what roles do the arts play in singapore? how important are these roles?

in the passage, Chua mentioned that, "art is a forum for people to come together and share an experience".
another role would be what Chua had mentioned in the passage, that, "arts is a pressure valve; art is bread for society's soul; art is the grindstone for a society's intellectual sharpness" in singapore's context, an example would be our very own production, 881 and the 12 lotus. in the movies, they depict the lifes of 'getai' singers. it kind of keep our 'getai' tradition alive, bread for our society's soul. before the movie was produced, teenagers were not very sure what 'getai' was about. after the movie was produced, some teenagers became more interested in 'getai'. allowing the tradition for 'getai' to continue, thus the production of such a art production becomes bread for our society's soul.
this role is quite important because it keeps our tradition alive. where people will still be able to feel the rich cultural heritage even after a long time.

What roles do the Arts play in Singapore? How important are these roles?

The roles that the Arts play in Singapore are not the ‘leads’ but they are still important in facilitating overall success in all fields.
The Arts is a broad subdivision of culture, composed of many expressive disciplines. In modern usage, it is a term broader than "art", which usually means the visual arts (comprising fine art, decorative art, and crafts). The Arts encompass visual arts, performing arts, language arts, culinary arts, and physical arts.

As mentioned in the passage, there is ‘creative discontentment’. As such, in Singapore, they play the role of bringing up common problems that are faced my Singaporeans at home, school. The problems are reflected in the films produced. For example, local film director Jack Neo produces movies like I Not Stupid and Money Not Enough to address societal issues. I Not Stupid revolves around students, academics and family relationships. Money Not enough depicted the economic stress on the average Singaporean. The best part about the films is that the the situations are very real. Audiences regardless of age would be able to identify with the movie. They can learn from the movie and see from other perspectives.

Another role that the Arts play in Singapore is that it neutralizes Science, allowing people to appreciate creativity and to make sense out of something that defies science and logic. It is also a platform for people to showcase their talents that have nothing to do with numbers and equations. Schools like Nan Yang Academy of Fine Arts breeds Sinagpore’s artistic talent pool. These people include fashion designers; interior designers etcetera and they will play a part in contributing to the growing economy.

These roles as mentioned are important as they are flexible enough involve everyone in society. The films not only contribute positively to the economy, it also educates its audience. For a person to be successful it is important for he or she has to be well balanced. Meaning having the ability to understand science and math but also not forgetting appreciating arts which shows how deep a person can. Arts are an interactive and abstract field and it cannot be achieved by ‘memorizing and practicing’. Arts should therefore be promoted and not undermined to be of less importance compared to math, science and technology.

Ravi Veloo believes that the key to solving the problem of talent shortage in Singapore lies in changing the mindset of the people. Do you agree with

I only partly agree with the solution Ravi Veloo presented with regards to the talent shortage in Singapore because I am sure that some people, if they are unhappy with their present jobs will want to venture into other various economic fields of interest. Not acting on this want could be due to other reasons and not solely because they think they do not have the talent to ensure their success.

I partly agree with him because a Singaporean’s definition of talent is rather narrow and not many Singaporeans would then be considered ‘talented’. In today’s world, talent is no longer seen as just an aptitude in some area, like playing the piano superbly etcetera. Looking at the business and entrepreneur sector, all the top rung people are ‘talented’ in the sense that, they are creative and can think out of the box. Furthermore, they are sharp and can exercise critical thinking. These are actually skills that can be honed into people hence by changing people’s mindset they might be more inclined to try harder and think better of themselves. In turn, they will think more creatively and Singapore will become more ‘talented’ as more ideas flourish.

On the other hand, I disagree because not all Singaporeans actually believe that they are not talented. But the given situation at home may not be suitable for them to actually work on their talents.

For example, if an individual wants to change from a teacher and try out interior design as a new profession because he or she is good at art but is held back because of the risks involved. At the age of 43, he or she has financial commitments such as providing for parents who have retired as well as the bringing up of children and if the switch turns out a complete failure, there would be serious implications. Besides financial commitments, there are also parental expectations to meet. An individual may not be in a job that he really wants. For example, he or she has to continue running his father’s business instead of perusing his dream of being a doctor.

As such, I can conclude that the author’s solution would only be successful to a certain extent. It does not affect every individual Singaporean but still, it could be the first step to enlarging Singapore’s talent pool.

Ravi Veloo believes that the key to solving the problem of talent shortage in Singapore lies in changing the mindset of the people. Do you agree with

I only partly agree with the solution Ravi Veloo presented with regards to the talent shortage in Singapore because I am sure that some people, if they are unhappy with their present jobs will want to venture into other various economic fields of interest. Not acting on this want could be due to other reasons and not solely because they think they do not have the talent to ensure their success.

I partly agree with him because a Singaporean’s definition of talent is rather narrow and not many Singaporeans would then be considered ‘talented’. In today’s world, talent is no longer seen as just an aptitude in some area, like playing the piano superbly etcetera. Looking at the business and entrepreneur sector, all the top rung people are ‘talented’ in the sense that, they are creative and can think out of the box. Furthermore, they are sharp and can exercise critical thinking. These are actually skills that can be honed into people hence by changing people’s mindset they might be more inclined to try harder and think better of themselves. In turn, they will think more creatively and Singapore will become more ‘talented’ as more ideas flourish.

On the other hand, I disagree because not all Singaporeans actually believe that they are not talented. But the given situation at home may not be suitable for them to actually work on their talents.

For example, if an individual wants to change from a teacher and try out interior design as a new profession because he or she is good at art but is held back because of the risks involved. At the age of 43, he or she has financial commitments such as providing for parents who have retired as well as the bringing up of children and if the switch turns out a complete failure, there would be serious implications. Besides financial commitments, there are also parental expectations to meet. An individual may not be in a job that he really wants. For example, he or she has to continue running his father’s business instead of perusing his dream of being a doctor.

As such, I can conclude that the author’s solution would only be successful to a certain extent. It does not affect every individual Singaporean but still, it could be the first step to enlarging Singapore’s talent pool.

In my frank opinion, I think that Singapore predominantly uses extrinsic motivation. In today’s context, students strive to do well in their studies mainly due to financial factors rather than their own interests. Attractive incentives await those who do well among their cohort and good pay packages are in place for those who graduate from good universities. It is widely known that these are the main driving factors for ordinary students to work hard and perform the extraordinary. The financial attraction from a high paying job will greatly outdo the want and interests of these students. A quick google for the term “scholarships” will return a total of 28.8 million results in less than a second. The impact on the Singaporean society is great. It has transformed innocent minds into monsters whose eyes glow at the sight of money. It is a waste as they will not be true innocent childhood but a childhood aimed at gaining more money in their adult lives. It spoils the child’s development as a whole and contributes to a weaker but more financially driven society in the future.

As the article stated, the Health Minister proposed a market whereby human organs will be traded freely for financial incentives. As debated in parliament, the Members of Parliament are debating whether human organ trading should be due to intrinsic or extrinsic factors. Another debate is the moral issue behind human organ trading. It was argued that allowing sale, which is an extrinsic factor, would mean that more transplants will occur and thus, more lives will be saved. However, allowing the sale would also mean that the poorer patients would be unable to buy an organ and be condemned to eternal failure at getting an organ. Their healthy counterparts would then sell their organs to raise money which might be used to fund some undesirable activities such as drugs consuming, prostitution or gambling. From a society point of view, it is also wrong to sell what god gave us, and wrong to sell what our parents gave us at birth. The impact on the poor would be a rush to sell their organs to get fast cash, while the rich, will gain from this and are now able to now get a transplant at a quicker time. It might seem as a win-win situation. Allowing the poor to sell their organs is akin to giving the poor a fish and allowing him to survive for a day. It is more instrumental to impart practical skills so that the man can be fed for life.

Kenneth argued that Singaporeans do not litter not because they want to keep the streets clean but because they want to avoid the hefty fine. I, for one, disagree on this point. I am socially aware and I really wish to keep the place clean and green. I believe that there are many other likeminded Singaporeans out there who do not litter not for the sake of the fines placed but because they want to keep the place they call ‘home’ clean. This is actually an intrinsic factor rather an extrinsic one.

In conclusion, it is apparent that Singapore is a society driven on extrinsic factors while there are some instances whereby it is based upon intrinsic factors. This spoils our society as it devours the place of feelings and warmth.

Discuss the importance of religion in society today. (2004)

For most people, regardless of location on the earth, religion or worship makes up a significant portion of not only their being, but their society or culture as well. How any individual defines religion can vary dramatically based on not only their personal beliefs, but their cultural views as well.

Religion forms a critical aspect of the entire global population. While certain religions factions are responsible for many of our wars or disagreements, in general, religious beliefs offer people something to hold onto in times of trouble or indecision. The idea that a higher being is at work in the universe is comforting for many and creates a placating effect.

Most religions have a ruling doctrine or book of some kind. Be it the Koran, the Bible, or the Talmud, these books offer instructions or guidelines for living life that are often similar. Reaching out to those in need, taking time to reflect on the goodness of the world around us and offering kindness rather than animosity seems to be common themes throughout many religions.

Religion has its place in the world. Not only does it encourage civilized, friendly behavior among one group of followers and another, it also offers individuals a chance to strive toward something. Having a goal is crucial to finding satisfaction in life. Religions offer guidelines and requirements designed to lead followers toward better lives and ultimately, better afterlives.

The presence of religion also offers evidence that someone or something is watching our actions making us accountable for all that we do in life. A life lived well is often rewarded, while too many mistakes and unapologetic actions will be punished. Believers of any faith would also offer the most positive aspect of all – religion offers life a greater meaning and purpose. We were not placed on earth to drift mindlessly, but to fulfill both small and large missions as set forth by whatever doctrine we adhere to.

As such, we religion is important in today’s society because it’s a tool that reaches out to people on a more individual level. Furthermore, a society is made up people and the characteristics of a society are formed by what its people believe in and their way of life. Religion plays an important role in this aspect. it creates a platform for people to rely on emotionally as well as learn to lead life as a better person from day to day. If people are inculcated with the right morals, society and the world would be a safer, better place.

Do you think human rights are universal?

Human rights refer to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

I feel that human rights are universal in the sense that these rights are what every human being would want to have. However they are also not universal if you look at each right in specifics. Not all human rights are universal. For example, the right to freedom of expression is allowed in both democratic countries like America and Singapore. However, it’s evident that freedom of expression is more explicitly shown in America and not that promoted in Singapore. Hence, human rights are only universal to a certain extent.
Everyone in the world has the right to education but many of the poor in Africa, India and other third world countries do not receive education they rightly deserve. Hence, it can be seen that the right to education is universal meaning no one should be denied it. However, in the third world countries, their current situation does not allow them to have access to education making the right to education all in all in not universal.

It was mentioned in the passage that human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. Hence, in Singapore’s context, where social and economic rights take precedence over civil and political rights, there will be certain human rights that may be compromised along the way. Furthermore, Singapore’s historical-cultural legacies interpret human rights with a communitarian emphasis and primacy of duty to community over individual rights. For example, people have the right of freedom of expression in Singapore but if this right was really practiced, racism would be strife and ‘duty to community’ which would take the form of preserving social stability would not be done.

In conclusion, human rights are generally not universal. Some human rights, like the right to education, work and food are rights that involve everyone. It does not involve sensitive issues such as race and religion. However, in today’s world there are people who are denied such rights. Also, human rights such as freedom of expression are sensitive to each country’s social structure. Though everyone has the right to freedom of expression, it cannot be helped that governments want to hamper the popularity growth of such rights as it might cause social instability.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

In an ideal world, countries should live as you would with your neighbours, in peace with one another and most of all refraining from being nosy. This is certainly a trait; you and I would appreciate from our next door HDB or condo dwellers. However, should the usually happy and normal family one day, be invaded by one other dastardly neighbour, who start committing the most heinous of acts like rape, pillaging and general destruction, would you think to yourself : “Hmmmmm.......is it right for me to become involved in my neighbour’s “internal affairs” ????

Surely not!!! I hope. As rightly quoted, by Mr Mahbubani, the world and specifically the US and the EU to a greater extent, being immediate neighbours, I quote, “...failed to take moral responsibility for their actions....” referring to both cases of Iraq and Yugoslavia. I however, find it ironic that Mr Mahbubani should refer to these powerful countries’ “actions.” For the case of Yugoslavia, it was instead a case of non-action and if there were any at all, these were far too weak and indecisive. This resulted in unchecked “ethnic cleansing” and genocide that till today, remains a deep black patch in our recent history. Countless Bosnian victims including 3,500 children perished under Serbian sniper fire. Over 200,000 Muslim civilians had been systematically murdered. More than 20,000 were missing and feared dead, while 2,000,000 had become refugees. It was, according to former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, "the greatest failure of the West since the 1930s." I understand that the then “Snr” US President George Bush, failed to take action, and it was his successor, Bill Clinton, who mobilised Nato, to finally stop, the key perpetrator, Slobodan Milosevic.

While not fully relevant, it is not the totally the case of dastardly neighbours for Yugoslavia, but perhaps the grandfather of our neighbouring household that perpetrates evil acts against his own family. One should still take moral action, although, it is the neighbour’s own internal affairs. In the political landscape of the world, a country can seek help and bring attention of wrongs committed to the United Nations and the Security Council who are basically the equivalent of our neighbourhood police. They are tasked to maintain the peace and security in the neighbourhood, i.e. world. But in a less than perfect world, we know the police are not perfect (even Mas Selamat can escape).

This brings us to the case of Iraq. We have a situation where a country or neighbour, has failed to behave. The father of this family has killed many of his own children, whom he decided he did not like. The then president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003 had gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believed he must rule with an iron fist to keep his country, which is divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions showed that he was a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him, even using deadly and outlawed chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels. Then in 1990, he ordered the invasion of Kuwait. This time the, US acted swiftly in concert, in the world’s first Gulf War and Saddam was beaten back. In more recent history, Iraq was invaded by US and UK forces on now an apparent lack of evidence. This is a case of accusing an evil neighbour of keeping and planning to use a dangerous “long rifle” that is prohibited and against the law. The only “sight” of this “long rifle” have in fact been Saddam’s pool stick that always remain draped, since he dropped the hobby. However, one of the more powerful police officers then decide that they needed to bring him to justice claiming that the pool stick is actually a potential murder weapon that is actually a rifle. With Saddam eliminated, the saga of Iraq continues, and the police officers are still unable to bring peace to this household, where Saddam in fact has many wives(i.e.the Sunnis and the Shiites) holding differing views of who among them should be in charge of the Saddam household.

The conclusion is that the world must react fast to blatant crimes against humanity, slow against weak and politically motivated evidences. For Myanmar, this is a case of a “mixed bag.” The head of this neighbour’s household, runs the family with an iron hand, but with rich natural resources that aid in self sufficiency, they are still surviving although the majority of the western part of the neighbourhood does not have any relationship with them. Their immediate neighbours however, like Singapore as a part of Asean continue to persuade, interact and hope that Myanmar will change.

dealing with the outflow of talent in Singapore

Loh also raised a 3-fold solution. 1) The authorities have to stop using the term “foreign talent”. “It implies that all foreigners are talents, and the locals are not,”2) “forget about nationalism and what it means to be a Singaporean”. He added: “Focus on the family — people stay with their families, they miss their families, and not the country state; a pro-family centered policy or work environment would help.”3) And lastly, preserve buildings that Singaporeans grew up with. Said Dr Leong: “These are the places where our collective memories of childhood, courtshipsand friendships were embedded.”

The first part of the solution is definably feasible. Over the past few years, the hype over foreign talent has generated much dissatisfaction amongst the local. People adopted the perception that foreign talents are far superior then them. By removing such terms, it appeals to the Singaporeans and make them feel wanted. It shows their talent is appreciated in the Singapore society too.

The second fold of the solution has its limitation. The development of technology allows long distance communication between kinds. Tools such as the telephone and even webcam are mediums between the family and the member aboard. Thus, this part of the solution is not applicable.

The third fold of the idea largely appeals to the more emotional Singaporeans. Retaining such buildings create a homely and familiar environment for Singapore to settle in. However, the opportunity cost for such a policy may prove costly. Are the economic costs of the land worth it? The land may be better allocated for better uses. Land scarcity is a pressing problem of the island. Thus we should measure such costs before embarking.

The author also mentions that materialistic incentives may help to retain local talents too. Such form of extrinsic motivation would prove effective in the short term. Money to bait local talent would no doubt prove effective. However, we must consider intrinsic motive of the talents. Would they abandon Singapore during an economic turmoil? Hence extrinsic motivation is effective only on the surface

Are Human Rights Universal?

Human Rights have been formally defined in the 1948 universal declaration of human rights. It consists of 30 different articles which covers different aspects of human rights. However, the articles serve as a guideline for countries and they need not adhere to the settings. Some rules may not be suitable for the society and thus, not all articles of the universal declaration of human rights are universal.Some of the articles go against long traditions and religious beliefs, thus not making it universal. Article 18 states that “Everyone has the rights to freedom of… religion.” This is in contrast with the Muslims teachings which prevent Muslims from converting out of the religion. In 2004, a Muslim attempted to convert in a Christian but had her case rejected over and over again. The incident created a surge of unhappiness amongst the population. Another example is Communism; the Marxist system which countries such as China, Cuba and North Korea have adopted, goes against article number eight which states that ‘Democracy’ is part of a human’s right. As such, it is impossible to bind them to the article as the rule applies only to democratic systems. Thus, I believe that human rights are not universal.Also, human rights are not universal in Singapore’s context. Singapore is a multi-racial society and sensitive topics must be avoided in order to preserve harmony. The government has no choice but to censor sensitive issues which might fan the flames of racism. As a result, the ‘right’ of ultimate freedom of speech is deprived. This is essential to Singapore’s society though it may not be as important in another country's context. Thus, the human rights are not universal as it is inapplicable in such a environment.

‘Women will never enjoy the same rights as men’. Do you agree?

There is no true gauge to accurately measure the rights of women and men. However, we can approximately say that women have largely acheived the equal rights as men. Old catch phrases such as ‘A women’s place is in the home’ has been out of context of this modern society. therefore, i will have to disagree with the statement as women are already enjoying the same rights as men.
Women living in the world know have equal rights as men. They can vote, have the opporturnity to study, fair chance at workplaces. They is no basis in which we can say that women will never enjoy the same rights. futhermore, we are seeing that women's rights are progessing as times progress. women have achieved such rights as mentioned above. Thus why cant we project that women would continue their march to achieve equal rights or mayb even better rights then men.

However, it is dissapointing to see the rate of progress developing countries are going. women in such countries have yet to achieve and adequate standard of rights as compared to the men. For example, India's long tradition of favouring boys leads to neglince of the girl and often abortions. thus the scenario in paragraph are only seened in developed countries

Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation

Lim discusses the pros and cons of using extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society of using such a mode of motivation?



Singapore uses extrinsic motivation more than intrinsic motivation. This is not only seen in the economic sector, but policies on education, family and etc and mostly based on such motivations. Intrinsic motivation may not be as powerful as the opposite as the the value of purpose and experience are often diminished in such a materialistic enviroment. As such, policies have proven to be effective because of the persuasive power of money. In the short term, extrinsic motivation are more effective. However, in the long run, extrinsic movitation are more harmful than benificial.



Social psychologists have observed a phenomenon known as 'the hidden cost of reward', in which external incentives can actually cut away at people's inner motivation for doing what they consider worthwhile.

For example, Singapore places monetary rewards for students who excel in the academic performance. Such baits for students may boost the standard of students. However, it moulds them into a materialistic worker whose motivation is only money. Study should be for knowledge and not for wealth.

However, extrinsic motivation may not work at sometime where intrinsic motivation may work. For example, the goverment provides incentives for people to have children, But, The monetary incentives have not proved to be effective. On the other hand, when the goverment was discouraging having large families, its emphasised on intrinsic motivation which was successful till the extent that it had to be reversed. Thus i feel that singapore is dominated by extrinsic values and its is onli effective for short run purposes.

‘Women will never enjoy the same rights as men’. Do you agree?

A right is defined as a legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something, or to obtain or refrain from obtaining a thing or recognition from civil society. Rights serve as rules of interaction between people, and, as such, they place constraints and obligations upon the actions of individuals or groups.

Firstly, I would like to make a point that women and men should not be compared in such a general manner. Both sexes are on earth for different purposes. However, if comparison should be needed, specific rights like voting and education can be examined in detail. In these 2 cases, women have already achieved both.

Women of today have yet to enjoy the same rights as man but improvements have been seen. For example, women are still not allowed the same pay as men who are of similar ranks to them in a workplace. The root of this problem is to society, a woman should be at home, taking care of children and not out there in the working world. The income difference maybe expected to serve as deterrence to women, encouraging them to remain a housewife. However, this mindset is starting to change. Vice versa, men are starting to accept the fact that they too, do play a role in bringing up and caring more for their children. This is a mindset problem that is gradually changing as the years go buy. Therefore, I disagree that women will never enjoy the same rights as men.
Another point is that women have already proven themselves capable to handle the intellectual demands both in politics and the workplace. Women are starting to appear one by one in parliaments and also take on major roles such a CEO of a company. For example, Fumiko Hayashi already a president of the BMW Company has been proposed to be president for the retailer Daiei. This is important for Japan as they have been rather against the idea of women working instead of remaining at home. Step by step, it is certain that equality of rights can be reached one day between men and women.

It may seem discouraging that even in developed countries like Japan are still experiencing a disparity in rights between men and women to the less developed countries but the important thing is that changes, though slow are underway and that the day when rights are equal between men and women is not very far.

are there circumstances where human rights may be curtailed?

Human rights refer to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.
I beg to differ with Grace’s views. Although we only have one source of newspaper, we can still gain access to different news medium in the form of the internet and magazines like Newsweek and Time. Our human rights are not totally curtailed but our excess to the most mainstream news are slightly controlled for the good for the nation as a whole. Our nation’s stability and progress has shown that it is the right thing to do. By allowing total freedom of expression, it may result in more bane than boon! Also, there exists opposing voices in the parliament, that of opposing parties and thus, I feel that the people’s voice is and will be heard by our policymakers. Thus in this case, our freedom of expression is being curtailed but it is beneficial to us.

According to article 3 of the universal declaration of Human Rights, all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. However in Singapore, women are spared the pain of caning when found guilty of charges deserving of the corporal punishment. In this case, women are protected. Thus, human rights may be curtailed for the betterment of us. Thus, we should not resent.

The current hype over the environmental issue is unnecessary. DYA?

In the article “The Truth about the Environment”, several environmental issues were debunked and after reading this article, I feel that the current hype over environmental issues is slightly exaggerated but not totally unnecessary.
Firstly, it was widely thought that our natural resources are running low. However, the scarcity of natural resources is due to the rising costs of locating and extracting them. However, i feel that by realising this, it only tell us that the time to derive alternative sources is extended because it is a fact that our natural resources will one day be depleted.
Secondly, the Malthus claim got us worrying for the future. His claim was sound, human population growing geometrically whereas food production can only increase arithmetically, this will result in severe food shortages in the long run. However, this will only come true if the human population is indeed increasing geometrically. But the fact is, we are facing a declining birth rate where our population will one day reach a maximun of around 11 billion people.
Lastly, pollution is not as bad as once thought. It is stated that the air today is much cleaner than that of 1585.
Thus, all these show that the hype over environmental issues are a little exaggerated but because of this false alarm, the world is more concern about the well -being of Mother Earth, which is a good thing! =)

extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society

From my point of view, I think Singapore is predominated motivated by extrinsic motivation. Based on my own understanding and interpretation, extrinsic motivation means needing someone to kick my butt in order for me to do something and intrinsic motivation means I initiated my own actions, without any incentive in doing so. Thus, from my own definitions, I can derive confidently that Singapore is extrinsically motivated! This is very evident in us being labeled as a garden city, being lauded for our low crime rates and also our smooth traffic. Oh and of course the success of our education!
Our low crime rates are due to the harsh and no-nonsense judiciary. Locals dare not mess around with the law due to the hefty punishments for all crimes, even minor ones. Likewise, foreigners dare not commit any crimes in Singapore too after realizing Singapore tough stance against crimes in the case of Australia’s Nguyen and US’s Michael Faye.
Also, Singaporeans do not litter not because they want to keep the streets clean but because they are aware of the hefty fines facing them. Imagine paying a fine of fifty bucks for a cigarette butt? The fifty bucks can buy the offender another four packs of cigarettes!
Students work hard in their studies and score some tremendous and astonishing results. But, the driving force to do well is always materialistic stuffs such as a new MP3 or the latest Sony game.
Thus I think Singapore is extrinsically motivated and this is detrimental as Singaporeans are not doing what they are doing because they understand the rationale behind it, but are doing it for the rewards or for not being punished. Students do not comprehend the importance of an education and are studying for the sake of it.

dealing with outflow of talent in singapore.

Loh raised a serious issue that has been around Singapore, which is the outflow of talent in Singapore. there are many reasons to this problem, to summarise it would be
1) to escape the stressful environment
2) they feel like their views are not being heard in singapore
3) they left the country to further their studies, thus would rather stay overseas
4) there are better job opportunites overseas
there can be other reasons, but those above are just a few of the main reasons

Loh also raised a 3-fold solution.
1) the authorities have to stop using the term “foreign talent”.
“It implies that all foreigners are talents, and the locals are not,”
2)“forget about nationalism and what it means to be a Singaporean”. He added: “Focus on the family — people stay with their families, they miss their families, and not the country state; a pro-family centered policy or work environment would help.”
3)And lastly, preserve buildings that Singaporeans grew up with. Said Dr Leong: “These are the places where our collective memories of childhood, courtships
and friendships were embedded.”

i agree with the first solution. it is quite irritating how the authorties place so much emphasise on these foreign talents. this makes the employess think that those foreigners are a notch higher than the locals, thus in a way stereotyping them, giving them more chances. being a singaporean, i would of course be unhappy.

the second solution seems a little weird though. If we dont actually have the love for the country, or the loyalty for the country, why would we even bother to stay. furthermore, with improving technologies, Skype, internet, we can easily contact out families and friends when we are overseas.

the third solution doesnt seem so good too. Singapore is known as a country which is always progressing. by preserving these buildings it would hinder our progress. these memories can be kept in photo albums, writing diaries and etc. just by preserving these buildings, would not prevent te outflow of talent.

i feel a more practical solution would be to provide adequate jobs for locals, and putting less emphasis on foreign TALENTS. also, would be to let the citizens be more heard. and of course to slow down our pace of life, since many of our talents are leaving because of singapore's stressful environment.

Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

From my point of view, countries really should not stick their noses into another country’s problems unless their help is seriously needed. But in recent times, countries intervened when they shouldn’t and when they should, they didn’t. This prompted me to infer that government intervention comes with a hidden agenda, sometimes not so hidden. In the case of Iraq, America invaded with intention of liberating ill-suffering Iraqis from the demonic but now-dead Saddam Hussein. Instead, it is reported that at least 650,000 innocent Iraqis ended up dead due to the invasion. So, was the invasion a sound decision by the Americans after all? Will the Iraqis be better off without the intrusion of the US? I think they will be.
Where were all the help when it matters most? Cyclone Nargis tore through Myanmar, taking along with it hundred of thousands of lives and stranding others to fight for their own survival. Why didn't countries pour into Myanmar with their aid? Some may argue that Myanmar's Juntas were resistive and cynical towards foreign help but why were other nations so concerned over the Junta's stand? Why didn't they just enter the countries with their aid? I'm sure countries can 'barge' into Myanmar on the account of human rights to aid those in need. After all, it is evident that other countries's aid can be very beneficial to the survival and reconstruction of a place devestated by natural disasters. Banda Aceh is one such example!
Thus, i am in favour of government intervention if help really can be rendered to those in need but i feel country should also be given the rights to solve their internal problems, but if they fall to do so, then they should allow others to do it for them. Unlike the old and stubborn Junta....

Education- Elitism

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern [1]. Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Elitism in the context of education is the practice of concentrating attention on or allocating funding to the students who rank highest in a particular field of endeavour, with the other students being deemed less capable of achievement or as holding less promise for the society's future. For example, a politician who promotes specialized biochemistry classes for highly intelligent students in an effort to cure diseases might be accused of elitism.
I feel that formal education in Singapore does indeed breed elitism. Our education is based on meritocracy and thus, the best can climb the highest isn’t it? This is also why school rankings and cut-off points exists. Entry points and the ranking of schools are the reasons why elitism exists. Students from top-notch school feel a sense of superiority over students from other schools that are ranked lower. This will fester into despise and disregard and ultimately, disrespect. Elitists will think that what they do is always right and always the best as compared to those whom they presumed are weaker than them. This sort of education can indeed bring out the best of a student academically, but it will also result in developing a student with straight As but with zero humility and no EQ. So how do we measure the success of an education system? It is definitely not merely just academic results right? So yup, we have seen MOE abolished the Primary School streaming and this just shows that our government is realizing the problems of our education.

Does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Sinagapore?

In the second article, it is stated that ‘a belief that the backward-ballcapped guy slumped in the back row of class are going to have attitude problems’. This shows that professors may discriminate and judge their students based on their appearance, perhaps, it may also mean that one’s abilities may be judged solely by their appearances. Is this fair?
From my point of view, I definitely feel that this is not fair but I am aware that this problem is affecting my country too. It is a sad fact that Singaporeans judge people by their appearances. Referencing from an online article by Singaporean Kelvin Tan, http://www.geocities.com/kelvintan73/articles/racism.htm, it is stated that ‘If you visit Bugis station on Sundays, you will see that many Indians spend their day off in the popular haunt, Serangoon Road. There would be some mobile railings segregating them from the rest of us, and the way the MRT staff shout at them or the expression in their faces, I was surprised to see that they were smiling at us now.’ This shows that Singaporeans, especially Chinese, discriminate against those of another skin colour, condemning them to be unfit to be near us. I feel this is embarrassing. I thought we were a multiracial society where all races were thought to live harmoniously with one another? After this stunning revelation by Mr Kelvin, I think we can all conclude that Singapore still has a long way to go before all races can live together harmoniously.
Worst still, racial discrimination is not the only form of discrimination in Singapore; there are still ageism and elitism present in Singapore. The old, despite their wealth of experience are finding it more and more difficult to hold on to their jobs or find another one. Also, there is a growing number of teenagers who think too highly of themselves, one example will be overly-outspoken RJC student Wee Shumin. These do not bode well for the future of Singapore. Imagine a country whose citizens avoid the aged like the plague and ostracized those they think are weaker than them?? It is a recipe for self-destruction!

does discrimination arising from stereotypes exist in Singapore?

as stated in article 2 by Batz, 'most people would say, "what, me discriminate?'" yet plenty of people perceive that others are bring discrimnatory towards them"

i agree with Batz, many people would think that they would not discriminate, but they dont realise that they are actually discriminating by 'default'.

'by default' could mean how racism becomes routine. whereby how we accept our home's computer settings by default and that these setting are standard and should be accepted.

this default setting is like set in our heads, whereby it is almost impossible to change our points of view because it is almose like we were brainwashed to think this way.

for example, Singapore has had a few advertisments about convicts. where they show a muscular man with tattoos all across his body, holding a knife. the first thought that comes to one's mind would be that he's going to do a crime. however, the next scene shows how the man is actually a chef working in a kitchen. thus it shows how it is natural that one discriminates, because it is impossible to get rid of the stereotypes in our minds.

thus i feel that discrimination arising from stereotypes does exist in Singapore since stereotypes exists in everybody, this will not just happen in singapore, but all across the world.

extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, which method do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What are the impacts on the Singapore society?

according to dictionary.com, extrinsic is being outside a thing; outward or external; operating or coming from without: extrinsic influences. whereas intrinsic means belonging to a thing by its very nature.

Singapore also known as a "fine" city. thus i feel that Singapore uses more of an extrinsic motivation. as Lim has mentioned, he mentioned that Singapore uses the bonus methods to encourage singaporeans to procreate. he mentioned the baby bonus method.Singapore also has many other methods like fining if one spits, litters, smokes indoors, etc. other than the 'punishment' methods, there are also the bonuses methods. for example, longer maternal leave so as to encourage procreation, and etc. thus it seems like singapore uses more of an extrinistic motivation.

for this kind of motivation. there are pros and cons.
beginning with cons, as mentioned in the article, many have felt that by providing the baby bonus to encourage pro creation, feels more of an invasion to privacy rather than a bonus. thus, by using this method, it could be restricting our human rights in some way.

however there are pros too. singapore is one of the only countries that uses caning as a form of punishment. it actually acts as a kind of deterrence to prevent crimes. this form of deterrence is useful because crime rates have significantly decreased. with the most significant as drug trafficking.

thus after weighing the pros and cons, i feel that this method is useful to a large extent, since 'cash bonuses and fines might be a far more efficient way to drive human behaviour than allowing people to decide based on their inner inclinations.'