Do a research on cultures which still practise arranged marriages today? Why do they practise it? Would you have agreed to an arranged marriage? How a

Arranged marriages have been an important part of ancient culture, in nations all around the world whether in the West, or in Eastern cultures such as China and India, whether among the common people, or royalty. This tradition has largely vanished, but is still very prevalant in cultures such as India, Japan and China.

Arranged marriages are a very different concept from love marriages. An arranged marriage is more of a deal, or union between two families, as compared to a love marriage which is a union between two people who wish to spend the rest of their life with each other, largely dependent on feelings of mutual affection. Arranged marriages can be practiced between affluent families such as royalty, or even the most impoverished families. Usually, in royal families, arranged marriages were seen as a way to keep royal bloodlines pure, or used as a way to secure alliances between nations. Commoners would have arranged marriages so that their families would be able to maintain their good repute, marrying their children into families with equally good reputations, ensuring maintaining the family legacy. It would also be a way to secure children's futures, by marrying them into wealthy families, making sure they will not need to worry about financial difficulties. In some cases, children would even be married off as part of a business deal, or to resolve a debt or financial disputes. Evidently, arranged marriages can be seen as more of a practical decision akin to maybe a business contract, rather than one of affection.

Though arranged marriages may be a good solution to certain families' practical issues, and it is certainly possible for two people to develop affection after getting married, making two people who have probably never met and may not feel affection to have to stay with each other for the rest of their lives very closely to each other may give rise to certain problems. Many disputes and conflicts may arise, especially if the two people have very differing values, interests and perspective. Conflict can lead to violence, and will make both living in peace and giving birth to children practically impossible. In situations where people are married off in order to resolve disputes or as part of business deals, one party may probably have much less social standing and financial power than the other party. This could lead to that person being exploited physically, being forced to live as a servant, not an equal to the other person, or being looked down on in the family, making living unbearable for the person.

In some extreme cases, child marriages are arranged. In these cases, children are married off to other families, potentially not even to a person within their age group. This has much more negative effects than benefits. Most of the time, children are not mature enough to cope with having to suddenly live in a completely different environment, and deal with the responsibilities that come with marriage. This can hinder the child's development, especially for girls, who have to face the burden of being a wife, usually having to submit to their husband, or maybe even a mother. Making a child have to live with another person through such a relationship when he or she is not yet mentally mature enough and whose sexual instincts have yet to be fully developed can have untold consequences on the child's mental health, maybe even traumatising both parties. In some more serious cases, occuring more for child brides rather than grooms, the girl is usually abused and made to work as a servant and deprived of her human rights, and sometimes sexually exploited, possibly by a much older man. This will cause the bride a huge amount of trauma and suffering, both physically and mentally, which is especially true for mentally volatile children who are even less able to cope with the burden to work as a slave to another family. While other children are able to go to school and learn, make friends and enjoy their carefree childhood, these children have to stay in an unfamiliar household and live as slaves to another family, as part of a decision they had no say in. Child marriages are illegal in most countries, because they deprive these children of their basic human rights.

However, there is another angle to arranged marriages. On the more moderate side of the spectrum, some people consent to, or even actively look for opportunities to be match made. In these cases, the arranged marriage is completely consensual for both parties. People may want to have arranged marriages out of convenience, whereby they have no time to actively socialise and find a compatible partner. Hence, they will approach relatives or establishments that provide matchmaking services to help them look for a partner, by giving them their own profile, and the traits they desire in their partner. This will help them find a partner that is as compatible, in terms of interest, personality and background as possible. If two people match each others' criteria, then it is likely that despite them not knowing each other's personalities very well, they will soon be able to develop a close relationship and develop feelings of mutual affection. In other cases, people who live in an unfamiliar setting or simply want to find a compatible person without hassle will also use arranged marriages in order to find a person they are likely to be able to develop a long term relationship with. Though match making does not guarantee a happy marriage, for people who are unable to find a compatible partner on their own, it is a feasible and convenient option.

Personally, I believe that marriage is a sacred union that involves a lot of commitment from both parties, hence it is vital that the consent of both parties is obtained before they embark on such a deal. It is against basic human rights to force two people to have to live so closely to each other, and maybe even be parents, if they do not consent to it. It would cause trauma to both parties and in serious cases, a lot of hatred. In order to have a healthy relationship, the two parties may not have to be completely in love with each other, but they must be able to consent to all the roles that come with marriage, understand each other's feelings, and are able to compromise in order to best accommodate each other's opinions without causing any major conflict. Likewise, if the option of starting the marriage is given, the option of ending one must also be open to both parties. If the two people who partake in the marriage start to develop unpleasant feelings to each other such that they find it unbearable to continue in the relationship, they should be allowed the choice to initiate a divorce, as long as it does not do any very serious harm to other parties, such as their children, if the disadvantages of continuing the marriage outweigh the benefits.

Influx of foreign talent

Recently, the influx of a huge amount of foreigners has started to provoke unhappiness among Singaporeans. It is hard for one to go out in Singapore today and avoid to be served by a foreign worker, whether it is a waitress, cleaner or cashier. This has helped to increase our population, but Singaporeans have started to complain that these people have not made efforts to integrate while at the same time competing with Singaporeans for roles in the job market, sporting arena, and even in schools.

The rationale for bringing in these foreign workers, is that due to our limited and aging population, and low birth rate, we will soon have a very limited pool of talent and people to contribute to our society, reducing our competitiveness in the world. Bringing in these foreigners help to fill up jobs and contribute to our economy. In other areas, like sports, talented foreigners are brought in to boost our teams in various sports.

Undeniably, these talented foreigners have made an impact on our nation's performance in global competitions. In the recent soccer match between Singapore and strong rivals Malaysia, all the goals came from players from foreign countries, like China and Yugoslavia. In the recent world table tennis team championships, where Singapore beat defending champions China for the first time in decades, all but one or two members of the team were China-born. These foreign "talents" have helped to improve the sports scene in Singapore greatly, boosting Singapore's performance significantly. However, this has caused protest from Singaporeans, who believe that local talent should be cultivated instead, and that a win through the use of foreign born players isn't really a win for Singapore at all. In fact, the table tennis championship final was described by some as a match between "China team A and B". However, are these players really "foreigners"? They have already declared their loyalty for Singapore, reside in Singapore, and sing the Singaporean anthem and say our pledge. Are these people any less Singaporean than us? They are not foreigners who are hired on to the team for a few matches then return to play for their own country after their contract has expired, so they should not be discriminated against simply because of their place of birth. In fact, Singapore is a nation of immigrants from all corners of the world, and we who call ourselves Singaporean, were foreigners too just 2 or 3 generations ago. Furthermore, these foreign athletes can raise the standard of Singapore sports, this encourages local athletes to work harder in order to get their performance up to a better standard. Since these athletes are definitely here to stay, we should accept them into our society.

Another issue is the fact that foreigners from other countries create competition for Singaporeans. This comes in the form of skilled and unskilled labourers, and even students. Firstly, skilled foreigners, I believe, should definitely be accepted, and even encouraged to

come into Singapore to share their skills with Singaporeans. Highly qualified foreigners who fill up jobs in Singapore can help to value-add to our economy, and help to improve the skills of Singaporean workers and give them a global perspective in their various sectors. As long as they are able to contribute to Singapore, there is no question that they should be welcomed with open arms.

However, unskilled labourers such as construction site workers, cleaners and mechanics have been met with some protest from Singaporeans. They have complaints that these unskilled foreigners are willing to work for much lower wages than Singaporeans, leaving Singaporeans who would normally fill those roles unemployed. Furthermore, due to their relatively lower level of education, they are usually less accustomed to life overseas, and are unable to communicate effectively and integrate with Singaporeans. They also leave Singapore once their work contracts have expired. These foreigners use their wages to support themselves in Singapore, but send much of their money back to their own country for their family to spend, where the cost of living is usually much lower. Because supporting a family in countries such as China or India for example, is much cheaper as compared to supporting a Singaporean family, foreign workers are able to work at much lower wages. Singaporeans who are simply unable to advance beyond their existing level of education are left unemployed because of this. Companies should give some leeway to these kind of workers, who are a very small minority. At the same time, other unskilled Singaporean workers should take the effort to upgrade their own skills too, so that they are able to remain competitive with foreign unskilled labour, and can occupy jobs in which these foreign workers are not qualified for.

Lastly, Singaporeans object to the fact that many foreigners do not integrate into Singaporean society. Usually, foreigners live in their own communities, interact among themselves and typically do not communicate much with Singaporeans. To solve this, both parties need to take action. When in a foreign country, where one is unfamiliar with the culture, language and lay of the land, it is definitely typical human behaviour to stick with people of one's own culture. Foreigners should do more to explore Singaporean culture and lifestyle, rather than make their own communities into "sub-cultures" of their own communities back home. In fact, the government has established a mandatory course for foreigners who wish to have Permanent Resident status in Singapore or wish to have Singapore citizenship, to familiarise them with Singapore lifestyle and culture. This can be extended to foreigners who are residing in Singapore for a significant period of time, and can be opened to any other interested foreigners. At the same time, Singaporeans themselves need to make an effort to communicate with these foreigners in order to make them feel more comfortable in Singapore, so that they will intermingle with Singaporeans more naturally, rather than perpetually having to be made to feel like outsiders. In fact, as long as foreigners are able to communicate and intermingle well with locals, diversity is after all very beneficial to allow Singaporeans to have a global perspective and allow them to feel comfortable when overseas, Singapore is a country with many cultures and races after all.

In conclusion, Singaporeans should learn to adapt to foreigners who decide to make the effort to reside in Singapore and contribute to our economy, and at the same time, the foreigners need to make the effort to communicate and intermingle with the locals and adapt to local culture.

Use of corporal punishment in schools

The role of schools has always been to provide children not just with a high level of academic education, but also to develop students' character and discipline. School rules are implemented in order to teach pupils the proper etiquette, and inculcate a sense of discipline in following regulations. These rules are enforced by a wide variety of punishments, such as suspensions, warnings, and demerit point systems. However, the long-standing method of corporal punishment has begun to be phased out in the recent few years, or even completely banned in some countries.

I believe that punishment serves three purposes, firstly to deter people from committing offences, secondly to make sure people do not repeat their offences multiple times, and thirdly to set an example to others, so a punishment that fulfills these criteria can be deemed as effective. Unquestionably, corporal punishment does fulfill these purposes; no student would dare commit an offence after seeing his peers being caned or hit, or being punished himself. We are constantly told anecdotes by our teachers and parents about how they used to be caned in class or slapped simply because they did not do homework, and those punishments helped them to achieve what they are today. Undeniably, the punishments did not hurt them in any way.

However, in a few cases, corporal punishment does have severe consequences on the student being punished. Many cases in which students have ended up in hospital after beatings from teachers have appeared in the news. In January, a student in India had to be hospitalised after his teacher beat him with a stick for over an hour, in June 2010, a student from Mianyang high school in China sustained bruises and bleeding from her eye after being slapped by a teacher. These few cases, outside of a school, could easily be classified as assault, a serious offence. It also makes us wonder, is it worth putting students at risk of such serious injury, despite corporal punishment's effectiveness.

Furthermore, there are some areas in which corporal punishment can be considered as inappropriate. For example, it may be fine to cane a student who has repeatedly committed many serious offences like vandalism and theft, but would it be alright to beat a preschool student who has simply forgotten his homework? In these situations where offences are less serious, other punishments would do just as well, without inflicting the damage to students' mental and physical well-being. Examples would be a demerit point system that causes pupils to have to forego certain privileges or face suspension after accumulating a certain number of points.

From the point of view of a student, corporal punishment may not be the best way to learn a lesson. Violence should be very strongly discouraged, especially to impressionable children of a young age. A student may not be repentant for an act of hitting another student , and not understand the problem with violence, when he is beaten for it himself. Furthermore, students will cease to understand what is truly wrong with the acts they commit when they are simply inflicted with pain every time they do something that breaks the rules. Other students may also be traumatised by the violence inflicted on their peers. Getting physically beaten by teachers too often may also cause students to lose trust in their teachers, which will cause them to fail in their role as mentors who not only guide their students academically, but play the role of parents outside the home.

However, there are also some cases where a pupil is completely unrepentant of repeated serious offences he has committed, and is not forward thinking enough to realise the damage that some non-physical punishments such as suspension and expulsion can do to his future, so in these cases, the only way to make these students respect rules is to show them explicitly that any act that goes against the rules will be dealt with severely, and the outright physical pain can teach them to be repentant.

In conclusion, I believe that corporal punishment should be delivered in schools, but only in very limited circumstances, to prevent the negative effects it has on the physical and emotional well-being of students. In cases where the offences committed are less serious and do not require corporal punishment, other non-violent means can be used for punishment, and they are often just as effective.

Effects of Thai politics on Singapore

Though Thailand seems to be a country far away and, culturally, worlds apart from Singapore, the two countries are actually closely linked, since the time of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's government. In early 2006, Thaksin sold a Thai telecommunications company to the investment arm of the Singapore government. This ensured very close Singapore-Thai relations during the time of Thaksin's government, but later in 2006, a military coup overthrew Thaksin. The anti-Thaksin sentiment soon extended itself into anti-Singapore feelings. The Thai people believed that by selling a large Thai company to Singapore, Thaksin was turning Thailand into just a part of his family business, and giving Singapore unnecessary power over Thailand. By associating itself with Thaksin, Singapore also had to take a lot of the hate directed against Thaksin. This sentiment even boiled over to the point that Thais protested outside the Singapore embassy in Thailand. In 2010, Thaksin visited Singapore to visit the Deputy Prime Minister, supposedly as a personal visit. This further enraged Thai officials who feared that Thaksin had a political agenda and this visit jeopardised national security.

This probably led to hostility between Singaporeans who visited Thailand, and reduced Thailand as a preferred tourist destination for Singaporeans. The hostility probably led to Singaporeans in Thailand being discriminated against, and many Singaporeans avoiding going to Thailand for fear of their safety. Other than affecting Thailand's tourism industry, I believe that it also has a very harmful effect on Singapore. As a small country needing to rely on other countries for food and also to keep itself safe because of its small defense force, international relations are very important to Singapore. By having a strained relationship with Thailand, a country Singapore had defense agreements with, and relies on for many products, Singapore will also need to bear a lot of negative effects.

However, in the recent 2011 elections, Thaksin's sister Yingluck Shinawatra's party won a majority of the seats in parliament. Her main selling point was being a "clone" of Thaksin, and she would implement Thaksin's beliefs and policies when in government. This could mean an improvement of Thai-Singapore relations, because rather than the government being anti-Thaksin and hence anti-Singapore, the government would be supportive of the actions Thaksin did in the past, and hence support his close relationship with Singapore. This would help to reduce hostility and ensure greater safety for Singaporeans visiting Thailand. It could also mean further defense and economic agreements that could be mutually beneficial.

Should US have dropped the atomic bomb on JapanHence, the

Most people who have heard of World War II have probably heard of the atomic bomb. It was probably the most devastating weapon used at that time and that has been used ever since. It stopped the war, but along with it, destroyed the lives of many innocent civilians, and its consequences can be seen in the lives of people even today, after the war has long been over.

The atomic bomb should not have been dropped on Japan, firstly and most importantly, because of the amount of damage that it caused to the Japanese people. The atomic bomb dropped on Japan wasn't any ordinary bomb, it killed more than 100,000 people in just one blast. These people who were bombed were just civilians, ordinary women and children waiting for their husbands and fathers to return from a long war, people who had nothing to do with any of the war crimes committed against the US, no matter how atrocious. The bombing of such a number of innocent civilians is completely unjustified, no matter what the circumstances. However, its devastating effects did not just stop there. The radiation from the bomb blast affected survivors, and people of the next generation who came into existence only after the war ended. People were born with deformities and survivors had to suffer with numerous medical conditions and cancers. A bomb that continues to destroy the lives of innocent civilians generation after generation even after its goal of stopping the war has been achieved is definitely unjustified. Its devastating effect on mankind far outweighs what was achieved by stopping the war.

Furthermore, this kind of a bomb was not the only way to end the war. Before that and ever since, no atomic weapons have been used in the course of battle, and wars still have been ended in peace without them. In Europe, the war was ended with the Axis powers surrendering, without the need for the use of an atomic bomb. Now, though the scars of war still remain in many former theaters of war in Europe, future generations do not have to continue suffering for the war their forefathers fought, and not only with the horrid memories of war, but with physical conditions too, unlike in Japan, where civilians even today have to suffer from these.

Therefore, I believe the atomic bomb should not have been dropped on Japan because of the huge cost to innocent human lives that was totally unjustified.

Should students be given the right to choose their own curriculum?

Imagine a school completely controlled by students, with students having the power to control the huge amount of resources that is put into education and teaching of the curriculum. To some students, this may seem like a utopia, but I believe, in actual fact, that this is impractical.

Firstly, I believe that giving students complete authority over their own curriculum is detrimental to the students' future. At school-going age, children may not have the sufficient experience or maturity to know what is best for them. At the particular age, a particular topic or activity may seem very enjoyable, but it may not be useful in the long-term, and will only end in the child realising his mistake later, and having to learn what he may have learnt many years before had he not been given the choice to choose his curriculum, and make an uninformed decision. The child may also unwittingly make an unwise choice without knowing the consequences, or deny himself the chance to try an area that he unknowingly has talent in.

Next, I feel that giving children the choice to learn whatever they want to will result in a society that is unable to sustain itself. The current education system that has been put in place is able to nurture students of different abilities and different interests into people who can contribute to society in many different areas, with there being a proportionate number of people in each discipline. Given the autonomy to decide their own curriculum, children may go with whatever is trending and seems "cool" in the world, resulting in an unbalanced society without sufficient people in different sectors of society.

Lastly, I feel that allowing children to decide their own curriculum will be impractical in terms of resources. Students may be interested in areas where very few people have the ability to train students sufficiently, resulting in poor quality of education. The interests of students may also be diverse, which will require a vast amount of resources to consolidate trained teachers and knowledge in each field.

I believe that even though children should not have complete autonomy about the curriculum they go through, students who have shown the maturity to be able to think of how they can contribute to society through certain areas, and are very passionate in them, can be given some freedom of choice to decide what kind of a curriculum they go through. Alternatively, students could be given a more limited choice, with several options of curriculum, rather than being able to choose whatever they want.

Propaganda posters

This poster from Singapore's "Stop at Two" campaign has a warm tone that touches on parents' love for their children in order to convince them not to have more than two children.

The poster shows two young girls huddled under an umbrella. It seems to be raining, and the umbrella has managed to shelter the two girls, but has only just enough space for them. This aims to convey that it is much easier to bring up two children safely rather than more, and having more children will prevent the children from receiving not just an appropriate amount of physical space, but will also prevent them from having the "umbrella" of protection from their parents' love. It also shows that they are eating an apple. This shows that there will be enough food for children, but only if there are two siblings, because it shows that the apple is just enough to be shared by the two children.

This poster is quite effective as it taps on parents' love for their children, and parents would want to make sure their children have the adequate amount of physical privileges and love, and they will ensure this by following the poster's example of having only two children.

This poster uses very startling images, creating a strong tone to convince workers during World War II to work to their limit in order to defeat the enemies.

The poster, created by America, portrays their enemies in WWII, the Japanese and Germans in a very striking and dreadful manner, showing them to be gigantic beasts who try to take away the Statue of Liberty, which symbolises Americans' freedom. This created a feeling of fear and hatred towards the enemy in viewers of the poster. Beside the monster that represents the enemies, there is a gigantic spanner with the word "Production" written on it. It is big and has light surrounding it, implying that it is a powerful avenue of hope for the American people. It tells them that a good weapon to defeat the enemies is production in factories.

This is an effective poster because the strong images of the enemies will convince American workers to try their best to work efficiently at all costs, so that they can avoid the enemy, which is portrayed as very evil and powerful too.

This poster has a very chilling tone, in order to instill a sense of fear of the enemy in Americans, thereby causing them to want to support the war better in order to avoid the enemy.

The poster depicts the Japanese, the enemy of the Americans during WWII, as a fierce soldier with nails and skin like a monster, with a knife, trying to murder a woman. This strong and terrifying image of the Japanese makes the American people fear the Japanese, and want to fight them even more. The fact that the Japanese soldier is trying to murder the woman, which implies that the Japanese would harm the loved ones of Americans, makes the Americans want to fight harder to prevent the Japanese from victory all the more.

This is an effective poster because it uses very scary imagery that causes a lot of fear, and also taps on how people would not want, at any costs, to allow their loved ones to be harmed. This poster will be able to convince Americans to fight harder and contribute to the war better, so as not to let their loved ones get harmed by the enemy.

This video has a very warm and cheerful tone to encourage eligible males to join the army as a career.

The video starts out cheerfully, with a female character telling her friends about her boyfriend, who is supposed to be smart, and has a job that takes him to many places and still allows him to spend time with her. Eligible males who can join the army would definitely want to be known the way the boyfriend is described in the video. A job that allows a man to travel but yet have time for love also goes across as a dream job to eligible males. This will make them curious about what kind of a job will get them those desired attributes, and it is revealed at the end that the job is being in the army.

I feel this propaganda video is effective as it touches on males' desire to be associated with the positive traits mentioned in the video and males' desire to be able to give their loved ones an ample amount of time and love, while still going on an adventurous job.

This video has a very cheerful tone in order to encourage Singaporeans to speak Mandarin.

Throughout the video, many Non-Chinese children are seen reciting various phrases or sentences in Mandarin. This is a very strong image, because many Chinese people in Singapore are not willing to learn Mandarin, or do not have the willpower to. By showing people that even Non-Chinese people, children at that, are able to pick up Mandarin and speak with such proficiency will encourage people to put more effort into learning Mandarin, or even feel a little guilty if they have not been making effort.

Death sentence for drugs necessary?

On the 18th of March, Noor Atiqah M Lasim was sentenced to death by the Shah Alam High Court of Malaysia for trafficking drugs. The drugs were found in a packet which she thought contained samples of imitation clothing, which she was supposed to help her friend bring into Malaysia. She was thought to be dead by her family members for two years, until news of her sentencing emerged, and they are desperately trying to raise money for legal consultation, but are more than $40 000 short. The single mother of two is yet another victim of a system put in place in both Malaysia and Singapore, which gives drug traffickers the death sentence.

I feel that the system of giving drug traffickers the death penalty is absolutely unnecessary. Firstly, many of the people caught with drugs at airports are usually unknowing victims who have had drugs planted on them. Those who have knowingly tried to bypass airports with drugs in their possession are usually just runners, forced into drug trafficking by drug ring leaders to pay off a debt, or do it for money for their starving families. The worst case scenario is having to send off a totally innocent person to their death, and the best case scenario is killing a person who is guilty but has no other way out, and the death of that person will cause his family even more poverty and pain, not solving anything.

Secondly, the death sentence, in this case, does not much to deter people from trafficking drugs. The death of one or two small time drug runners will not deter the ring leaders, safe in a far away land, untraceable by the law, from sending even more people to their deaths. Those who are desperate enough to try and work for these drug rings usually have no choice, and have to choose between dying of starvation and dying of from the death penalty, so they

will not be any more deterred.

Lastly, the death penalty is simply inhumane. No one should be sent to their death, even if they have

taken the life of someone else, and especially not if they just unknowingly, or out of desperation, traffic

drugs. The pain and anxiety of a man about to die will end when the victim goes through his punishment,

but the loss of a father, mother, sister, brother or even breadwinner will have a lasting negative impact

on the family of the criminal.

The death penalty should be abolished for drug trafficking, and replaced with a lighter penalty, such as imprisonment

for a certain period of time. This punishment allows the person a chance to turn over a new leaf, and

at the same time is serious enough to deter potential criminals.

In a time where millions are starving, is it right to celebrate a royal wedding with such splendor?

Recently, Prince William and Kate Middleton celebrated their wedding in extravagant fashion, drawing fire from many critics about being insensitive and selfish to the needs of the many people, even in Britain itself, who have no jobs and no food, and have led people to question the need for a monarchy in the first place.

The wedding, held on the 29th of April, was estimated to have cost $34 million, which included costs such as an $80 000 wedding cake. In a time that unemployment in Britain has hit 2.53 million, and an estimated 1.4 billion people worldwide have to live on less than a dollar a day, the need for such a lavish wedding is questionable. I believe that while the royal couple has a right to hold a somewhat grand wedding, the amount of money that was spent is unnecessary.

The excessive amount of money that was spent on the royal wedding could have been spent on other causes, such as charities, especially in a time of world hunger and poverty like this. Money spent on an overly extravagant wedding gown, endless bottles of champagne and decorations, could be used to help more than a few people in need. What makes this situation worse, all the money that went into the royal wedding were from taxes from citizens' pockets. Taxpayers' dollars should go into improving the lives of the people, not a royal wedding. The royal family has a right to hold as lavish a wedding as they want, as long as the money comes from money that they have earned.

The large scale of the wedding also has caused much inconvenience. With a slow parade from Westminster Abby to Buckingham palace, roads were closed, traffic disrupted. The news of the wedding triggered many protests and violence across the country.

Though the royal family has a right to hold a reasonably grand wedding, I feel that especially considering the times, they should have slightly toned down the celebrations, perhaps inviting less guests, and avoiding the huge parade. This would save the country a large amount of money and disruption.

The role of social media in the 2011 GE

Over the past few years, the use of social media has increased drastically, and more recently, it has played a big role in major events in the world. For example, in the recent protests in Egypt that resulted in the successful overthrow of former president Hosni Mubarak, protesters used social networking site Facebook to coordinate gatherings and protests, and spread their ideas to others to garner support. In the General Election 2011 which was just over, social media has also played a big role.

Before the election, many candidates used social networking sites such as Facebook in order to reach out to voters, especially youths. This helps politicians to relate to their voters through day-to-day interaction, and get to know the needs and views of the ordinary "man on the street" in order to serve them better. Politicians can also have a wider audience for their opinions. This also helps citizens to feel closer to those politicians, rather than feeling fearful of them because of their authority. Getting to know their candidates' ideals and views through interaction with them also allows citizens to make an informed voting choice.

During the week of intense campaigning and rallies, social media was a vital tool for politicians to garner support. The various parties posted their manifestos, rallies and election videos on social networking sites. Politicians were able to reach out to a very wide audience of people, not just those who attended their rallies. For voters, this brought them great convenience, and they did not need to do special research on information on parties, or have to attend rallies in order to be able to make informed decisions. Voters were also able to view how campaigns in other constituencies were going, and have a better understanding of the big picture of the elections.

Social media also has taken an interesting role during polling day, as an unofficial source of news. Even before any results came out on the news, many results already started streaming in through sites such as Twitter.

Social media has also allowed us to see the diverse opinions of Singaporeans, and look at events from a different perspective as from what is usually portrayed in the mainstream media. Even now, after the elections, social media is being used to convey ideals. For example, groups have been created to encourage Mr George Yeo to run for president, and Ms Nicole Seah to be an NCMP.

Since social media is such a powerful tool, and so many different opinions can be found on the internet, I believe we should be careful before believing everything that we see on such sites. I think that we should first do our own background research and find out information from reliable sources before forming opinions, rather than just following the crowd and the hype that is in various social media.

After attending a rally...

On the first of May, I visited the Singapore Democratic Party’s rally at Clementi. The candidates who spoke were contesting in the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, which is quite fiercely contested, as the SDP has fielded highly qualified candidates such as Dr Ang Yong Guan, an ex-army psychologist and Mr Tan Jee Say, the former principal private secretary to our Senior Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. They contest a PAP team that includes Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, who has come under fire for not understanding the plight of the poor and for overspending on the Youth Olympic Games. Prior to this elections, I did hear of vague news now and then about the SDP, only because of one of its especially infamous members, Dr Chee Soon Juan was in the news for holding protests and getting arrested. The image portrayed to me of the SDP seemed to be one of a party which just opposed the PAP for the sake of opposing it. Honestly, I went to the rally expecting just a lot of shouting for freedom of speech, and nothing but criticisms for the PAP, with not much actual concrete plans and candidates who did not really understand the peoples’ issues but instead just wanted to pick a fight.

The crowd

On arriving at the rally venue around an hour in, it was evident that there many people interested in what this party had to say with regard to our future. It was estimated that there were 7000 people who attended that rally, which is significantly more than most PAP rallies, where even in the media, crowd numbers are estimated at around 1000. In comparison with the 2006 election, which I vaguely remember, the opposition is now seen as an opportunity for change rather than simply a spectacle. The crowd was evidently very rowdy too, and occasionally there would be sounds of whistles and shouts of, “SDP! SDP!” For me, this shows a different side to Singaporeans compared to what I normally see, complaints just made during small talk, and the flaws of the PAP being mentioned directly seem to be a completely taboo topic. I feel that this is perhaps because not only do Singaporeans feel much more strongly about daily issues, but they wish to exercise their right to its full extent, and wish to see what an opposition party can potentially do to improve our lives. This is especially evident in people who proudly turn up in SDP colours, with SDP flags. I passed by a Worker’s Party rally near my neighbourhood once, and I even saw a family, toddler and baby in a pram included, dressed in light Worker’s Party blue, complete with Worker’s Party flags. This shows Singaporeans not only want to have a say, but dare to stand up against the system which has been widely respected but also feared all these years. However, I do believe that some of these people are also there just to absorb in the excitement, and go there just for the action and the shouting.

The candidates

The first candidate I heard was Michelle Lee, a young teacher and mother of three. I was especially interested in listening to her speech because one of my friends attends tuition classes under her. I wanted to try and find out how an ordinary Singaporean like Mrs Lee could conduct herself under a situation as big as this GE, and how she could contribute as an alternative voice in parliament. She spoke with confidence, and addressed issues which are very important to Singaporeans, such as how wages are not rising with the inflation, and a very valid point, how we are seeking after higher GDP, while forgetting true happiness. She also touched on government overspending. I feel her speech was very convincing, and used many stunning figures on government spending, such as the YOG spending exceeding budget by threefold, that make even me sit up and notice.

Next was the speech by Dr Ang Yong Guan. I feel that he managed to appeal to the emotions of voters very well. He referred to the crowd as “voters of Singapore”, to loud cheers. He addressed the controversy that there was a split in the SDP. He also managed to relate to the voters by speaking in Mandarin and Hokkien, a dialect which many ordinary Singaporeans identify with. He managed to bring out a sense of national pride, by mentioning how Singapore will have a brand name internationally, and how that comes from a high self-esteem.

Mr Tan Jee Say, the former principal private secretary to Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong spoke next. He first addressed Mr Goh Chok Tong’s claims that he resigned because he was not capable of his role, and rebutted that he wanted to resign very early, and stayed on to help Mr Goh, and eventually left with his blessings. This highlighted to me the amount of rather irrelevant issues that politicians talk about, simply to smear the other party or reduce their credibility. Next, he presented part of his economic plan for Singapore. This was a surprise to me, as I had always had the impression that the opposition parties did nothing but criticize the PAP’s policies, without offering better alternatives. I went to the SDP website, and they have written a shadow budget, a complete and thorough alternative to Singapore’s 2011 budget.

Lastly, I heard part of Mr Vincent Wijeysingha’s speech before leaving. His public speaking skills impressed me quite a lot, and he injected some wit into his speech claiming how the PAP does not understand Singaporeans, instead thinking of citizens as incapable and unintelligent.

Issues

Firstly, a candidate brought up the SDP’s plan on reducing class sizes from 40 down to 20, or even 15, to relieve stress of teachers and enhance learning for students. I believe that a reduction of class size is definitely beneficial to students and teachers, but the feasibility of such a plan is quite doubtful. It would require twice the number of physical facilities, as the number of students who would normally fit into one class, would now be in two classes. Recruitment and training of teachers will also need to take some time, so some short term milestones, perhaps such as converting a certain age group of students into 20-pupil classes within a few years, then progressing on to the whole system.

Secondly, I have seen through this election that many politicians use smear tactics and launch personal attacks on their rivals in order to make them seem less credible. The SDP candidate Mr Vincent Wijeysingha was referred to as a homosexual, and Mr Chen Show Mao of the Worker’s Party, who is born and bred a Singaporean was called to “return to China” just because he worked there for a few years. I believe that in an ideal system, politicians should be voted in or out simply based on how they can contribute to the people and improve our system. However, it seems quite a shame that politicians will do anything they can just to win votes. It also shows how someone’s personal life can come under close scrutiny and criticism simply after becoming a politician. For example, the PAP’s Tin Pei Ling, a very young female candidate, was slammed simply for holding a box of branded items, even though it was simply a gift from her husband. I feel that people should concentrate on the candidate’s ability and contributions rather than use irrelevant issues from their personal lives to unnecessarily criticize them. It also shows that in order to be a politician or any role that comes under a lot of public attention, one needs to have a clean record and also the ability to take criticisms in one’s stride.

Lastly, the issue of Singaporeans chasing economic growth and success at the expense of real happiness and welfare is one that has made itself very obvious in the past few years. Many Singaporeans sacrifice their health and time with their loved ones just so that they are able to keep up with demands of society, which pushes them to work beyond their limit. Though this creates economic growth, it is ultimately useless if the people do not have any satisfaction in their stress-filled lives. Bhutan, which has a GDP more than ten times less than us, was shown to rank much higher than Singapore in the world happiness index. We should make sure we always make time to relax and make sure we take care of our own health, before working for academic success and money.

Personal reflection

I feel that the rally was an eye-opening experience for me. It shows a growing change in Singapore, that more people wish to look at alternatives to the current government. In all the shouting and jeering, it seems very easy to me to get caught up in the excitement and immediately get swayed. Before this, reading the newspapers which are known to be slightly swayed towards a certain opinion, I had a totally different opinion compared to after watching an opposition rally. However, I feel that I should take a step back, and keep up with current affairs so that I can examine the exact issues at hand, and which side can offer the better solution, rather than which party triggers more shouts and bigger crowds.

LA 29/3/11

We are living in a world that is growing increasingly smaller because we are getting more and more connected. Countries are increasingly dependent on each other, and events that happen in a certain country will set into motion a chain reaction that has far-reaching consequences. Therefore, we should care about what happens in places far away from where we live.

Firstly, due to globalisation, many countries are dependent on others in some way or another. In the present, countries depend on each other for things such as produce, raw materials, labour, and even less important goods such as toys and appliances. If something major, whether good or bad, happens in a country, the other nations that depend on it for goods will be affected economically. For example, if a major disaster were to hit all of China, a manufacturing capital of the world, prices of goods ranging from computers and cars to keychains and Barbie-dolls would skyrocket because the supply of those goods would be drastically cut even though the demand for them remains the same. Let me state a real life example: During the war in the Middle East, which the whole world is dependent on for oil, oil prices rose significantly and the price of petrol, something we can call an essential, increased in most countries. From this, we can see that events occuring in even far away places can affect our economy.

Secondly, because of the rapid development of technologies for communication, such as social networking sites, ideas can spread like wildfire from one end of the globe to another. The internet and its technologies, such as email and instant messaging, nearly totally eliminate the distance between people living in this world. Using the internet, a person in, say, China, can send a message to someone living in the US in a matter of seconds. This will allow ideas or philosophies that are developed in one country, to be sent to another very quickly. For example, the recent uprising in the Middle East was actually organised on Facebook, a popular social networking site, and this site was able to let the many thousands of people come together in a protest. This idea also spread to many other countries, such as Bahrain and Libya, where people are staging civilian protests too. Even as far as China, there was a small round of protests that were organised to commemorate the "Jasmine Revolution".

Last but not least, I feel that it is important to care about things that happen in far away places because no matter how far these events occur from where we live simply because we are all part of the human race. When disasters occur, we should help those who are affected because they are humans like us too. Those events could have occured to us, and it is our responsibility as people to help them recover from the impact that these events had on their lives.

In conclusion, I feel that we should care about events in far away places because they can affect our lives and economies, the way we think, and simply because we are humans too.

Are Muslims not doing enough to integrate into society?

In a recent quote from his book "Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going", MM Lee Kuan Yew stated that racial integration in Singapore was “progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came”. This is because, he claimed, of the fact that despite not causing any social trouble, Muslims are still distinct and separate from others, which creates a veil between them and other members of society. For example, in canteens, there is a section for halal and non-halal food/cutlery only, rather than perhaps separate sections for Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

This could be caused perhaps by the fact that Islam is especially strict on religious practices compared to other religions, and also due to the fact of many influential Muslims in society, where many rules or practices that are formed are influenced by decisions which take much into consideration how it would affect Muslims. I think there also has been some discrimination against Muslims particularly because of terrorist attacks, and much media coverage of how extremist Muslim groups have done much harm to our society.

I do not think that this shows that Muslims are not doing enough to integrate, and they are just trying to be faithful followers of their own religion. In our secular society in which we have pledged to uphold racial and religious harmony and equality, this is especially the kind of thing that we have to be tolerant of. In fact, one of the unique qualities of Singapore is that people of different religions are able to interact with each other in daily life rather than mix in very clearly defined racial groups, like in countries like America where it is uncommon to see, say, a Caucasian mixing with a group of African Americans. Even though this may sound unrealistic to some, the very existence of peace and prosperity in our society shows that people are definitely able to integrate between races without compromising on their religious beliefs.

I also feel that the distinct line between Muslims and Non-Muslims doesn't even really affect racial harmony. For example, the separation of Muslim stalls and cutlery in canteens does not really affect anything as colleagues and friends still eat together at the same table. Muslims and Malays would mix with each other generally in environments such as school and work, but it is only natural for them, and those of other races and religions to do the same.

Personally, I would not stop myself from befriending a person who is a Muslim or any other religion as long as their personality is good and compatible with mine. Besides, this integration is also much more successful compared to other countries where Muslims are stereotyped and discriminated against.

In order to integrate even better, not just with Muslims but with all other people who have different beliefs, I believe we should firstly understand their cultures, in order to realise that their beliefs are just different, not alien or terrifying, and also to take away stereotypes. Secondly, we should also take the first step to interact with those of other races and religions in the environments we are in like school and the work place.

Do we need the law to tell us to take care of our parents?

In this ever evolving modern world, technology, science, the way people think about things, and even people's personal values are subject to change. In countries in the East such as China and even Singapore, the traditional Confucian value of filial piety has been under compromise.

The lack of emotional and financial support provided to elderly people by their working children has given rise to many consequences. Some people leave their elderly parents to live in nursing homes, causing them to have to live out their last few years in an environment devoid of love, and those are the lucky ones. The more unfortunate are abandoned in tiny flats without a basic allowance to even provide for three meals a day, and no company or sources of entertainment. Left starving and depressed, they eventually die alone, unnoticed until the smell of their corpses makes their neighbours go to the police.

Though this may seem exaggerated, these cases do happen in our society today. The main reason people give for this is that they are busy or unable to take care of their parents due to work commitments. I think this attitude is probably due to the fact that today's modern world emphasises upon work efficiency so much that people gradually start to throw all their personal values out the window. This, along with increasing influence from the West where it is commonplace for parents to fend for themselves after their children have grown up, causes people to feel that it is fine to not support their parents.

I feel that this attitude is very wrong. I feel it is someone's duty to support their parents who have sacrificed much time and money for decades on their upbringing, at least to repay them. Also, it is downright cruel to leave an old person with deteriorating health and decreasing mental ability to have to still work for their food and even just their survival.

I think this is mostly a moral issue, which can be solved by good inculcation of values like filial piety at a young age. This could probably greatly improve the situation, but for those who still take the immoral path, a law is still necessary simply for practical reasons. At the same time, those who feel strongly that theirs is a special situation, should have the chance to apply to relieve themselves of the responsibility, though there should be clear guidelines on this, and the remaining cases reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A few resources such as well-equipped nursing homes should also be prepared in anticipation of this eventuality.

Who cares about the caregivers?

I think this article gives an interesting perspective on the problems our society faces because of the mentally and physically handicapped. It shows us that even though the focus is usually placed on whether the handicapped have caregivers, and whether they are able to live properly, the people around them, who have to take care of them and are responsible for their well-being, are greatly affected in terms of their lifestyle too, not necessarily in good ways. It highlights the fact that those caregivers need to have emotional and maybe financial support too.

Handicapped people have much greater needs than ordinary people, hence their caregivers have a great responsibility to hold, and have to invest much of their time into taking care of the patient, and are able to spend much less time doing things they would normally be able to do, like socialise. In a certain example, giving care to a handicapped sister caused a lady to be unable to marry, and in another case, it destroyed a relationship because the caregiver's husband was too frustrated with his wife having to spend so much time on caring for the patient.

Firstly, I feel that it is definitely necessary to care for handicapped people among us, as it is a basic human right to have food, water and love, and to be able to live with dignity. However, it is also necessary to provide the adequate resources such as homes and day care centres to allow their needs to be met. Another person having to sacrifice their own happiness because of giving such care, is as much of an evil as not caring for the handicapped patient in the first place.

LA - 28/1/11

In All Summers in Day, how did the Venus children deal with a person who is different from the rest? Can we learn anything from the behavior of these children? What positive character traits do they lack? What mistakes does Margot seem to make? Give her some advice on how to fit in. What are the most valued and the most challenging character traits for students?

The children ostracised her by not only not including her in their group of friends, but also did mean things to her like locking her in the cupboard and criticising her everytime she mentioned the sun, which only she among all the children had seen before. We can see from their behaviour that people are generally very intolerant of others who are different from them, and mixed with strong feelings of jealousy, this can result in severe bullying. It can be seen that they lack a sense of acceptance towards others who come from different backgrounds, and are intolerant of those who have different opinions from them. They also lack the compassion to stop tormenting Margot despite the fact that they can see the suffering she is going through. However, all this is somewhat provoked by Margot herself, as she always talks about the sun, and all the good things about it, which tends to enrage the other children and make them jealous because they have not had a chance to see the sun, unlike her. In order to fit in, she could try to engage with them more, and not mention the sun that much, which is a sensitive topic for many of them. I feel the most challenging character traits for students to attain are honesty, which involves resisting the tempation to cheat or copy from others, tolerance for others, which involves not bullying schoolmates who are different in some way, and self-control, to manage their time properly to get their work done

Setting

The orange rays peeked through the thin branches of the willow trees that swayed with the breeze. Tiny ripples drifted across the emerald green waters of the pond, and in the background, elated giggles were heard. The little boy toddled across the soft grass, feeling like he was stepping across an ocean of pillows. The ground was still wet and the air still smelling of rain. As he reached the water, he tentatively dipped a toe into the cool water. He put his other foot in, a pleasant tingling feeling creeping up his leg. Sweet chirping mixed in with the occasional chirp of crickets echoed throughout the little park. Suddenly, a shriek rang out....

LA 26/1/11

I think that I fit the description though the environment that I live in is a little different. In terms of the way I go about my daily life such as eating or transport. Also, I do share some of the aspirations of most of the youths surveyed. For example, I think that it is more important to maintain good ties with my family and friends, rather than just focusing on a successful career.

However, my schooling environment is very different from most of Singapore. Firstly, my school mostly has students of the same race, which is contrary to racial diversity, one of the key traits of Singapore. Secondly, I feel that I have many more opportunities for learning compared to the rest of Singapore, like special programs that allow us to learn in different ways, such as online lessons.

Why Chinese Mothers are more "Superior" ?

When first reading the article, it is very easy to immediately form a judgement that Ms Chua's method of parenting is utterly abominable, and totally wrong to nurture a successful and all-rounded child, but I feel that there is definitely a grain of truth in her methods of parenting, and her goals for her children are valid, though the means she uses to achieve those goals could be quite extreme.

Some of her expectations, such as not allowing her children to get any grade less than an A, or not allowing them to go for sleepovers, are obviously very strict by any standards. I feel this kind of expectations for studies may not work in all cases. In Ms Chua's case, she made her daughter practice a piano piece she couldn't seem to get endlessly, by shouting at her daughter and using many threats, which made her daughter very angry, and left with no choice in the end, she had to keep practicing and mastered the piece in the end. However, in some cases, maybe the child simply does not have the ability to do it, and the endless drilling will only serve to demoralise the child and crush her self-esteem.

Despite these negative aspects of her parenting, the rationale behind her parenting techinques is quite valid, and could work in some cases. For example, her attitude that assumes her children are mentally strong, not fragile. She drilled her daughter endlessly after she did badly after a math test and said she hated math. As a result of this, her daughter aced the next test, and admitted that she had begun to enjoy the subject.

In conclusion, I think her methods are harsh, but have a good rationale and logic behind them. Her methods worked in her case, but no parenting technique can work with all children. I feel the most important thing for parents is to see what kind of personality their child has, and change their parenting methods to ensure the child maximises his potential and at the same time is happy.

Home Learning 24/1/11

The underlying message I wish to put across through this comic strip is how people tend to neglect their elderly parents, despite the fact that they have been responsible for their upbringing. The "story" I have created compares how a woman treats her young child to how she treats her elderly father.

I took away the colour from the two scenes involving the elderly man, representing how the happiness and energy gradually fades away from a person's life as they get older. This is in contrast to the scene with the baby in it, to show that the beginning of the life is full of joy. Also, I compare the abundance of toys in the baby's room to the lack of objects in the scene involving the elderly man. This represents physically that the baby is showered with toys whereas the wants of the old man are somewhat neglected, and also that a newborn's life is full of love and concern, whereas an elderly man's life is often devoid of those.

The two things that happen to each of the individuals are also somewhat the same, such as the baby crying and the old man tripping. This shows that both of them do not have the ability to really take care of their basic needs. I use this to show that despite differences in the two people's lives, they have the same needs.

The woman, who is the main character in the story, deals with these two people with similar needs in very different ways, doting on the child but brushing off the old man. I highlight this by making sure I contrast the woman's expressions from the two scenes, and also the tone of her speech.

Facebook - Good or Bad?

In class, we discussed how Facebook has affected human relationships in ways such as causing people to have less face to face interaction.

I feel Facebook, whether we like it or not, is now a very big part of our lifestyle, and not just for "tech-savvy" youths, but for people of all ages. Within the span of 4 years, it has grown to have 600 million users. In this period of time, it has caused much controversy, and has radically changed how we view our social lives.

I don't think it would be fair to judge Facebook as a bad influence that people should be banned from, but neither is it perfect. Just like other technology such as forums, email and blogs, Facebook can be made use of to enhance one's lifestyle but it can also be abused and cause much inconvenience to people.

Firstly, one of the advantages I feel Facebook has is that it has made communication between people much more convenient. You could send a message to a person, just like an email, you can chat with them just like on other instant messaging platforms such as MSN, you could write on someone's "wall" for short messages instead of text messaging or voicemail. Furthermore, these features are all in one website.

Facebook also has many features for both work and play. There are a huge number of quizzes and games for entertainment purposes, and there also are many features that help you plan events, organise gatherings and network with colleagues/schoolmates.

However, these features cause some people to decrease their face to face interaction with each other, and their friendship is weakened, rather than improved, which was the original purpose of Facebook.

Some people also abuse these features. People often use Facebook to conduct cyber-bullying, by posting snide comments on other people's posts, and creating pages full of criticism for the victim. Many others also waste a lot of time on Facebook playing a whole range of addictive games available on Facebook, causing them to spend the time they could be using on productive activities on games.

Personally, I do use Facebook quite actively. However, to prevent myself from wasting too much time, I make sure I limit myself to about half an hour's usage a day, and only work-related communication outside of that time. I believe it is fine to use Facebook as a tool for de-stressing and useful communication, but should not take up unnecessary amounts of time or compromise on our interaction with friends in real life.

Mind Map - Harper Lee

LA - 19/1/11

Is it better to have never known something than to have known something but lose it later?

I believe that it depends on the environment you are in. If you have not known something, there is no way you can yearn for it, because you will not know what it is, and hence not be able to appreciate it. For example, if you have never scored good grades in school, you would be expecting to constantly to score those grades, and would not be extremely distressed if you continue doing poorly,especially if you mix around with people who do just as poorly, because you would not feel any pressure to perform.

However, on the flip side, if your peers who were close to you all did very well, and you can see the privileges and joy that they derive from it, you will feel pressured to do well so as to fit in with your friends, and you will feel as if you were missing out on many privileges that you could have otherwise achieved.

I also feel the same way about having something and losing it later. Using the same example, if you had always had very good grades, and lose it later, you would lose out on many privileges you would otherwise have. You would yearn for those constantly, and this will cause you a lot of disappointment. However, if those around you also were faced with the same problems, you would not feel as if you have let yourself down so badly.

LA - 18/1/11

Have you ever been part of a group of people who were unkind to one or some individuals? What was the circumstance? How did you act? What did you feel?


Yes, I have. I have been in this kind of situation many times before, and I have found that usually, it is simply because the other individual was different, or he reacts and deals with situations differently. For example, when I was in primary school, there was a boy who participated very actively in class, and did very well in school work, but did not seem to share our interests, such as playing games and sports. When we would run around the school during recess, he would be quietly sitting down reading. This caused him to be seen as square and anti-social. Many of my classmates made fun of him by playing pranks on him such as hiding his school books outside the class, and stealing his food during break.

Looking back, I realise that we should not have picked on him just because he was different, just because his priorities at the time were different from us. I feel that when we meet people who are different, we should try to get to know them better better, before trying to judge them or form preconceptions about them.

First Lesson / Goal Setting

Today was my first lesson of the year as well as the first LA lesson. My class has a new teacher, Ms Soh, who taught us AAP last year.

The lesson mainly involved my class getting briefed on admin matters, and it helped to clarify certain issues I was unclear about, especially online learning. I am excited to try this new method of learning as I feel that online learning can help enhance my learning for LA.

Firstly, it provides convenient platforms for me to share my views with my classmates easily. I feel this will help me to get constructive feedback from my peers to improve on my schoolwork, and it will also allow me to help others in areas they are weaker and I am stronger in.

Secondly, technology will allow me to access a large amount of resources that can help me learn many things outside of the syllabus.

Goals:

1. What went well

- I feel I fared quite well for my letter writing last year, and I was able to grasp the different requirements for letter writing.

2. What can be improved upon

- Overall, I did not understand all the requirements for all the exams/tests.(Not sure what exactly are teachers looking out for when they grade a paper)

- I did not pay attention to details, especially about Animal Farm, which resulted in insufficient knowledge to back up my statements in the test.

3. LA Target

- I wish to attain an A2 as my grade for term 1, and at least an A2 for my EOY grade, preferably an A1. I also do not wish to score below a B3 for any test. I feel this is a reasonable goal as my EOY grade was B3, and the marks of many of my tests fluctuated a lot, between C5 and A1, so I wish to maintain consistent results this year.

4. How I wish to attain these goals

- Pay a lot of attention in class, especially to topics such as the Lit books, as I find understanding them quite challenging.

- Practice more using additional materials for areas I am weak in such as Comprehension.