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.