Wednesday, July 28, 2010'♥
With love ♥
Making reference to one of the reading materials for Friday's English Current Affairs Discussion(How Dare He make the MRT look nicer?),I would like to express my opinions about the recent MRT vandalism case by the swiss national.
First of all,I like to thank the awesome blogger who posted this,the title was the best part,how he though up of it,perhaps I would never find out,but if it's one thing I know,it's that the title is extremely humourous and made me laugh till my stomach hurt,allow me a moment to get over the pain....
Ok,I'm ready now,so,for the benefit those of you who do not know read the newspapers/watch the news or are just plain oblivious to the what is happening around you,2 foreigners,Oliver Fricker and Lloyd Dane Alexander,broke into the Changi MRT depot and spray-painted MRT trains with graffiti.The incident was only reported by commuters who noticed the vandalised MRT 2 days later as most commuters just thought it was part of the MRT's decorations and already,there are multiple footage of the vandalised trains posted on the Internet.
So, what's the big deal about it anyway?It's just vandalism.You see it all the time and everywhere in other countries like in the US,and the government doesn't even seem to care,so what exactly is all the fuss over this incident,why would Singaporeans view it so differently?
It would seem that the most controversial part of this case is the unusually heavy sentence meted out to the arrested vandal.
For " voluntarilly decorating" the MRT trains,Oliver Fricker will be rewarded with the top prize of 3-8 strokes of the cane,3 years in jail and a 2000 dollar fine for the "commendable" service he has done for the citizens of Singapore.
Wait,did I hear correctly?3-8 Strokes of the cane?Are you kidding me?That's hardly considered a reward for he probably has to sit on a rubber float or a pillow for a very long time,all just because he had a little artistic flair.It is stated clearly in black and white on the law book of Singapore that any form of vandalism,regardless of severity,warrants caning as a punishment.In my opinion,it is far too harsh a punishment for a crime of this level.Besides,it's not like he placed any four-letter word on the train,and people actually liked his handiwork.All he did was placed his signature on the train,nothing offensive or obscene at all,no "f' word,no one-finger salute,so,why so harsh a punishment?
In my opinion, this is all a result of Singapore's old-fashioned thinking-the punishment was decided based on the Vandalism Act of 1966.1966!Think about it,it's been 44 years already,must we be so square?In the course of 4 and a half decades, human rights have already took a great leap of advancement and physical punishment is not used anymore and maybe even criticised by other democratic nations while here we are sticking to old ways and getting increasingly left behind.I feel Singapore should review its laws accordingly or run the risk of being criticised and ostracised by other nations just because of the caning of a foreigner.Already,angry comments have appeared online,this proves people are against this sentence meted out,this one is my favourite one:
"OKAY KIDS, DADDY'S GONNA CANCEL OUR TRIP TO SINGAPORE, THAT PLACE IS JUST TOO INAPPROPRIATE FOR U KIDS, JUZ LOOK AT THEIR ECCENTRIC ATTITUDE TO FOREIGNERS. BUT NVM, DADDY'S JUZ BOOK TICKETS TO ISRAEL...! MUCH MORE SAFER AND MODERNIZED! "
However,I do not attempt to deny that vandalism and trespassing of protected property are violation of the law,Fricker should however,been given a vastly different punishment than his current one,perhaps a heavier fine but slight reduction of his imprisonment and no caning at all as people feel it violates human rights.He should be commended,by breaking into the depot,he showed us just how easy it was for terrorist to attack it,would we rather have realised this when the depot blew up?
To conclude,I say that Fricker's punishment was too harsh and that I do not support it,however,I do not believe that he should be absolved completely as vandalism is still a violation of the law.
Friday, July 9, 2010'♥
With love ♥
Foreign talent-are they a boon to us or a bane?This is a topic that has been discussed over and over again,even going as far as to become the topic for our CA discussion,and seemingly with no consensus ever reached,simply because everyone view things differently,and now,I'm here to give my own opinion.
Now,pertaining to the workforce,I feel that competition between foreigners and Singaporeans'competitions for jobs is more than justified because in te current working society,success and failure all depends on your potential,your abilities and the contributions you have made to the company.If you get turned down for a job in favour of a foreigner,so be it because the company felt that the foreigner was more capable than you.Bosses are likely to be professional and know how to choose among their candidates wisely so as to maximise work effectiveness and generate the most possible revenue for the company so I think Singaporeans whining about foreigners stealing their job is incomprehensible.They should just get over it and try again.If you do not want to lose out to a foreigner,instead of complaining,you should strive to improve yourself,now like Professor Pautsch said:"Just work harder for complaining will get you nowhere."In fact,Jackie Robinson,the first black Major Leaguer,stated in his contract that he wouldn't complain if anyone spat at him and that was a time when blacks were discriminated against.
As for the problems with school vacancy,the government has already given Singaporeans an edge by granting them two balloting slots as compared to the foreigners who only had one,they possess twice the chances of the foreigners so it all comes down to the luck of the draw.This should be a fair system as no one can rig the results,furthermore,you can't blame others for something that totally depends on luck,it's just not right,it's like when you lose money at a casino,you claim that it was someone's else fault rather than your own bad luck.
Now for part of my blog post that likely concerns us,students,competition in schools,firstly,I like to make it clear that I have absolutely nothing against foreigners,I believe they should be treated equally and if they are better than me,so be it for it is no one's fault but my own.The second point is about scholars. Firstly,scholars are studious,smart,intelligent.I can understand that they are treated very well back in their country(and they deserved to be treated so,if I may add)due to their scholar status.They tend to be more selfish,eg. refusing to help classmates in need,not bonding with the class,being antisocial and only wishing to get/receive from others without sacrificing something themselves,at least,this is the stereotype that people hold of scholars which I say is totally bull.They are most definitely not selfish and they definitely do help their peers,whenever I have a maths question,I can always approach my scholar classmates and they would explain it to me step by step,and the part about them being anti-social?I have alot of friends who are scholars,I'm sure you have sharpened inference skills,so you should understand what I'm trying to say.
With that,I believe I can say that scholars are a boon to our nation in my eyes.They bring with them unique cultures an d a myriad of unique talent.Through interaction with them,we can learn more about their culture,this also fits in with Singapore's plans to become a global hub.As for the part about competition,well,it's also all good,like they say,with competition comes improvement,with the presence of foreign competition,we will strive to do better in order to not lose out and int he long run,this will greatly benefit Singapore.
