is it possible that the problem of cheating on the roads could be attributed to something else? I recall the initial establishment of the EZ-Link service in 2001. Following the implementation of EZ-Link cards, it was promised that the fare evasion problem would be more or less tackled. However, looking back at the number of fare evasion cases alone, it seems that technology has failed to deliver its promise. In some other countries (eg. Sarawak), where the public transport system is less technologically enhanced, a bus conductor is present to manually collect bus fares, thus making fare evasion practically impossible, as one would instantly be booted out of the bus by the conductor if he neglects to pay the fare. Singapore could very well revert back to these old ways, but is it worth it to trade our convenience for SMRT’s maximised profit? I think not.
Cheating on the roads is indeed an imminent problem today. At this very moment, a commuter could even be smuggling himself onto a public bus for free. As public users, it should be our responsibility to adhere to the rules when on the roads, and to uphold the high moral standards which we should possess.
Friday, September 5, 2008
TOPIC 3
Friday, May 30, 2008
TOPIC 2 : "Democracy creates stability in a society"
“Democracy creates stability in a society.”
I believe that many peoples’ definition of democracy is homogeneous: a system of government in which the power to decide who to govern over the people lies in the people themselves – a utilitarian approach, where majority wins. Stability in a society can refer to a state in which a society remains unthreatened by social, economic, and political issues which can directly or indirectly negatively impact the people.
Democracy can indeed bring stability to a society. Firstly, the key feature of democracy, being the ability of one to express his or her view in the country’s politics, can satisfy the peoples’ desire to contribute to the society, or more importantly, the country’s well being. The presence of such a desire is a must in order to make each and every citizen feel like part of the country, which enables them to have a greater feel of their “national identity”. In this aspect, democracy manages to increase the national pride of each and every citizen, thus reducing the number of problems caused by the lack of national identity.
Furthermore, it is most likely true that one, without the influence of external factors, would vote for the political party which he feels can make the best decisions on his behalf, thus enabling the society to advance at the greatest speed. By this concept, the best party with the greatest potential to lead the nation has the highest chance of being successfully voted in. In this manner, the concept of “may the best man win” is greatly emphasized. In so doing, the “best” political party, or so as the election results deem, would be able to lead the country to its best potential, thus further stabilizing the country. This system is linked in a “cause and effect” manner, where the system of democracy leads to the best political party being able to bring stability to the country. As such, democracy may indirectly bring stability to the country. Take Singapore for an example. For the past few decades, PAP has managed to capture the majority of the votes from the people. And indeed, it has done well to maintain social, economic, as well as political stability in our homeland to a certain extent.
However, democracy might fail to create stability in a society too. One instance would be the case of Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government practices democracy, but why are there so many conflicts which arise within the country’s midst? One explanation for that would be a loophole of democracy: the fact that non-citizens are not allowed to vote. The reason behind this is probably to prevent foreigners from affecting the election results too much. However, some Tamils are not granted citizenship in Sri Lanka, even though Tamils constitute a significant percentage of the country’s population. This has caused the election results to be bent away from the Tamils, which results in the Sinhalese dominating over the Tamils. This has created massive racial conflict in Sri Lanka. As such, democracy might fail to create stability too.
However, I feel that in the long run, democracy will still be able to “stabilize” a society, as it is an effective form of government. Comparing “democratic” Singapore to other countries, take pre-Communist Russia for an example, we can tell that Singapore has a more effective form of government compared to pre-Communist Russia, where the Tsar passed laws without consulting the people, leading people to poverty, and ultimately resulted in the people overthrowing the Tsar, coupled with social unrest.
I believe that many peoples’ definition of democracy is homogeneous: a system of government in which the power to decide who to govern over the people lies in the people themselves – a utilitarian approach, where majority wins. Stability in a society can refer to a state in which a society remains unthreatened by social, economic, and political issues which can directly or indirectly negatively impact the people.
Democracy can indeed bring stability to a society. Firstly, the key feature of democracy, being the ability of one to express his or her view in the country’s politics, can satisfy the peoples’ desire to contribute to the society, or more importantly, the country’s well being. The presence of such a desire is a must in order to make each and every citizen feel like part of the country, which enables them to have a greater feel of their “national identity”. In this aspect, democracy manages to increase the national pride of each and every citizen, thus reducing the number of problems caused by the lack of national identity.
Furthermore, it is most likely true that one, without the influence of external factors, would vote for the political party which he feels can make the best decisions on his behalf, thus enabling the society to advance at the greatest speed. By this concept, the best party with the greatest potential to lead the nation has the highest chance of being successfully voted in. In this manner, the concept of “may the best man win” is greatly emphasized. In so doing, the “best” political party, or so as the election results deem, would be able to lead the country to its best potential, thus further stabilizing the country. This system is linked in a “cause and effect” manner, where the system of democracy leads to the best political party being able to bring stability to the country. As such, democracy may indirectly bring stability to the country. Take Singapore for an example. For the past few decades, PAP has managed to capture the majority of the votes from the people. And indeed, it has done well to maintain social, economic, as well as political stability in our homeland to a certain extent.
However, democracy might fail to create stability in a society too. One instance would be the case of Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government practices democracy, but why are there so many conflicts which arise within the country’s midst? One explanation for that would be a loophole of democracy: the fact that non-citizens are not allowed to vote. The reason behind this is probably to prevent foreigners from affecting the election results too much. However, some Tamils are not granted citizenship in Sri Lanka, even though Tamils constitute a significant percentage of the country’s population. This has caused the election results to be bent away from the Tamils, which results in the Sinhalese dominating over the Tamils. This has created massive racial conflict in Sri Lanka. As such, democracy might fail to create stability too.
However, I feel that in the long run, democracy will still be able to “stabilize” a society, as it is an effective form of government. Comparing “democratic” Singapore to other countries, take pre-Communist Russia for an example, we can tell that Singapore has a more effective form of government compared to pre-Communist Russia, where the Tsar passed laws without consulting the people, leading people to poverty, and ultimately resulted in the people overthrowing the Tsar, coupled with social unrest.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
TOPIC 1 : Teenage and Social Issues
TITLE OF ARTICLE: Dealing with death in your youth
AUTHOR: Jessica Lim
PUBLISHER: The Straits Times
DATE: 25th February 2008 (Monday)
One who is a youth is very prone to falling apart when he encounters the terrible face of death – something that everybody does not like, but everyone will have to experience it. The article might seem to be directed at youths only, but it encompasses the issue of dealing with death in general. The word ‘youth’ is definitely too ambiguous. Even though the writer attempts to offer points of view from different people, there is only one point of view in this article: that of the writer. Due to the single point of view of the author, assumptions like “All people find it hard to deal with death” are made, just because the author herself feels that way. Emotional distress caused by death is acknowledged. The article starts off with an example of youths grieving over actor Heath Ledger's death, and issues such as the degree at which youths grieve over peoples' deaths start branching out from this main point, providing an insightful look into the issue of dealing with death.
I personally find this article to be quite interesting. Not many people want to discuss about the impact of the natural cycle of death on their loved ones or their friends. As stated in the article, the writer took two years to get over her father’s death. If it takes a 22-year old person two years to put her father to rest, what about a teenager? If a teenager encounters death among his family, would he be able to accept it? I think not. A teenager’s mind is less developed than a mind of an adult. While going through adolescence, certain issues or solutions to cope with emotional distress such as “emo” tend to slap youths in the face much harder than adults. One might ask why this is so.
In my opinion, youths definitely have a much narrower mindset than their parents, and they tend to go for the path which can help them to cope with distress in the easiest way. The time needed to get over a death might seem too long to teenagers, especially with the prolonged pain and suffering over the loss of someone close to the heart. Shock, denial, and maybe even guilt are feelings that pop out over time, and can easily overwhelm a mere teenager. Adults definitely experience the same feelings as a teenager when they encounter the ugly face of death, but they cope with it differently. If one misses a relative who has died recently, the bond between him and his relative is still there. Based on the writer’s opinion in the article and in my opinion, adults can break this bond more easily than youths, especially teenagers. Youths are at a stage of growth where the issue of death usually does not affect most youths. Affected youths are unable to handle the situation adeptly as they have no one to talk to about the topic. Adults, whereas, are “mature” enough to know how to handle these situations appropriately.
AUTHOR: Jessica Lim
PUBLISHER: The Straits Times
DATE: 25th February 2008 (Monday)
One who is a youth is very prone to falling apart when he encounters the terrible face of death – something that everybody does not like, but everyone will have to experience it. The article might seem to be directed at youths only, but it encompasses the issue of dealing with death in general. The word ‘youth’ is definitely too ambiguous. Even though the writer attempts to offer points of view from different people, there is only one point of view in this article: that of the writer. Due to the single point of view of the author, assumptions like “All people find it hard to deal with death” are made, just because the author herself feels that way. Emotional distress caused by death is acknowledged. The article starts off with an example of youths grieving over actor Heath Ledger's death, and issues such as the degree at which youths grieve over peoples' deaths start branching out from this main point, providing an insightful look into the issue of dealing with death.
I personally find this article to be quite interesting. Not many people want to discuss about the impact of the natural cycle of death on their loved ones or their friends. As stated in the article, the writer took two years to get over her father’s death. If it takes a 22-year old person two years to put her father to rest, what about a teenager? If a teenager encounters death among his family, would he be able to accept it? I think not. A teenager’s mind is less developed than a mind of an adult. While going through adolescence, certain issues or solutions to cope with emotional distress such as “emo” tend to slap youths in the face much harder than adults. One might ask why this is so.
In my opinion, youths definitely have a much narrower mindset than their parents, and they tend to go for the path which can help them to cope with distress in the easiest way. The time needed to get over a death might seem too long to teenagers, especially with the prolonged pain and suffering over the loss of someone close to the heart. Shock, denial, and maybe even guilt are feelings that pop out over time, and can easily overwhelm a mere teenager. Adults definitely experience the same feelings as a teenager when they encounter the ugly face of death, but they cope with it differently. If one misses a relative who has died recently, the bond between him and his relative is still there. Based on the writer’s opinion in the article and in my opinion, adults can break this bond more easily than youths, especially teenagers. Youths are at a stage of growth where the issue of death usually does not affect most youths. Affected youths are unable to handle the situation adeptly as they have no one to talk to about the topic. Adults, whereas, are “mature” enough to know how to handle these situations appropriately.
500 words.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)