Today, I didn't want to do any homework and I didn't want to feel guilty about not doing work the whole day so I decided to write a short reflection after reading an article on Geopolitics.
This article was taken from the July 23rd copy of news week and it is titled, " Divide and conquer". I'm not very sure how related it is to GP but nonetheless, its still general knowledge.
New, funny words/thematic vocab etc found:
resurgent
encroaching
notionally
kremlin
Black sea port of Odessa
antiballistic
nukes
Summary: Russia under putin, is engaged in this tug of war with the US over the eastern european states like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova etc. these countries are becoming closer and closer to the US due to 'common diplomatic values' but Russia is feeling the threat. some facts include Russia being able to shut down these countries' economies in a few days, the American guided missile destroyer USS Donald Cook was welcomed into Ukraine, and Putin wanting Iran as an ally to counter american influence.
Reflections:
I feel that although the cold war is over and although i initially thought Russia has restored its democratic form of administration, there would be no more rivalry between the two old time rivals, but this is not the case, and the two are still trying to collect their own diplomatic chips around the world. Putin took advantage at the surge in the anti-americanism that followed after its occupation of Iraq by selling arms to those anti-american countries. last month putin even signed a $3 billion arms deal with venezuela. At this rate, a conflict bt these two superpowers and their allies might come sonner than we think.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
GP Essay for Common Test
7. The development of a country depends on its leaders, not its citizens. Is this a fair comment?
The development of a country, could be defined as a process of change whereby the people of a certain country improve their standard of living. It is usually measured by current healthcare standards, quality of goods and services provided to the people, and most commonly, the Gross Domestic Product, which is a measure of the annual income of an average citizen. Many countries, like India and China, are progressing at an alarming rate, while most of the countries today have achieved third-world status, I believe the role of leaders in the development of many countries is vital. Though it is true to think that the people of a country are the fuel that drives development, but we should also consider the spark that sets it ablaze and keep it going. I believe that the development of a country depends largely on its leaders, although the citizens do provide an essential supporting role in the process of development.
The development of a country requires strategic planning and careful decisions, two aspects which need forward-looking leaders at the helm. Citizens alone do not make such key/crucial decisions, which determine the course the country is taking. One example would be the Singapore government in the 1960s. By allowing foreign companies to set up business here, while the rest of South East Asia recoils in the frear of foreigners dominating their economy, Singpaore has managed to become a global city, an economic hulo which is a centre of business and industries. Such development would not have been possible if the PAP government had not opened up the Singapore economy, and this would have left us struggling helplessly as a small country with no viable resources. Hence, this example clearly illustrates the importance of leaders making key and vital decisions for a country's development.
The rallying of people's hopes and dreams into one common goal is another reason why leaders are so important in the development of a country. For progress in the country, people of different backgrounds, beliefs and wants must share a common desire. In the 1960s, the people of Singapore wanted independence very badly, and the newly elected PAP government united their hopes and dreams and pushed for independence. In some countries, like Singapore and Sri Lanka, racial conflicts can sometimes divide the country and impede progress. However, comparing these two countries, Singapore has made great development while Sri Lanka experiences its decline. The reason for the stark difference lies in their leaders, especially at a time when its citizens are divided. Leaders introduce measures to remove this straitjacket to growth. Here in Singapore we celebrate Racial Harmony Day and have introduced public holidays on the festivals of the various ethnic groups. It is in this light that I would like to exert my point that leaders play a vital role in the development of a country, not the citizens, as only the leaders can make the citizens proud to be countrymen and work together to attain greater heights instead of alowing internal strife to imped growth.
Moreover, in the context of development being a process of progression in terms of a country's economy and standard of living, it is mostly the leaders that take the initiative to intiate sound policies for the good of all. The citizens are, in fact, more focussed on the minor aspects of things - their own wealth and comfort. Many people claim that it is the citizens who work and improve their own lives: to each his own, some may say. This viewpoint is erroneous in a larger context as it is not true that the poor of the country who are caught in the cycle of poverty can automatically progress together with the rest, and thus this does not fit into the definition of development as the overall improvement of the standard of a country. In Singapore, the government provides handouts to the urban poor, allowing them to progress as well. Charity organisations are set up to help the needy, and this in turn, helps them develop together with the rest of the country. History has also proven this point, as illustrated in the reunion of East and West Germany after the Cold War, when the generally well-to-do people of West Germany were bogged down by the poorer East Germans, causing development barriers. The self-help sehcme introduced by many developing countries also prove that in order for overall development that is unimpeded to occur, leaders must help those in need. Citizens mostly help themselves, while leaders help the country as a whole.
On the whole we can see from the above examples that country's development depends on its leaders, not its citizens. Citizens merely play a supporting role and act as the agents of change. Where this change is directed, however, depends on the country's leaders. Hence, it is in this view that we should appreciate the leaders who have dedicated their lives to serving the needs of the people. Selflessly pragmatic and keen on progress, these leaders light the path and pave the way for a country's development.
The development of a country, could be defined as a process of change whereby the people of a certain country improve their standard of living. It is usually measured by current healthcare standards, quality of goods and services provided to the people, and most commonly, the Gross Domestic Product, which is a measure of the annual income of an average citizen. Many countries, like India and China, are progressing at an alarming rate, while most of the countries today have achieved third-world status, I believe the role of leaders in the development of many countries is vital. Though it is true to think that the people of a country are the fuel that drives development, but we should also consider the spark that sets it ablaze and keep it going. I believe that the development of a country depends largely on its leaders, although the citizens do provide an essential supporting role in the process of development.
The development of a country requires strategic planning and careful decisions, two aspects which need forward-looking leaders at the helm. Citizens alone do not make such key/crucial decisions, which determine the course the country is taking. One example would be the Singapore government in the 1960s. By allowing foreign companies to set up business here, while the rest of South East Asia recoils in the frear of foreigners dominating their economy, Singpaore has managed to become a global city, an economic hulo which is a centre of business and industries. Such development would not have been possible if the PAP government had not opened up the Singapore economy, and this would have left us struggling helplessly as a small country with no viable resources. Hence, this example clearly illustrates the importance of leaders making key and vital decisions for a country's development.
The rallying of people's hopes and dreams into one common goal is another reason why leaders are so important in the development of a country. For progress in the country, people of different backgrounds, beliefs and wants must share a common desire. In the 1960s, the people of Singapore wanted independence very badly, and the newly elected PAP government united their hopes and dreams and pushed for independence. In some countries, like Singapore and Sri Lanka, racial conflicts can sometimes divide the country and impede progress. However, comparing these two countries, Singapore has made great development while Sri Lanka experiences its decline. The reason for the stark difference lies in their leaders, especially at a time when its citizens are divided. Leaders introduce measures to remove this straitjacket to growth. Here in Singapore we celebrate Racial Harmony Day and have introduced public holidays on the festivals of the various ethnic groups. It is in this light that I would like to exert my point that leaders play a vital role in the development of a country, not the citizens, as only the leaders can make the citizens proud to be countrymen and work together to attain greater heights instead of alowing internal strife to imped growth.
Moreover, in the context of development being a process of progression in terms of a country's economy and standard of living, it is mostly the leaders that take the initiative to intiate sound policies for the good of all. The citizens are, in fact, more focussed on the minor aspects of things - their own wealth and comfort. Many people claim that it is the citizens who work and improve their own lives: to each his own, some may say. This viewpoint is erroneous in a larger context as it is not true that the poor of the country who are caught in the cycle of poverty can automatically progress together with the rest, and thus this does not fit into the definition of development as the overall improvement of the standard of a country. In Singapore, the government provides handouts to the urban poor, allowing them to progress as well. Charity organisations are set up to help the needy, and this in turn, helps them develop together with the rest of the country. History has also proven this point, as illustrated in the reunion of East and West Germany after the Cold War, when the generally well-to-do people of West Germany were bogged down by the poorer East Germans, causing development barriers. The self-help sehcme introduced by many developing countries also prove that in order for overall development that is unimpeded to occur, leaders must help those in need. Citizens mostly help themselves, while leaders help the country as a whole.
On the whole we can see from the above examples that country's development depends on its leaders, not its citizens. Citizens merely play a supporting role and act as the agents of change. Where this change is directed, however, depends on the country's leaders. Hence, it is in this view that we should appreciate the leaders who have dedicated their lives to serving the needs of the people. Selflessly pragmatic and keen on progress, these leaders light the path and pave the way for a country's development.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The day before GP CTs
Tomorrow afternoon will be the time when we get grilled for 3 1/2 hours doing the GP paper. And so there is no better time than now to do some last minute GP stuff, just anything that will get me into the mood to do the paper.
Article:
Contemporary society generally views family as a haven from the world, supplying absolute fulfilment. The family is considered to encourage "intimacy, love and trust where individuals may escape the competition of dehumanising forces in modern society”, and providing love and protection from the rough and tumble industrialised world, and as a place where warmth, tenderness and understanding can be expected from a loving mother, and protection from the world can be expected from the father. However, the idea of protection is declining as civil society faces less internal conflict combined with increased civil rights and protection from the state. To many, the ideal of personal or family fulfilment has replaced protection as the major role of the family. The family now supplies what is “vitally needed but missing from other social arrangements”.
Social conservatives often express concern over a purported decay of the family and see this as a sign of the crumbling of contemporary society. They feel that the family structures of the past were superior to those today and believe that families were more stable and happier at a time when they did not have to contend with problems such as illegitimate children and divorce. Others refute this theory, claiming “there is no golden age of the family gleaming at us in the far back historical past”
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family#Contemporary_perception
Reflections:
This article gives a very neutral view of the contemporary family and whether families of today are being less and less important to people of today. But one takeaway i had from this article is knowing more about how the ideal family might look like. The loving mother, the protecting father, and the warmth and understanding from this societal arrangement all seemed to paint the picture of a perfect family, and might be useful in comparing with the families of today.
As for the GP common test, I'm worried. We didn't do well for the essay on technology and the leadership compre as well. Lets hope we do better for CTs! Haha...
Article:
Contemporary society generally views family as a haven from the world, supplying absolute fulfilment. The family is considered to encourage "intimacy, love and trust where individuals may escape the competition of dehumanising forces in modern society”, and providing love and protection from the rough and tumble industrialised world, and as a place where warmth, tenderness and understanding can be expected from a loving mother, and protection from the world can be expected from the father. However, the idea of protection is declining as civil society faces less internal conflict combined with increased civil rights and protection from the state. To many, the ideal of personal or family fulfilment has replaced protection as the major role of the family. The family now supplies what is “vitally needed but missing from other social arrangements”.
Social conservatives often express concern over a purported decay of the family and see this as a sign of the crumbling of contemporary society. They feel that the family structures of the past were superior to those today and believe that families were more stable and happier at a time when they did not have to contend with problems such as illegitimate children and divorce. Others refute this theory, claiming “there is no golden age of the family gleaming at us in the far back historical past”
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family#Contemporary_perception
Reflections:
This article gives a very neutral view of the contemporary family and whether families of today are being less and less important to people of today. But one takeaway i had from this article is knowing more about how the ideal family might look like. The loving mother, the protecting father, and the warmth and understanding from this societal arrangement all seemed to paint the picture of a perfect family, and might be useful in comparing with the families of today.
As for the GP common test, I'm worried. We didn't do well for the essay on technology and the leadership compre as well. Lets hope we do better for CTs! Haha...
Friday, May 4, 2007
Inspire
Ms Koh recently asked me to take part in the inspire 07' national writing competition, and the story below is my piece! Haha.. i don't think i will win or anything but i'm proud that i managed to complete the essay myself. (although i feel it's a little short: 400 words) Short as it is, i still like it because i managed to express my thoughts through this. For those who happen to be reading this, this piece is for your reading pleasure! :)
INSPIRE
Inspiration is something people very often overlook when they take retrospect at their current paths. Many decisions, ambitions and even lifestyles are based on inspirations brought on by experiences or people we know. This ethereal concept of inspiration, which literary means ‘breathing upon’, is a powerful impetus to change, and growth. I, for one, can only name a few instances where I was truly inspired by something. Looking back at my footsteps, I could only think of one particular, I would say - adventure, one simple, yet bizarrely impactful experience that has changed my attitude and outlook towards life – scouting.
“Knock it down!” That is certainly one phrase that would haunt the memories of all scouts – past and present. These familiar words warrant the scouts in formation to switch to push up positions and this remains the peril of every member of the uniform group. Discipline – not that I ever liked or accepted the idea – is the main driving force to achieving targets and goals. Discipline inspired me to be a more unselfish person. It exists because people of similar circumstances and goals need to work together to maintain optimum efficiency. Scouting has undoubtedly made me a person who takes things seriously, and in a way has affected my attitude towards life.
Through scouting, I made friendships I never imagined I could meet. These people are the most dependable and most interesting people one can ever meet in their entire life. These friendships form in the grim of punishment, the stench of sweat, and the challenge of scouting, and these are the friendships that last even in the pyre of death. Friends made in scouts are friends made for good. No challenge is insurmountable with the help of friends that care and friends that share. Scouting has inspired my sense of responsibility towards my peers, and is what drove me to run for the student council in Junior College. "A friend is one who believes in you when you have ceased to believe in yourself." This statement certainly rings true in describing my friends.
This whole idea of scouting may seem simple and uninspiring, but it has indeed made me who I am today. Scouting has inspired me to play a more proactive in school, and has also moulded my dream of working in public service; a career which I believe will be as fulfilling and rewarding as scouting!
INSPIRE
Inspiration is something people very often overlook when they take retrospect at their current paths. Many decisions, ambitions and even lifestyles are based on inspirations brought on by experiences or people we know. This ethereal concept of inspiration, which literary means ‘breathing upon’, is a powerful impetus to change, and growth. I, for one, can only name a few instances where I was truly inspired by something. Looking back at my footsteps, I could only think of one particular, I would say - adventure, one simple, yet bizarrely impactful experience that has changed my attitude and outlook towards life – scouting.
“Knock it down!” That is certainly one phrase that would haunt the memories of all scouts – past and present. These familiar words warrant the scouts in formation to switch to push up positions and this remains the peril of every member of the uniform group. Discipline – not that I ever liked or accepted the idea – is the main driving force to achieving targets and goals. Discipline inspired me to be a more unselfish person. It exists because people of similar circumstances and goals need to work together to maintain optimum efficiency. Scouting has undoubtedly made me a person who takes things seriously, and in a way has affected my attitude towards life.
Through scouting, I made friendships I never imagined I could meet. These people are the most dependable and most interesting people one can ever meet in their entire life. These friendships form in the grim of punishment, the stench of sweat, and the challenge of scouting, and these are the friendships that last even in the pyre of death. Friends made in scouts are friends made for good. No challenge is insurmountable with the help of friends that care and friends that share. Scouting has inspired my sense of responsibility towards my peers, and is what drove me to run for the student council in Junior College. "A friend is one who believes in you when you have ceased to believe in yourself." This statement certainly rings true in describing my friends.
This whole idea of scouting may seem simple and uninspiring, but it has indeed made me who I am today. Scouting has inspired me to play a more proactive in school, and has also moulded my dream of working in public service; a career which I believe will be as fulfilling and rewarding as scouting!
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Something to ponder about
"When the life of people is unmoral, and their relations are not based on love, but on egoism, then all technical improvements, the increase of man's power over nature, steam, electricity, the telegraph, every machine, gunpowder, and dynamite, produce the impression of dangerous toys placed in the hands of children."—the diary of Leo Tolstoy (1828 - 1910)
Technology in Teaching
This is a very good article about arguements against the use of technology in schools and how some of them are rebutted. (adapted from:http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te600.htm) :)
1. Some critics attack technology use in schools for physiological, psychological, moral, and physical reasons, and those critics and their opinions may never change.
The main criticism is that computers are not as cost effective as other interventions.
- obsolescence factor of computers
- ongoing costs of upgrading both hardware and software
2. Some critics indicate a belief that many hardware and software companies purposely design products to become quickly obsolete and thus require updates that educators must buy. It is their belief that educational technology is too much in its infancy and not yet reliable enough for use by most students.
3. Some critics such as Kirkpatrick and Cuban (1998) indicate that technology equipment requires extensive support structures that require districts to take money away from basic expenditures for other and better uses in the classroom. They believe this money should be invested in the arts, science laboratories, shops, and anything else that involves more hands-on ways of learning. Technology literacy, some believe, is highly overblown in its importance and that people who need to use technology will learn by using task applications that involve "real" work.
4. The criticism is especially strong for computer use by younger students. Some critics believe that with the exceptions of assistive technologies for students with special needs, students below the third grade should not use much, if any, technology.
5. Other critics are concerned that technology reduces socialization opportunities. Some parents are concerned about the effect that children are gaining so much of their world knowledge from a virtual, rather than the real, world.
6. Other critics are concerned that the sexual and violent content accessible on the Internet challenges or prevents character education necessary for development of moral citizens (Rifkin, 2000).
7. Some critics think that technology use is a wasteful and negative use of scarce resources and give examples of visiting schools where uses of computers are actually making education worse. They note that in many cases, teachers use computers to entertain students with irrelevant and unconnected activities because it makes their teaching lives easier and not because it benefits students as they learn important content.
Subsequently, several people have written very enlightening responses to such critics. Kleiman (2000) indicated that there are realities to some of the criticisms but that many of the points of objection are due to poor implementation of technology. He noted:
The central theme underlying all these myths is that while modern technology has great potential to enhance teaching and learning, turning that potential into reality on a large scale is a complex, multifaceted task. The key determinant of our success will not be the number of computers purchased or cables installed, but rather how we define educational visions, prepare and support teachers, design curriculum, address issues of equity, and respond to the rapidly changing world. As is always the case in efforts to improve education, simple, short-term solutions turn out to be illusions; long-term, carefully planned commitments are required
No doubt, technology will always have critics. Some believe that technology reduces hands-on experience and student engagement in active participation. Others believe technology reduces important human contact. In the final analysis, one can conclude that identified uses of technology can have different critiques depending on one's personal values and perspectives of what is good and bad in education. The single most important factor for reducing criticism of technology use in instruction is to have teachers who are competent and knowledgeable about appropriate and effective use of technology to improve student learning.
1. Some critics attack technology use in schools for physiological, psychological, moral, and physical reasons, and those critics and their opinions may never change.
The main criticism is that computers are not as cost effective as other interventions.
- obsolescence factor of computers
- ongoing costs of upgrading both hardware and software
2. Some critics indicate a belief that many hardware and software companies purposely design products to become quickly obsolete and thus require updates that educators must buy. It is their belief that educational technology is too much in its infancy and not yet reliable enough for use by most students.
3. Some critics such as Kirkpatrick and Cuban (1998) indicate that technology equipment requires extensive support structures that require districts to take money away from basic expenditures for other and better uses in the classroom. They believe this money should be invested in the arts, science laboratories, shops, and anything else that involves more hands-on ways of learning. Technology literacy, some believe, is highly overblown in its importance and that people who need to use technology will learn by using task applications that involve "real" work.
4. The criticism is especially strong for computer use by younger students. Some critics believe that with the exceptions of assistive technologies for students with special needs, students below the third grade should not use much, if any, technology.
5. Other critics are concerned that technology reduces socialization opportunities. Some parents are concerned about the effect that children are gaining so much of their world knowledge from a virtual, rather than the real, world.
6. Other critics are concerned that the sexual and violent content accessible on the Internet challenges or prevents character education necessary for development of moral citizens (Rifkin, 2000).
7. Some critics think that technology use is a wasteful and negative use of scarce resources and give examples of visiting schools where uses of computers are actually making education worse. They note that in many cases, teachers use computers to entertain students with irrelevant and unconnected activities because it makes their teaching lives easier and not because it benefits students as they learn important content.
Subsequently, several people have written very enlightening responses to such critics. Kleiman (2000) indicated that there are realities to some of the criticisms but that many of the points of objection are due to poor implementation of technology. He noted:
The central theme underlying all these myths is that while modern technology has great potential to enhance teaching and learning, turning that potential into reality on a large scale is a complex, multifaceted task. The key determinant of our success will not be the number of computers purchased or cables installed, but rather how we define educational visions, prepare and support teachers, design curriculum, address issues of equity, and respond to the rapidly changing world. As is always the case in efforts to improve education, simple, short-term solutions turn out to be illusions; long-term, carefully planned commitments are required
No doubt, technology will always have critics. Some believe that technology reduces hands-on experience and student engagement in active participation. Others believe technology reduces important human contact. In the final analysis, one can conclude that identified uses of technology can have different critiques depending on one's personal values and perspectives of what is good and bad in education. The single most important factor for reducing criticism of technology use in instruction is to have teachers who are competent and knowledgeable about appropriate and effective use of technology to improve student learning.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
"Modern Technology has created more problems than solutions"
Stand: Against
Argument 1: Science and Medicine
- Healthcare
- More sophisticated machinery: X-ray, ultrasound, blood tests, vaccines, keyhole operations
- Longer life expectancy
- Allows for more in-depth research into unknown fields: e.g. microbiology
Argument 2: Communication and Travel
- Transport
- Email, internet
- Telecommunications
- globalisation
Argument 3: Convenience and Leisure
- Fuel
- Materials (e.g. glass, plastics)
- Entertainment: TV, computer, radio)
- electricity
Rebuttal: Terrorism and Nuclear Threat
- more extensive warfare: nuclear weapons threaten world peace today
- aided terrorism
- But when considering this compared to the solutions, these problems are manifestations of man’s misuse of technology, and not technology causing the problem.
- Far more backward should technology not have impacted our lives.
Argument 1: Science and Medicine
- Healthcare
- More sophisticated machinery: X-ray, ultrasound, blood tests, vaccines, keyhole operations
- Longer life expectancy
- Allows for more in-depth research into unknown fields: e.g. microbiology
Argument 2: Communication and Travel
- Transport
- Email, internet
- Telecommunications
- globalisation
Argument 3: Convenience and Leisure
- Fuel
- Materials (e.g. glass, plastics)
- Entertainment: TV, computer, radio)
- electricity
Rebuttal: Terrorism and Nuclear Threat
- more extensive warfare: nuclear weapons threaten world peace today
- aided terrorism
- But when considering this compared to the solutions, these problems are manifestations of man’s misuse of technology, and not technology causing the problem.
- Far more backward should technology not have impacted our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
